Author Topic: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion  (Read 49634 times)

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« on: 12/20/2014 08:04 PM »
This is the general discussion (not any mission specific) thread for the launcher. Launcher specs, capabilities, upgrades everything goes here.

Let me start with a puzzling spec on ISRO's new webpage for LVM3

Quote
Payload to LEO: 8,000 kg

The powerful cryogenic stage of LVM3 enables it to place heavy payloads into Low Earth Orbits of 600 km altitude.

Seems very less! Even the earlier reports of 10,000 kg to LEO was considered less by some accounts. Or do they mean a sun synchronous 600 km orbit?
« Last Edit: 06/09/2017 08:10 AM by input~2 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3609
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #1 on: 12/20/2014 08:28 PM »
This is the general discussion (not any mission specific) thread for the launcher. Launcher specs, capabilities, upgrades everything goes here.

Let me start with a puzzling spec on ISRO's new webpage for LVM3

Quote
Payload to LEO: 8,000 kg

The powerful cryogenic stage of LVM3 enables it to place heavy payloads into Low Earth Orbits of 600 km altitude.

Seems very less! Even the earlier reports of 10,000 kg to LEO was considered less by some accounts. Or do they mean a sun synchronous 600 km orbit?
10 tonnes is to a 200 km x 45 deg orbit. 

Since the rocket (whatever it is really called) is supposed to lift 4 tonnes to GTO using a high-energy upper stage, it seems possible that 10 tonnes is about right for LEO.  Titan 3C, a similarly sized rocket with "zero stage" solid boosters, but with more efficient core stage engines, could only lift about 12 tonnes to LEO.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/20/2014 08:41 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #2 on: 12/21/2014 07:49 AM »
Seems very less! Even the earlier reports of 10,000 kg to LEO was considered less by some accounts. Or do they mean a sun synchronous 600 km orbit?
10 tonnes is to a 200 km x 45 deg orbit. 

Since the rocket (whatever it is really called) is supposed to lift 4 tonnes to GTO using a high-energy upper stage, it seems possible that 10 tonnes is about right for LEO.  Titan 3C, a similarly sized rocket with "zero stage" solid boosters, but with more efficient core stage engines, could only lift about 12 tonnes to LEO.

 - Ed Kyle

Thanks for that clarification Ed. If I am not wrong, for typical manned missions, the spacecraft would be delivered to a 200km orbit, so a 10 tonnes payload capability to such an orbit should be more than sufficient for the manned spacecraft that ISRO wish to build.

I feel its a good thing that ISRO is not trying to call the new rocket as a GSLV now. I have seen many news reports already where the failures of GSLV-I/II series were being clubbed to the new rocket due to the confusion of similar names.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #3 on: 12/22/2014 12:28 AM »
It seems glaringly sloppy of ISRO to not keep absolute clarity on the name. Even on their own website, they refer to the same vehicle as both "GSLV Mark III" and "LVM 3"  :P

The ambiguity on even something as simple and basic as a name doesn't project ISRO in a positive way, and instead makes them look schizophrenic, or even cavalier and ad-hoc in their thinking. No other country's national space agency  exhibits these kinds of eccentricities.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3609
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #4 on: 12/22/2014 01:46 AM »
It seems glaringly sloppy of ISRO to not keep absolute clarity on the name. Even on their own website, they refer to the same vehicle as both "GSLV Mark III" and "LVM 3"  :P

The ambiguity on even something as simple and basic as a name doesn't project ISRO in a positive way, and instead makes them look schizophrenic, or even cavalier and ad-hoc in their thinking. No other country's national space agency  exhibits these kinds of eccentricities.
During the 1960s, NASA initially identified its Apollo missions as "AS-201", "AS-202", "AS-501", and so on until the news media demanded a switch to "Apollo 1", "Apollo 4", etc.  Saturn C-1 became "Saturn I" ("I", not "1").  A later version was "Uprated Saturn I" for awhile, but was better known as "Saturn IB".  (Saturn C-1 itself was originally "Super Jupiter", then "Juno V".)

Cape Canaveral became Cape Kennedy.  Then it was re-renamed Cape Canaveral.  Unless we're talking about the City of Cape Canaveral itself, which was never named Cape Kennedy but was called Artesia before it was Cape Canaveral, but that's another story.

During the 1980s, NASA identified Space Shuttle missions as "STS-1", "STS-2" and so on until they switched to "STS-41B", "STS-41C" and the like.  Then a few years later the Agency switched back to the original numbering system. 

The first U.S. satellite was launched by a "Juno I".  Or was it a "Jupiter C"?  Or was it both?

Atlas III was Atlas IIAR first.  Titan IVA was Titan IV and before that it was Titan 34D-7.  And "Atlas V" is not really an "Atlas", since "Atlas" was a 10 foot wide balloon tank sustainer stage with a half-stage booster attached, both powered by Rocketdyne engines.  Ditto "Delta IV" and its link to the "Delta" name, which was not originally the name of a rocket at all but of a long-retired second stage, as in "Thor-Delta".  The stage was from the Vanguard program, so that the original rocket was called "Thor-Vanguard" for awhile unofficially before it started flying.  "Vanguard" itself was based on "Viking" (sort of a "Viking-Aerobee", really).  (Which means that if "Delta IV" was following the original naming convention it would be "Aerobee IV", or "Viking XX", or something.)

Orbital Sciences has renamed its "Taurus" rocket "Minotaur C", for some reason.  (OK, we know the reason.)

So ISRO isn't alone!

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/22/2014 01:17 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Indo-guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #5 on: 12/25/2014 02:12 AM »
It seems glaringly sloppy of ISRO to not keep absolute clarity on the name. Even on their own website, they refer to the same vehicle as both "GSLV Mark III" and "LVM 3"  :P

The ambiguity on even something as simple and basic as a name doesn't project ISRO in a positive way, and instead makes them look schizophrenic, or even cavalier and ad-hoc in their thinking. No other country's national space agency  exhibits these kinds of eccentricities.

There is no ambiguity at all .
It is going to be GSLV Mk III. No doubt about that .

The only reason to name this particular launch as LVM 3 is because ...this launch lacks active Cryogenic Upper stage ...so it is going to be sub orbital ...it is not going to reach Geo-synchronous orbit at all ...

so do you expect ISRO to name it GSLV when it is not going to reach geo-synchronous orbit at all ?

ISRO has been prudent in naming this mission as LVM III  ....

Offline Indo-guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #6 on: 12/25/2014 02:15 AM »
It seems glaringly sloppy of ISRO to not keep absolute clarity on the name. Even on their own website, they refer to the same vehicle as both "GSLV Mark III" and "LVM 3"  :P

The ambiguity on even something as simple and basic as a name doesn't project ISRO in a positive way, and instead makes them look schizophrenic, or even cavalier and ad-hoc in their thinking. No other country's national space agency  exhibits these kinds of eccentricities.

It is your own lack of understanding  and not sloppiness on ISRO's part .

You should try to understand reasons first,  than  to come down so heavily and name calling ISRO .

You are really making mountain out of molehills ....

Careful before you heap insult on institute like ISRO out of your own ignorance .

Offline isro-watch

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #7 on: 12/25/2014 03:01 AM »
Let us not make this personal and let us keep the discussion to technical aspects and facts about the launcher. People have right to criticize a public entity and by the way you are wrong here.

ISRO named the experimental mission as LVM3-X and not just LVM3. If you look better in the news reports, ISRO named their upcoming developmental flight as LVM3-D1

And, as sanman stated, there is ambiguity is the name of the launcher with ISRO naming it GSLM-MKIII in various places including on the launch vehicle (refer the launch blog on this forum), press reports and their website and then interchanging the names to LVM3 in some other reports

Offline abhishek

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #8 on: 12/25/2014 03:37 AM »
So much fight over a name  :D ?

Didn't someone rightly say that what's there in a name,it's what inside that matters  ;D



10, 9, ignition sequence start 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, all engines running Lift off, we have a lift off, lift off

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #9 on: 12/25/2014 01:02 PM »
A few pretty basic questions in my mind.  ;D

Considering that the planned Kerolox stage for LVM3 is ground-lit, what was the reason behind ISRO not making the current L-110 ground-lit too? Does the increase in propellant weight and dead stage weight negate any payload advantages of an additional 1600 kN thrust at lift off? Would the rocket be hauling too much of dead weight when S-200s have burned out?

And, if these are indeed the reasons, would these problems be significantly lesser in the planned SC-160 Kerolox core? Due to higher Isp?

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #10 on: 12/25/2014 07:26 PM »
A few pretty basic questions in my mind.  ;D

Considering that the planned Kerolox stage for LVM3 is ground-lit, what was the reason behind ISRO not making the current L-110 ground-lit too? Does the increase in propellant weight and dead stage weight negate any payload advantages of an additional 1600 kN thrust at lift off? Would the rocket be hauling too much of dead weight when S-200s have burned out?

And, if these are indeed the reasons, would these problems be significantly lesser in the planned SC-160 Kerolox core? Due to higher Isp?

Costs come to mind as a reason. The earth storable propellants aren't cheap.

And, while design LVM3, ISRO's target was 4 ton GTO payload. Maybe they wanted to achieve with as least the amount earth storable propellant as they could. This configuration does that.

Remember that the L110 will have to burn for 100 seconds more if it were to be ignited on ground. That would need ~50% more propellant than the current config. For all we know, it might be one of the upgrades on LVM3 in the future.

There were 100s of alternatives for ISRO for 4 ton to GTO design.

One straightforward configuration would have been to upgrade the GSLV, by replacing the solid 1st stage with a liquid one. All they would have needed to do is cluster 3/4 Vikas instead of the current 2 on LVM3 and put it on the first stage (not easy as it sounds, but still at first though sounds better than developing a whole new rocket). Seems pretty straightforward considering they had all the other stages as its from the GSLV.

But, they chose this design. It seems like a good trade-off from the cost and complexity perspective.

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #11 on: 12/26/2014 06:09 AM »
Thanks. I thought it was more due to some design constraints in loading more propellants and making it ground-lit.

One straightforward configuration would have been to upgrade the GSLV, by replacing the solid 1st stage with a liquid one. All they would have needed to do is cluster 3/4 Vikas instead of the current 2 on LVM3 and put it on the first stage (not easy as it sounds, but still at first though sounds better than developing a whole new rocket). Seems pretty straightforward considering they had all the other stages as its from the GSLV.

Interestingly, this option you have mentioned will make the vehicle very similar to CZ-3B, if they were to additionally cluster two CE-7.5 engines in the upper stage. But I guess ISRO would have recognized it to be an evolutionary dead end when compared to the LVM3 design.

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #12 on: 01/04/2015 02:58 AM »
I'm quite intrigued by the difference in design philosophies of ISRO (and probably many old-school space agencies/enterprises) and SpaceX about what constitutes reliability and cost savings in a rocket design. For LVM3 and its successor ULV designs, ISRO has zeroed on less number of propulsion stages (but of different types - solid, liquid/kerolox, hydrolox) and use of massive solids as the key. While in case of Falcon 9 which has a similar payload capability and objective, SpaceX has chosen a design based on the use of more number of moderately powerful propulsion units of similar types, geared towards lowering costs through mass production and increasing the reliability through redundancy of numbers.

Even considering the fact that ISRO is yet to develop a kerolox engine for its use, I feel the major driver in this difference of approach could be that one is a government agency that relies on public funding and is consequently not too worried about costs (as a private company would), while the other is a start-up private enterprise that *has to* aim for reduction in production costs to ensure its success and long term viability. I admit ISRO isn't alone here, but going by the success that Falcon 9 had so far, has ISRO's design philosophy for LVM3 and ULV already become obsolete? Or is it too early to say?

Any thoughts?
« Last Edit: 01/04/2015 03:21 AM by vineethgk »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3609
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #13 on: 01/04/2015 03:16 AM »
I admit ISRO isn't alone here, but going by the success that Falcon 9 had so far, has ISRO's design philosophy for LVM3 and ULV already become obsolete? Or is it too early to say?
It is too early to say, in part because LMV3 is still a couple of years away from flying with a live third stage.  It is too early to say because the reliability and true costs of the two systems will only be revealed over time.  Finally, it is too early to say because LMV3 looks to my eyes to have substantial performance growth possibilities that are not apparent for Falcon 9 v1.1.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #14 on: 01/05/2015 01:26 PM »
Hangover  ;D
@isro.org
« Last Edit: 01/05/2015 01:30 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: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #15 on: 01/05/2015 01:38 PM »
I'm quite intrigued by the difference in design philosophies of ISRO (and probably many old-school space agencies/enterprises) and SpaceX about what constitutes reliability and cost savings in a rocket design. For LVM3 and its successor ULV designs, ISRO has zeroed on less number of propulsion stages (but of different types - solid, liquid/kerolox, hydrolox) and use of massive solids as the key. While in case of Falcon 9 which has a similar payload capability and objective, SpaceX has chosen a design based on the use of more number of moderately powerful propulsion units of similar types, geared towards lowering costs through mass production and increasing the reliability through redundancy of numbers.

Isn't SpaceX itself moving away from this model? Their next gen methox Raptor engine will generate around 5-6 MN of thrust. I guess they will replace the 9 engine cluster with this single engine.

Offline AChE

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #16 on: 01/05/2015 04:12 PM »
Isn't SpaceX itself moving away from this model? Their next gen methox Raptor engine will generate around 5-6 MN of thrust. I guess they will replace the 9 engine cluster with this single engine.

No, replacing the 9 Merlins on stage one would eliminate the commonality between the first and second stage engine and make propulsive landing impossible.

