Current, GSLV version is Mk2 that uses a stage (CUS 12) with 12 tons of propellant. MK2A will be using 15 tons (CUS 15) of propellants. MK2C will use L40 as third stage (instead of L37.5), CUS 15 and a payload assist module (PAM). MK2c will have 2500kg payload capacity. The current thrust of CE7.5 will be increased to 90 kN.
What is the GTO capability of the GSLV scheduled to lift off on the 19th? Also i read somewhere that ISRO was planning to replace the hypergolic Vikas engines with a cheaper and safer semi-cryogenic engine, this engine would be based on the SCE-200, do you know anything about this?
Hey heard that us was pressuring Ukraine not to transfer semi cryogenic engine technology I found it in WikiLeaks docs,are there any signs that happening,also what is the exact role played by Ukraine in semi cryogenic engine development?,as they themselves don't have any single chamber high thrust semi cryo engine in their inventory.
SKINS, they are just providing technical documents/blue prints of the engine of USSR legacy. Ukraine has stockpile of NK33 that they have sold to orbital sciences to be used on Antares. But we are going to get just papers.
If Ukarine are providing blueprints why is the project taking so long? back in 2009 when the semi-cryo project was approved they said it would be done by 2015, now that date has slid back to 2017-2018 at the earliest.
blue prints alone is not sufficient to develop the engine. ISRO has its own design, blue prints are their for reference. ISRO also needs to setup all the facilities for semi-cryo development, materials, alloys etc. And when compared to cryo development of 20 years, 6-10 years are nothing.
Ok , how do you know about all these stuff man are u an insider in isro?,and do you have any idea about the name of the engine for which Ukraine is providing the blueprints?Are all the major r&d challenges overcomed by isro for this semi cryogenic engine? thank for your answers man,really appreciate that.
Ukraine is only providing a alloy for the thrust chamber of our semi-cryo engine, it said so in ISRO 2013 budget papers. Ukraine isnt providing blueprints for any specific engine they are just helping with a component present in all liquid fuel engines
Ok come on man I have sufficient and credible proof that Ukraine is indeed helping isro with,a design they have not just some alloy its the complete package do u seriously think that iso can produce a high thrust engine in just 6 years without any previous experience on semi cryogenic engine? Moreover the complete r&d cycle for this kind of engine takes at least a decade.
ISRO has tieup with NFTDC to develop copper alloy for semi cryo thrust chamber. Ukraine is not providing any alloy. And as far as design is concerned, ISRO has gained enough experience by designing both staged and gas generator cycle cryo engines that it can do it on its own. But to speed up the process, any kind of help is always welcome. There is nothing wrong in it.
Hey SRS, As usual brilliant work hats off to you man.I am quite sure this time it will be a success they have been testing and perfecting it for 3 years now. August 19 will be monumental day for isro !!!
Though about GSLV vehicle i have a doubt seeing that animated pic in your blog Why is a liquid stage used as a strap on and solid stage as first stage and that too with a burn time less than of strap on. strap ons have a burn time of 160 sec but first stage has a burn time of just 100 sec. is it a mistake in the pic ?
GSLV stage1 and stage2 are derived from PSLV. This was done to expedite the process of launching 2 ton com sats using indigenous LV. ISRO chose the proven baseline design of PSLV first and second stages, and augmented the first stage with liquid strap ons. They could have used solid strap ons, but that required development of a new solid booster with more thrust, burn duration and weight when compared to liquid booster to provide the same velocity and altitude before first stage separation. Probably, developing vikas engine based booster was easier and less time consuming.
Regarding the burn times, they are correct and you can check that in ang gslv brochure (d5 in the latest post)
ISRO will take one year to install the test facilities, after that I hope by start of 2016 we should hear about engine test. Apart from the engine, stage development is also required that will take its own time and I hope that will be done in parallel with the engine development.
The development also got delayed due to the ill-fated GSLV CUS development. ISRO has limited HR and that too is shared among the different engine, stage developments.
Waiting for it
ReplyDeleteHave been following ur blog for a long time,great info u r posting here
ReplyDeleteThanks SKINS!!!
DeleteHey SRS any idea if ISRO plans to upgrade the capabilities of GSLV MK-2?
ReplyDeleteHi Xes042,
ReplyDeleteCurrent, GSLV version is Mk2 that uses a stage (CUS 12) with 12 tons of propellant. MK2A will be using 15 tons (CUS 15) of propellants. MK2C will use L40 as third stage (instead of L37.5), CUS 15 and a payload assist module (PAM). MK2c will have 2500kg payload capacity. The current thrust of CE7.5 will be increased to 90 kN.
