Indian Space Program Discussion

[bart]

The media article says it is the third largest rocket motor in the world but then goes on to mention it's dimensions.

So is it the third most powerful rocket motor in the world or simply the third largest in size?

[Arunkumar]

^^^
By thrust levels.

From wiki thrust levels for :
Space shuttle SRB : 12.5 MN
Ariane 5 SRB : 6.4 MN
GSLV MK3 S-200 : 5.1 MN

[harbans]

Missed this out. India launches these now without any fanfare.


A total of 11 ISRO rockets launched for the eclipse according to ISRO press release:

"Yesterday (January 14, 2010), two Rohini sounding rockets of the type RH 300 Mk II were launched at 12:20 pm and 1:05 pm respectively. This was followed by two RH 200 launches at 1:07 pm and 3 pm. Following the same pattern, another four launches were carried out today. Later, one more sounding rocket of RH 300 Mk II type was launched at 4 pm today. Two larger Rohini rockets of the series RH 560 MK II were also launched from SDSC, one each yesterday and today, which had a peak altitude of 548 km."

http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/script ... Jan15_2010

ISRO launches rockets to study solar eclipse
New Delhi, Jan 15 (PTI)

The Indian space agency is launching five rockets on Friday to study the effects of the millennium's longest annular solar eclipse in the southern part of the country, an official said.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/469 ... solar.html

[jaladipc]

JaladipC I and most BRFites are aware of that.

There is nothing to be gained by spelling that out. You might want to edit your post.

Much appreciated.I guess Sreedhar is much faster than me

^^^
By thrust levels.

From wiki thrust levels for :
Space shuttle SRB : 12.5 MN
Ariane 5 SRB : 6.4 MN
GSLV MK3 S-200 : 5.1 MN

right. vacuum trust of P230 is 6.7MN while the average thrust it put is 4.9MN having a 238metric tons of solid propellant compared to 207 tons of S-200.

I suspect that S-200 borrowed most from P230 ,the same 3 stages and the similar igniter arrangement and the almost similar nozzle vectoring angle.....

http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bull ... lez104.pdf

[disha]

I suspect that S-200 borrowed most from P230 ,the same 3 stages and the similar igniter arrangement and the almost similar nozzle vectoring angle.....

What a self goal!

Can you actually prove that ESA transferred the tech of P230 to ISRO and they scaled it down to S200? From the above post, you do mean that - right?

[jaladipc]

I suspect that S-200 borrowed most from P230 ,the same 3 stages and the similar igniter arrangement and the almost similar nozzle vectoring angle.....

What a self goal!

Can you actually prove that ESA transferred the tech of P230 to ISRO and they scaled it down to S200? From the above post, you do mean that - right?

No.I cant prove being frank and not even intending to do that.Borrowing has many possible meanings.Decipher them,you will get it what I meant.

[chetak]

No.I cant prove being frank and not even intending to do that.Borrowing has many possible meanings.Decipher them,you will get it what I meant.

May be some of us are dense.

But we do have " third most powerful rocket motor in the world "
and all that goes with that.

How does it make a difference how we came by it. There are no doubts about our own technology or engineers.

Perhaps you need to look more closely at how the russian, american,chinese, israeli and korean space programs got underway,
especially the (un)willing german cooperation in the earlier stages.

[jaladipc]

^^^
I never doubted the potential of desi engineers/scientists.you know? I rather like to jump away from the above context for many reasons.I am sure it will make you happy if I withdraw my above statement.

Now back to the topic,

If A PSLV(high end config one) with a maxi thrust of over 6.5 MN can put a sat of over 3500kg into LEO ,then what about a minorly modified S200 with a peak thrust of 5.1MN and avg thrust of 3.5MN ?
Can this modified S200 config be used instead of a multiple stage CA PSLV to do the same job of putting a tonne+ payload into LEO? Is this gonna be a SSTO???????? for a minimal payload.

Like we replicating the russians using their Zenith boosters

[symontk]

India is self sufficient in solid motor technology. As in other technology spheres, India had to approach France for liquid and Russia for Cryo engine technologies.

Regarding the configuration proposed of PSLV, I think its a great idea to use S-200 since it will replace 6 strap-ons (S-12) and a main motor (S-139) with a single motor. But if you look at the propellant weight used, both will be the close. Of course the thrust could differ but not much. So I dont think it will benefit greatly in respect of payload weight increase but could decrease the launch vehicle costs and integration costs

[disha]

^^^
I never doubted the potential of desi engineers/scientists.you know? I rather like to jump away from the above context for many reasons.I am sure it will make you happy if I withdraw my above statement.

