Indian Space Program Discussion

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 25 Dec 2010 20:32

"A lot of data is available. So they will be able to find out what went wrong.”

He felt that this was “a freak mishap” as the early stages of the launch vehicle had been tested several times by India and have a 100 per cent success rate.

“It (the problem in the launch vehicle) cannot be something fundamentally wrong. It must be something big.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Dec 2010 20:37

Good show ISRO. From the video KrishG posted, things were fine till the explosion at the top..

Failures are part of life.Keep up the spirit ISRO! All the best in your next project.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 25 Dec 2010 20:40

now when is next GSLV launch?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Dec 2010 20:45

Rockets are not assembled like aircraft that can withstand attitudinal changes caused by maneuvering. The stages are attached to each other in a delicate manner to save weight and the effect on the overall structure is like toy building blocks resting one on top of the other. The whole structure is optimized for an inline flight path and as long as that path is followed in a planned trajectory maintaining a straight attitude, the structure holds. The slightest deviation will cause a breakup, most often from the top stage much like the top building block being the first to fall off. The top stage coming off could mean the rocket's flight path or attitude/orientation changed and this could mean that one or more of the strap-ons failed.

About the sabotage, of course this is a major issue but ISRO & GoI certainly takes all steps necessary in a quiet way. All launch nations have this fear because the launch business is not only critical for a country's progress, it is also very lucrative financially. Every failure is a lesson learned, so upwards and onwards. We'll see a launch soon.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Dec 2010 20:59

Singha wrote:as usual you managerial classes are blaming the lowly ITvity trooper for any failure.

Ah Trooper. Is it the managerial Jarnails fault that you didn't want to get a YumBeeYea?.

See, if you had got one, you would have got to know how to answer questions correctly. For eg like this.

Question : Mr Engineer - Why is the damn think not working?

Wrong Answer : Don't know saar. Let me find out what went wrong, confirm it and then tell you the best possible way to fix it.

See. That is the absolutely WRONG answer. You NEVER DON'T KNOW. You are doing "Deeper Analysis"

Right Answer: YumbeeBea Haahuvd & Muckinsey or Pain or Pee See Ji answers.

Applying the 80/20 rule, we have succeeded hugely beyond our expectations with very minimal effort. For the remaining 20% on why we felt just a wee bit short, we are doing "Deeper Analysis" where by applying the Magic Quadrant and the Matrix, we aim to identify the stars, dogs, cash cows and question marks, for which we propose a 6 month project which will be staffed by a Principal, 3 senior Associates and 5 Analysts, overseen by a Senior Partner who plays golf in the local country club with your CEO. Our standard rates are $1000/hr, $500 per hr and $300 per hour respectively with travel , board and other expenses extra.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Dec 2010 21:00

sameer_shelavale wrote:now when is next GSLV launch?

Not before this one is thoroughly analysed.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 25 Dec 2010 21:05

So the third stage was never ignited? Tragic is right but we must not give up. Just like the early SLV failures we must keep at it.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 25 Dec 2010 21:07

Totally agree with Victor.

We wish all the good luck to ISRO and successful year ahead. In this painful moment, we stand with you.

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 25 Dec 2010 21:07

sameer_shelavale wrote:now when is next GSLV launch?

Its akin to Priyanka Chopra just loosing her mom in an accident, and my papa is seeking to fix a date for an early marriage (for me) from her.

Joke aside, why would they reach for the future date without ascertaining what went wrong with the F-06?

If your gonna do something tonight that you'll be sorry for in the (early) morning, sleep late.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Dec 2010 21:19

BTW just a conspiracy theory question..

Is it possible to distinguish between any genuine failure or act of sabotage , I mean if one is knowledgeable enough one can cloak an act of sabotage as genuine component/software/quality control problem ? Can such things go unnoticed or just pass through while doing deep analysis ?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 25 Dec 2010 21:22

Austin,

This is a good question. With a lot of telemetry data, they will zero in on the problem to a large extent. But if it is something which existing QC procedures would have anticipated and taken care of, deliberate negligence/sabotage will have to be investigated.

In the long run, manufacturing facilities related to these tasks should themselves be directly under SFC oversight. This will lead to a more regimented approach in handling these matters.

