Indian Space Program Discussion

[Sanjay M]

Same article from FOX News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491051,00.html

So is 'Antrikshyaan' the official name, or just the speculative one?

Sounds fine to me, though I don't mind getting rid of that double-a.

[Arun_S]

i propose the first indo-naut to be arun_s saab,

no, on second thought... i propose the first two indo-nautees
to be arundhoti roy and mamata banerjee (just in case there
in a malfunction)

Kobe-san: Thank you for your kind consideration, but I will play my innings on ground itself, and let the future self assertive children of India take the next step to space.

And yes for that to happen India has to bury Ms Arundhoti Roy and her kind in deep sea burial. No need to defile space with such 'apavitram' worms.

As I look back, during my SSB interview in Mysore, many of my colleagues thought that I may become India's next Astronaut, but as God would have it, He had bigger plans for me to serve Dev-Bhoomi and I am happy in His service. In this innings I have many more miles to love my Dharm, my Mother and my Bhoomi.

[krishnan]

Those two should be ejected out once space crafts reaches outer space

[Arun_S]

Those two should be ejected out once space crafts reaches outer space

To eradicate cockroaches one does give "Supari", one just flushes them down toilet.
Ms Arundhati --> Toilet/septic-tank.

[Arunkumar]

Comparing the capsule diagram with reference of the GSLV page below

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SPACE/spa ... -gslv.html

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... eship.html

I got the following dimensions of the space capsule(excluding the service module at the bottom).
The diameter of the base of the capsule seems to be approx 3 meters
since it is slightly larger than the GSLV mk2 dia of 2.8 mtr.
The height of the capsule comes to approx 2.5 mtr while the height inside the
cabin is approx 1.7 mtr.The floor of the internal cabin appears to be approx 2.3 mtr dia.

External height 2.5m approx
External width 3.0m approx

I checked the dimensions of the soyuz reentry module on this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soyuz-TMA_parts.jpg

External height 2.1m
External width 2.2m

The capsule appears to be more spacious than the reentry module of the soyuz.
Also for the soyuz while the toilette is in the seperate orbital module, the shauch in the capsule
it seems is inside the cabin itself. Note that there is a block with waste water written on it at the
base of the cut out of the capsule.

I dont see any solar panels in the diagram??


Jest my thoughts onlee.

[KrishG]

ISRO has planned a very very good design on the long run. We can make it bigger by adding an orbital module (like those on Soyuz and Shenzhou) and it would be a little bigger than the present Shenzhou.

I think the height is 3.3 m and the width is going to be around 2-2.3 m. 3m sounds quite large for this.



The image shows a a docking plug which I doubt. I think it would be for the integration of the orbital module. And surely the service module is missing solar panels.

[kit]

Euro satellite glitch: ISRO still shooting in the dark

Can a directed EM weapon cause a power glitch aboard a satellite apart from solar flares ?? Can anyone elaborate what man made interferences can do this ? Could be that some one decided to test their new ASAT weapon ? .. a soft kill ?

maybe its worth while to track and see what all objects were there in its vicinity when this happened.Ya there are stealth sats as well but anyway ! Just wondering since some GPS satellites blinked at the right time for a missile test . It even could be commercial interests than foreign governments .

[Kakarat]

PICTURE: India's manned Orbital Vehicle concept

[Sanjay M]

Here's a scale comparison:


http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/y/ynewman.jpg

Heh, we're barely on the board! The dinkiest of the lot!

But at least we're there

[Gerard]

IAF to have its own eye in space

[Sanjay M]

Got into Wikipedia fast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISRO_Orbital_Vehicle

[ajay_ijn]

Chief categorically said that they would redesign Soyuz. Is it anyway similar to Soyuz.

[Arun_S]

IAF to have its own eye in space

Press Trust of India
Friday, February 13, 2009, (Bangalore)
With a view to increasing its surveillance capabilities, Indian Air Force is going to have its own satellite in space by the end of 2010.

