Indian Space Program Discussion

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Jun 2010 04:51

Well, ISRO went in for cryogenic engine development ahead of semi-cryo, despite the fact that the latter is easier and cheaper to develop and operate, and could have provided traction in the marketplace sooner.

Besides, nobody fuels their ballistic missiles with LH2/LOX - they fuel them with kerosene and solid fuels. India should have gone for semi-cryo first, and then at least they would have been in the game, while developing cryo tech.

ISRO seems to have gone with the highest tech, at highest cost and greatest delays. A private company would have made the right decision from the start because of cost/capability considerations, as can be seen with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. Ultimately, economics trumps all but the most fundamental physical barriers.

ISRO may barely be able to hold its own against the new ultra-cheap entrants like SpaceX, but a private Indian player would once again regain a clear lead on cost. Furthermore, if they score big, then they could attract other Indian imitators.

Imagine that ISRO licenses others to produce and operate PSLV, who then launch from ISRO's own facilities. This could attract multiple players, who would then compete and lower costs. Furthermore, suppose ISRO's licensing fees are charged based on the technologies used for the rocket. Then private operators might have more incentive to develop their own IP and graft it onto PSLV, in order to reduce licensing costs. This would help to evolve the platform. Furthermore, any improved IP/tech developed by the private players could then be marketed back to ISRO for its use on its own flagship GSLV launcher - or marketed abroad to foreign customers. Same thing could be done for satellite technology.

As you've all pointed out, space is a high-capital cost high-risk industry. The safest and possibly most profitable way is to allow others to participate in making incremental improvements, rather than big leaps that could fail miserably.

PSLV would at least provide a basic solid platform which can serve as a starting point with basic traction in the marketplace, in order for others to build upon and evolve off of it. Private players could start off by getting contracts to manufacture PSLV components for ISRO to integrate and then launch. Then the next step is to have private players who would integrate the components and supply wholly assembled vehicles for ISRO to launch. Then finally, you'd have private players launching and operating the vehicles to put payloads into orbit for ISRO and other private customers.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 26 Jun 2010 06:25

I am sorry, but am I missing the point here. Is that only if we see Reliance or TATA printed on the launch vehicle that it becomes a launch vehicle with private industry participation? I myself picked a few stocks recently after reading BR

Competition that we have now is not at the launch level, but it is at the component level which has private industry participation. I guess that there is a level of efficiency that we achieve via this. Also a strong domestic market is needed for high level of competition envisioned above. An export oriented business will look good on a pie chart showing the launch market share, but such an industry need not survive for a long time as 1. we cannot keep the cost low for long time and 2. our sustainance is highly dependent on other economies. America is an acclaimed world leader in all the fields where they had/have a strong domestic market. The next step in our space oddesey is actually to increase the need for satellite based technology and services. That would increase the demand for more satellites effectively leading to more launches and larger market share for sustaining more than one ISRO's.

And its not an easy task to bring up IT operations of the scale that we see now India in such short notice. Resource availability, reliability, experience, cost advantage are few words that creeps into my mind the moment I think about handing over IT operations to a vendor. The major players in the Indian IT industry have existed for more than two decades and whose early execution helped in opening up new business opportunities for others. This is something common across business whether it is IT or satellite launch. So it is apple to apple and oranges to oranges.

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 26 Jun 2010 08:02

Sanjay M wrote:Well, ISRO went in for cryogenic engine development ahead of semi-cryo, despite the fact that the latter is easier and cheaper to develop and operate, and could have provided traction in the marketplace sooner.
....

They also went in for a difficult cycle (staged combustion) before operating gas generator engines.
Maybe when funds are an issue they had to set priorities.
I am impressed with spacex idea of clustering together 9 merlins (simple gas genrator) together in the first stage to achieve the required thrust rather than developing a single complex cycle engine.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Jun 2010 09:06

JimmyJ wrote:I am sorry, but am I missing the point here. Is that only if we see Reliance or TATA printed on the launch vehicle that it becomes a launch vehicle with private industry participation? I myself picked a few stocks recently after reading BR

Competition that we have now is not at the launch level, but it is at the component level which has private industry participation.

Sure, we can have competition in component manufacture, but components are made to the specifications of the one OEM: ISRO. It's like saying that why do we benefit from having multiple carmakers, as opposed to just one carmaker being supplied by many component makers? Ultimately there are all kinds of different design choices, decision-making, and evolutionary paths that result from having different carmakers.
Also, the competition between the different carmakers drives the ultimate car cost down, more so than just having competition between the component makers. Having only one carmaker means that he might be able to squeeze all the component makers under him to cut costs if he chooses to, but nobody can squeeze him to get him to cut costs on his side, or to improve his designs, etc. For proof, see GM et al.

The benefit of having multiple launch providers would be to create pressure for new efficiencies, innovations, improvements across the board - whether at the component level, the overall platform design level, the services level, operations level, the level of sales and marketing to customers, etc. You want to create competition at as many levels as possible, to leverage as many improvements/efficiencies as possible across the whole chain.

