The first stage of the hefty Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk-III (GSLV Mk-III) is ready, officials of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) here said.
Two S-200 boosters, which use solid fuel, comprise the first stage of Mk-III. This stage will burn for 130 seconds. “The stage is ready. Work is now progressing on the second stage at the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC) in Mahendragiri,” VSSC director S Ramakrishnan said. The GSLV Mk-III has three ‘stages’ in all.
Quote
“The GSLV Mk-III will have a sub-orbital flight in April. It will have as payload a prototype of the crew module meant for the manned mission,” Ramakrishnan said.
Quote
Mk-III will lift off from the second launchpad at Sriharikota, the same one the GSLV D-5 used on January 5. No modifications will be needed to the launchpad as it can accommodate the bigger GSLV, Ramakrishnan said. A regular flight of the Mk-III version is expected only by 2016.
#161
byantrikshon 13 Feb, 2014 10:46
Crew Module structural assembly ready for LVM3 X1 mission
#162
byvyomaon 18 Feb, 2014 05:21
Some update on engines:
Quote
The Stage-I comprising two identical S200 large solid boosters with 200 tonnes solid propellant, is already completed.
Quote
L110 re-startable liquid stage under the stage-II is also over, he explained.
ISRO is inching closer to launch its ambitious human space mission with the first experimental unmanned flight of the crew module on the newly developed Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) Mark III in May-June from Sriharikota, said Dr K Radhakrishnan, chairman ISRO and secretary, Department of Space.
GSLV Mk3 X1 status update: 1) L110 liquid core for second stage is ready. 2) One S200 booster for first stage ready. Second booster is undergoing assembly. 3) Crew module is undergoing structural engineering tests.
Space buffs will have to wait at least until June this year to see the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk-III (GSLV Mk-III), India’s biggest rocket, flight-tested. The original plan was to have the sub-orbital test flight of the GSLV-Mk III in April, but the mission has been put off by two months.
Space buffs will have to wait at least until June this year to see the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk-III (GSLV Mk-III), India’s biggest rocket, flight-tested. The original plan was to have the sub-orbital test flight of the GSLV-Mk III in April, but the mission has been put off by two months.
The article interchangeably uses terms cryo engine and cryo stage. But, it's a passive cryo stage without engine
I sincerely request ISRO Not to commit on launch date unless and until all the works have been thoroughly completed. No speculated dates please
#168
byantrikshon 05 Apr, 2014 03:53
GSLV to soar into sky with crew capsule in June
Quote
It would be identical to the “final crew capsule in structural and thermo-structural parts
Quote
We will take it beyond the atmosphere, make it re-enter the earth’s atmosphere, decelerate it and make a soft touchdown in the Bay of Bengal off the Andaman coast. We will make efforts to recover it.
Quote
evaluate the structural and thermal protection systems to withstand the re-entry load, and thermo-dynamic heating
Quote
We will be measuring the environment inside the capsule which will give inputs on the validation of the astronauts’ life-support systems in terms of temperature, vibration and shock which will be experienced inside the crew capsule. This will help us in designing the life-support systems when we actually fly the astronauts into space.
I had a couple of 'noob' questions on how the different attributes of rockets stages translate to payload gain. Not sure if this is the right place to post it. But it would be great if someone could shed light on it.
1. How scalable is the GSLV-III design as regards to GTO payload? Is it capable of attaining 6 tonnes with greater propellant loads in its three stages, or would it be a dead-end at 4.5-5 tonnes? As I understand, greater propellant load in solids only increase the thrust, while for liquids it translates to longer burn time. Would such payload capability require the introduction of a higher Isp Lox/Kerosene core stage?
2. How do increase in burn-time of the upper/lower stages, and thrust and Isp of its engines relate to payload gain? Is Isp the most critical among these? Are there any simplified thumb rules that would give a rough idea?
3. Are there any links or guides in the web which explains these aspects of rocket design in (relatively) layman terms?
I had a couple of 'noob' questions on how the different attributes of rockets stages translate to payload gain. Not sure if this is the right place to post it. But it would be great if someone could shed light on it.
1. How scalable is the GSLV-III design as regards to GTO payload? Is it capable of attaining 6 tonnes with greater propellant loads in its three stages, or would it be a dead-end at 4.5-5 tonnes? As I understand, greater propellant load in solids only increase the thrust, while for liquids it translates to longer burn time. Would such payload capability require the introduction of a higher Isp Lox/Kerosene core stage?
