Author Topic: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)  (Read 41370 times)

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« on: 05/03/2013 03:55 PM »
ULV configurations (ULVs long term goal is to replace PSLV, GSLV & LVM MK3 with a LV having common core stages (semi-cryo stage (SC-160) & cryo stage (C25)) and solid boosters with variable fuel loading.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2013 03:59 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 Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9637
  • Liked: 367
  • Likes Given: 464
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #1 on: 05/03/2013 04:02 PM »
I am guessing that the large core is kerosene powered, and there is a small LH2 powered upper stage. If it's the reverse, that would be sad.

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #2 on: 05/03/2013 04:10 PM »
I am guessing that the large core is kerosene powered, and there is a small LH2 powered upper stage. If it's the reverse, that would be sad.


Yes, the large core/first stage is kerosene + LOX powered with 2000 kn thrust engine (1-2 engine, nos not confirmed). The engine is under development. Second stage would be LH2+LOX.
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 russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4759
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1218
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #3 on: 05/03/2013 04:58 PM »
I am guessing that the large core is kerosene powered, and there is a small LH2 powered upper stage. If it's the reverse, that would be sad.


Yes, the large core/first stage is kerosene + LOX powered with 2000 kn thrust engine (1-2 engine, nos not confirmed). The engine is under development. Second stage would be LH2+LOX.
Can you post some links to your sources.

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #4 on: 05/12/2013 04:39 AM »
Any news on 2000kn semi-cryo engine that ISRO is developing?

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #5 on: 05/15/2013 02:33 AM »
I am guessing that the large core is kerosene powered, and there is a small LH2 powered upper stage. If it's the reverse, that would be sad.


Yes, the large core/first stage is kerosene + LOX powered with 2000 kn thrust engine (1-2 engine, nos not confirmed). The engine is under development. Second stage would be LH2+LOX.
Can you post some links to your sources.

Do you want his address?  ;D
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: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #6 on: 05/15/2013 02:40 AM »
Any news on 2000kn semi-cryo engine that ISRO is developing?

As per ISRO:

The Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for Semi-cryogenic engine development has been completed. Preparation of fabrication drawings of subsystems have been completed. A MOU has been signed with NFTDC for the realisation of copper alloy for Thrust chamber. Single element Pre-Burner (PB) injector realised and injector spray charaterisation using PIV was carried out. Test facility for single element pre-burner commissioned at PRG facility, VSSC. Semi Cryo Test facility design by M/s Rolta has been completed.


Design of Semi Cryo Engine including heat exchanger and ejector is competed. Fabrication drawings and documents are generated based on the PDR and joint reviews. Configuration design of subscale engine is completed. Preliminary Design Review (PDR) of Hydraulic Actuation System
(HAS) and Hydraulic Power System (HPS) for Engine Gimbal control is completed and Technical specifications are finalized.

Single Element Pre-Burner injector element has been hot tested successfully. Ignition of LOX/Isrosene propellant with hypergolic slug igniter and flame holding, demonstration of safe handling of pyrophoric fluid TEA, validation of start sequence, characterization of injector elements and qualification of Hayness-214 material are the major achievements of the tests.

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 Salo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3061
  • Odessa, Ukraine
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 722
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #7 on: 07/24/2013 08:54 PM »
http://www.frontline.in/science-and-technology/in-mission-mode/article4945199.ece?homepage=true
Quote
What is the Unified Launch Vehicle of ISRO?

K. Radhakrishnan:
That comes later. Today, we have the GSLV, and GSLV–Mark III is being developed. Of course, we have plans for an experimental mission of GSLV–Mark III.
...
In semi-cryogenic engine development, we had one test of the single injector element of semi-cryogenics done, the first combustion. But we have a long way to go. There is a massive test facility to be created for testing the semi-cryogenic engine and the sub-systems. All this is in the early phase, I would say.

