GSLV D3 Launch Failure

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 16 Apr 2010 05:05

I second that^^
@Raja Bose: Gator Chomp

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 16 Apr 2010 06:35

almost there.

a dumb question. will they recover the debris? is it even possible? is it worth it. there are chor market types and reverse engineers in the neighborhood. so i ask.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2010 06:46

shaardula wrote:almost there.

a dumb question. will they recover the debris? is it even possible? is it worth it. there are chor market types and reverse engineers in the neighborhood. so i ask.

They recovered a previous one for failure analysis. In this case the telemetry would be enough. Besides the craft might be quite damaged. Apparently the flight did not have destruct charges as the path was deemed safe. Only massa has the diving equipment to reach there and massa knows everything thru their minions. PRC is ahead in cryogenic engine anyway. Thought wouldn't be surprised if materials show up in Indian scrap yards!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Apr 2010 07:05

The thing here is that ISRO is by now super confident of the first and second stage rocket motors.

No problems with the first stage L-40, S-139 boosters or the second stage Vikas engine. ISRO has smoothed out any problems here, and these stages function just fine.

The third stage has also been certified by ISRO, and exactly what caused the problem, will be identified and solved.

Some debris is always recovered. Specially they might try to recover the third stage. The question is not weather the chinese or the americans have cryogenic engine tech, the point is that if India leaves these damaged/mangled engines on the sea bed, they might try and recover this themselves to get a better idea of where India stands as far as tech is concerned.

Each space power has some unique solutions to the way they develop engines, and the others are on the lookout for tricks and tips. A lot of surveillance and industrial espionage probably goes on.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2010 07:18

Gagan the liquor budget of the Embassies will take care of it for much less costs.

Really there isn't much to learn. Vina has already said its staged combustion cycle - the best of the best. That should be enough. Besides the verniers are old hat and if they caused, the failure then its trivial. No wonder the chief is confident.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 16 Apr 2010 07:20

when you say telemetry, you mean data from various sensors all through the system and not just navigational data right?

yes yes gagan, these types things i would imagine have all sorts of signatures about how our folks think and solve problems and what tools we have. that is why that doubt came to my mind. especially after the recent ghostnet.

Manas · Post by **Manas** » 16 Apr 2010 07:22

I would like to thank ISRO scientists for toiling hard to make India among one of the most advanced space fairing nations - all on a shoe string budget. What they have accomplished in the face of technology denial regimes, tiny budgets is incredible.

ISRO's programs & capabilities are very mature - their launch vehicle stayed in tact on the launch pad when the strap on ignition sequence went haywire during one of their previous launches.

Same goes for DRDO's missile programs - Their failure analysis on the Agni III launch failure was immaculate and precise.

Failures are part of any advanced R & D project - more so in rocket science. They are wiser by this experience. The media, politicians, people should leave them alone. I dont care even if they see failures even on their commercial workhorse PSLVs in the future.

All they need from the govt and the people is budgetary support and best wishes. I wish them the best and they will continue to do the country proud.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Apr 2010 07:27

I wonder how irritated and disappointed the ISRO guys must be. They were this close to success, and then for something as silly as a vernier engine underperforming, bringing down 6 months + of hard work on testing and integrating this launcher.

I remember the first Agni-3 launch where the engine exhaust swept back into the missile body and melted the control rods and the wiring. Again something very minor, unanticipated, and resulting in the failure. Then there was the Agni-2 failure due to a faulty component. This one sounds more like the agni-2 faulty component thing.

Just need to shrug this off and dig in.

Hats off to the ISRO guys for slogging on. No company - public or private has that kind of perseverance and resolve that these guys have displayed.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Apr 2010 07:34

PRC's cryogenic engines do not employ staged combustion cycle , do they ?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Apr 2010 07:51

The staged combustion thing is one additional chamber before the main chamber IIRC. I suppose this is the unique feature of the russian origin cryo engine.

Did anyone capture the capsule on the cryo engine that DD telecast?

