-
#40 by cave_dweller on 06 Jan, 2014 04:38
-
IMO, I think ISRO would be better off developing a Semi-cryogenic 1st stage + Cryogenic 2nd Stage configuration instead of trying to improve solid core and hypergolic engine performance.
Which is what I believe will be configuration of ULV.
A single Semi-cryogenic core 1st stage.
Need more thrust? Add semi-cryogenic boosters. Or increase the fuel capacity of 1st stage and use engine clusters.
A single cryogenic 2nd stage. Need more thrust? Increase fuel capacity and/or use engine clusters.
I think ISRO should move away from hypergols for rocket engines (and just limit using hypergols to satellites, spacecrafts and such). Expensive, unstable, not easily transportable, needs a lot of careful handling.
-
#41 by sanman on 06 Jan, 2014 04:44
-
Semi-cryo 1st stage + Cryo upper stage makes me think of RLV / TSTO
See antriksh's latest post under "Indian Reusable Launch Vehicle Program":
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25695.45 -
#42 by cave_dweller on 06 Jan, 2014 05:36
-
Yep, the evolution path is ULV->RLV->TSTO->Air Breathable TSTO
The problem India has is not so much the lack of capability. But that of bootstrapping overhead and industry support
India is ways behind in materials technology which was one of the biggest factors in delays related to ICE (Indian Cryogenic Engine).
Its a chicken and egg problem. For industry to be sustainable there has to be enough volume (or number of flights from ISRO). For ISRO to have a high volume of flights the materials should be affordable.
Today it is solved by government funding. But that has its limits which is manifested as lengthened delays.
With ICE, India might have achieved point of critical mass where it can attract enough flight customers to make it a thriving industry.
It would be good for India to be another competitor in the space. This will have the dual benefit of economic benefits AND making spaceflight cheaper by competition and reflexive volume.
I feel really happy for India!!
-
#43 by antriksh on 06 Jan, 2014 10:57
-
may be because CE7.5 is staged combustion and others are either gas generator or expander cycles
Asking again: would you provide your source?
Low scientific literacy, among society as well as policy makers elected by such a society - has ALWAYS been, and still is THE security threat - to socio-economic prosperity, and consequently to life and property.
A simple search can provide the answer
read about CUS: http://www.isro.org/gslv-d3/pdf/GSLV-D3_GSAT-4%20Brochure.pdf
-
#44 by quanthasaquality on 06 Jan, 2014 11:10
-
I think India's rocket program was quite smart. Start out with the 4 stage PSLV. A 4 stage rocket can have high design margins. Second stage engine was tech transfered from Ariane 4. Third and fourth stages replaced by hydrogen upper stage purchased from Russia, until indigenous copy is made. First stage supports strap on boosters. Larger solid first stages with tighter margins are gradually made (s-200). Then make a rocket twice as large, with double engines. Keep the rocket team plodding along for a few decades. India then has a rocket for the neglected ~5 ton to LEO market, and a 10 ton to LEO rocket for more mainstream satellites, requiring only a small industrial base. Quite clever.
Then India works on a new 20 ton hydrogen engine. Why not just use 2 GSLV mk 2 hydrogen engines? -
#45 by AJA on 06 Jan, 2014 11:47
-
K Radhakrishnan does some market prognosticationQuoteAnswering a question on the commercial potential of the GSLV with India’s own cryogenic engine, Dr. Radhakrishnan said that while the trend now was to build 5.5-tonne satellites, there was a niche market for two-tonne communication satellites. Satellites weighing 3.2 tonnes to 4.5 tonnes were being built in the world. “So there is a set of satellites” which could be put into orbit by the GSLV.
And... some (recycled?) information on international collaborations..Quote
India has been invited to take part in experiments onboard the International Space Station, Dr. Radhakrishnan said.
The ISRO and NASA would jointly build a satellite with synthetic aperture radar for earth observations. A.S. Kiran Kumar, Director, Space Applications Centre of the ISRO, Ahmedabad, was working with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for preparing the project report related to the spacecraft, he said.A simple search can provide the answer
read about CUS: http://www.isro.org/gslv-d3/pdf/GSLV-D3_GSAT-4%20Brochure.pdf
This discussion is taking place in two threads.
Anyway, you said it was the D-5 brochure, and now you do a bait-and-switch quoting the D-3 brochure. I found the ISRO press release anyway. Btw... if a search is simple, simpler still is for the OP to include the link in the original post. -
#46 by edkyle99 on 06 Jan, 2014 13:50
-
They keep referring to the cryogenic stage... I assume this is a HydroLox stage?