You asked about the Unified Launch Vehicle. It is a future expendable launch vehicle concept. It is modular in shape, comprising semi-cryogenics as booster, a cryogenics as upper stage and strap-ons of different magnitudes made of solid rockets. It can be S-200, S-139 or S-9, depending on the payload requirement. The ULV is slightly futuristic.

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #8 on: 08/18/2013 06:56 AM »
Why does the LEO lift max out at 15 tons? ISRO should aim to have a rocket that can launch at least 30 - 40 tons into orbit in case they ever decide to build a space station or contribute to one. Besides having a rocket of this capability could be useful because it would cut costs by being able to launch multiple combination satellites in one go.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #9 on: 08/18/2013 01:51 PM »
What real requirement for 30tons to LEO exist, really?
I still don't like this approach. I think that having 4 different solids designs is a waste of design effort. Than and I seriously doubt they can do this with a single core. They will end up with something like the Delta IV before the RS-68A. Now, if they use S85 or so solid, with 0, 2, 4 and 6. They could very well cover nearly the same  spectrum of payloads and have a much more simplified logistics. Plus, a lot of launch flexibility. You have a GTO customer that's willing to pay a premium to forward the launch? Just bump the SSO small sat a quarter and use that core.

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #10 on: 08/19/2013 12:45 AM »
What real requirement for 30tons to LEO exist, really?
I still don't like this approach. I think that having 4 different solids designs is a waste of design effort. Than and I seriously doubt they can do this with a single core. They will end up with something like the Delta IV before the RS-68A. Now, if they use S85 or so solid, with 0, 2, 4 and 6. They could very well cover nearly the same  spectrum of payloads and have a much more simplified logistics. Plus, a lot of launch flexibility. You have a GTO customer that's willing to pay a premium to forward the launch? Just bump the SSO small sat a quarter and use that core.

Well a rocket with 30 tons LEO capability could be used to launch space station modules, resupply missions and heavy probes on trajectories to the outer solar system. If no need existed for such rockets then the Ariane 5 and long March 5 would not have been developed. Personally i don't really like this design either - it's too reliant on solid-fueled strap-ons to provide most of the liftoff thrust but cost must also be taken into account since ISRO's budget is tiny compared to NASA and ESA. Solid fuelled strap-ons are cost effective hence they will lower costs in the long run.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4426
  • Liked: 668
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #11 on: 08/19/2013 01:18 AM »
Until SpaceX demonstrates the superior cost benefits of reusable liquid engines, then solid strap-ons will continue to look very attractive - especially with heavier payloads.

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #12 on: 08/19/2013 02:40 AM »
What real requirement for 30tons to LEO exist, really?
I still don't like this approach. I think that having 4 different solids designs is a waste of design effort. Than and I seriously doubt they can do this with a single core. They will end up with something like the Delta IV before the RS-68A. Now, if they use S85 or so solid, with 0, 2, 4 and 6. They could very well cover nearly the same  spectrum of payloads and have a much more simplified logistics. Plus, a lot of launch flexibility. You have a GTO customer that's willing to pay a premium to forward the launch? Just bump the SSO small sat a quarter and use that core.

Well a rocket with 30 tons LEO capability could be used to launch space station modules, resupply missions and heavy probes on trajectories to the outer solar system. If no need existed for such rockets then the Ariane 5 and long March 5 would not have been developed. Personally i don't really like this design either - it's too reliant on solid-fueled strap-ons to provide most of the liftoff thrust but cost must also be taken into account since ISRO's budget is tiny compared to NASA and ESA. Solid fuelled strap-ons are cost effective hence they will lower costs in the long run.


ULV capacity can be boosted to 25 tons by utilizing modified core stage as boosters in place of solids. But, there is no foreseeable requirement.