I guess that there is a level of efficiency that we achieve via this. Also a strong domestic market is needed for high level of competition envisioned above. An export oriented business will look good on a pie chart showing the launch market share, but such an industry need not survive for a long time as 1. we cannot keep the cost low for long time and 2. our sustainance is highly dependent on other economies. America is an acclaimed world leader in all the fields where they had/have a strong domestic market. The next step in our space oddesey is actually to increase the need for satellite based technology and services. That would increase the demand for more satellites effectively leading to more launches and larger market share for sustaining more than one ISRO's.

Well, India is a nation of TV addicts, with people learning to string up satellite dishes before even getting decent plumbing. India is also infrastructure constrained, since you can't get factories or roads built without pulling your teeth out - so that means call centres, data centres, and other high value-per-acre facilities are the only things that can get built. This seems to have made India a "tech/knowledge-oriented" economy - by necessity, rather than by virtue - since hardly anybody is willing to brave the armies of screaming protesters, activists and lawyers just to build a shoe factory.

So, therefore aerospace and other high-end industries are among the few that can breach the pain-reward barrier.

And its not an easy task to bring up IT operations of the scale that we see now India in such short notice. Resource availability, reliability, experience, cost advantage are few words that creeps into my mind the moment I think about handing over IT operations to a vendor. The major players in the Indian IT industry have existed for more than two decades and whose early execution helped in opening up new business opportunities for others. This is something common across business whether it is IT or satellite launch. So it is apple to apple and oranges to oranges.

Private players can draw international talent as well as domestic talent - just like IPL.
ISRO can provide training to a private partner to get them going. What's necessary is to give tech transfer under license to that private partner. Once they learn how to operate the basic PSLV system well enough to provide services, they can start serving ISRO's needs, as well as the needs of commercial customers on the international market. Hell, they could even offer services to NASA and ISS, once they have enough credibility. If somebody else's rocket explodes tragically, then at least a backup provider could step in to meet the supply timeline, rather than risking anyone's life thru strained schedules.

Arunkumar wrote:They also went in for a difficult cycle (staged combustion) before operating gas generator engines.
Maybe when funds are an issue they had to set priorities.
I am impressed with spacex idea of clustering together 9 merlins (simple gas genrator) together in the first stage to achieve the required thrust rather than developing a single complex cycle engine.

SpaceX is also already developing a Merlin-2 engine, which will be considerably more powerful than the existing Merlin engine:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1

If private launch providers like SpaceX do usher in a new space race with their aggressive new capabilities and ambitious hard-driving mentalities, then it would be nice to have private Indian providers employing a similar approach to keep India from falling too far behind. If the space market does pick up due to a new era of private competition, then Indian providers could be able to raise more capital from the private markets, and apply it more efficiently for focused development. Well-funded govt programs by contrast, are notorious sinkholes for money. Private Indian launch providers could be much more creative in drumming up business opportunities as well.

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 26 Jun 2010 12:01

Involving private players with PSLV directly would be case of biting of more than what they can chew. For a start, a design competition among private companies for a small air dropped pegasus type launcher for launching cube sats, nano sats could be held to help build design competency. Next ISRO could probably offload launching of sounding rockets, cubesats, nanosats, edusats to the winning private company. Assistance in terms of using infrastructure like launch pads, solid\liquid feuls supply could be provided.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 26 Jun 2010 19:50

Sanjay,

If there was a single private monopoly yes what you said would absolutely correct about the launch pricing. But here we are talking about a government agency, ISRO, catering to the needs of the government. So I truly fail to see how the pricing could be artificially high. Also when you look at getting a share of the international launch market, immediately you are looking at competition. Again it would be impossible for the ISRO to quote a lower price tag for an international order while a higher one for its owners for the same requirement. So yes there is a downward pressure on pricing even in this scenario.

Now on attracting international talent, I do not think it has anything to do with private or government company. We have collaborated with international firms on the Kaveri and LCA development. Even a private industry player would find it difficult to hire international talent in the aftermath of a nuclear test, unless they are looking at Iran, Venezuela, N.Korea or Myanmar. It is the industry that would get sanctioned not just the government owned company.

Private industry has the ability to bring about efficiency and competition, but when we look at space where there are lot of issues concerning national security and dual use of technology, I fail to see them thrive without genuine demand.

So, therefore aerospace and other high-end industries are among the few that can breach the pain-reward barrier.

Here comes the age of 'Space activist' the protectors of the Milky Way ushered by an extremely cost efficient space tourism program further increasing there reach. The MENACE is spreading

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Jun 2010 21:45

Arunkumar wrote:Involving private players with PSLV directly would be case of biting of more than what they can chew. For a start, a design competition among private companies for a small air dropped pegasus type launcher for launching cube sats, nano sats could be held to help build design competency. Next ISRO could probably offload launching of sounding rockets, cubesats, nanosats, edusats to the winning private company. Assistance in terms of using infrastructure like launch pads, solid\liquid feuls supply could be provided.

