What's new

GSLV-D5, India's first indigenous cryogenic rocket, launched successfully

Guys, these are not theories. We are discussing a very specific claim.

According to the FAS, the reference for the claim of 4/5th technology transfer is:

Vivek Raghuvanishi, "Russia, India Discuss Cryogenic Contract," Space News, November 15-28, 1993

Now, I don't have access to this magazine issue, so we can only leave it at that.
 
.
You are just repeating your assertion and discounting the FAS report.

You are welcome to declare the report false and ignore its claims. It won't make the report go away.

BS butt-hurt nonsense. You need to do just a visual

Russian KVD-1 is mature and simpler

kvd1_scale_1.jpg


Indian engine still has some way to go in that department

250px-IndianCryoEngine25.JPG



Also look at the bell structure and the fuel systems assembly above. Completely different.

You're just jealous.
 
.
BS butt-hurt nonsense. You need to do just a visual

Russian KVD-1 is mature and simpler

kvd1_scale_1.jpg


Indian engine still has some way to go in that department

250px-IndianCryoEngine25.JPG



Also look at the bell structure and the fuel systems assembly above. Completely different.

You're just jealous.

Here is the old Russian RD-0120

wrd0120.jpg
 
. .
Here is the old Russian RD-0120

wrd0120.jpg

So? It's the goddamn Energia engine you clown! Even here you can make out the fuel systems are completely different. You don't know much about these things do you? You're just here to troll and waste our time.
 
.
So? It's the goddamn Energia engine you clown! Even here you can make out the fuel systems are completely different. You don't know much about these things do you? You're just here to troll and waste our time.

It's an old Russian cryogenic engine.
India got the basic tech for cryogenic engines from Russia.

Do you think the Russians will give you their latest and greatest secrets? Do you think India will build an identical copy of the Russian engine?
 
.
It's an old Russian cryogenic engine.
India got the basic tech for cryogenic engines from Russia.

Do you think the Russians will give you their latest and greatest secrets? Do you think India will build an identical copy of the Russian engine?

KVD-1 happens to be among their latest and best and CE 7.5 performed to those levels extremely well. Either it's KVD-1 or not. No that's not what this is about. This about you hanging around and seeing that India has built a cryo engine, feeling your @$$ on fire and then deciding that you'll throw muck at us. Guess what? Not only is that we've built this one, another one, more than twice as powerful with a completely different cycle is headed for the test bed. You can be as butt hurt and jealous a you want and come up with home truths and fantasies- our rockets are gonna fly, the're gonna be bigger and better and it's highly unlikely you're gonna catch up. Now shoo.
 
.
KVD-1 happens to be among their latest and best and CE 7.5 performed to those levels extremely well. Either it's KVD-1 or not.

Your whole argument against the FAS report was that the Russian engine was more sleek and the Indian engine was more "complicated", therefore it couldn't be derived from Russian technology.

I showed you that the older Russian technology was also "complicated" and the newer, sleek engine was not available to India in 1993. Maybe the Russians themselves hadn't yet developed it.

P.S. Anyway, you seem to want to decide things based on external appearances, which is not always a reliable metric. I will stay with the FAS report. You can carry on...
 
Last edited:
.
Guys, these are not theories. We are discussing a very specific claim.

According to the FAS, the reference for the claim of 4/5th technology transfer is:

Vivek Raghuvanishi, "Russia, India Discuss Cryogenic Contract," Space News, November 15-28, 1993

Now, I don't have access to this magazine issue, so we can only leave it at that.

There are lot questions you haven't addressed.

How has FAS arrived at the figure of 4/5th of that technology? That I guess is very classified information. Moreover importantly, how has FAS got that information?

If the technology was 'transferred', why India struggled for 20 years with 4 consequent failures before seeing the success. (You are forgetting that ISRO is not some banana organization. The annual budget is itself is $1 billion (it is the 6th largest space budget in the world))

If the 'transfer' was know to US and other countries, why are we not seeing any furore in international media. (I hope you realize cryo tech is highly sensitive and dual use)

So let us put rest to these conspiracies theories and appreciate what Indians have achieved.
 