India wouldn't go for a space station on its own? Its not sustainable. ISRO would prefer to take part in an international effort where its role could be to launch resupply vessel, provide equipment etc.
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: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #13 on: 08/19/2013 04:52 PM »
What real requirement for 30tons to LEO exist, really?
I still don't like this approach. I think that having 4 different solids designs is a waste of design effort. Than and I seriously doubt they can do this with a single core. They will end up with something like the Delta IV before the RS-68A. Now, if they use S85 or so solid, with 0, 2, 4 and 6. They could very well cover nearly the same  spectrum of payloads and have a much more simplified logistics. Plus, a lot of launch flexibility. You have a GTO customer that's willing to pay a premium to forward the launch? Just bump the SSO small sat a quarter and use that core.

Well a rocket with 30 tons LEO capability could be used to launch space station modules, resupply missions and heavy probes on trajectories to the outer solar system. If no need existed for such rockets then the Ariane 5 and long March 5 would not have been developed. Personally i don't really like this design either - it's too reliant on solid-fueled strap-ons to provide most of the liftoff thrust but cost must also be taken into account since ISRO's budget is tiny compared to NASA and ESA. Solid fuelled strap-ons are cost effective hence they will lower costs in the long run.
The Ariane 5 and the LM-5 in its biggest iteration hav one driver only: crewed flight. Since ESA decided not to pursue, they went with the smaller Ariane 6. And for China is more of a prestige issue. If they had been allowed to the ISS, it's quite possible they wouldn't have chosen such a big design. In fact, proposals for bigger rockets have been shelved.
In any case, the ULV architecture allows it to grow to 30 tonnes, probably more. In a Heavy configuration with solids (like the proposed improvement for Delta IV Heavy), they could hit that payload. But for a start, they need to make it cheap and flexible. Copy the EELV concept with the little twist that the core can't launch full without boosters. Stick to a single srb design and keep the flexibility on the number of SRBs, not the type. They already went to the Ariane 5, Atlas V concept of VIB with MLP and clean pad. Thus, this approach would give them the needed flexibility at a minimum cost.

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #14 on: 12/01/2013 03:04 PM »
ULV configurations (ULVs long term goal is to replace PSLV, GSLV & LVM MK3 with a LV having common core stages (semi-cryo stage (SC-160) & cryo stage (C25)) and solid boosters with variable fuel loading.

One more interesting configuration could be the use of 2 semi cryo boosters. This will be the real heavy lifting option.

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #15 on: 08/05/2014 03:52 PM »
From the annual report,

Quote
The semi-cryogenic Project envisages the design and development of a 2000 kN semi-cryogenic engine for a future heavy-lift Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV) and Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV). The semi-cryogenic engine uses a combination of Liquid Oxygen (LOX) and ISROSENE (propellant-grade kerosene), which are eco-friendly and cost-effective propellants.
"

for "a" or "a family"?

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #16 on: 08/06/2014 02:10 AM »
From the annual report,

Quote
The semi-cryogenic Project envisages the design and development of a 2000 kN semi-cryogenic engine for a future heavy-lift Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV) and Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV). The semi-cryogenic engine uses a combination of Liquid Oxygen (LOX) and ISROSENE (propellant-grade kerosene), which are eco-friendly and cost-effective propellants.
"

for "a" or "a family"?

A vehicle in the sense that the core and upper stages will be the same and only solid booster configuration will vary based on the mission requirement.
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: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #17 on: 10/02/2014 08:55 AM »
Antriksh:

From the diagram it appears that the CLC (common liquid core) will have a diameter of 4m ie same as the L110 and C25 stages of Mk III. Is this and propellant loading of 160 tons confirmed information?


Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #18 on: 10/02/2014 03:06 PM »
Antriksh:

From the diagram it appears that the CLC (common liquid core) will have a diameter of 4m ie same as the L110 and C25 stages of Mk III. Is this and propellant loading of 160 tons confirmed information?

Yes same diamter as L110 with more propellant because SC160 would be ground lit.
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: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #19 on: 10/02/2014 06:59 PM »
Antriksh:

From the diagram it appears that the CLC (common liquid core) will have a diameter of 4m ie same as the L110 and C25 stages of Mk III. Is this and propellant loading of 160 tons confirmed information?

Yes same diamter as L110 with more propellant because SC160 would be ground lit.