Well, a lower-tech ASLV type of vehicle could launch a few hundred pounds of payload to orbit:

http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/india/launch/aslv.htm

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

A few hundred pounds is nothing to sneeze at, if you think about it. This does offer some opportunity for commercial ventures and basic traction in the marketplace - especially if it could be done at really low cost. From there, the platform could incrementally evolve, especially if it launches with higher frequency. It could then become a cheap testbed for all kinds of incremental improvements and innovations. At that payload class, it would not threaten ISRO's existing business. This could be done for some years, as a prelude to moving upto PSLV-sized launch systems.

How much would an ASLV launch cost today, I wonder? How cheaply could it be done?

How cheaply could an SLV launch be done? Could it eventually be pared down to a few hundred thousand dollars with practice, being a simpler and more homogenous launch system?

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

Which offers more bang for the buck?

If you could hit some really sweet spot, where you're offering a really good price while still giving a useful payload capacity, then you might be able to find a "blue ocean" where nobody else can compete with you. And if you end up doing many small launches at a higher frequency, you could even put up entire satellite networks. With the ever shrinking size of electronics, how much payload capacity do you really need?

JimmyJ wrote:Sanjay,

If there was a single private monopoly yes what you said would absolutely correct about the launch pricing. But here we are talking about a government agency, ISRO, catering to the needs of the government. So I truly fail to see how the pricing could be artificially high. Also when you look at getting a share of the international launch market, immediately you are looking at competition. Again it would be impossible for the ISRO to quote a lower price tag for an international order while a higher one for its owners for the same requirement. So yes there is a downward pressure on pricing even in this scenario.

ISRO is not in the business of lowering its prices and improving its cost efficiencies to nab international launch contracts. Only private entities do this. So ISRO's costs will stay high for all customers, since it has no faces no great need or incentive to lower them, as it lives off public funding. The only thing that ISRO feels incentivized to do, is to make ever grander promises, because that's how they obtain funding increases. The more pie-in-the-sky promises they can make to politicians, the more money they get - living upto promises notwithstanding. ("Shorry da latesht launch vosn't shucceshful boss, but itsh a kompleksh technologee onlee! Let us make it upto you by promising a man on Mars in 2030! Five years after my retirement, of course!")

Now on attracting international talent, I do not think it has anything to do with private or government company. We have collaborated with international firms on the Kaveri and LCA development. Even a private industry player would find it difficult to hire international talent in the aftermath of a nuclear test, unless they are looking at Iran, Venezuela, N.Korea or Myanmar. It is the industry that would get sanctioned not just the government owned company.

By the time India does another nuclear test, India will have a far larger economy and domestic market of its own. Furthermore, the decline of US international clout means that its sanctions are less likely to be followed by others (witness Turkey, Brazil on Iran). Even in the event of international sanctions, India's political track record is to boost swadeshi indijinushnesh, which would mean an increase in govt-funded contracts for any domestic private launch provider.

Private industry has the ability to bring about efficiency and competition, but when we look at space where there are lot of issues concerning national security and dual use of technology, I fail to see them thrive without genuine demand.

It's not India's national security which would suffer, since everybody we're fighting with is our immediate neighbor, and has no need of ICBMs to hit us.

So, therefore aerospace and other high-end industries are among the few that can breach the pain-reward barrier.
Here comes the age of 'Space activist' the protectors of the Milky Way ushered by an extremely cost efficient space tourism program further increasing there reach. The MENACE is spreading

I just think that we Indians can do the same engineering that the gora logh can do, and at lower cost, rather than suffering brain drain and marginalization. Look how many desis work for NASA, when they could have instead been working for India.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 27 Jun 2010 08:21

1) Where are the potential customers for an Indian Launch service with a large market?

Mostly US and Russia, since these countries have the largest number of launches. Both markets are tightly protected from using foreign launchers, since it is a question of protecting jobs even in the US and more so the technical expertise.There lies the answer to the vague markets and "money" to be made that people refer to both here as well as in ISRO brochures and press releases.

2) US as in NASA, has no stated policy on using foreign launchers even for science payloads, except one-off ones like Chandrayaan. Even here they do not like to work on joint missions for payloads.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 27 Jun 2010 11:22

A cheap low-cost Indian launch provider could service the 3rd world. Even China is pursuing that strategy.

Anybody who restricts their private sector on choice, whether the Americans or anybody else, will only end up with higher costs. In other words, low-cost Indian launchers would provide a cost advantage that could give their customers a competitive cost advantage over those who go with other more expensive launchers for whatever reason.

By the same token, India restricts its farmers from selling to foreign markets, and as a result the Indian agriculture sector is much less developed than its Western counterparts. By restricting the freedom of action of those who would otherwise avail themselves of the cheapest possible launch provider, the US would be penalizing its own businesses on competitiveness.

There are all kinds of useful services that can be provided over satellite networks. India is itself the 2nd-largest cellphone market in the world. Imagine what Indian carriers could do with the right satellite network, erected at much lower cost. They could even make inroads into foreign markets by making use of their own satellite networks, operating and maintaining them at lower cost.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 27 Jun 2010 14:18

This looks more economics than science, but if someone could split the cost of a satellite launch into various items/tasks involved we would at least be able to see where the cost could be reduced. But even then there is a limit to which we could bring it down. Beyond a point only a change in the technology or approach could help. The reusable launch vehicle is a concept proposed in such a direction.

