The implied meaning is that India should not compete with another country.Those numbers may make it easier to justify what may be a larger goal, competing with another superpower.
In spite of all the technological advances of the past few decades, accurate prediction of earthquakes has always been beyond the reach of science. Four years ago, a group of IIT Madras (IITM) students decided to give it a shot of their own. They also chose a method that is not yet proven in scientific and technological terms: send a satellite up to detect radiation from the earth prior to an earthquake.
The satellite-building has now evolved into a large multidisciplinary project involving 150 students and some professors, as well as mentoring from the engineers at the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
In a few months, ISRO will do a preliminary design review of the IITM student satellite. Once the design is approved and frozen, the students will begin integrating the satellite components. It will be launched - if ISRO approves the design and agrees for launch - by a Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) sometime in the fourth quarter of 2015.
Once up in the sky, the 15-kg satellite will look for a sudden precipitation of charged particles -- ions -- that is supposed to be the signature of an impending earthquake. "The students are building something hands on and not just writing reports," says David Koilpillai, the dean and professor of electrical engineering at IIT Madras.
When complete, this will be the third satellite in India to be made in a university. The earlier two launches were challenging projects, but the IITM satellite is different in conception, and it will also try to test a theory not yet accepted by the scientific community. "It is good to work on a project that even industry finds hard," says Akshay Gulati, one of the students who began the project. He has since graduated and become a project staff.
The project began in 2009, after some students heard a lecture by Muriel Richard, an engineer at the Swiss technical university EPFL. "We figured out that no Indian satellite had looked at ions," says Gulati. . Within a year, the students had identified the payload and shortlisted four instruments.
Some students went to the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai and watched them build an experimental satellite. But things did not go smoothly. At the end of 2010, two years into the project, many ideas were still not clear and only four students left in the project.
The students then went to David Koilpillai and requested assistance. IIT Madras then became involved at the institutional level and sanctioned 3 crore, most of it to be raised from the alumni. They also assigned some space within the campus for a lab. The students then did a feasibility study and started the design process. They designed some sub-systems, which Isro engineers reviewed. The project also got integrated with MTech thesis: 14 students have now submitted this work as part of their course requirements.
Interview with K. Radhakrishnan, Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation. By R. RAMACHANDRAN
FOLLOWING THE SUCCESSFUL LAUNCH OF GSLV D5/GSAT-14, Frontline caught up with K. Radhakrishnan, Chairman, ISRO, on January 10 in New Delhi. In the conversation, Radhakrishnan discussed the various problems faced in the development of cryogenic systems and how these were overcome to prepare the organisation for its next big challenge, a success with GSLV MkIII, which will be powered by an entirely indigenous cryogenic engine and stage, and is targeted for 2015. Excerpts:
What elements of the Mark II cryogenic engine and stage, which fired GSLV-D5, still retain the legacy of Russian engine technology and design? How much of it is truly indigenous and how much of it relies on the Russian heritage?
Basically, both engines use the “staged combustion cycle”. That is one approach compared with gas generator cycle, which we are using for the C20 engine to be used in GSLV MkIII. There are several other differences, conceptually also, especially the igniter system that we are using, which is totally different from what has been used in the Russian engine. [In MkII liquid oxygen (LOX) and gaseous hydrogen (GH2) are ignited by pyrogen-type igniters in the pre-burner as well as in the main and steering engines during initial stages, as against pyrotechnic ignition in the Russian engine.] But in the staged combustion cycle, similarities can be found in the way the engine is started and the steering engines are used for controllability.
But the staged combustion cycle itself is quite complex.
The staged combustion cycle is complex but it gives slightly improved performance in terms of the specific impulse [Isp]. But in the gas generator cycle, you have the ability to test the individual elements. So if you look at the reliability aspects—establishing a reliable system and the time required for that—we can work in parallel. The issue is relevant in the context of GSLV MkIII, for which we were working on the engine and stage elements in parallel. The turbo pump, which has something like 5 megawatt of power, has already been tested and it has logged about 1,400 seconds on the ground. We have tested the thrust chamber along with the injector, igniter and the nozzle. We did two tests, and the third test is being done today [January 10]. [This test, which lasted for 50 seconds, was as predicted and was successful.] Now, when we have sufficient knowledge about the ignition characteristics, the combustion instability aspects and performance in different regimes of [LOX+liquid hydrogen, or LH2] mixture ratio, then we can start with engine test and then the stage test. So the time required from now to qualifying the stage becomes less. This is the main advantage. The flexibility that is available in a gas generator cycle is much more because individual systems can be tested from the input/output point of view and they can be qualified in parallel. In the previous situation, the stage process was started after the engine qualification.