ISRO calls its previously existing hypergolic liquid stages "storable". It calls its LOX/LH2 stage "cryogenic". It calls its LOX/kerosene R&D effort "semi-cryogenic".
- Ed Kyle -
#47 by sanman on 06 Jan, 2014 14:55
-
Regarding the chicken-and-egg hurdle, I wonder if ISRO could have progressed faster by engineering a cryogenic engine based on LCH4 instead of LH2? At least LCH4 has an industrial base to support it, unlike LH2, and so moving in that direction isn't a leap out into empty space like LH2 is.
Even with the planned RLV/TSTO, they should still consider LCH4, because of its high Isp, and plus it's not as hard to work with as LH2.
-
#48 by akula2 on 06 Jan, 2014 20:13
-
By the way, ISRO GSLV D5 happens to be first orbital launch of 2014
My somewhat belated congratulations to all
I'm intrigued to learn:
a) what's the total cost of his mission combined with the delay (cost of leak)?
b) will there be any Return on Investment when total cost considered?QuoteMore importantly, the fuel tank material has been changed, fully phasing out the traditional but corrosion-prone aluminium-zinc combine, called AFNOR 7020. The new alternative, aluminium-copper alloy called AA2219, is now the material for all PSLV and GSLV tanks.
c) I look at it as a Managerial lapse. Just wondering, will there be any disciplinary action of any sort taken? If yes, to what level/extent?
I understand Space launches are complex but that gaffe could have been avoided - saving loads of time/resources/money. Please someone answer, thank you.
Lastly, it was a good writeup by William Graham
-
#49 by cave_dweller on 06 Jan, 2014 20:17
-
Regarding the chicken-and-egg hurdle, I wonder if ISRO could have progressed faster by engineering a cryogenic engine based on LCH4 instead of LH2? At least LCH4 has an industrial base to support it, unlike LH2, and so moving in that direction isn't a leap out into empty space like LH2 is.
Even with the planned RLV/TSTO, they should still consider LCH4, because of its high Isp, and plus it's not as hard to work with as LH2.
Oxidizer: LOX
Oxidizer Density: 1.140 g/cc.
Oxidizer Freezing Point: -219 deg C.
Oxidizer Boiling Point: -183 deg C.
Fuel LCH4:
Fuel Density: 0.424 g/cc.
Fuel Freezing Point: -184 deg C.
Fuel Boiling Point: -162 deg C.
Fuel LH2:
Fuel Density: 0.071 g/cc.
Fuel Freezing Point: -259 deg C.
Fuel Boiling Point: -253 deg C.
It appears Liquid Methane offers better density. But its only 80% Hydrogen (4 out of 5 atoms). So there is the overhead of carrying 20% dead weight (Carbon). Though there is the benefit of not having to cool it as aggressively as H2. I am also not sure about the efficiency of the combustion cycle.
By going the LOX+LH2 route, it would help maintain a conservative approach (proven technology, low risk) as opposed to going directly for LOX+LCH4 and going through the overhead of learning a new technology with an unknown risk.
Regardless, I think India would do well to develop its materials and human resources base. For instance only US, Russia and China have Titanium smelters. Saudi Arabia is building one.
Also, I think India should also consider open/modular satellite systems design. For instance, a single large satellite in GSO orbit can serve the needs of many regions instead of each region launching its own small satellite in the same orbit. An open & modular approach will bring efficiency of design, re-use, lower costs and will also drive the need for heavier launch vehicles. ISRO has demonstrated these intentions with the inclusion of experiments from multiple nations on Chandrayaan-1. They could extend the same to commercial services as well.
With the Indian economy developing combined with judicious approach to developing resources and industries could certainly enable exciting developments in Indian Space Technology in the future.
-
#50 by chota on 07 Jan, 2014 01:33
-
Disciplinary action should be the last thing to do for a developing program IMHO. Reason for failure looks silly when retrospected.
-
#51 by cave_dweller on 07 Jan, 2014 04:24
-
By the way, ISRO GSLV D5 happens to be first orbital launch of 2014
My somewhat belated congratulations to all
I'm intrigued to learn:
a) what's the total cost of his mission combined with the delay (cost of leak)?
b) will there be any Return on Investment when total cost considered?QuoteMore importantly, the fuel tank material has been changed, fully phasing out the traditional but corrosion-prone aluminium-zinc combine, called AFNOR 7020. The new alternative, aluminium-copper alloy called AA2219, is now the material for all PSLV and GSLV tanks.
c) I look at it as a Managerial lapse. Just wondering, will there be any disciplinary action of any sort taken? If yes, to what level/extent?
