What is BEL doing in developing ICVs ?Kakarat wrote:NAMICA was first developed by L&T.Kersi D wrote: I just hope the pvt sector is allowed into serious defence production Last off topic post.
The current NAMICA is from BEL
BEL & L&T were competitors, but L&T failed
In the comments sections of the Ajai's article on NAG+NAMICA, he mentioned that the cost (335 crores) also includes the cost of setting up the production line for the missiles. Another thing; though I'm not aware of optronics that go with NAMICA, considering the sophisticated nature of these sub-systems, would'nt their price itself be high? thanx.Bheem wrote:Manportable Spike/gill series, Kornet and Javelin are around US$ 100,000 per unit. Nag is much bigger missile more in the range of Spike ER or Hellfire. Rs. 335 crores with 13 launchers seem reasonable as around Rs. 50-100 crores would be for launchers alone. Then there should be reloading vehicles, ground support equipment, testing equipment etc. I would peg the cost of stand alone unit of nag missile at around Rs. 40-50 lakhs each, while comparitive western systeme should be around Rs. 50-75 lakhs each
It is not BHEL but BEL which is developing NAMICAKersi D wrote: What is BEL doing in developing ICVs ?
It may be BHEL.
K
SriniY wrote:One more thing from the article
QUOTE
Q. What are the focus areas in the 25-year technology development plan?
A. There are three. The closest to our heart is low-intensity conflict (LIC). Many technologies that we have developed for the military have relevance for LICs. You will appreciate that many agencies in the country are today involved in LICs — the paramilitary forces, police forces, counter-insurgency and counter-terror organisations and so on. We have started a programme to customise DRDO technology for each of them. LIC is one of our key result areas now.
Another area is space security because future wars are going to be controlled from space as network-centric warfare becomes the new way of war-fighting. So, technologies that are relevant for space security such as ballistic missile defence, anti-satellite systems, are going to be part of our development process. Secondly, to be able to quickly launch satellites to regain space-based capabilities when existing assets are attacked or denied to our military during war. These are low-cost, quick reaction satellite launch systems and low-endurance satellites — they last just long enough to do their job. What will emerge through our programme are micro-satellites, mini-satellites etc. On the launch side, some of our missiles can be modified, a satellite put on top of them and launched
/QUOTE
This probably has not been reported before
Actually the western systems like PARS 3 cost far more than that (1/2 million to be exact)Bheem wrote:Manportable Spike/gill series, Kornet and Javelin are around US$ 100,000 per unit. Nag is much bigger missile more in the range of Spike ER or Hellfire. Rs. 335 crores with 13 launchers seem reasonable as around Rs. 50-100 crores would be for launchers alone. Then there should be reloading vehicles, ground support equipment, testing equipment etc. I would peg the cost of stand alone unit of nag missile at around Rs. 40-50 lakhs each, while comparitive western systeme should be around Rs. 50-75 lakhs each
Well cost is very important if IA plans to mass procure Helina, if it turns out to be cheaper it will likely replace Vikhr and other missile which are not at NEOL.krishnan wrote:Why are you people so much bothered about the cost? At least the money is going back into indian hands ( hope so)
a_kumar wrote:There was a discussion in previous pages on missiles for launchers..
X-posting from Defense R&D thread..SriniY wrote:One more thing from the article
QUOTE
Q. What are the focus areas in the 25-year technology development plan?
A. There are three. The closest to our heart is low-intensity conflict (LIC). Many technologies that we have developed for the military have relevance for LICs. You will appreciate that many agencies in the country are today involved in LICs — the paramilitary forces, police forces, counter-insurgency and counter-terror organisations and so on. We have started a programme to customise DRDO technology for each of them. LIC is one of our key result areas now.
Another area is space security because future wars are going to be controlled from space as network-centric warfare becomes the new way of war-fighting. So, technologies that are relevant for space security such as ballistic missile defence, anti-satellite systems, are going to be part of our development process. Secondly, to be able to quickly launch satellites to regain space-based capabilities when existing assets are attacked or denied to our military during war. These are low-cost, quick reaction satellite launch systems and low-endurance satellites — they last just long enough to do their job. What will emerge through our programme are micro-satellites, mini-satellites etc. On the launch side, some of our missiles can be modified, a satellite put on top of them and launched
/QUOTE
This probably has not been reported before
That so sad.. Wonder if the ammo wasn't disposed off properly?SHIMLA: Three children were killed when abandoned ammunition exploded near an army firing range in Himachal Pradesh's Kangra district, police said on Wednesday. The children were trying to remove scrap from the used mortar shells. "Three children, aged 10 to 12 years, were killed on Tuesday when they tried to break the used shells of mortars near the army firing range," Deputy Superintendent of Police Jeet Singh told IANS on phone.