.
There are lot questions you haven't addressed.

How has FAS arrived at the figure of 4/5th of that technology? That I guess is very classified information. Moreover importantly, how has FAS got that information?

If the technology was 'transferred', why India struggled for 20 years with 4 consequent failures before seeing the success. (You are forgetting that ISRO is not some banana organization. The annual budget is itself is $1 billion (it is the 6th largest space budget in the world))

If the 'transferred' was know to US and other countries, why are we not seeing a furore in international media. (I hope you realize cryo tech is highly sensitive and dual use)

So let us put rest to these conspiracies theories and appreciate what Indians have achieved.

Most of those questions have been addressed above.

As for the "4/5" claim, my reading of the FAS report is that the figure was given by an Indian (reference quoted above).
 
.
Your whole argument against the FAS report was that the Russian engine was more sleek and the Indian engine was more "complicated", therefore it couldn't be derived from Russian technology.

I showed you that the older Russian technology was also "complicated" and the newer, sleek engine was not available to India in 1993. Maybe the Russians themselves hadn't yet developed it.

P.S. Anyway, you seem to want to decide things based on external appearances, which is not always a reliable metric. I will stay with the FAS report. You can carry on...

You don't know anything about technology. You're just jealous and have your @$$ on fire. It burns you day and night and doesn't seem to give yo any reprieve. And stick my posts up FAS @$$ too.
 
.
Most of those questions have been addressed above.

As for the "4/5" claim, my reading of the FAS report is that the figure was given by an Indian (reference quoted above).

They haven;t been addressed.

As I said before FAS is an NGO. FAS can claim the sky, but is accountable to none.

When you are talking about ISRO, you are talking about an organization that is planning

1. Mission to Venus by May 2015
2. Mission to the Sun by the year 2015-16
3. Mission to the Moon, will have an Orbiter and Lander-Rover module by 2015.
4. Manned mission to Moon with humans by 2020

These are highly complex missions. Unless you have capability to do high end R&D and unless you master all aspects of many technologies, these missions cannot be accomplish. ToTs are always stop gap arrangements, and they stymie development of human resources to master such high end technologies and confidently conduct such highest end scientific missions that humans can think of.
 
.
As I said before FAS is an NGO. FAS can claim the sky, but is accountable to none.

The fact that they are not controlled by the US govt. increases their legitimacy.

And, once again, the "4/5" claims is from an Indian source, referenced by FAS.

(Vivek Raghuvanishi, "Russia, India Discuss Cryogenic Contract," Space News, November 15-28, 1993)

ISRO, as an organ of the Indian government, has every reason to corroborate the official story.
 
Last edited:
.
They haven;t been addressed.

As I said before FAS is an NGO. FAS can claim the sky, but is accountable to none.

When you are talking about ISRO, you are talking about an organization that is planning

1. Mission to Venus by May 2015
2. Mission to the Sun by the year 2015-16
3. Mission to the Moon, will have an Orbiter and Lander-Rover module by 2015.
4. Manned mission to Moon with humans by 2020

These are highly complex missions. Unless you have capability to do high end R&D and unless you master all aspects of many technologies, these missions cannot be accomplish. ToTs are always stop gap arrangements, and they stymie development of human resources to master such high end technologies and confidently conduct such highest end scientific missions that humans can think of.

4. Manned mission to Moon with humans by 2020 :coffee:
 
.
The fact that they are not controlled by the US govt. increases their legitimacy.

And, once again, the "4/5" claims is from an Indian source, referenced by FAS.

ISRO, as an organ of the Indian government, has every reason to corroborate the official story.

No it doesn't. For a reason there is 'official data'. The question here is how come FAS got hold of such data?

I can start a website and claim that cryo tech that India used is from US through ToT. Would you believe it?

Anyway as the thread is growing, your posts are getting more devoid of logic.

As I said before appreciate when it is due...or you would look a jealous child.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom