Indian Human Spaceflight Program (HSP)

[G10]

Whats that big thing in smoke?

 

[Adioz]

the Crew Escape System along with the simulated crew module with a mass of 12.6 tonnes

Wait. The Crew module weighs 12.6 tonnes? But the payload to LEO capability of GSLV Mk-III is just 10 tonnes.
Now ISRO plans to replace the L110 stage in the GSLV Mk-III with the SC-200 stage by 2021. That should raise the payload capacity to LEO beyond 12.6 tonnes. So does that mean the Human Space Flight program will have to wait until this new rocket (GSLV Mk IV ?) is human rated? Anybody got any idea how long would that take?

Also, in the CARE experiment in 2014, the crew module (inset) weighed just 3735 kg. So does that mean that the extra 8.9 tonne mass was of the Crew Escape System? That would be a surprise if it is true.

 

[Shadow]

Wait. The Crew module weighs 12.6 tonnes? But the payload to LEO capability of GSLV Mk-III is just 10 tonnes.
Now ISRO plans to replace the L110 stage in the GSLV Mk-III with the SC-200 stage by 2021. That should raise the payload capacity to LEO beyond 12.6 tonnes. So does that mean the Human Space Flight program will have to wait until this new rocket (GSLV Mk IV ?) is human rated? Anybody got any idea how long would that take?

Also, in the CARE experiment in 2014, the crew module (inset) weighed just 3735 kg. So does that mean that the extra 8.9 tonne mass was of the Crew Escape System? That would be a surprise if it is true.

Here you can get a glimpse of the heavy lift vehicle which will be used to carry the crew capsule.

 

[Shadow]

Some more pics...............

 

[Adioz]

Here you can get a glimpse of the heavy lift vehicle which will be used to carry the crew capsule.

View attachment 26311

Wait. I just figured out that the needle on top of the HLV-HSP rocket is the Low altitude Crew Escape System that was tested today.
So I cannot understand these news articles stating that the launched payload weighed 12.6 tonnes. That needle weighs 8.9 tonnes?

Whats that big thing in smoke?

That is the crew module being pulled along by the crew escape system.

 

[Prashant12]

ISRO successfully conducts first flight test of Crew Escape System-Technology Demonstrator

 

[Adioz]

This is what a pad abort test looks like.It is from SpaceX

ISRO successfully conducts first flight test of Crew Escape System-Technology Demonstrator

In the SpaceX PAD abort test, the crew module has a soft splash down in the water as the chutes are not disconnected before the splash.
But in the ISRO PAD abort test, the crew module splashes down hard after releasing the main chutes before the module touches water. Why the hard splash down?

 

[Adioz]

the Crew Escape System along with the simulated crew module with a mass of 12.6 tonnes

Looks like the entire 12.6 tons launch weight consists of:-

• 6 tons: Crew Escape System (including fairing that encloses the orbital vehicle)
• 3.7 tons: Crew Module
• 2.9 tons: Simulated service module (but it did not come back with the crew module. So where was it?)

BTW, the rocket shown here is a GSLV Mk III with L110 as core stage. However that only has LEO capability of 10 tons.
So a GSLV Mk III (or IV) with SC-200 as core stage will be required if the total payload now weighs 12.6 tons.
=> That SCE-200 engine better work without glitches by 2021 so that we can man-rate it for launch by 2025 and then fly the first three Vyomnauts to the LEO for a week long stay.

Future prospects if everything goes as per plan:-
2025-2030: Docking experiments, develop HLV and SHLV rockets.
2030: SHLV ready. Can send heavier payloads (upto 41 tons) to LEO for a space station.
So we can have our own space station by 2030.
Post 2030: Focus on a manned mission to moon, including building a moon rocket, the kind described here:-

Rocket would take a long time to develop and human rate. By the time its done, RLV spaceplane will be in operation (post 2035)
So all in all, India might only be able to send a man to moon after 2035, and possibly even later, after 2040 (depending on the number of roadblocks we encounter on the way).
By then, USA would have placed man on Mars. China would have put man on Moon (2035 planned). And I have no idea how far SpaceX would be.

