Author Topic: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread  (Read 38144 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« on: 12/28/2013 07:01 PM »
Rather than fill up the update thread with discussion, this is the place to state your opinion on whether this work or not: extra points for predicting the exact failure mode (if any) or time.

I cannot see this making it through 3rd stage operation, but I am rarely right about launches.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2015 02:34 PM by input~2 »

Offline AJA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
  • Per Aspera Ad Ares, Per Aspera Ad Astra
  • India
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 203
Wow. OK.. care to substantiate your argument?

Offline kanaka

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Rather than fill up the update thread with discussion, this is the place to state your opinion on whether this work or not: extra points for predicting the exact failure mode (if any) or time.

I cannot see this making it through 3rd stage operation, but I am rarely right about launches.

Could you please justify your conclusion? Basis of analysis is appreciated.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
First off, this particular launcher in general has a spotty history, plus the LH2 engine has a poor flight record.

I am concerned that ISRO is continually attempting to upgrade the launcher before demonstrating that any one variant has been proven.

There are two variants of the Mark I, plus a Mark 2 plus a Mark 3 coming soon.



Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107


I am concerned that ISRO is continually attempting to upgrade the launcher before demonstrating that any one variant has been proven.

There are two variants of the Mark I, plus a Mark 2 plus a Mark 3 coming soon.

Your concern is unwarranted because ISRO is not doing anything of that sorts. GSLV (Mk1, MK2) and the upcoming GSLV Mk3 or LVM3 are two completely different launch vehicles. Most people have this misconception that LVM3 is an upgraded version of GSLV. LVM3 is a next generation launch vehicle of ISRO which comes under its expansion phase (SLV, ASLV- experimental phase, PSLV, GSLV - operational phase). All stages of LVM3 are of completely new design and share nothing in common with GSLV.

As far as GSLV is concerned, the only challenge left is mastering the cryo engine tech as there is no problem with the aerodynamic structure of the LV and the performance of both the first and second stages have been nominal.






 
Nasadiya Sukta:
Srishti se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin | Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhi nahin thaa | chhipaa thaa kyaa, kahaan, kisne dhakaa thaa | us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa ||

From: 1st verse of 129th Hymn of the 10th Book of Rig Veda

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
I am suggesting that the flight history of GSLV has been so short that there may be failure modes that have not been experienced yet.




Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
I am suggesting that the flight history of GSLV has been so short that there may be failure modes that have not been experienced yet.





However, is that enough information for a foregone conclusion?
Technological development is always incremental. Almost all the components of GSLV with the exception of Indigenous Cryogenic Upper Stage (CUS) have been proven.

The Indian CUS was tested once in D3 flight (failure).
http://www.isro.org/gslv-d3/gslv-d3.aspx

Given the background of ISRO, I'd say the odds of success are in favor this time.
So it remains to be seen the outcome of this flight.

Best to you ISRO. Go get it done!!

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
GSLV-D5 has many fixes and improvements over GSLV-D3, which was the first flight of indigenous CUS. Quoting from GSLV-D5 brochure http://www.isro.org/gslv-d5/pdf/brochure.pdf:
Quote
These include:
• Redesign of Lower Shroud which protects the cryogenic engine during atmospheric flight of GSLV-D5
• Redesign of the wire tunnel of the cryo stage to withstand larger forces during flight
• Revised Aerodynamic characterisation of the entire launch vehicle
• Inclusion of Video Imaging System to monitor lower shroud movement during various phases of flight
• Improvements in the Cryogenic upper Stage:
 → Modified design of the Fuel Booster Turbo Pump (FBTP), taking care of the expansion and contraction of the bearings and casing at cryogenic temperatures
 → Modification of Ignition Sequence to ensure the smooth, successful and sustained ignition for  Main Engine (ME), Steering Engine (SE) and Gas Generator (GG)

In addition, indigenisation of many critical systems including Liquid Hydrogen Propellant Acquistion System (to prevent the possibility of contamination), Polyimide pipelines and Liquid Oxygen & Liquid Hydrogen Level Sensors has been successfully accomplished.

In order to validate the design improvements, the following extensive qualification test have been carried out on the engine at the Main Engine Test (MET) facility and the High Altitude Test (HAT) facility:
• Two acceptance tests for flight unit of FBTP
• High altitude   tests to confirm the ignition sequence in flight under vacuum
• Cryogenic Main Engine (200 sec) and Steering Engine (100 sec) acceptance tests

I guess, all eyes will be on turbo pumps and CUS lower shroud.

All the best, ISRO. Let's do it :)

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Rather than fill up the update thread with discussion, this is the place to state your opinion on whether this work or not: extra points for predicting the exact failure mode (if any) or time.

I cannot see this making it through 3rd stage operation, but I am rarely right about launches.


You have an answer now!  :)

Offline isro-watch

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 4
Yes, the answer !

Offline Mazo

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • India
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
After a technology denial regime instituted by the US Government that prevented Russia from transferring the cryogenic staged combustion cycle engine technology to India in 1992 citing MTCR and other meaningless treaties (while NASA was buying Soviet RD-180 technology because it was "better"), today the ISRO has built, tested and demonstrated its own cryogenic engine with a text book launch using an ALL INDIAN vehicle.

25 years later- mission accomplished! Success or Failure - you decide.  :P

Offline xm11

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 8
GSLV-D5 successfully launches GSAT-14 from SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota
on Jan 05, 2014 


Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462

I cannot see this making it through 3rd stage operation, but I am rarely right about launches.


I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong on this one.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
I was reading that ISRO is working on uprating the cryogenic engine from its current 73kN to 90kN thrust:

http://isp.justthe80.com/launchers/isro-s-cryogenic-upper-stage-cus#TOC-More-Powerful-Cryogenic-Engine


That still doesn't correct the design flaw of carrying the dead weight of the 1st-stage core post-burnout. But I guess ISRO doesn't mind because of the cheapness of developing GSLV-Mk1/2.

Is there any opportunity to correct that flaw somehow? Seems like they'd have to swap out the solid core for a liquid one, and that might even allow them to probably get rid of the strap-ons too.

Gee, I didn't realize that the cryogenic upper stage for GSLV-Mk3 was a different technology (gas generator) as compared to GSLV-Mk2 (staged combustion). I'd always thought both rockets were using the same cryogenic engine technology, and that therefore the Mk-3 was just an evolution on the configuration of the Mk-2.

If the staged combustion in GSLV-Mk2 is not being replicated in the GSLV-Mk3, then what further platforms will make use of the staged combustion technology? It seems to me that if ISRO has taken the trouble to develop staged combustion technology, that it should want to use it on a launch vehicle that isn't handicapped.
To me, that means that either GSLV-Mk2 should be replaced with a better-designed rocket, or else the design flaw in Mk2 should somehow be corrected.





Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
I was reading that ISRO is working on uprating the cryogenic engine from its current 73kN to 90kN thrust:

http://isp.justthe80.com/launchers/isro-s-cryogenic-upper-stage-cus#TOC-More-Powerful-Cryogenic-Engine


That still doesn't correct the design flaw of carrying the dead weight of the 1st-stage core post-burnout. But I guess ISRO doesn't mind because of the cheapness of developing GSLV-Mk1/2.

Is there any opportunity to correct that flaw somehow? Seems like they'd have to swap out the solid core for a liquid one, and that might even allow them to probably get rid of the strap-ons too.

Gee, I didn't realize that the cryogenic upper stage for GSLV-Mk3 was a different technology (gas generator) as compared to GSLV-Mk2 (staged combustion). I'd always thought both rockets were using the same cryogenic engine technology, and that therefore the Mk-3 was just an evolution on the configuration of the Mk-2.

If the staged combustion in GSLV-Mk2 is not being replicated in the GSLV-Mk3, then what further platforms will make use of the staged combustion technology? It seems to me that if ISRO has taken the trouble to develop staged combustion technology, that it should want to use it on a launch vehicle that isn't handicapped.
To me, that means that either GSLV-Mk2 should be replaced with a better-designed rocket, or else the design flaw in Mk2 should somehow be corrected.


The CUS already reached 90 kn in this flight. it started with 75 and reached 90, and then again back to 75. Staged combustion cycle technology development experience will help in the semi-cryo engine under development and probably for future high rated cryo engines for RLV. Once LVM3 is available, ISRO will concentrate on building only >3 ton com sats and so role of GSLV mk2 will be limited to lofting GSO imaging stas and inter-planetary missions.

Nasadiya Sukta:
Srishti se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin | Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhi nahin thaa | chhipaa thaa kyaa, kahaan, kisne dhakaa thaa | us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa ||

From: 1st verse of 129th Hymn of the 10th Book of Rig Veda

Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #16 on: 01/06/2014 02:46 AM »
That still doesn't correct the design flaw of carrying the dead weight of the 1st-stage core post-burnout. But I guess ISRO doesn't mind because of the cheapness of developing GSLV-Mk1/2.

Is there any opportunity to correct that flaw somehow? Seems like they'd have to swap out the solid core for a liquid one, and that might even allow them to probably get rid of the strap-ons too.


They could decrease the fuel capacity in the boosters to avoid the 1st stage post burn out dead weight problem. Though I am not sure if the weight decrease in L440 chambers will compensate for loss of thrust duration.

What is the weight of the 1st stage core shell casing?





Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #17 on: 01/06/2014 03:13 AM »
They could decrease the fuel capacity in the boosters to avoid the 1st stage post burn out dead weight problem. Though I am not sure if the weight decrease in L440 chambers will compensate for loss of thrust duration.

What is the weight of the 1st stage core shell casing?

Or alternatively, they could increase the size of the 1st-stage core, to make it last longer, which would improve capacity rather than lowering it!  It would also allow that near-worthless 2nd-stage to be eliminated. Call that the GSLV Mk-2B.