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 16 Apr 2010 07:53

And as for the snide headlines in ToI, what can one expect from such worthless uneducated scum such as them.

Absolutely... as if they paid out of their pockets every year till this cryo was ready and covered it and glorified it... really feel that they are bought out by the firangis ... btw why would it take them ~ 1 year for trying again... arent most components in place already...

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Apr 2010 07:59

AFAI can remember, there was a graphic that showed a figure something like this. The staged combustion was the small chamber before the main bell.
Any suggestions / recommendations in improving this diagram?

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 16 Apr 2010 08:36

From what i can recollect seeing a pic\cutout of RD-170 in the internet , in staged combustion a part of the exhaust are rerouted back into the combustion chamber for improved efficiency. The flip side being it increases the pressure and the corrosiveness inside the combustion chamber. Also there was something like a common pump drive mechanism for both LOX and kerosene tanks. There were helium pressure bottles on top of the engines to initiate the pump start.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2010 08:37

Raja Bose wrote: And as for the snide headlines in ToI, what can one expect from such worthless uneducated scum such as them.

Let me rise to ToI's defence. Not because I want to act the ch**tiya but because I want to point out that "being derisive of India" has been standard practice for most Indians. BRF was among the earliest to grow out of that. The media have not yet got there - the ToI is still in that mode.

It is basically the mindset of the colonised, where the slave will ingratiate himself with his real (or perceived) master by being scathingly critical of his own group while tending to be unreservedly admiring of even the master's fart, leave alone more yummy parts of master's anatomy like his backside. It is a form of fractal recursivity.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 16 Apr 2010 09:18

^ while at it,
unditv pallav bhargava said it was ' the second failure of isro in last few months. first being the failure of chandrayan '
~~Why is he even entertained by isro~~

added later: Edited out the adjective

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Apr 2010 09:29

PRC is ahead in cryogenic engine anyway

On the contrary. I think the CE 7.5 engine that was unsuccessful is more advanced on paper than the equivalent chinese YF 75 engine (both engines of the 75 KN class).

From wiki, CE 7.5 and YF 75

CE 7.5 specs -

Design - Staged Combustion

Performance
Thrust(Vac) 93.2 kN
Thrust(SL) 73.6 kN
Thrust (Vac) 73 KN (wiki is wrong ) Check Isro Press Release
Chamber pressure 5.8 MPa / 7.5 MPa
Isp(Vac) 454 sec
Dimensions
Length 2.14 m (7.02 ft)
Diameter 1.56 m (5.11 ft)
Dry weight 435 kg

YF 75 specs

Design - Gas Generator

Performance

* Vacuum thrust: 78.45 kN
* Vacuum specific impulse: 437 s
* Burn time: 470 s
* Engine weight: 550 kg
* Exit to Throat Area ratio: 80 to 1
* Propellants: LOX & LH2
* Mixture ratio: 5.00

The Yindoo engine is lighter, more advanced, develops higher specif impulse and ~~higher vacuum thrust~~.

They just need to iron the gremlins out and get it working. In fact , what ISRO is trying to do is absolutely fantastic. They are jumping from NO Cryo ENGINE to one of the best engines in the world, comparable to the absolute top drawer in One JUMP

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 16 Apr 2010 10:23

Vina

They just need to iron the gremlins out and get it working. In fact , what ISRO is trying to do is absolutely fantastic. They are jumping from NO Cryo ENGINE to one of the best engines in the world, comparable to the absolute top drawer in One JUMP

It is a common practice for ISRO to target for a higher than current normal level.

This culture has evolved from the ages of Sarabhai .. and that is the reason why we are able to goal for Chandrayan and beyond.

( Human transport will be achieved but whether it is worth the cost and effort vis a vis usefulness that can't be achieved with unmanned mission is debatable ... may be necessary more as a PR job than the scientific achievements )

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 16 Apr 2010 10:30

Hi Aditya ... Can you kindly desist from personal attacks on people. Its completely unacceptable.