But the only way this is ever going to happen is if the GoI grows some balls and invests a couple of billion$$ in the Human Spaceflight program. Which might never happen if Modi looses in 2019.

 

[Kshithij]

Looks like the entire 12.6 tons launch weight consists of:-

• 6 tons: Crew Escape System (including fairing that encloses the orbital vehicle)
• 3.7 tons: Crew Module
• 2.9 tons: Simulated service module (but it did not come back with the crew module. So where was it?)

BTW, the rocket shown here is a GSLV Mk III with L110 as core stage. However that only has LEO capability of 10 tons.
So a GSLV Mk III (or IV) with SC-200 as core stage will be required if the total payload now weighs 12.6 tons.
=> That SCE-200 engine better work without glitches by 2021 so that we can man-rate it for launch by 2025 and then fly the first three Vyomnauts to the LEO for a week long stay.

Future prospects if everything goes as per plan:-
2025-2030: Docking experiments, develop HLV and SHLV rockets.
2030: SHLV ready. Can send heavier payloads (upto 41 tons) to LEO for a space station.
So we can have our own space station by 2030.
Post 2030: Focus on a manned mission to moon, including building a moon rocket, the kind described here:-

Rocket would take a long time to develop and human rate. By the time its done, RLV spaceplane will be in operation (post 2035)
So all in all, India might only be able to send a man to moon after 2035, and possibly even later, after 2040 (depending on the number of roadblocks we encounter on the way).
By then, USA would have placed man on Mars. China would have put man on Moon (2035 planned). And I have no idea how far SpaceX would be.

But the only way this is ever going to happen is if the GoI grows some balls and invests a couple of billion$$ in the Human Spaceflight program. Which might never happen if Modi looses in 2019.

First of all, Manned flight is a big waste of resources. So,it is unlikely that Modi will approve of it. Congress is likely to approve such things to waste Indian resources and make gimmicks in front of media.

Next, India can make a bigger rocket and simply put aan on the moon. In 1960s, USA didn't have the modern technology or cryogenic engine of India. Yet, USA sent a manned flight by making a big rocket.

All that takes even today is to make a big rocket and waste lots of money to take some selfies. It is not worth it

 

[Adioz]

First of all, Manned flight is a big waste of resources. So,it is unlikely that Modi will approve of it. Congress is likely to approve such things to waste Indian resources and make gimmicks in front of media.

Next, India can make a bigger rocket and simply put aan on the moon. In 1960s, USA didn't have the modern technology or cryogenic engine of India. Yet, USA sent a manned flight by making a big rocket.

All that takes even today is to make a big rocket and waste lots of money to take some selfies. It is not worth it

Buzz off. Manned spaceflight has advantages. Google them. Not going to spoon feed you. And man does not intend to go on Moon for selfies anymore. Its for Helium 3.
Come out of the WW II era @Vijyes . I am not going to entertain your "we don't need Science, we need World War 3". BS. I cannot take a guy who says that PRC is not India's enemy seriously. You know what is a waste of resources? 10,000 fighters like in WWII that you want IAF to have, that is wastage.

 

[akk]