No I do not know how much you appreciate or not the potential of desi engineers/scientists. Since you want to do a downhill skiing, feel free.

Anyway, for the 2007-2012 period, ISRO is going to focus on the following for space transportation:

Operationalisation of GSLV Mk I11 with 4T launch capability.
Perfect payload recovery and reentry technologies.
Conduct Demonstration flights of Reusable Launch Veliicle.
Critical technologies for Manned Mission.

Nowhere they are thinking modifying the PSLV (which is a proven design) to something unproven and hence not worth the effort.

[Gagan]

Beyond the GSLV-3, is there a GSLV-4 program with 4 strap on S-200s? Or is this one of Arun_S's dreams?
I can't find any official references to a GSLV-4.

All attention now seems to be shifted to a hybrid liquid engine for human space flight.

[disha]

It appears to be Arun's wet dreams (with all due respect to you saar and no offence meant, if you are reading this). Since the focus is on UMLV in the expendable launch segment and towards RLV and TSTO for cost effectiveness. At least that is what I gather from the current five year plan for ISRO. Of course, there will be other ISRO engineers who will dream and propose designs which may or may not work its way into a plan.

By the Hybrid liquid engine, I take you mean the Kerosene/LOX2 Hybrid - right? Or the start/stop engines for orbital vehicles?

PS: (added later) It is also my wet dream for ISRO to come up with the biggest and baddest GSLV, but that is not the reality.

[KrishG]

Beyond the GSLV-3, is there a GSLV-4 program with 4 strap on S-200s? Or is this one of Arun_S's dreams?
I can't find any official references to a GSLV-4.

It will be of little increase in capability without a powerful core stage and upper stage, rest is for you to understand.

Regarding the configuration proposed of PSLV, I think its a great idea to use S-200 since it will replace 6 strap-ons (S-12) and a main motor (S-139) with a single motor. But if you look at the propellant weight used, both will be the close. Of course the thrust could differ but not much. So I dont think it will benefit greatly in respect of payload weight increase but could decrease the launch vehicle costs and integration costs

ISRO doesn't have any plans to replace the core/boosters of PSLV with S200. The modular capability of PSLV is an important asset and ISRO willn't bet on anything else. Launch vehicle and integration costs is planned to be further reduced by increased launch frequency.

[KrishG]

It appears to be Arun's wet dreams. Since the focus is on UMLV in the expendable launch segment and towards RLV and TSTO for cost effectiveness. At least that is what I gather from the current five year plan for ISRO. Of course, there will be other ISRO engineers who will dream and propose designs which may or may not work its way into a plan.

By the Hybrid liquid engine, I take you mean the Kerosene/LOX2 Hybrid - right? Or the start/stop engines for orbital vehicles?

Please edit your post. We should not be showing disrespect towards a former senior member and contributor.

[disha]

ISRO doesn't have any plans to replace the core/boosters of PSLV with S200. The modular capability of PSLV is an important asset and ISRO willn't bet on anything else. Launch vehicle and integration costs is planned to be further reduced by increased launch frequency.

[As a supportive data point to above] Why ISRO will not entertain any jingoes wet dream? Here is why,

ISRO plans to launch the following by 2012.


PSLV C16-20, 21-22, 23-26 - Total 10
GSLV MK II F08-F10 Total 3
GLSV MK III D1, D2, F01, F02 Total 4
RLV-TD 1

18 Launches, over 4 years, approx one (1) every 3 month!

That will call on extreme execution by ISRO, almost no margin of error.

[KrishG]

Why ISRO will not entertain any jingoes wet dream? Here is why,

ISRO plans to launch the following by 2012.


PSLV C16-20, 21-22, 23-26 - Total 10
GSLV MK II F08-F10 Total 3
GLSV MK III D1, D2, F01, F02 Total 4
RLV-TD 1

18 Launches, over 4 years, approx one (1) every 3 month!

That will call on extreme execution by ISRO, almost no margin of error.

What is the point your are trying to make ? ISRO would stop R&D because of a very tight schedule ?

[Gagan]

PSLV C16-20, 21-22, 23-26 - Total 10

That is 11 launches (C16-26).
A total of 19 launches.