Also one doubt. Antrix Corporation Limited is the business and marketing arm of ISRO offering services to even international clients. So is the funding for this wing coming from ISRO via GOI or from the revenue earned on services offered?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 27 Jun 2010 18:17

I'll wager that Antrix does not run on the revenue it earns, since there is not much to be made. It is just a front so that core ISRO people are free from the hassles of managing and selling services of ISRO to non-GoI agencies. It is a pure marketing arm for ISRO for interface with commercial interests. Similar commercial space services companies in the US would be in quite deep trouble too financially, if you take away the DOD and NSA aka govermand patronage that they enjoy.

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 27 Jun 2010 18:26

Bade wrote: .....
Similar commercial space services companies in the US would be in quite deep trouble too financially, if you take away the DOD and NSA aka govermand patronage that they enjoy.
.......

True. Sea launch has already filed for bankruptcy.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1005/14sealaunch/

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 27 Jun 2010 22:34

JimmyJ wrote:This looks more economics than science, but if someone could split the cost of a satellite launch into various items/tasks involved we would at least be able to see where the cost could be reduced. But even then there is a limit to which we could bring it down. Beyond a point only a change in the technology or approach could help. The reusable launch vehicle is a concept proposed in such a direction.

Yeah, but whereas a throw-away vehicle can be made cheaply enough to work right just once, a reusable vehicle has to be made rugged enough to survive the harsh conditions multiple times over, at a high level of reliability. Look at the huge costs of Space Shuttle refurbishment from one launch to the next - it's not a true reusable vehicle. The level of reusability has to be over a certain threshold, in order to realize the fruits of cost-savings. Also, you're going to be stuck with that platform for some time, as it lives out its lifespan, which limits the improvements you can make to it.

Another form of cost-savings is to launch many payloads at once, with a heavy lift vehicle. One launch delivering multiple payloads can reduce overall costs, but it requires some coordination, and then you're constrained to grouping payloads by orbit-type.

The idea of mass-producing many cheap launchers is another approach which could have merit. You achieve cost-savings through production volume and economies of scale. Because you are churning out new vehicles on a more frequent basis, you are able to refine your production process as well as the design, for quality purposes. You are able to build up expertise with the basic materials, systems and manufacturing techniques, much of which would be scaleable and adaptable to bigger platforms later on. This might then be more suitable as an early approach, since it helps to develop that "ecosystem" of design and manufacture, which can then be marketed to a wider field of industries for broader benefits.

Also one doubt. Antrix Corporation Limited is the business and marketing arm of ISRO offering services to even international clients. So is the funding for this wing coming from ISRO via GOI or from the revenue earned on services offered?

From what I've read, Antrix is not very customer service-oriented, and they've lost customers because of that.

Regarding the subject of "dual-use" for civilian and military purposes, it makes me wonder about an alternative form of "dual use" for aerospace and non-aerospace purposes. For instance, turbo-pumps are used not just for rockets, but for non-aerospace applications as well. Most component manufacturers aren't going to purely sustain themselves on aerospace sales, but are going to sell for other applications too. Perhaps India would be better off cultivating these affiliated industries to build up their capabilities, which would then rub off on their aerospace products. That would mean offering more incentives, tax breaks, etc for these types of industries in order to build them up. The fruits of this could then later be harvested on the aerospace side.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 29 Jun 2010 06:24

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1655/1

Previous comparisons between the privately-developed Falcon 9 and India’s
government-developed GSLV fail to take into account the record of success
built up by India’s PSLV. (credit: ISRO)

Here's another quote:

Because of a lack of funding, India discontinued the ASLV in favor of the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), which started launching in 1993.

In which case, why discard a perfectly good platform due to lack of funding, if it could be spun off to the private sector? A privately-run ASLV could prep private partners for eventually taking over the PSLV, since the latter was evolved from the former.

If ASLV has an out-of-the-box capability to deliver 150kg to orbit, then it could conceivably be improved by its operators to deliver even more. An operator focusing first and foremost on cost-savings and reliability could find a niche in the marketplace by undercutting its competitors on price. Even if ISRO hopes to develop RLV, it won't be available for awhile, and there's no sense ceding the market competitors in the meantime.

An ASLV-Mk2 could be given 2 extra solid boosters, for a total of 4, in order to increase its payload capacity. The rocket could then be scaled up to larger size. Spare payload capacity could be used to test new systems, components, etc, to validate new technologies and make incremental improvements.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 29 Jun 2010 11:07

Transferring ASLV or PSLV drawings to private companies is similar to India getting ToT on defense purchases.It will be screw driver technology only. The private companies have to invest in research and come up with their own designs. If at all you want to compare a Godrej or Tata with SpaceX, let them come up with their own launchers - from scratch.

What does ISRO gain by transitioning stuff off to privates? Do we consider the effort/time involved in educating them versus the gains in terms of royalty?
What is the minimum qualifying criteria for a company?
And what is going to be the differentiator between two private companies acquiring this knowledge? ISRO will give more details to those paying more money? How are they to ensure their competitive edge?
How long can these companies sustain their development on screwdriver technology without a strong research and new talent (brewed in Indian colleges and Universities)?
And how soon can these companies deliver?