Offline AChE

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #17 on: 01/05/2015 04:40 PM »
I'm quite intrigued by the difference in design philosophies of ISRO (and probably many old-school space agencies/enterprises) and SpaceX about what constitutes reliability and cost savings in a rocket design. For LVM3 and its successor ULV designs, ISRO has zeroed on less number of propulsion stages (but of different types - solid, liquid/kerolox, hydrolox) and use of massive solids as the key. While in case of Falcon 9 which has a similar payload capability and objective, SpaceX has chosen a design based on the use of more number of moderately powerful propulsion units of similar types, geared towards lowering costs through mass production and increasing the reliability through redundancy of numbers.

Even considering the fact that ISRO is yet to develop a kerolox engine for its use, I feel the major driver in this difference of approach could be that one is a government agency that relies on public funding and is consequently not too worried about costs (as a private company would), while the other is a start-up private enterprise that *has to* aim for reduction in production costs to ensure its success and long term viability. I admit ISRO isn't alone here, but going by the success that Falcon 9 had so far, has ISRO's design philosophy for LVM3 and ULV already become obsolete? Or is it too early to say?

Any thoughts?

Too early to say: massive segmented solids have an iffy record wrt cost. Titan IV and H-II, Shuttle to some extent. Europe is moving away from them in favor of monolithic for A6, indicating the segmented solids were a cost driver for A5. Production costs in India might make them a reasonable choice, worked for PSLV.

The only alternative that comes to mind given ISRO experience would be essentially an A4 clone: multi-Vikas stage 1, single Vikas stage 2, cryo stage 3. But hypergols are expensive, and this would require several hundred tonnes more than LVM3. And (haven't done the math) probably 8 Vikas on stage 1 to match LVM3 performance. So given what ISRO has to work with (experience in solids, Vikas, and cryogenics) LVM3 seems like a reasonable design: propellants are burned in order of Isp, only 3 liquid engines per vehicle, and the only liquid engine development required is the CE-20.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #18 on: 01/05/2015 05:39 PM »
They have a RD181/193 class kero engine in development.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3472
  • California
  • Liked: 2710
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #19 on: 01/06/2015 06:16 AM »
Hangover  ;D
@isro.org

Thanks, it is great to see some higher resolution images!

Offline abhishek

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #20 on: 02/19/2015 03:07 AM »
Quote
The next flight of GSLV Mark III, currently scheduled for December 2016, is to go the full distance and put a four-tonne satellite into geostationary orbit. The first two stages of the vehicle are ready, but the upper stage has to wait for the cryogenic stage that is now being developed at the Liquid Propulsions Systems Centre near Thiruvananthapuram.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/46294413.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
10, 9, ignition sequence start 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, all engines running Lift off, we have a lift off, lift off

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #21 on: 03/15/2015 03:07 AM »
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Hot-Test-of-Cryogenic-Engine-Successful-Says-ISRO/2015/03/15/article2714243.ece

Quote
IPRC Director D. Karthikesan said as part of an important milestone in developing a heavy lift launch vehicle, GSLV MK-3, for the next generation, a major milestone was achieved when the cryogenic CE-20 engine was hot tested.

It was successfully tested for 20 seconds at ISRO Propulsion Complex(IPRC), Mahendragiri on Saturday.

Quote
Various subsystems of CE-20, such as injector, thrust chamber, gas generator, LOX and LH2 turbo pumps were tested earlier at IPRC, Mahendragiri.

Offline jithinnam

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #22 on: 04/02/2015 01:41 AM »
LVM3-SC rocket powered by the SCE-200 Semi-Cryo Engine

The SCE-200 is a liquid-fuel rocket engine being developed by the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre, a subsidiary of ISRO. It is being developed to power the future heavy-lift Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV) and Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) being planned by ISRO but before that it will be tested with GSLV Mk III by replacing L110(powered by old Vikas engine) stage to SC160.

Here is how this version of GSLV-3 would look like. All specifications are based on available valid data.

Offline chota

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #23 on: 04/28/2015 05:25 PM »
Quote
The engine tested today will enable us to put satellites of up to 4 tons in geostationary orbit. A proud accomplishment.@narendramodi
Quote
Congratulations to our space scientists for the successful testing of our indigenous cryogenic engine. @narendramodi

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #24 on: 04/29/2015 12:18 AM »
Link to article on 645-second test for CE-20:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Isros-desi-cryogenic-engine-test-successful/articleshow/47090046.cms

Quote
In a silent operation at the Mahendragiri test facility, Isro successfully test-fired the indigenous cryogenic engine CE-20 for 645 seconds. This marks a milestone in the country's effort to develop a big cryogenic engine to fly the ambitious GSLV-Mark III by the end of 2016.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 12:20 AM by sanman »

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #25 on: 05/02/2015 03:44 PM »
Quote
A major milestone in the development of ISRO’s next generation launch vehicle, GSLV MkIII, was achieved on successful long duration hot test (635 seconds) of high thrust cryogenic engine (CE20) on 28-04-2015 at ISRO Propulsion Complex, Mahendragiri, Tamil Nadu. The CE20 cryogenic engine is being indigenously developed by ISRO to power the cryogenic stage of GSLV MkIII launch vehicle.
The completion of successful long duration hot test has once again proved ISRO’s capability in mastering the complex cryogenic technology. All subsystems of this engine such as Thrust Chamber, Injector, Gas Generator, LOX & LH2 Turbopumps, Control Components, Pyro systems etc., and the ground Test Facility systems performed very well and the parameters are well within the prediction.
A series of development tests on this engine are being carried out to validate the performance and to prove the design of the engine. Two cold start tests and four short duration hot tests were already carried out on this engine at IPRC, Mahendragiri.

http://isro.gov.in/successful-testing-of-high-thrust-cryogenic-engine

"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
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: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #27 on: 05/05/2015 04:39 PM »
I think this is the CE20 test itself:




Can't really see much in there - at 37secs into the video, the clock jumps to near the end of the test.

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #28 on: 05/07/2015 08:49 AM »
Quote
High Thrust Cryogenic Engine (CE20) Development

ISRO is developing a high thrust cryogenic engine to be used for the upper stage of its heavy lift launch vehicle GSLV Mk-III. This high thrust cryogenic engine produces a nominal thrust of 196.5 kN in vacuum with a specific impulse of 434 seconds. The engine works on “Gas Generator Cycle” which has flexibility for independent development of each sub-system before the integrated engine test, thus minimising uncertainty in the final developmental phase and reducing development time. This engine generates nearly 2 MW power as compared to 1 MW generated by the engine of Cryogenic Upper Stage (CUS) engine of GSLV. The high thrust cryogenic engine is one of the most powerful cryogenic engines of upper stages in the world.

ISRO has achieved a major milestone by successfully conducting the ground test of Indigenous High Thrust Cryogenic Engine at ISRO Propulsion Complex at Mahendragiri on April 28, 2015 at 1657 Hrs for a duration of 635 seconds.  All the propulsion parameters during the tests were found satisfactory and closely matched with predictions. This ground test was preceded in the last few weeks, by four short duration tests of 5.5, 7.5, 20 and 30 seconds.

The high thrust cryogenic engine is designed and realised by Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC) at Valiamala with the support of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) at Thiruvananthapuram. The engine assembly, integration and testing is carried out by ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC) at Mahendragiri. Indian Industries have significantly contributed in the realization of the cryogenic engine.

While ground tests conducted so far validate this the design adequacy and performance of the integrated engine, further demonstration tests are planned at engine and stage level to characterise the different performance parameters under various operating conditions. After completion of the tests, the indigenous high thrust cryogenic engine and stage are planned to be flight tested in GSLV Mk- III-D1 mission.

http://www.isro.gov.in/launchers/high-thrust-cryogenic-engine-ce20-development
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #29 on: 05/08/2015 10:54 AM »
A Heavy lift Launch Vehicle

capable of placing up to 10 ton class of spacecrafts into Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit is currently under study by a project team. This new generation launch vehicle will derive its propulsion modules from LVM3 as well as from new developments, which include :

1) semi cryogenic booster stage, SC200
2) larger solid strap on boosters as compared to S200 strap on motors used in LVM3 (S250) and
3) a larger cryogenic upper stage (C50).

The Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle will have an optimal and robust design incorporating the latest technologies.
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: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #30 on: 05/08/2015 04:30 PM »
A Heavy lift Launch Vehicle

capable of placing up to 10 ton class of spacecrafts into Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit is currently under study by a project team. This new generation launch vehicle will derive its propulsion modules from LVM3 as well as from new developments, which include :

1) semi cryogenic booster stage, SC200
2) larger solid strap on boosters as compared to S200 strap on motors used in LVM3 (S250) and
3) a larger cryogenic upper stage (C50).

The Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle will have an optimal and robust design incorporating the latest technologies.

Awesome find!

But the question is anyways this core isn't the same as the ULV CLC (160 tonnes of prop), then ISRO should have attempted putting 2 SC200 engines on this core.

Still believe, using CLCs as boosters is the right way to go (similar to Angara) for ISRO heavy lift vehicle, as it'll have commonality with rest of ULV family hence reducing costs and complexity. 

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #31 on: 05/09/2015 06:25 AM »

Awesome find!

But the question is anyways this core isn't the same as the ULV CLC (160 tonnes of prop), then ISRO should have attempted putting 2 SC200 engines on this core.

Still believe, using CLCs as boosters is the right way to go (similar to Angara) for ISRO heavy lift vehicle, as it'll have commonality with rest of ULV family hence reducing costs and complexity.

IMHO, CLCs as boosters is always an option provided there is a requirement. For CLC diameter, my guess is it would be same as that of heat shield, 5m.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2015 06:35 AM 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 antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #32 on: 05/09/2015 06:26 AM »
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 baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #33 on: 05/09/2015 06:35 PM »
A Heavy lift Launch Vehicle

capable of placing up to 10 ton class of spacecrafts into Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit is currently under study by a project team. This new generation launch vehicle will derive its propulsion modules from LVM3 as well as from new developments, which include :

1) semi cryogenic booster stage, SC200
2) larger solid strap on boosters as compared to S200 strap on motors used in LVM3 (S250) and
3) a larger cryogenic upper stage (C50).

The Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle will have an optimal and robust design incorporating the latest technologies.
Antisksh, where did you got that info? I don't see the programmatic requirement for such a beast in the future, and it sort of goes against the ULV concept, while ignoring any reusability chances. Is ISRO planning on doing 6+ tonne GTO birds? Or are they needing 20tonnes to LEO?

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #34 on: 05/09/2015 07:54 PM »
Sometimes I wish ISRO could somehow switch to a more iterative program, to keep incrementally advancing things with each successive launch, rather than flying the same thing for 20+ years like with PSLV. I think some ISRO people should at least look at how to design such a roadmap, even if only just as a thought exercise. The iterative way seems a lot faster and more efficient.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2015 07:58 PM by sanman »

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #35 on: 05/09/2015 09:04 PM »
A Heavy lift Launch Vehicle

capable of placing up to 10 ton class of spacecrafts into Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit is currently under study by a project team. This new generation launch vehicle will derive its propulsion modules from LVM3 as well as from new developments, which include :

1) semi cryogenic booster stage, SC200
2) larger solid strap on boosters as compared to S200 strap on motors used in LVM3 (S250) and
3) a larger cryogenic upper stage (C50).

The Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle will have an optimal and robust design incorporating the latest technologies.
Antisksh, where did you got that info? I don't see the programmatic requirement for such a beast in the future, and it sort of goes against the ULV concept, while ignoring any reusability chances. Is ISRO planning on doing 6+ tonne GTO birds? Or are they needing 20tonnes to LEO?

I think this might be the source.

http://isrohq.vssc.gov.in/VSSC_V4/index.php/technology/heavy-lift-launch-vehicles

Notice the image URL of render "HLV-S250-SC200-C50.JPG"

 ;)
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #36 on: 05/09/2015 09:23 PM »
Changing the design with each launch is slow, risky, and extremely expensive.   A launch system progresses with need, and usually the need is for a reliable system, which the PSLV has been in contrast with the GSLV. 

If you were hoping for an extremely heavy launch system to somehow evolve, three such systems were historically built (Saturn V, N-1, and Energia), flown for a limited period, and abandoned.

The GSLV Mk III appears to be a basis for a launch system that meets need both present and for the next decade or so with some room for improvement and growth.  When the need exists for very heavy lift, a new launch system will have to be built.  The notion that 'build it and the payloads will appear', hasn't worked very well to date.

Maybe SpaceX will buck that trend by significantly lowering launch costs, but that isn't the whole story.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #37 on: 05/09/2015 11:00 PM »
Well, then it makes me wonder what the purpose of this proposed HLV would be. Would something that could place 10 tons into LEO be meant for lofting space station modules? Otherwise, how many satellites are above 10 tons? I thought GSAT-10 was the heaviest to date, at 3.5 tons.

Maybe it's just another powerpoint rocket.

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3235
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 734
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #38 on: 05/10/2015 12:33 AM »
Well, then it makes me wonder what the purpose of this proposed HLV would be. Would something that could place 10 tons into LEO be meant for lofting space station modules? Otherwise, how many satellites are above 10 tons?
Note according to the image posted, that's 10 tons to GTO, similar to Ariane 5. LEO payload would presumably be closer to 20 tons. It's not clear what need India would have for an LV in this class. It could be used for dual manifest GTO launches, but Arianespace at least seem to have concluded dual launch isn't a win. 20 tons to LEO would be about right for a space station modules, but it seems unlikely that ISRO will be building their own station any time soon.
Quote
Maybe it's just another powerpoint rocket.
Very likely. Everyone who builds rockets dreams of BFRs, it's quite normal to do preliminary studies and pitch them to anyone who will listen.

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #39 on: 05/10/2015 04:32 AM »

Antisksh, where did you got that info? I don't see the programmatic requirement for such a beast in the future, and it sort of goes against the ULV concept, while ignoring any reusability chances. Is ISRO planning on doing 6+ tonne GTO birds? Or are they needing 20tonnes to LEO?

HLV to me is a recent development (2014 onwards). the attached article in this post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36389.msg1371968#msg1371968 mentions that ISRO is conducting studies on HLV.

The source of HLV imgae is http://www.vssc.gov.in/VSSC_V4/index.php/technology/heavy-lift-launch-vehicles.

About 10 ton satellites, in the words of DR K Sivan :

Quote
He said, the next focus after the Mars mission was towards exploration of the solar system and deep space astronomy. As new applications are  being developed, the size of satellites had to be increased and ISRO was planning to develop 10 tons satellites soon.

Source
« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 04:34 AM 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 dhiraj

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #40 on: 05/10/2015 06:41 AM »

Antisksh, where did you got that info? I don't see the programmatic requirement for such a beast in the future, and it sort of goes against the ULV concept, while ignoring any reusability chances. Is ISRO planning on doing 6+ tonne GTO birds? Or are they needing 20tonnes to LEO?

HLV to me is a recent development (2014 onwards). the attached article in this post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36389.msg1371968#msg1371968 mentions that ISRO is conducting studies on HLV.

The source of HLV imgae is http://www.vssc.gov.in/VSSC_V4/index.php/technology/heavy-lift-launch-vehicles.

About 10 ton satellites, in the words of DR K Sivan :

Quote
He said, the next focus after the Mars mission was towards exploration of the solar system and deep space astronomy. As new applications are  being developed, the size of satellites had to be increased and ISRO was planning to develop 10 tons satellites soon.

Source


is there any info regarding the semi cryo engine and stage test ? i believe C 25 and Semi cryo development started around the same time but some how semi cryo seems delayed.

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #41 on: 05/10/2015 11:04 AM »

is there any info regarding the semi cryo engine and stage test ? i believe C 25 and Semi cryo development started around the same time but some how semi cryo seems delayed.

You can find info about SCE-200 semi cryogenic engine in this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32477.0

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #42 on: 05/11/2015 06:37 AM »
IMHO, CLCs as boosters is always an option provided there is a requirement. For CLC diameter, my guess is it would be same as that of heat shield, 5m.
Hmmm.. The Chinese seems to have had a lot of trouble in manufacturing their 5m dia cores for Long March 5.  ???

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #43 on: 05/30/2015 03:47 PM »
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Thiruvananthapuram/isro-developing-heavy-lift-launch-vehicles/article7262881.ece

Quote
. “While the GSLV Mk3, scheduled to undergo operation flight test in December 2016, will be capable of carrying satellites up to four tonnes, the standard size of satellites is expected to go up to six tonnes in the near future, requiring rockets with more heft,” he explained.

Quote
ISRO is toying with the idea of adding a semi-cryogenic stage to the GSLV Mk3 to generate a lift up to six tonnes. A more powerful cryo upper stage is expected to add the required muscle to handle satellites up to 10 tonnes. “What we have in mind is a progressive development to come up with need-based variants of the Mk3 instead of coming up with a new rocket altogether,” Mr. Dathan said.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #44 on: 05/30/2015 09:03 PM »
The LVM3 may benefit from latest Proton failure. Customers will be looking for alternative LV and maybe willing to take a risk with LVM3. ISRO have a good launch record with PSLV, 25 successful launches in a row.

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #45 on: 05/31/2015 03:11 AM »
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/Technical-Anomaly-Puts-Off-ISROs-Key-CE-20-Test/2015/05/31/article2841451.ece

Quote
“The test was not completed as planned. We had to call it off 30 seconds into the test. But we have identified the hitch as a mere measurement anomaly,” said Dr K Sivan, outgoing director of ISRO’s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC), and new chief of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC). The test will be conducted again in two to three weeks, he said
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #46 on: 05/31/2015 07:15 PM »
The LVM3 may benefit from latest Proton failure. Customers will be looking for alternative LV and maybe willing to take a risk with LVM3. ISRO have a good launch record with PSLV, 25 successful launches in a row.

As of now/near future, ISRO does/will not have the capacity to use LVM3 or GSLV Mk 2 for commercial launches. The Achilles heel is the manufacture of the cryogenic stages. Currently, ISRO can only produce 2-3 of them a year. The situation will improve when HAL's cryo engine fabrication facility starts functioning. But that still a good 3-5 years away.

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #47 on: 06/05/2015 03:52 AM »
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/new-project-director-for-gslv-mark-iii-programme/articleshow/47544866.cms

Quote
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Senior ISRO scientist G Ayyappan today took charge as the Project Director of the prestigious GSLV Mark III programme under development at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) here.

The programme is aimed at making the country self-reliant by developing rockets capable of launching heavier communication satellites of INSAT-4 class, which weigh 4,500 to 5,000 kg.

A graduate in Mechanical Engineering from the College of Engineering in Trivandrum and M Tech from IIT in Madras, he served ISRO in different capacities since 1982, an official release said.

He was the Vehicle Director of LVM3-X/CARE mission, the first experimental flight of the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) Mark III carried out in December last year, it said.

He was the Associate Project Director of GSLV Mk III prior to this post, it said.

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #48 on: 06/17/2015 10:37 PM »
http://www.sakshi.com/news/andhra-pradesh/successfully-testing-a-geostationary-248632

Anyone who knows Telugu. Is the above article about successful testing of S-200 booster after some changes?
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #49 on: 06/17/2015 10:57 PM »
I don't speak Telugu, but maybe Google Translate can help?

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=te&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sakshi.com%2Fnews%2Fandhra-pradesh%2Fsuccessfully-testing-a-geostationary-248632&edit-text=&act=url

Quote
Successfully testing a geostationary
Sakshi | Updated: July 15, 2015 0038 (IST)
Sriharikota (sullurupeta): Indian Space Research (ISRO) will in the future in view of the large experiments using technology more in the S -200 strapan booster rocket Sriharikota at 9.30 am on Sunday morning in the center of the Earth static tests to be carried out successfully. On December 18 last year to carry out the experiment jieselvi Mark -3, -200 S booster strapan ability to carry out tests to determine the geostationary won twice.

S -200 in the experiment, the scientists found that high pressure boosters. The scientists believe that the future will be in danger, pressure to reduce the size of this series of tests was carried out successfully. In 2016 jieselvi mark3-D-1, said the scientists conducted an experiment of this type boosters. 200 tons of solid fuel filling, the tests were conducted to determine its effectiveness.

To ningiloki satellites in the future, about 3 to 5 tons -200 S strapan, such as the need for boosters. S -200 success in tests since bhariprayogalaku tirugundadani say in the future. Pikunhikrsnan Shore program director, associate director, Dr. SV Subba Rao, Director jieselvi Ayyappan, Director Eeswaran S -200 involved in the project.

"jieselvi" seems to be a phonetic equivalent to "GSLV"


Edit by mod:
Another translation trial:
Quote
Successful geostationnary test
Sakshi | Updated: June 15, 2015  00:38 (IST)

Sriharikota (Sullurupeta): The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) has successfully conducted the ground fixed tests at the Sriharikota rocket center at 9.30 am on Sunday using more technology in the S-200 strap-on booster for future heavy launches. On December 18,  conducted the GSLV Mark-3 launch and two-stage geometry tests were conducted to gain the S-200 strap-on booster efficiency.

Scientists have discovered that during the launch pressure was high in the S-200 booster. Scientists, who felt that the future would be at risk, have successfully conducted these tests to reduce pressure. Scientists said that the GSLV Mark3-D1 launch will be conducted in 2016 with this type of boosters. These tests were conducted to fill 200 tons of solid fuel and to know its potential.

In the future, we need to use strap-on boosters like the S -200 to send a load of 3 to 5 tonnes of satellites in the future. The S-200 tests are a success and are not going to take place in future. The program was attended by Shr D. P. Kunjikrishnan, Associate Director Dr SV Subba Rao, GSLV Director, Ayyappan, S-200 Project Director Eshwaran.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2017 08:45 AM by input~2 »

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #50 on: 06/23/2015 02:49 PM »
Static test of S200 motor successful

Quote
The static test of S200 motor with 205 tonnes of HTPB-based propellant was successfully carried out

Quote
to bring down the dynamic pressure during transonic regime, a modified Head End Segment (HES) grain geometry has been designed and realised.
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 vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #51 on: 06/28/2015 06:33 PM »
Static test of S200 motor successful

Quote
The static test of S200 motor with 205 tonnes of HTPB-based propellant was successfully carried out

Quote
to bring down the dynamic pressure during transonic regime, a modified Head End Segment (HES) grain geometry has been designed and realised.

So they have apparently reduced the propellant load from 207 tonnes for the new grain geometry? Or is this change usual for static tests?

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #52 on: 07/17/2015 01:28 AM »
http://thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/gslv-mk-iii-engine-completes-full-endurance-test/article7432042.ece

Quote
The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) successfully conducted the much-awaited ‘full endurance test’ of the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk III’s indigenous cryogenic CE-20 engine at ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC) in Mahendragiri in the district on Thursday.

The CE-20 was ignited and tested for 800 seconds from 5 p.m. to study the performance of the engine though the actual required duration was only 635 seconds.

During the actual flight of the GSLV, the engine will be ignited for only 635 seconds.

Quote
He said that the subsystems of CE-20 such as injector, thrust chamber, gas generator, liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen turbo pumps were tested at the IPRC,

Offline abhishek

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #53 on: 07/20/2015 12:03 PM »
ISRO PRESS RELEASE

Indigenously Developed High Thrust Cryogenic Rocket Engine Successfully Ground Tested for a duration for 800 seconds

Quote
India’s first indigenously designed and developed High Thrust cryogenic rocket engine generating a nominal thrust of 19 tonnes was successfully endurance hot tested for a duration of 800 seconds on July 16, 2015 at ISRO Propulsion Complex, Mahendragiri. This duration is approximately 25% more than the engine burn duration in flight. The engine will be used for powering the Cryogenic stage (C25), the upper stage of the next generation GSLV Mk-III launch vehicle of ISRO, capable of launching four tonne class satellites.

This cryogenic engine of C25 Stage operates on Gas Generator Cycle using extremely low temperature propellants – Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) at 20 Kelvin (-253 deg C) and Liquid Oxygen (LOX) at 80K (-193 deg C). The various subsystems of the engine are – regeneratively cooled Thrust Chamber, Gas Generator, LOX and LH2 high speed turbopump systems, flow control components, close loop mixture ratio control system, Pyrogen igniters, fluid systems, etc. The turbopump system rotates at a speed of 36,000 rpm with a power level of 2 MW.
http://www.isro.gov.in/update/20-jul-2015/indigenously-developed-high-thrust-cryogenic-rocket-engine-successfully-ground#sthash.E139JXPE.dpuf
« Last Edit: 07/20/2015 12:04 PM by abhishek »
10, 9, ignition sequence start 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, all engines running Lift off, we have a lift off, lift off

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #54 on: 07/20/2015 04:48 PM »
Super! Hoping to see CE20 engine integrated with C25 stage soon :)

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #55 on: 08/04/2015 07:32 AM »
Quote

Isro, meanwhile, has put to long-duration test its indigenously developed cryogenic engine for GSLV-Mark-III, which can carry satellites weighing up to four tonnes. "We will launch it by December 2016," Kumar said. India's big missions including the proposed manned mission rests on the shoulders of GSLV-MIII.


Quote
Isro is also on the lookout for a launch pad outside Sriharikota, in Kulasekharapattinam in southern Tamil Nadu.


Source :
Isro to put US satellite in space for the first time

« Last Edit: 09/28/2015 12:51 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline abhishek

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #56 on: 08/06/2015 04:09 AM »
Government allocated Rs 470 cr for GSLV Mk III launch

Quote
An amount of Rs 470 crore has been allocated for the development of GSLV Mk III launch vehicle in the Twelfth Five Year Plan, said a senior Union Minister today.

India's first indigenously designed and developed high thrust cryogenic engine meant for next generation GSLV Mk-III launch vehicle is under advanced stage of development. The engine will be used for powering the India's heaviest rocket under development-geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV) Mk-III with a capacity to put into orbit satellites weighing four tonnes.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/government-allocated-rs-470-cr-for-gslv-mk-iii-launch-115080501628_1.html
10, 9, ignition sequence start 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, all engines running Lift off, we have a lift off, lift off

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #57 on: 09/26/2015 05:35 PM »
Nose job for a VIP visit.
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #58 on: 10/03/2015 03:35 PM »
testing testing

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: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #59 on: 10/03/2015 03:46 PM »
Payload fairing and solid strapon motors' nose cones look different in above two pictures.

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #60 on: 10/03/2015 03:53 PM »
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/gslv-mark-iii-rocket-modified-ground-tests-done-isro/articleshow/49208700.cms

Quote
CHENNAI: Based on last year's GSLV Mark III's experimental flight, modifications have been done to solid rocket S-200 motors to change dynamic pressure and forces and ground tests have been done, a top ISRO official said today.

Quote
Sharing the developments over GSLV Mark III with reporters on the sidelines of Hindustan University's convocation here, the top official said "those changes have also been incorporated and ground tests have been conducted on those modified rockets and so, that way we are quite on track for GSLV Mark III (launch)next year."

Quote
Stating that ISRO was planning to launch GSLV Mk-III by December next year, he said,"for GSLV Mark III launch the target is December 2016 and a second launch December 2017."

Quote
On the Mark III cryogenic engine development, it has been going on "very successfully," and ISRO has done "more than 21 different tests including long duration test," he said.

"Actually in the launch, it is supposed to work for about 635 seconds to put the satellites in orbit, now we have tested the engine for not only that period but also for an extended period for about 800 seconds." These tests have been done on one engine and "now we need to repeat it on another hardware and those activities are in progress," he said.

An important aspect about cryogenic engine is that it is totally indigenous development, he said.

"The various tests that we have gone through so far is simulated prior to test and tests have validated, giving us great confidence that the entire technology in terms of basics the engineers and scientists have understood the mechanism."

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #61 on: 10/03/2015 04:06 PM »
Payload fairing and solid strapon motors' nose cones look different in above two pictures.

yes, so LVM3 is still evolving. The HS in the former pic looks more like the HLVs HS

« Last Edit: 10/03/2015 04:10 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 vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #62 on: 10/03/2015 05:09 PM »
Payload fairing and solid strapon motors' nose cones look different in above two pictures.

yes, so LVM3 is still evolving. The HS in the former pic looks more like the HLVs HS



Keen eyes vyoma !!

And if my eyes do not deceive me, the strapon nose section looks more like that of Ariane 5 now.

Edit: Any idea if the pic in Ohsin's post is the new design for LVM3 ?
« Last Edit: 10/03/2015 05:20 PM by vineethgk »

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #63 on: 10/04/2015 12:50 AM »
Those images are from pasteboard of NAL if it wasn't clear. No additional info. And that HLV render has been taken off VSSC site after recent update but still accessible through direct link.
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #64 on: 10/04/2015 02:08 AM »
Quote
“We are  progressing steadily. The engine was tested successfully in July. The next stage of the development is the integration of all the systems that make up the whole  cryogenic stage. The fully integrated stage will be ground tested within six  months,

IPRC will test the stage as a whole on the ground for up to 25 times the duration for which a mission will require it fired. The next step will see the stage tested at  Sriharikota with complete autonomy of systems. “Once that is done, the project can be taken forward. We actually hope to have the Mark III developed by next year. However, that is only a target, not a prediction,” said the official. The initial version of the GSLV Mk III, however, is likely to have a payload capability of 3,500 kg, with the systems being optimised in a staggered manner.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/GSLV-Mark-IIIs-Cryogenic-Stage-to-be-Ground-Tested-in-6-Months/2015/10/04/article3061500.ece
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #65 on: 12/29/2015 05:49 AM »
Year End Review: Achievements of Department of Space during the year 2015

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=133949

Quote
3.  Development of Next Generation Geo-Synchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk III:

 ​The first experimental flight of heavy lift next generation launch vehicle, GSLV-Mk III, was successfully conducted on December 18, 2014 from Sriharikota. This flight has validated the complex atmospheric regime of flight and demonstrated the Integrity of design of GSLV Mk III.

​During the experimental flight of GSLV Mk III, the unmanned Crew module Atmospheric Re-entry Experiment (CARE) has also been successfully tested for its re-entry performance. Crew module splashed down over Andaman Sea with the help of its parachutes and was recovered from the sea with the help of Indian Coast Guard as per the mission plan.

Endurance hot test of High Thrust cryogenic engine (CE20) of GSLV-Mk III was successfully conducted on July 20, 2015.  The test was conducted for 800 seconds as compared to its nominal burn duration of 635 seconds during flight. This engine will be used for powering the Cryogenic stage (C25) of GSLV Mk-III launch vehicle. Another short duration (5.7 s) hot test on the CE20 engine has been carried out on Aug 10, 2015 to demonstrate the successful engine ignition with tank pressure conditions as in flight.

GSLV Mk III is designed to launch 3.5 to 4 Ton class communication satellites to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit.

The missing piece ;D They conducted high altitude tests soon after that 800s endurance burn.

Edit:

Quote from:
Edit: Any idea if the pic in Ohsin's post is the new design for LVM3 ?

Yes in the recently released book there is  a mention of some design changes related to strapons and Payload fairing(would be ogive).
« Last Edit: 12/29/2015 06:05 AM by Ohsin »
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #66 on: 01/25/2016 09:09 AM »
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/cryogenic-engine-may-be-used-for-gslv-mkiii-by-yearend/article8149770.ece

Quote
The high-thrust cryogenic engine (CE20), which was successfully test fired at the ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC), Mahendragiri, for launching three-tonne class payloads, would be used on GSLV Mk-III flight by the end of this year, a senior IPRC scientist has said.

A long duration hot test has proved that all sub-systems of the engine performed well and after completing a series of development tests on this indigenously developed engine, it would be ready for flight by the end of this year, the scientist told The Hindu here on Sunday.

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #67 on: 01/25/2016 09:44 PM »
Quote
The high-thrust cryogenic engine (CE20), which was successfully test fired at the ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC), Mahendragiri, for launching three-tonne class payloads, would be used on GSLV Mk-III flight by the end of this year, a senior IPRC scientist has said.

Quote
Though the engine was designed to carry three-tonne class satellites, the payload weight would be restricted to less than three tonnes in the initial developmental flight, he said.

Source : Cryogenic engine may be used for GSLV Mk-III by year-end

Isn't the GSLV MK-III is supposed to loft a 4 ton Satellite to GTO with a powerful CE20 Engine ? I would like to stand corrected if I am wrong. Is it a misreporting or is the cryogenic engine's capacity lower than initially designed ? CE20 Engine Thrust is supposed to be 200 kN. Initial reports said that in the first development test, a 3.5-ton satellite would be launched. If this recent report is true, this is a setback for GSLV MK-III payload capacity. After developing this Launcher for more than a decade, how can ISRO come up with Launcher that can loft only 3 ton Satellite to GTO ? I hope, this is a misreporting.

worldtimedate [ http://www.world-timedate.com/ ]
« Last Edit: 01/25/2016 09:48 PM by worldtimedate »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13050
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2884
  • Likes Given: 433
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #68 on: 01/26/2016 03:12 AM »
I like to new name of the kerosene ISRO is going to use. :-)

"The semi-cryogenic engine, using kerosene as fuel and liquid oxygen as oxidiser, is currently being designed and developed. The refined and purified kerosene to be used as fuel has been named as ‘isrosene’, the scientist said."
« Last Edit: 01/26/2016 03:13 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #69 on: 02/11/2016 03:39 PM »
CE20+C25 testing soon ?! And with reentry test is he hinting at SRE2 or another crew module test?

Quote
According to reports, Sivan said the GSLV will be Stage-tested in two months and go for launching in December. He also said the electric propulsion will be used in the satellites for the first time in India. He further said ISRO will also undertake tests to bring back humans safe to earth in case if sent to space and the moon.

https://in.news.yahoo.com/isro-launch-cryogenic-mk-iii-based-gslv-vehicle-132944000.html
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #70 on: 02/19/2016 02:45 PM »
CE-20 successfully hot tested for flight duration with Mixture Ratio Controller (MRC) in closed loop mode!  ;D

Quote
The test was completed successfully at ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC) at Mahendragiri today at 17.15 hrs, an ISRO press release said here.

Quote
The engine has already undergone two short duration tests and demonstrated repeatability of engine ignition characteristics and steady state performance

Quote
The test was conducted with Mixture Ratio Controller (MRC) in closed loop mode for the flight duration of 640 seconds, according to ISRO.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/isro-successfully-conducts-hot-test-of-cryo-ce-20-engine-116021900959_1.html

Wondering if it is old news getting picked up again by media somehow. TheHindu is also reporting it

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/science/isro-successfully-conducts-hot-test-of-cryo-ce-20-engine/article8258080.ece

Previous tests were of 635s and 800s and some short duration 5.7s high altitude tests..

Quote
Apr 28, 2015
Successful long duration hot test (635 seconds) of high thrust cryogenic engine (CE20)
http://www.isro.gov.in/successful-testing-of-high-thrust-cryogenic-engine

Quote
Jul 20, 2015
Indigenously Developed High Thrust Cryogenic Rocket Engine Successfully Ground Tested for a duration for 800 seconds

http://www.isro.gov.in/update/20-jul-2015/indigenously-developed-high-thrust-cryogenic-rocket-engine-successfully-ground

Quote
Another short duration (5.7 s) hot test on the CE20 engine has been carried out on Aug 10, 2015 to demonstrate the successful engine ignition with tank pressure conditions as in flight.

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=133949

Edit: Verified! Image attached has today's date

Source
« Last Edit: 02/19/2016 03:48 PM by Ohsin »
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #72 on: 02/20/2016 02:04 AM »
Here is another report from Today's Hindu Newspaper regarding the CE20 Engine Test. I think ISRO is very confident now of doing the Cryogenic Upper Stage Test very soon, because ISRO chairman says the preparation is underway for LVM3 first development test in December,

Source : ISRO upbeat as indigenous cryo engine passes test

Quote
Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) bid to acquire the capability to launch heavier satellites into orbit received a boost on Friday with the successful hotbed test of the cryogenic engine for the upper stage of the GSLV Mark 3 rocket.

Quote
The long-duration test at the ISRO Propulsion Research Centre at Mahendragiri lasted 640 seconds.

Quote
Developed at the Liquid Propulsion System centre (LPSC) here, the engine had already undergone two short-duration tests for engine ignition and steady state performance.

Quote
Earlier in the day, Mr. Kumar said preparations were under way for the first developmental flight of the GSLV Mark 3 in December 2016.

Quote
The biggest rocket made in India, the Mk3 will be capable of launching four-tonne satellites into geosynchronous orbit.

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

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #73 on: 02/20/2016 03:32 AM »
Might see another one soon. Then hopefully in two months integrated tests with C25 stage.

Quote
This is the second cryo engine on which the hot tests are being conducted. A third engine identified for actual flight use will soon undergo tests at Mahendragiri soon.

Source 1

Quote
Kiran Kumar noted that they have so far conducted a series of 42 tests starting from the first, which lasted just 30 seconds.

Source 2

Quote
    “It gives us the confidence to go ahead [with its other activities] and more or less confirm a full launch of GSLV MkIII in December.” Tested once in mid-2015 for 800 seconds, the engine prototype, he said, has proven that it can repeat the performance equally on a second or different hardware. Its design would be frozen, replicated for use in the cryogenic third stage of upcoming MkIII rockets. When it gets regularised in the coming years, the GSLV-MkIII launcher (some call it the LVM3) will be able to lift four-tonne communication satellites into their specified orbit.

Stage test next

    Calling it “100 per cent success,” S. Sivan, Director of the rocket-related hub, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, said, “There is confidence that we are going in the right direction” with the cryoengine design. In a couple of months, they would test the entire cryogenic third stage, called C-25, with fuel tank, plumbing and other systems.

Source 3
« Last Edit: 02/20/2016 04:14 AM by Ohsin »
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #74 on: 02/20/2016 08:10 AM »
I guess the hard time they had with CE-7.5 paid of well. After their ordeal with its staged combustion cycle design, this gas generator design might have been a breeze.. By the way, would a few months be enough to integrate the engine with the stage and do necessary tests? I am pleasantly surprised that ISRO is sticking to its December target for LVM3-D1.

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #75 on: 02/20/2016 07:51 PM »
India can launch 4-tonne satellite

Quote
Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Dr K. Sivan, said on Thursday that engine level tests for the GSLV Mark 3 rocket were complete and stage level tests would be conducted in two-three months.

Quote
The rocket will be ready for launch by December this year. The GSLV Mark 3 will be capable of carrying a payload of four tonnes and will be used in manned space missions by ISRO. The earlier versions could carry only 2.2 tonnes.

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

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #76 on: 02/25/2016 01:04 PM »
Quote
Feb 24, 2016

CE 20 Engine of GSLV MKIII successfully hot tested

CE 20 Engine of GSLV MKIII under Hot Test

ISRO has crossed a major milestone in the development of CE-20 engine for the GSLV MKIII vehicle by the successful hot test for 640 seconds duration on 19.02.2016 at ISRO Propulsion Complex, Mahendragiri. Chairman, ISRO has witnessed the hot test. The test has demonstrated the repeatability of the engine performance with all its sub systems like thrust chamber, gas generator, turbo pumps and control components for the full duration. All the engine parameters were closely matching with the pre test prediction.

http://www.isro.gov.in/update/24-feb-2016/ce-20-engine-of-gslv-mkiii-successfully-hot-tested
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #77 on: 02/29/2016 11:28 AM »
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: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #78 on: 02/29/2016 03:25 PM »
CE-20 Hot-Tested




Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #79 on: 05/25/2016 06:25 PM »
C25 status: Loading

Quote
He said the first developmental flight of India's heaviest rocket geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle-Mark III (GSLV-MkIII) will be in December 2016 carrying the GSAT-19 satellite.

Sivan said the second developmental flight of GSLV-MkIII is slated for December 2017.

"The time gap is mainly to study the data generated from the first flight and also to develop the necessary hardware. Once the two developmental flights are successful then the rocket will be termed fit for commercial flights," Sivan said.

<snip>

"Soon the cryogenic stage -- engine, fuel and other systems -- will be tested. Then the stage will be tested in vacuum conditions and there will also be a high altitude test," Sivan said

Source
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #80 on: 05/25/2016 07:18 PM »
Remarkable that they are still sticking to Dec 2016 schedule. Meaning things are going relatively smooth and as per plan so far.


« Last Edit: 05/25/2016 07:22 PM by vineethgk »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #81 on: 05/26/2016 12:52 AM »
Well, that LVM3-X1 atmospheric flight test certainly didn't hurt - maybe that's what's giving them enough data and confidence to proceed at pace.

(speaking of which, anybody know of the capsule's development status/progress?)

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #82 on: 05/27/2016 04:26 AM »
LVM3 updates from 2015-16 annual report (http://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/article-files/right-to-information/annual_report-15-16.pdf):

Quote
Post Flight Analysis (PFA) of GSLV-Mk III X-mission has proposed changes in vehicle configuration to improve robustness of GSLV-Mk III launch vehicle for all seasonal wind conditions. The changes in heat shield from bulbous to give and slanted nose cone for S200 strap-ons are being implemented and will be validated in GSLV-Mk III-D1 flight. In addition to above changes, grain configuration of head end segment of S200 motor was modified to reduce the peak dynamic pressure on the launch vehicle during atmospheric flight regime. To validate the changes in S200 Head End Segment grain configuration, a static test of S200 (ST-03) was successfully conducted on June 14, 2015.

Significant achievements were also made in the development of high thrust cryogenic CE20 engine. Integrated Engine (E1) development test at sea level conditions were completed with the successful accomplishment of 12 tests, which validated the structural integrity of engine systems and demonstrated the repeatability of engine performance. Two cold flow tests and 10 hot tests including one flight duration hot test for 635 seconds and one extended duration hot test for 800 seconds were carried out  This engine will be used to power the C25 cryogenic stage for GSLV-Mk III launch vehicle.

Realisation of C25 stage is in advanced stage. Propellant tanks are realised and engine & stage integration is in progress. The ground testing of C25 cryogenic stage is expected to be completed by the second half of 2016.

Propellant Casting of S200 middle segments for GSLV-Mk III-D1 had been completed. Structures and propellant tanks for L110 flight stage have been realised and stage assembly is in progress at IPRC, Mahendragiri. Sub assembly preparation activities are in progress for other systems. The launch of GSLV-Mk III-D1, the first developmental flight carrying GSAT-19E satellite of mass 3200 kg, is targeted during last quarter of 2016.

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #83 on: 05/27/2016 05:00 AM »


LVM3 updates from 2015-16 annual report (http://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/article-files/right-to-information/annual_report-15-16.pdf):

Quote
Post Flight Analysis (PFA) of GSLV-Mk III X-mission has proposed changes in vehicle configuration to improve robustness of GSLV-Mk III launch vehicle for all seasonal wind conditions. The changes in heat shield from bulbous to give and slanted nose cone for S200 strap-ons are being implemented and will be validated in GSLV-Mk III-D1 flight. In addition to above changes, grain configuration of head end segment of S200 motor was modified to reduce the peak dynamic pressure on the launch vehicle during atmospheric flight regime.

Ah... The Ariane5-ish wind tunnel model that was in one of the previous posts. The LVM3-D1 test mule is going to look significantly different from LVM3-X.

via Tapatalk


Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #84 on: 05/27/2016 05:21 AM »
What's the significance of that fairing change? What's the advantage from it? Doesn't it mean they have to reduce the payload dimensions because of that?

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #85 on: 05/27/2016 06:18 AM »
What's the significance of that fairing change? What's the advantage from it? Doesn't it mean they have to reduce the payload dimensions because of that?
Maybe they haven't reduced the fairing dia as such, but reworked its shape for better aerodynamic characteristics.

Attached below the link to Ohsin's post earlier in the thread with the pic.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36389.msg1429875.msg#1429875

via Tapatalk


Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #86 on: 05/27/2016 06:25 PM »


LVM3 updates from 2015-16 annual report (http://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/article-files/right-to-information/annual_report-15-16.pdf):

Quote
Post Flight Analysis (PFA) of GSLV-Mk III X-mission has proposed changes in vehicle configuration to improve robustness of GSLV-Mk III launch vehicle for all seasonal wind conditions. The changes in heat shield from bulbous to give and slanted nose cone for S200 strap-ons are being implemented and will be validated in GSLV-Mk III-D1 flight. In addition to above changes, grain configuration of head end segment of S200 motor was modified to reduce the peak dynamic pressure on the launch vehicle during atmospheric flight regime.

Ah... The Ariane5-ish wind tunnel model that was in one of the previous posts. The LVM3-D1 test mule is going to look significantly different from LVM3-X.

via Tapatalk
There's a spelling mistake. It says:
Quote
The changes in heat shield from bulbous to ogive and slanted nose cone for S200 strap-ons are being implemented and will be validated in GSLV-Mk III-D1 flight.
So the top of the fairing and the solids nosecones are being changed to look like Ariane 5's. Not surprising at all.

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #87 on: 08/13/2016 05:36 AM »
CE-20 cryo engine hot test #3, duration 652 seconds approx.

Quote
E2 Engine Qualifying Test on 19-02-2016 at IPRC, Mahendragiri
« Last Edit: 08/13/2016 06:04 AM by vyoma »

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #88 on: 08/13/2016 07:19 PM »
Pretty old, but informative slides.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2016 07:17 PM by vyoma »

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #89 on: 09/04/2016 10:09 PM »
Models of Vikas, CE-7.5 and CE-20 engines.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2016 10:12 PM by vyoma »

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #90 on: 12/03/2016 09:13 PM »
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/GSLV-engine-tested-at-Mahendragiri/article16756493.ece

Quote
The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) successfully conducted the test of the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk III’s indigenous cryogenic CE-20 engine at ISRO Propulsion Complex in Mahendragiri in the district on Saturday.

The CE-20 was ignited and tested for 25 seconds from 7.20 p.m. in the presence of A.S. Kiran Kumar, Chairman, ISRO, to study the performance of the engine that will play a pivotal role in the rocket weighing about 4 tonne.

“The engine, which will get ignited at high altitude in vacuum during actual flight, performed exceptionally well to meet all predetermined goals,” said sources in the ISRO Propulsion Complex.

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #91 on: 12/04/2016 10:31 AM »
CE-20 engine being tested at vacuum test facility


Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #92 on: 12/04/2016 09:40 PM »
Models of Vikas, CE-7.5 and CE-20 engines.

The link is not working. Here is the other URL. GSLV engine tested at Mahendragiri

I have been hearing about CE-20 Engine test only. What about the Upper Stage test ? If ISRO thinks that it performed exceptionally well, then it is good news.

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

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #93 on: 06/06/2017 06:37 PM »
Isro to carry local satellites on GSLV Mk III before hurling foreign ones
Quote
The Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) may have to wait till 2020 to hurl satellites for global customers on its most powerful rocket, as the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV-MK III), needs to first fulfil local demand for heavy satellite launches.
 

GSLV-MK III, which uses a homegrown cryogenic engine has to do at least two more launches before it begins with commercial operations. After that, Isro will need to carry heavier communication satellites to meet the shortage of transponders for Indian customers."


"It should take 3-4 years for us to get into the global market with GSLV-MK III,"says Ajey Lele, senior fellow in the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA).
Quote
At the same time, Isro is working on a more powerful GSLV-MK III, which can carry satellites weighinng up to six tonnes into space. Simultaneously, it will build a two-stage rocket that will be powered by a semi-cryogenic engine in the first stage and a cryogenic engine with a capacity to lift ten-tonne satellites in the second stage.
As for the two-stage rocket that was mentioned above, they must have meant the configuration of a clustered core of 4 or 5 SCE-200 and one CE-20 powering the upper stage.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #94 on: 06/06/2017 07:35 PM »
The configuration here says 1xsce200 with different SRB configurations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Launch_Vehicle

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk


Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #95 on: 06/06/2017 08:45 PM »
The configuration here says 1xsce200 with different SRB configurations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Launch_Vehicle

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Yes. That's the ULV fleet ISRO was studying once with a GTO payload range from something like 1.5T to 6T using a common kerolox core, hydrolox upper stage and different SRBs, inorder to replace its existing LV fleet - PSLV, GSLV-II and GSLV-III. Haven't heard from them on this in recent times though. But there is a different HLV configuration (technically medium-lift) that has been featured in recent presentations and do not use solids, something in the lines of F9. It uses a cluster of 4 or 5 SCE-200s (with the central 5th engine possibly meant for propulsive recovery like F9) as the first stage and a single CE-20 powering the second stage. The stated payload was in the range of 5-6T for GTO and 10T to LEO. The 10 tonne payload quoted in the report suggests that perhaps this may have been the configuration they meant.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #96 on: 06/07/2017 01:08 PM »
And for KSP lovers:


Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #97 on: 06/09/2017 05:26 AM »
Quote
After the historic launch of the 640 ton, first developmental flight of Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) -Mark III (D1) on June 5, the team of scientists from Isro centres here have set their target to launch its second developmental flight GSLV-Mark III -D2 by Jan 2018 with more payload and higher thrust. Improvisation in vehicle systems is targeted to achieve 500kg more payload than in the D1 launch. The liquid propellant L110 stage will operate at 6 per cent extra thrust throughout the flight duration in the upcoming D2 launch, compared to D1," GSLV MK III Vehicle director J Jayaprakash told TOI.
Source

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13050
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2884
  • Likes Given: 433
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #98 on: 06/09/2017 07:54 AM »
Since ISRO no longer refers to the vehicle as LVM3, perhaps the thread title should be updated to GSLV Mk.III General Discussion.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LVM3 - General Discussion
« Reply #99 on: 06/09/2017 08:07 AM »
Quote
After the historic launch of the 640 ton, first developmental flight of Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) -Mark III (D1) on June 5, the team of scientists from Isro centres here have set their target to launch its second developmental flight GSLV-Mark III -D2 by Jan 2018 with more payload and higher thrust. Improvisation in vehicle systems is targeted to achieve 500kg more payload than in the D1 launch. The liquid propellant L110 stage will operate at 6 per cent extra thrust throughout the flight duration in the upcoming D2 launch, compared to D1," GSLV MK III Vehicle director J Jayaprakash told TOI.
Source

Quote
Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC) director S Somnath told TOI that the GSV MKIII D1 launch with its human-rated benign features was equipped with a fully indigenous cryogenic engine of 20 ton thrust with 28 ton propellant loading. The cryogenic engine used in this launch has 2.5 times more thrust than the previous cryogenic engine with 12 ton thrust. In the second development flight of GSLV -MK III D2, the systems will be improvised further with higher thrust.

From 25 ton propellant, it is now 28 ton propellant loading and counting. With the uprated Vikas Engine, L110 stage will now produce 1598 [ 2 * 799 ] + 95.88 [ 1598 * .06 ] = 1693.88 kN thrust ( nearly 100 kN increase )

I am glad that ISRO is upgrading the L110 stage earlier than expected. This stage seems to be the weak point in GSLV MK-III launcher. It generates 1598 kN thrust and burns for 200 second, thus putting more pressure on the Cryogenic Upper Stage. What puzzles me is that why ISRO did not cluster 4 Vikas engines instead of 2 Engines. At present 2 Vikas engines are placed 180 degree angular distance of each other, whereas 4 engines could have been placed 90 degrees angular distance of each other, thus generating a whopping amount of over 3000 kN thrust. And a fifth engine could have put at the center like the Falcon X. Had its core stage L110 been made to burn longer period and have a length of 10 meter more than its current length, it would have put less pressure on Cryogenic Stage. Isn't a launcher - which has a lift-off mass of over 630 ton and has a cryogenic engine generating thrust in the range of 200 kN and launches payload barely 4 ton to GTO - less efficient ?

Amongst all the Upper Stage Cryogenic Engines, CE-20 Cryogenic Engine is the most powerful cryogenic engine for upper stage that generates 200 kN thrust, followed by the latest Vinci Cryogenic Engine ( that generate thrust of 180 kN ) under development for Ariane 6. Other than LE-5 ( 102.9 kN ), LE-5A ( 121.5 kN ), LE-5B (137.2 kN ) of Japan, all other upper stage cryogenic engines produce no more than 100 kN thrust. In that perspective, CE-20 seems to be a great achievement for ISRO launch vehicle team

Quote
GSLV mission director G Ayyappan had indicated that the GSLV-Mk III D1 flight placed a 3.2 ton satellite in orbit while the same vehicle with modular changes can carry satellites of six tons.

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

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #100 on: 06/09/2017 08:55 AM »
One problem with making L-110 making burn longer is probably the question of drop zone. If you check the NOTAM posted for GSLV-III D1, the drop zone of L-110 is in the Andaman Sea right before the flight path crosses over populated regions of Malaysia and Indonesia. So, if they wanted to make it burn long, they may need to burn it *really long* until the populated areas and islands are passed over.

Below is a relevant quote from the chapter on GSLV-III development by S. Ramakrishnan from the book 'From fishing hamlet to the Red planet'.
Quote
In fact, with the launch corridor available from our spaceport at Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC), Sriharikota, and the first and second stages impact zone constraints, the launch trajectory to GTO demands about 50 per cent of the total injection velocity to come from the cryogenic third stage.

Of course, another alternative may have been to make the L-110 ground-lit just like they plan to do with the upcoming SC-200 stage, but there they may have been contrained by endurance limits of Vikas engines, cost of hypergolic propellants etc (just guessing).

As for why they chose not to cluster more number of Vikas engines in the core, maybe it was deemed too ambitious as their prior experience at clustering was nil (L-110 is the first case where ISRO attempted clustering, and there are hints in the book mentioned above that ISRO had previously considered clustering of engines as too complicated and risky during design decisions of PSLV and GSLV). Also, such a change may not have necessarily met the requisite payload requirements. (just guessing again, I am a total noob in the intricacies of rocket design    )
« Last Edit: 06/09/2017 08:58 AM by vineethgk »

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #101 on: 06/09/2017 09:31 AM »
Here are two other quotes from the book that I found relevant to the question.

Quote
Limiting the number of propulsive stages to three with two liquid propulsion units definitely enhanced the reliability of the vehicle and reduced the launch operation cost.
So, in a way the eventual adoption of SC-200 would be a step further in the ISRO motto of 'reliability through fewer propulsion units'. The two Vikas engines of L-110 would be replaced by a single SCE-200.