Come to think of it - why didn't they just do that from the start?  :P
« Last Edit: 01/06/2014 04:03 AM by sanman »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
The CUS already reached 90 kn in this flight. it started with 75 and reached 90, and then again back to 75. Staged combustion cycle technology development experience will help in the semi-cryo engine under development and probably for future high rated cryo engines for RLV. Once LVM3 is available, ISRO will concentrate on building only >3 ton com sats and so role of GSLV mk2 will be limited to lofting GSO imaging stas and inter-planetary missions.

Ah, that's right - saw those comments about the variable thrust being cranked up to hit 90.

What about restart capability? I read that this engine has that, but I guess it wasn't tested on this flight.

I'd read that the next big focus for LPSC will be on Semi-cryo engines, and so this development program will result in larger boosters for lower stages. So this seems to be the opposite of everyone else's engine development path. Everybody else did semi-cryo first, because that's easiest and gets you flying sooner - certainly more practical from a business perspective. India seems to have approached development from the opposite side, which seems to be what's taking it so long in getting into the commercial launch market.




Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #19 on: 01/06/2014 04:25 AM »
Or alternatively, they could increase the size of the 1st-stage core, to make it last longer, which would improve capacity rather than lowering it!  It would also allow that near-worthless 2nd-stage to be eliminated. Call that the GSLV Mk-2B.

Come to think of it - why didn't they just do that from the start?  :P

I thought about this. I figured it would be much easier to manipulate the fuel content in the strap on boosters rather than modifying the engineering of the solid core.  ;D

Solid fuels tend to be heavier and have shorter specific impulse.
 
ISRO could maintain the same stage design layout.

Decrease fuel capacity in Stage-1 strap on boosters.
Increase fuel capacity in either Stage 2 or Stage 3 and maintain current weight configuration but achieve better performance.






Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #20 on: 01/06/2014 04:38 AM »
IMO, I think ISRO would be better off developing a Semi-cryogenic 1st stage + Cryogenic 2nd Stage configuration instead of trying to improve solid core and hypergolic engine performance.

Which is what I believe will be configuration of ULV.

A single Semi-cryogenic core 1st stage.
Need more thrust? Add semi-cryogenic boosters. Or increase the fuel capacity of 1st stage and use engine clusters.
A single cryogenic 2nd stage. Need more thrust? Increase fuel capacity and/or use engine clusters.

I think ISRO should move away from hypergols for rocket engines (and just limit using hypergols to satellites, spacecrafts and such). Expensive, unstable, not easily transportable, needs a lot of careful handling.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2014 04:40 AM by cave_dweller »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #21 on: 01/06/2014 04:44 AM »
Semi-cryo 1st stage + Cryo upper stage makes me think of RLV / TSTO

See antriksh's latest post under "Indian Reusable Launch Vehicle Program":

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25695.45

Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #22 on: 01/06/2014 05:36 AM »
Yep, the evolution path is ULV->RLV->TSTO->Air Breathable TSTO

The problem India has is not so much the lack of capability. But that of bootstrapping overhead and industry support :(
India is ways behind in materials technology which was one of the biggest factors in delays related to ICE (Indian Cryogenic Engine).

Its a chicken and egg problem. For industry to be sustainable there has to be enough volume (or number of flights from ISRO). For ISRO to have a high volume of flights the materials should be affordable.

Today it is solved by government funding. But that has its limits which is manifested as lengthened delays.

With ICE, India might have achieved point of critical mass where it can attract enough flight customers to make it a thriving industry.

It would be good for India to be another competitor in the space. This will have the dual benefit of economic benefits AND making spaceflight cheaper by competition and reflexive volume.

I feel really happy for India!!







Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
GSLV D5
« Reply #23 on: 01/06/2014 10:57 AM »



may be because CE7.5 is staged combustion and others are either gas generator or expander cycles
Asking again: would you provide your source?

Low scientific literacy, among society as well as policy makers elected by such a society - has ALWAYS been, and still is THE security threat - to socio-economic prosperity, and consequently to life and property.

A simple search can provide the answer  ;)

read about CUS: http://www.isro.org/gslv-d3/pdf/GSLV-D3_GSAT-4%20Brochure.pdf

Nasadiya Sukta:
Srishti se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin | Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhi nahin thaa | chhipaa thaa kyaa, kahaan, kisne dhakaa thaa | us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa ||

From: 1st verse of 129th Hymn of the 10th Book of Rig Veda

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #24 on: 01/06/2014 11:10 AM »
I think India's rocket program was quite smart. Start out with the 4 stage PSLV. A 4 stage rocket can have high design margins. Second stage engine was tech transfered from Ariane 4. Third and fourth stages replaced by hydrogen upper stage purchased from Russia, until indigenous copy is made. First stage supports strap on boosters. Larger solid first stages with tighter margins are gradually made (s-200). Then make a rocket twice as large, with double engines. Keep the rocket team plodding along for a few decades. India then has a rocket for the neglected ~5 ton to LEO market, and a 10 ton to LEO rocket for more mainstream satellites, requiring only a small industrial base. Quite clever.

Then India works on a new 20 ton hydrogen engine. Why not just use 2 GSLV mk 2 hydrogen engines?

Offline AJA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
  • Per Aspera Ad Ares, Per Aspera Ad Astra
  • India
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: GSLV D5
« Reply #25 on: 01/06/2014 11:47 AM »

K Radhakrishnan does some market prognostication

Quote
Answering a question on the commercial potential of the GSLV with India’s own cryogenic engine, Dr. Radhakrishnan said that while the trend now was to build 5.5-tonne satellites, there was a niche market for two-tonne communication satellites. Satellites weighing 3.2 tonnes to 4.5 tonnes were being built in the world. “So there is a set of satellites” which could be put into orbit by the GSLV.
And... some (recycled?) information on international collaborations..
Quote

India has been invited to take part in experiments onboard the International Space Station, Dr. Radhakrishnan said.

The ISRO and NASA would jointly build a satellite with synthetic aperture radar for earth observations. A.S. Kiran Kumar, Director, Space Applications Centre of the ISRO, Ahmedabad, was working with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for preparing the project report related to the spacecraft, he said.


A simple search can provide the answer  ;)
read about CUS: http://www.isro.org/gslv-d3/pdf/GSLV-D3_GSAT-4%20Brochure.pdf

This discussion is taking place in two threads.
Anyway, you said it was the D-5 brochure, and now you do a bait-and-switch quoting the D-3 brochure. I found the ISRO press release anyway. Btw... if a search is simple, simpler still is for the OP to include the link in the original post.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2014 11:49 AM by AJA »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3609
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: GSLV D5
« Reply #26 on: 01/06/2014 01:50 PM »
They keep referring to the cryogenic stage... I assume this is a HydroLox stage?
ISRO calls its previously existing hypergolic liquid stages "storable".  It calls its LOX/LH2 stage "cryogenic".  It calls its LOX/kerosene R&D effort "semi-cryogenic".

 - Ed Kyle

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #27 on: 01/06/2014 02:55 PM »
Regarding the chicken-and-egg hurdle, I wonder if ISRO could have progressed faster by engineering a cryogenic engine based on LCH4 instead of LH2? At least LCH4 has an industrial base to support it, unlike LH2, and so moving in that direction isn't a leap out into empty space like LH2 is.

Even with the planned RLV/TSTO, they should still consider LCH4, because of its high Isp, and plus it's not as hard to work with as LH2.


Offline akula2

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • USA, Germany and India
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV D5
« Reply #28 on: 01/06/2014 08:13 PM »
By the way, ISRO GSLV D5 happens to be first orbital launch of 2014 :)
My somewhat belated congratulations to all  :)

I'm intrigued to learn:

a) what's the total cost of his mission combined with the delay (cost of leak)?
b) will there be any Return on Investment when total cost considered?

Quote
More importantly, the fuel tank material has been changed, fully phasing out the traditional but corrosion-prone aluminium-zinc combine, called AFNOR 7020. The new alternative, aluminium-copper alloy called AA2219, is now the material for all PSLV and GSLV tanks.

c) I look at it as a Managerial lapse. Just wondering, will there be any disciplinary action of any sort taken? If yes, to what level/extent?

I understand Space launches are complex but that gaffe could have been avoided - saving loads of time/resources/money. Please someone answer, thank you.

Lastly, it was a good writeup by William Graham  :)

Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #29 on: 01/06/2014 08:17 PM »
Regarding the chicken-and-egg hurdle, I wonder if ISRO could have progressed faster by engineering a cryogenic engine based on LCH4 instead of LH2? At least LCH4 has an industrial base to support it, unlike LH2, and so moving in that direction isn't a leap out into empty space like LH2 is.

Even with the planned RLV/TSTO, they should still consider LCH4, because of its high Isp, and plus it's not as hard to work with as LH2.

Oxidizer: LOX
Oxidizer Density: 1.140 g/cc.
Oxidizer Freezing Point: -219 deg C.
Oxidizer Boiling Point: -183 deg C.

Fuel LCH4:
Fuel Density: 0.424 g/cc.
Fuel Freezing Point: -184 deg C.
Fuel Boiling Point: -162 deg C.

Fuel LH2:
Fuel Density: 0.071 g/cc.
Fuel Freezing Point: -259 deg C.
Fuel Boiling Point: -253 deg C.

It appears Liquid Methane offers better density. But its only 80% Hydrogen (4 out of 5 atoms). So there is the overhead of carrying 20% dead weight (Carbon). Though there is the benefit of not having to cool it as aggressively as H2. I am also not sure about the efficiency of the combustion cycle.

By going the LOX+LH2 route, it would help maintain a conservative approach (proven technology, low risk) as opposed to going directly for LOX+LCH4 and going through the overhead of learning a new technology with an unknown risk.

Regardless, I think India would do well to develop its materials and human resources base. For instance only US, Russia and China have Titanium smelters. Saudi Arabia is building one.

Also, I think India should also consider open/modular satellite systems design. For instance, a single large satellite in GSO orbit can serve the needs of many regions instead of each region launching its own small satellite in the same orbit. An open & modular approach will bring efficiency of design, re-use, lower costs and will also drive the need for heavier launch vehicles. ISRO has demonstrated these intentions with the inclusion of experiments from multiple nations on Chandrayaan-1. They could extend the same to commercial services as well.