The second aspect of the GSLV MkIII engine is that we are gimballing the nozzle for thrust vector control [and not the two using vernier (steering) engines as in the Russian engine and the cryogenic upper stage (CUS) of the indigenised MkII]. So we are only concerned about two ignitions, that is, the main engine and the gas generator. In the case of GSLV MKII’s CUS, the two steering engines have to ignite before the main engine ignites and that feed has to come from the main line. Unless the right temperature and pressure conditions are there at the beginning of that process, the steering engines will not function. In fact, in some of the ground tests, we noticed the problem of a two-phased flow. The most important part of the cryogenic engine is the sustained ignition and the termination of the turbo pumps. It should not give any undue rate for the spacecraft. So in this launch, the engine start was as predicted; the four ignitions were as predicted; similarly, the termination was also as predicted. If you look at the performance of the subsystems, the turbo pumps—the main turbo pump, the oxidiser turbo pump and the fuel booster turbo pump—in both the regimes—the uprated regime and the nominal regime—plus the temperatures, all have been well within the specifications. All the components that it employs, too, have performed well.
In retrospect, considering that it has taken such a long time, could we not have used the gas generator cycle?
No. At that time, before 1992, we were working with a one-tonne engine. We were learning cryo at that time; the learning started in 1982. If you trace the history, in the early 1970s, when the Space Science and Technology Centre was there in Thiruvananthapuram, in the pre-SLV3 stage, we were trying to understand all these propulsion systems, including hyper-propulsion, semi-cryogenic propulsion, and cryogenic propulsion. But then the essential focus was on the SLV-3 programme, which had solid propulsion in all the four stages. And that was essential for the programme. So, in 1992, the approach was technology acquisition. We followed a path and we continued with that.
What is the gain in Isp in the staged combustion cycle?
It is only of the order of 10 seconds.
The one-tonne engine and the subsequent indigenous work were all based on the gas generator cycle. So it would seem that just for that little gain we seem to have embarked on a highly complex technology that has taken such a long time to absorb.
It was complex but at that time it was the only one that was available. We now know that the flexibility available in the gas generator cycle is enormous. It is a learning process.
The GSLV has seen several failures and there must have been a lesson to be learnt from each one of them.
If you look at the first flight [GSLV-D1], essentially it was related to the mixture ratio used for the Russian cryogenic stage as far as the vehicle was concerned. In the aborted launch that took place [three weeks] earlier [March 28, 2001], essentially it was because of the blockage in one of the feed lines [by a lump of lead in the NO (dinitrogen tetroxide) feed line of the strap-on (S3) liquid engine L-40’s gas generator]. The latter called for tightening of the assembly and inspection processes. In the second [GSLV-D2] and the third [GSLV-F01] launches, there were no issues. In the next launch [GSLV-F02], there was again a fabrication issue. A dimension was not inspected during the manufacturing process. When that component [of the strap-on S4] was tested, a deviation was seen but that was taken as a wild point, something to do with the facility. It was too abnormal because we got a flow rate almost nine times what was expected. It was an annular gap which was supposed to be 0.5 mm. Something which was to be 17 mm was made 16 mm, and because of this dimensional change, what was to be 0.5 mm became 1.5 mm, resulting in an increase in the area [3x3] and hence the flow rate. That’s what happened.
If you look at the PSLV’s first flight, which failed, when we did the simulation on the ground, there was a wild point even at that time. Only one out of some 1,000-plus simulations, but it was taken as a wild point and ignored. So the lesson that we learnt is that wild points are not to be ignored but to be studied. They are an indication of something else that is happening. In F04, the control system of a strap-on stage failed because a gas motor stopped. This has again to do with the component and has nothing to do with the vehicle design. In GSLV-D3, it was again a component problem. All four ignitions started, but it was a pump [fuel booster turbo pump] that stopped. Why did the pump stop? We looked at three scenarios and the contamination theory was the most likely because we found the source of that contamination. It was a propellant acquisition system [PAS], which is basically a filter that ensures that the propellant gets into the outlet.
