GSLV D3 Launch Failure

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Apr 2010 18:49

I think there was an announcement that the second stage had seperated.
I also think there was an announcement that CUS had ignited ???

SSSalvi-garu is correct - there was no increase in the velocity after that. But then all data coming in stopped then.
The velocity was supposed to have been 5 Km/s when CUS ignited and this was supposed to have taken it to GTO.
IIRC at the second stage burnout and separation, the velocity was ~ 4.8 Km/s or so.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Apr 2010 18:50

This is par for the course. Such things happen. They will correct the situation and move on.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Apr 2010 18:51

Important note: The only country to date known to have a successful first launch with a cryogenic engine is France. The US and Japan, both had failures the first time around.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Apr 2010 18:52

The Cryo stage of course had been ground tested and certified on the ground before it ever made it to the GSLV rocket today.

It is unfortunate that this had to happen after the second stage burnout. Now all media will focus on the Cryo stage. Even if there is a minor glitch.

The cause has to be a minor glitch only. Since the engine was certified on the ground. Meaning thereby that the science and engineering were solid and validated. This will be some minor mishap that has lead to this failure.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 15 Apr 2010 19:09

I have complete faith in ISRO, they are very competent and learn well from their mistakes. Remember the PSLV failure due to dog-leg manoeuvre -- seemed eons ago. PSLV today is very reliable and took our craft to the moon. Also remember the SLV failure from APJ's book and what Vikram Sarabhai told him.

One more launch and they will lick all the problems.

Onward!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Apr 2010 19:19

One thing to recall is that when you are testing a rocket or missile the cheapest testing method is to build and launch. no matter how expensive you make vacuum testing facilities and chambers with extremes of temperature - you cannot mimic the conditions of space as effectively and cheaply as a real launch.

Just don't 'send any humans though - until it's all tested and proven, although even after that you can end up with a Challenger (Space shuttle) type disaster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDF ... ure=fvste3

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 15 Apr 2010 19:25

NRao wrote:
sanjeevpunj wrote:Did this carry a Sattelite too? If yes, what a waste, if no, then they were wise.
As a FYI only:

Nothing unwise about ANY launch package/s.

It is a risk that they ALL (there are multiple parties involved) compute and thus take. The contents are therefore insured (for that amount).

Note that very mature launchers have also failed. Just because a missile set has had no problems for 10 years does not mean that there is no risk.

I would assume that insurance for this would be much higher given the CUS.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 15 Apr 2010 19:48

^^ Failure is first step of success.
I believe there is no nation/ few nation(s) who have not failed before success. Kudos to all the scientists and engineers who are working tirelessly in nation building sacrificing their well-paid pvt. sector job and being focussed to Scientific enquiry.

Jai Jawan, Jai Kishan, Jai Vigyan.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 15 Apr 2010 19:49

"If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward. "

-Thomas A. Edison

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 15 Apr 2010 19:50

Failures are a stepping stone to success!! Good work ISRO. Keep at it. It will work out.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Apr 2010 19:57

Neela wrote:I would assume that insurance for this would be much higher given the CUS.

Given that the satellite and launcher are both development/experimental, neither is probably insured.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Apr 2010 20:01

Why would telemetry data stop (at 505 seconds) after the verniers failed to ignite? Stage explosion?

ruprag · Post by **ruprag** » 15 Apr 2010 20:03

Failure needs to be taken in the stride and ISRO is a competent organization ..I have no doubt they will overcome this setback..

It was sad to see the ISRO Chief going out to inform the senior ex-ISRO chiefs and being hugged by all , all hard work lost in a few seconds..

However, i am sure they will learn quickly from this and have a launch within an year...WAY TO GO....

On a side observation note: Since IPL is the flavor of the times on TV, If ISRO was to participate in the bidding with the budget of Chandryaan (400 cr) and GSLV( 330 cr) Combined , it would have still not got any teams...

This is the hallmark and greater contribution of ISRO , making Cheaper Space vehicles and solutions with limited resources to benefit the Nation...truly a National Resource par excellence...JAI HIND...

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 15 Apr 2010 20:03

Is there a way to salvage the satellite? Do they plan for such contingencies?

bodhi · Post by **bodhi** » 15 Apr 2010 20:27

^^^ manned mission to the moon had an eject-able capsule in the early 60's and 70's if i am not wrong. If the delivery vehicle malfunctioned or exploded during lift-off, the engineers from the ground used to eject the capsule so that the crew survived the explosions. Don't think this was ever applied for satellite launches.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 15 Apr 2010 20:49

Launch Report: D3 flight Unsuccessful

sum · Post by **sum** » 15 Apr 2010 20:52

Awww...was following this thread till the launch and heart skipped a beat when first posts about contact lost were posted. Am feeling as down as i would if my boss at work had given me a belting .

Anyways, that is life and going by past record, ISRO wil surely overcome this glitch and make us proud. Al the best for the future, ISRO. May our own designed cryo fly successfully and give a resounding slap to Unkil.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 15 Apr 2010 20:56

The verdict is unanimous - we are with ISRO. History is with ISRO.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Apr 2010 21:01

ISRO will surely analyze data and come up with successful launch next time. Such setbacks are not a novel thing in the new technology areas specially when one has to do everything on one's own merit. Only after multiple trials such vehicles are considered robust. We will do it now knowing where we failed.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 15 Apr 2010 21:08

Gerard wrote:Why would telemetry data stop (at 505 seconds) after the verniers failed to ignite? Stage explosion?

It's difficult to tell whether the loss of telemetry was associated with loss of control until a detailed analysis take place. It could be because of uncontrollable rolling following failure of verniers. I think it's very speculative at this point.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 15 Apr 2010 21:08

The nation appreciates the hard work put in by the people involved in the project. ISRO keep the chin up & good luck @ the next attempt.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Apr 2010 21:20

Brad Goodman wrote:Is there a way to salvage the satellite? Do they plan for such contingencies?

When Launch vehicle veers off the course irretrievably a self destruct mechanism activates and blows the vehicle. That would also explain the reported explosion and loss of telemetry data link. Its nothing new, just a safety device to ensure that big parts and explosive materials of the vehicle do not fall in populated area.

So no chance of recovery of payload.

nmadhav · Post by **nmadhav** » 15 Apr 2010 21:26

Why would telemetry data stop (at 505 seconds) after the verniers failed to ignite? Stage explosion?

I have the same question. As far as I know the engine and the telemetry are separate subsystems.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Apr 2010 21:31

ISRO statement on GSLV's failure

The flight-testing of the indigenous Cryogenic Engine and the Stage conducted in the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle GSLV-D3 this afternoon (April 15, 2010) was not successful.

GSLV-D3 vehicle lifted off as planned at 16:27 hrs after a countdown procedure lasting for 29 hours. The countdown went off as planned. GSLV-D3 vehicle performance was normal up to the end of the second stage (GS2) till 293 seconds.

Afterwards, the Cryogenic Stage was to ignite and burn for about 720 seconds to provide the necessary velocity to inject GSAT-4 Satellite into the intended Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit.

It is yet to be ascertained whether the cryogenic engine did ignite. The vehicle was seen tumbling, lost altitude and finally splashed down in the sea.

Detailed analysis of the flight data is being carried out to find out the exact reasons for the failure and take corrective measures to realise the next flight test of the indigenous Cryogenic Engine and Stage within the next one year.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Apr 2010 21:33

Indian rocket tumbles back to Earth during test launch

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Apr 2010 21:37

All manned missions have a rocket on top of the crew capsule. The crew can "launch" off the rocket to take them further away from the rocket, then use the parachute on the crew capsule to descend to earth.

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 15 Apr 2010 21:49

sanjeevpunj wrote:Did this carry a Sattelite too? If yes, what a waste, if no, then they were wise.

The satellite cost is peanuts as compared to rocket... so the statement has no significance.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 15 Apr 2010 21:56

India is past the stage where one rocket failure would induce national despondency. ISRO will fix it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2010 22:31

Folks can we dispense with the emotional atyachar? Please stick to facts and preferably from ISRO. They have always been upfront about their work.
Yes it had a satellite as all launch vehicles do. Its risk and known.
Yes ground testing does uncover many lapses but as it is said "one flight test is worth a hundred ground tests!" The reason is the upper atmosphere is rare and leads to corona issues and consequent electrical issues. Most test flight issues are from electrical. Lets see what comes up. Usually the observed phenomenon masks the true root cause.

Tumbling indicates loss of stability. Loss of stability indicates verniers/control system not working. However only telemetry will tell if verniers couldnt handle non-performace of upper stage or vice versa. And only ISRO has the telemetry.