"We will launch our satellite by the end of 2010," IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major said here yesterday.

The satellite to be launched by ISRO next year will be a dual-use satellite and will be used for civilian purposes also.

It will help the IAF to position its aerial and ground assets and targets. It would be used to gather navigational information.

In the recent past, IAF has been working closely to develop its space-based capabilities. It even has plans of setting up an Aerospace command under it but it has faced opposition from the other two services over the issue.

Its southern command based in Thiruvananthapuram works closely with ISRO in space related areas. At the air headquarters also, one Air Vice Marshal rank officer looks after space operations.

[KrishG]

Chief categorically said that they would redesign Soyuz. Is it anyway similar to Soyuz.

It is very much like Soyuz. The difference is the absence of the orbital module. Once, we get GSLV Mk-3 perfected we can add a orbital module to OV and it will be more spacious than Soyuz and Shenzhou. At present, our max payload capability to LEO is 5000 kg. That's why it has only a re-entry and service module.

[Hiten]

IIT-K satellite'Jugnu' in final stages

A micro satellite being developed by IIT Kanpur in co-operation with Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has been christened 'Jugnu'......

......Work on the satellite, which is aimed at gathering prior information regarding flood, drought and disaster management is in the last stage and will be handed over to ISRO in November for further test and launch, IIT Kanpur director Prof Sanjoy Govind Dhande told here today......

.......Scientists have used indigenous technology to develop 'Jugnu', whose weight and length are 3kg and 34cm respectively, he said, adding an estimated amount of Rs 2.5 crore has been spent to develop the satellite.......

.......The satellite can also be used to link other big satellites in the space, he added.

[Hiten]

Here's a scale comparison:


http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/y/ynewman.jpg

Heh, we're barely on the board! The dinkiest of the lot!

But at least we're there

for a three member space capsule ours is the samllest

shouldn't ours be an example of a superior design?

[Sanjay M]

Here's a scale comparison:


http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/y/ynewman.jpg

Heh, we're barely on the board! The dinkiest of the lot!

But at least we're there

for a three member space capsule ours is the samllest

shouldn't ours be an example of a superior design?

No, it's small because that's all we can lift for now. If we can get GSLV-3 working, and man-rated for reliability, then we'd be able to lift a more respectably-sized capsule with an orbital module. But apparently GSLV-3 seems to be going so slow, that we've had to design a dinkier capsule to get it up via GSLV-2.

I sure hope that they hurry up with GSLV-3. I'd even like a GSLV-4 or a nice big airbreathing scramjet for heavy lift.

[SaiK]

i thought the air breathing scramjets are only for avatar that is currently designed not to house people.

[SSridhar]

Interest among IITians for ISRO

[disha]

A_Krish, thanks for posting this

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 4.JPG.html, let us call this SnapShot-I

and this

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5893/r ... 032pr4.jpg, called SnapShot-II

I was wondering how the scramjet engine was going to be tested first without mating it with RLV? In one of the earlier posts in the previous thread on RLV, it appeared that the RLV will be developed parallel to the scramjet engine [because that is just logical]. I was imagining how that can be done and the two snapshots align that thought clearly.

First step was to achieve holding flame in ground testing of supersonic combustion. Now for real test, the scramjet engine will be mated to a "Scramjet engine flight demonstrator vehicle". The vehicle with the engine will be boosted to hypersonic regime and the engine tested. This can continue ad infinitum till the scramjet engine is realised. This is evident in Snapshot-1, look at the pencil thin vehicle labeled as "Scramjet engine flight demonstrator vehicle" and the arrow pointing to air breathing engine.

Separately, the RLV will be mated to a HS9 booster [Solid 9 ton booster?]. The RLV will go through most likely a sub-orbital flight regime and will re-enter atmosphere and its behaviour in hypersonic regime will be evaluated till its eventual splashdown in sea. This can further be tested ad infinitum until all parameters of RLV are realized.