Comparison with SpaceX is totally flawed. Indian high tech industry is not as mature American ones. Indian universities are not doing as much cutting edge research as American universities. Indian business men are not as much risk takers as their American counterparts. SpaceX took 6 years to deliver, our companies will easily take more than 16.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 29 Jun 2010 11:31

Obama unveils new space policy, to enhance cooperation with India

President Barack Obama unveiled a new national space policy designed to strengthen US' leadership in space and putting emphasis on greater cooperation with India.

Shortly after the policy was announced yesterday, White House officials in a conference call with reporters said the US emphasises a lot on its co —operation with India, noting the south Asian country has a "very space friendly" programme.

The US greatly values India's emergence as a global player in space and research and aims to deepen its cooperation with India in the field of space, one official said.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 29 Jun 2010 11:54

In which case, why discard a perfectly good platform due to lack of funding, if it could be spun off to the private sector? A privately-run ASLV could prep private partners for eventually taking over the PSLV, since the latter was evolved from the former.

If ASLV has an out-of-the-box capability to deliver 150kg to orbit, then it could conceivably be improved by its operators to deliver even more. An operator focusing first and foremost on cost-savings and reliability could find a niche in the marketplace by undercutting its competitors on price. Even if ISRO hopes to develop RLV, it won't be available for awhile, and there's no sense ceding the market competitors in the meantime..

ASLV and SLV-3 are stop gap arrangements before PSLV/GSLV comes into fruition. I am not sure why any private company would pick up a discarded design than picking up a successfull design like PSLV.

I completely support the premise of privatisng the PSLV for now. But again the detailed structure has to be devised. One clear advantage is that private folks can come with their budgets to have additional launches than depending on ISRO launches.

An ASLV-Mk2 could be given 2 extra solid boosters, for a total of 4, in order to increase its payload capacity. The rocket could then be scaled up to larger size. Spare payload capacity could be used to test new systems, components, etc, to validate new technologies and make incremental improvements.

This is a new design, no private company in India has currently the capability to do this. The moment you change the size, lot of other factors also change

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 29 Jun 2010 12:15

Kailash wrote:The private companies have to invest in research and come up with their own designs. If at all you want to compare a Godrej or Tata with SpaceX, let them come up with their own launchers - from scratch.

Pharma seems to be one sector where the private company itself has a big research wing. Otherwise the cost of developing technologies would be exorbitant if companies have to maintain individual research wings. R&D is always a small percentage of the total business. Companies build products based on existing techs, so this ToT may be required to build up a private sector which right now is happening at least at the component level. But a visionary leadership is required for these private companies to transform itself into full fledged commercial space enterprises.

If we are adopting this model, ISRO would function would soon be a pure research organisation funded by the government and private industry.

Kailash wrote: What does ISRO gain by transitioning stuff off to privates? Do we consider the effort/time involved in educating them versus the gains in terms of royalty?

ISRO would now be a pure research organisation concentrating more on development of technologies and space research. Satellite launch capability once achieved is a pure commercial activity, whether carried out by ISRO or any other organization.

Kailash wrote: What is the minimum qualifying criteria for a company?

A company which has the capacity to stay invested for a longer duration of time as returns and profit can only be expected in long term.

Kailash wrote: And what is going to be the differentiator between two private companies acquiring this knowledge? ISRO will give more details to those paying more money? How are they to ensure their competitive edge?

Of course just like our 3G auction, or else we could soon be in a new scam. Capitalism suggest survival of the fittest, so I guess it should be individual parties desire to be in game.

Kailash wrote: How long can these companies sustain their development on screwdriver technology without a strong research and new talent (brewed in Indian colleges and Universities)?
And how soon can these companies deliver?

As mentioned earlier, do not expect any result in short term, we have to be realistic. Also how do the IT companies survive the college and university pass outs? There is a high level of internal trainings that are imparted. But I also believe that the University level education would continue to improve in the coming days.

There is something known as innovation that Private industry practices, it is all about incremental development. If there is an existing technology they improve upon it rather than creating a new technology from the scratch. This ensures that the product cost remains low. So while ISRO could concentrate on research, creating new technology, the private industry will continue innovation on the existing technology.

Kailash wrote: Comparison with SpaceX is totally flawed. Indian high tech industry is not as mature American ones. Indian universities are not doing as much cutting edge research as American universities. Indian business men are not as much risk takers as their American counterparts. SpaceX took 6 years to deliver, our companies will easily take more than 16.

Once the demand for satellites increases, all we said could happen, but without it this would just be a mirage.

JMT

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 29 Jun 2010 20:41

Geosynchronous Satellite relaunch with indigenous cryogenic engine in one yr: ISRO.

The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is planning to relaunch the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) with a home-grown cryogenic engine in a year's time after the failure in April this year.

"We have come across a few scenarios after detailed analysis of the failure. Now the immediate task is to test it on the ground and we look forward to relaunch it next year," ISRO chairman K Radhakrishnan told reporters on the sidelines of the 117 birth anniversary celebrations of Professor PC Mahalanobis at the Indian Statistical Institute here.

