GSLV Mark III News, Discussions, Updates and Reports

karn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,948
Likes
8,144
Country flag
so what is difference between mark3 and old gsv ??????

we have only once tested cryo engine ISRO must test with others to know sure that indigenous cryo engine is reliable horse
Old GSlv is a jugaard rocket . Its a PSLV with 4 strap on Vikas and a cryogenic upper stage . This solid rocket motor burns out 30 seconds before the vikas engins burn out . This means that the 4 Vikas are carrying a dead weight for 30 seconds .
The S200 solid rocket motors with TVC are a significant achievement . The main weakpoint of this vehicle is the hypergolic fueled L110 stage which is extremely weak compared to most other launchers.
The other part of the GSLV is the 200KN cryogenic engine which will only be ready in 2 years . This is a very efficient stage .... But it needs to be perfected 1st .
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On a side why hasn't ISRO tried to cluster 2 CE 7.5s together . I mean there are so many upper stages with such a configuration (Centuar for example)
 
Last edited:

CrYsIs

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
935
Likes
496
Country flag
They seem to have the labels the wrong way round. If GSLV III can lift 10 tonnes to GTO, then I would be a very happy man.

Anyway, the main goal should be for India to be self sufficient in launching satellites and not worry about who can lift the most! or who can send humans to the moon. The moon is not in any hurry - it hasn't seen humans since 1972 and not complained once.


The issue is not the lift capability...the issue wrong priorities.


Look at other rockets,the are less than half the mass of GSLV MK3 but carry twice the payload.


Take for example a Falcon 9 V 1.1 ...Unlike the much complicated GSLV MK3 carrying 3 different fuels and three different kind of engines...The falcon is a simple two stage light weight rocket running on gas generator cycle semi cryo engines that can carry 13,000 Kg to LEO and 5000 Kg to GTO.


If ISRO really wanted it could have build it's own Falcon 9 and given India's cheap labour cost,we would have been literally minting money in the International Space launching arena.

But god knows why they chose to build an overweight rocket which is cumbersome to fabricate,maintain and operate and overall running on an outdated Hypergolic engine.


Anyways all is not that bad.As the news says we are building a semi cryo engine with much higher thrust capability and will replace the core engine soon.
 

AnantS

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
2,841
Likes
5,595
Country flag
two hypergolic vikas engines used will eventually be replaced wtih SC200 (Semi Cryo Engines with 2000kn thrust). SC200 is under development. What you wish for will be realised with ULV series in future till when India should be able to master cryo and semi cryo engines.
 
Last edited:

karn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,948
Likes
8,144
Country flag
The issue is not the lift capability...the issue wrong priorities.


Look at other rockets,the are less than half the mass of GSLV MK3 but carry twice the payload.


Take for example a Falcon 9 V 1.1 ...Unlike the much complicated GSLV MK3 carrying 3 different fuels and three different kind of engines...The falcon is a simple two stage light weight rocket running on gas generator cycle semi cryo engines that can carry 13,000 Kg to LEO and 5000 Kg to GTO.


If ISRO really wanted it could have build it's own Falcon 9 and given India's cheap labour cost,we would have been literally minting money in the International Space launching arena.

But god knows why they chose to build an overweight rocket which is cumbersome to fabricate,maintain and operate and overall running on an outdated Hypergolic engine.


Anyways all is not that bad.As the news says we are building a semi cryo engine with much higher thrust capability and will replace the core engine soon.
Not you too .....
The weight of the LVM comes from its solid boosters . Out of the 630 tonnes 430 tonnes is just the solid rocket motors .
But as you know the solid rocket motors have an extremely high thrust so the thrust to weight remains the same . Solids are cheap . If you see any rocket setup with solid motors as large as the S200 they will weigh more than 600 tonnes I assure you . A setup similar to that of the Gslv3 can be found on the Titan 3C,
 

LalTopi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
583
Likes
310
My understanding is that solid boosters are are heavy and inefficient, but at the same time are easier to store, provide huge thrust and are cheap. I don't know about the 'cheap' factor but it would be really useful to have a comparative table of launch costs per kg, as opposed to wright of rockets versus lift capability.
 