The initial theory was that there are three bearings, and a normally assembled motor is tested under standard room conditions and not in cryogenic conditions. And when the pump goes into cryogenic temperatures, there will be contraction. Since there are different materials, there would be dissimilar contractions. So tolerances are provided so that the bearing will not stop. But we found that the calculation might not have been done accurately. But the issue is, if it touches [something],will it stop, because there is a lot of power given to it? So we decided to test this in cryogenic conditions. A test facility was created. We did not take [the theory] for granted.
The second scenario is that a welding could have failed and the casing could have come out. We would have had a similar condition then. The possibility of a casing coming out was, however, very remote. But still we redesigned it. We made a casting.
The third scenario was contamination. We did not want to get locked on to the contamination theory because then we may not see the other things. The PAS is imported and is kept in a sealed cover. When we vibrated it, we found foreign particles coming out. Then we had to do a lot of cleaning and so that was the reason. So we decided to redesign it and that is what we used in D5. Otherwise, the liquid hydrogen tank itself could provide that contamination. All these three issues that we came across have been corrected. So it is a component-level problem and a not system problem. In F06, it was an inspection problem. The cryo-stage shroud, which is expected to move a little bit during the vehicle movement, is supposed to be provided with a lanyard of about 15 mm. But it was almost not there. It was only about 1-2 mm, resulting in greater tension. Two connectors are provided. But both connectors came out. And then we lost the signal from top to bottom. This is what happened actually.
The question is what did we do to address these. Compared with the PSLV, in the GSLV we have a large number of fluid components that have to work in flight. So we make the system, test it and use it and then after some time fly it. In this process, the leak rate would increase sometimes if there are very small defects. So getting a component assembled and tested properly becomes very important. We have tightened that now. In the recent PSLVs also, we have a good record in this area. We have introduced a zero-defect delivery system, which essentially boils down to the person who assembles the component. The technician who assembles the component should be aware of the impact of even a small scratch on a sheet or a dust particle coming into the system or something he might miss during the assembly. We introduced training about one and a half years ago and it is given in situ at the work spot in the local language with examples. When we say that the components have all performed to specifications during the entire campaign, it is actually the result of this. So this is the lesson from the GSLV. Otherwise, the GSLV per se, compared with the PSLV, is a better vehicle. Cryo is complex. Leave that part. If you take the bottom stages, the number of propulsion systems and control systems that come into the picture is far smaller. The only issue there is the solid motor hardware, which will have to be carried for nearly 40 seconds by the strap-ons because that does not separate. The advantage is that proven stages are being used here.
What is the next important milestone for the GSLV?
The immediate thing is GSLV MkIII, the experimental mission with the passive cryo stage.
What do you mean by passive cryo?
No engine will be burnt in the third stage. Actually, if you look at the GSLV, 50 per cent of the velocity is given by the non-cryo portion. So we will get about 5 km/s velocity, and it will be a suborbital flight. But what we want to test here is the atmospheric phase of the flight. While it is coming down, we will use it to characterise the crew module. We can measure the thermal stress when it is coming down. As far as the vehicle is concerned, its exterior will be ditto. Internally, the cryo will be passive.
“One of the key regulatory constraints facing ISRO is really an astrophysical one. They simply don’t have enough satellite orbital slots to meet all of those various demands,” says John Medeiros, Chief Policy Officer, CASBAA. “They have to run a host of programs, including India’s satellite health program, India’s Earth Observation program, as well as provide capacity for the broadcast industry. One of the biggest constraints they face is that they simply can’t put up enough satellites on their own to meet their needs. It is not their fault but it is a real constraint.”
“Our first recommendation would be to make this a 10- or 15-year contract [between DTH players and satellite operators]. This would make life a lot simpler for the Indian players; then you are bound by a longer contract. More importantly, the foreign satellite operator is able to offer you a better deal. You are likely to get a better deal on a 15-year contract than a 10-year contract,” Jha says. “ISRO’s initial plan was to provide the capacity, but unfortunately its satellites failed. When they initiated the plan for three-year contracts, it was the right thing to do as they had planned to have more of their own capacity, but since then, it hasn’t been looked at.”
ISRO’s track record of developing orbital slots “has not been very good,” our source says, citing the fact that the GSAT8 and GSAT10 satellites are no longer operational.