As regards to the endurance of Vikas engines,
Quote
The Vikas engine which had already been productionised at Indian industries with excellent pedigree was the natural choice for the power plant. This engine which was uprated as high-pressure Vikas for use in GSLV strap-on stage had already been qualified for a burn time of 200 seconds commensurate with 40 tonnes of propellant loading. Since the core stage of LVM-3 required a propellant loading of over 100 tonnes, the endurance of the engine operation had to be further enhanced, for each engine has to burn 50 tonnes of propellant. This was subsequently done by improving the silica phenolic composite throat of the engine to a dual-ply version.

PS: The book 'From Fishing Hamlet to Red Planet' is a good read for anyone who like to understand the constraints that ISRO folks were working under while designing their rockets, and the various configurations they studied before deciding on the designs that ultimately became SLV-3, ASLV, PSLV, GSLV and GSLV-III. Highly recommended !

The epub version of the book can be downloaded from the following page in ISRO website

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #102 on: 06/09/2017 09:41 AM »
A curious thing that caught my eye while reading the section on GSLV-III in the book.
Quote
The C25 cryo stage, which ignites at the end of a long coast period after L110 separation, is the terminal stage which delivers the payload.
In GSLV-III D1, there was no 'long coast' after the separation of L-110. The C-25 ignited at most a few seconds later after the separation event.

I wonder why..

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #103 on: 06/09/2017 10:48 AM »
A curious thing that caught my eye while reading the section on GSLV-III in the book.
Quote
The C25 cryo stage, which ignites at the end of a long coast period after L110 separation, is the terminal stage which delivers the payload.
In GSLV-III D1, there was no 'long coast' after the separation of L-110. The C-25 ignited at most a few seconds later after the separation event.

I wonder why..

In MK-3 the C-25 uses hot staging to avoid the need for ullage motors on the L-110. This reduces dry mass and improves thrust to weight ratio. The MK-2 does the same thing with its vikas engine on the second stage.

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #104 on: 06/09/2017 01:45 PM »
http://m.economictimes.com/news/science/isro-readying-gslv-mk-iii-for-human-space-flight-kasturirangan/articleshow/59071917.cms

Quote
"ISRO is in the process of further improving the capability of this vehicle. It could go up to a ten-ton kind of capability," said Kasturirangan.

This comment comes from the ex-Chief, so has to be taken with a pinch of salt. But then it is Kasturirangan and it is quite likely that he has good insider info on ISRO's plans.

Assuming he hasn't been misquoted, I am intrigued by what he really meant by a gradual payload upgrade GSLV-III design to ten tonne. If it was LEO capability he was referring to, there is nothing new. But if he meant GTO, as the tone of his statement in the article suggests, its quite interesting.

The only direct upgrade of GSLV-III design to ten tonnes GTO I know of is the HLV design that briefly appeared in VSSC website and which we haven't seen mentioned in the recent ISRO presentations on HLV study - 2xS250 + SC200 + C50 + C10.

Does this perhaps mean that the concept isn't really shelved and that they still consider it as one of the possible options?

Or perhaps I am reading too much into an off-the-cuff remark.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2017 01:46 PM by vineethgk »

Offline Prasannasimha

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #105 on: 06/09/2017 03:08 PM »
Kasturirangan's word can be taken at face value. All the senior retired people still contribute to ISRO by participating in mission design reviews  etc. For eg Prof UR Rao was the head of the payload selection team for the Mars Orbiter Mission. Kasturirangan still gives his inputs for various projects.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #106 on: 06/10/2017 12:00 AM »
One problem with making L-110 making burn longer is probably the question of drop zone. If you check the NOTAM posted for GSLV-III D1, the drop zone of L-110 is in the Andaman Sea right before the flight path crosses over populated regions of Malaysia and Indonesia. So, if they wanted to make it burn long, they may need to burn it *really long* until the populated areas and islands are passed over.

Below is a relevant quote from the chapter on GSLV-III development by S. Ramakrishnan from the book 'From fishing hamlet to the Red planet'.
Quote
In fact, with the launch corridor available from our spaceport at Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC), Sriharikota, and the first and second stages impact zone constraints, the launch trajectory to GTO demands about 50 per cent of the total injection velocity to come from the cryogenic third stage.

Of course, another alternative may have been to make the L-110 ground-lit just like they plan to do with the upcoming SC-200 stage, but there they may have been contrained by endurance limits of Vikas engines, cost of hypergolic propellants etc (just guessing).

As for why they chose not to cluster more number of Vikas engines in the core, maybe it was deemed too ambitious as their prior experience at clustering was nil (L-110 is the first case where ISRO attempted clustering, and there are hints in the book mentioned above that ISRO had previously considered clustering of engines as too complicated and risky during design decisions of PSLV and GSLV). Also, such a change may not have necessarily met the requisite payload requirements. (just guessing again, I am a total noob in the intricacies of rocket design    )

Reason why L110 is air lit is because it is high altitude version and because MLP does not have a flame duct for them due to current MLP structural design limits.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #107 on: 06/10/2017 01:02 AM »
Reason why L110 is air lit is because it is high altitude version and because MLP does not have a flame duct for them due to current MLP structural design limits.

Wow - so the vehicle is limited by the launch pad? Gee, that's a bummer. Oh well, L110 is just a temporary stand-in until SCE is avaiable to replace it. Presumably, SCE will be ground-lit rather than air-lit?

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #108 on: 06/10/2017 01:15 AM »
One problem with making L-110 making burn longer is probably the question of drop zone. If you check the NOTAM posted for GSLV-III D1, the drop zone of L-110 is in the Andaman Sea right before the flight path crosses over populated regions of Malaysia and Indonesia. So, if they wanted to make it burn long, they may need to burn it *really long* until the populated areas and islands are passed over.

Below is a relevant quote from the chapter on GSLV-III development by S. Ramakrishnan from the book 'From fishing hamlet to the Red planet'.
Quote
In fact, with the launch corridor available from our spaceport at Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC), Sriharikota, and the first and second stages impact zone constraints, the launch trajectory to GTO demands about 50 per cent of the total injection velocity to come from the cryogenic third stage.

Of course, another alternative may have been to make the L-110 ground-lit just like they plan to do with the upcoming SC-200 stage, but there they may have been contrained by endurance limits of Vikas engines, cost of hypergolic propellants etc (just guessing).

As for why they chose not to cluster more number of Vikas engines in the core, maybe it was deemed too ambitious as their prior experience at clustering was nil (L-110 is the first case where ISRO attempted clustering, and there are hints in the book mentioned above that ISRO had previously considered clustering of engines as too complicated and risky during design decisions of PSLV and GSLV). Also, such a change may not have necessarily met the requisite payload requirements. (just guessing again, I am a total noob in the intricacies of rocket design    )

Reason why L110 is air lit is because it is high altitude version and because MLP does not have a flame duct for them due to current MLP structural design limits.
The MLP thing doesn't sound like a big limiting factor if the others were surmountable. They can make a new MLP in any case with the flame ducts and the requisite structural requirements. But its probably true that the Vikas version used in L-110 is optimized more for high altitude flight as in the second stages of PSLV and GSLV-II. The L40 strapons of GSLV-II should be using a different ground optimized version.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #109 on: 06/10/2017 01:17 AM »
Reason why L110 is air lit is because it is high altitude version and because MLP does not have a flame duct for them due to current MLP structural design limits.

Wow - so the vehicle is limited by the launch pad? Gee, that's a bummer. Oh well, L110 is just a temporary stand-in until SCE is avaiable to replace it. Presumably, SCE will be ground-lit rather than air-lit?
No it is primarily limited to the Version of Vikas as they have ground optimized version and vacuum version and they went with vacuum version for now where as SCE is designed to be optimized for both.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2017 01:18 AM by russianhalo117 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #110 on: 06/10/2017 01:19 AM »
One problem with making L-110 making burn longer is probably the question of drop zone. If you check the NOTAM posted for GSLV-III D1, the drop zone of L-110 is in the Andaman Sea right before the flight path crosses over populated regions of Malaysia and Indonesia. So, if they wanted to make it burn long, they may need to burn it *really long* until the populated areas and islands are passed over.

Below is a relevant quote from the chapter on GSLV-III development by S. Ramakrishnan from the book 'From fishing hamlet to the Red planet'.
Quote
In fact, with the launch corridor available from our spaceport at Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC), Sriharikota, and the first and second stages impact zone constraints, the launch trajectory to GTO demands about 50 per cent of the total injection velocity to come from the cryogenic third stage.

Of course, another alternative may have been to make the L-110 ground-lit just like they plan to do with the upcoming SC-200 stage, but there they may have been contrained by endurance limits of Vikas engines, cost of hypergolic propellants etc (just guessing).

As for why they chose not to cluster more number of Vikas engines in the core, maybe it was deemed too ambitious as their prior experience at clustering was nil (L-110 is the first case where ISRO attempted clustering, and there are hints in the book mentioned above that ISRO had previously considered clustering of engines as too complicated and risky during design decisions of PSLV and GSLV). Also, such a change may not have necessarily met the requisite payload requirements. (just guessing again, I am a total noob in the intricacies of rocket design    )

Reason why L110 is air lit is because it is high altitude version and because MLP does not have a flame duct for them due to current MLP structural design limits.
The MLP thing doesn't sound like a big limiting factor if the others were surmountable. They can make a new MLP in any case with the flame ducts and the requisite structural requirements. But its probably true that the Vikas version used in L-110 is optimized more for high altitude flight as in the second stages of PSLV and GSLV-II. The L40 strapons of GSLV-II should be using a different ground optimized version.
correct. MLP is only a secondary limiting factor because of the way they chose to fuel up L-110 stage. its shown well in the rollout and assembly photos.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2017 01:21 AM by russianhalo117 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3609
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #111 on: 06/10/2017 02:46 AM »
Reason why L110 is air lit is because it is high altitude version and because MLP does not have a flame duct for them due to current MLP structural design limits.

Wow - so the vehicle is limited by the launch pad? Gee, that's a bummer. Oh well, L110 is just a temporary stand-in until SCE is avaiable to replace it. Presumably, SCE will be ground-lit rather than air-lit?
Why would you want it to ground-light?  Performance is better with this near-serial staged setup.  The solids provide lots of thrust - 1,500 tonnes of it at liftoff.  More than enough.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/10/2017 02:48 AM by edkyle99 »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #112 on: 06/10/2017 09:59 AM »
Why would you want it to ground-light?  Performance is better with this near-serial staged setup.  The solids provide lots of thrust - 1,500 tonnes of it at liftoff.  More than enough.

 - Ed Kyle

Ah, fair enough - but now that you mention the solids, I wonder if it might be possible to make the solids reusable, like the Space Shuttle SRBs? Is there any inherent reason why that might not be possible/feasible? I notice Ariane hasn't done it, and Mk3 resembles their vehicle the most, IMHO. I wonder why Ariane didn't do that?

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #113 on: 06/10/2017 12:51 PM »
Why would you want it to ground-light?  Performance is better with this near-serial staged setup.  The solids provide lots of thrust - 1,500 tonnes of it at liftoff.  More than enough.

 - Ed Kyle

Ah, fair enough - but now that you mention the solids, I wonder if it might be possible to make the solids reusable, like the Space Shuttle SRBs? Is there any inherent reason why that might not be possible/feasible? I notice Ariane hasn't done it, and Mk3 resembles their vehicle the most, IMHO. I wonder why Ariane didn't do that?
Perhaps there isn't much to gain from reusing solids when compared to a liquid stage. They don't have any complex engines, propellant tanks and other paraphernalia that reusing them would save a lot of money on.

Just a guess. I may be wrong..

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #114 on: 06/10/2017 02:05 PM »
Ah, fair enough - but now that you mention the solids, I wonder if it might be possible to make the solids reusable, like the Space Shuttle SRBs? Is there any inherent reason why that might not be possible/feasible? I notice Ariane hasn't done it, and Mk3 resembles their vehicle the most, IMHO. I wonder why Ariane didn't do that?

Ariane has a rather long first stage burn time of ~9 minutes. (Or about twice of Delta IV medium) ~2 minutes for the solids.
Not that expensive overall, they wanted the chance to abort a start if problems with Vulcain are detected. This happened once in 2011 on flight 201.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #115 on: 06/11/2017 06:25 AM »
Latest interview with ISRO chief Dr S Kiran Kumar mentions recovering/re-using parts of existing launch vehicles:

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/gslv-mkiii-has-given-us-a-big-push-isro-chairman/article18958357.ece

Quote
You mentioned reusable technology to save costs. Where are we in that?

Last year, we tried out the RLV-TD experiment [Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology Demonstrator]. We got a small, plane-like model to vertically land on water. Next we will look at landing it on the ground with a landing gear system. We are conceiving systems to work on the air breathing propulsion technology that will use atmospheric oxygen. For the present launch vehicles, we will look at recovering [and reusing] some parts.

So this means recovering/re-using something from PSLV, GSLV Mk2, Mk3.

Again, I'm inclined to think of parachute recovery of the solid boosters on Mk3, because the US Space Shuttle system did something similar across so many flights.
What else could be recovered/re-used from PSLV, GSLV-Mk2, Mk3 launch stacks? And how?

It seems to me that since Mk3 is the most expensive ISRO launch vehicle, therefore it would be most useful to recover parts of its launch stack.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2017 06:33 AM by sanman »

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #116 on: 06/16/2017 05:29 PM »
On the lower PMF of GSLV-III compared to other rockets of its class and ISRO's plans to address it

The 'expert' cited in the article is anonymous..

