Indian Space Program Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Sep 2008 02:12

Nayak · Post by **Nayak** » 25 Sep 2008 08:59

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 49_pf.html

Space Inspires Passion And Practicality in China

By Jill Drew
Washington Post Foreign Service

Experts such as Logsdon say China still has a long way to go to catch up to the technologies of the United States and Russia, and to outpace other countries such as Japan and India with their own space aspirations. But like many other aspects of China's growing influence, China's designs in space are seen as a threat by some U.S. experts, especially because almost all its operations are cloaked in secrecy.

"They are less transparent than even Russia," Logsdon said.

Both India and Japan eye China's space ambitions a bit warily. India has a sophisticated program but is behind China technologically, and it is unclear how much money it can dedicate to space exploration, said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information. India is seeking military capabilities, largely out of concern about China. So, too, is Japan. Hitchens said Japan has mostly a niche space program not targeted to military use, but it could swing that way if it sees China as a threat.

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) is one of the few U.S. officials ever allowed to tour the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center, a sprawling military facility in remote Inner Mongolia where China launches its manned Shenzhou spacecraft. Feeney recalled that, during his 2006 visit, he saw military personnel stationed every 50 yards or so along a road between Jiuquan and the nearest town -- a drive that took about two hours. When he finally entered the base and met the top two officials there, the men apologized profusely because they did not have business cards to offer him. "They said they never had visitors before," Feeney said.

Feeney came away impressed -- and daunted.

"If you were building a new facility to launch rockets today, you would do it the Chinese way," Feeney said. He marveled at the launchpad, which can accommodate two rockets at the same time and can ready them for launch within 60 minutes of being delivered. This fast-launching ability could be crucial in a situation in which space rescue is required, he said.

Nayak · Post by **Nayak** » 25 Sep 2008 09:02

Need to keep a watch on pandapoker's space capabilities. Japan has already increased its space budget by 200 %. ISRO should get more aggressive with space launches. Note how chicom is offering discounted prices to oil-rich non gulf countries ?

Dammit, our baboo/baboons sit on their a$$es talking about bhai-chaara and NAM BS and here is chicom stealing the thunder and making progress.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 25 Sep 2008 10:48

Nayak wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 49_pf.html

Space Inspires Passion And Practicality in China

By Jill Drew
Washington Post Foreign Service

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) is one of the few U.S. officials ever allowed to tour the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center , a sprawling military facility in remote Inner Mongolia where China launches its manned Shenzhou spacecraft. Feeney recalled that, during his 2006 visit, he saw military personnel stationed every 50 yards or so along a road between Jiuquan and the nearest town -- a drive that took about two hours. When he finally entered the base and met the top two officials there, the men apologized profusely because they did not have business cards to offer him. "They said they never had visitors before," Feeney said.

Feeney came away impressed -- and daunted.

"If you were building a new facility to launch rockets today, you would do it the Chinese way," Feeney said. He marveled at the launchpad, which can accommodate two rockets at the same time and can ready them for launch within 60 minutes of being delivered. This fast-launching ability could be crucial in a situation in which space rescue is required, he said.

Nayak, do you really believe that Feeney, who has this thing going on in his backyard even as we speak, is really "daunted" by the Chinese version of Paki equal-equal?

And two rockets mounted in the same pad at the same time? So if one blows up (like that deadly Long March incident they suppressed in '96 and after which they bribed to get US guidance tech), they want to ensure that the other one also goes poof too? Geez! Either a bad translator was provided to Feeney or he is

under the cover of deniability that such translations provide. The chinese govt should know better than to indulge in paki type equal-equal with visiting houbara hunters of the west. Particularly when their taikanaut suit still carries their maker, the moscow space city tailor's, label.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Sep 2008 02:35

Why are these China specific posts not in the international aerospace thread where they belong?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 26 Sep 2008 02:46

Gerard-saar, I did realize that when I posted, but there were some comparative

going on since last page about how ISRO needs to put up an Arjun Mk1 in LEO or else will be left behind by panda. Just defending the turf and smoothing the ruffled burqas. apologies for the digression

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 26 Sep 2008 12:28

China Launches Manned Space Mission
By Stephanie Ho
Beijing
25 September 2008

China has successfully launched its third manned mission to outer space. The highlight of this trip will be a spacewalk, in which a Chinese man takes the first steps in space for his country. Stephanie Ho reports from Beijing.