Maybe out of place comments, but in context of some of the discussions above. I don't think Americans ever landed on moon. Its not based on any of the arguments like fluttering flag or shadows. The technology was not there and doesn't exist today in mature form.
1.technology was barely to send a man into space.
2.the rockets could not carry enough fuel or stages for a round trip.
3.issue of van Allen belt. Still no answers.
4.the technology to have entetered lunar orbit and staying there for a while.
5.leaving orbiter and making soft landing on Moon at a predetermined site without sophisticated computers. There was no ability to make soft landing on earth but they could do it on moon! Still there is no capability of making soft landing on earth today except sea, exceptions being space shuttles. They still make primitive landings on moon and Mars but not heavy enough and not with rockets to take off again. Some rocket stages are barely beginning to make soft landings.
6.most importantly.... Taking off from moon using the same lander, without proper rocket stages, even though gravity is one 6th,but without proper simulation experiments.
7.very important.... Joining lander back with orbiter moving in moon's orbit... Akin to joining a rocket successfully with space stations that happened much later. All this without proper computers.
8.leaving moon's orbit and successfully entering earth's orbit.
9.to conclude, the technology requires in moon's landings is probably more than what has been demonstrated till date in different missions.
10.all this happened 50 years back is even more interesting.... And nobody else could do it. There would have been observatories, moon stations and telescopes within the next 10 years of landing. Arguably, a moon station should be cheaper and more stable than a space station.
Therefore I have no doubt that moon landings by a human being never happened. If it was meant to be a giant leap for mankind, no such thing happened. I think the truth will be accepted only after a real human moon landing happens!

 

[Kshithij]

Maybe out of place comments, but in context of some of the discussions above. I don't think Americans ever landed on moon. Its not based on any of the arguments like fluttering flag or shadows. The technology was not there and doesn't exist today in mature form.
1.technology was barely to send a man into space.
2.the rockets could not carry enough fuel or stages for a round trip.
3.issue of van Allen belt. Still no answers.
4.the technology to have entetered lunar orbit and staying there for a while.
5.leaving orbiter and making soft landing on Moon at a predetermined site without sophisticated computers. There was no ability to make soft landing on earth but they could do it on moon! Still there is no capability of making soft landing on earth today except sea, exceptions being space shuttles. They still make primitive landings on moon and Mars but not heavy enough and not with rockets to take off again. Some rocket stages are barely beginning to make soft landings.
6.most importantly.... Taking off from moon using the same lander, without proper rocket stages, even though gravity is one 6th,but without proper simulation experiments.
7.very important.... Joining lander back with orbiter moving in moon's orbit... Akin to joining a rocket successfully with space stations that happened much later. All this without proper computers.
8.leaving moon's orbit and successfully entering earth's orbit.
9.to conclude, the technology requires in moon's landings is probably more than what has been demonstrated till date in different missions.
10.all this happened 50 years back is even more interesting.... And nobody else could do it. There would have been observatories, moon stations and telescopes within the next 10 years of landing. Arguably, a moon station should be cheaper and more stable than a space station.
Therefore I have no doubt that moon landings by a human being never happened. If it was meant to be a giant leap for mankind, no such thing happened. I think the truth will be accepted only after a real human moon landing happens!

You are not fully correct. The space rocket didn't land on moon. The rocket had a rover/pod which took off from the rocket once it achieved lunar orbit and then landed on moon. The pod also had rocket to fly back to the rocket and then go back to earth

 

[akk]

You are not fully correct. The space rocket didn't land on moon. The rocket had a rover/pod which took off from the rocket once it achieved lunar orbit and then landed on moon. The pod also had rocket to fly back to the rocket and then go back to earth

I could not have said more in this space. Ofcourse you are correct but the technologies didn't exist then and don't exist today. Have a look at the lander photos that has rocket like function. Such instruments have not been used elsewhere. Most space technologies have some transferable use. It's simple..... Fiction.

 

[Adioz]

