-
FAILURE: GSLV-F02, Insat-4C, July 10 2006
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jul, 2006 12:50
-
-
#1
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jul, 2006 12:58
-
It got as far as 12Km, then the first stage failed to seperate and veered the vehicle off course before either the range safety blew it (but I'm thinking not as the vehicle crashed into the sea - and you'd assume it'd be blown to peices by the RSO?).
Their saying it's a design failure.
Major blow for ISRO.
-
#2
by
MKremer
on 10 Jul, 2006 13:06
-
That's too bad. Can't say it's too surprising, though. Every country that has developed their own 'home grown' rockets have almost always had a few initial launch failures before getting everything to work successfully.
-
#3
by
Space Lizard
on 10 Jul, 2006 13:38
-
What do they mean by design failure? The first/second stages of the core vehicle are inherited from PSLV and have flown (and separated) flawlessly on 12 missions since 1992 (maiden flight was a software failure).
-
#4
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jul, 2006 13:47
-
Space Lizard - 10/7/2006 2:25 PM
What do they mean by design failure? The first/second stages of the core vehicle are inherited from PSLV and have flown (and separated) flawlessly on 12 missions since 1992 (maiden flight was a software failure).
Not sure. That is the only quote I've seen so far "Design failure," said officials.
-
#5
by
Space Lizard
on 10 Jul, 2006 15:48
-
I've just been told by reliable source that the problem was not staging but a drop of pressure in one of the four liquid boosters resulting into assymetric thrust.
-
#6
by
James Lowe1
on 10 Jul, 2006 15:50
-
Space Lizard - 10/7/2006 10:35 AM
I've just been told by reliable source that the problem was not staging but a drop of pressure in one of the four liquid boosters resulting into assymetric thrust.
These boosters were hypergolic, as was the core stage. Very strange.
-
#7
by
Space Lizard
on 10 Jul, 2006 17:07
-
No the core stage is solid. Second stage is hypergolic as on PSLV.
The liquid boosters and stage 2 are each powered by a single Vikas engine, an Indian copy of the French Viking engine of the early Ariane launchers (more than 1,000 flown with only one operational failure caused by a foreign object in a line).
-
#8
by
Rocket Guy
on 10 Jul, 2006 17:08
-
The boosters are hypergolic, the core stage is solid fuel.
-
#9
by
Zoomer30
on 10 Jul, 2006 17:51
-
Thats an odd design, solid for the core and liquid for the boosters. Would not want to put a person on that thing
-
#10
by
James Lowe1
on 10 Jul, 2006 18:28
-
I bet that was one large bang!
-
#11
by
Space Lizard
on 10 Jul, 2006 19:17
-
-
#12
by
jcm
on 10 Jul, 2006 21:24
-
Space Lizard - 10/7/2006 3:04 PM
Hypergolic boosters, solid 1st stage, hypergolic 2nd stage, cryogenic upper stage... They built it with the elements they had.
The next generation will be a more optimized design, with solid boosters, hypergolic core stage and cryogenic upper stage.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SPACE/Images/launcher-family-big.jpg
My understanding is that the odd liquid/solid mix of Indian rockets is due to internal personalities and politics in ISRO, with the
advocates of solid boosters being more forceful than the liquid folks even when it would have made more sense
to use liquid. There may also be a political issue with wanting to advance solid propulsion technology for the
ICBM program, but I'm not sure about that.
-
#13
by
zinfab
on 10 Jul, 2006 22:22
-
-
#14
by
James Lowe1
on 10 Jul, 2006 22:27
-
-
#15
by
Admiral Thrawn
on 11 Jul, 2006 01:20
-
Any videos of this?
-
#16
by
sawtooth
on 11 Jul, 2006 03:17
-
I did see a short clip on a local Minnesota news broadcast. The whole thing was a long range shot it seemed and appeared to be rather heavily edited. The vehicle did appear to be in one piece as it came down and maybe came apart shortly before splashdown. I really wasn't expecting to see a clip, let alone on a smallish tv with just a set of rabbit ears feeding the signal. picture quality was far from perfect.
-
#17
by
Rocket Guy
on 11 Jul, 2006 03:55
-
-
#18
by
Admiral Thrawn
on 11 Jul, 2006 09:07
-
They should have some sort of escape system for the payload.
For example, if something major went wrong, they could activate a system that would detach or fire the payload away from the rest of the rocket. Then parachutes could be deployed at a certain altitude to break the fall.
If it was ejected below the standard chute opening altitude, there could be a timer of a few seconds to clear the rest of the rocket before opening.
Obviously the system would take up space and add weight, but that's the tradeoff. I guess it depends on the value of the payload.
-
#19
by
Jim
on 11 Jul, 2006 11:22
-
What says the payload can handle the loads from the escape rockets, parachute opening shock and landing. Not to mention want would be the landing system. Also the added system decrease the reliability of the whole system (launch vehicle)
The tradeoff is not worth the loss of revenue and the decrease in reliability. The money and effort would be better used in making the vehicle more reliable and to purchase some insurance