Observers watch the launch of the Shenzhou 7 space craft at the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwest China's Gansu province, 25 Sep 2008<br />
Observers watch launch of Shenzhou 7 spacecraft at Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwest China's Gansu province, 25 Sep 2008
With a perfunctory countdown, the Shenzhou 7 blasted off.

In an encounter broadcast live on state television, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Shenzhou 7's three astronauts at the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in western China's Gansu Province.

Hu said he represents the lofty aspirations of the central leadership of the country and the Chinese Communist Party, as well as the people of China, in wishing the astronauts success in their mission.

With its first manned space flight in 2003, China joined the United States and Russia in putting humans into outer space.

Liu Guoning, a researcher with China's manned space engineering office, says this third mission is the riskiest yet for China.

Liu says, in China 's previous two manned space missions, the hardest part was the launch and the re-entry. He says, this time the highest risk will come with the spacewalk, which is scheduled for Saturday.

At a regular foreign ministry briefing, spokesman Liu Jianchao was asked about whether China has military intentions for outer space.

Liu says the Shenzhou 7 mission is part of China's efforts to explore and make peaceful use of outer space for all humanity.

China raised international concern last year, after it destroyed one of its own satellites in space. Critics say the anti-satellite test, which was conducted without prior public notice, signified a major new Chinese military capability.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-09-25-voa36.cfm

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Sep 2008 12:52

among daily print newspapers in India today, The (C)Hindu had a photo of the three
taikonauts and a story alleging the Nanavati as false and Banerjee as true as the main
items on its front page.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 26 Sep 2008 14:47

Nayak wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 49_pf.html

Space Inspires Passion And Practicality in China

Wrong Thread.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 29 Sep 2008 06:25

Hey, now that Elon Musk's SpaceX have successfully achieved orbit with their Falcon1 rocket, then what does this mean for India's space program and its cost competitiveness on launching international payloads?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Sep 2008 06:40

The answer is in what is Falcon's payload capacity for LEO and 800Km? (let us not talk of GTO yet)

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 29 Sep 2008 07:01

Well, here are the specs for Falcon1 from SpaceX's website:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php

PRICING AND PERFORMANCE
SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing that is the same for all customers, including a best price guarantee. Modest discounts are available for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases. The Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle Family includes the Falcon 1 and an enhanced version, Falcon 1e. Beginning in 2010, Falcon 1e will offer enhanced performance capabilities and payload capacities due to weight saving and propulsion improvements.

Falcon 1 is the world’s lowest cost per flight to orbit of a production rocket.

Falcon 1 Falcon 1e
Price: $7.9M $9.1M
LEO Mass to Orbit (185 km circular): 420 kg 1010 kg
Performance is based on a 185km circular orbit launched due east (9.1 deg) from SpaceX's Kwajalein Launch Facility.
Pricing reflects US dollars Paid-In-Full at Authority-to-Proceed, January 1, 2008.
SpaceX offers milestone-based financing at 5% APR.

And here are specs for the larger upcoming Falcon9:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

PRICING AND PERFORMANCE
Falcon 9 will offer the lowest cost per pound/kilogram to orbit, despite providing breakthrough improvements in reliability.

PRICING
SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing that is the same for all customers, including a best price guarantee. Modest discounts are available for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases.

A half bay flight of Falcon 9 is available to accommodate customers with payloads in between Falcon 1 and 9.

LEO missions: $36.75M
TLI missions: $46.75M
GTO missions:
< 3500 kg
$36.75M
3500-4500 kg
$47.25M
4500-5000 kg
$57.75M
Pricing reflects US dollars Paid-In-Full at Authority-to-Proceed, January 1, 2008.
SpaceX offers milestone-based financing at 5% APR.