Maybe out of place comments, but in context of some of the discussions above. I don't think Americans ever landed on moon. Its not based on any of the arguments like fluttering flag or shadows. The technology was not there and doesn't exist today in mature form.
1.technology was barely to send a man into space.
2.the rockets could not carry enough fuel or stages for a round trip.
3.issue of van Allen belt. Still no answers.
4.the technology to have entetered lunar orbit and staying there for a while.
5.leaving orbiter and making soft landing on Moon at a predetermined site without sophisticated computers. There was no ability to make soft landing on earth but they could do it on moon! Still there is no capability of making soft landing on earth today except sea, exceptions being space shuttles. They still make primitive landings on moon and Mars but not heavy enough and not with rockets to take off again. Some rocket stages are barely beginning to make soft landings.
6.most importantly.... Taking off from moon using the same lander, without proper rocket stages, even though gravity is one 6th,but without proper simulation experiments.
7.very important.... Joining lander back with orbiter moving in moon's orbit... Akin to joining a rocket successfully with space stations that happened much later. All this without proper computers.
8.leaving moon's orbit and successfully entering earth's orbit.
9.to conclude, the technology requires in moon's landings is probably more than what has been demonstrated till date in different missions.
10.all this happened 50 years back is even more interesting.... And nobody else could do it. There would have been observatories, moon stations and telescopes within the next 10 years of landing. Arguably, a moon station should be cheaper and more stable than a space station.
Therefore I have no doubt that moon landings by a human being never happened. If it was meant to be a giant leap for mankind, no such thing happened. I think the truth will be accepted only after a real human moon landing happens!

Thanks for pointing out how difficult the endeavour was.

1. That was 10 years ago. Then they created the tech to reach moon. Which is why Apollo program is so important and renowned.
2. They did. <delta v budget for Apollo program>.
3. How Apollo rocketed through van-Allen belt.
4. gravity and rocket motors
5. No atmosphere on moon, no air resistance, fraction gravity, etc. They did have computers.
6. Wrong. Lunar module had separate hypergolic stages for ascent and descent. Furthermore the delta v is low. About 2.5 km/s. For comparison, from Earth to LEO is 10 km/s.
7. Docking was indeed a challenge that was recognized early on during the selection of a mission profile. It was done manually. It used to take about an hour.
8. What is so tough about that?
9. 
   
10. A moon station cheaper than a space station? Why do you think the funding that is going into the SLS is creating such outrage? Moon rockets are much more expensive than the ones used to create ISS. Its simple physics. Energy required to go to the moon >> Energy required to stay in LEO. And then there is the van-Allen belt.

However difficult it was, it was not impossible.

 

[akk]

Thanks for pointing out how difficult the endeavour was.

1. That was 10 years ago. Then they created the tech to reach moon. Which is why Apollo program is so important and renowned.
2. They did. <delta v budget for Apollo program>.
3. How Apollo rocketed through van-Allen belt.
4. gravity and rocket motors
5. No atmosphere on moon, no air resistance, fraction gravity, etc. They did have computers.
6. Wrong. Lunar module had separate hypergolic stages for ascent and descent. Furthermore the delta v is low. About 2.5 km/s. For comparison, from Earth to LEO is 10 km/s.
7. Docking was indeed a challenge that was recognized early on during the selection of a mission profile. It was done manually. It used to take about an hour.
8. What is so tough about that?
9. 
   
10. A moon station cheaper than a space station? Why do you think the funding that is going into the SLS is creating such outrage? Moon rockets are much more expensive than the ones used to create ISS. Its simple physics. Energy required to go to the moon >> Energy required to stay in LEO. And then there is the van-Allen belt.

However difficult it was, it was not impossible.

Okay.... Even if it all happened (I personally wouldn't agree but for sake of argument) , why not again in the last 45 years or so specially when it was meant to be a giant leap for mankind? Why nobody else could do it, even for the sake of technology demonstration, even at the peak of cold war and even today. Not ESA, not Russia. Even China, that have arguably far better capabilities and funds today than USA then had? Private operators who are spending money like anything? Basically, from man to space to man on moon with return..... Too long a journey done too fast.... And not repeated in 45 years.... Where is the evidence of natural progression if such achievements? . They talk of nuclear fuel on moon worth trillions. Surely it should have been happening by now if we did step on moon 50 years back.

 

[akk]

By the way..... Americans did have proven better technology then.... And continues to have..... That of making sci-fi movies!!