karn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,948
Likes
8,144
Country flag
My understanding is that solid boosters are are heavy and inefficient, but at the same time are easier to store, provide huge thrust and are cheap. I don't know about the 'cheap' factor but it would be really useful to have a comparative table of launch costs per kg, as opposed to wright of rockets versus lift capability.
SpaceX has low cost because apparently they use only one type of engine so they benefit from economies of scale as they use 10 engines of they same kind to get to orbit ..But rocket engines are not LEGO Clustering so many engines has its complexities . These complexities were solved by NASA engineers using knowledge that has been accumulated for decades along with expertise of material technology .
If you want to compare cost ISRO's GSLV Mark-III mission cost Rs 155 cr: 10 facts about India's heaviest rocket - Firstpost
Capabilities & Services | SpaceX
But I feel that the final cost of the GSLV will be closer to $36 million including the cryogenic upper stage . But the GSLV 3 was made with a very specific task in mind , to launch 3.5-4 ton GSAT/INSAT series sats to GTO orbit . SO much money has been handed over to the french to launch this series of satellites .
http://www.aninews.in/newsdetail2/s...gsat-15-gsat-16-communication-satellites.html
 
Last edited:

CrYsIs

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
935
Likes
496
Country flag
Not you too .....
The weight of the LVM comes from its solid boosters . Out of the 630 tonnes 430 tonnes is just the solid rocket motors .
But as you know the solid rocket motors have an extremely high thrust so the thrust to weight remains the same . Solids are cheap . If you see any rocket setup with solid motors as large as the S200 they will weigh more than 600 tonnes I assure you . A setup similar to that of the Gslv3 can be found on the Titan 3C,

I know all that but the issue that you would also agree with me is the core stage.Also when you keep the rocket simple the chances of things going haywire is very low and the cost is constrained.


Also another thing that bothered me is that they went for building a cryogenic gas generating engine but chose not to build a semi cryo at the same time.
 

CrYsIs

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
935
Likes
496
Country flag
SpaceX has low cost because apparently they use only one type of engine so they benefit from economies of scale as they use 10 engines of they same kind to get to orbit ..But rocket engines are not LEGO Clustering so many engines has its complexities . These complexities were solved by NASA engineers using knowledge that has been accumulated for decades along with know how and advanced material technology .
If you want to compare cost ISRO's GSLV Mark-III mission cost Rs 155 cr: 10 facts about India's heaviest rocket - Firstpost
Capabilities & Services | SpaceX
But I feel that the final cost of the GSLV will be closer to $36 million including the cryogenic upper stage . But the GSLV 3 was made with a very specific task in mind , to launch 3.5-4 ton GSAT/INSAT series sats to GTO orbit . SO much money has been handed over to the french to launch this series of satellites .
Cabinet approves GSAT-15, GSAT-16 communication satellites , AniNews.in

The actual cost of this rocket is around 140 cores,the rest 15 was for building the crew module.But this is just a suborbital flight.As you said a full orbital flight would be around 40 million $.


Currently ISRO charges around 20,000-25,000$ per kg which is at par with market rate


Atlas V 401: (13,812 US$/kgLEO ∗9,050 kgLEO4,950 kgGTO)+10%=27,777 US$/kgGTO

Delta IV Heavy: (13,072 US$/kgLEO ∗22,950 kgLEO12,980 kgGTO)+10%=25,424 US$/kgGTO

Ariane 5 ECA: (10,476 US$/kgLEO ∗21,000 kgLEO10,050 kgGTO)+10%=24,079 US$/kgGTO

Ariane 5 ES: (10,476 US$/kgLEO ∗21,000 kgLEO8,000 kgGTO)+10%=30,249 US$/kgGTO

Proton-M: (4,302 US$/kgLEO ∗21,600 kgLEO6,150 kgGTO)+10%=16,620 US$/kgGTO
 

karn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,948
Likes
8,144
Country flag
I know all that but the issue that you would also agree with me is the core stage.Also when you keep the rocket simple the chances of things going haywire is very low and the cost is constrained.