PERFORMANCE
Launch Site: Cape Canaveral AFS
Inclination: 28.5 degree
LEO Mass to Orbit (200 km circular): 12,500 kg (27,500 lb)
GTO Mass to Orbit (185 x 35,788 km): 4,640 kg (10,200 lb)
Data reflects the Falcon 9 Block 2 design.
SpaceX typically reserves 10% of the GTO mass-to-orbit performance, but this is negotiable.
Typical maximum payloads in the Falcon 9 class are 6800 kg. For payloads with mass >6800 kg, contact SpaceX.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 29 Sep 2008 07:10

Not bad for a private venture but still costly compared to ISRO right? 185 km orbit is really low that would compete with the three stage PSLV. PSLV-CA launched a 350 kg AGILE into 550 km orbit for 11 mil if I am correct. PSLV lite (3 stage) will cost even less perhaps $ 8-9 mil which compares well with falcon-1.

We really need ISRO to bring out the GSLV-III and RLV out soon.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 29 Sep 2008 07:34

Well, you have to admit, this does provide a little bit of a Western riposte to the Chinese spacewalk, anyway. Pretty good timing.

If India can pull off Chandrayaan without further rescheduling delays, I'll be really proud.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 29 Sep 2008 20:04

Arun_S wrote:The answer is in what is Falcon's payload capacity for LEO and 800Km? (let us not talk of GTO yet)

India should express concern about the non-proliferation aspects of this launcher. If used as an ICBM, this launcher can reach a lot of places in the world. SpaceX, being a small start-up company with no identifiable revenue and no big defense contract buffers like Boeing or LM, could be tempted to sell this technology to regimes hostile to democratic nations of the world. Some smaller US companies have been known to bend rules and sell proscribed high tech stuff to countries, without getting any clearances.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 30 Sep 2008 06:12

hnair wrote:
Arun_S wrote:The answer is in what is Falcon's payload capacity for LEO and 800Km? (let us not talk of GTO yet)
India should express concern about the non-proliferation aspects of this launcher. If used as an ICBM, this launcher can reach a lot of places in the world. SpaceX, being a small start-up company with no identifiable revenue and no big defense contract buffers like Boeing or LM, could be tempted to sell this technology to regimes hostile to democratic nations of the world. Some smaller US companies have been known to bend rules and sell proscribed high tech stuff to countries, without getting any clearances.

I don't think the US is worried that some such a company will proliferate tech to China, especially when China is ahead of their tech. SpaceX is offering advantage on cost, not on tech. Anyhow, here is a nice interview with Elon Musk:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02502.html

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 30 Sep 2008 07:08

Chandrayaan-1 taking final tests

Chandrayaan-1 will be married up with PSLV on October 12 or 13

Launch likely on October 19 or 20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHENNAI: Work in different centres of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is gathering speed for the launch of Chandrayaan-1 at 6.20 a.m. on October 22 from India’s spaceport at Sriharikota.

The tall and elegant Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C11) that will put Chandrayaan-1 in orbit is fully integrated at Sriharikota’s second launch pad. After having sailed through thermal and vacuum tests which simulated the conditions in deep space, Chandrayaan-1 is coursing through the final stages of vibration tests at the ISRO Satellite Centre (ISAC) in Bangalore to determine the integrity of its systems.

At Byalalu village, 40 km from Bangalore, two massive dish antennae, one with a 32-metre diameter and the other with a diameter of 18 metres, are ready to track Chandrayaan-1 during its 3.84-lakh km. odyssey to the moon, send commands and receive information on its health.

Chandrayaan-1 will carry 11 instruments – five from India and six from other countries – to study the minerals and chemistry on the moon’s surface from an altitude of 100 km above. “The vehicle is totally ready,” declared George Koshy, Mission Director. “Some tests are going on. Everything is in good shape.”