The coup-de-grace will be when the scramjet engine is mated to the RLV. However RLV does *not* have to wait for the scramjet engine to be realized and vice versa. RLV can be mated to say a GSLV-III upper stage as well to give us a "space shuttle". RLV can probably house conventional engines in its tail to achieve orbital velocities and de-orbit maneuvers and will be another way for antarix yatris. GSLV-III man-rated can easily boost the RLV to orbits. While non-man rated ones can be used for launching satellites.

This is very innovative thinking! Excellent onlee!

[Sanjay M]

Hey, sorry to be a bother, but can someone kindly post a rotated version of that sideways RLV-TD (LEX-REX-SPEX) poster? I'm getting neck strain just looking at it.

[Sanjay M]

disha, well after that Australian HyShot test at Woomera, it sounded like Indian scientists wanted to replicate that feat, as it was done rather cheaply.

So ISRO/DRDO would likely do something similar, mounting a scramjet engine onto a rocket.

As for that RLV aerobody design, it looks too old-fashioned and Space-Shuttle-ish.
If they're using a waverider engine design, then can't they come up with a suitably flatter aerobody? It seems like that SpaceShuttle-ish shape wouldn't be too great for hypersonic flight.

If you look at American designs like Falcon HTV-3X, they look much flatter and more streamlined:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_XTwtfSgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MhtLWB0dJ8

[Sanjay M]

Wait, here's a pic of a flatter and more streamlined concept:

[sanjaykumar]

There is a diagram labeled 'combined coast phase'. Why is it necessary to carry dead weight?

[disha]

There is a diagram labeled 'combined coast phase'. Why is it necessary to carry dead weight?

Few pages back I quoted:

I think ss_roy is talking about the difference in burn time of the solid stage and the LSBs. Both are ignited together but the solid stage burns-out at 100 sec while it's empty fuel tank remains with the rocket until the LSBs burn out at 160 sec. So for the last 60 sec the weight of the empty solid stage fuel tank is just extra and the LSBs have to lift that also when there is no requirement.

Have you used rocksim or even built, launched and recovered a model rocket? The above assumption is completely wrong.

There is a max velocity at engine burnout and the booster is still coasting. It is imprudent to discard the booster at max velocity, one should discard that booster at max altitude!

Will post further, If I can get around to simplify the equations to be posted here. But note that sometimes the altitude reached in coast phase can be *twice* that of altitude during boost phase [or burn time!]

Sometimes I do get impatient repeating the obvious. Anyway, even after the booster completely burns out the propellent, there is still acquired velocity at that point in time which is working against gravity. Coast phase is from burnout to apogee.

If you are making a staged model rocket, you achieve max height by timing your second stage burn at first stage apogee. Of course for models of PSLV the equations are very complex!

[p_saggu]

[disha]

disha, well after that Australian HyShot test at Woomera, it sounded like Indian scientists wanted to replicate that feat, as it was done rather cheaply. So ISRO/DRDO would likely do something similar, mounting a scramjet engine onto a rocket.

Woomera HyShot was at a very small scale. Also the scramjet engines appear to be smaller and "simpler". Interestingly, it has been 2 years and there has been no further news, I expected it to be scaled up within 2 years, particularly since it is funded by UK MOD.

http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/ne ... layimg.jpg

From the available information, I would rather put the ISRO test for scramjet in the class of NASA's X-43A. X-43A was launched on a pegasus rocket as well.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

As for that RLV aerobody design, it looks too old-fashioned and Space-Shuttle-ish.
If they're using a waverider engine design, then can't they come up with a suitably flatter aerobody? It seems like that SpaceShuttle-ish shape wouldn't be too great for hypersonic flight.

I think Space Shuttle does does cross supersonic as well as hypersonic regimes. The problem with the space shuttle is that its' launch is over complicated. It is hung too low on the rocket body and the fuel is piped from the main tank into its engines. A plump design may have its additional advantages, for example, can store fuel or extra cargo. And its safer for re-entry too.