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 25 Dec 2010 21:36

Austin wrote:BTW just a conspiracy theory question..

Is it possible to distinguish between any genuine failure or act of sabotage , I mean if one is knowledgeable enough one can cloak an act of sabotage as genuine component/software/quality control problem ? Can such things go unnoticed or just pass through while doing deep analysis ?

Remember the Challenger (space shuttle) saga where they found O rings to be responsible for disaster?

Roger Boisjoly, the engineer who had warned about the effect of cold weather on the O-rings, left his job at Morton Thiokol and became a speaker on workplace ethics.

Above was a thorough investigation.

Matt Stone · Post by **Matt Stone** » 25 Dec 2010 21:58

Today i was watching live ISRO launch of GSLV carrying GSAT-5P and i was really sad to see it getting wasted like that.

I know many will say that we are in learning curve, we will learn, will will succeed, these failures are just stepping stones to success etc etc

But the reality is we are way way behind any space technology.
Today's failure was very tragic since it blew up in first stage itself.

First stage is reliable proven stage and is similar to PSLV which has a good track record.
The technology that russia, US had decades ago, we are still not able to even match that.

We still dont have our own indigenous Cryogenic Upper Stage engine;we still rely upon Russia (BTW still 1 engine of Russia is left with us and after that we need to import more )
GSLV development started during 1990's

PSLV cannot be used to launch communication satellite and heavy satellites in geo synchronous orbits (above 36000 Km )
They are normally used to launch remote sensing and polar,sun synchronous satellites which i must say we have plenty and dont need any more. (However chandrayana was launched in a modified version of PSLV)

I think its time for ISRO to introduce drastic changes.

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 25 Dec 2010 21:59

A better quality graphic of last momenta is reproduced here.
Presently without comments.

Matt Stone · Post by **Matt Stone** » 25 Dec 2010 22:01

And BTW we cannot take example of previous failure attempts made by USSR , US etc during their development stage.
That time was different.
Now present time is different. We have so many advancements in field of VLSI,MEMS. Aeronautics, Avionics etc etc Improvements in design,simulation , availability of super computers etc are (+) points of today's technology
Earlier days failure was due to primitive technology.

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 25 Dec 2010 22:05

superman wrote:Today i was watching live ISRO launch of GSLV carrying GSAT-5P and i was really sad to see it getting wasted like that.

I know many will say that we are in learning curve, we will learn, will will succeed, these failures are just stepping stones to success etc etc

But the reality is we are way way behind any space technology.
Today's failure was very tragic since it blew up in first stage itself.

First stage is reliable proven stage and is similar to PSLV which has a good track record.
The technology that russia, US had decades ago, we are still not able to even match that.

We still dont have our own indigenous Cryogenic Upper Stage engine;we still rely upon Russia (BTW still 1 engine of Russia is left with us and after that we need to import more )
GSLV development started during 1990's

PSLV cannot be used to launch communication satellite and heavy satellites in geo synchronous orbits (above 36000 Km )
They are normally used to launch remote sensing and polar,sun synchronous satellites which i must say we have plenty and dont need any more. (However chandrayana was launched in a modified version of PSLV)

I think its time for ISRO to introduce drastic changes.

PSLV has payload weight restriction. Technically if it can place the last stage in transfer orbit it is sufficient. Later it is only the apogee motor which does the further kamaal.

S_Prasad · Post by **S_Prasad** » 25 Dec 2010 22:17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otwGH9YU6_A

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 25 Dec 2010 22:18

superman, please save our rockets!!
and while at it, save yourself from ebil Admins

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 25 Dec 2010 22:23

PSLV is capable of launching 1600 kg satellites in 620 km sun-synchronous polar orbit and 1050 kg satellite in geo-synchronous transfer orbit.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 25 Dec 2010 22:26

why do experimental rockets carry real & costly satellites?
Why cant they cary dummy load to test the rocket first

just like every test Agni doesn't carry a live warhead

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 25 Dec 2010 22:39

It may be possible that this failure is due to configuration change in the vehicle(?) - this vehicle was reported to be taller and heavier, and IIRC a larger payload fairing.