With the Indian economy developing combined with judicious approach to developing resources and industries could certainly enable exciting developments in Indian Space Technology in the future.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 12:04 AM by cave_dweller »

Offline chota

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5
« Reply #30 on: 01/07/2014 01:33 AM »
Disciplinary action should be the last thing to do for a developing program IMHO. Reason for failure looks silly when retrospected.

Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5
« Reply #31 on: 01/07/2014 04:24 AM »
By the way, ISRO GSLV D5 happens to be first orbital launch of 2014 :)
My somewhat belated congratulations to all  :)

I'm intrigued to learn:

a) what's the total cost of his mission combined with the delay (cost of leak)?
b) will there be any Return on Investment when total cost considered?

Quote
More importantly, the fuel tank material has been changed, fully phasing out the traditional but corrosion-prone aluminium-zinc combine, called AFNOR 7020. The new alternative, aluminium-copper alloy called AA2219, is now the material for all PSLV and GSLV tanks.

c) I look at it as a Managerial lapse. Just wondering, will there be any disciplinary action of any sort taken? If yes, to what level/extent?

I understand Space launches are complex but that gaffe could have been avoided - saving loads of time/resources/money. Please someone answer, thank you.

Lastly, it was a good writeup by William Graham  :)

R&D tends to be the process of making mistakes, learning from them, experiencing accidents, training to avoid them and other growing up pains. Its the process of maturation.

India doesn't have as strong a manufacturing economy comparable to most western economies or even China. So when a mistake or an accident does happen, the time to correct it is longer. That is just the fact of life and nature of development in emerging nations.

Cryogenic technology is a key enabler and a great leverage a nation can posses. It demonstrates technological capability and maturity. So, immediate ROI is one thing. However there are many other intangible and ripple effects through out the economy and human resource development that are not readily apparent but very much a causal outcome.

However, from a purely economic/balance sheet standpoint:

Cost of current mission: Rs 365 cr (US $56.15 million @ Rs 65/$1)
Cost of GSLV D5: Rs 220 cr (US $33.84 million)
Cost of GSAT 14: Rs 145 cr (US $22.30 million)

India currently pays Rs 500 cr (ESA/Arianespace - US $76.93 million ) for 3.5-Tonne satellite. Cost of Satellite not included.

India has to pay foreign service providers either in US $ or EU currency. This has the effect of worsening the current account deficit since India has unfavorable balance of payments owing to the fact that India imports more than it exports.

This then limits large payment items such as satellite launches to essential services.
This also limits the kind of satellites India can launch since there is a serious risk of technology exposure when satellites are launched by external parties.

You can imagine how the above two can have a debilitating effect on overall technological development due to high cost of satellite transport + unfavorable foreign currency position.

With maturation of GSLV and related technologies, India would gain the capability to launch heavier and more capable satellites from its home ground for a much lower cost and develop its economy, human resources and technology.

Even with all cumulative failures of GSLV, time delays etc., this is an essential technology and India has done extremely well than almost all of the predecessors.

Keep in mind Cryogenic technology has been in general human consciousness for over 80 yrs now. It took US & Russia 30 yrs of active thinking to develop theirs.

India started in 1990s with a tattered economy and bootstrapped the entire process from scratch at a pittance.
India has done well. In my opinion, exceedingly well given the resources and the challenges.



« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 06:52 AM by cave_dweller »

Offline akula2

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • USA, Germany and India
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) GSAT-14 discussion thread
« Reply #32 on: 01/07/2014 09:09 AM »
Also, I think India should also consider open/modular satellite systems design. For instance, a single large satellite in GSO orbit can serve the needs of many regions instead of each region launching its own small satellite in the same orbit. An open & modular approach will bring efficiency of design, re-use, lower costs and will also drive the need for heavier launch vehicles. ISRO has demonstrated these intentions with the inclusion of experiments from multiple nations on Chandrayaan-1. They could extend the same to commercial services as well.

With the Indian economy developing combined with judicious approach to developing resources and industries could certainly enable exciting developments in Indian Space Technology in the future.
One of my focus areas or target audience.

The bigger push for reforms are needed for proactive Private Sector participation. Whether ISRO supports or not, I'm actively working on a solid plan for 2020; currently closing on the location minus Bangalore or Chennai. If everything goes well one Indian state will have dedicated three Satellites (not small at all). Perhaps a few valuable services could be extended to 1 or 2 neighboring states. I foresee an incredible demand from a few states which are high on the Indian GDP rankings.

IMO, Govt. and ISRO could learn a lot from India's vibrant Automobile sector success story.

Offline akula2

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • USA, Germany and India
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV D5
« Reply #33 on: 01/07/2014 11:01 AM »
Disciplinary action should be the last thing to do for a developing program IMHO. Reason for failure looks silly when retrospected.
I think you got rattled  :)

I meant, there must be some kind of Internal Memo etc to the concerned staff. Also, remarks should go into their service records. If you look at various International organizations in different verticals (including NASA or anyone), you'd be really surprised. I'm NOT saying there won't be ANY failure or it's unacceptable.

Fact is, any Govt. Organization is accountable because of the Taxpayer money. Anyone could be called for a hearing to seek a testimony or for any serious lapse/accident/losses. It happens in US and few other Space nations. NASA isn't excluded.   

Look at how FDA and India's Drug regulator work. It takes a lot of planning, time, energy and money to operate a company in US compared to India. It's just that many Indians are not used to hear such things, but once people move abroad it teaches a lot.

R&D tends to be the process of making mistakes, learning from them, experiencing accidents, training to avoid them and other growing up pains. Its the process of maturation.

India doesn't have as strong a manufacturing economy comparable to most western economies or even China. So when a mistake or an accident does happen, the time to correct it is longer. That is just the fact of life and nature of development in emerging nations.
I concur with your views.

I run a few manufacturing non-public companies in three nations, about 1600 work in Pharma/Bio and Medical Electronics sectors. My 4th company would be in Aerospace domain (Communications etc). Actually, I'm well aware of R&D and its associated costs, risks etc. Many Pharma companies adhere to stringent FDA/EU norms; if any violate they've exclusive powers to penalize and/or ban a plant. I guess you might have read the latest Ranbaxy's Mohali plant news:

http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm368445.htm

What I mean to emphasize is, no one is above accountability. I personally know a few NASA Project Managers who take pride for successfully delivering projects within shoe string budgets and tight time frames. Imagine, if ISRO can save only 100 crore each year (1 billion INR) they can spend that on offering student fellowships, promote STEM at colleges, investing in latest infrastructure like building new Xeon/Tesla based Hybrid Super Computers and so on. I don't believe if anyone tells me there is ZERO loss of money (2013-14 budget is 6792 crore). Now, don't misconstrue me as if I'm against ISRO spending  :D On some post I wished that ISRO should get at least $3 billion each year (or 18,600 crore) to pursue various missions.

Having said, all it takes is Effective Governance and right Policies across the Govt. and Corporate spectrum. What's happening in Delhi heralds a new dawn for India. As an IIT Alumnus, I'm proud to be associated with AAP as a NR donor/supporter. The change will come... 

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: GSLV D5
« Reply #34 on: 01/07/2014 01:07 PM »


 My 4th company would be in Aerospace domain (Communications etc).


I am looking for a job in aerospace software development.  ;D ::) :P
Nasadiya Sukta:
Srishti se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin | Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhi nahin thaa | chhipaa thaa kyaa, kahaan, kisne dhakaa thaa | us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa ||

From: 1st verse of 129th Hymn of the 10th Book of Rig Veda

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #35 on: 01/07/2014 02:47 PM »
I've some questions on CE 7.5 and GSLV Mk2 in general:
1) Does it have restart capability?
2) Variable thrust or fixed thrust?
3) GSLV D5 had 3.4m diameter fairing. Will ISRO test 4m diameter fairing in subsequent launches? If so, would it require any design/structural changes in lower stages, or is it just plug-n-play?

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #36 on: 01/07/2014 03:59 PM »

1) Yes, but I don't think it was flight-tested during D5
2) Yes, and that was indeed flight-tested during D5
3) The new acoustic testing facility is meant to evaluate the vibrational and structural loads associated with changing stuff like the fairing size. It seems doubtful they'd redesign the rest of the rocket to accommodate a new fairing that doesn't work well with the existing rocket.

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #37 on: 01/07/2014 11:59 PM »
I've some questions on CE 7.5 and GSLV Mk2 in general:
1) Does it have restart capability?
2) Variable thrust or fixed thrust?
3) GSLV D5 had 3.4m diameter fairing. Will ISRO test 4m diameter fairing in subsequent launches? If so, would it require any design/structural changes in lower stages, or is it just plug-n-play?

1) Nope
2) Variable. 7.5 to 8.2 (would like to correct that 9 ton not reached yet)
3) D6 will test 4m fairing. No structural changes required, or plug-n-play. Exhaustive analysis done using simulation and wind tunnels.

Nasadiya Sukta:
Srishti se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin | Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhi nahin thaa | chhipaa thaa kyaa, kahaan, kisne dhakaa thaa | us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa ||

From: 1st verse of 129th Hymn of the 10th Book of Rig Veda

Offline kanaka

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #38 on: 01/08/2014 12:03 AM »
I've some questions on CE 7.5 and GSLV Mk2 in general:
1) Does it have restart capability?
2) Variable thrust or fixed thrust?
3) GSLV D5 had 3.4m diameter fairing. Will ISRO test 4m diameter fairing in subsequent launches? If so, would it require any design/structural changes in lower stages, or is it just plug-n-play?

1) Nope
2) Variable. 7.5 to 8.2 (would like to correct that 9 ton not reached yet)
3) D6 will test 4m fairing. No structural changes required, or plug-n-play. Exhaustive analysis done using simulation and wind tunnels.


What does it take to achieve restart capability in the space?
what modifications are needed to attain 9 ton ?