SSalvigaru, can you lead the thread discussion? Good obesrvation of the horizontal attitude indicating issues.
Thanks, ramana

rahuls · Post by **rahuls** » 15 Apr 2010 23:12

SSSalvi wrote:
sanjeevpunj wrote:Did this carry a Sattelite too? If yes, what a waste, if no, then they were wise.
The satellite cost is peanuts as compared to rocket... so the statement has no significance.

SSSalvi garu, are you sure about that. I thought the satellite costs about 150 cr and the launch vehicle costs about the same (not including the development costs of launch vehicle).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2010 23:26

rahuls

Q. Now on this particular launch on the eve of it we are talking, we are also carrying a fine satellite to be placed in the orbit. Is it an experimental satellite? What are the experiments that you are doing?

A. GSAT-4 which is flying on this GSLV-D3 is an advanced technology communication satellite. Advanced in the sense that for the first time we are seeing the use Ka- band transponders that is a regenerative payload. The second is a payload to augment the GPS system which is called GAGAN. And for the first time we are using in this new electric propulsion. So far we were using chemical propulsion for the station keeping of the satellite throughout its life. This time we have used electric propulsion.

Q. First time you are using that ...

A. Yes, which is a very efficient system.

Q. So this is largely an experimental launch?

A. True

Q. It is a landmark experiment. Should- if something goes wrong will you have very long faces or we can you live with that?

A. See the track record of ISRO is the resilience is very high. We always come back.

Q. Hopes are very high that everything will go right. You have done the best you can- both for the satellite and for the launch?

A. We do our best.

Q. Hope for the best?

A. Yes

Q. And work for the best?

A. Certainly

and

Q. Can you tell me more about our costs- are our costs comparable? Are we cheaper than other launchers in this class, are we more expensive, or do we hide the costs?

A. The independent study by an agency in the country showed that our costs were far less as compared to the other agencies. Coming to this GSLV the vehicle cost is 180 crores or about 175-180 crores. The satellite that is flying GSAT-4 cost about 150 crores. Now if you put such a satellite into the orbit, you would be paying anything- double. That is the kind of scenario on cost. Our engineering costs are far as compared to what many other players in the world.

Q. So if I understand what you are saying is, the Indian costs are half of what the international market is.

A. About..

Q. But you are not paying any insurance on this so that takes a huge chunk away. When you factor that in, what happens?

A. See for the Indian launchers we do not take insurance because again the Indian insurance company will be paying for that.

Q. But when you factor that in, what happens to the cost- benefit ratio?

A. No that will be, of course we are still...

Q. You are still above half of the cost?

A. Half to 75 percent depending upon what we are comparing with.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 47#p856347

Yes the sat cost is about same as the launch vehicle. SSSgaru might be including the cost of developing the Cryo Stage.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 16 Apr 2010 00:09

[youtube]vj2V_-Ywmdg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Notice how the vehicle starts losing altitude after the third stage ignition. Also as notified earlier the velocity of the vehicle remains nearly constant at around 4.8-4.9 km/sec from the third stage ignition to when it starts falling back. It generally happens during coasting but the velocity picks up once the next stage engines are up and running.

So the possible reason could be that the onboard mission computer switched-off the engine following the loss of control as a result of the failure of vernier thrusters.

Loss of telemetry can be explained by the fact that when the stage re-entered the atmosphere it got burnt as it is designed to do so. Upper stages never self-destruct as the designers know that a failure will not pose any danger on-ground as the they burn-up reentering the atmosphere and they do so once the satellite is placed placed in orbit.

So, the an overview of possible causes.
1. Tumbling, loss of altitude - Following the failure of vernier thrusters the mission computer could have stopped the engines.
2. Loss of Telemetry - As the stage reentered the atmosphere it got burned up with the payload and onboard systems.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Apr 2010 00:40

GSLV-D3 mission fails - T.S. Subramanian

...
ISRO Chairman K. Radhakrishnan told reporters, “We are not sure whether the cryogenic main engine did ignite. We have to confirm this after looking at the various parameters that were monitored during the flight. The vehicle was tumbling. It means it lost its control and altitude. Finally, it splashed into the sea.”
...
...
“There was a problem in the start-up of the cryogenic engine,” said the Director of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre in Thiruvananthapuram, P.S. Veeraraghavan.