Mr. Koshy said Chandrayaan-1 would be married up with the PSLV on October 12 or 13 after the spacecraft arrived at Sriharikota from Bangalore in the first week of October. “We would like to launch on October 22. But a date before October 22… October 19th or 20th is my target.” The PSLV-C11 is fully integrated in the 83-metre tall (the height of a 26-storey building) Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) of the second launch pad. It stands majestically on a huge mobile pedestal, with platforms surrounding the four stages of the rocket. The PSLV-C11, which weighs 316 tonnes and is 44.4 metres tall, will be wheeled very slowly on its pedestal from the VAB to the launch pad some days before the launch.

The mood is equally upbeat at the ISAC. “Vibration tests of the spacecraft are going on at the shake-table,” M. Annadurai, Project Director, Chandrayaan-1, said on Monday. “They started on October 25th evening. Things are under control.” The tests involved 120 accelerometers.

Mr. Annadurai said:

“It is not just putting the spacecraft on the table and vibrating it. We have to ensure that all accelerometers’ results are within limits.

“When the vibration is taking place, accelerometers will provide information on what is the response from each one of the instruments from the spacecraft. We will keep Chandrayaan in different orientations on the shake-table and test it. The vibration tests will ensure the integrity of the spacecraft.”

Now Chandrayaan-1 will be subjected to high levels of noise, simulating what happens when the rocket climbs up with the spacecraft.

Both the 32-metre and 18-metre dish antennae would be used, said S.K. Shivakumar, Director, ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network, Bangalore. “It is good to have two antennae.” The Control Centre, which will be the nerve centre of the Chandrayaan mission, was ready, he said. “Everything is focussed.”

url=http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/30/stories ... 911300.htm

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 30 Sep 2008 17:17

ISRO, Astrium ink bilateral space cooperation pact in Paris
30 Sep, 2008, 1637 hrs IST, ANI

PARIS: India and France on Tuesday signed a long term agreement for the Utilization of the Indian Polar Satellite launch vehicle for launching satellites.

The agreement was signed ahead of talks between Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and French President Nicholas Sarkozy here.

The Chairman of Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of the Indian Space research Organisation (ISRO) Dr. G Madhvan Nair and the CEO of Astrium, the French space organization, François Auque signed the pact.

The two companies have been already cooperating in the field of space activities.

Two major satellite contracts have been already signed by both companies, representing a major breakthrough for European and Indian space organizations.

Agreements on civil nuclear cooperation and social security are also to be signed after the summit level talks between Singh and Sarkozy this afternoon.

The agreement on nuclear cooperation will be the first such pact after the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) granted a waiver to India.

Officials of the two countries had finalized the bilateral nuke pact in New Delhi in January this year during Sarkozy's visit to India.

The pact in the field of social security will benefit of over 200,000 non-resident Indians working in France.

Prior to their meeting, both Singh and Sarkozy have indicated that the nuclear pact will be finalised.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_ ... 545150.cms

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Oct 2008 02:31

Chandrayaan-I moved to Sriharikota

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Oct 2008 06:06

Sanjay M wrote:Well, here are the specs for Falcon1 from SpaceX's website:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php

PRICING AND PERFORMANCE
SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing that is the same for all customers, including a best price guarantee. Modest discounts are available for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases. The Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle Family includes the Falcon 1 and an enhanced version, Falcon 1e. Beginning in 2010, Falcon 1e will offer enhanced performance capabilities and payload capacities due to weight saving and propulsion improvements.

Falcon 1 is the world’s lowest cost per flight to orbit of a production rocket.

Falcon 1 Falcon 1e
Price: $7.9M $9.1M
LEO Mass to Orbit (185 km circular): 420 kg 1010 kg
Performance is based on a 185km circular orbit launched due east (9.1 deg) from SpaceX's Kwajalein Launch Facility.
Pricing reflects US dollars Paid-In-Full at Authority-to-Proceed, January 1, 2008.
SpaceX offers milestone-based financing at 5% APR.
And here are specs for the larger upcoming Falcon9:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

PRICING AND PERFORMANCE
Falcon 9 will offer the lowest cost per pound/kilogram to orbit, despite providing breakthrough improvements in reliability.

PRICING
SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing that is the same for all customers, including a best price guarantee. Modest discounts are available for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases.