That would mean a much longer stage than the L110.  The length of the core will be around 25-30m.   

Online vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 870
  • India
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #20 on: 10/06/2014 09:16 AM »
Antriksh, a question just came to my mind on looking at the ULV configurations in OP. Will a configuration without any strapons (i.e only the SC-160 and C-25) have sufficient thrust to deploy a smaller payload to orbit? The reason I ask is because current configurations depicted seem to cover a payload range from PSLV-XL to a bit above GSLV-III, but there is no equivalent for a sub-1000 kg-to-SSO payload that PSLV-CA currently fulfils.

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #21 on: 10/06/2014 10:53 AM »
Antriksh, a question just came to my mind on looking at the ULV configurations in OP. Will a configuration without any strapons (i.e only the SC-160 and C-25) have sufficient thrust to deploy a smaller payload to orbit? The reason I ask is because current configurations depicted seem to cover a payload range from PSLV-XL to a bit above GSLV-III, but there is no equivalent for a sub-1000 kg-to-SSO payload that PSLV-CA currently fulfils.

If the figures Antariskh is giving for CLC is true(160 tonnes of propellant) than launching without boosters would not be possible. The vehicle mass in this case without any boosters will be close to 200 tonnes. The engine would generate only around 1.7-1.9 tonnes of thrust at sea level. So thrust-to-weight ratio will be lesser than 1.

For any vehicle to go up vertically, thrust to weight ratio has to be greater than 1. I don't think it will the case in this scenario. So boosters would be needed.

Online vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 870
  • India
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #22 on: 10/06/2014 12:59 PM »
If the figures Antariskh is giving for CLC is true(160 tonnes of propellant) than launching without boosters would not be possible. The vehicle mass in this case without any boosters will be close to 200 tonnes. The engine would generate only around 1.7-1.9 tonnes of thrust at sea level. So thrust-to-weight ratio will be lesser than 1.

For any vehicle to go up vertically, thrust to weight ratio has to be greater than 1. I don't think it will the case in this scenario. So boosters would be needed.

Hmmm.. Okay. What if they reduced the propellant in the first stage (and maybe shortened the first stage correspondingly). Would it have carried a payload into orbit without any changes in the upper stage? I was just trying to compare it to Angara 1.2 which has a first stage engine of similar thrust, but a more powerful Lox/Kerosene second stage (300kN vs 200 kN, but less Isp). Just a hypothetical question, maybe even non-sensical.  :)
« Last Edit: 10/06/2014 01:00 PM by vineethgk »

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #23 on: 10/06/2014 06:36 PM »
Hmmm.. Okay. What if they reduced the propellant in the first stage (and maybe shortened the first stage correspondingly). Would it have carried a payload into orbit without any changes in the upper stage? I was just trying to compare it to Angara 1.2 which has a first stage engine of similar thrust, but a more powerful Lox/Kerosene second stage (300kN vs 200 kN, but less Isp). Just a hypothetical question, maybe even non-sensical.  :)

Angara has around 130 tonnes of propellant in the core IIRC. And the Angara 1.2PP flight used the upperstage that will go on Angara A5. I do not think there are any plans to use this same upperstage fro Angara 1.2 in the future. If you see the 1.2PP launch video you can notice that it didn't exactly blast off from the pad. 

Frankly we are still not certain about the ULV. That's why asked Antriksh whether he can confirm the 160 tonne propellant loading of the core. Whether ULV will have a core alone version will depend on this. 