If you look at American designs like Falcon HTV-3X, they look much flatter and more streamlined:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_XTwtfSgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MhtLWB0dJ8

I may be biased, but I find RLV streamlined as well! Anyway, I think HTV-3X is more geared towards testing single engine from subsonic to hypersonic regimes. Not the launch vehicle itself. I would assume that once validated it will be stuck underneath a "blimpy" vehicle [Like RLV ]

[sanjaykumar]

Might be better understood with kinematic equations.

[disha]

Might be better understood with kinematic equations.

Check this out http://my.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/rckt_eqn.html

[Sanjay M]

There is a diagram labeled 'combined coast phase'. Why is it necessary to carry dead weight?

Probably because separation in supersonic/hypersonic conditions can be dangerous/complex. So better to coast past the atmosphere, and then separate. It's not really dead weight in the meantime, since it too has the momentum imparted from the launch vehicle.

I think Space Shuttle does does cross supersonic as well as hypersonic regimes. The problem with the space shuttle is that its' launch is over complicated. It is hung too low on the rocket body and the fuel is piped from the main tank into its engines. A plump design may have its additional advantages, for example, can store fuel or extra cargo. And its safer for re-entry too.

Yeah, but Space Shuttle's crossing those regimes on descent, not on ascent. My point is that if your aerobody is inefficient, then it creates more resistance for your engine to overcome during ascent. Inefficiency during descent is okay, since you're trying to dissipate all that excess velocity - heck, even a draggy parachute is okay.

I guess the tradeoff between blimpy vs sleek, is that the former gives you more interior space for payload, while the latter is more energetically efficient.

[disha]

I guess the tradeoff between blimpy vs sleek, is that the former gives you more interior space for payload, while the latter is more energetically efficient.

That part and a blunt body is a better re-entry vehicle.

[Sanjay M]

Hey, can someone rotate and re-post this sideways one as well?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 3.JPG.html

Gee, somehow I thought GSLV-3's launch capacity was a little higher than that. I thought it was maybe 12-15 tons to LEO.

Hmm, if Europeans have abandoned partnership with Russia on Klipr, then would India be in a position to pick up the partnership? Problem is that we don't have anything to lift it with. If they could adapt it to a scramjet format, that would be better for our purposes.

Meanwhile, back to our RLV-TD, why should the scramjet be mounted on the orbiter, instead of on a lower stage or intermediate stage? Because scramjet is for upper atmosphere, and orbiter is for orbit. Seems to me that the scramjet should be mounted on an intermediate stage, which would be the real "Reusable Launch Vehicle". The orbiter is not really the launch vehicle, but the payload.

(OK, I understand that it's not really supposed to orbit like an orbiter, since it's a test vehicle, however that makes no difference.)

The scramjet is supposed to help get the spacecraft most of the way towards orbital velocity. The scramjet should not be on the spacecraft itself, unless it's SSTO. Even with TSTO, you could just keep the scramjet on the lower stage, which would be combined cycle. But let the uppermost stage/spacecraft just have rockets, since it will mainly be ascending beyond the atmosphere, where any airbreathing equipment is just dead weight.

[Sanjay M]

I guess the tradeoff between blimpy vs sleek, is that the former gives you more interior space for payload, while the latter is more energetically efficient.

That part and a blunt body is a better re-entry vehicle.

Well, parachute is the best re-entry shape of all. That's how I assume Antrikshyaan Mk-1 will descend, when it goes to orbit.

[disha]

Well, parachute is the best re-entry shape of all. That's how I assume Antrikshyaan Mk-1 will descend, when it goes to orbit.

Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry. Parachutes will work once it has slowed down enough! In lower atmosphere!!

[Sanjay M]

Fair enough. I've always wondered why Apollo didn't go with its proposed idea for rotors on the re-entry capsule (to be deployed once the air was thick enough).
I guess the parachutes were just lighter and more flexible.

I wonder why the entire base of a space capsule couldn't be a free-spinning disk, out of which rotors could extend/deploy once the air became thicker.