A half bay flight of Falcon 9 is available to accommodate customers with payloads in between Falcon 1 and 9.

LEO missions: $36.75M
TLI missions: $46.75M
GTO missions:
< 3500 kg
$36.75M
3500-4500 kg
$47.25M
4500-5000 kg
$57.75M
Pricing reflects US dollars Paid-In-Full at Authority-to-Proceed, January 1, 2008.
SpaceX offers milestone-based financing at 5% APR.

PERFORMANCE
Launch Site: Cape Canaveral AFS
Inclination: 28.5 degree
LEO Mass to Orbit (200 km circular): 12,500 kg (27,500 lb)
GTO Mass to Orbit (185 x 35,788 km): 4,640 kg (10,200 lb)
Data reflects the Falcon 9 Block 2 design.
SpaceX typically reserves 10% of the GTO mass-to-orbit performance, but this is negotiable.
Typical maximum payloads in the Falcon 9 class are 6800 kg. For payloads with mass >6800 kg, contact SpaceX.

What they are saying is that it does not matter now if any third world country comes up with a space program.
Private companies can do it better and maybe cheaper. Can ISRO take up the challenge

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 03 Oct 2008 06:35

Acharya wrote:What they are saying is that it does not matter now if any third world country comes up with a space program.
Private companies can do it better and maybe cheaper. Can ISRO take up the challenge

Well, suppose India/ISRO were to do the same thing, and hand off their proven launch technologies to Tata, Reliance, Bharti, etc.

Then they could run more efficient/cheaper launch operations, while ISRO would be free to spend its budget on more R&D, for delivering RLV.

Then if/when RLV gets developed, they could again license it to the private sector, who could run it more cheaply/efficiently, etc.

Problem is that our politicians might not like to let go of the glory-making flag-waving moments that come from the state-sponsored space events. They might want to keep that stuff in their clutches, so that they can reap the space glory.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 03 Oct 2008 06:47

Speaking of RLV, I want to ask something.

Why did India go for flyback design, instead of a VTVL design (Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing) like DC-X?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm0tR96lAgw

Firstly, Von Braun himself said that flyback system was considered for Apollo and rejected, because it was too problematic to deal with all the difficulties and compromises of aerodynamic requirements. So why is India trying to do it the harder way?

Nextly, if our goal is the Moon, since you can't aerodynamically land on the Moon, then you have to develop a whole new platform for that.

At least with the VTVL concept, it would land the same way on the Moon as it would on Earth.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 03 Oct 2008 10:34

Sanjay M wrote:Speaking of RLV, I want to ask something.

Why did India go for flyback design, instead of a VTVL design (Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing) like DC-X?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm0tR96lAgw

Firstly, Von Braun himself said that flyback system was considered for Apollo and rejected, because it was too problematic to deal with all the difficulties and compromises of aerodynamic requirements. So why is India trying to do it the harder way?.

Because at the time of Von Braun hypersonic gliding or powered flight was out of its time and unfatomable, much less flyback design. Recall that Space shuttle was the first US craft to use flyback. Indian RLV and more so the hypersonic air breathing space rocket has overcome the difficult issues and given the very significant reduction in lift off mass of such rockets, it is only natural that ISRO will put its best foot forward.

JMT

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 03 Oct 2008 17:53

Well, I think there would be benefit in India pursuing multiple approaches - maybe at least 2 different ones. Flyback cannot land on the Moon, but VTVL can.

Besides, wings add mass to a craft, and so does having to reinforce the overall structure for loads from 2 different orientation angles of horizontal and vertical flight (I assume that RLV would launch vertically, but return back horizontally).

Is there any dedicated webpage on RLV, its progress, etc?
I don't know of any dedicated Indian space blogs, either.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Oct 2008 00:48

I came across the blog of some guy at IIT Madras:

http://aerosravan.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... lasma.html

This again sparked my interest in considering how plasma aerodynamics could lead to new advances in aerospace craft. For instance, could this be relevant to the RLV, in helping it to achieve higher mach velocities with greater ease and less heating? Could it be relevant to re-entry vehicles, to reduce their frictional heating? Could it become a lightweight heat shield solution?