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #24 on: 10/06/2014 07:31 PM »
As an economist, there's not much to do but do a trade. Does having a single core, even if you need to add two cheap solids, is cheaper than having to support two cores? Simple as that. Having extra performance if cheap enough is not bad. Little used designs, even when theoretically cheaper, might not be economically better. In particular, they have quite a payload range to cover with ULV.
On the top side, let's assume a Heavy version. Their launch site is just 13deg N, so if they can get a bit better LEO than Angara-3 (let's say 15tonnes), then their GTO performance should be around 6tonnes, which would cover almost all the top of the market. At the lowest performance, it should be able to do 3.5 tonnes to LEO, or 1.5tonnes to SSO. If they can cover that range with a single core, they are done. Indian labor is cheap.
Please remember that a shortened core would need a custom upper stage and GSE. The fairing attachment, the platforms, everything would change. You'd basically lose most advantages of a universal core. BTW, I still believe that they'll go with a single solid model. Just to put some perspective, Atlas V SRB are about 50tonnes and Delta IV's GEM-60 about 30toones. Thus, developing an S25/30 should give them all the needed flexibility they might require in 2,4,6,8 configuration (plus heavy, if necessary).
« Last Edit: 10/06/2014 07:33 PM by baldusi »

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #25 on: 10/07/2014 07:40 AM »
As an economist, there's not much to do but do a trade. Does having a single core, even if you need to add two cheap solids, is cheaper than having to support two cores? Simple as that. Having extra performance if cheap enough is not bad. Little used designs, even when theoretically cheaper, might not be economically better. In particular, they have quite a payload range to cover with ULV.
On the top side, let's assume a Heavy version. Their launch site is just 13deg N, so if they can get a bit better LEO than Angara-3 (let's say 15tonnes), then their GTO performance should be around 6tonnes, which would cover almost all the top of the market. At the lowest performance, it should be able to do 3.5 tonnes to LEO, or 1.5tonnes to SSO. If they can cover that range with a single core, they are done. Indian labor is cheap.
Please remember that a shortened core would need a custom upper stage and GSE. The fairing attachment, the platforms, everything would change. You'd basically lose most advantages of a universal core. BTW, I still believe that they'll go with a single solid model. Just to put some perspective, Atlas V SRB are about 50tonnes and Delta IV's GEM-60 about 30toones. Thus, developing an S25/30 should give them all the needed flexibility they might require in 2,4,6,8 configuration (plus heavy, if necessary).

I think the idea of ISRO for having different solid boosters is continuity. All the SRBs that are supposed to go on ULV are already there. S12 for PSLV, S60 also on PSLV, S138 on PSLV,GSLV, and S200 on Mk III. Maybe they want to continue with them although it wouldn't be the most economical approach.

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #26 on: 10/07/2014 07:47 AM »
Also, another interesting configuration to make up the lower end of spectrum for ULV would be CLC + CUS (upperstage of GSLV). This could put small payloads of around a tonne to SSO.

Online vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 870
  • India
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #27 on: 10/07/2014 10:23 AM »
I think the idea of ISRO for having different solid boosters is continuity. All the SRBs that are supposed to go on ULV are already there. S12 for PSLV, S60 also on PSLV, S138 on PSLV,GSLV, and S200 on Mk III. Maybe they want to continue with them although it wouldn't be the most economical approach.
Is there an S60 stage being used currently in PSLV? I was under the impression that it is a new stage that needs to be developed for ULV. Other than the core (S139) and strapons (S12), isn't the 3rd stage (~7 tonnes propellant) the only other solid stage in the rocket?

Also, another interesting configuration to make up the lower end of spectrum for ULV would be CLC + CUS (upperstage of GSLV). This could put small payloads of around a tonne to SSO.
Hmmm... But it would still require the core stage to be downsized a bit, am I right? Also since CUS uses a Staged-Combustion cycle engine, how would its manufacturing effort and cost compare to C-25?

Maybe as @baldusi mentioned, its all down to economics. Creating additional core configurations could create an overhead for development and maintenance, and using the base version can turn out to be more economical for sub-1000kg payloads even in cases where there is no scope of bundling additional satellites (though it would still be a bit over-powered for the job). Maybe the very same reasons convinced ISRO to abandon a 3-stage variant of PSLV that they thought of initially.