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #39 on: 01/08/2014 12:50 PM »
I've some questions on CE 7.5 and GSLV Mk2 in general:
1) Does it have restart capability?
2) Variable thrust or fixed thrust?
3) GSLV D5 had 3.4m diameter fairing. Will ISRO test 4m diameter fairing in subsequent launches? If so, would it require any design/structural changes in lower stages, or is it just plug-n-play?

1) Nope
2) Variable. 7.5 to 8.2 (would like to correct that 9 ton not reached yet)
3) D6 will test 4m fairing. No structural changes required, or plug-n-play. Exhaustive analysis done using simulation and wind tunnels.


What does it take to achieve restart capability in the space?
what modifications are needed to attain 9 ton ?

advanced igniter and new hardware.
Nasadiya Sukta:
Srishti se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin | Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhi nahin thaa | chhipaa thaa kyaa, kahaan, kisne dhakaa thaa | us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa ||

From: 1st verse of 129th Hymn of the 10th Book of Rig Veda

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #40 on: 01/08/2014 04:55 PM »
Hmm, so it doesn't have the restart capability yet? Is that planned for the future?

Likewise, if thrust is improved upto 90kN, are there any plans to take it higher - like say, to 100kN?

Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #41 on: 01/09/2014 08:56 AM »
What does it take to achieve restart capability in the space?
what modifications are needed to attain 9 ton ?

I believe this is a fairly complex and expensive problem. An additional ignition setup would mean additional complexity and weight. Also, there is a problem of "boiling off" due to resulting increased volume during burn offs.

That is, if you run the motor for 60 seconds. And shut it off, you'll have to compensate for the volume evacuated by that 60 seconds of fuel. Which would mean the cryogenic setup would have to further cool the propellants to maintain fuel density for appropriate flow mass rate or nominal thrust when re-ignited.

This issue also exists when the engine doesn't have to be restarted. But I believe is handled by the turbo pump. And results in gradual loss of thrust and is acceptable when executing a full burn.

Hypergolic fuels are better suited for in-space applications (orbital maneuvers etc). Since they do not need to be cooled to maintain fuel density and also because they do not need an additional ignition setup. Hypergolic fuel and oxidizer auto-ignite on contact.



 

Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #42 on: 01/09/2014 09:06 AM »
Hmm, so it doesn't have the restart capability yet? Is that planned for the future?

Likewise, if thrust is improved upto 90kN, are there any plans to take it higher - like say, to 100kN?

I think it should be easy to increase the thrust simply by using engine clusters.
However the problem may be one of maintaining the aero-dynamic and weight character of the flight.
Which should again be fairly straight forward.

I think the biggest mystery of cryogenic engines are fuel tank material science (weight vs strength) and turbo and turbo booster pump design and materials.


Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #43 on: 01/09/2014 12:30 PM »
Hmm, so it doesn't have the restart capability yet? Is that planned for the future?

Likewise, if thrust is improved upto 90kN, are there any plans to take it higher - like say, to 100kN?

Restart capability will be on CE20's upgraded versions. That wont be required if LVM3 is ready by 2017-2018.
Nasadiya Sukta:
Srishti se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin | Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhi nahin thaa | chhipaa thaa kyaa, kahaan, kisne dhakaa thaa | us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa ||

From: 1st verse of 129th Hymn of the 10th Book of Rig Veda

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #44 on: 01/14/2014 04:32 AM »
Restart capability will be on CE20's upgraded versions. That wont be required if LVM3 is ready by 2017-2018.

I don't understand - CE20 is the cryo engine stage for LVM3, isn't it?
So you're saying the later versions of it will have restart capability, as part of the LVM3 launch stack.
Why won't CE20 restart capability be required if LVM3 is ready by 2017-18?

Also, I was looking at this:

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/India/GSLV/Gallery/GSLV-2_D5.htm





It says "In development: Payload Assist Modul (PAM-G) for direct injection to orbit"
So in what circumstances is it used and why?

EDIT: I found mention of it from you in another thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30037.msg1003555#msg1003555

Still - what does direction injection into orbit mean? I thought everything gets directly injected into orbit. You mean like without any orbit-raising maneuvers required?
« Last Edit: 01/14/2014 04:41 AM by sanman »

Offline rnataraja

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #45 on: 01/14/2014 04:33 AM »
Regarding the chicken-and-egg hurdle, I wonder if ISRO could have progressed faster by engineering a cryogenic engine based on LCH4 instead of LH2? At least LCH4 has an industrial base to support it, unlike LH2, and so moving in that direction isn't a leap out into empty space like LH2 is.

Even with the planned RLV/TSTO, they should still consider LCH4, because of its high Isp, and plus it's not as hard to work with as LH2.



At a broader level than described here. How well has private industry aspired to support the ISRO's efforts in India? What is missing in them today?
If someone who was inspired(like me) by the grand but secret univers and space, and are very serious about satisfying the desire by contributing to advancements and be part of an aspiring private industry. What is a good area?

Offline ss1_3

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #46 on: 01/14/2014 02:51 PM »

Still - what does direction injection into orbit mean? I thought everything gets directly injected into orbit. You mean like without any orbit-raising maneuvers required?

Most certainly, they are referring to direct injection into GEO orbit as against the current capability of launching payload into GTO first and then performing on board engine burns to get into GEO.

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #47 on: 01/14/2014 03:30 PM »
Restart capability will be on CE20's upgraded versions. That wont be required if LVM3 is ready by 2017-2018.

I don't understand - CE20 is the cryo engine stage for LVM3, isn't it?
So you're saying the later versions of it will have restart capability, as part of the LVM3 launch stack.
Why won't CE20 restart capability be required if LVM3 is ready by 2017-18?



Sorry I didnt put it clearly. CE7.5 wont have restart capability, but CE20 will have that in its upgraded version (not the one that will be demonstrated in 2016-17)

Restart capability will be on CE20's upgraded versions. That wont be required if LVM3 is ready by 2017-2018.


It says "In development: Payload Assist Modul (PAM-G) for direct injection to orbit"
So in what circumstances is it used and why?


Still - what does direction injection into orbit mean? I thought everything gets directly injected into orbit. You mean like without any orbit-raising maneuvers required?

Yep no orbit raising maneuver by the satellite.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2014 03:32 PM by antriksh »
Nasadiya Sukta:
Srishti se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin | Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhi nahin thaa | chhipaa thaa kyaa, kahaan, kisne dhakaa thaa | us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa ||

From: 1st verse of 129th Hymn of the 10th Book of Rig Veda

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #48 on: 01/14/2014 04:51 PM »
Some interesting tidbits!

It's from 2009. One change is that even the basic MkII configuration has flown with 40 tons of propellant in the second stage.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #49 on: 01/14/2014 08:42 PM »
What does this Payload Assist Module (PAM) use? What fuel is it based on? What engine does it use - something like Liquid Apogee Motor? So it's like an uppermost stage, but it's not cryogenic - or is it? Why use a non-cryo engine on top of a cryo engine stage? That would make no sense, unless it's meant for deferred use and needs to avoid boil-off.

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #50 on: 01/15/2014 07:05 AM »
What does this Payload Assist Module (PAM) use? What fuel is it based on? What engine does it use - something like Liquid Apogee Motor? So it's like an uppermost stage, but it's not cryogenic - or is it? Why use a non-cryo engine on top of a cryo engine stage? That would make no sense, unless it's meant for deferred use and needs to avoid boil-off.

It'll be used for MEO missions,  to place navigation satellites directly into 19,000km circular orbit. It is derived from the upper stage of PSLV. It's been in development for some time. Uses hypergolic propellants.

Heres it being tested.

« Last Edit: 01/15/2014 07:06 AM by johnxx9 »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #51 on: 01/15/2014 05:01 PM »
So since MEO is less than the GTO that the Cryogenic Upper State can deliver to, then why use this PAM along with the Cryogenic Upper Stage? It sounds like you'd want to use this PAM thing in lieu of the Cryogenic Upper Stage, if you're only trying to reach MEO. Or maybe this PAM thing can boast your payload capacity to MEO and GEO?

Can this PAM thing help with BEO missions to the Moon or Mars, etc?
I wonder what kind of lift capacity it can give to these places.

Although it seems rather strange to me that you'd use a liquid hypergolic stage on top of a lighter cryo stage. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of having a cryo stage? What does the liquid hypergolic stage give you that the cryo stage doesn't?


Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #52 on: 01/15/2014 07:13 PM »
Although it seems rather strange to me that you'd use a liquid hypergolic stage on top of a lighter cryo stage. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of having a cryo stage? What does the liquid hypergolic stage give you that the cryo stage doesn't?

Hypergolic systems are easier to make long endurance stages from. They don't need to be cooled, they are easier to ignite. This is useful for final orbit insertion several hours or days into the mission. Most hydrogen cryogenic stages have a lifetime of a few hours at most.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #53 on: 01/15/2014 08:19 PM »
Ahh, so this hypergolic stage is meant for deferred use.

So if you were designing a lunar lander, would that likewise be done best as hypergolic too?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #54 on: 01/16/2014 12:10 AM »
Although it seems rather strange to me that you'd use a liquid hypergolic stage on top of a lighter cryo stage. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of having a cryo stage? What does the liquid hypergolic stage give you that the cryo stage doesn't?
The current CE-7.5 engine can't restart. And for circularization (be it GSO or MEO) you'd need at least the circularization burn. And  i doubt that the Cryo stage has more than a couple of hours of life. Hypergolics are storable and can make multi hour missions.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #55 on: 01/16/2014 03:21 PM »
Ahh, so this hypergolic stage is meant for deferred use.

So if you were designing a lunar lander, would that likewise be done best as hypergolic too?

Yes. I think all lunar landers (manned and unmanned) have been hypergolic.

There have been proposals for cryogenic landers (Altair), but even then the ascent stage has been hypergolic.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2014 03:24 PM by Lars_J »

Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #56 on: 01/16/2014 07:52 PM »
Ahh, so this hypergolic stage is meant for deferred use.

So if you were designing a lunar lander, would that likewise be done best as hypergolic too?