He said the children collected the shells from the firing range and tried to break it to recover scrap and lead. One of the shells exploded and killed them on the spot. "We have recovered three more shells from the spot," he said
It is BEL.Kersi D wrote:What is BEL doing in developing ICVs ?Kakarat wrote:
It may be BHEL.
K
Not so fast. Based on my rudimentary understanding or orbital mechanics and satellite launch, all satellites need to placed in orbit with an injection velocity to enable their progression on the orbit. So you can't load the missile upto its gills. Another factor is the size of the satellite, since it needs to fit within the RV design of the missile.ankit-s wrote:I would like to know the weight of this quick launch satellites. Kalam saab used to talk about launch a sat from Agni series.
Agni III has 2.5 tons of cargo capacity (payload), our heaviest INSAT so far ejected into the orbit is 2.2 tons, the job seems to be doable.
Geostationary sats will need the GSLV just as bigger polar sats will need the PSLV.Newbie answersAdityaM wrote:newbie questions:
Why should one use a missile to launch a sat and not a proper launcher?
Is it cheaper? is it because many missiles are always available while rocket needs to be created specifically for a mission?
Better to use a missile than let it age?
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=12501In new missiles, the Astra air-to-air beyond visual range missile has undergone four to five ground launch trials. We are now qualifying its infra-red seeker. Once ready, it will go on multiple platforms, including Tejas and Sukhoi fighters.
No Agni missile as of know can launch satellites. A modified Agni-III with a 3rd stage should be able to launch small satellites of around ~200-250 kg into LEO.ankit-s wrote:I would like to know the weight of this quick launch satellites. Kalam saab used to talk about launch a sat from Agni series.
Agni III has 2.5 tons of cargo capacity (payload), our heaviest INSAT so far ejected into the orbit is 2.2 tons, the job seems to be doable.
KrishG wrote:No Agni missile as of know can launch satellites. A modified Agni-III with a 3rd stage should be able to launch small satellites of around ~200-250 kg into LEO.ankit-s wrote:I would like to know the weight of this quick launch satellites. Kalam saab used to talk about launch a sat from Agni series.
Agni III has 2.5 tons of cargo capacity (payload), our heaviest INSAT so far ejected into the orbit is 2.2 tons, the job seems to be doable.
Secondly, to be able to quickly launch satellites to regain space-based capabilities when existing assets are attacked or denied to our military during war. These are low-cost, quick reaction satellite launch systems and low-endurance satellites — they last just long enough to do their job. What will emerge through our programme are micro-satellites, mini-satellites etc. On the launch side, some of our missiles can be modified, a satellite put on top of them and launched
Do you expect is to be able to launch all of it's 2.5 tons of payload into LEO ??ankit-s wrote: No missile can launch a satellite unless modified. (check my previous post) You are limiting a payload to 250 Kg while I think the numbers may go even higher.
Agni III wasn't built to launch satellites.ankit-s wrote:At 200-250 Kg its not worth wasting Agni III, does not make economic sense because per Kg launch prices have come down anyway.
How did you arrive at above? It would be interesting to know whats the cross-over point for payload, where using missiles cease to be economical.ankit-s wrote:At 200-250 Kg its not worth wasting Agni III, does not make economic sense because per Kg launch prices have come down anyway.
A 3 stage vehicle whose Re-entry Vehicle is to be modified means one third of change coming only to hardware part itself. Then - in order for missile to reach LEO, you have to probabily modify its first stage for adequate thrust. I see more hardware here viz; replace the nose cone of such missile with payload fairing, which splits (vertically) open by way of pyro separation bolts at abt 120 KM, and for that you have to employ automatic timers to ignite the bolts.D Roy wrote:most of the "modifications" required to turn BMs into responsive space launch vehicles are on the software side of things.
Payload fairing is one of the main components of a launch vehicle.
In 1999, the launch of the IKONOS-1 Earth observation satellite failed after the payload fairing of the Athena rocket did not open properly.
On February 24, 2009, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite failed to reach orbit after liftoff presumably because the fairing on the Taurus XL launch vehicle failed to separate, causing the vehicle to retain too much mass and subsequently fall back to Earth; it landed in the Indian Ocean near Antarctica.
The same happened to the Naro-1, South Korea's first carrier rocket, launched on 25 August 2009. During the launch half of the payload's fairing failed to separate, and as a result the rocket was thrown off course. The satellite did not reach a stable orbit
a_kumar wrote:How did you arrive at above? It would be interesting to know whats the cross-over point for payload, where using missiles cease to be economical.ankit-s wrote:At 200-250 Kg its not worth wasting Agni III, does not make economic sense because per Kg launch prices have come down anyway.
http://www.financialexpress.com/printer/news/197384/ISRO won the contract to launch the Italian satellite, amidst stiff competition from other countries. As per estimates made by Antrix Corp, the commercial arm of the ISRO, the cost in the international market of launching commercial satellites into the polar orbit is about Rs13, 000-15,000 per kg and about Rs20, 000 per kg in the geo-stationary orbit.