Beyond the GSLV-3, is there a GSLV-4 program with 4 strap on S-200s? Or is this one of Arun_S's dreams?
I can't find any official references to a GSLV-4.

It will be of little increase in capability without a powerful core stage and upper stage, rest is for you to understand.

Sir-ji,
Is it possible to be more specific? I am not too erudite in space and launch vehicle matters.

[negi]

rakkit munna alert.

Perhaps he is alluding to the fact that without changing the specs of the sustainer/core stage one cannot have substantial velocity increments by merely increasing the number of parallel stages .

[k prasad]

I agree with Rahul ji that we are pretty good in keeping secrets (ATV).

ATV is a known unknown. there are other unknown unknowns. I will leave it at that.

If our top guys here - Kapil, vina, rakall and gang wrote a tell-all book, it'd make for very very very interesting reading!!

There are enough unknown-unknowns that some select few get hints to from time to time, thanks mainly to being in the right place at the right time. But being good jingos, we'll leave them at that, and just let the fact that there are unknown unknowns be known.

[symontk]

it all depends on the GSLV-3 success. Once it is successfull, ISRO can add two more S200 strapons for increasing the payload weight. Although this is not a efficient way, the control S/W will not be much affected and so its an easy way out.

Mean while they can develop the semi cryo and UMLV

[Gagan]

ATV is a known unknown. there are other unknown unknowns. I will leave it at that.

If our top guys here - Kapil, vina, rakall and gang wrote a tell-all book, it'd make for very very very interesting reading!!

There are enough unknown-unknowns that some select few get hints to from time to time, thanks mainly to being in the right place at the right time. But being good jingos, we'll leave them at that, and just let the fact that there are unknown unknowns be known.

I wonder in amazement what it must be like to be aware.

I resent the fact that some jingos have access while others don't.

[KrishG]

Perhaps he is alluding to the fact that without changing the specs of the sustainer/core stage one cannot have substantial velocity increments by merely increasing the number of parallel stages .

I am not alluding the fact but I am talking about similar but more sustained velocity increments which will result in better payload characteristics.

The two versions we are taking about here are :

1. (4 X S200) + L110 + C25
2. (2 X S200) + SC140 (assumed sc stage) + C25

While the first version would obviously have a very good T/W ratio at liftoff which will be approximately equal to 1.8, the vehicle will not be able to keep up after the boosters are jettisoned. I am not denying the fact that the additional boosters will increase the velocity and height at the time of being jettisoned but there after the L110 cannot hold onto the high performance of boosters with the T/W ratio being ~1.6 at the time booster jettison.

The second version will also have a liftoff T/W ratio of ~1.8 due to the ground ignited Semi-cryo stage and boosters. But this vehicle would retain that incredible T/W ratio even after the boosters are jettisoned thanks to the powerful SC engine.

[KrishG]

Is it possible to be more specific? I am not too erudite in space and launch vehicle matters.

At present ISRO is exploring possibilities of increasing the performance of the booster, core and upper stages. There could be an 2 S220 or something similar instead of 2 S200 but I very much the possibility of 4 S200s. A Semi-cryo core stage is an important addition.

Semi-cryo engine to power GSLV-Mk III core stage

And look at the comments below by ArunS.

[disha]

What is the point your are trying to make ? ISRO would stop R&D because of a very tight schedule ?

Per ISRO, Expendable launch vehicles have reached a technological plateau. The next game is in reusable vehicles and TSTO and that is where most of the R&D will occur. The point is that ISRO is not going to substantially modify its proven designs (incrementally yes, but not substantantially, incl. GSLV Mk IV for eg) and will instead concentrate on the RLV/TSTO technologies for space launches. This IMO is a good thing.

Further, once the Expendable launch vehicles segment is properly "mastered", it will be most likely turned over to private industry - leaving ISRO to concentrate on high end of the game. Of course it is debatable on when it will happen, even assuming if it happens at all. But the goal I see is by 2025, private industry is engaged in Expendable segment of the launch vehicle industry with ISRO as the coordinator and TSTO/RLV/Air breathing technologies will be in operation or on the cusp of operation.

[KrishG]

Per ISRO, Expendable launch vehicles have a technological plateau. The next game is in reusable vehicles and TSTO and that is where most of the R&D will occur. The point is that ISRO is not going to substantially modify its prreached oven designs (incrementally yes, but not substantantially, incl. GSLV Mk IV for eg) and will instead concentrate on the RLV/TSTO technologies for space launches. This IMO is a good thing.