I understand Space launches are complex but that gaffe could have been avoided - saving loads of time/resources/money. Please someone answer, thank you.
Lastly, it was a good writeup by William Graham
R&D tends to be the process of making mistakes, learning from them, experiencing accidents, training to avoid them and other growing up pains. Its the process of maturation.
India doesn't have as strong a manufacturing economy comparable to most western economies or even China. So when a mistake or an accident does happen, the time to correct it is longer. That is just the fact of life and nature of development in emerging nations.
Cryogenic technology is a key enabler and a great leverage a nation can posses. It demonstrates technological capability and maturity. So, immediate ROI is one thing. However there are many other intangible and ripple effects through out the economy and human resource development that are not readily apparent but very much a causal outcome.
However, from a purely economic/balance sheet standpoint:
Cost of current mission: Rs 365 cr (US $56.15 million @ Rs 65/$1)
Cost of GSLV D5: Rs 220 cr (US $33.84 million)
Cost of GSAT 14: Rs 145 cr (US $22.30 million)
India currently pays Rs 500 cr (ESA/Arianespace - US $76.93 million ) for 3.5-Tonne satellite. Cost of Satellite not included.
India has to pay foreign service providers either in US $ or EU currency. This has the effect of worsening the current account deficit since India has unfavorable balance of payments owing to the fact that India imports more than it exports.
This then limits large payment items such as satellite launches to essential services.
This also limits the kind of satellites India can launch since there is a serious risk of technology exposure when satellites are launched by external parties.
You can imagine how the above two can have a debilitating effect on overall technological development due to high cost of satellite transport + unfavorable foreign currency position.
With maturation of GSLV and related technologies, India would gain the capability to launch heavier and more capable satellites from its home ground for a much lower cost and develop its economy, human resources and technology.
Even with all cumulative failures of GSLV, time delays etc., this is an essential technology and India has done extremely well than almost all of the predecessors.
Keep in mind Cryogenic technology has been in general human consciousness for over 80 yrs now. It took US & Russia 30 yrs of active thinking to develop theirs.
India started in 1990s with a tattered economy and bootstrapped the entire process from scratch at a pittance.
India has done well. In my opinion, exceedingly well given the resources and the challenges.
-
#52 by akula2 on 07 Jan, 2014 09:09
-
Also, I think India should also consider open/modular satellite systems design. For instance, a single large satellite in GSO orbit can serve the needs of many regions instead of each region launching its own small satellite in the same orbit. An open & modular approach will bring efficiency of design, re-use, lower costs and will also drive the need for heavier launch vehicles. ISRO has demonstrated these intentions with the inclusion of experiments from multiple nations on Chandrayaan-1. They could extend the same to commercial services as well.
One of my focus areas or target audience.
With the Indian economy developing combined with judicious approach to developing resources and industries could certainly enable exciting developments in Indian Space Technology in the future.
The bigger push for reforms are needed for proactive Private Sector participation. Whether ISRO supports or not, I'm actively working on a solid plan for 2020; currently closing on the location minus Bangalore or Chennai. If everything goes well one Indian state will have dedicated three Satellites (not small at all). Perhaps a few valuable services could be extended to 1 or 2 neighboring states. I foresee an incredible demand from a few states which are high on the Indian GDP rankings.
IMO, Govt. and ISRO could learn a lot from India's vibrant Automobile sector success story. -
#53 by akula2 on 07 Jan, 2014 11:01
-
Disciplinary action should be the last thing to do for a developing program IMHO. Reason for failure looks silly when retrospected.
I think you got rattled
I meant, there must be some kind of Internal Memo etc to the concerned staff. Also, remarks should go into their service records. If you look at various International organizations in different verticals (including NASA or anyone), you'd be really surprised. I'm NOT saying there won't be ANY failure or it's unacceptable.
Fact is, any Govt. Organization is accountable because of the Taxpayer money. Anyone could be called for a hearing to seek a testimony or for any serious lapse/accident/losses. It happens in US and few other Space nations. NASA isn't excluded.
Look at how FDA and India's Drug regulator work. It takes a lot of planning, time, energy and money to operate a company in US compared to India. It's just that many Indians are not used to hear such things, but once people move abroad it teaches a lot.R&D tends to be the process of making mistakes, learning from them, experiencing accidents, training to avoid them and other growing up pains. Its the process of maturation.
I concur with your views.
India doesn't have as strong a manufacturing economy comparable to most western economies or even China. So when a mistake or an accident does happen, the time to correct it is longer. That is just the fact of life and nature of development in emerging nations.