Also another thing that bothered me is that they went for building a cryogenic gas generating engine but chose not to build a semi cryo at the same time.
Yes I agree with you on the weakness of the core stage . But that does not drive the weight of the whole rocket .. the SRBs do. The SRBs with their flex nozzels are what give this rocket most of its momentum . When the L110 is ignited and the SRBs fall off the rockets thrust to weight is extremely low .
The GSLV 3 is the cheapest way to get a 3-4 tonne sats to GTO which is its purpose .Not a competition with any other space agency . The GSLV will never be used to send anything to LEO other than the manned mission . The PSLV will remain the LEO workhorse .
The 1st successful cryogenic launch happened only this year . Putting too much resources into a larger engine would be putting the cart before the horse .
Clustering so many engines like SpaceX is not simple. What is simple is the manufacturing process . ISRO could have had a similar philosophy and made a long march 3 clone .. But it chose not to.

The actual cost of this rocket is around 140 cores,the rest 15 was for building the crew module.But this is just a suborbital flight.As you said a full orbital flight would be around 40 million $.


Currently ISRO charges around 20,000-25,000$ per kg which is at par with market rate
$40million/4tonnes works out -- $10000 dollar which is a third of the Ariane launch . Which is inline with the statement by the ISRO chief that the GSLV would save the government 2/3 the launch cost of a comm satellite .
 
Last edited:

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
15,509
Likes
39,220
Country flag
Wind Tunnel Models reflect some significant changes in designs!

Old One


And new one


For your easy view,
Old Design

vs New Design!

Please note the canted boosters and nose cone.
The top of the rocket has been modified.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
15,509
Likes
39,220
Country flag
General thread for rocket this rocket like SSLV thread. Encompasses any new design changes/upgrades/performance.

  • First appropriate MSLV from India suitable for communication satellites and significantly sized interplanetary payloads as PSLV/GSLV were midgets.
  • Has 2 big solid rocket S200 boosters to start.
  • No failure yet. First commerical launch in Oct 22. May replace PSLV as main workhorse as payload gets heavier.
  • Comparable to H2A, Zenith, Titan III and CZ-4F. Enables India to launch COMSATs and hevay spacecrafts.
  • Design for 10 tonnes for LEO but rated for 8 tonnes.
  • Was purposely built to send Vyomanauts in space.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
15,509
Likes
39,220
Country flag
GSLV Mk III
About the Launch Vehicle
GSLV MkIII, chosen to launch Chandrayaan-2 spacecraft, is a three-stage heavy lift launch vehicle developed by ISRO. The vehicle has two solid strap-ons, a core liquid booster and a cryogenic upper stage.
GSLV Mk III is designed to carry 4 ton class of satellites into Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) or about 10 tons to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), which is about twice the capability of the GSLV Mk II.
The two strap-on motors of GSLV Mk III are located on either side of its core liquid booster. Designated as ‘S200’, each carries 205 tons of composite solid propellant and their ignition results in vehicle lift-off. S200s function for 140 seconds. During strap-ons functioning phase, the two clustered Vikas liquid Engines of L110 liquid core booster will ignite 114 sec after lift -off to further augment the thrust of the vehicle. These two engines continue to function after the separation of the strap-ons at about 140 seconds after lift -off.
The first experimental flight of LVM3, the LVM3-X/CARE mission lifted off from Sriharikota on December 18, 2014 and successfully tested the atmospheric phase of flight. Crew module Atmospheric Reentry Experiment was also carried out in this flight. The module reentered, deployed its parachutes as planned and splashed down in the Bay of Bengal.
The first developmental flight of GSLV Mk III, the GSLV-Mk III-D1 successfully placed GSAT-19 satellite to a Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) on June 05, 2017 from SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota.
GSLV MkIII-D2, the second developmental flight of GSLV MkIII successfully launched GSAT-29, a high throughput communication satellite on November 14, 2018 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR, Sriharikota
GSLV MkIII-M1, successfully injected Chandrayaan-2, India’s second Lunar Mission, in to Earth Parking Orbit on July 22, 2019 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR, Sriharikota
Vehicle Specifications
Height: 43.43 m
Vehicle Diameter: 4.0 m
Heat Shield (Payload Fairing) Diameter: 5.0 m
Number of Stages: 3
Lift Off Mass: 640 tonnes
GSLV Mk III
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top