Just imagine - with "solid state" devices, there would be higher reliability with less chance of failure, and less need for maintenance/overhaul. Perhaps they could even be operated in a pulsed mode, to achieve other interesting effects.

What applications and designs are we likely to see come out of this?

Comments?

disha · Post by **disha** » 05 Oct 2008 06:36

Sanjay M wrote:Speaking of RLV, I want to ask something.

Why did India go for flyback design, instead of a VTVL design (Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing) like DC-X?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm0tR96lAgw

Firstly, Von Braun himself said that flyback system was considered for Apollo and rejected, because it was too problematic to deal with all the difficulties and compromises of aerodynamic requirements. So why is India trying to do it the harder way?.

And Americans did not learn anything from the Space Shuttle and the Russians from Buran!! I guess those wings on those vehicles are for landing on moon ...

Sanjay ji - you are a BRF oldie, how come you immediately assume what ISRO is doing is wrong because Von Braun suggested something and was rejected? Different space and different time and different needs!!!!

disha · Post by **disha** » 05 Oct 2008 06:39

Sanjay M wrote:Well, I think there would be benefit in India pursuing multiple approaches - maybe at least 2 different ones. Flyback cannot land on the Moon, but VTVL can.

Besides, wings add mass to a craft, and so does having to reinforce the overall structure for loads from 2 different orientation angles of horizontal and vertical flight (I assume that RLV would launch vertically, but return back horizontally).

Is there any dedicated webpage on RLV, its progress, etc?
I don't know of any dedicated Indian space blogs, either.

Flyback will not land on moon but will be able to deliver a payload into orbit cheaply!!!! And VTVL is one of the technologies to land on planetary objects which do not have atmosphere!!!!

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Oct 2008 08:06

VTVL is not exclusive to landing in a vacuum. It can be used in our Earth atmosphere as well. That was supposed to have been the idea behind DC-X / DC-Y.

I'm simply saying that when we have not even mastered the simpler approaches towards reusable launchcraft, why must we go for the more difficult and complex winged approach?

Oftentimes you have to climb a ladder by stepping on the lower rungs first, instead of leaping for the upper rungs. Otherwise you'll fall down with nothing.

disha · Post by **disha** » 05 Oct 2008 22:11

Sanjay M wrote:VTVL is not exclusive to landing in a vacuum. It can be used in our Earth atmosphere as well. That was supposed to have been the idea behind DC-X / DC-Y.

I'm simply saying that when we have not even mastered the simpler approaches towards reusable launchcraft, why must we go for the more difficult and complex winged approach?

Sir, with all due respect, please read the URLs you quote completely. From one of the URLs above -

The DC-X was never designed to achieve orbital altitudes or velocity, but instead to demonstrate the concept of vertical take off and landing.

The whole idea of DC-X was to demonstrate the concept of re-usability and faster turn around time. Doing a vertical landing in Earth's atmosphere is ridiculous! Why not take advantage of the atmosphere itself to achieve landing on Earth? Space Shuttle/Buran already do that.

Another quote from the above article ...

According to Jerry Pournelle: "DC-X was conceived in my living room and sold to National Space Council Chairman Dan Quayle by General Graham, Max Hunter, and me."

This is a project pulled out by somebody from places where the sun does not shine and sold to a Chairman who does not know the difference between the moon and moonshine. Please google for Dan Quayle and read up on him. Hint - he was the VP of US under Bush-I.

Here is something for Dan Quayle for your reference ...

Shortly after Bush announced the Space Exploration Initiative, which included a manned landing on Mars, Quayle was asked his thoughts on sending humans to Mars. In his response he made a number of errors: "Mars is essentially in the same orbit [as earth]....Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

Honestly Laloo will do better than Quayle if given the minister of science and technology portfolio!!!

Oftentimes you have to climb a ladder by stepping on the lower rungs first, instead of leaping for the upper rungs. Otherwise you'll fall down with nothing.