The five earlier versions of the GSLV had Russia-supplied cryogenic engines. India's cryogenic upper stage (CUS) engine was meant to replace the Russian engines.

The GSLV D-3, the satellite launch vehicle showcasing the country's indigenous cryogenic technology, trailed off its designated course and went out of control shortly after the
lift-off on April 15.

The rocket, along with its two payloads -- satellites GSAT-4 and GAGAN -- crashed into the Bay of Bengal minutes after blastoff.
The failed mission caused loss of the GSLV-D3 rocket costing about Rs 180 crore and the satellites valued at Rs 150 crore.

The launch was the key to India's space programme as it would have made it the sixth nation to successfully deploy cryogenic technology, joining US, Russia, Japan, China and France.

Meanwhile, Radhakrishnan said Chandrayaan-II will be launched in 2013.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 30 Jun 2010 09:19

JimmyJ wrote:
Kailash wrote:The private companies have to invest in research and come up with their own designs. If at all you want to compare a Godrej or Tata with SpaceX, let them come up with their own launchers - from scratch.
Pharma seems to be one sector where the private company itself has a big research wing. Otherwise the cost of developing technologies would be exorbitant if companies have to maintain individual research wings. R&D is always a small percentage of the total business. Companies build products based on existing techs, so this ToT may be required to build up a private sector which right now is happening at least at the component level. But a visionary leadership is required for these private companies to transform itself into full fledged commercial space enterprises.

If we are adopting this model, ISRO would function would soon be a pure research organisation funded by the government and private industry.

I agree - just like National Aeronautical Labs is designing a passenger aircraft, which is expected to be operated by private air carriers rather than NAL itself.

ISRO would now be a pure research organisation concentrating more on development of technologies and space research. Satellite launch capability once achieved is a pure commercial activity, whether carried out by ISRO or any other organization.

ISRO could even charge for advanced technical support, which could be useful for troubleshooting. They could even net some developmental contracts for making improvements. ISRO facilities could be expanded into a "Special Economic Zone" which incorporates security measures specific to sensitive dual-use technologies to address international security concerns. Private companies could selectively contract the use of the available facilities for their commercial space activities. This would alleviate the cost of upfront investment and other specialized expenditures. Likewise, SpaceX makes use of Vandenberg AFB's launch pads. Eventually, companies build their own private facilities for some types of work, while still contracting for the use of ISRO facilities for other things.

Private-public partnership is considered a bold new area these days.

Kailash wrote: What is the minimum qualifying criteria for a company?
A company which has the capacity to stay invested for a longer duration of time as returns and profit can only be expected in long term.

Yes, what is the criteria for being awarded telecom bandwidth? Well, you have the money to win the bidding process. You have to pass some other certification checks.

Kailash wrote: And what is going to be the differentiator between two private companies acquiring this knowledge? ISRO will give more details to those paying more money? How are they to ensure their competitive edge?
Of course just like our 3G auction, or else we could soon be in a new scam. Capitalism suggest survival of the fittest, so I guess it should be individual parties desire to be in game.

Yes, I agree - like the 3G auction. Or like getting a license to have a factory in an SEZ.

Kailash wrote: How long can these companies sustain their development on screwdriver technology without a strong research and new talent (brewed in Indian colleges and Universities)?
And how soon can these companies deliver?
As mentioned earlier, do not expect any result in short term, we have to be realistic. Also how do the IT companies survive the college and university pass outs? There is a high level of internal trainings that are imparted. But I also believe that the University level education would continue to improve in the coming days.

Yes, there would be a long gestation period, with handholding. This will be true for SpaceX and other private US launchers. But NASA has been directed to provide opportunities through such things as the COTS program. ISRO could likewise award opportunities in the low payload class while it turns towards more advanced vehicles.

There is something known as innovation that Private industry practices, it is all about incremental development. If there is an existing technology they improve upon it rather than creating a new technology from the scratch. This ensures that the product cost remains low. So while ISRO could concentrate on research, creating new technology, the private industry will continue innovation on the existing technology.

Exactly - as long as private operators can start off with a platform that gives them some basic traction in the marketplace, then they can grow their opportunity as they see fit, by using their wits and investing in R&D, etc.

Tata now has a Tata Aerospace, Mahindra also is making forays into aircraft.
There have been plenty of Indian companies that had absolutely nothing to do with IT, but decided to move into it just because they felt there were opportunities there.

Kailash wrote:Comparison with SpaceX is totally flawed. Indian high tech industry is not as mature American ones. Indian universities are not doing as much cutting edge research as American universities. Indian business men are not as much risk takers as their American counterparts. SpaceX took 6 years to deliver, our companies will easily take more than 16.
Once the demand for satellites increases, all we said could happen, but without it this would just be a mirage.

JMT

With India's natural cost advantages, a private Indian commercial launcher could underbid many international competitors on launch contracts, and perhaps even generate new demand by lowering the cost barriers to orbit. Eventually, if PSLV were to be man-rated, then even space tourism could be opened up as a market. Also note that there is a lot of renewed interest in the Moon and Mars, because of discovery of water on these 2 bodies, which means international academia could also contract to have space probes launched to these places.

