tater Posted December 24, 2018 Share Posted December 24, 2018 4 hours ago, Nivee~ said: I like ISRO, but this is so unfair. ISRO is not in the wrong, but should SSLV monopolize this market, I am going to feel for those other companies... Competition is a good thing. Also, RocketLabUSA (the last bit is important) has no ITAR concerns. They'll be just fine. The smallsat launcher market can probably sustain a few providers, and even the same customers will rather have options, both from price, and for flexibility (any failure likely pauses flight for a while for a given LV). Which maybe 4-5 might be able to stay alive? Not to mention what happens to tiny sats when launch prices drop to US domestic FedEx prices per kg... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 10 hours ago, Nivee~ said: ISRO's SSLV has the lowest cost/Kg to SSO orbit Brought to you on the courtesy of "Superpower by 2020" XD Nah, in all seriousness, US feds are probably not too happy either and will start shaking stuff up. They'll have to make it absolutely dead cheap before any gov't would put down their regulation arms (as with chinese manufacturing). Either that or chicken tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nivee~ Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 1 hour ago, YNM said: Brought to you on the courtesy of "Superpower by 2020" XD I am pretty sure that's only an opinion of a vocal minority. Also, I really don't like solid motors.. Now I know they are very reliable, but they are so dumb, compared to the intricate and complex liquid engines. To me it's a step down from innovation. Scary thing is that the race is not to build better rockets anymore, it's about building cheaper rockets. 1 hour ago, YNM said: Nah, in all seriousness, US feds are probably not too happy either and will start shaking stuff up. They'll have to make it absolutely dead cheap before any gov't would put down their regulation arms (as with chinese manufacturing). And once again, a reminder that no matter how high of an orbit you go to, you will never be truly free of the clutches of those on the ground... Oh, and Merry Christmas, everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, Nivee~ said: the race is not to build better rockets anymore, it's about building cheaper rockets. Many SLBMs are happily solids. Solids can be good. (not very environmentaly friendly but all chemical rockets aren't really friendly either - even LH2/LOX thanks to still sourcing LH2 from hydrocarbons.) 12 minutes ago, Nivee~ said: I am pretty sure that's only an opinion of a vocal minority. Partial joke as well, really. (PS. they already is one of the superpowers. It just doesn't look like one.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 37 minutes ago, Nivee~ said: Also, I really don't like solid motors.. Now I know they are very reliable, but they are so dumb, compared to the intricate and complex liquid engines. To me it's a step down from innovation. Scary thing is that the race is not to build better rockets anymore, it's about building cheaper rockets. Sometimes simpler is better. I agree that to go farther into space better rockets will be needed, but near space is something we've been doing for decades, and something that is rapidly becoming a competitive market. And when buying a product you generally want reliability and cost competitiveness, among other things. Simpler, cheaper rockets are a valid option, and will continue to be until we have a breakthrough that will make more complicated rockets cheaper than the simple, dumb rockets. Like possibly reusability, but that might not trickle down to smaller rockets very well. A valid comparison: You want a machine to do simple math, nothing more. Various companies have been competing to build abacuses. Some of them are bigger than others, some of them can do more than others, but you only need something that can do basic math, so you usually go with the cheapest one that won't fall apart immediately, say around $7. Calculators exist, but they usually do way more than you need them to, and cost way more then your abacus. However, decades later, someone figures out how to mass produce 4 function calculators so that they only cost $3. People abandon their abacuses for these calculators. The abacus was still useful, though, it had its place before the calculator took over. Some time later, the Iphone comes into play, which functions as a calculator but can also do much more. Unfortunately it costs about $1000. If you needed to calculate thousands of things at once while simultaneously browsing the internet, playing a game, recording yourself, and lighting up a dark cave, the Iphone is for you. But you only need to do simple math. Abacuses = various rockets designed for small satellite launches Calculator = breakthrough rocket using advanced technology that does the abacus' job cheaper and better (does not exist yet IRL) Iphone = Saturn V, SLS, N-1, Energia, shuttle, New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, etc. More complex stuff is not always the right answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xurkitree Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 I can't believe there's a thread for my country's space program Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Xurkitree said: I can't believe there's a thread for my country's space program Why? We love all things space here Your country have a legit and quite impressive space program - we will happily follow and discuss happenings there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 5 hours ago, Xurkitree said: I can't believe there's a thread for my country's space program Im looking foward to their reuseable rockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nivee~ Posted December 30, 2018 Share Posted December 30, 2018 Hmm.. the Indian government sanctioned about 1.4 billion dollars for the 'Gaganyaan' program to send first astronauts from India. But seriously, someone should tell ISRO to ditch the '-yaan' naming scheme! It gets old after a while Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 30, 2018 Share Posted December 30, 2018 Had to look this up a little: http://zeenews.india.com/photos/india/photo-gallery-know-all-about-gaganyaan-isros-mission-to-send-indian-astronaut-to-space-by-2022-2136815 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted December 30, 2018 Share Posted December 30, 2018 I don't mean to insult ISRO's professionalism (I am rooting for them heavily) but one of the diagrams from that article (not sure if it is directly from ISRO or not) looks like something I would have thrown together for a 5th grade project: But, hey, maybe that's them spending money on the actual spaceship rather than fancy graphic design! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nivee~ Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 I think it looks like the news agency slapped some text on to ISRO's official diagram. But then again ISRO is never good when it comes to graphics design or public relations. Spoiler "Hey! In our defence, NASA has some pretty cute diagrams and neat animations about their Moon and Mars mission, I don't see any of them flying! - random ISRO guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 On 12/30/2018 at 12:13 PM, Nivee~ said: someone should tell ISRO to ditch the '-yaan' naming scheme! It's just simple naming really, kind of like "Lunar Vehicle" or "Martian Vehicle" etc. (Gaganyaan is "Orbital Vehicle" says wiki, though "gagan" is "sky".) 16 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said: looks like something I would have thrown together for a 5th grade project: Very possibly an animated .ppt that was converted to .pdf but someone forgot to separate the pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 The next PSLV launch, currently scheduled for January 24, will use an upgraded version of the PSLV called PSLV-DL. It will have 2 strap on boosters, and will test the use of batteries on the upper stage to make it into a sort of orbital experiment platform. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/pslv-c44-to-launch-kalamsat-microsat-satellite-on-january-24/articleshow/67561125.cms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 On 12/30/2018 at 8:18 AM, tater said: Had to look this up a little: http://zeenews.india.com/photos/india/photo-gallery-know-all-about-gaganyaan-isros-mission-to-send-indian-astronaut-to-space-by-2022-2136815 That’s a pretty huge capsule Also, three backup engine nozzles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, DDE said: three backup engine nozzles? Probably vernier engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 hours ago, YNM said: Probably vernier engines. I don't think they are vernier engines. Vernier thrusters are really only usefull for launch vehicle engines, not orbital spacecraft. RCS could do the job just fine orienting and steering the ship in orbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 33 minutes ago, NSEP said: Vernier thrusters are really only usefull for launch vehicle engines, not orbital spacecraft. RCS could do the job just fine orienting and steering the ship in orbit. ... unless I don't really see any RCS system on the drawing yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 47 minutes ago, YNM said: ... unless I don't really see any RCS system on the drawing yet... Yeah, and those nozzles wouldn’t do for orientation. 1 hour ago, NSEP said: I don't think they are vernier engines. Vernier thrusters are really only usefull for launch vehicle engines, not orbital spacecraft. RCS could do the job just fine orienting and steering the ship in orbit. An early-Soyuz-style dual-nozzle emergency secondary engine was my idea. I tend to have similar thrusters on my KSP ships to use my monoprop tanks as some emergency dV (without breaking my H key). Edited January 17, 2019 by DDE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kartoffelkuchen Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 On 1/17/2019 at 3:10 PM, DDE said: Yeah, and those nozzles wouldn’t do for orientation. An early-Soyuz-style dual-nozzle emergency secondary engine was my idea. I tend to have similar thrusters on my KSP ships to use my monoprop tanks as some emergency dV (without breaking my H key). Offtopic, but you