The above is a cliche which can be generically applied to any situation. The very fact that you are turning to cliche's indicate that you are on the wrong side of argument. Everything that is done in Massaland is not right and it is absolutely *wrong* for us to just blindly put money behind some esoteric project pulled out from somebody's a**** and sold to a dimwit.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Oct 2008 09:35

disha wrote:Sir, with all due respect, please read the URLs you quote completely. From one of the URLs above -

The DC-X was never designed to achieve orbital altitudes or velocity, but instead to demonstrate the concept of vertical take off and landing.
The whole idea of DC-X was to demonstrate the concept of re-usability and faster turn around time. Doing a vertical landing in Earth's atmosphere is ridiculous! Why not take advantage of the atmosphere itself to achieve landing on Earth? Space Shuttle/Buran already do that.

disha, the DC-X was just a smaller demonstrator, but the DC-Y was designed for SSTO capability.

Wings were intended for horizontal transit, rather than vertical descent. Wings aren't the most efficient way to dissipate gravitational potential energy.
For vertical descent, a parachute is more efficient than wings are. It produces the most drag while taking up the least weight. However, it perhaps doesn't offer the most control or reliability.

I'm wondering if a powered para-glider type of configuration might not offer the best compromise? As I recall, there were plans for the Gemini capsules to have some kind of deployable rogallo glider wing:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemlider.htm

Since the characteristics required for ascent and descent are different, then it might make sense to have some kind of variable geometry. But that variable geometry mechanism would have to be very reliable (eg. SpaceShipOne's shuttlecock hinge technique)

disha · Post by **disha** » 06 Oct 2008 11:29

Sanjay M wrote: disha, the DC-X was just a smaller demonstrator, but the DC-Y was designed for SSTO capability.

Designed, but never implemented! Why? ISRO is aiming towards TSTO+RLV... while NASA has not abandoned SSTO completely. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33. NASA plans to use a lifting body concept.

I do plan to do some more research on TSTO+RLV and write an article... someday...

Sanjay M wrote:
I'm wondering if a powered para-glider type of configuration might not offer the best compromise? As I recall, there were plans for the Gemini capsules to have some kind of deployable rogallo glider wing:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemlider.htm

Just stick wings ... simpler and effective.... they had to do it anyway for DC-X...

Sanjay M wrote: But that variable geometry mechanism would have to be very reliable (eg. SpaceShipOne's shuttlecock hinge technique)

SpaceShipOne currently is a sub-orbital tourist gimmick....

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 07 Oct 2008 04:04

disha wrote:Designed, but never implemented! Why? ISRO is aiming towards TSTO+RLV... while NASA has not abandoned SSTO completely. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33. NASA plans to use a lifting body concept.

I do plan to do some more research on TSTO+RLV and write an article... someday...

X-33 was of course abandoned, and its program shut down.

But anyway, regarding the RLV, I'm curious as to what the timetable is. We hear news so rarely on RLV these days, that it's hard to see what their current state of progress is.

I'm thinking that India will gain valuable expertise from the upcoming collaboration with Russia on the Brahmos-II hypersonic missile. This is what will make RLV possible, if anything.

I've also been surfing around and reading about the latest progress in plasma actuators. This seems to be the latest and greatest method for hypersonic flight control. At last, solid state maneuvering systems for high-velocity flight.

I'm wondering if ISRO is doing any research in this area?

prao · Post by **prao** » 07 Oct 2008 06:57

Nitesh wrote:ISRO, Astrium ink bilateral space cooperation pact in Paris
30 Sep, 2008, 1637 hrs IST, ANI

PARIS: India and France on Tuesday signed a long term agreement for the Utilization of the Indian Polar Satellite launch vehicle for launching satellites.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_ ... 545150.cms

I saw this news item and frankly I'm puzzled as to why France would be interested in a long term agreement over the PSLV. ESA's Vega launcher and the PSLV are in the same class of launchers and while the Vega hasn't been launched yet, the first launch is planned for this year.

See this description of the Vega.

There was another agreement signed several years ago on the PSLV one consequence of which was that the payload adopter on the PSLV was designed to accomodate european satellites. My recollection is that that agreement also covered launches - more reason for puzzlement. The Agile launch might have followed due to this.