The new configuration may have caused some unforeseen aerodynamic stress(?), or some aerodynamic forces beyond the control systems programming / capabilities(?).

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 25 Dec 2010 22:41

AdityaM wrote:why do experimental rockets carry real & costly satellites?
Why cant they cary dummy load to test the rocket first

just like every test Agni doesn't carry a live warhead

ISRO overconfidence!

The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which someone's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than their objective accuracy, especially when confidence is relatively high

Matt Stone · Post by **Matt Stone** » 25 Dec 2010 22:41

AdityaM wrote:superman, please save our rockets!!
and while at it, save yourself from ebil Admins

who are ebil Admins ?

Matt Stone · Post by **Matt Stone** » 25 Dec 2010 22:43

juvva wrote:It may be possible that this failure is due to configuration change in the vehicle(?) - this vehicle was reported to be taller and heavier, and IIRC a larger payload fairing.

The new configuration may have caused some unforeseen aerodynamic stress(?), or some aerodynamic forces beyond the control systems programming / capabilities(?).

yes may be.
This was the heaviest satellite being carried by this GSLV

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 25 Dec 2010 22:47

There were reports of ISRO needing to scale to 8 launches a year starting 2011, unless they get the Indian CUS working soon, they don't have an option

And as a routine policy they should save the sats in case the self-destruct button is to be pressed

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 25 Dec 2010 22:49

juvva wrote:It may be possible that this failure is due to configuration change in the vehicle(?) - this vehicle was reported to be taller and heavier, and IIRC a larger payload fairing.

The new configuration may have caused some unforeseen aerodynamic stress(?), or some aerodynamic forces beyond the control systems programming / capabilities(?).

ISRO has graduated from smaller configuration/payload to higher/heavier/bigger stuff. From SLV to ASLV to PSLV to GSLV to GSLV-II.

What is the difference NOW?

Ariane has bigger load than GSLV, why it does not fail often?

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Dec 2010 23:02

superman wrote:Today i was watching live ISRO launch of GSLV carrying GSAT-5P and i was really sad to see it getting wasted like that.

Condolences on your sadness. The law of the averages caught up with us. Can you also please express some sadness in the 1.04 lakh crore 2G scandal. Maybe some more money to ISRO will help and take their sadness away!

The technology that russia, US had decades ago, we are still not able to even match that.

Complete tripe.

We still dont have our own indigenous Cryogenic Upper Stage engine;we still rely upon Russia (BTW still 1 engine of Russia is left with us and after that we need to import more )GSLV development started during 1990's

More tripe

PSLV cannot be used to launch communication satellite and heavy satellites in geo synchronous orbits (above 36000 Km ). They are normally used to launch remote sensing and polar,sun synchronous satellites which i must say we have plenty and dont need any more. (However chandrayana was launched in a modified version of PSLV)

Why not? It launched Kalpana-I before! It is still up there in the geo-synch orbit.

I think its time for ISRO to introduce drastic changes.

Like? Some posters suggested, Mr. Subrahmaniam is bad luck. So do you want to join ISRO and change his luck?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Dec 2010 23:04

Are these Sattelite and SLV insured so that atleast the financial loss is absorbed ?

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Dec 2010 23:06

ashokpachori wrote:Ariane has bigger load than GSLV, why it does not fail often?

Ariane also had its share of failures.

I am sure you are aware of that, GSLV is still in development stage with three models, one with CUS from Russia, another with CUS from Russia - with extended parameters and third with indigenous CUS.

Each model has seen its share of failures. And sometimes freak accidents occur. The goal of ISRO should be to launch more of this rockets, and reduce their table top testing.

Matt Stone · Post by **Matt Stone** » 25 Dec 2010 23:08

disha wrote:
superman wrote:Today i was watching live ISRO launch of GSLV carrying GSAT-5P and i was really sad to see it getting wasted like that.
Condolences on your sadness. The law of the averages caught up with us. Can you also please express some sadness in the 1.04 lakh crore 2G scandal. Maybe some more money to ISRO will help and take their sadness away!

The technology that russia, US had decades ago, we are still not able to even match that.
Complete tripe.