ISRO already has the plans to transition communication satellite manufacturing to the private industry. But I guess its time to expedite that process, and it seems more critical than the PSLV privatization. As Radhakrishnan himself said on many occasions, manufacturing communication satellites isn't what a government space agency is supposed to do, and ISRO shouldn't be a bottleneck for such commercial ventures. For the interim ISRO could buy heavy comsats from a foreign manufacturer to meet the transponder shortfall, and assist a selected private company/consortium in India in building up the manufacturing base and knowhow to build communication satellites for Indian govt and private clients. ISRO could continue with the manufacture of experimental and military communication satellites (the latter in cooperation with DRDO) and a few mainstream comsats to fill the gaps. I guess the process may have started already in these lines, and the day may not be far off when we have a robust private space industry in India, with DRDO affiliated labs manufacturing military reconnaissance and communication satellites on their own, and ISRO sticking to what it does best - Space Research, Civilian remote sensing and Planetary science missions.Jha admits she has been critical of ISRO from a broadcast perspective but she values the work that overall the organization does; particularly in areas such as health and education. “[ISRO] should focus on these aspects rather than coming into the private broadcasting space. They should spend their energies on the social sector and other ways of boosting the Indian economy,” she says. “The private broadcasting space should be more open, and these players should be able to deal with foreign satellite operators. Other media companies have more freedom. We would like to see the same in the satellite industry. We haven’t seen any activities on the part of ISRO where these changes we have talked about are starting to happen. They may be working internally on this, but visibly, we haven’t seen any significant progress in 2013.”
A few weeks back, AAI announced officially the availability of GAGAN (it was posted here too). if GSAT-8 and GSAT-10 GAGAN payloads were not available, such an announcement could not have been made.Varoon Shekhar wrote:The status of Gsat-8 and Gsat-10 is questionable
@ramana,ramana wrote:VineethG, ISRO has been an open and transparent organization. They have had open and transparent Failure Analysis Boards and open communications. No need to doubt its data.
Next think a little before posting. New membership does not mean one can say anything.
Thanks,
VineethG wrote: And by the way, I guess its all but confirmed officially that GSAT-10 too has failed in orbit as suspected. ISRO has been keeping mum about it all along. Not sure if it is a particular faulty component that is causing all these satellite failures. But it may point to a serious QA deficiency in their satellite center.
All you needed to do was to go to ISRO website.Varoon Shekhar wrote:^
Are the Gagan payloads aboard GSAT-10 and GSAT-8 working, or are they gone with the rest of the satellite(s)? Someone wrote that 2 Gagan payloads are operational, on which satellites? Layman question!
The GAGAN signal is being broadcast through two Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites - GSAT8 and GSAT10 - covering whole Indian Flight Information Region (FIR) and beyond. An on-orbit spare GAGAN transponder will be flown on GSAT-15.
Work on India’s most powerful rocket to date, scheduled for an experimental flight in April, is progressing fast. The first stage of the hefty Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk-III (GSLV Mk-III) is ready, officials of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) here said. Two S-200 boosters, which use solid fuel, comprise the first stage of Mk-III. This stage will burn for 130 seconds. ‘’The stage is ready. Work is now progressing on the second stage at the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC) in Mahendragiri,’’ VSSC director S Ramakrishnan said. The GSLV Mk-III has three ‘stages’ in all.
The second stage uses liquid fuel - Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) with Dinitrogen Tetroxide. This stage - L 110 - has two advanced Vikas engines and will burn for 200 seconds. The upper, third stage uses a more powerful version of the cryogenic engine used on the recent GSLV D-5 mission. The engine has been designated CE-2O and uses Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen as fuel. Theoretically, this stage will burn for 580 seconds, but the April flight being an experimental one, the cryo stage won’t be carrying propellant.
Tests are currently progressing on the engine at present, LPSC director M C Dathan said on the sidelines of a reception given to ISRO scientists here on Monday. ‘’The third test has been conducted successfully,’’ he said. At 42.4 metres, Mk-III is shorter than the regular GSLV, but it has a lift-off weight of around 630 tonnes compared to the latter’s 400 tonnes. Mk-III can place satellites weighing up to four tonnes in the geostationary transfer orbit, giving ISRO an edge in the market. If everything goes according to plan, the assembly of the rocket will begin at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota, in February.
‘’The GSLV Mk-III will have a sub-orbital flight in April. It will have as payload a prototype of the crew module meant for the manned mission,’’ Ramakrishnan said. Mk-III will lift off from the second launchpad at Sriharikota, the same one the
GSLV D-5 used on January 5. No modifications will be needed to the launchpad as it can accommodate the bigger GSLV, Ramakrishnan said. A regular flight of the Mk-III version is expected only by 2016.