The person you refer to, Pallava Bagla, is possibly India's finest science communicator and science journalist.

He has been writing for Science for over a decade showcasing Indian science like no other journalist.

He has worked for 25 years and has been internationally recognised ... He has been conferred the National Award for Outstanding Effort in Science & Technology Communication in Print Medium, the highest honor of its kind for science journalism in India and is given by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. He became the first Indian to win the `Outstanding Journalism’ award from the United Nations sponsored Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) the world’s apex body looking after agricultural research and headquartered at The World Bank, Washington DC.

He has written a book on the Chandrayaan mission, and I personally believe he knows and understands more about the Indian space programme than any other civilian directly connected to ISRO. As such, the access that he has enjoyed in ISRO is in recognition of his standing.

I was anchoring the programme you were referring to ... and Pallava's views on the GSLV are entirely accurate and, given his experience, worth quoting. Not sure where you picked up these two phrases but they DO NOT represent his views at all.

Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
NDTV

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Apr 2010 10:43

does the HAM that Arun_s sir speak of for extending the ICBM range also a cryogenic engine in the trident/M51/topol/df31 family or it is a simpler liquid fuel engine?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Apr 2010 10:56

Folks, just a small note on the cryogenic engine.

The propellant feed system in a liquid rocket motor (which is what a cryogenic engine is ultimately), can be achieved by either by pressurized or a turbopump feed system or a combination of the two. In a pressurized system, the propellants (both fuel & oxidizer) are forced out of their tanks by employing a high pressure inert gas. In a turbopump system, the propellants are pumped out by means of pumps which are driven by turbines. Where large propellant flow is required, as in the CUS Engine, the turbopump mechanism is employed.

In a turbopump feed system, turbines run the pumps for pumping the LOX & LH2 into the combustion chamber. So, the engine requires pump(s), turbine and the gas. The gas is generated on-board through one of the following means:

In a precombustion chamber
In a separate gas generator
By circulating LH2 through the cooling jacket surrounding the combustion chamber which achieves the twin purpose of cooling the chamber and transferring the heat to LH2 to generate the gas
By bleeding hot gas from the combustion chamber

After flowing through the turbine, the gas can be exhausted through a separate nozzle or through the nozzle of the engine or injected back into the combustion chamber

One way of characterizing the turbopump engine cycle is either open or closed. In the 'open cycle', the exhaust of gas from the turbine exits either through a separate nozzle or the nozzle of the engine. It is a 'closed cycle' if the gas gets back into the combustion chamber. The closed cycle gives obviously a slightly improved performance.

Another way of characterizing the turbopump engine cycle is by the way the gas is generated and supplied to the turbines. In the technique employing a separate gas generator (Point 2 above), which is known as gas generator cycle, a small amount of LOX & LH2 is burnt to generate hot gas that drives the turbine. In the staged combustion cycle, a precombustor is employed (Point 1 above). The coolant (always LH2) flows through the cooling jacket of the thrust chamber and the entire coolant is fed into a precombustion chamber where a part of the oxidizer is also injected to burn and generate gas. This gas drives the turbine and the exhaust from the turbine is injected into the thrust chamber where it burns with the rest of the oxidizer. This gives the highest Isp. Since the entire exhaust from the turbine is injected into the combustion chamber, the staged combustion is a closed cycle engine.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Apr 2010 10:57

The person you refer to, Pallava Bagla, is possibly India's finest science communicator and science journalist.

I agree completely that he is one of the best in the country. his coverage of CY-1 was exceptional to say the least.

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 16 Apr 2010 11:10

Sridhar, thanks for the detailed note on cryogenic engine types.

What is the ignition mechanism...is it a electrical spark? or some chemical mechanism, is it a common practice to have redundant ignition mechanisms? ....I ask, because in the current case ignition failure is also being discussed.

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Apr 2010 11:16

Singha wrote:does the HAM that Arun_s sir speak of for extending the ICBM range also a cryogenic engine in the trident/M51/topol/df31 family or it is a simpler liquid fuel engine?