Yes. I think all lunar landers (manned and unmanned) have been hypergolic.

There have been proposals for cryogenic landers (Altair), but even then the ascent stage has been hypergolic.

Are hypergolics easier to store in space than LOX+LH2?

How do hypergolics react to the extreme temperatures of space?
And how do cryogenics react?

How are they sheltered (if at all)? Always keep it oriented away from Sun?
How do they manage to isolate "hot" components from "cold" components of the space craft?



Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #57 on: 01/16/2014 07:57 PM »
Ahh, so this hypergolic stage is meant for deferred use.

So if you were designing a lunar lander, would that likewise be done best as hypergolic too?

Yes. I think all lunar landers (manned and unmanned) have been hypergolic.

There have been proposals for cryogenic landers (Altair), but even then the ascent stage has been hypergolic.

Are hypergolics easier to store in space than LOX+LH2?

How do hypergolics react to the extreme temperatures of space?
And how do cryogenics react?

I'm no expert, but cryogenics obviously have to be kept cold. Hypergolics are less sensitive, but you still have to prevent them from freezing or becoming too hot. It is just an easier temperature range to manage through use of insulation and heaters. So yes, easier to store in space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant
« Last Edit: 01/16/2014 08:02 PM by Lars_J »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #58 on: 01/16/2014 10:14 PM »
In some thread someone commented that cryogenic restart capability is impinged upon by the fact that when you burn off some of your cryo propellants, some of the remaining propellants will be more likely to go into vapor phase. Has anybody ever tried a bladder approach, whereby the propellant container shrinks in volume to keep the remaining propellant compressed? Obviously the elastic force of your bladder has to exceed the vapor pressure of the volatile.

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #59 on: 01/17/2014 01:13 AM »
In some thread someone commented that cryogenic restart capability is impinged upon by the fact that when you burn off some of your cryo propellants, some of the remaining propellants will be more likely to go into vapor phase. Has anybody ever tried a bladder approach, whereby the propellant container shrinks in volume to keep the remaining propellant compressed? Obviously the elastic force of your bladder has to exceed the vapor pressure of the volatile.

Centaur upper stage uses stainless steel balloon tank, which doesn't have any structural integrity on its own. LH2/LOX are pumped to keep balloons inflated.

But, I guess restart capability is achieved a bit differently. There are  two problems to solve during cryo restart:
1) Vapors in tanks and fuel lines, which expand rapidly and can damage tanks.
2) In zero-g, liquid LH2/LOX will be "floating" in tanks. So when engine is restarted, fuel may not flow into fuel lines and turbopumps.

To address these issues before restart:
1) Centaur vents vapors into Space, before starting main cryo engine. This results in some loss of fuel.
Quote
... we are going to take this Atlas valve, scale it down a little bit, mount the same valve on the liquid hydrogen tank as the liquid oxygen tank, and we’re going to command the valve to open when you have to vent.
Quote
The solution was to design a vent fin or snout on the nose fairing that extended about 50 inches from the tank, just far enough away to keep the hydrogen gas from igniting along the hot surface of the vehicle.

2) Centaur uses small conventional rocket motors (H2O2 powered ullage rockets) to accelerate a bit in order to settle down "floating" liquid fuel at the bottom of tanks. This makes sure that fuel indeed flows into fuel lines when main cryo engine is restarted.
Quote
The new knowledge of the ullage area also led to greater confidence in managing the propel-lants during the coast phase. A Reaction Control System (RCS) was designed to provide acceleration just before venting. The system consisted of a hydrogen peroxide supply bottle, lines, valves, and small vernier motors called thrusters. Before the tank pressure reached a certain point, small thrusters in the tank were fired to reposition the propellants in the aft end of the vehicle.

Then a valve could be opened to relieve pressure without danger of loss of liquid propellant. The same thrusters were fired in preparation for starting the engine, so that liquid rather than gaseous hydrogen and oxygen entered the pumps.

Sources:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/aclv3cb.html

I guess balloon tanks might also help in keeping fuel settled down, by deflating when fuel is consumed (speculating).
« Last Edit: 01/17/2014 01:50 AM by vyoma »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13050
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2884
  • Likes Given: 433
Re: GSLV Mk II & Indian cryogenic stage discussion thread
« Reply #60 on: 01/17/2014 03:12 AM »
Yes. I think all lunar landers (manned and unmanned) have been hypergolic.

For the actual propulsion just before landing, yes that is true. Surveyor did use a solid stage (a Thiokol TE-364 motor) in a staged descent with the actual landing using storable propellants (monomethyl hydrazine hydrate or MMH-H2O and MONO-10 or 90% N2O4 and 10% NO). The planned Soviet LK lander was to use a Block D kerolox stage in staged descent, with the LK lander itself using UDMH and N2O4 for the actual landing.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2015 12:58 PM by Galactic Penguin SST »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #61 on: 01/17/2014 03:13 AM »
In some thread someone commented that cryogenic restart capability is impinged upon by the fact that when you burn off some of your cryo propellants, some of the remaining propellants will be more likely to go into vapor phase. Has anybody ever tried a bladder approach, whereby the propellant container shrinks in volume to keep the remaining propellant compressed? Obviously the elastic force of your bladder has to exceed the vapor pressure of the volatile.

Centaur upper stage uses stainless steel balloon tank, which doesn't have any structural integrity on its own. LH2/LOX are pumped to keep balloons inflated.
...
I guess balloon tanks might also help in keeping fuel settled down, by deflating when fuel is consumed (speculating).

Yeah, an elastic bladder would keep contracting as propellant is used up.

What about glassy amorphous metal alloys? For example, there are certain metal alloys which have highly elastic properties. If you could make balloon tanks out of such elastic alloys and then pump them up full of LOX and LH2 so that they were under tension, they could then contract as the propellants were consumed.

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-japanese-material-scientists-superelastic-alloy.html
« Last Edit: 01/17/2014 04:32 AM by sanman »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #62 on: 01/17/2014 03:21 AM »
H2 is liquid at about 20K, LOX is around 93K. At those temperatures, very little materials are elastic. Not to mention the bad manners of the H2 molecules to get everywhere they can, generating embritelment and free H2 everywhere.

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3235
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 734
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #63 on: 01/17/2014 04:09 AM »
I guess balloon tanks might also help in keeping fuel settled down, by deflating when fuel is consumed (speculating).
No, the centaur "balloon" tanks are pressure stabilized, meaning they use pressure to maintain their shape, they aren't like elastic balloons. Non-cryogenic systems often do have an internal bladder, but as baldusi says, this is harder with cryogenics.

Offline AJA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
  • Per Aspera Ad Ares, Per Aspera Ad Astra
  • India
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #64 on: 01/17/2014 09:02 AM »
In some thread someone commented that cryogenic restart capability is impinged upon by the fact that when you burn off some of your cryo propellants, some of the remaining propellants will be more likely to go into vapor phase. Has anybody ever tried a bladder approach, whereby the propellant container shrinks in volume to keep the remaining propellant compressed? Obviously the elastic force of your bladder has to exceed the vapor pressure of the volatile.


This issue isn't restricted to cryogenics. ANY fuel tank'll face this issue. Turn a bottle of water upside down.. the efflux isn't smooth -- precisely because water falling out results in a vacuum at the top of the bottle... and periodically, the atmospheric pressure breaks surface tension in the lower free surface enough to allow some air to form a bubble and gush in.


So what do they do? They take the lightest gas known - compress it vastly, and tack it on to the rocket. They add a valve whereby this gas is slowly vented into the fuel tanks as the tank drains. (As long as the rocket's thrusting and undergoing acceleration, there is a well defined free surface within the tank) This keeps the pressure on top of the liquid, and "should" keep flow smooth (given other favourable circumstances). When you work out the arithmetic, you also make sure to set the super-incumbent gas pressure in the empty (or at-cutoff) fuel tank, catered to entirely by your pressurant gas - is greater than the vapour pressure of your propellant at the ambient temperatures likely to be encountered. The greater you make it, the lower the boil-off (but lower payload fraction).


Anyway, you do all that, and then you realise all sorts of things are catching fire, and exploding. So you swap out the lightest known gas, with the second lightest known gas :D, while singing -- about your first iteration at a solution --


TL;DR - They use Helium to pressurise the tanks as they're evacuated.


Balloon tanks would be awesome, but aside from material concerns and challenges, you'd also have dynamic stability issues... how d'you ensure isotropic contraction? No one here has had a party balloon they inflated and let go of - fly straight and true :D Then again, those party balloons don't have active guidance.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #65 on: 01/17/2014 10:46 AM »
Two points:
1) On your H2 tank, you can use the lightest gas. But normally this is done by heating a tiny bit just enough to get gaseous H at enough pressure (I think it's around 0.33MPa/50psi or so).
Membranes are used, but mostly on spherical or nearly so tanks. Think of a how would you put a membrane on a very thin and long tank, like the first stage tanks. You'd waste a lot of mass and the membrane would have to move from the top to the bottom, probably rubbing against itself. And elastomers are not known for their low coefficient of friction.
On a related note when a membrane is used, the other side of the tank is pressurized with He from a bottle with a regulator. This gives a constant pressure for pressure fed engines and work in any direction. The valves from the bottle to the tank was what got stuck during SpaceX's CRS-2, and that's why they couldn't activate the RCS. The tank's lacked the He that actually gave the pressure to the pressure fed engines.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2014 12:45 PM by baldusi »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #66 on: 01/17/2014 01:37 PM »
Balloon tanks would be awesome, but aside from material concerns and challenges, you'd also have dynamic stability issues... how d'you ensure isotropic contraction? No one here has had a party balloon they inflated and let go of - fly straight and true :D Then again, those party balloons don't have active guidance.