 

[Adioz]

Okay.... Even if it all happened (I personally wouldn't agree but for sake of argument) , why not again in the last 45 years or so specially when it was meant to be a giant leap for mankind? Why nobody else could do it, even for the sake of technology demonstration, even at the peak of cold war and even today. Not ESA, not Russia. Even China, that have arguably far better capabilities and funds today than USA then had? Private operators who are spending money like anything? Basically, from man to space to man on moon with return..... Too long a journey done too fast.... And not repeated in 45 years.... Where is the evidence of natural progression if such achievements? . They talk of nuclear fuel on moon worth trillions. Surely it should have been happening by now if we did step on moon 50 years back.

Look at the NASA budget as a % of fedral budget. For the Apollo program, the budget shot up to extremely high levels. After the program, the budget took a hit.

Soviet moon rocket (N1) failed and they accepted defeat. Space race was over, arms race was on. And the US did not return to the moon after 1971 because the vanity program was over, budgets were down and NASA was looking at doing some serious science. Space Stations were made to learn the art of living in space. And all this will bear fruit in the next decade onward when NASA starts to apply the lessons learnt to put man on Mars.

Ok this is enough. We are derailing the thread. If you are going to be around in the next decade, US is going to the moon once again. The Lunar Orbital Platform - Gateway will be in place by 2024. Then we have SpaceX and its plans. Followed by Chinese plans to make their moon rocket - Long March 9 - by 2028 and then go to the moon in 2035.

But even when that happens, you will ask for the Chinese to land at Apollo 11 site and bring back proof that the landings happen.

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that the Earth is flat? Are you one of those flat Earth people?

Now if you want to go on further with your conspiracy theories, I suggest you move this to a relevant thread. Although you can choose to simply disagree. I certainly don't want to waste any more on my time talking you.

 

[Kshithij]

And all this will bear fruit in the next decade onward when NASA starts to apply the lessons learnt to put man on Mars.

For God's sake, stop this future projection as if you know everything and everything simply goes linearly.

You just insist on wasting resources on manned flights and fantasies.

 

[Adioz]

future projection as if you know everything

I am not projecting anything. Its NASA's stated goal. Why do you think they are preparing the SLS, Orion and Deep Space Transport? What is the purpose of the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway and the Deep Space Habitat?
Do yourself a favour and read this:-
NASA finally sets goals, missions for SLS – eyes multi-step plan to Mars
Maybe you should do a google search before you start with your BS accusations?

You just insist on wasting resources on manned flights and fantasies

I am pretty sure NASA is not going to Moon and Mars on my behest. I never insisted on them doing anything. They are doing this of their own accord.
As for wastage, I know this comment was wasted on you. But Human Spaceflight is definitely not "wastage".
And fantasies can be grounded in reality. My fantasy is an Indian space economy by 2080 that is driven by space mining and space tourism, including Moon and Mars bases.
Your fantasy is a World War 3 where India destroys all Muzzie nations, enemy or not.
Any sane person can see which fantasy is grounded in reality, provided that the sane person knows the facts.

 

[SKC]

Okay.... Even if it all happened (I personally wouldn't agree but for sake of argument) , why not again in the last 45 years or so specially when it was meant to be a giant leap for mankind? Why nobody else could do it, even for the sake of technology demonstration, even at the peak of cold war and even today. Not ESA, not Russia. Even China, that have arguably far better capabilities and funds today than USA then had? Private operators who are spending money like anything? Basically, from man to space to man on moon with return..... Too long a journey done too fast.... And not repeated in 45 years.... Where is the evidence of natural progression if such achievements? . They talk of nuclear fuel on moon worth trillions. Surely it should have been happening by now if we did step on moon 50 years back.

Why would you do it again once it had already been done by US. There was no benefit in becoming the SECOND people to reach moon.
Even while the Apollo program was going on, the American population's interest died off rapidly in it after the first landing.
The biggest thing is the money they had spent. In 2018 it will be around $145-150 BILLION. it is much much more cheaper to send probes and rover to Moon then to send Humans. Again the Probes and rover can do more science there then the humans.
Consider in the fact Human needs involved. Psychology, Ration, rest they need.