As per reports that I have read, it is a three stage rocket. The liquid stage won't start till the solid motors have finished burning and are jettisoned. They won't be carrying any dead weight like the current generation PSLV and GSLV. That is supposed to be the big difference between mk-II and MK-IIImerlin wrote:Wonder why the report above mentions L110 as the second stage. It is not. Its part of the first stage which comprises the two S200 strap-ons and the L110 core stage. So LMV3 is actually a two stage design compared to GSLV Mk. 2 which is a 3 stage design.
Care to point out how you deduced GSAT-10 has problems. Just because GSAT-10 has been launched does not mean that ISRO has to release transponders to DTH operators... That article looks like a LIFAFA article and you are reading selectively and making wild allegations.ISRO launched Insat-4A’s replacement in that slot, GSAT-10, in September 2012 after many delays. However, the space agency has been mysteriously silent on giving capacity on GSAT-10. Nor has it formally put this satellite into service even after putting it in space for 10 months.
May not be beaming anything. Its one thing for the transponders to be operational and another for them to be handed over to a DTH operator.Varoon Shekhar wrote:^Excellent! What are the channels GSAT-10 is currently beaming? It is pretty certain that the GPS component aboard GSAT-10 is operational.
No I think the liquid stage starts burning before the solid motors have fully burnt out and jettisoned. As per one site, the solid motors burn for 39 seconds more after the L110 stage ignites. So not exactly a classical 3 stage rocket even though ISRO classifies it as such.putnanja wrote:As per reports that I have read, it is a three stage rocket. The liquid stage won't start till the solid motors have finished burning and are jettisoned. They won't be carrying any dead weight like the current generation PSLV and GSLV. That is supposed to be the big difference between mk-II and MK-IIImerlin wrote:Wonder why the report above mentions L110 as the second stage. It is not. Its part of the first stage which comprises the two S200 strap-ons and the L110 core stage. So LMV3 is actually a two stage design compared to GSLV Mk. 2 which is a 3 stage design.
merlin wrote:May not be beaming anything. Its one thing for the transponders to be operational and another for them to be handed over to a DTH operator.Varoon Shekhar wrote:^Excellent! What are the channels GSAT-10 is currently beaming? It is pretty certain that the GPS component aboard GSAT-10 is operational.
What you are saying about solid motor burning longer than liquid motors is in the current config. Will dig up details on Mk-III . I forgot that site name.merlin wrote:No I think the liquid stage starts burning before the solid motors have fully burnt out and jettisoned. As per one site, the solid motors burn for 39 seconds more after the L110 stage ignites. So not exactly a classical 3 stage rocket even though ISRO classifies it as such.putnanja wrote: As per reports that I have read, it is a three stage rocket. The liquid stage won't start till the solid motors have finished burning and are jettisoned. They won't be carrying any dead weight like the current generation PSLV and GSLV. That is supposed to be the big difference between mk-II and MK-III
hmm, why is the 2nd stage carrying dead weight around for 19 secs? With a whole new design I wonder why they are still carrying dead weights around like the current design?...
The launch starts with the simultaneous ignition of the two S-200 solid rocket motors which burn for 130s. At 110s, with the S-200 motors still burning, the core L-110 ignites and burns for 200s.
The S-200 motors are jettisoned at 149s.
At 253s, with the vehicle at 115km the payload fairing is jettisoned.
The L-110 burns out at 310 sec and is immediately jettisoned and the C-25 ignited.
The C-25 burns in two spells for a total of 580s and takes the vehicle to its GTO of 180 x 36,000 km.
...
putnanja wrote: hmm, why is the 2nd stage carrying dead weight around for 19 secs? With a whole new design I wonder why they are still carrying dead weights around like the current design?
Not necessarily in order of priorityputnanja wrote:
hmm, why is the 2nd stage carrying dead weight around for 19 secs? With a whole new design I wonder why they are still carrying dead weights around like the current design?
Apart from the above, I believe, S200 is not really S200, it is S230 or S240. So it will burn for some more time in the future. The timing might be based on this. When PSLV was first launched, it had a S-125 motor which later developed to S-139disha wrote:Not necessarily in order of priorityputnanja wrote: hmm, why is the 2nd stage carrying dead weight around for 19 secs? With a whole new design I wonder why they are still carrying dead weights around like the current design?