What about capability to lauch multiple satellites within a short time. Such as 10 satellites within 30 days.kit wrote:I guess that would be ok if there is an emergency strategic imperative in a war scenario where indian satellites are knocked out.
that's a very good point. IMHO, launching from missiles would give you that redundancy provided alternate centres able to handle mating sats to missiles exist, which should be the case once we have the capability first.Acharya wrote:What about capability to lauch multiple satellites within a short time. Such as 10 satellites within 30 days.kit wrote:I guess that would be ok if there is an emergency strategic imperative in a war scenario where indian satellites are knocked out.
What about the protection of the launch sites so that in the event of war enemy could knock of the lunch sites. Does India have redundancy in the launching capacity
kit wrote:I guess that would be ok if there is an emergency strategic imperative in a war scenario where indian satellites are knocked out.
Something from the web world:jaladipc wrote:A-III costs ~42 crore while PSLV(latest version) costs ~120 crore Rs as per Dec-2009
The satellite launching market world wide is of billions of dollar.And space agencies/companies dont launch heavy sats all the time.Hence a major share does go to small ,medium,micro,nano sats.
Euroconsult forecasts that the increased average weight of a commercial geostationary satellite will occur especially at the upper end of the scale. Among the current crop of commercial telecommunications satellites under construction are several consumer broadband and mobile voice and data spacecraft weighing well over 13,277 pounds (6,000 kg).
Euroconsult found that 3 percent of commercial satellites currently on order and scheduled for launch by 2011 will weigh more than 14,330 pounds (6,500 kg) at launch. Between 2012 and 2018, the report says, 13 percent of all commercial telecommunications satellites will weigh more than 14,330 pounds, while another 27 percent will weigh between 12,125 pounds and 14,330 pounds (5,500-6,500 kg).
These figures exclude Russian-built satellites that are designed to be launched only by Russian Proton rockets directly into geostationary orbit. Most non-Russian telecommunications satellites are heavier than their Russian counterparts and are placed into a transfer orbit by their launch vehicle. They then use their own fuel to climb into final geostationary position.
If Euroconsult is correct, 40 percent of geostationary satellites ordered between 2012 and 2018 will weigh more than 12,125 pounds, compared to 29 percent in the past three years and just 17 percent earlier this decade.
Satellites in the lowest weight class for geostationary orbit - 1,500 kilograms to 3,500 kilograms - will retain their current market share of 24 percent, according to Euroconsult. The midrange class of spacecraft, between 7,716 pounds (3,500 kg) and 12,125 pounds, will lose market share. Such satellites represent 47 percent of commercial geostationary satellites currently under construction. They are expected to account for 36 percent of the spacecraft built between 2012 and 2018.
International Launch Services is the U.S. based company with exclusive rights for worldwide commercial sales and mission management of satellite launches on Russia's premier vehicle, the Proton. ILS is a long-standing, successful U.S.-Russian venture with exclusive rights to the worldwide sale of commercial Proton launch services. Since its creation in 1995, ILS has signed contracts for more than 100 launches valued at more than US $8 billion. Following its first launch in 1965, Proton has launched more than 350 times. Current backlog is 23 Proton missions.
One of the most expensive things about a space launch is the fuel. For every pound of payload launched into low Earth orbit, 25-50 pounds of fuel is required. Typical rockets are fueled by a combination of liquid hydrogen and oxygen, which both must be kept at very low temperatures using many tons of cryogenic cooling equipment. Think of a rocket as a very expensive refrigerator the size of a tall building.
The most promising routes to substantially reducing launch cost involve solutions where the payload does not need to bring fuel along with it during the ascent. This is one of the most expensive elements of a conventional rocket launch — a rocket needs to carry enough fuel not just to propel the payload, but also the remaining fuel on the way up. The bottom of the atmosphere is the densest and most costly in terms of energy to navigate through, but this is also where the rocket itself is heaviest, necessitating very large fuel tanks.
Satellites have an operating lifespan between five and twenty years. Currently, the former Soviet states launch about 1,300 satellites into orbit per year, the USA about 1,000, Japan 100, China 50, France 40, India 30, the UK 25, and a few from Australia and Israel. The company Sea Launch — a consortium of four companies from the United States, Russia, Ukraine and Norway — launches a few satellites into orbit from international waters every year.