What is the GTO capability of the GSLV scheduled to lift off on the 19th? Also i read somewhere that ISRO was planning to replace the hypergolic Vikas engines with a cheaper and safer semi-cryogenic engine, this engine would be based on the SCE-200, do you know anything about this?
DeleteIts 2300 kgs. semi cryo will replace the L110 stage of LVM3.
DeleteHey heard that us was pressuring Ukraine not to transfer semi cryogenic engine technology I found it in WikiLeaks docs,are there any signs that happening,also what is the exact role played by Ukraine in semi cryogenic engine development?,as they themselves don't have any single chamber high thrust semi cryo engine in their inventory.
ReplyDeleteSKINS, they are just providing technical documents/blue prints of the engine of USSR legacy. Ukraine has stockpile of NK33 that they have sold to orbital sciences to be used on Antares. But we are going to get just papers.
DeleteIf Ukarine are providing blueprints why is the project taking so long? back in 2009 when the semi-cryo project was approved they said it would be done by 2015, now that date has slid back to 2017-2018 at the earliest.
DeleteHi Xes,
Deleteblue prints alone is not sufficient to develop the engine. ISRO has its own design, blue prints are their for reference. ISRO also needs to setup all the facilities for semi-cryo development, materials, alloys etc. And when compared to cryo development of 20 years, 6-10 years are nothing.
Ok , how do you know about all these stuff man are u an insider in isro?,and do you have any idea about the name of the engine for which Ukraine is providing the blueprints?Are all the major r&d challenges overcomed by isro for this semi cryogenic engine?
ReplyDeletethank for your answers man,really appreciate that.
I think that rd 191 is the engine that Ukraine is helping India with.
ReplyDeleteSKINS, ISRO semi-cryo design uses oxygen rich pre-burner and a single rotating shaft for the turbo pumps. NK33 has a similar design.
Delete@SKINS
ReplyDeleteUkraine is only providing a alloy for the thrust chamber of our semi-cryo engine, it said so in ISRO 2013 budget papers. Ukraine isnt providing blueprints for any specific engine they are just helping with a component present in all liquid fuel engines
Xes, Where did you read this?
DeleteNFTDC is helping ISRO to develop copper alloy for the thrust chamber.
Its in the report from ur blog and annual report
DeleteOk come on man I have sufficient and credible proof that Ukraine is indeed helping isro with,a design they have not just some alloy its the complete package
ReplyDeletedo u seriously think that iso can produce a high thrust engine in just 6 years without any previous experience on semi cryogenic engine? Moreover the complete r&d cycle for this kind of engine takes at least a decade.
SKINS,
DeleteISRO has tieup with NFTDC to develop copper alloy for semi cryo thrust chamber. Ukraine is not providing any alloy. And as far as design is concerned, ISRO has gained enough experience by designing both staged and gas generator cycle cryo engines that it can do it on its own. But to speed up the process, any kind of help is always welcome. There is nothing wrong in it.
SRS,
ReplyDeleteYou rock man ,I am following your blog from some time now.
Hope every thing goes well on 19th.
Thanks!!! keeping fingers crossed!!!!!
DeleteISRO has done new tests like testing the FBTP in cryo environment and testing the engine in simulated vacuum environment. This time its gonna work!!!
Hey SRS,
ReplyDeleteAs usual brilliant work hats off to you man.I am quite sure this time it will be a success they have been testing and perfecting it for 3 years now. August 19 will be monumental day for isro !!!
Though about GSLV vehicle i have a doubt seeing that animated pic in your blog Why is a liquid stage used as a strap on and solid stage as first stage and that too with a burn time less than of strap on. strap ons have a burn time of 160 sec but first stage has a burn time of just 100 sec. is it a mistake in the pic ?
Hi Alex,
DeleteThanks Alot!!! Lets hope for the best.
GSLV stage1 and stage2 are derived from PSLV. This was done to expedite the process of launching 2 ton com sats using indigenous LV. ISRO chose the proven baseline design of PSLV first and second stages, and augmented the first stage with liquid strap ons. They could have used solid strap ons, but that required development of a new solid booster with more thrust, burn duration and weight when compared to liquid booster to provide the same velocity and altitude before first stage separation. Probably, developing vikas engine based booster was easier and less time consuming.
Regarding the burn times, they are correct and you can check that in ang gslv brochure (d5 in the latest post)
Hoping for the best
ReplyDeleteSame here!!!
DeleteHow much time would u think that we will see a live firing of semi cryogenic engine?any guess
ReplyDeleteISRO will take one year to install the test facilities, after that I hope by start of 2016 we should hear about engine test. Apart from the engine, stage development is also required that will take its own time and I hope that will be done in parallel with the engine development.
DeleteThe development also got delayed due to the ill-fated GSLV CUS development. ISRO has limited HR and that too is shared among the different engine, stage developments.