Further, once the Expendable launch vehicles segment is properly "mastered", it will be most likely turned over to private industry - leaving ISRO to concentrate on high end of the game. Of course it is debatable on when it will happen, even assuming if it happens at all. But the goal I see is by 2025, private industry is engaged in Expendable segment of the launch vehicle industry with ISRO as the coordinator and TSTO/RLV/Air breathing technologies will be in operation or on the cusp of operation.

RLV technology hasn't yet reached a point where it can be applied on Mid-heavy and heavy launch vehicles. The best bet for ISRO on that front would be partially reusable vehicles. The RLV as of now is limited to small payload capabilities. The research will continue on RLV technology but that willn't stop the development of future expendable and partially reusable systems.

[Willy]

Dont the Russian's currently have bigger launchers than both the US and the Europeans?

[KrishG]

India announces first manned space mission

The Indian Human Spaceflight is officially disclosed

[SaiK]

$2.6b wow.

[suraj p]

suraj, please post such articles in psy-ops/media watch thread in GDF.
thanks.

[vavinash]

Brits are redundant and inconsequential, why are people bothered about them?

[disha]

RLV technology hasn't yet reached a point where it can be applied on Mid-heavy and heavy launch vehicles. The best bet for ISRO on that front would be partially reusable vehicles. The RLV as of now is limited to small payload capabilities. The research will continue on RLV technology but that willn't stop the development of future expendable and partially reusable systems.

Here is a link to a first generation RLV designed in 1970s which is operational and can carry @25,000 Kgs to LEO.

1970s era RLV

[D Roy]

Yes, but Mathematica Inc which had done the shuttle study for NASA had said 50 flights a year to make the shuttle viable.

and we all know how close NASA got to that figure.

[disha]

Yes, but Mathematica Inc which had done the shuttle study for NASA had said 50 flights a year to make the shuttle viable.

and we all know how close NASA got to that figure.

And still it is the only workhorse (other being the even older Soyuz) which has consistently returned man to space and also launched path breaking satellites (eg. Hubble). Mathematica cannot calculate the science value of a payload and hence citing that as a proof to ding the RLV is disingenious.

Coming to Indian Space program and Chandrayan:

Have data need smart analysts!

[D Roy]

and yet under the constellation program NASA has not committed itself in just one direction.


The shuttle was also prized for its cross range capability. something that the soviets later sought to emulate with Buran. but that was preceded by a fierce debate internally.

Note: I am a supporter of ISRO's RLV efforts. However greater debate may be required in this sphere and the pursuit of RLVs must not resemble an ideology.

[pralay]

Have data need smart analysts!

Later, he told Deccan Herald that 80 Indian universities were approached to respond to study grants that would have brought in the data analysis experts.
But only four universities responded. Under the ISRO’s response programme, study grants are given to research students and proposals invited. “We want to encourage Indian scientists to come forward to work on this, but there is a shortage.”

Does anyone here know to whom should I contact if I want to participate in it ?

[animesharma]

If you are enrolled at your university, the normal process would be to forward the request through your university. I believe you can't participate without your university's consent. Otherwise, if your university is too busy to do the needful, i suggest you direct your request to ISRO concerned authority by postal route.

[KrishG]

Here is a link to a first generation RLV designed in 1970s which is operational and can carry @25,000 Kgs to LEO.

1970s era RLV

1. The whole idea of RLV is cheaper access to space compared to conventional rockets. At 500 million USD per launch the Space Shuttle would seem very cheap for you. The Soyuz (conventional vehicle) can put the same number of crew in less than half than price.

2. Wonder what NASA is replacing Space Shuttle with ?? Conventional partially reusable launch vehicles ie Ares-1, Ares-5. That too the only reusable part are the SRBs. So much so for the Space Shuttle.

[Rahul M]

Does anyone here know to whom should I contact if I want to participate in it ?

contact your HOD, tell him you are interested and if this could be done.

[pralay]

but can't I participate as an individual ? Its been long time since I passed out and no more a student now. But I am still interested in participating as data mining and parsing is my key expertise.

[Rahul M]

now that would be more difficult, I expect ISRO will not want to deal with each person individually and would prefer to deal with an institution in stead.

one possible way out would be to look for relevant experts in univs and institutes (doesn't have to be the one you passed out from) and request them to take up ISRO's offer with you as project student. if you can locate an enthusiastic faculty, this is very much possible.