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #28 on: 10/07/2014 12:23 PM »
Is there an S60 stage being used currently in PSLV? I was under the impression that it is a new stage that needs to be developed for ULV. Other than the core (S139) and strapons (S12), isn't the 3rd stage (~7 tonnes propellant) the only other solid stage in the rocket?
/quote]

Sorry! My bad! There's no S60 as of now. The other thing is in the interview with ISRO chairman about ULV he mentions only S9, S138 and S200 as the boosters. There is no mention of S60.

Hmmm... But it would still require the core stage to be downsized a bit, am I right? Also since CUS uses a Staged-Combustion cycle engine, how would its manufacturing effort and cost compare to C-25?

Depends on the core. Even if it has a propellant loading of 150 tonnes ISRO could put a CUS on top and launch small payloads. Not sure how practical it could be. But the idea is to just have a configuration which does what the PSLV does now.

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #29 on: 10/07/2014 01:50 PM »
Antriksh, a question just came to my mind on looking at the ULV configurations in OP. Will a configuration without any strapons (i.e only the SC-160 and C-25) have sufficient thrust to deploy a smaller payload to orbit? The reason I ask is because current configurations depicted seem to cover a payload range from PSLV-XL to a bit above GSLV-III, but there is no equivalent for a sub-1000 kg-to-SSO payload that PSLV-CA currently fulfils.

No, no such configuration is economical in my understanding. Perhaps by reducing loading may work out economical. 
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: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #30 on: 10/07/2014 03:14 PM »
Solids are not Legotm. When you have an inline solid, the thrust transfer is different to a booster, that has to have attachments on the side. And then you have what is called a thrust law, solids have variable thrust, for things like reducing MaxQ pressure, limiting burn out acceleration, etc. But to do that you have to actually design the solid grain geometry. This means a new development and pouring tooling, like mandrel. So you can adapt that easily. The S200 that act as boosters of the GSLV mkIII can be used as is, but it might be a tiny bit inefficient.
And adapting stages is a problem. You need new adapters, the stresses of payload weight and vibration are different. But the big cost are the manufacturing line and ground support equipment. You have to keep a whole new set of drawings, engineers, analysis, tooling, factory floor, etc. dedicated. And then you have to have all the support equipment and structures at the launch facilities. All to "save" a bit of marginal cost on a few small launches. It simply doesn't work economically. ULV concept is to reduce this. That they can have a single pad design, with a single access and platform, with a single design of processing facilities, etc. That's how you save money. Look at EELV, SpaceX, ILS Proton, Sea Launch, Ariane 5, Angara, etc. Everybody tries to move to a single launch configuration. At most, simply use some optional solis or multiple cores.

Offline simonbp

Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #31 on: 10/07/2014 10:16 PM »
Antriksh, a question just came to my mind on looking at the ULV configurations in OP. Will a configuration without any strapons (i.e only the SC-160 and C-25) have sufficient thrust to deploy a smaller payload to orbit? The reason I ask is because current configurations depicted seem to cover a payload range from PSLV-XL to a bit above GSLV-III, but there is no equivalent for a sub-1000 kg-to-SSO payload that PSLV-CA currently fulfils.

No, no such configuration is economical in my understanding. Perhaps by reducing loading may work out economical. 

Which is basically the same conclusion that Boeing came to regarding the Delta IV Small (Delta IV first stage, Delta II second stage). The big expensive core stage drives the cost of the entire vehicle, so it's not much cheaper than the full-size rocket.

The real solution for smaller payloads is to dual-manifest, especially to GTO.

Online vineethgk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 870
  • India
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #32 on: 10/11/2014 09:03 AM »
Okay. Trying to leap again before learning to walk, so to say..  ;) But here's yet another hypothetical question I'd love to see answered by more knowledgable folks here..

If (and that's a pretty big 'if') ISRO were to have requirement for an LV with GTO capability of 8-10 tonnes or more, what could be the options for its first stage (from a ULV heritage)?

1. Bundling two additional SC-160 Kerolox stages. ( and would the central core burning at a lower thrust initially and scaling to its max after other two burns out provide some advantage here?)
2. Build a larger (5m?) Kerolox core stage with two SCE-200 in cluster, with large solids providing added thrust. I guess building a core with large diameter would be a critical problem here. Chinese seems to have had a pretty tough time with manufacturing their large CZ-5 core.