We still dont have our own indigenous Cryogenic Upper Stage engine;we still rely upon Russia (BTW still 1 engine of Russia is left with us and after that we need to import more )GSLV development started during 1990's
More tripe

PSLV cannot be used to launch communication satellite and heavy satellites in geo synchronous orbits (above 36000 Km ). They are normally used to launch remote sensing and polar,sun synchronous satellites which i must say we have plenty and dont need any more. (However chandrayana was launched in a modified version of PSLV)
Why not? It launched Kalpana-I before! It is still up there in the geo-synch orbit.

I think its time for ISRO to introduce drastic changes.
Like? Some posters suggested, Mr. Subrahmaniam is bad luck. So do you want to join ISRO and change his luck?

Can i ask you what tripe in my message ? Did you told anything wrong .. If yes please correct me

And i said clearly PSLV cannot be used to launch heavy satellites in geo synchronous orbits. Kalpana-I is not a heavy satellite. Off-course it can launch mid and low sized payloads to GTO

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Dec 2010 23:13

AdityaM wrote:why do experimental rockets carry real & costly satellites?
Why cant they cary dummy load to test the rocket first, just like every test Agni doesn't carry a live warhead

First of all are you sure that Agni carries a "dummy" warhead and not a warhead with its pit removed? Just because you do not see a huge nuke explosion does not mean that the warhead is entirely dummy.

Coming to ISRO, also what about the case where the rocket actually succeeds and is able to insert the dummy in the GTO orbit? What you get is a space debris at a high orbit! Will take several decades for it to come down. Also the cost for preparing the dummy and preparing the actual satellite may not be much more in the Indian context., and by making more satellites and reusing some of their parts one can benefit from economies of scale.

Just to assure you the guys at ISRO are rocket scientists with their share of failures. We as a nation go into collective paroxysms and self-flagellation for every small failures - little realising that several such failures are stepping stones to success.

ashokpachori wrote: ISRO overconfidence!

The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which someone's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than their objective accuracy, especially when confidence is relatively high

Sir, are you trying to become Wendy Doniger?

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Dec 2010 23:20

Matt Stone wrote:Can i ask you what tripe in my message ? Did you told anything wrong .. If yes please correct me

Nah - too much time. I think you can read. One good source is WoF and another is Wikipedia on SLV and follow it through GSLV.

And i said clearly PSLV cannot be used to launch heavy satellites in geo synchronous orbits. Kalpana-I is not a heavy satellite. Off-course it can launch mid and low sized payloads to GTO

I think 1000kg is heavy. Now in 1000kg., one can have communication satellite or met satellites or dummy satellites to GTO. Might not be efficient, but then that is ISRO's lookout.

Now if you follow the Indian Space Program - it is SLV/ASLV/PSLV and then GSLV., GSLV is natural progression of PSLV., actually what you see is nothing but PSLV on heavy steroids leading to GSLV.

And yes India has a Cryogenic Engine and a Cryogenic Stage. What it does not have yet and can get there if need be in 2 years is a proven cryogenic stage. We waited so long, what's 2 more years - space is not going away!

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 25 Dec 2010 23:21

disha wrote:
ashokpachori wrote:Ariane has bigger load than GSLV, why it does not fail often?
Ariane also had its share of failures.

I am sure you are aware of that, GSLV is still in development stage with three models, one with CUS from Russia, another with CUS from Russia - with extended parameters and third with indigenous CUS.

Each model has seen its share of failures. And sometimes freak accidents occur. The goal of ISRO should be to launch more of this rockets, and reduce their table top testing.

I never said Ariane has unblemish record did I?

On the second and third paragraph on awareness:

What you have written is already in public domain and is well known, nothing that can be written home about!

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Dec 2010 23:24

SSSalvi wrote:A better quality graphic of last momenta is reproduced here.
Presently without comments.

My initial quick comments:

1. Veering off the trajectory noticed prior to S1BO (Stage 1 Burn Out)
2. It could be a control error to the Stage 1 Motor (or)
3. It could be a control error in the LSP Motors (one of them misbehaving)

If pt. 2 above: extremely freak., since the Stage 1 Motor has been tested thoroughly in several GSLV Flights

From past pt. 3 likely.