I run a few manufacturing non-public companies in three nations, about 1600 work in Pharma/Bio and Medical Electronics sectors. My 4th company would be in Aerospace domain (Communications etc). Actually, I'm well aware of R&D and its associated costs, risks etc. Many Pharma companies adhere to stringent FDA/EU norms; if any violate they've exclusive powers to penalize and/or ban a plant. I guess you might have read the latest Ranbaxy's Mohali plant news:
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm368445.htm
What I mean to emphasize is, no one is above accountability. I personally know a few NASA Project Managers who take pride for successfully delivering projects within shoe string budgets and tight time frames. Imagine, if ISRO can save only 100 crore each year (1 billion INR) they can spend that on offering student fellowships, promote STEM at colleges, investing in latest infrastructure like building new Xeon/Tesla based Hybrid Super Computers and so on. I don't believe if anyone tells me there is ZERO loss of money (2013-14 budget is 6792 crore). Now, don't misconstrue me as if I'm against ISRO spending
On some post I wished that ISRO should get at least $3 billion each year (or 18,600 crore) to pursue various missions.
Having said, all it takes is Effective Governance and right Policies across the Govt. and Corporate spectrum. What's happening in Delhi heralds a new dawn for India. As an IIT Alumnus, I'm proud to be associated with AAP as a NR donor/supporter. The change will come... -
#54 by antriksh on 07 Jan, 2014 13:07
-
My 4th company would be in Aerospace domain (Communications etc).
I am looking for a job in aerospace software development.
-
#55 by vyoma on 07 Jan, 2014 14:47
-
I've some questions on CE 7.5 and GSLV Mk2 in general:
1) Does it have restart capability?
2) Variable thrust or fixed thrust?
3) GSLV D5 had 3.4m diameter fairing. Will ISRO test 4m diameter fairing in subsequent launches? If so, would it require any design/structural changes in lower stages, or is it just plug-n-play?
-
#56 by sanman on 07 Jan, 2014 15:59
-
1) Yes, but I don't think it was flight-tested during D5
2) Yes, and that was indeed flight-tested during D5
3) The new acoustic testing facility is meant to evaluate the vibrational and structural loads associated with changing stuff like the fairing size. It seems doubtful they'd redesign the rest of the rocket to accommodate a new fairing that doesn't work well with the existing rocket. -
#57 by antriksh on 07 Jan, 2014 23:59
-
I've some questions on CE 7.5 and GSLV Mk2 in general:
1) Does it have restart capability?
2) Variable thrust or fixed thrust?
3) GSLV D5 had 3.4m diameter fairing. Will ISRO test 4m diameter fairing in subsequent launches? If so, would it require any design/structural changes in lower stages, or is it just plug-n-play?
1) Nope
2) Variable. 7.5 to 8.2 (would like to correct that 9 ton not reached yet)
3) D6 will test 4m fairing. No structural changes required, or plug-n-play. Exhaustive analysis done using simulation and wind tunnels.
-
#58 by kanaka on 08 Jan, 2014 00:03
-
I've some questions on CE 7.5 and GSLV Mk2 in general:
1) Does it have restart capability?
2) Variable thrust or fixed thrust?
3) GSLV D5 had 3.4m diameter fairing. Will ISRO test 4m diameter fairing in subsequent launches? If so, would it require any design/structural changes in lower stages, or is it just plug-n-play?
1) Nope
2) Variable. 7.5 to 8.2 (would like to correct that 9 ton not reached yet)
3) D6 will test 4m fairing. No structural changes required, or plug-n-play. Exhaustive analysis done using simulation and wind tunnels.
What does it take to achieve restart capability in the space?
what modifications are needed to attain 9 ton ? -
#59 by antriksh on 08 Jan, 2014 12:50
-
I've some questions on CE 7.5 and GSLV Mk2 in general:
1) Does it have restart capability?
2) Variable thrust or fixed thrust?
3) GSLV D5 had 3.4m diameter fairing. Will ISRO test 4m diameter fairing in subsequent launches? If so, would it require any design/structural changes in lower stages, or is it just plug-n-play?
1) Nope
2) Variable. 7.5 to 8.2 (would like to correct that 9 ton not reached yet)
3) D6 will test 4m fairing. No structural changes required, or plug-n-play. Exhaustive analysis done using simulation and wind tunnels.
What does it take to achieve restart capability in the space?
what modifications are needed to attain 9 ton ?
advanced igniter and new hardware.
On some post I wished that ISRO should get at least $3 billion each year (or 18,600 crore) to pursue various missions.