Do either of these options look workable, and appears to meet the payload requirements? In case both of them fits the bill more or less, which design would make better sense in the long term? I'm assuming both these configurations would require a more powerful Hydrolox upper stage to do the job, maybe something that uses two CE-20s in cluster or a yet to be developed CE-60.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2014 09:06 AM by vineethgk »

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #33 on: 10/12/2014 07:59 AM »
Okay. Trying to leap again before learning to walk, so to say..  ;) But here's yet another hypothetical question I'd love to see answered by more knowledgable folks here..

If (and that's a pretty big 'if') ISRO were to have requirement for an LV with GTO capability of 8-10 tonnes or more, what could be the options for its first stage (from a ULV heritage)?

1. Bundling two additional SC-160 Kerolox stages. ( and would the central core burning at a lower thrust initially and scaling to its max after other two burns out provide some advantage here?)
2. Build a larger (5m?) Kerolox core stage with two SCE-200 in cluster, with large solids providing added thrust. I guess building a core with large diameter would be a critical problem here. Chinese seems to have had a pretty tough time with manufacturing their large CZ-5 core.

Do either of these options look workable, and appears to meet the payload requirements? In case both of them fits the bill more or less, which design would make better sense in the long term? I'm assuming both these configurations would require a more powerful Hydrolox upper stage to do the job, maybe something that uses two CE-20s in cluster or a yet to be developed CE-60.

The first solution would be the more plausible one as it's comparatively easier than the second one. Again, it's just comparatively easier but it still some work.

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #34 on: 11/11/2014 11:29 AM »
[ur=http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/experimental-flight-of-gslv-mark-3-in-december-isro-chief/articleshow/45110347.cmsl]Experimental flight of GSLV Mark 3 in December: ISRO chief[/url]

Quote
Pointing out that the cryogenic engine used in the launch vehicle, developed  totally indigenously, make India one of the few countries with the technology,  Radhakrishnan said India still lagged behind several other countries in the  capacity of its launch vehicles.

 "China has launch vehicles with 5.5  tonnes capacity, Europe has 11 tonnes capacity launch vehicle, US has 13 tonnes capacity launch vehicles and Russia has nearly 10 tonnes capacity vehicles," he said.

The ISRO chief said the long term target is to make a launch vehicle with 12 tonnes capacity.

Offline antriksh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #35 on: 11/11/2014 01:58 PM »
[ur=http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/experimental-flight-of-gslv-mark-3-in-december-isro-chief/articleshow/45110347.cmsl]Experimental flight of GSLV Mark 3 in December: ISRO chief[/url]

Quote
Pointing out that the cryogenic engine used in the launch vehicle, developed  totally indigenously, make India one of the few countries with the technology,  Radhakrishnan said India still lagged behind several other countries in the  capacity of its launch vehicles.

 "China has launch vehicles with 5.5  tonnes capacity, Europe has 11 tonnes capacity launch vehicle, US has 13 tonnes capacity launch vehicles and Russia has nearly 10 tonnes capacity vehicles," he said.

The ISRO chief said the long term target is to make a launch vehicle with 12 tonnes capacity.

I hope hes talking about TSTO RLV.

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: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #36 on: 11/11/2014 03:39 PM »
[ur=http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/experimental-flight-of-gslv-mark-3-in-december-isro-chief/articleshow/45110347.cmsl]Experimental flight of GSLV Mark 3 in December: ISRO chief[/url]

Quote
Pointing out that the cryogenic engine used in the launch vehicle, developed  totally indigenously, make India one of the few countries with the technology,  Radhakrishnan said India still lagged behind several other countries in the  capacity of its launch vehicles.

 "China has launch vehicles with 5.5  tonnes capacity, Europe has 11 tonnes capacity launch vehicle, US has 13 tonnes capacity launch vehicles and Russia has nearly 10 tonnes capacity vehicles," he said.