Those will be very small motors largely to help steer the war head / war head containing module and get away from the limitations of a purely ballistic trajectory. Range enhancement is not the primary there, maneuverability and multi targeting is.

Those cannot be cryogenic. In fact, cryogenic is singularly unsuited for military missiles (you need to fuel just before launch, increasing launch preparation time etc etc). It probably uses earth storable liquid propellants (UDMH/MMH kind of fuels) and not even "unstable" ones like the HNO3 that the Prithvi uses.

The HAM will have more in common with the motor on space crafts.. which range anything from cold gas jets, to propulsion motors to ion thrusters.

JMT .

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 16 Apr 2010 11:33

This article says explosion could be the cause of failure:
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100415i ... fails.html

"
...........
Nambi Narayanan, a former head of the center who was involved in the development of the cryogenic engine told Space News that the likely cause of failure is an explosion that can occur during a so-called hard start when a rich mixture of fuel and oxidizer is suddenly ignited in the vacuum of space. While the cryogenic engine had been extensively tested and reviewed by experts within and outside ISRO it was not tested in conditions simulating high altitude, he said.
............

"

disha · Post by **disha** » 16 Apr 2010 11:43

juvva wrote:Sridhar, thanks for the detailed note on cryogenic engine types.

What is the ignition mechanism...is it a electrical spark? or some chemical mechanism, is it a common practice to have redundant ignition mechanisms? ....I ask, because in the current case ignition failure is also being discussed.

Could be electrical spark or could be hypergolic, not the later most likely. Until the full report comes out, it is all speculation on our part. In the meantime enjoy this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEFNjL86y9c and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqCmO-MF ... re=related. There is a reason why it is called rocket science!

disha · Post by **disha** » 16 Apr 2010 11:48

juvva wrote:This article says explosion could be the cause of failure:
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100415i ... fails.html

Proves all rocket engines at the end of the day is about controlled explosions!

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 16 Apr 2010 11:57

Vishnu wrote:Hi Aditya ... Can you kindly desist from personal attacks on people. Its completely unacceptable.
The person you refer to, Pallava Bagla, is possibly India's finest science communicator and science journalist.
<snip>
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
NDTV

Vishnu,
Thanks for making us aware of his credentials. I have edited out my statement.
However, i do recall hearing him on your channel call CY1 a failure. now thats not being responsible or very professional.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 16 Apr 2010 12:21

Nambi Narayanan was personally sabotaged by framing a spy case upon him. The real perps behind that was never identified. That set back the cryogenic engine by several years, as per the admission by other ISRO personnel. He and his family are still recovering from that ordeal.

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Apr 2010 12:54

Nambi Narayanan was personally sabotaged by framing a spy case upon him.

That was the dear comrades in Kerala . They were the ones who were most vociferous (as usual) and baying for his blood and frothing in the mouth about it.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 16 Apr 2010 13:06

Neela wrote:
sanjeevpunj wrote:Did this carry a Sattelite too? If yes, what a waste, if no, then they were wise.
Next time GSLV will carry you and approx. 50 others like you to test. If success, no problem - you have a free ride to space. If failure, bigger success.

Thank you for the free ride offer.i must decline until test results are declared.Would you like to be the first to go for such a test.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Apr 2010 13:14

Dileep wrote:Nambi Narayanan was personally sabotaged by framing a spy case upon him. The real perps behind that was never identified. That set back the cryogenic engine by several years, as per the admission by other ISRO personnel. He and his family are still recovering from that ordeal.

nothing about that story seemed to add up. I always wondered what happened to the case and who set him up.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 16 Apr 2010 14:18

sad news, time to buck up and start the analysis

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 16 Apr 2010 14:24

{tarmAK007} India's GSLV-D3 mission fails; ISRO says next flight in one year

The Bangalore-headquartered space agency has always shown a rare grit and determination during failures, and has always bounced back to achieve the mission objectives with renewed vigor. This is one habit that's yet to become 'popular' among some of India's leading Defence establishments.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 16 Apr 2010 15:36

The best course we can hope for is for ISRO to discover what exactly failed and rectify it. I think they should be able to do it but for the long gestation times between launches and the huge costs involved. The flip side advantage is they are dealing with technology that has remained perhaps unchanged from the 70s or even earlier...unlike electronics and others that change by the week.

