ISRO News & Discussions

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Varad, Apr 17, 2011.

  1. Aqwoyk
    Offline

    Aqwoyk 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    160
    Country Flag:
    India
    @Indx TechStyle Chinese LM5 weighs 800t and can lift 14t to GTO and25t to leo while lvm3 weighs 640t and can lift just 4t to GTO and 10t to leo. It is indeed so inefficient that their GTO lift capctiy is much greater than lvm3's LEO IMHO.
     
    Indx TechStyle likes this.
  2. Indx TechStyle
    Offline

    Indx TechStyle 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    638
    Country Flag:
    India
    Initially,even this isn't bad, efficiency may be improved later with new engine. I don't remember that LM2F was as efficient as LM5 is.
    Further even today, mid heavy and heavy launchers are closer in dimensions compared to their payload capacity.
     
    Aqwoyk likes this.
  3. randomradio
    Online

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    2,397
    We need to create medical infrastructure for human habitation in space, or we will be left behind.
     
    sangos and Aqwoyk like this.
  4. randomradio
    Online

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    2,397
    Again, LM5 uses liquid fuel while LVM3 uses solid fuel in the boost stage.

    LM5 boosts for 180 seconds and then uses 3 stages to get to orbit. LVM3 has only a 130 seconds boost stage and then uses only 2 stages to get to orbit. That makes the entire launch very expensive for the LM5.

    The boost stage is where all the weight comes from for LVM3 because of the solid fuel.

    The fact is the Chinese have chased behind capability over efficiency. Whereas ISRO is chasing efficiency over capability.
     
  5. Aqwoyk
    Offline

    Aqwoyk 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    160
    Country Flag:
    India
    Wo bhi thk hai bro but every major space power has better efficiency than us atleast by factor of two Japanese h2a/b , ariane5 , LM5 ....aur agar Liquid propulsion itna hi mehnga hai then why they are using it .........because it gives them desired payload.... 4t vs 14 ton to gto and per unit payload I don't think it is that much expensive ....even if they have double expensive then they can also carry 3.4 times the payload.....we also should go for liquid propulsion if it gives higher payload capacity.
     
  6. randomradio
    Online

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    2,397
    Why? We don't yet have such a need. We use Ariane if we are launching heavier satellites and that's occasional anyway. A lot of programs have been shut down because of costs.

    Unlike countries like US, China, Russia, France etc, our needs are primarily domestic and our need for heavy launch vehicles is extremely low. Look towards heavy launch capability only after 2020. We are sticking to what we need for now. We can even perform human space flight with the Mk2 and LVM3. That's more than enough for now.

    Compared to the others, ISRO's budget is very small.
     
    sangos and Aqwoyk like this.
  7. Aqwoyk
    Offline

    Aqwoyk 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    160
    Country Flag:
    India
    Thk h bro but seriously I don't know why I don't like our tendency to settle with sub-par and sub-optimal things ....hme bhi to mars aur moon pe US ,China ke sath bande bhejne hai future me and Apna Space station bhi chahiye. don't these things require bigger launch systems?
     
  8. randomradio
    Online

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    2,397
    ISRO's budget is $1.1B.

    NASA's is $37B.

    China's CASC is run like a corporation, with a revenue over $40B.
     
    Aqwoyk likes this.
  9. GSLV Mk III
    Offline

    GSLV Mk III FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    201
    Country Flag:
    India
    Ha, exactly. That is basically a 'powerpoint rocket' which wouldn't get past the preliminary study stage for now.

    Ethanolamine & Hydrogen Peroxide based propulsion.
     
    Indx TechStyle likes this.
  10. Aqwoyk
    Offline

    Aqwoyk 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    160
    Country Flag:
    India
    1.1bn is too much low itne-itne ke to kitne scam ho jate h every year India mei :lol:
     
  11. Grevion
    Offline

    Grevion Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    791
    Country Flag:
    India
    India will pursue such projects whenever we decides to increase our footprints in space. Right now we have a huge domestic demands for commercial and national satellites.
     
    sangos likes this.
  12. Aqwoyk
    Offline

    Aqwoyk 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    160
    Country Flag:
    India
    You are right and I don't wanna be like kejru but I don't like our old habit of settling with subpar equipment and systems .
     
  13. Grevion
    Offline

    Grevion Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    791
    Country Flag:
    India
    Who said they are subpar equipments.
     
  14. Aqwoyk
    Offline

    Aqwoyk 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    160
    Country Flag:
    India
    6ton ko GTO m kaise launch kroge ?Isn't it subpar? LM3b 458 ton -gto payload 5.1t...1996
    lvm3 640t -2017 gto payload 4.5 t.......
    Same with our Forces,Ek rifle aur mmrca nhi select kar sakte itne years se
     
  15. Indx TechStyle
    Offline

    Indx TechStyle 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    638
    Country Flag:
    India
    Bhai baki duniya kaun sa Utopia hai.
    SCE200 laga ke!;)
     
    Aqwoyk and Grevion like this.

Share This Page