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Dec 2010 23:27

ashokpachori wrote:On the second and third paragraph on awareness:

What you have written is already in public domain and is well known, nothing that can be written home about!

I know that you know. What I am suggesting to you humbly is correlate your own knowledge with your own questions. Hint: Arianne does not have multiple variables like GSLV. Hint: There is a reason for that, for eg. something to do with Dog legs. Hint Hint: There is also something to do with technology denial regime.

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 25 Dec 2010 23:29

I think 1000kg is heavy

But what is the actual definition of actual mass of the payload as per the international aeroscpace industry practices?

If I differ with your above claim and instead say that its not heavy - its a medium payload, how would you substantiate your argument?

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Dec 2010 23:35

ashokpachori wrote:I think 1000kg is heavy

But what is the actual definition of actual mass of the payload as per the international aeroscpace industry practices?

If I differ with your above claim and instead say that its not heavy - its a medium payload, how would you substantiate your argument?

I will not disagree with you. In fact I would hasten to say that in American context, that is down right puny. So it is indeed a puny satellite. In Indian context maybe mid-to-heavy satellite.

From American perspective, everything has to be supersized - houses, cars, roads, cities (and there is a good reason for it). This need not be the case from Indian perpective. What matters at the end of the day is launch cost per Kg of payload.

Matt Stone · Post by **Matt Stone** » 25 Dec 2010 23:36

disha wrote:
Matt Stone wrote:Can i ask you what tripe in my message ? Did you told anything wrong .. If yes please correct me
Nah - too much time. I think you can read. One good source is WoF and another is Wikipedia on SLV and follow it through GSLV.

And i said clearly PSLV cannot be used to launch heavy satellites in geo synchronous orbits. Kalpana-I is not a heavy satellite. Off-course it can launch mid and low sized payloads to GTO
I think 1000kg is heavy. Now in 1000kg., one can have communication satellite or met satellites or dummy satellites to GTO. Might not be efficient, but then that is ISRO's lookout.

Now if you follow the Indian Space Program - it is SLV/ASLV/PSLV and then GSLV., GSLV is natural progression of PSLV., actually what you see is nothing but PSLV on heavy steroids leading to GSLV.

And yes India has a Cryogenic Engine and a Cryogenic Stage. What it does not have yet and can get there if need be in 2 years is a proven cryogenic stage. We waited so long, what's 2 more years - space is not going away!

Oh i have just not used the word "proven" cryogenic upper stage stage in my reply.

In my dummy terms thats equivalent that "We have not yet developed cryogenic upper stage engine yet that WORKS" .

What i stated in my message is true but sorry but i cant match YOUR BRILLIANCY in using right words but i have used similar words

And some Wikipedia entries
PSLV: PSLV can also launch small size satellites into geostationary transfer orbit
(GTO).

And some articles to prove that we still dont have PROVEN cryogenic upper stage engine
http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/gslv-fai ... -20108.php

I may be a new member but just criticizing me for the opinion's and facts (which are true) is not fair i think. I clearly see a sense of arrogance and bulliness in your replies to me.

And you comparing the cost to scam ; i am not taking about money here - I am talking about the time that is taken to design a proven indigenous GSLV

disha · Post by **disha** » 25 Dec 2010 23:37

It was indeed self-destruct. SIFY article confirms it.

http://www.sify.com/news/split-second-d ... eggdg.html

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 25 Dec 2010 23:37

disha wrote:
ashokpachori wrote:On the second and third paragraph on awareness:

What you have written is already in public domain and is well known, nothing that can be written home about!
I know that you know. What I am suggesting to you humbly is correlate your own knowledge with your own questions. Hint: Arianne does not have multiple variables like GSLV. Hint: There is a reason for that, for eg. something to do with Dog legs. Hint Hint: There is also something to do with technology denial regime.

What above has got to do with pure technicality on failure that took place?

What difference would have the dog leg (advantage or otherwise) have on possible component failure as last time (turbo pump)?

Despite tech denial regime, we are going for GSLV-III how? If tech denial regime bears the cause of failure, then pray tell me how were the previous launches so succesful, as in a text book manner?