GOI should pump in enough $$ to help them continue their course. It would be good if corporates can join the game by either direct sponsorship or perhaps loaning resources that ISRO would fail to attract because of salaries and babudom. With govt you dont get good pay if you cant go on strike, paralyse economy or burn buses like the bank/insurance/AI parasites do.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 16 Apr 2010 18:14

Hi everyone, nice to be back on the board again.

Note to Vishnu - actually, I find you to be one of the best communicators/presenters, and while I was flipping between different channels to see the GSLV launch, I stopped on your broadcast as soon as I saw it.

It was a real shame that GSLV-D3 suffered its malfunction, but as many have said, it's failure which builds character, rather than success. Unfortunately, there now seem to be the usual naysayers coming out to hurl brickbats at India's space program, as they did in the wake of Chandrayaan-1's premature termination.

Before the launch, K. Radhakrishnan was predicting that the cabinet would announce the Human Spaceflight Program within a few months. Does anyone know if this announcement will be affected?

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 16 Apr 2010 19:25

This is just a part of growing up. Let us just move on.

As for naysayers - they can jump. Have never mattered. Background noise, is, what they are. We need to programme our brains to filter them out. Otherwise, we will have to sort them out as well. Which really cant ever be a priority if rest of us are clear as to where we need to go.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Apr 2010 19:33

Gagan: Which software are you using to draw those diagrams?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Apr 2010 19:39

Regarding the recovery of debris and the economics of the operation. How does ISRO exactly do the recovery? How much of technology-transfer is possible between ISRO and military and non-military establishments? Apart from technology there must be a slew of processes and methods that could use improvements.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 16 Apr 2010 20:14

OT, however could not resist in posting

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/indi ... cleid=4276

....India Knowledge@Wharton: Could you give an example, from your own experience, of how leaders should manage failure?

Kalam: Let me tell you about my experience. In 1973 I became the project director of India's satellite launch vehicle program, commonly called the SLV-3. Our goal was to put India's "Rohini" satellite into orbit by 1980. I was given funds and human resources -- but was told clearly that by 1980 we had to launch the satellite into space. Thousands of people worked together in scientific and technical teams towards that goal.

By 1979 -- I think the month was August -- we thought we were ready. As the project director, I went to the control center for the launch. At four minutes before the satellite launch, the computer began to go through the checklist of items that needed to be checked. One minute later, the computer program put the launch on hold; the display showed that some control components were not in order. My experts -- I had four or five of them with me -- told me not to worry; they had done their calculations and there was enough reserve fuel. So I bypassed the computer, switched to manual mode, and launched the rocket. In the first stage, everything worked fine. In the second stage, a problem developed. Instead of the satellite going into orbit, the whole rocket system plunged into the Bay of Bengal. It was a big failure.

That day, the chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, Prof. Satish Dhawan, had called a press conference. The launch was at 7:00 am, and the press conference -- where journalists from around the world were present -- was at 7:45 am at ISRO's satellite launch range in Sriharikota [in Andhra Pradesh in southern India]. Prof. Dhawan, the leader of the organization, conducted the press conference himself. He took responsibility for the failure -- he said that the team had worked very hard, but that it needed more technological support. He assured the media that in another year, the team would definitely succeed. Now, I was the project director, and it was my failure, but instead, he took responsibility for the failure as chairman of the organization.

The next year, in July 1980, we tried again to launch the satellite -- and this time we succeeded. The whole nation was jubilant. Again, there was a press conference. Prof. Dhawan called me aside and told me, "You conduct the press conference today.".....

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Apr 2010 20:15

SwamyG wrote:Gagan: Which software are you using to draw those diagrams?

MS Paint only.