Well, the tank doesn't itself have to be the superstructure or fuselage of the rocket. The tank can be a flexible internal enclosure inside the superstructure. Maybe it could be a flexible accordion type of structure, to ensure it contracts in one axial direction. Boron Nitride, by the way, has shown itself capable of forming a quasi-hexagonal mesh similar to that in Graphene and Carbon Nanotubes, but the BN structure is capable of buckling in an accordion-like manner, in a linear direction. That's one reason why BN nanotubes are being researched for tank armor, because this buckling characteristic offers energy-absorbing or damping properties. It seems like these intrinsic properties would still be available even at cryogenic temperatures.

http://www.academia.edu/2718708/Compressive_Buckling_of_Boron_Nitride_Nanotubes_with_Hydrogen_Storage








Offline AJA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
  • Per Aspera Ad Ares, Per Aspera Ad Astra
  • India
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #67 on: 01/17/2014 07:17 PM »
Well, the tank doesn't itself have to be the superstructure or fuselage of the rocket. The tank can be a flexible internal enclosure inside the superstructure. Maybe it could be a flexible accordion type of structure, to ensure it contracts in one axial direction.

What about the evacuated space between the inside of your aero-shell and the outside of your flexible tank wall? Aero-shells need to be pressurised to maintain their shape and rigidity. What's going to keep your aero-shell from collapsing because of the pressure differential? Also, why would your flexible tank continue to passively shrink when there's an evacuated zone outside it? Any active system that performs mechanical work to squeeze the balloon is going to cost mass. What's that? You'd use Helium? Uhh....

Unless you want to think about entraining ambient air, that's what you'd probably converge on. But capturing ambient air would require you to siphon some off, and would cost you drag, shock, vibration, heating, and is still entrained mass that you're going to be carrying uphill. Not to mention the aerodynamic problems caused by the flow, when it encounters a possibly anisotropic shrinking tank.

In any case, I wasn't talking about the problems with the aerodynamic interactions as much as I was referring to the mass distribution upsets caused by the deviations in the contraction of the balloon; throwing the rocket off balance, and moving its centre of gravity around unpredictably. That would be a GNC nightmare.

Quote
Boron Nitride, by the way, has shown itself capable of forming a quasi-hexagonal mesh similar to that in Graphene and Carbon Nanotubes, but the BN structure is capable of buckling in an accordion-like manner, in a linear direction. That's one reason why BN nanotubes are being researched for tank armor, because this buckling characteristic offers energy-absorbing or damping properties. It seems like these intrinsic properties would still be available even at cryogenic temperatures.

That paper measures the change in the buckling behaviour of Boron nanotubes... when the nanotubes are subjected to an external compressional load. It says nothing about the direction of such buckling (accordion etc.), or the reversibility. This way.. you can buckle ANY material to shrink the volume, provided you ensure that it doesn't open up cracks that allow the LH2 out.

Plus, they're measuring the buckling in ISOLATED BN NANOtubes. Not BN Nanotubes packed so closely enough to form a seal impenetrable to Hydrogen molecules. But let's assume that a ring of BN nanotubes, spaced far enough apart to still exhibit the properties of nanotubes, rather than form a bulk solid structure -- i.e. stacked like the pillars of Stonehenge are still able to trap Hydrogen in the inner area because of a phenomenal adsorption power. Let's also assume that you can stack successive Stonehenges on atop the other to form a macroscopic cylinder -- or you're able to get a nanotube that's several metres in length; forgetting the difficulties of manufacturing a MULTI-STOREY structure out of NANO-tubes. (Boron Nitride btw -- atleast in the Wurtzite mineral form -- is harder than diamond and possibly the hardest substance known to man. Well...short of the exotic matter in stellar cores I guess).

For this structure to work as balloon tank, you'd have to ensure that the shrinkage happened only from top down... and that all your nano-tubes are aligned, and that it happens in the same direction, as opposed to the bottom half the tank shrinking down, and the top half shrinking up -- leading to a tear. You'd have to ensure this on a microscopic scale.

But...if you did all that though, I'll tell you one more thing you could do. You could get rid of all the wiring that needs to pass through that stage. The Boron Nitride nanotubes could act as fibre-optics!
« Last Edit: 01/17/2014 07:20 PM by AJA »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #68 on: 01/17/2014 11:43 PM »
Gee, I didn't know that propellant tank pressurization inflates the aeroshell. Why would you even need that in space though, where there's no external ambient pressure? I thought that's the only relevant context for this discussion - trying to restart your cryo engine in space.

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #69 on: 01/22/2014 03:04 PM »
Here are two insightful articles on GSLV Mk2, GSLV Mk3, and Indian and Russian cryogenic engines.

An interview with S. Ramakrishnan, Director, VSSC:
http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/will-be-able-to-repeat-the-success/article5590227.ece

An interview with K. Radhakrishnan, Chairman, ISRO:
http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/gslv-mkiii-the-next-milestone/article5596588.ece

Quote
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.

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #70 on: 10/01/2015 06:15 AM »
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/IICT-develops-polymer-for-Isros-cryogenic-engine/articleshow/49164649.cms

Quote
HYDERABAD: In a significant development in rocket science, the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT) has developed a polymer for use in cryogenic rocket by the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro).

Use of polymer instead of aluminium or other alloys in fuel plumbing and tubes in the cryogenic engine drastically reduces the overall weight of the rocket. The advantage of it is that the rocket can carry a higher payload. The weight of fuel plumbing and tubes made of polymer is just 10 per cent of those made of aluminium or other alloys.

"As of now, Isro is importing the polymer from the US. But we now have developed the Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene (FEP) polymer," said Shekharam Tammishetti, senior principal scientist and head, polymers and functional materials division, CSIR-IICT. He told TOI that the technology will be transferred to Isro.

In the cryogenic engine, the fuel that is used is oxygen and hydrogen. When the two elements are burnt together, they produce a lot of energy. At that temperature, only FEP polymer can withstand the heat.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #71 on: 10/01/2015 06:18 AM »
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/IICT-develops-polymer-for-Isros-cryogenic-engine/articleshow/49164649.cms

Quote
HYDERABAD: In a significant development in rocket science, the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT) has developed a polymer for use in cryogenic rocket by the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro).

Use of polymer instead of aluminium or other alloys in fuel plumbing and tubes in the cryogenic engine drastically reduces the overall weight of the rocket. The advantage of it is that the rocket can carry a higher payload. The weight of fuel plumbing and tubes made of polymer is just 10 per cent of those made of aluminium or other alloys.

"As of now, Isro is importing the polymer from the US. But we now have developed the Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene (FEP) polymer," said Shekharam Tammishetti, senior principal scientist and head, polymers and functional materials division, CSIR-IICT. He told TOI that the technology will be transferred to Isro.

In the cryogenic engine, the fuel that is used is oxygen and hydrogen. When the two elements are burnt together, they produce a lot of energy. At that temperature, only FEP polymer can withstand the heat.
FEPvis made in Houston and is transported under train car lease designation DOWX

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #72 on: 10/30/2015 12:45 PM »
Quote
From 2016 onwards, there will be two missions every year using the Mk-II version of the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV Mk-II), ISRO chairman A S Kiran Kumar said on the sidelines of a function organised by the High Energy Materials Society of India (HEMSI) here on Thursday.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/GSLV-Mk-IIs-May-Provide-High-octane-to-ISRO-Missions/2015/10/30/article3104691.ece1
« Last Edit: 10/30/2015 12:46 PM by vyoma »

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV D5 (MkII) & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #73 on: 10/30/2015 12:46 PM »
Can mods please change this topic title to: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread

Offline input~2

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5298
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 180
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #74 on: 10/30/2015 02:34 PM »
Can mods please change this topic title to: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
Done!

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #75 on: 09/04/2016 10:12 PM »
Models of Vikas, CE-7.5 and CE-20 engines.

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #76 on: 09/05/2016 09:45 PM »
VSSC, ISRO recently issued a tender (Aug 2016) for supplying CFRP elements for GSLV MkII cryogenic stage: http://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/tenders/pt197.pdf

Quote
This RFQ provides the details of realization of various CFRP elements required for cryo upper stage of GSLV launch vehicle. These are made of carbon epoxy prepreg and Aluminium honeycomb core materials and is fabricated by hand layup and Autoclave curing.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2016 09:46 PM by vyoma »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #77 on: 09/07/2016 06:26 PM »
Since SpaceX has achieved such great improvements through propellant densification, I wonder if ISRO has looked at this as a way to improve its launch vehicle performance? Anybody know?

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #78 on: 09/08/2016 03:45 AM »
GSLV has a 20-year past and a long way ahead
Quote
From now on the target is for two GSLV launches a year, which means a launch every six months. It took us a year between the last one and this. We want to improve that
Quote
There is an increasing demand for the GSLV. We are looking at possible opportunities for it to provide commercial launches, just as the PSLV has done.
Yes, even for full launches. A few discussions are going on. We have to wait for the talks to firm up.

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #79 on: 09/09/2016 05:18 AM »
Quote

Asked whether the space organisation is now comfortable with the indigenous cryogenic stage, a complex system compared to solid and earth-storable liquid propellant rocket stages, S. Somanath, Director, Liquid Propulsion System Centre, ISRO, said the scientists were very confident about it.

The cryogenic stage has settled into a system today. After the failure of the first stage, we identified the problems, conducted very detailed analysis and studies. Lots of tests were done simulating actual conditions, and they were very successful. We have mastered the technology, Mr. Somanath said.

He said ISRO was developing another engine, C-25, that will be twice as powerful as the current one.

ISRO now expects the GSLV to pick up business like the PSLV.


Source :
ISRO eyes Venus mission

worldtimedate [ http://www.world-timedate.com/ ]

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #80 on: 09/09/2016 05:43 AM »
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/isro-plans-to-make-two-three-gslv-mkii-launches-every-year-116090801275_1.html
Quote
"...Our intent is to launch two-three GSLV-MkII missions every year in the coming years," ISRO Chairman A S Kiran Kumar told reporters here.


http://www.deccanchronicle.com/business/economy/090916/isro-eyeing-330-billion-market.html
Quote
Isro officials said they were also planning to enhance the GSLV’s [GTO] payload capacity — from 2,600 kg to 2,800 kilos.