On the whole, the low PMF of GSLV-III compared to contemporary medium and heavy rockets appear to boil down to three factors primarily.

- Massive solid boosters
- Hypergolic core vs kerolox or hydrolox
- Lower usage of composites, lighter alloys and electronics

Quote
Sriharikota in Andhra Pradesh is the second best rocket launch site in the world, the expert added.
Based on proximity to equator after CSG, as Brazil's Alcantara (CLA) is out of action for now.


The solid-vs-liquid debate
Quote
"We use solid fuel in the lower stages as it is cheaper than cryogenic fuel. Even other space agencies are looking to use solid fuel to cut costs," ISRO`s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre Director S. Somanath told IANS.

"But other space agencies are looking at solid fuel to reduce cost only after their rockets carry far much heavier satellites than Indian rockets," the space industry expert pointed out.


On countering this through electric propulsion and why GSLV-III (sort of) 'missed the bus' on payload capability.
Quote
ISRO officials said the mass of communication satellites is also coming down and hence India may not need a heavy-lift rocket.

"Nearly 55-60 per cent of a satellite`s weight consists of its chemical fuel. Now the idea is to shift to electric propulsion of satellites which would reduce their weight," Ayyappan pointed out.

Somanath said: "ISRO started designing GSLV Mk III with four tonne carrying capacity when it was making two tonne satellites. At the global level also the weight of satellites are coming down. It is very difficult to predict the market trends."


On ISRO's plans to improve the payload of the current design through composites, lighter alloys and electronics
Quote
Citing the example of Japanese H-IIB rocket, Ayyappan said the Japanese use lot of composite materials to make the rocket more efficient and light weight.

"In future we will also be using more composites in the upper stages instead of metal. Half of the rocket`s velocity is achieved only at the upper stage and composite will be the only choice in future," Ayyappan said.

"The specific impulse of our cryogenic engine is also slightly less than that of others," Somanath added while listing out other reasons for GSLV Mk III`s lower carrying capacity.

"The aluminium used in some foreign rockets are less dense and their weight is less. We will also use such materials to reduce the weight of our cryogenic stage by 500-600 kg," he said.

Somanath said there are plans to reduce the weight of the electronics by around 150 kg so that every kilogram of weight reduced increases the payload capacity.


On restartability of upper stage
Quote
According to him, switching off and restarting of cryogenic stage in the space would also increase the rocket`s capacity.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2017 05:36 PM by vineethgk »

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #117 on: 06/21/2017 10:19 AM »
An article on Indian magazine 'Frontline' with many details on GSLV-III development

Quote
It was October 2002 and only five months earlier, in May, the Central government had approved the development of the GSLV-MkIII. Frontline was visiting the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) in Thiruvananthapuram, on whose vast campus was situated, by the seashore at Thumba, a small building that housed Ramakrishnan’s cabin on the ground floor where the GSLV-MkIII project was taking shape. The massive vehicle, as I saw in the poster, was called “gsLVM3”, or launch vehicle Mark 3, India’s “Next Generation Launch Vehicle”.
I remember seeing the awkward 'gsLVM3' name on the early models of the rocket back then. It is this name that seemingly transformed to 'LVM3' in due course, and is now finally abandoned.

Quote
Given this background, the relaxed atmosphere at the MCC on June 5 was not surprising. The mission was so flawless that a journalist covering it could not help commenting, rather inappropriately, that “there was no thrill” in reporting it.
Lack of 'thrill' is perhaps a good thing here. It indicates maturity and predictability for the agency’s missions going forward. :)


Regarding the constraints imposed by the flight path on the launcher design that Ramakrishnan referred to in 'Fishing hamlet to Red Planet'.
Quote
An area of major concern was the launch constraint imposed by the location of Sriharikota, India’s space port. The launch had to take place eastward from the island to put a communication satellite into the GTO. This did not offer “full freedom” because after the vehicle cleared the Bay of Bengal, the Indonesian land mass appeared on the scene. The launch vehicle debris—from the jettisoned stages—should not be allowed to fall over Indonesia.
Quote
Sivan said: “We had seen that when the vehicle reached a velocity of more than 5 km a second, the Indonesian land mass came in. So we had a requirement of designing a launch vehicle that will have a capacity of reaching [a velocity of] 5 km a second. But it is the lower stages that should produce that velocity of 5 km a second. We then needed one more stage which will produce another 5 km a second of velocity. There cannot, however, be an intermediary stage. [A total of 10.2 km a second velocity is required to put a four-tonne satellite into the GTO.] After the vehicle crosses the land mass, its stages should not come down. They should continuously burn and go into orbit. That means we should have a stage that should give another 5 km a second after the vehicle crosses the land mass. So we had to necessarily go in for a cryogenic stage that will give 5 km a second at a stretch and carry the four-tonne satellite into orbit. To put a 2.2-tonne satellite into orbit, we had a cryo stage with 12 tonnes of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. But to put a four-tonne satellite into orbit, we needed a cryogenic stage which will use 25 tonnes of propellants. That is how the C-25 stage came into the picture.”

On the design complexities of having two massive solid strapons, and the requirement of achieving thrust balance. I guess it was in a way a homage and a return to the ASLV design template where the two strapon solids were the boosters that lifted the vehicle off the ground and core took over much later.
Quote
“We have two strap-ons in GSLV-MkIII which are among the most massive strap-ons in the world,” said S. Somanath, Director, LPSC. “Though they are called the strap-ons, they are the primary propulsive stages. They provide the entire lift-off thrust. Unlike in the PSLVs and the GSLVs, the strap-ons in GSLV-MkIII are the primary propulsion stages. That way the basic design of the vehicle is different.”
Quote
But the introduction of such big boosters, each of which used more than 200 tonnes of solid propellants, entailed problems. In the PSLVs and the earlier GSLVs, the performance of the strap-on motors “was not very critical” to the mission and “a slight difference in their performance would not make an issue”, the LPSC Director said. However, in GSLV-MkIII D1, since the two strap-on motors were extremely powerful, their performance was very critical to the mission and they had to produce identical thrust. “The entire vehicle will topple if the thrust-level is not identical. They have 400 tonnes of propellants. Their matched performance is very critical,” said Somanath. The thrust differential should not exceed plus or minus ten tonnes.


On the separation system for S-200 using six 'small' motors. Those six 'small' motors did make a fiery show in the amateur videos anyways, and appeared a bit scary to my eyes. ;)
Quote
What made the GSLV-MkIII D1 different was that instead of using explosive separation bolts or springs to push down/jettison the spent stages, ISRO used six small motors in each of the strap-on stages to kick out the spent solid stages. “Here we cannot use the springs because the motor weight itself in each strap-on is 35 tonnes. We have, therefore, used six small motors in each strap-on to push the 35 tonnes away. The motors have to be fired at the moment the strap-ons have to be separated,” the LPSC Director said.


On the need for Ogive payload fairings and slanted strapon nosecones
Quote
G. Ayyappan, Mission Director, emphasised that after the LVM3-X/CARE mission in December 2014 “we made this vehicle more robust in terms of aerodynamics”. As the launch vehicle climbs into the atmosphere, it experiences turbulence, so ISRO developed a new kind of payload fairing, called ogive payload fairing, to protect the satellite inside. Ayyappan explained: “During the atmospheric phase of the flight, the loads experienced by the vehicle are directly proportionate to the dynamic pressure and the angle of attack. Our aim was to reduce as far as possible the dynamic pressure and the angle of attack so that the vehicle will have a smooth passage through the atmosphere.”
Quote
Sivan called the atmospheric phase of the flight “very crucial for any launch vehicle mission”. As the launch vehicle ascends the atmosphere, its velocity builds up fast. But the atmospheric density comes down. Winds would be large. The dynamic pressure acting on the vehicle would be the maximum. When the loads acting on the vehicle are large, the disturbance will try to tilt the vehicle. “When this disturbance is trying to tilt the vehicle, the vehicle’s control systems will work in the opposite direction to correct it. So a breaking effect will be there. The vehicle will break as if it were a stick,” the VSSC Director said.





Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #118 on: 06/21/2017 10:29 AM »
On the manufacturing challenges faced by various ISRO facilities and their industrial partners in realizing GSLV-III

Quote
When the mission turned out to be a spectacular success on June 5, a big slice of the credit belonged to the IPRC. A key centre for the mission, it had realised, tested and qualified the vehicle’s cryogenic stage (C-25) and the core liquid stage. Besides, it was here that the cryogenic and liquid propellants needed for the mission were made. “Our ISRO Propulsion Complex” is the “Jet Propulsion Laboratory [JPL, Pasadena, U.S.] of India,” declared P.V. Venkitakrishnan, Director, IPRC.
;)

On the manufacturing challenges for the payload fairing, L-110 and S-200 stages.
Quote
The payload fairing that encases the four-tonne satellite has a diameter of five metres. “It was the first time we were going to make a payload fairing with a diameter of five metres. But there were no facilities in India, including machining works, to handle a heat shield of such a diameter and height,” said Venkitakrishnan, who was associated with the GSLV-MkIII D1 development from its inception to the end at the VSSC, the LPSC and the IPRC.
Quote
The entire infrastructure for a vehicle of this mass and size had to be developed for the first time, and Indian industries rose to the occasion. They included private industries such as Walchandnagar Industries Limited (WIL); Larsen & Toubro; Godrej; MTAR Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad; and public sector undertakings such as MIDHANI, Hyderabad; and HAL, Bengaluru.
Quote
MIDHANI equipped itself to handle the four-metre class hardware for the liquid L-110 stage which was developed by 2006. “It was done in record time,” said Venkitakrishnan. Drawings, civil works, equipment facilities, hardware fabrication and validation of hardware were all done in four years. By 2010, the LPSC had developed the massive core liquid stage, and the big test stand in the IPRC had fired and tested it. The static test of the two solid booster motors were done at Sriharikota. By then, Ramakrishnan had become Director, LPSC, and N. Narayanamoorthy had taken over as Project Director, GSLV-MkIII. The development tests of the booster motors and the liquid stage were done under Narayanamoorthy’s leadership.
Quote
Qualifying the liquid stage and the strap-on motors was not an easy job. “The L-110 core liquid booster of the vehicle uses two Vikas engines. They should perform identically. There should not be any differential thrust between them. If the thrust between them differs, the vehicle will topple. The same is true with the two strap-on motors. Their performance should be identical,” said Venkitakrishnan.
Quote
From 2010 to 2015, Venkitakrishnan was in charge of the development and testing of the cryogenic stage at the LPSC. This demanded development of several strategic materials and superalloys used in the fabrication of the cryogenic engine. These materials were developed indigenously with a number of participating industries. The aerospace division of HAL, Bengaluru, provided the propellant tanks for the cryogenic stage. Soon the cryo engine development was completed and stage engineering done.
Quote
In fact, a special titanium-alpha alloy developed to make the helium gas bottles used in the vehicle led to a lot of weight being saved. This, in turn, led to a gain of 60 kg in payload (satellite) weight. The development of the gas bottles using the titanium alloy was done at the LPSC, said Venkitakrishnan.

On the infrastructural upgrades at SDSC for handling GSLV-III
Quote
Massive infrastructure was built at the SDSC, Sriharikota, to augment the capacity of the Solid Propellants Space Booster Plant (SPROB) to cater to the requirements of GSLV-MkIII class vehicles. A new Solid Propellants Plant (SPP) was built to produce the S-200 motors exclusively for GSLV-MkIII vehicles. It has now been made versatile in terms of enabling the production of solid motors for the PSLVs and the GSLV-MkII vehicles. The Solid Stage Assembly Building (SSAB) at Sriharikota, where the solid motors of the GSLV-MkIII are integrated, has also been made versatile. It has been modified for the integration of the first stages of the PSLVs and the GSLV-MkII vehicles. Besides, big facilities have come up at the launch pad to service the cryogenic stage of GSLV-MkIII vehicles with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. They include refrigeration, pipelines, engine chilling, liquid oxygen tanks and so on. All these have state-of-the-art safety features.

On the need and role of the acoustic suppression system at pad for GSLV-III
Quote
P. Kunhikrishnan, Director, SDSC, Sriharikota, said that during the lift-off of the GSLV-MkIII D1 an acoustic suppression tower built at the second launch pad sprayed 600 tonnes of water in order to reduce the noise levels that might damage the rocket and the satellite inside the heat shield. (When the GSLV-MkIII lifts off, its two strap-on motors together generate a thrust of more than 800 tonnes. The sheer volume of noise produced then can damage the rocket and the satellite.)

I wonder what that oft-repeated 'three times bigger' comment in the context of SVAB means - building volume or mass?
Quote
Kunhikrishnan said a second Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), three times bigger than the present one, would be ready in some months. Once the second VAB is ready, the frequency of launches would go up.

On the CE-20 engine tests
Quote
What gave Team ISRO the confidence about the GSLV-MkIII D1 mission was the first successful firing of the cryogenic stage for 50 seconds on January 25, 2017, at the towering test stand at Mahendragiri. “If any problem were to be there, it would show within the first 50 seconds. After that, the engine will stabilise. There will be combustion stability,” said Venkitakrishnan. After this test, the flight stage, that is, the D stage, was prepared with minor modifications using the results of the 50-second test. This stage was fired successfully for the full flight duration of 640 seconds on February 17, 2017. It was this stage that went into the actual flight on June 5.

Quote
After the GSLV-MkIII D1 success, Venkitakrishnan said: “In 2002, we were wondering how to make a heat shield with a diameter of five metres, how to make the machines for it and so on. This vehicle had more swadeshi elements than any other vehicle. The superalloys and strategic materials needed for the vehicle were made here.