can simply set the RCS to respond to forward by throttle via right click and it will have the same effect (you may need to enable advanced tweakables in the main settings menu) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 54 minutes ago, Kartoffelkuchen said: Offtopic, but you can simply set the RCS to respond to forward by throttle via right click and it will have the same effect (you may need to enable advanced tweakables in the main settings menu) You and your fancy new game versions can. Sincerely, a v1.3-era dinosaur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 On 12/24/2018 at 11:15 PM, Nivee~ said: I am pretty sure that's only an opinion of a vocal minority. Also, I really don't like solid motors.. Now I know they are very reliable, but they are so dumb, compared to the intricate and complex liquid engines. To me it's a step down from innovation. Scary thing is that the race is not to build better rockets anymore, it's about building cheaper rockets. Does it count as a necro if you are responding to an old post on a current thread? This was from the last page today and I missed it the first time... If you are developing a civilian rocket out of military parts, there are two main ways to build ICBMs (ok, most of India's threats are neighbors. Unless they get *really* upset at what global warming is doing to them): solids and hypergolics. Nobody wants to have to fill an ICBM with cryogenic oxidizer in order to launch. I find solids a much better solution for both (military and civilian). Note that I'm mainly against hypegolics for the first stage and not fond of them in the second. Trace bits might be difficult to work with, but they aren't going to be a massive disaster if the rocket hits the ground downrange. Kerosene really isn't wonderful either, but people are sufficiently familiar with hydrocarbons to make an effective response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nivee~ Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 49 minutes ago, wumpus said: Does it count as a necro if you are responding to an old post on a current thread? This was from the last page today and I missed it the first time... If you are developing a civilian rocket out of military parts, there are two main ways to build ICBMs (ok, most of India's threats are neighbors. Unless they get *really* upset at what global warming is doing to them): solids and hypergolics. Nobody wants to have to fill an ICBM with cryogenic oxidizer in order to launch. I find solids a much better solution for both (military and civilian). Note that I'm mainly against hypegolics for the first stage and not fond of them in the second. Trace bits might be difficult to work with, but they aren't going to be a massive disaster if the rocket hits the ground downrange. Kerosene really isn't wonderful either, but people are sufficiently familiar with hydrocarbons to make an effective response. Well, I actually had this thought yesterday when I was reading of ISRO shifting the Chandrayaan -2 launch to April. ISRO says that the 120 ton SSLV can be readied in 3 days, making it very important from strategic point of view as it can launch surveillance satellite for military and civilian purposes . And AFAIK, their best missile is Agni-V with a 5000-8000(?) km range.. what would a 120 ton rocket could do? 10000 km? Maybe India just made a Very Long range ICBM disguises as a rocket, without alarming any international organizations... Heck I wouldn't be surprised if they are already stockpiling the 'SSLVs'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) 59 minutes ago, wumpus said: Does it count as a necro if you are responding to an old post on a current thread? It counts as a deferred Christmas. 59 minutes ago, wumpus said: Nobody wants to have to fill an ICBM with cryogenic oxidizer in order to launch. Except for the R-9, which managed to use superchilled lOx to cut propellant loading time to 20 minutes. How did they keep it ready? No idea, but the thing was deployed by the dozens, unlike the four+two R-7 launchers in total. 59 minutes ago, wumpus said: Trace bits might be difficult to work with, but they aren't going to be a massive disaster if the rocket hits the ground downrange. Solid fuels are no charmer either. 5 minutes ago, Nivee~ said: ISRO says that the 120 ton SSLV can be readied in 3 days, making it very important from strategic point of view as it can launch surveillance satellite for military and civilian purposes This capability is only really important if someone is hooting (I'm not fixing that!) your satellites down. This is why the Zenit has the much touted all-automated 90-minute roll-out-to-launch capability. Edited January 20, 2019 by DDE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nivee~ Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 46 minutes ago, DDE said: This capability is only really important if someone is hooting (I'm not fixing that!) your satellites down. <All soldiers shouting at the sky with megaphones> HOOOOT!!!!!!!!! <Satellites deorbit from the soundwaves> But jokes aside, it could be a valid long range ICBM.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.