The ISRO chief said the long term target is to make a launch vehicle with 12 tonnes capacity.

I hope hes talking about TSTO RLV.

RLV is ofcourse on the cards. But we should not forget that ISRO wouldn't want to delay in developing a heavy launcher in search of reusability. RLV will the best choice in the long term. Depending on the realistic timeline of RLV, there might be a good possibility that ISRO might develop an expendable version of it. And they would have the technology required using ULV CLCs as the boosters+core.

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #37 on: 12/03/2014 06:50 PM »
The future PSLV replacement and the smallest rocket in the ULV family.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4426
  • Liked: 668
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #38 on: 12/03/2014 08:16 PM »
RLV is ofcourse on the cards. But we should not forget that ISRO wouldn't want to delay in developing a heavy launcher in search of reusability. RLV will the best choice in the long term. Depending on the realistic timeline of RLV, there might be a good possibility that ISRO might develop an expendable version of it. And they would have the technology required using ULV CLCs as the boosters+core.

But how much need is there for such a heavy launcher?

Reusability always makes a good case, because it saves money (when it's done right).
As long as the reusable vehicle is kept relatively simple, and isn't turned into a white elephant like the US Space Shuttle program was, then the cost savings from not having to replace the vehicle for each new flight should add up relatively quickly.

I think the TSTO would be a better choice to develop first, before the ULV family, because it would be heavily used even while the subsequent ULV family was under development.

Even if you argue that ULV would enable ISRO to service international customers at a profit, the demand for such heavy payloads is comparatively less, and meanwhile an RLV would be able to keep itself very busy servicing domestic and international customers. Furthermore, such an RLV could be iteratively refined - as SpaceX is doing - and spun off to a private sector launch operator.

And why couldn't a TSTO be scaled up later on to become a heavier launcher?
When the bottom line is cost, then it seems to me that RLV should logically be prioritized.
ISRO always likes to boast of its cost-saving mentality, so that in itself should make the case for RLV before ULV.






Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #39 on: 12/05/2014 06:49 PM »
The whole family. Excluding the variant with S60 SRBs.
 

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1451
  • Likes Given: 2380
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #40 on: 01/04/2016 01:50 PM »
Ok..Not sure where to post this in HLV thread or here..This piece of news muddles it all up.. In a good way though.

Quote
ISRO unveils 10-tonne satellite plan at Indian Science Congress

<snip>

Semi-cryogenic engines are environment friendly and bring down the cost of launches significantly. The design process for the semi-cryogenic engine is completed and is being built by Godrej Aerospace, which also makes the Vikas engines for Isro's rockets.

"Once we have this engine, we will have different levels of launch vehicles possible. Currently the GSLV MK 3 uses the CE20 engine and once we put the semi cryogenic engine in such a combination, we will have a much bigger rating, which will have a payload capability of 10 ton," said S. Somanath, project director of the GSLV Mk III at Isro. He did not set a time frame for the rocket development.

Quote
"One of the launch vehicle...will look like the GSLV Mk 3 but it will be much taller, almost 65 metres, weighing almost 732.6 tons at liftoff and it is capable of putting a 10 ton space plant in communication orbit," said Somanath.

Quote
Somanath said that Isro would work on a modular vehicle approach, using the same platform to extend the power of its rockets than build separate rockets.

"..we thought that we will go in a modular way. It will be possible for nearly 6 ton payload capability and if required we will be able to change to our full 10 tonne launch vehicle with little bit of addition," he said.


http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/isro-unveils-10-tonne-satellite-plan-at-indian-science-congress-116010400575_1.html


What ??  :o
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline johnxx9

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISRO Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV)
« Reply #41 on: 01/04/2016 02:11 PM »
Hopefully we get to some pictures of this whatever launch vehicle. ISRO has been giving lot lots of different information (and at times contradictory) on the future LV development. And it ends up looking less modular everytime some new info is made available.

Tags: