Author Topic: GSLV MkII design, development, operations  (Read 80021 times)

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #120 on: 03/28/2018 07:03 am »
Quote
The next generation Vikas engine developed by the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC) is being flown for the first time. LPSC director V Narayanan told Express that the improved engine would give a significant advantage in terms of enhancing payload capability. “Usually, the chamber pressure is 58 bar, but with the use of high-thrust Vikas engine, we will achieve 62 bar, which is a 6% increase in thrust that gives us 70 kgs of additional payload gain in this mission. Right now, we are going to use the high-thrust Vikas engine only in the second stage. Basically, we are validating it. For Chandrayaan-2 mission, we will be using five such engines aiming for a payload gain of around 250 kgs,” Narayanan said.

Quote
Narayanan said this would be the best way of mission planning and optimum utilisation of propellants. “All these new things are being done keeping lunar mission in the mind and ISRO’s bigger game plan to increase GSLV payload capability. For Chandrayaan-2, we are formulating a perfect combination. The four strap-ons and second stage will be boosted with high-thrust Vikas engines; cryogenic upper stage will be loaded with enhanced propellants of 15 tonnes instead of current 12.8 tonnes and will be operated with 9.5 tonne thrust compared to the present 7.5.”

Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2018/mar/28/with-eye-on-lunar-mission-isro-to-test-high-thrust-vikas-engine-1793608.html

ISRO confirms that GSLV F-10 will be first fully upgraded GSLV. All four L40 strapons will have high thrust vikas engines and well as the second stage. The upper stage will have propellant loading increased to 15 tons and thrust of CE-7.5 engine will be increased from present 7.5 tons to 9.5 tons.

Payload capability to GTO for GSLV has been increased by 70kg for GSLV F-08 mission to bring the GTO capability of GSLV up from 2.25 tons to 2.32 tons. With additional upgrades on GSLV F-10 mission later this year this will further boost GTO capability by 250 kg to bring GSLV GTO capability to 2.57 tons.

In short:

Current GSLV GTO capability: 2.25 tons

GSLV F-08 GTO capability: 2.32 tons 

GSLV F-10 GTO capability: 2.57 tons

ISRO final goal for GSLV : 3.25 tons to GTO

Offline vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
  • India
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #121 on: 03/28/2018 11:17 am »
Quote
The next generation Vikas engine developed by the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC) is being flown for the first time. LPSC director V Narayanan told Express that the improved engine would give a significant advantage in terms of enhancing payload capability. “Usually, the chamber pressure is 58 bar, but with the use of high-thrust Vikas engine, we will achieve 62 bar, which is a 6% increase in thrust that gives us 70 kgs of additional payload gain in this mission. Right now, we are going to use the high-thrust Vikas engine only in the second stage. Basically, we are validating it. For Chandrayaan-2 mission, we will be using five such engines aiming for a payload gain of around 250 kgs,” Narayanan said.

Quote
Narayanan said this would be the best way of mission planning and optimum utilisation of propellants. “All these new things are being done keeping lunar mission in the mind and ISRO’s bigger game plan to increase GSLV payload capability. For Chandrayaan-2, we are formulating a perfect combination. The four strap-ons and second stage will be boosted with high-thrust Vikas engines; cryogenic upper stage will be loaded with enhanced propellants of 15 tonnes instead of current 12.8 tonnes and will be operated with 9.5 tonne thrust compared to the present 7.5.”

Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2018/mar/28/with-eye-on-lunar-mission-isro-to-test-high-thrust-vikas-engine-1793608.html

ISRO confirms that GSLV F-10 will be first fully upgraded GSLV. All four L40 strapons will have high thrust vikas engines and well as the second stage. The upper stage will have propellant loading increased to 15 tons and thrust of CE-7.5 engine will be increased from present 7.5 tons to 9.5 tons.

Payload capability to GTO for GSLV has been increased by 70kg for GSLV F-08 mission to bring the GTO capability of GSLV up from 2.25 tons to 2.32 tons. With additional upgrades on GSLV F-10 mission later this year this will further boost GTO capability by 250 kg to bring GSLV GTO capability to 2.57 tons.

In short:

Current GSLV GTO capability: 2.25 tons

GSLV F-08 GTO capability: 2.32 tons 

GSLV F-10 GTO capability: 2.57 tons

ISRO final goal for GSLV : 3.25 tons to GTO
If the payload gain is only about 250 kg even with HTVEs in L40 and CUS upgrades in F10 flight, achieving 3.2-3.3 tonnes as they claimed earlier would appear a long shot. My guess is that either Narayanan was referring only to the effect of addition of HTVEs in L40 and GS2 when he quoted the 250kg figure, or the F10 flight wouldn't have all the major upgrades that they plan to do eventually.

Offline TheVarun

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • CANADA
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #122 on: 03/28/2018 06:25 pm »
Just finished watching the televised launch of the Insat 3Dr on Gslv on Sept 8/2016. One of the Isro scientists mentioned that vehicle had an upgraded Cryogenic engine/ stage for the flight. So the C-12 has been uprated at least once. Any idea what kind of improvement was made then?

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #123 on: 03/31/2018 10:18 am »
Just finished watching the televised launch of the Insat 3Dr on Gslv on Sept 8/2016. One of the Isro scientists mentioned that vehicle had an upgraded Cryogenic engine/ stage for the flight. So the C-12 has been uprated at least once. Any idea what kind of improvement was made then?

GSLV F05/INSAT-3DR did have a slightly improved upper stage.

Improvements were:

- C12.5 stage dry mass reduction
- Maximum thrust of CE-7.5 increased from 109% to around 112%


Changes resulted in GTO capacity rising from 2.2 ton to 2.25 ton
« Last Edit: 03/31/2018 10:19 am by K210 »

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #124 on: 08/29/2018 12:49 pm »
Quote
Umamaheswaran R., now Associate Scientific Secretary, ISRO, told me in October 2016 that GSLV-MkII can put 3.2 tonnes into an initial orbit of 180 km by 20,000 km.

Yes. We enhanced the GSLV-MkII with high thrust engines and so on. With the enhancement, the number is 2.7 tonnes into GTO [geostationary transfer orbit]. Now, 3.2 tonnes has become 3.8 tonnes. And 22,000 km has become 37,000 km. This combination cannot be launched by GSLV-MkII.

Source: https://www.frontline.in/science-and-technology/article24801393.ece

GSLV MK-2 now has GTO capability of 2.7 tons. That is quite a jump from previous 2.25 ton capability.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Liked: 1305
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #125 on: 08/30/2018 04:43 pm »
Successful hot-testing of the uprated CE-7.5 engine meant for upper stage of GSLV-Mk2:

https://www.isro.gov.in/update/30-aug-2018/successful-acceptance-hot-testing-of-cryogenic-engine

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #126 on: 08/30/2018 09:28 pm »
GSLV-F11 cryo engine hot test successful

Quote
The Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro), on Thursday said it has successfully completed the hot test of cryogenic engine for the GSLV-F11, which is scheduled to launch the GSAT-7A in November this year.

A hot test is a ground test conducted to check for the safety and also whether or not all design parameters are met. Unlike a cold test where all the propellants are checked for, a hot test involves firing of the engine in test conditions.

Quote
The test, conducted at the Isro Propulsion Complex in Mahendragiri on August 27, was carried out for 200 seconds during which the engine operated in the nominal and 13% uprated thrust regimes.

"All the propulsion parameters during the test were found satisfactory and closely matched with predictions. For the first time, indigenously developed copper alloy is used in this engine," Isro said.

The cryogenic engine will now be integrated with the propellant tanks, stage structures and associated fluid lines to realise the fully integrated flight cryogenic stage.

Offline worldtimedate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #127 on: 09/12/2018 07:22 pm »
Indigenisation of Copper-Chromium-Zirconium-Titanium Alloy for Cryo and Semi-Cryo engines- A Success Story

Quote
Rolling Mill LayoutCopper Alloy (Cu-0.5Cr-0.05Ti-0.05Zr) is an important and vital item required for cryogenic/semi-cryogenic engines for the realisation of thrust chamber inner shell and injector face plates of Cryogenic Upper Stage (CUS) engine for GSLV Mk-II, CE20 engine for GSLV Mk-III and Semi-Cryo (SC) stage. This is also required for the Steering Engines (SE) of CUS engine, Gas generator of CUS & CE20 engines, injectors, pre-burner and pyro components of SC engine.

These projects require Copper Alloy plates, rods and forgings of various dimensions. For plates, thickness requirement range from 12 mm to 18 mm and width of 850 mm. Rods and forgings of this alloy are also required with diameters ranging from 30 mm upto 300 mm.

Quote
Vacuum Induction Melting Furnace 1000kgIndigenisation efforts were made through NFTDC, Hyderabad for CUS, CE20 and SC. Melt capacity was augmented to 1000 kg and plate rolling mill capable of 1500 mm  width was established for meeting the project requirements. All required products using this alloy have been successfully realized for CUS, CE20 and Semi-Cryo projects. The hot test of the CUS engine using this copper alloy for 200 sec in the nominal and 13% uprated thrust regime was carried out at IPRC, Mahendragiri. This engine will power the cryogenic stage of GSLV Mk-II, which is scheduled to launch GSAT-7A in November this year.

Offline TheVarun

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • CANADA
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: GSLV MkII & cryo stage discussion thread
« Reply #128 on: 09/17/2018 11:13 pm »
 Can someone give an approximation for the number of parts in a cryogenic engine/stage like the C-12? Just approximate. Would it be in the thousands or tens of thousands? I'm asking because I want to determine the degree of difficulty a country like India( or any developing one or even developed)  would experience in developing such an engine and stage.  Also, what degree of indigenisation of the C-12 would have been realistically achieved until now, and what more could be reasonably expected? Again, given the presumably very high number of parts and components.

Offline Angry_cat

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #129 on: 11/15/2023 03:40 am »
Going over GSLV launch history you have to wonder why ISRO keeps this launch vehicle operational. Out of 15 launches there have been 6 failures of varying degrees putting the failure rate at almost 50%. Now they have LVM3 there is no reason to keep such a unreliable launch vehicle flying.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2023 06:35 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #130 on: 11/18/2023 09:58 am »
Going over GSLV launch history you have to wonder why ISRO keeps this launch vehicle operational. Out of 15 launches there have been 6 failures of varying degrees putting the failure rate at almost 50%. Now they have LVM3 there is no reason to keep such a unreliable launch vehicle flying.

That high failure rate is largely due to the developmental nature of the GSLV Mk1. In fact there are only 2 failures of the GSLV Mk2 to date (D3 mission in 2010 and F10 in August 2021). For those who don't know the Mk2 variant of this rocket is the operational version which has been flying since 2010.

The GSLV Mk1 as you probably know used imported Russian cryogenic upper stages which apart from not delivering the promised performance resulted in all kinds of design problems the worst of which caused the GSLV F06 RUD over the bay of bengal in December 2010.

I think if we view GSLV as more of a technology testbed of sorts we can have a more positive view of the entire GSLV program. GSLV was the first launch vehicle of ISRO to fly liquid fueled strapons, first to have a cryogenic upper stage, first to employ hot staging and of course first to achieve the Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO). First in something is always hard and prone to failure and hence why we should appreciate GSLV's various contributions to the Indian Launch Vehicle program.

« Last Edit: 11/19/2023 06:35 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38550
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 31732
  • Likes Given: 7720
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #131 on: 11/19/2023 02:13 am »
GSLV was the first launch vehicle of ISRO to fly liquid fueled strapons, first to have a cryogenic upper stage, first to employ hot staging and of course first to achieve the Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO).

The first payload sent into GTO was by PSLV, carrying METSAT 1 on 12 September 2002 (target orbit was 180x36,000 km according to the press kit). The previous GSLV Mk.I launch on 18 April 2001 had a performance shortfall and sent its payload into sub-GTO with a 32,000 km apogee.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2023 06:36 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11002
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7293
  • Likes Given: 70076
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #132 on: 11/19/2023 06:46 pm »
Moderator:
I merged several GSLV MkII threads. 🚀
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1783
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #133 on: 11/20/2023 10:01 am »
Going over GSLV launch history you have to wonder why ISRO keeps this launch vehicle operational. Out of 15 launches there have been 6 failures of varying degrees putting the failure rate at almost 50%. Now they have LVM3 there is no reason to keep such a unreliable launch vehicle flying.
<snip>
I think if we view GSLV as more of a technology testbed of sorts we can have a more positive view of the entire GSLV program. GSLV was the first launch vehicle of ISRO to fly liquid fueled strapons, first to have a cryogenic upper stage, first to employ hot staging and of course first to achieve the Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO). First in something is always hard and prone to failure and hence why we should appreciate GSLV's various contributions to the Indian Launch Vehicle program.
Think it is better for ISRO to phased out the GSLV Mk2 quickly. Since even the LVM3 appears to have an end date on the horizon.

A future "LVM3" with semi-cryogenic core replacing the current hypergolic LVM3 core is a new vehicle even if ISRO stated otherwise.

Unless maintaining the 2 low volume production lines is political expediency. ISRO should consolidated their near future launches with the LVM3 to reduce production infrastructure footprint and get scale of economy with more production volume.