“Our team has all the capability and resilience to do an analysis and take corrective measures. Our target is to fly a GSLV with our indigenous cryogenic engine within one year. But it will be tough,” he said.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Apr 2010 00:43

“GSLV-D3 failure won't affect Chandrayaan-2” - T.S. Subramanian

...
S. Ramakrishnan, Director (Projects), Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, said the cryogenic technology was the most complex of all types of rocket propulsion. France and the U.S. had also met with failures in using cryogenic engines. “Failures in cryogenic technology are not unusual. It is difficult to test the cryogenic engine even on the ground. We are disappointed. But we will overcome [the problems],” said Mr. Ramakrishnan

The GSLV-D3 rocket, including the indigenous cryogenic stage, cost Rs.180 crore. The ISRO spent Rs.36 crore to develop its own cryogenic stage with the engine. GSAT-4 cost Rs.130 crore.
...
...
Dr. Radhakrishnan said there were no plans to recover the GSLV-D3 stages from the Bay of Bengal as the ISRO did when its GSLV flight failed in 2006.
...
...
The next GSLV flight would take place in September this year but it would use a Russian cryogenic engine. It would put into the orbit a communication satellite named GSAT-5B. Another GSLV flight, also powered by a Russian cryogenic engine, would put GSAT-6 into the orbit.
...
...

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 16 Apr 2010 01:21

Frankly, I am quite tired of all the excuses. No one builts such a complex thing and gets it entirely right, the first time. NO ONE. Yes it has been a faliure, but some other stuff worked. Now Isro must go back to the drawing board and sort out the problems. Then a new lauch and then there will be further set backs. Even Hubble was a great dissapointment, but they fixed it and got it right in the end.
For those who always must compare with the Chinease, i suggest they take a look at their true budget.

prataparudra · Post by **prataparudra** » 16 Apr 2010 03:13

The cryogenic stage ignited but the verniers failed...this is not the biggest of worries...
Read below,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/2 ... index.html

The $273 million satellite, called the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, would have collected global measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere to help better forecast changes in carbon-dioxide levels and their effect on the Earth's climate.

Carbon dioxide is considered a greenhouse gas because it traps heat, which scientists believe contributes to the warming of the planet. Carbon dioxide also absorbs wavelengths of light, and the NASA observatory would have measured levels of the gas partly by using instruments to analyze light reflected off the Earth.

The OCO also would have provided information about CO2 "sinks" -- areas, like oceans or landfills, that absorb and store carbon dioxide. NASA officials said all measurements would be combined with the findings of ground observation stations, providing a more complete account of the human and natural sources of CO2.

The OCO project took eight years to develop, said Michael Frelich, director of the NASA Earth Science Division. Its failure is a great loss for the science community, he said.

Although, gotto mention ISRO boss sounded a little too confident...neverthless..we'll get there..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2010 03:28

BTW, Ind Exp reports:

When asked about his feelings after having tasted failure in his first mission as the ISRO Director, Radhakrishnan quoted from the Bhagwad Gita: “Karmanye vadhikarasthe ma phaleshu kadachana (Focus on the task at hand, don’t think of results).

Prataprudra, is your intention to highlight the NASA test failure or what?

prataparudra · Post by **prataparudra** » 16 Apr 2010 03:39

Yes ramana, that was the intention.

nasa c02 satellite...Eight years spent and still failed...Failure can happen at anytime..whether the technology is proven or not....challenger, columbia disaster etc...also agni 2/ prithivi failed after tech was proven due to mfg defect...
Pickup pieces and move on...

Also, not a fan of how MSM reported..."18 years work down the drain"....bunch of dummies

We need to remember ..WE HAVE THE THRUST. (from static testing).....that is probably 70% of the goal...
we just have to make it work up there and we will get there....

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 16 Apr 2010 04:20

I would like to see an end to all posts that count crores of rupees. Both the launcher and the satellite put together cost India less than 25% of what companies have invested into a single cricket IPL team - and God knows there's one too many of those.

I like to think of the PSLV as India's fire and forget launcher. Its just that reliable. GSLV is in waiting. Diwali 2011 is going to be celebrated with GSLV shaped rockets.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 16 Apr 2010 04:22

Why the

about xyz years of work lost? Failure is as much a part of success as success itself . And if there is a more magnificent bunch of space scientists in this world than those who work at ISRO day and night, I have yet to meet them.

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