Each rotor would have a slightly upward angle, to give a slight shuttlecock effect for overall stability of the capsule relative to its center of gravity.

The rotational energy from the autorotating rotors could be stored as compressed air, to be used later on to power them as the capsule approached the ground.
Then the capsule could engage the rotors for final powered landing at the very end.

Just an idea I had.

[sanjaykumar]

It's not really dead weight in the meantime, since it too has the momentum imparted from the launch vehicle.

Yes should have said 'dead drag'.

Good website on rocket equations, thanks.

[ajay_ijn]

Few pages back I quoted:

Have you used rocksim or even built, launched and recovered a model rocket? The above assumption is completely wrong.

There is a max velocity at engine burnout and the booster is still coasting. It is imprudent to discard the booster at max velocity, one should discard that booster at max altitude!

Will post further, If I can get around to simplify the equations to be posted here. But note that sometimes the altitude reached in coast phase can be *twice* that of altitude during boost phase [or burn time!]

Sometimes I do get impatient repeating the obvious. Anyway, even after the booster completely burns out the propellent, there is still acquired velocity at that point in time which is working against gravity. Coast phase is from burnout to apogee.

If you are making a staged model rocket, you achieve max height by timing your second stage burn at first stage apogee. Of course for models of PSLV the equations are very complex!

behenji, are u saying that rocket will lose acquired velocity if booster is seperated during max velocity?, still cannot understand why booster should be there while rocket is coasting?

Arun saar also says that mismatched burn time for boosters in case of GSLV does not give efficient performance.
from BRs GSLV article.

The mismatched burn time of the S125 core (100 sec) and the L40 strap-on (160 sec) does not give efficient booster performance (because the expended stage cannot be ejected and the deadweight must be wastefully accelerated) and also requires higher cost of close performance matching of the strap-ons

[KrishG]

Hmm, if Europeans have abandoned partnership with Russia on Klipr, then would India be in a position to pick up the partnership? Problem is that we don't have anything to lift it with. If they could adapt it to a scramjet format, that would be better for our purposes.

Kliper as we know is dead, atleast for now! Roskosmos stopped funding for Kliper and chose ACTS instead. Now, ACTS is also dead meat. So, there are 2 proposals before Roskosmos. Khrunichev has proposed a more conventional Kliper design as opposed to NPO Energia's TKS follow-on. Khrunichev for know will be moving away from the proposed Kliper design and moved towards a more conventional design.

But, surprise surprise ! Chinkis have designs for manned shuttle which are almost an exact copies of the the previous Russian Kliper and AVATAR.

[Kailash]

Meanwhile, back to our RLV-TD, why should the scramjet be mounted on the orbiter, instead of on a lower stage or intermediate stage? Because scramjet is for upper atmosphere, and orbiter is for orbit. Seems to me that the scramjet should be mounted on an intermediate stage, which would be the real "Reusable Launch Vehicle". The orbiter is not really the launch vehicle, but the payload.

(OK, I understand that it's not really supposed to orbit like an orbiter, since it's a test vehicle, however that makes no difference.)

The scramjet is supposed to help get the spacecraft most of the way towards orbital velocity. The scramjet should not be on the spacecraft itself, unless it's SSTO. Even with TSTO, you could just keep the scramjet on the lower stage, which would be combined cycle. But let the uppermost stage/spacecraft just have rockets, since it will mainly be ascending beyond the atmosphere, where any airbreathing equipment is just dead weight.

May be they want to keep the scramjet recoverable. If it is part of the first or intermediate stage, it will be expended. Isn't one of the objectives was to liquefy O2 from atmosphere, store it and use it for combustion?

OTOH, if the scram jet was attached to the first or intermediate stage, which is going to be IN the atmosphere, we need not try to extract and store oxygen. May be I am confused, please clarify

[KrishG]

O.K. I am upadting my album with new pics.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 09/krishG/


GSLV Mk 2's CE


Label is CE20 but I thought it was CE25!


Model of CE


LEs for PSLV, GSLV