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #81 on: 09/09/2016 05:57 AM »
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/business/economy/090916/isro-eyeing-330-billion-market.html
Quote
Isro officials said they were also planning to enhance the GSLV’s [GTO] payload capacity — from 2,600 kg to 2,800 kilos.

That's news for me. Would that imply that ISRO does intend to keep GSLV-II running for a considerable period even after LVM3 is ready for operational flights?

EDIT: It brings another question to my mind. Are there many payloads in the 2-2.5 tonne range in the international GTO launch market that GSLV-II could tap into?
« Last Edit: 09/09/2016 06:02 AM by vineethgk »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #82 on: 09/09/2016 02:04 PM »
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/business/economy/090916/isro-eyeing-330-billion-market.html
Quote
Isro officials said they were also planning to enhance the GSLV’s [GTO] payload capacity — from 2,600 kg to 2,800 kilos.

That's news for me. Would that imply that ISRO does intend to keep GSLV-II running for a considerable period even after LVM3 is ready for operational flights?

EDIT: It brings another question to my mind. Are there many payloads in the 2-2.5 tonne range in the international GTO launch market that GSLV-II could tap into?

If you check ISRO's launch roster, you'll see there are plenty of flights slated for Mk-II, even after LMV3 comes into service. Maybe it's an easier/cheaper vehicle for them to fabricate, since Mk-II is similar to the PSLV architecture.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2016 02:05 PM by sanman »

Offline Stan Black

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2789
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #83 on: 09/11/2016 01:52 PM »
So, I went through the available documentation and tried to figure out what payload was assigned to each GSLV. I used the outcome budget and the five-year plans.

Some documents here:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32023.msg1569474#msg1569474



Period 2001-2002

GSLV-D1   GSAT-1
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2
GSLV-D3   GSAT-3
GSLV-C1   INSAT-3D
GSLV-C2   GSAT-4
GSLV-C3



Period 2005-2006

GSLV-D1   GSAT-1
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C
GSLV-F03  INSAT-3D
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4D (GSAT-5)
GSLV-F05  INSAT-4E (GSAT-6)
GSLV-F06



11th Five Year Plan 2007-2012

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001  Mk. I
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003  Mk. I
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4                          Mk. II

GSLV F01-F10 ten launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03  INSAT-3D
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR
GSLV-F05  GSAT-5
GSLV-F06  GSAT-9
GSLV-F07  GSAT-6
GSLV-F08  Chandrayaan-2
GSLV-F09  GSAT-12
GSLV-F10  GSAT-13

Notes:-
GSLV-F04 launched September 2007.



Period 2008-2009

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4                          CUS-03 (A6)

GSLV F01-F10 ten launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03  INSAT-3D
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR  launched 02.09.2007
GSLV-F05  GSAT-5
GSLV-F06  GSAT-9 (identical to INSAT-4C)



Period 2009-2010

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003
                                          CUS-02
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4                          CUS-03 (A6)
                                          CUS-04 (A7)
                                          CUS-05

GSLV F01-F16 sixteen launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03  GLONASS
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR  launched 02.09.2007
GSLV-F05  GSAT-5
GSLV-F06  INSAT-3D
GSLV-F07  GSAT-6

Notes:-
Reference to GSLV-F16.



Period 2010-2011

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4                          CUS-03 (A6)
                                          CUS-04 (A7)
                                          CUS-05

GSLV F01-F16 sixteen launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR  launched 02.09.2007
GSLV-F05  GSAT-6
GSLV-F06  GSAT-5P
GSLV-F07  INSAT-3D
GSLV-F08  GSAT-7

Notes:-
No reference to GSLV-F03.
GSLV-D3 with GSAT-4 launched April 2010.
GSLV-F06 with GSAT-5P launched December 2010.



Period 2011-2012

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4     launched 25.04.2010  CUS-03 (A6)
GSLV-D4   GSAT-4R                         CUS-05 (A8)
GSLV-D5   GSAT-6

GSLV F01-F16 sixteen launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR  launched 02.09.2007
GSLV-F05  GSAT-7
GSLV-F06  GSAT-5P    launched 25.12.2010

Notes:-
Only year with reference to a GSLV-D4.



12th Five Year Plan 2012-2017

GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4     launched 25.04.2010  CUS-03 (A6)
GSLV-D4
GSLV-D5   GSAT-14
GSLV-D6   GSAT-6

GSLV F01-F16 sixteen launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR  launched 02.09.2007
GSLV-F05
GSLV-F06  GSAT-5P    launched 25.12.2010
GSLV-F07
GSLV-F08  Chandrayaan-2
GSLV-F09  GSAT-9
GSLV-F10  GISAT
GSLV-F11  GSAT-6A
GSLV-F12  GSAT-7A
GSLV-F13  INSAT-3DR

Notes:-
No reference to GSLV-D4, GSLV-F05 or GSLV-F07 (GSLV-F03 already dropped).



Period 2012-2013

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4     launched 25.04.2010  CUS-03 (A6)
GSLV-D4
GSLV-D5   GSAT-14                         CUS-05 (A8)
GSLV-D6   GSAT-6                          CUS-06 (A9)

GSLV F01-F16 sixteen launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR  launched 02.09.2007
GSLV-F05
GSLV-F06  GSAT-5P    launched 25.12.2010
GSLV-F07
GSLV-F08  Chandrayaan-2                   CUS-07 (A10)

Notes:-
Launch of GSAT-7 using procured launch services.



Period 2013-2014

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4     launched 25.04.2010  CUS-03 (A6)
GSLV-D4
GSLV-D5   GSAT-14                         CUS-05 (A8)
GSLV-D6   GSAT-6                          CUS-06 (A9)

GSLV F01-F16 sixteen launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR  launched 02.09.2007
GSLV-F05
GSLV-F06  GSAT-5P    launched 25.12.2010
GSLV-F07
GSLV-F08  Chandrayaan-2                   CUS-07 (A10)

Notes:-
Launch of INSAT-3D using procured launch services.
GSLV-D5 with GSAT-14 launched January 2014.



Period 2014-2015

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4     launched 25.04.2010  CUS-03 (A6)
GSLV-D4
GSLV-D5   GSAT-14    launched 05.01.2014  CUS-05 (A8)
GSLV-D6   GSAT-6                          CUS-06 (A9)

GSLV F01-F16 sixteen launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR  launched 02.09.2007
GSLV-F05
GSLV-F06  GSAT-5P    launched 25.12.2010
GSLV-F07
GSLV-F08

Notes:-
Reference to GSLV-F07.



Period 2015-2016

Notes:-
GSLV-D6 with GSAT-6 launched August 2015.



Period 2016-2017

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-D1   GSAT-1     launched 20.04.2001
GSLV-D2   GSAT-2     launched 08.05.2003
GSLV-D3   GSAT-4     launched 25.04.2010  CUS-03 (A6)
GSLV-D4
GSLV-D5   GSAT-14    launched 05.01.2014  CUS-05 (A8)
GSLV-D6   GSAT-6     launched 27.08.2015  CUS-06 (A9)

GSLV F01-F16 sixteen launch vehicles

Rocket    Payload                         Upper Stage
GSLV-F01  GSAT-3     launched 20.09.2004
GSLV-F02  INSAT-4C   launched 10.07.2006
GSLV-F03
GSLV-F04  INSAT-4CR  launched 02.09.2007
GSLV-F05  INSAT-3DR  launch      07.2016  CUS-07 (A10)
GSLV-F06  GSAT-5P    launched 25.12.2010
GSLV-F07
GSLV-F08
GSLV-F09  GSAT-9     launch      03.2017  CUS-08

Notes:-
GSLV-F05 with INSAT-3DR launched September 2016.



See also:-
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.isro.org
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1173.msg727300#msg727300
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1173.msg567502#msg567502
« Last Edit: 09/12/2016 03:35 PM by Stan Black »

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #84 on: 09/11/2016 02:16 PM »
Thanks!

So the future launches that are planned for GSLV appear to be :

SouthAsiaSat
GSAT-9
Chandrayaan-2
GISAT-1
GSAT-7A
GSAT-6A
NISAR
Mars-2(?)

Anything I missed?

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #85 on: 09/26/2016 09:00 AM »
Now that ISRO could demonstrate multiple engine restarts in its hypergolic upper stage, what would be the key challenges it would face in replicating the same in its cryogenic upper stages? I guess having an ignition system that works for multiple burns is one challenge, as it does not use hypergols. Also, would the engineering difficulties be different in CE-7.5 (SCC) compared to CE-20 (GGC)? Any insights are appreciated.

« Last Edit: 09/26/2016 09:04 AM by vineethgk »

Offline cave_dweller

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #86 on: 09/27/2016 11:05 PM »
Now that ISRO could demonstrate multiple engine restarts in its hypergolic upper stage, what would be the key challenges it would face in replicating the same in its cryogenic upper stages? I guess having an ignition system that works for multiple burns is one challenge, as it does not use hypergols. Also, would the engineering difficulties be different in CE-7.5 (SCC) compared to CE-20 (GGC)? Any insights are appreciated.



Would have to use hypergols or battery to ignite LH2/LOX. Which raises the question, what is the current ignition mechanism in CE 7.5? And what will it be in CE 20 engine?

Alternately, (I don't believe this has been attempted before) could also let the stage coast in the orbit and use solar power to spark the fuel. But this would require either co-incidental orientation of the stage with sunlight OR specifically re-orienting the stage to receive sunlight -- which means it would require some extraneous thrust.

Another trade-off to consider is where to put the fuel. In the launch vehicle or on the satellite?

In the case of Mangalyaan, being that PSLV didn't have the thrust to develop the velocity to deliver the craft directly into an earth escape orbit (similarly in the case of Chandrayaan-1), the choice was made to store the fuel in the satellite/craft and use a combination of thruster burns + Earth gravity to develop velocity and ultimately escape.

This brings forth another question, could a larger satellite be used as a launch vehicle for a cluster of nano satellites that don't have self sufficient orientation/navigation thruster/booster engines?