Quote
All the machines were conceived, designed and realised by our industry. We have gone on the right path from the beginning in 2002.”




Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #119 on: 06/22/2017 04:19 PM »
A nice shot of the CE-20 engine (an exhibit) with all the 'messy' plumbings visible..  :D

Source

Offline Kosmos2001

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • CAT
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #120 on: 06/22/2017 05:11 PM »
A nice shot of the CE-20 engine (an exhibit) with all the 'messy' plumbings visible..  :D

Source

Why it is so messy? Is it because the propellant?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #121 on: 06/22/2017 05:18 PM »
A nice shot of the CE-20 engine (an exhibit) with all the 'messy' plumbings visible..  :D

Source

Why it is so messy? Is it because the propellant?
Because its a gas generator cycle rather than expander or staged combustion cycle but most are this way.

Offline Kosmos2001

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • CAT
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #122 on: 06/22/2017 06:04 PM »
Because its a gas generator cycle rather than expander or staged combustion cycle but most are this way.

Ah, thanks. I know some gas generators engines much more simplified than this one. At first I thought it was a prototype and therefore it needed to have more outputs for sensors and that stuff.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3472
  • California
  • Liked: 2710
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #123 on: 06/22/2017 09:25 PM »
On the lower PMF of GSLV-III compared to other rockets of its class and ISRO's plans to address it
...
The solid-vs-liquid debate
Quote
"We use solid fuel in the lower stages as it is cheaper than cryogenic fuel. Even other space agencies are looking to use solid fuel to cut costs," ISRO`s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre Director S. Somanath told IANS.

"But other space agencies are looking at solid fuel to reduce cost only after their rockets carry far much heavier satellites than Indian rockets," the space industry expert pointed out.

That's an interesting claim to make... Solids being cheaper. It is not one that seems to have much real life support, with the possible exception of small boosters, perhaps. But the industry as a whole is moving away from them. All who use them in new designs (Ariane 6 and H-III) do so because they have the existing capability, so why not use it? Or because they have an existing military need for solids where they are trying to share costs somehow.

And as far as only being able to choose between solids and cryogenic (HydroLox). That's a false dilemma. What about KeroLox and MethaLox? Both are likely cheaper than either extreme option, and can outperform HydroLox upper stages. (the all-kerolox F9 is lighter than the GSLV-MK-III and yet lifts more)

My big issue with the GLSV-Mk III is how ISRO seems to be behind the curve. There is clearly so much technical capability, so why do they keep trying to re-create vehicles that are 20-30 years old (GSLV-Mk III being the child of Titan IV and Ariane 5) instead seeing where current industry trends, or even better - chart their own course completely?

(Doing reusability through fly-back boosters seems to be another example of this... People have talked about them for over 40 years, yet none have surfaced. But despite the recent successes of vertical landing boosters, ISRO appears to have made up their minds that fly-back boosters are the way forward)
« Last Edit: 06/22/2017 09:29 PM by Lars-J »

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #124 on: 06/23/2017 01:00 AM »
On the lower PMF of GSLV-III compared to other rockets of its class and ISRO's plans to address it
...
The solid-vs-liquid debate
Quote
"We use solid fuel in the lower stages as it is cheaper than cryogenic fuel. Even other space agencies are looking to use solid fuel to cut costs," ISRO`s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre Director S. Somanath told IANS.

"But other space agencies are looking at solid fuel to reduce cost only after their rockets carry far much heavier satellites than Indian rockets," the space industry expert pointed out.

That's an interesting claim to make... Solids being cheaper. It is not one that seems to have much real life support, with the possible exception of small boosters, perhaps. But the industry as a whole is moving away from them. All who use them in new designs (Ariane 6 and H-III) do so because they have the existing capability, so why not use it? Or because they have an existing military need for solids where they are trying to share costs somehow.

And as far as only being able to choose between solids and cryogenic (HydroLox). That's a false dilemma. What about KeroLox and MethaLox? Both are likely cheaper than either extreme option, and can outperform HydroLox upper stages. (the all-kerolox F9 is lighter than the GSLV-MK-III and yet lifts more)

My big issue with the GLSV-Mk III is how ISRO seems to be behind the curve. There is clearly so much technical capability, so why do they keep trying to re-create vehicles that are 20-30 years old (GSLV-Mk III being the child of Titan IV and Ariane 5) instead seeing where current industry trends, or even better - chart their own course completely?

(Doing reusability through fly-back boosters seems to be another example of this... People have talked about them for over 40 years, yet none have surfaced. But despite the recent successes of vertical landing boosters, ISRO appears to have made up their minds that fly-back boosters are the way forward)
Perhaps ISRO's design choices for GSLV-III might make a bit more sense when we take into account the times they made them. The GSLV-III project was conceived back in the late 90s, with the full-fledged development starting by 2002. They were struggling to build a cryo engine for GSLV-II back then, and lacked the tech for bigger engines or clustering them. Ariane-5 was probably the success story that they counted on in those times. The rocket was supposed to start flying before the year 2010, but got delayed due to various reasons - the primary reason being the CE-20 development being held up by issues with CE-7.5. It is only now, with the success of GSLV-II, GSLV-III and the Mars missions (all incidentally happened within the last 3-4 years) that the agency has gained confidence to dip their toes into 'uncharted' (for them) waters of larger kerolox engines, their clusters and propulsive recovery.

But yes, it would seem that ISRO had a habit of missing the bus on many occasions. They conceived a GSLV-I/GSLV-II (based on PSLV design template) in the late 1980s confident that it would meet the country's requirement for carrying communication satellites, but when it started flying they found that those very satellites had become much heavier and beyond the capacity of the GSLV. A similar jinx would have happened for GSLV-III too if not for the promise of electric propulsion.

But it would seem now that they have finally decided to catch up with the rest of the world if one were to look at the new LV studies they are making. Other than their immediate plan to use the under-development SCE-200 kerolox engine to enhance the capability of GSLV-III to 6T, they are looking to cluster the engines in numbers of 4-5 to make a new, more powerful core which they then plan to couple with a hydrolox upper stage to create an all-liquid launcher for their future needs. That 5-engine version in particular appears to be conceived with the possibility of future propulsive recovery in mind, F9 style. In parallel they have also started works on a smaller methalox engine as a tech demo, and might proceed to the development of a much larger one after SCE-200 is realized (by the year 2020 or so going by their planned timelines).
« Last Edit: 06/23/2017 01:11 AM by vineethgk »

Offline vyoma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • India
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #125 on: 06/23/2017 06:04 PM »
As mentioned in PSLV-C38 post-launch briefing - ISRO is working on increasing the thrust of L110 stage Vikas engines in order to improve GSLV Mk III efficiency.

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • India
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #126 on: 06/24/2017 12:10 AM »
As mentioned in PSLV-C38 post-launch briefing - ISRO is working on increasing the thrust of L110 stage Vikas engines in order to improve GSLV Mk III efficiency.
To add to that, they mentioned increasing the performance of CE-20 as well towards the same objective.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #127 on: 06/24/2017 12:50 AM »
As mentioned in PSLV-C38 post-launch briefing - ISRO is working on increasing the thrust of L110 stage Vikas engines in order to improve GSLV Mk III efficiency.
To add to that, they mentioned increasing the performance of CE-20 as well towards the same objective.
C-25 stage to be upgraded to C-27 with uprated engine

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #128 on: 06/26/2017 10:02 PM »
On the lower PMF of GSLV-III compared to other rockets of its class and ISRO's plans to address it
...
The solid-vs-liquid debate
Quote
"We use solid fuel in the lower stages as it is cheaper than cryogenic fuel. Even other space agencies are looking to use solid fuel to cut costs," ISRO`s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre Director S. Somanath told IANS.

"But other space agencies are looking at solid fuel to reduce cost only after their rockets carry far much heavier satellites than Indian rockets," the space industry expert pointed out.

That's an interesting claim to make... Solids being cheaper. It is not one that seems to have much real life support, with the possible exception of small boosters, perhaps. But the industry as a whole is moving away from them. All who use them in new designs (Ariane 6 and H-III) do so because they have the existing capability, so why not use it? Or because they have an existing military need for solids where they are trying to share costs somehow.

And as far as only being able to choose between solids and cryogenic (HydroLox). That's a false dilemma. What about KeroLox and MethaLox? Both are likely cheaper than either extreme option, and can outperform HydroLox upper stages. (the all-kerolox F9 is lighter than the GSLV-MK-III and yet lifts more)

My big issue with the GLSV-Mk III is how ISRO seems to be behind the curve. There is clearly so much technical capability, so why do they keep trying to re-create vehicles that are 20-30 years old (GSLV-Mk III being the child of Titan IV and Ariane 5) instead seeing where current industry trends, or even better - chart their own course completely?

(Doing reusability through fly-back boosters seems to be another example of this... People have talked about them for over 40 years, yet none have surfaced. But despite the recent successes of vertical landing boosters, ISRO appears to have made up their minds that fly-back boosters are the way forward)


Hi, let me please quote from the following:

http://www.frontline.in/science-and-technology/in-the-big-league/article9731133.ece?homepage=true#test

Quote
Locational constraint

An area of major concern was the launch constraint imposed by the location of Sriharikota, India’s space port. The launch had to take place eastward from the island to put a communication satellite into the GTO. This did not offer “full freedom” because after the vehicle cleared the Bay of Bengal, the Indonesian land mass appeared on the scene. The launch vehicle debris—from the jettisoned stages—should not be allowed to fall over Indonesia.

Sivan said: “We had seen that when the vehicle reached a velocity of more than 5 km a second, the Indonesian land mass came in. So we had a requirement of designing a launch vehicle that will have a capacity of reaching [a velocity of] 5 km a second. But it is the lower stages that should produce that velocity of 5 km a second. We then needed one more stage which will produce another 5 km a second of velocity. There cannot, however, be an intermediary stage. [A total of 10.2 km a second velocity is required to put a four-tonne satellite into the GTO.] After the vehicle crosses the land mass, its stages should not come down. They should continuously burn and go into orbit. That means we should have a stage that should give another 5 km a second after the vehicle crosses the land mass. So we had to necessarily go in for a cryogenic stage that will give 5 km a second at a stretch and carry the four-tonne satellite into orbit. To put a 2.2-tonne satellite into orbit, we had a cryo stage with 12 tonnes of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. But to put a four-tonne satellite into orbit, we needed a cryogenic stage which will use 25 tonnes of propellants. That is how the C-25 stage came into the picture.”


Launch site geography was a key constraint here.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3472
  • California
  • Liked: 2710
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #129 on: 06/26/2017 10:39 PM »
Hi, let me please quote from the following:

http://www.frontline.in/science-and-technology/in-the-big-league/article9731133.ece?homepage=true#test

Quote
Locational constraint

An area of major concern was the launch constraint imposed by the location of Sriharikota, India’s space port. The launch had to take place eastward from the island to put a communication satellite into the GTO. This did not offer “full freedom” because after the vehicle cleared the Bay of Bengal, the Indonesian land mass appeared on the scene. The launch vehicle debris—from the jettisoned stages—should not be allowed to fall over Indonesia.

Sivan said: “We had seen that when the vehicle reached a velocity of more than 5 km a second, the Indonesian land mass came in. So we had a requirement of designing a launch vehicle that will have a capacity of reaching [a velocity of] 5 km a second. But it is the lower stages that should produce that velocity of 5 km a second. We then needed one more stage which will produce another 5 km a second of velocity. There cannot, however, be an intermediary stage. [A total of 10.2 km a second velocity is required to put a four-tonne satellite into the GTO.] After the vehicle crosses the land mass, its stages should not come down. They should continuously burn and go into orbit. That means we should have a stage that should give another 5 km a second after the vehicle crosses the land mass. So we had to necessarily go in for a cryogenic stage that will give 5 km a second at a stretch and carry the four-tonne satellite into orbit. To put a 2.2-tonne satellite into orbit, we had a cryo stage with 12 tonnes of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. But to put a four-tonne satellite into orbit, we needed a cryogenic stage which will use 25 tonnes of propellants. That is how the C-25 stage came into the picture.”


Launch site geography was a key constraint here.

Yes, it is a constraint, but an not as important as it might seem. An upper stage with 5km/s delta-v is not that unusual and does not require hydrogen. For example, the F9 upper stage (again KeroLox) provides 7.5-8 km/s of delta-V.

It does bug me when the Sriharikota location is used an excuse like that. Most countries would LOVE to have that location. It may be the 2nd best located launch complex on earth after French Guyana, and many two-stage launch vehicles could operate out of there without making any changes.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2017 10:39 PM by Lars-J »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: GSLV-Mk III - General Discussion
« Reply #130 on: 06/27/2017 05:15 PM »
Yes, it is a constraint, but an not as important as it might seem. An upper stage with 5km/s delta-v is not that unusual and does not require hydrogen. For example, the F9 upper stage (again KeroLox) provides 7.5-8 km/s of delta-V.

It does bug me when the Sriharikota location is used an excuse like that. Most countries would LOVE to have that location. It may be the 2nd best located launch complex on earth after French Guyana, and many two-stage launch vehicles could operate out of there without making any changes.

Well, I'd prefer a precedent from a pre-Falcon rocket, because GSLV was conceived long before it. Besides, ISRO was looking to scale past what individual expendable Falcon9 can do.

But I'd agree that Sriharikota is a pretty decent launch site, overall - other than the fact that nearby Sri Lanka forces ISRO rockets to do a dog-leg maneuver for some launches. Once ISRO develops a reusable booster, I'd imagine that it could have more latitude in turning around rather than traveling ballistically.
« Last Edit: 06/27/2017 05:18 PM by sanman »

Tags: GSLV Mk3 LVM3