Indian govt could give preference to private Indian launchers, provided that their bids are competitive with ISRO's own costs.

Also, why can't India hold some All-India competitions similar to X-Prize? This would help to cultivate some wider interest in rocket science.
I'm sure some enterprising Indian university teams could build their own radio-controlled landers, similar to Armadillo or Masten.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 30 Jun 2010 09:31

Chandrayaan-2 launch as scheduled: ISRO chief

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 30 Jun 2010 09:49

Another thing - I remember reading that NASA had once built an ultra-cheap engine called Fastrac

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/fastrac.htm

Designed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, the Fastrac was intended to demonstrate lower cost in a reusable simple turbopump rocket engine. Each Fastrac engine was initially to cost approximately $1.2 million - about one-fifth of the cost of similar engines. That price was expected to drop even more within a few years to $350,000 per engine. Fastrac incorporated drastic reductions in the cost of turbomachinery. Initially, each turbopump would cost about $300,000 - one-tenth of the average cost of then-current rocket engine turbopumps. That cost also was expected to drop to about $90,000.

The engine was started with a hypergolic igniter and used a gas generator cycle. Chamber pressure was supplied by a single turbopump. The only electronics required to operate the engine were the launch vehicle's computer, which only sent commands to open and close valves. The thrust and mixture ratio were set during ground calibration.

Regenerative cooling was not used, eliminating hundreds of metres of tediously welded tubing. Instead ablative cooling was provided by layers of silica-phenolic composite material as a liner inside the chamber. The ablative chamber nozzle and the hypergolic ignition cartridge would be replaced after each flight, but the rest of the engine was reusable.

Why couldn't India look at trying to build a similar engine?

India has already shown it can make the high-temperature phenolic materials, which are even going to be used on RLV-TD.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 30 Jun 2010 12:17

GSLV relaunch with indigenous cryogenic engine in one year: ISRO

"We have come across a few scenarios after detailed analysis of the failure. Now the immediate task is to test it on the ground and we look forward to relaunch it next year," ISRO chairman K Radhakrishnan told reporters

Not much details there - hope they nailed the right issue. Also hope it was not silly mistake with cost the engine and the payload

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 30 Jun 2010 23:43

Take Two: Launch of Chandrayaan 2 by 2013

In spite of various technical glitches in the indigenous cryogenic engine that powered the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV), that was flight-tested in April, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is expected to launch ‘moon-traveller’ or Chandrayaan – 2, the second unmanned mission to the moon, on an endemic cryogenic engine in 2013.

Chairman of ISRO, Dr. K Radhakrishnan had been in Kolkata for the 117th birth anniversary celebrations of Professor PC Mahalanobis, which is also celebrated as Statistical Day, at the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, and he confirmed the news. He was reported to say that there has been a thorough analysis of the failure in April and a number of scenarios have been arrived at to check the occurrence of such technical snags. He also said that it is imperative to “confirm them through testing on the ground”.

arun · Post by **arun** » 01 Jul 2010 16:11

The previously postponed PSLV C-15 launch, along with her payload of Cartosat 2B, Alsat 2A, NLS 6.1, NLS 6.2 and Studsat, will now take place on July 12th:

After two setbacks, ISRO set to launch five satellites on 12 July

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Jul 2010 23:07

arun wrote:The previously postponed PSLV C-15 launch, along with her payload of Cartosat 2B, Alsat 2A, NLS 6.1, NLS 6.2 and Studsat, will now take place on July 12th:

After two setbacks, ISRO set to launch five satellites on 12 July

From that article:

Isro then deferred the launch of its workhorse polar satellite launch vehicle (PSLV) scheduled in May after it found leaks in the rocket’s second stage. The leaks were detected when pressurized nitrogen was pumped in the rocket as part of tests on the launch pad.

Whenever you hear about rocket malfunctions, most of the time it always seems to be a "faulty valve" or a "leaking line"
What exactly are these pressurized nitrogen lines for, anyway? Do they drive some kind of actuator mechanisms? In which case, shouldn't rocket engineers try using some better actuator mechanism that isn't so vulnerable to problems? What about trying some kind of electromechanical actuators instead? Those things are less likely to fail.
After over a half-century of use, big rockets seem to mainly fail due to the same set problems - you'd think somebody would have found a way past these by now.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 Jul 2010 03:00

^^^^
I think the nitrogen is pumped into places where it doesn't belong just so that leaks can be identified. The maximum pressure that can be reached when there is a leak won't be as high as that when there is no leak. That pressure reading itself gives you an indication of a leak. The leak itself could be in any sub-system, i.e. the fuel tank, the pump, etc.

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Jul 2010 12:21

Hmm I read somewhere that the cryo engine failed to start in the 'vacuum' of space .. and that it is not possible to recreate similar conditions for testing here at terra firma (news comment ascribed to ISRO) ?! .. can anyone shed some light on those comments ?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 Jul 2010 13:17

kit wrote:Hmm I read somewhere that the cryo engine failed to start in the 'vacuum' of space .. and that it is not possible to recreate similar conditions for testing here at terra firma (news comment ascribed to ISRO) ?! .. can anyone shed some light on those comments ?

kit, we had a prolonged discussion in BR soon after the failure about this. One school of thought said the most cost efficient way to get GSLV to work reliably would be to simply test it repeatedly with real launches. Another school of thought said that we can't afford to lose expensive and critical payloads like GAGAN, so we should get a vacuum chamber, despite the cost, to test the cryo engine on the ground in a simulated vacuum. The goal would be to have the GSLV working with the same workhorse-like reliability like we have with the (impressive) PSLV.