Any thoughts?

Prao

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 07 Oct 2008 08:33

Chandrayaan to be launched on October 22: ISRO

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 07 Oct 2008 08:38

prao wrote:
Nitesh wrote:ISRO, Astrium ink bilateral space cooperation pact in Paris
30 Sep, 2008, 1637 hrs IST, ANI

PARIS: India and France on Tuesday signed a long term agreement for the Utilization of the Indian Polar Satellite launch vehicle for launching satellites.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_ ... 545150.cms
I saw this news item and frankly I'm puzzled as to why France would be interested in a long term agreement over the PSLV. ESA's Vega launcher and the PSLV are in the same class of launchers and while the Vega hasn't been launched yet, the first launch is planned for this year.

See this description of the Vega.

There was another agreement signed several years ago on the PSLV one consequence of which was that the payload adopter on the PSLV was designed to accomodate european satellites. My recollection is that that agreement also covered launches - more reason for puzzlement. The Agile launch might have followed due to this.

Any thoughts?

Prao

The reason is simple cost. The vega is too costly and cannot compete with PSLV on payload or cost. The vega costs 21 mil while PSLV depending on configuration costs from 12-18 mil. When the three stage PSLV lite comes online I would expect the cost to reduce further.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Oct 2008 18:01

Third Launch pad at SDSC for manned mission

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 07 Oct 2008 18:13

I wish they would have a runway on SDSC to facilitate bringing in of satellites and equipment. If we are going to launch satellites for foreign manufacturers, access to the space center is one of the most important things we can do.
The current road transfer from chennai is not a good idea.

prao · Post by **prao** » 07 Oct 2008 19:29

vavinash wrote:
prao wrote: I saw this news item and frankly I'm puzzled as to why France would be interested in a long term agreement over the PSLV. ESA's Vega launcher and the PSLV are in the same class of launchers and while the Vega hasn't been launched yet, the first launch is planned for this year.

See this description of the Vega.

There was another agreement signed several years ago on the PSLV one consequence of which was that the payload adopter on the PSLV was designed to accomodate european satellites. My recollection is that that agreement also covered launches - more reason for puzzlement. The Agile launch might have followed due to this.

Any thoughts?

Prao
The reason is simple cost. The vega is too costly and cannot compete with PSLV on payload or cost. The vega costs 21 mil while PSLV depending on configuration costs from 12-18 mil. When the three stage PSLV lite comes online I would expect the cost to reduce further.

Nope, not true. The Vega is expected to cost $23.5 million per launch according to this website. The PSLV's cost is given as $30 million per launch in 1999 dollars (astronautix.ru via B-R). The actual amount charged to users may be considerably different. Think about it, why would they develop the Vega and then go use the PSLV? The Vega is specifically being developed as a low-cost launcher and it has a higher payload ratio than the PSLV so it is more efficient. The explanation may lie in the fact that the PSLV can carry higher payloads and the Vega isn't yet ready but I'm sure it can't be the full explanation. Thinking about it some more, it could be partly political (after all a long-term agreement isn't necessary really, France can simply negotiate and sign a contract for each satellite launch) and also partly a marketing move by Antrix - even France with it's Ariane launchers is planning to use our services.

Prao

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 07 Oct 2008 21:00

The cost of PSLV is absolutely wrong. The GSLV costs around 36 mil. There is no way PSLV costs around 30 mil.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/200 ... 861000.htm
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/20070423_pslv.htm

The links provide the cost of PSLV as Rs 80 crore in 2007 which is about 18 mil for PSLV-CA it is Rs 68 crore or 16 mil. The vega is simply too costly and they have been trying to peddle it by offering to launch the first 5 customers for a discounted price of 17 mil.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 08 Oct 2008 03:19

So then Falcon1 with its $8M cost is priced lower than PSLV?

And within 8 months they will launch Falcon9, with its $50M pricetag.

I wonder what ISRO will do to try and stay in the game, and not be priced out of the market?