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #87 on: 09/28/2016 08:34 PM »
As I expected, since GSLV MK-II's Cryogenic Upper Stage does NOT have multiple restartable capability, it will launch the Chandrayaan-2 into a parking orbit similar to GTO.

Here is the report from Frontline Magazine Science Section

Quote
G. Nagesh, Project Director, Chandrayaan-2, said the orbiter, the lander and the rover were together called the composite module. The GSLV-Mk II will first place this composite module in an orbit of 170 km by 19,500 km, called earth-parking orbit. From there, with the help of the liquid engines in the orbiter, we will take Chandrayaan-2 to the moon’s orbit of 100 km, he said. It is exactly the same as Chandrayaan-1's orbit. Once Chandrayaan-2 (that is, the composite module) is in the lunar orbit, ISRO will beam commands to it for the lander to fly out of the orbiter.


Source : Cryogenic gains for GSLV

worldtimedate [ http://www.world-timedate.com/ ]

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #88 on: 09/28/2016 10:44 PM »
As I expected, since GSLV MK-II's Cryogenic Upper Stage does NOT have multiple restartable capability, it will launch the Chandrayaan-2 into a parking orbit similar to GTO.

Here is the report from Frontline Magazine Science Section

Quote
G. Nagesh, Project Director, Chandrayaan-2, said the orbiter, the lander and the rover were together called the composite module. The GSLV-Mk II will first place this composite module in an orbit of 170 km by 19,500 km, called earth-parking orbit. From there, with the help of the liquid engines in the orbiter, we will take Chandrayaan-2 to the moon’s orbit of 100 km, he said. It is exactly the same as Chandrayaan-1's orbit. Once Chandrayaan-2 (that is, the composite module) is in the lunar orbit, ISRO will beam commands to it for the lander to fly out of the orbiter.


Source : Cryogenic gains for GSLV

worldtimedate [ http://www.world-timedate.com/ ]


I've always heard everyone say that the CUS was designed to have restart capability, but that it's just that ISRO hasn't tried to flight test it yet - maybe they don't want to risk trying it out on a politically sensitive prestige mission like Chandrayaan-2?

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3505/does-isros-cryogenic-upper-stage-have-restart-capability


Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #89 on: 09/29/2016 05:35 AM »
According to previous annual reports the CE-7.5 is designed to be restartable

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #90 on: 09/29/2016 05:43 AM »
I agree with Sanman that GSLV MK-II CUS might have multiple restart capability like all the CUS of other space fairing nations such as USA, Japan, ESA and China. But ISRO has yet to test and master it. Going by the recent PSLV C35 launch of 8 Satellits into different orbits, I am sure ISRO is capable of emulating that feat in GSLV MK-II CUS. Just as PSLV tested the multiple restart feature of upper stage twice before launching satellites, GSLV MK-II has to do the same thing. As for the Chandrayaan II mission, it would be unwise of ISRO to take such risk in doing the multiple restart feature to inject it to Lunar Orbit.


worldtimedate [ http://www.world-timedate.com/ ]

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #91 on: 09/29/2016 06:46 PM »
According to previous annual reports the CE-7.5 is designed to be restartable
I didn't knew that the KVD-1 was ever restartable. In fact, I don't think that any non hypergolic Russian staged combustion engine is restartable. Start-up is particularly delicate issue for staged combustion engines, the hypergolic gas generator Vikas is trivial to restart in comparison.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #92 on: 09/30/2016 05:32 PM »
So I want to apologize and correct:

CUS is not restartable at present.

(That answer came right from the horse's mouth)

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #93 on: 01/31/2017 06:06 PM »
Recently in the Indian Science Congress in a speech Mr. Somnath of LPSC Director has mentioned that GSLV MK-II payload cababily would be incrementally increased to 3 Ton or even more.

Umamaheshwaran, the GSLV MK-II project director already said last year that GSLV MK-II payload capability would be increased to 2.8 Ton.

Source : Cryogenic gains for GSLV

If that happens, that would be a monumental achievement for the naughty boy GSLV MK-II that gave the ISRO Launch Vehicle Team lot of headache until it was successfully launched for 3 consecutive times with the Indigenous Cryogenic Engine CE-7.5. Please check the Following Video.

Indian science congress 2017 Live Stream 4  : ( Speech by Mr. S. Somnath, LPSC Director )


worldtimedate [ http://www.world-timedate.com/ ]

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #94 on: 05/19/2017 07:46 PM »
Late bloomer GSLV is small cheer
Quote
The late bloomer may even be a short-lived intermediate rocket instead of being ISRO’s primary satellite vehicle as it was planned, as a few ISRO old-timers and industry watchers privately suggest.

The GSLV is caught in a glaring mismatch: it cannot lift India’s bigger satellites; and the size that it can lift is out of fashion and does not make economic sense.

While ISRO was perfecting the GSLV and falling behind schedule with the rocket’s crucial cryogenic stage, it progressed on the spacecraft side and upgraded the communication satellites to 3,000-plus kg in 2005. This was done to pack more punch (or transponders) per spacecraft. It would be roughly 24 regular transponders for 2,000 kg; 36 transponders for 3,000 kg and 48 transponders in a four-tonner.

Replying to a query from The Hindu, Gagan Agrawal, analyst with the U.S.-based space industry consulting firm Northern Sky Research, said: “The communications satellite market is consistently looking at payload sizes greater than four tonnes and the question remains whether the GSLV or [the bigger] MKIII can cater to the market [yet.] ”

As painted in the report, I would have been equally skeptical of GSLV Mk2's long-term career prospects until a few months back. But the recent reports of ISRO looking at building 2-tonne class all-electric satellites, and issuing tenders for the supply of EPS towards that goal, might save the GSLV after all. That possibility doesn't appear to have been taken into account in this news item. Moreover, rather than the prospect of ISRO throwing in the towel on Mk2, recent news reports have quoted ISRO sources hinting that they plan to increase the GTO payload capability of the launcher to 3 tonnes by incremental upgrades as well.

Incidentally, after reading reports of the all-electric, 2300kg SES-15 that was launched by Soyuz from CSG yesterday, I'm quite hopeful that we might see the 'naughty boy of ISRO' flying for some time. An EPS-enabled satellite of similar class can pack a decent number of transponders and can change the fortunes of GSLV Mk2 in the coming years, at least in the domestic market. There might be many requirements for which launching a smaller EPS comsat on a cheaper GSLV Mk2 rocket makes better sense than doing a heavier one on LVM3/GSLV Mk3. And then there is the advantage of a higher flight rate as well owing to it's PSLV heritage.

Offline seshagirib

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • terra firma
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #95 on: 06/10/2017 04:42 PM »
So I want to apologize and correct:

CUS is not restartable at present.

(That answer came right from the horse's mouth)

On the contrary:

See this youtube video

"AIS 2017 A2 Dr V Narayanan LPSC 14 Feb 17"
 


Dr. Narayanan has confirmed the built in restart capability for both CUS-7 and C20. (question and answer session from 25:55 onwards ). He also said that the  capability will be tested after the MK-3 flight.


Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #96 on: 06/11/2017 12:14 AM »
So I want to apologize and correct:

CUS is not restartable at present.

(That answer came right from the horse's mouth)

On the contrary:

See this youtube video

"AIS 2017 A2 Dr V Narayanan LPSC 14 Feb 17"
 
...

Dr. Narayanan has confirmed the built in restart capability for both CUS-7 and C20. (question and answer session from 25:55 onwards ). He also said that the  capability will be tested after the MK-3 flight.

I hate to push back, but the source I asked was just as authoritative as Dr Narayanan. So, maybe this then sounds like some threshold must have been crossed between Sep-30-2016 and Feb-14-2017 in order for both statements to be true? Maybe it achieved certification for restartability during those 5 months? ???

Prior to asking, I too had always heard people on the net saying that the CE-7.5 was restartable, but I then asked anyway, just to be sure.

Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #97 on: 07/01/2017 05:48 PM »
So I want to apologize and correct:

CUS is not restartable at present.

(That answer came right from the horse's mouth)

On the contrary:

See this youtube video

"AIS 2017 A2 Dr V Narayanan LPSC 14 Feb 17"
 
...

Dr. Narayanan has confirmed the built in restart capability for both CUS-7 and C20. (question and answer session from 25:55 onwards ). He also said that the  capability will be tested after the MK-3 flight.

I hate to push back, but the source I asked was just as authoritative as Dr Narayanan. So, maybe this then sounds like some threshold must have been crossed between Sep-30-2016 and Feb-14-2017 in order for both statements to be true? Maybe it achieved certification for restartability during those 5 months? ???

Prior to asking, I too had always heard people on the net saying that the CE-7.5 was restartable, but I then asked anyway, just to be sure.
It's written in the book From fishing Hamlet to red planet that the kvd-1 was meant to be restartable. Since they didn't want to take the two-burn risk, they decided to run it uprated first and then later at normal thrust to sort of simulate a two burn.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #98 on: 07/02/2017 09:46 AM »

It's written in the book From fishing Hamlet to red planet that the kvd-1 was meant to be restartable. Since they didn't want to take the two-burn risk, they decided to run it uprated first and then later at normal thrust to sort of simulate a two burn.

But a real re-start means re-lighting the stage , which hasn't yet been tested in flight, correct? I wonder how much they've tested it on the ground.

Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #99 on: 07/04/2017 06:17 AM »

It's written in the book From fishing Hamlet to red planet that the kvd-1 was meant to be restartable. Since they didn't want to take the two-burn risk, they decided to run it uprated first and then later at normal thrust to sort of simulate a two burn.

But a real re-start means re-lighting the stage , which hasn't yet been tested in flight, correct? I wonder how much they've tested it on the ground.
No the restart hasn't been tested on the ground. Restart capability not only requires re-ignition ability but also the gas bottles need to be at an adequate pressure level in order to ensure the required propellant flow into the preburner. Not to mention the propellant loss due to boil off.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 06:18 AM by demonslayer »

Tags: