GSAT-5P launch fails, satellite vehicle explodes mid-air
- Thread starter ajtr
- Start date
rockstarIN
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,168
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Better luck next time ISRO, after all its space mission, defying nature's power..
All the best..
All the best..
silent hill
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 581
- Reaction score
- 0
Kinetic
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 11,200
- Reaction score
- -33
the rocket engine was made in russia
Sems like you have very poor knowledge about this. The GSLV is a multi-stage geostationary satellite launch vehicle which put satellite 36000 km away in orbit. Can you imagine that? Cryogenic engine is another stage in it. Forget GSLV our PSLV put satellite into the orbit of moon which is nearly 385000 km away!
Look at this.... only very few countries has such capability.
ajtr
BANNED
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 0
Jinxed GSLV blows
December 26, 2010 11:36:57 PM
PNS | Chennai
For the third time, a GSLV disappointed the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the nation on Saturday. The ambitious GSLV-F06 mission had to be aborted following a technical snag in first stage of the launch. The rocket deviated from its intended path and exploded midair, destroying the `125-crore communication satellite GSAT-5P, within a minute of the launch.
The lift-off from Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota at 4.04 pm, with Indias most advanced and heaviest telecommunication satellite the 2,300-kg GSAT-5P had began smoothly with no indication of any problem, after a 30-hour countdown. But as it rose into the sky to 8 km and 2.5 km away from Sriharikota, it lost the trajectory and viewers were stumped by white, brick-red and grey smoke filling the sky soon after an explosion was visible. The debris was then seen raining down into the Bay of Bengal.
ISRO chief K Radhakrishnan, who spoke to the media after the mission was aborted, said the destruct command was issued when the scientists realised the control and command signal failed to reach the activation system in the first stage itself.
At T-63 seconds, we saw the visuals of it breaking up. It also became clear on the radar and the destruct command was issued, he said, adding, We hope to get an assessment of what exactly triggered the problem We will go back to it. Apologising for the failure, he said: We learn from failures and such failures lead to success.
The GSAT-5P was not only supposed to augment communication services with better clarity, but also replace and retire the INSAT-3E, which was placed into orbit in 2003.
This launch was scheduled for December 20 (Monday), but was rescheduled after a leak was detected in the Russian cryogenic engine. But what is shocking, even for scientists, is that the snag happened in the first stage, much before the cryogenic stage. Indian has been maintaining a 100 per cent success in the first stage of any launch. Which is why Saturdays failure is being viewed as very serious and tragic.
Of the seven launches of GSLV (Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle), three have failed. Among the four successful launches, two are considered partial. On April 15 this year, GSLV-D3 was also a failure. It was primarily launched to test the indigenously developed cryogenic engine. But the Cryogenic Upper Stage (CUS) could not accomplish the mission objectives. But the Russian cryogenic engine was used this time.
On July 10, 2006, the launch of INSAT-4C on board the GSLV which also failed was launched with the help of a Russian cryogenic engine. That mission too had to be aborted as the rocket had veered away from its trajectory path (and was apparently heading towards Chennai). It was then analysed that the cause of the failure was the sudden loss of thrust in one of the four liquid propellant strap-on stages immediately after the lift-off. A similar loss of thrust is also suspected in the latest mishap.
The GSAT-5P satellite, with a life span of 12 years, had 36 transponders automatic receivers and transmitters for communication and broadcast of signals. It would have taken ISROs transponder capacity to about 235 from the existing 200 in the orbit.
ISROs success with the lighter vehicle PSLV has been tremendous. This was the vehicle that launched Chandrayaan 1.
However, ISRO is uncomfortable with the heavier GSLV, whose success has been limited. But the future of Indian space mission lies with GSLV, which would be used for Chandrayaan 2 and any manned missions. So, ISRO needs to really overcome the technicalities that are hindering the successes of GSLV.
Email | Print | Rate: 12345
Post Comment
COMMENTS BOARD ::
PAFAce
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,637
- Reaction score
- 0
I have already presented one possible reason for the failure. There seems to be too little time between the original break-off and the explosion for there to be consensus and transfer of command. In any case, why not tell your people you purposely destroyed a billions of dollars worth of equipment to save lives than admit your design was flawed?
Obviously, I could be way off. I have no inside information whatsoever. There's no reason so get so damn defensive about it. I probably have more in common with the engineers who built the rocket than most here, maybe including you.
Lol! Man you guys are so dramatic. Lay off the Bollywood-sauce homies.
Markus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 4,425
- Reaction score
- -1
One:-
The total cost of the mission (including equipment onboard) was around 325 crores (i.e even less than 100 million USD)
Two:-
I see no reason to believe that GSLV design is flawed, even though it has had it own share of failures, it has met success too!
Three:-
The Hindu : News / National : We will now review GSLV programme: ISRO
The Range Safety Officer in the Mission Control Centre gave the ‘destruct' command to the vehicle 63 seconds after the lift-off from its second launch pad and it was destroyed.
The rocket was asked to self-destruct.
Its upto you if you would like to go to what ISRO says or not.
The low time lag between explosion and transfer of command to self destruct as you write above requires technical analysis, how can we assume the the time difference as to when the command was given and when the rocket blew up.
Screambowl
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 8,167
- Reaction score
- -39
- Country
- Location
if there is any deviation in the trajectory, orientation, attitude and altitude, they will send the self destruction command.
and this time it was sent.
What caused the failure is still being analyzed but as far as till now its believed to be some program crash down which was responsible to transfer commands to the first stage.
and this time it was sent.
What caused the failure is still being analyzed but as far as till now its believed to be some program crash down which was responsible to transfer commands to the first stage.
Finally!!!! India joins the Cryogenic Club-GSLV D5 Successfully launched | Page 35 | Pakistan Defence
at last we won after 3 years
at last we won after 3 years
you gave me a heart attack!!
???
Rajaraja Chola
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
- Messages
- 9,051
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
I saw some jealous guys dancing when our first launch failed .But w cant see these smart guys and their cheerleaders in thread I posted.So we can now get some nostalgic feelings about what happened 3 years ago.That all
Similar threads