You could read Vina's post for some insight.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 38#p857738

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2010 13:42

I do hope they do not post an expensive satellite like chandrayaan2 onboard the untested GSLV. have a couple of launches with validation dummy payloads with some rocket fuel to safely change orbit away from GEO and park themselves out of harms way a week later.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Jul 2010 20:11

Question to gurus,

How many satellites are required to make a <1mtr resolution map of Pawkiland and keep constant monitoring of key tourist spots?

TIA

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 02 Jul 2010 20:25

Hasn't Obama proposed joint space development and research with ISRO?
Can this be extended to the military reconnaissance?

If India can share data with Israel, Russia. there should be good coverage of the desired areas with very short revisit times. But any such agreement will be highly classified. It is not possible for any nation except a superpower like the US to have such a huge network of satellites so as to cover all electromagnetic spectra - visible, SAR, ELINT, etc.

Sharing with like minded nations is the only possible way out.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Jul 2010 09:51

Sounding Rocket developed by university students

Students of the VIT University, Vellore, have developed Rohini-200 (RH200), a sounding rocket, in collaboration with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

The sounding rocket — an instrument-carrying rocket designed to take measurements and perform experiments during its sub-orbital flight — will be launched from the Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS), Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram, on July 7.

VIT University has fully funded the project and also plans for the second phase, which will include fabrication of the entire rocket with advanced payloads.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 03 Jul 2010 10:37

Gagan wrote:Hasn't Obama proposed joint space development and research with ISRO?
Can this be extended to the military reconnaissance?

If India can share data with Israel, Russia. there should be good coverage of the desired areas with very short revisit times. But any such agreement will be highly classified. It is not possible for any nation except a superpower like the US to have such a huge network of satellites so as to cover all electromagnetic spectra - visible, SAR, ELINT, etc.

Sharing with like minded nations is the only possible way out.

Do you think the US would be OK with this? Anytime Israel is involved, US security interests must be considered.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 04 Jul 2010 21:57

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Jul 2010 01:59

Wow - impressive!

I notice there's not a single solid-fuelled unit in the bunch.

So this thing is then shorter and fatter than the Saturn-V.

It says 4xSC460 + SC800 + SC460 + C100

is that upper SC460 similar enough to the lower 4?

I wonder what the overall cost would be for this Tower of Babel?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Jul 2010 04:26

Since we were talking about fuel-gel propellant in the aerospace thread, then I'll suggest this as a good choice of propellant for a lunar lander, since it would be less volatile and thus less likely to boil off in the vacuum of space or on the Moon, while waiting to be used. As a non-solid, quasi-liquid fuel material, it would still be throttlable.

A lunar lander would be constrained on fuel tank size, and so here's where the higher volumetric energy density of a gel-based fuel would be advantageous, allowing you to store more fuel in the smaller tank. Also, the higher-viscosity material would be more stable in flight, and less likely to slosh around.

For the critical lunar descent and ascent portions of a Moon mission, choice of a unique fuel with distinct properties would be justifiable, imho. A lander is a unique type of vehicle with a very specialized purpose, and therefore it deserves a specialized fuel that best serves those needs.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Jul 2010 09:38

Even PSLV-HP could carry humans to orbit, with its 2tonne-to-LEO capacity.

I wonder how many test launches of the HLV would be required before a manned launch?

Each test launch could be used to loft something big and useful - a solar array, a space lab, an RLV shuttle/lifeboat, advance supplies to the lunar surface. Actually, instead of a space lab, just make it an orbital space dock, which can help to reassemble multiple launch payload stages into a single departure vehicle. Or, a space lab designed to be mate-able to a departure stage could then eventually be re-purposed for a circum-Mars mission.

Since Indians love to do things to put themselves into the record-books, these types of missions will increase the popularity of space-related endeavours.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 05 Jul 2010 12:45

Sanjay M wrote:Wow - impressive!

I notice there's not a single solid-fuelled unit in the bunch.

So this thing is then shorter and fatter than the Saturn-V.

It says 4xSC460 + SC800 + SC460 + C100

is that upper SC460 similar enough to the lower 4?

I believe each booster and the 2nd stage would be powered by a cluster of 4 2MN SC engines (Evident from the image) and the 1st stage may be powered by a cluster of more powerful engines OR the same 2MN engine, just in better numbers.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 07 Jul 2010 18:33

Sounding Rocket developed by university students
Quote:
Students of the VIT University, Vellore, have developed Rohini-200 (RH200), a sounding rocket, in collaboration with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

The sounding rocket — an instrument-carrying rocket designed to take measurements and perform experiments during its sub-orbital flight — will be launched from the Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS), Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram, on July 7.

The sounding rocket was successfully test-flown today. Bravo!