It is important to understand
why we are in our current situation.
Can you take the above Rona-Dhona [R&Dh (tm)] to the whine thread? Above is nothing but 'ing
Hypergolic launchers can left for upto 6 months (with monitoring for leaks) at room temperature without any effect on launch reliability. That is why they were used in large ICBMs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-18
dimethylhydrazine or nitrogen tetroxide do not react explosively with the oxygen in air, though both are quite toxic. They can ignite in air, but not with air! RP-1 and H2, on the other hand, do react with the oxygen in air if you have an ignition source- compare titan-3/ proton blowups to soyuz, delta-2, ariane-5 blowups.
Hypergolic engines are reliable, but hypergolic fuels are horrible for storage. I recommend that you read WoF to get a clue on hypergolics. Particularly your statement that hypergolic fuels do not ignite in air is factually wrong.
The Proton-M and CZ-2/ CZ-3 family of launchers can do quite well without a cryogenic engines in any stage. However using a cryogenic stage at the top allows you to put larger satellites in GTO (or send bigger spacecrafts to other planets).
Japan and USA (officially) use lower stage LH2/LOX engines in some launchers because it reduces the launcher's total weight and is a technical achievement. There are also many people who see expensive and complicated engines as a means to get more money from the government. The space shuttle can put about 20 tons in LEO for about 600-900 million dollars. The Proton-M can do the same for less than 70 million dollars.
There was a lot of politics behind developing both delta-4 and atlas-5, even when atlas-5 was the cheaper and more reliable extra heavy launcher. The main engines of Atlas-5 (RD-180) are russian and are cheaper than delta-4 (RS-68), which are made by people with more influence. So while they cannot trash Atlas-5, they can make sure that there are orders for Delta-4s.
So what is your problem against LH/LOX, to use in lower stage or not or compared to Hypergolics? Further can you give us links on the politics and organizational stances on engines? Till then that part is subjective and again belongs to the R&Dh thread.
I have always maintained that a mix of solid + hypergolics is the easiest solution for launching things into space. My problem with the current GSLV design is that it could do much better if the burn times of the boosters were matched to the main SRB (or vice versa).
ISRO has always been driven by too many conflicting agendas and directions, resulting in a lack of long term direction. Example- They should have started developing RP-1/LOX engines 15 years ago and we would have had a Delta-2 type launcher by now.
Ah! I see the light. Now can you tell me which are the top five solid boosters in the world? And then check your first statement in this post which is recommended for the R&Dh thread.
As the apollo missions have demonstrated, LH2/LOX engines can be restarted with ease (compared to RP-1/LOX engines). The Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) stage of Saturn V is one of the best examples of that approach, as it was both the 3rd stage and the TLI stage (2 burns- with a lot of fine tuning for the second burn)
However they do not offer big functional gains for Stage 1 or stage 0 engines (both stages usually burn at full blast for the first 140-160 seconds).
I have a suggestion for you, can you compare the re-startability of Rp-1/LOX and LH/LOX? Also add in regenerative cooling. All for the last stage of course.
'ing.
Seems like this story has been created by an ISRO clerk and handed over to ndtv for posting in their website. 
![[Click for Image of First lunar spectrum under solar flare]](http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/images/C1XS.jpg){kind=link}