1. Momentum
2. Center of Pressure vs. Center of Gravity. CG needs to be ahead of CP. As more of the solid propellants burn, the CG starts readjusting. For rubber based propellant, generally the CG starts shifting behind.
3. Range safety., check the altitude and range where it is jettisoned.
Those are some of the variables I can think off. Of course, the design has to consider several more - no doubt it is called rocket science.
Mr. Narayanasamy lauded the ISRO scientists’ tireless work in fabricating indigenous cryogenic engine after geo political factors prevented Russia from sharing the technology with India and the Mars orbiter mission. “In fact, we should thank Russian embargo which motivated our scientists to fabricate the cryogenic engine,” he said.
The Minister also said the Union Government would seriously consider the plea for establishing Indian Institute of Propellant Technology at Mahendragiri and a launch pad at Kulasekarapattinam in neighbouring Tuticorin district.
From here:HAL Delivers the Crew Module (CM) for Human Spaceflight Program (HSP) to ISRO
On behalf of HAL, quality documents were handed over by Dr. Jeyakar Vedamanickam, GM, Aerospace Division, HAL (left) to Shri John. P. Zachariah, Director (R&D), VSSC in the backdrop of the Crew Module Structure.
February 13, 2014 : Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has handed over the first “Crew Module Structural Assembly” for the “Human Spaceflight Program” to Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram of ISRO in Bangalore, recently.
The first Crew Module will be further equipped with systems necessary for crew support, navigation, guidance and control systems by ISRO for experimentation in the forthcoming GSLV-MK3 launch. “HAL takes pride in the India’s space programmes and our Aerospace Division has produced this Crew Module in a record time to meet the requirements of ISRO”, said Dr. R.K. Tyagi, Chairman, HAL.
Earlier also HAL has contributed in the India’s space programmes such as “ISRO’s Mars Mission” by providing Satellite Structure, Propellant Tankages and supplied thirteen types of riveted structural assemblies, seven types of welded propellant tankages which include the cryogenic liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks and cryogenic stage structures for GSLV D5.
************
© Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. All rights reserved.
BANGALORE, India — While India’s recent launch of a spacecraft to Mars was a remarkable feat in its own right, it is the $75 million mission’s thrifty approach to time, money and materials that is getting attention.Just days after the launch of India’s Mangalyaan satellite, NASA sent off its own Mars mission, five years in the making, named Maven. Its cost: $671 million. The budget of India’s Mars mission, by contrast, was just three-quarters of the $100 million that Hollywood spent on last year’s space-based hit, “Gravity.”“The mission is a triumph of low-cost Indian engineering,” said Roddam Narasimha.ISRO has learned to make cost-effectiveness a daily mantra. Its inexpensive but reliable launch capabilities have become popular for the launches of small French, German and British satellites. Although the space agency had to build ground systems from scratch, its Chandrayaan moon mission in 2008 cost one-tenth what other nations’ moon shots cost, said Mylswamy Annadurai, mission director.The most obvious way ISRO does it is low-cost engineering talent, the same reason so many software firms use Indian engineers. India’s abundant supply of young technical talent helped rein in personnel costs to less than 15 percent of the budget. “Rocket scientists in India cost very little,” said Ajey Lele, a researcher at a New Delhi think tank, the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, and author of “Mission Mars: India’s Quest for the Red Planet.”The average age of India’s 2,500-person Mars team is 27. “At 50, I am the oldest member of my team; the next oldest is 32,” said Subbiah Arunan, the project’s director. Entry-level Indian space engineers make about $1,000 a month, less than a third of what their Western counterparts make.Scientists have also said that space exploration and the alleviation of poverty need not be mutually exclusive. “If the Mars mission’s $75 million was distributed equally to every Indian, they would be able to buy a cup of roadside chai once every three years,” said Mr. Narasimha, the aerospace scientist, referring to the tea that many Indians drink.“My guess is that even the poorest Indians will happily forgo their chai to be able to see their country send a rocket all the way to Mars.”
The whole story is quite interesting ..If the Mars mission’s $75 million was distributed equally to every Indian, they would be able to buy a cup of roadside chai once every three years,” said Mr. Narasimha, the aerospace scientist, referring to the tea that many Indians drink.
“My guess is that even the poorest Indians will happily forgo their chai to be able to see their country send a rocket all the way to Mars.”