Interesting factoid - the strapped-on hypergolic boosters on the GSLV Mk2 have a longer burn time and higher ISP than the solid first stage.

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #134 on: 11/22/2023 04:16 am »
GSLV was the first launch vehicle of ISRO to fly liquid fueled strapons, first to have a cryogenic upper stage, first to employ hot staging and of course first to achieve the Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO).

The first payload sent into GTO was by PSLV, carrying METSAT 1 on 12 September 2002 (target orbit was 180x36,000 km according to the press kit). The previous GSLV Mk.I launch on 18 April 2001 had a performance shortfall and sent its payload into sub-GTO with a 32,000 km apogee.

GSLV was the first launch vehicle of ISRO to attempt to achieve GTO. PSLV was never designed or intended to fly to GTO orbits.

The performance shortfall in GSLV D1 was around 60 m/s or about 0.6% of the intended injection velocity which lead to a 3000-4000 km lower apogee than intended.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2023 02:00 pm by K210 »

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #135 on: 11/22/2023 04:18 am »
This paper goes over GSLV D1 mission in detail
« Last Edit: 12/31/2023 02:03 pm by K210 »

Offline Angry_cat

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #136 on: 11/29/2023 02:46 pm »
Going over GSLV launch history you have to wonder why ISRO keeps this launch vehicle operational. Out of 15 launches there have been 6 failures of varying degrees putting the failure rate at almost 50%. Now they have LVM3 there is no reason to keep such a unreliable launch vehicle flying.
<snip>
I think if we view GSLV as more of a technology testbed of sorts we can have a more positive view of the entire GSLV program. GSLV was the first launch vehicle of ISRO to fly liquid fueled strapons, first to have a cryogenic upper stage, first to employ hot staging and of course first to achieve the Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO). First in something is always hard and prone to failure and hence why we should appreciate GSLV's various contributions to the Indian Launch Vehicle program.
Think it is better for ISRO to phased out the GSLV Mk2 quickly. Since even the LVM3 appears to have an end date on the horizon.

A future "LVM3" with semi-cryogenic core replacing the current hypergolic LVM3 core is a new vehicle even if ISRO stated otherwise.

Unless maintaining the 2 low volume production lines is political expediency. ISRO should consolidated their near future launches with the LVM3 to reduce production infrastructure footprint and get scale of economy with more production volume.

Interesting factoid - the strapped-on hypergolic boosters on the GSLV Mk2 have a longer burn time and higher ISP than the solid first stage.

ISRO would have been better off not developing the GSLV Mk2 and instead putting those resources into getting LVM3 ready sooner. LVM3 was supposed to be ready by 2008-2009 but was delayed over and over again till 2017 because of GSLV Mk2 and its problems.


« Last Edit: 12/11/2023 02:58 am by Angry_cat »

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11002
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7293
  • Likes Given: 70076
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #137 on: 11/29/2023 04:09 pm »
My opinions:
Re: difficult GSLV MkII development
Hindsight is 20/20. 👀 👓  Congratulations.  🎊 🏅

Re: GSLV MkIII/LVM3 development
Very optimistic development schedule collided with reality, resulting in multi-year delays.



How many launches remain for GSLV?  Is there an intended last launch?  Or does commonality with the quite successful PSLV imply that there is no end-date yet?
« Last Edit: 11/29/2023 04:14 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #138 on: 11/30/2023 08:23 am »
Quote
How many launches remain for GSLV?

At least 10-12 more launches. GSLV isn't being retired anytime soon.

- 4 GSLV launches for remaining NVS satellites (NVS-2 to NVS-5)
- 1 GSLV launch for INSAT-3DS
- 3 GSLV launches for IDRSS satellites (Data relay satellites for human spaceflight mission)
- 1 GSLV launch for GISAT-2
- 1 GSLV launch for MOM-2 (TBD)
- 1 GSLV launch for Venus Orbiter Mission (TBD)
- 1 GSLV launch for NISAR

Offline Angry_cat

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: GSLV MkII design, development, operations
« Reply #139 on: 12/11/2023 02:57 am »
Quote
Re: GSLV MkIII/LVM3 development
Very optimistic development schedule collided with reality, resulting in multi-year delays.

Nothing to do with optimism. There is no reason that LVM3 could not have come online 5-10 years earlier had logical decisions been taken in 2000s by indian policy makers.

At the end of the day GSLV gets funded and built in India for the same reason the SLS does in the united states.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1