2. How do increase in burn-time of the upper/lower stages, and thrust and Isp of its engines relate to payload gain? Is Isp the most critical among these? Are there any simplified thumb rules that would give a rough idea?
3. Are there any links or guides in the web which explains these aspects of rocket design in (relatively) layman terms?
Many thanks in advance!
1. My guess would be no. There's always a trade off involved between how much propellant vs payload to carry. Increase in propellant load would also call for increase in stage size (dead weight) for the same engine capacity.
2. Isp is certainly one of the most deciding factor in determining efficiency of rocket propulsion. Thrust developed depends on nozzle chamber pressure which in turn depends on combustion efficiency of propulsion. Burn time alone can't help if the propellant combustion is not efficient. So, for fuels with high Isp, you can get higher thrust with less propellant burnt and can afford to carry a heavier payload.
I had a couple of 'noob' questions on how the different attributes of rockets stages translate to payload gain. Not sure if this is the right place to post it. But it would be great if someone could shed light on it.
1. How scalable is the GSLV-III design as regards to GTO payload? Is it capable of attaining 6 tonnes with greater propellant loads in its three stages, or would it be a dead-end at 4.5-5 tonnes? As I understand, greater propellant load in solids only increase the thrust, while for liquids it translates to longer burn time. Would such payload capability require the introduction of a higher Isp Lox/Kerosene core stage?
2. How do increase in burn-time of the upper/lower stages, and thrust and Isp of its engines relate to payload gain? Is Isp the most critical among these? Are there any simplified thumb rules that would give a rough idea?
3. Are there any links or guides in the web which explains these aspects of rocket design in (relatively) layman terms?
Many thanks in advance!
1. My guess would be no. There's always a trade off involved between how much propellant vs payload to carry. Increase in propellant load would also call for increase in stage size (dead weight) for the same engine capacity.
2. Isp is certainly one of the most deciding factor in determining efficiency of rocket propulsion. Thrust developed depends on nozzle chamber pressure which in turn depends on combustion efficiency of propulsion. Burn time alone can't help if the propellant combustion is not efficient. So, for fuels with high Isp, you can get higher thrust with less propellant burnt and can afford to carry a heavier payload.
Wow! Thanks a lot for the explanation and the links.. Exactly what I was looking for.
#172
byvyomaon 08 Jun, 2014 05:35
Quote
"The experimental mission of GSLV Mark III would be carried out in the last week of July or in the first week of August," GSLV Project Director K Sivan told PTI over phone.
Considering they only have one Vehicle Assemble Building (VAB) at disposal, I don't think they have started that yet. Things are about to change though - they will have a second VAB (esp. suited for LVM3) by 2017:
Quote
The second VAB, which will be linked to the second launch pad, would facilitate and augment the launchings to eight per annum, since two vehicles can be assembled simultaneously in the two VABs. This Rs 350-crore estimated project has been approved and the design is in progress. The second VAB will be housed in a 100- metre tall building equipped with cranes with a capacity to lift 400 tonnes.
Although all kinds of vehicles can be assembled in the proposed facility, the design is tailor-made for GSLV Mk III and it is expected to be ready by 2017.
Considering they only have one Vehicle Assemble Building (VAB) at disposal, I don't think they have started that yet. Things are about to change though - they will have a second VAB (esp. suited for LVM3) by 2017:
Quote
The second VAB, which will be linked to the second launch pad, would facilitate and augment the launchings to eight per annum, since two vehicles can be assembled simultaneously in the two VABs. This Rs 350-crore estimated project has been approved and the design is in progress. The second VAB will be housed in a 100- metre tall building equipped with cranes with a capacity to lift 400 tonnes.
There is a separate solid stage assembly building already in place, where the solid boosters of the LVM-3 are assembled. Assembly of the entire vehicle takes place in the VAB of course, and currently there is only one of those. But given ISRO's launch schedule, it is not capacity constrained at the moment.
Considering they only have one Vehicle Assemble Building (VAB) at disposal, I don't think they have started that yet. Things are about to change though - they will have a second VAB (esp. suited for LVM3) by 2017:
Actually LVM3 is getting assembled in the VAB. PSLV-C23 was assembled on the first launch pad inside the Mobile Service tower (MST).
