GSLV mark 3 launched successfully

[jaiind]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1062673364916019200

 

[jaiind]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1062679152619384833

 

[kmc_chacko]

Congrats ,

Mods, please don't allow to open multiple threads on same topic. merge all, please. .

 

[jaiind]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1062679070457049088

 

[jamahir]

Congrats to ISRO, though by now after having launched so many satellites ISRO should have made the proposition of delivering cargo and scientific experiment modules to the International Space Station.

And I don't understand why ISRO hasn't been a passenger on the Soyuz trips to the ISS. Money should be no problem to ISRO, I imagine.

@KapitaanAli , your view ??

 

[jaiind]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1062675339254489091

 

[KapitaanAli]

Congrats to ISRO, though by now after having launched so many satellites ISRO should have made the proposition of delivering cargo and scientific experiment modules to the International Space Station.

And I don't understand why ISRO hasn't been a passenger on the Soyuz trips to the ISS. Money should be no problem to ISRO, I imagine.

@KapitaanAli , your view ??

Money is always a problem. I don't think a Soyuz mission has enough returns for investment.

Whatever we've, we've invested in the basics with iterative improvements, while exploring new fields when the time comes. As the launch vehicles, satellites and engines got bigger and better, with AstroSat, Chandrayaan and MOM, we forayed into basic science in space. And as we extend that to Chandrayaan2, Venus and our Sun, we'll foray into having man-rated equipment.

For me, being man-rated (or sending a man) is still a luxury and there are a million better things to do in space. But surely it'll be another leap.

Our manrated spacecraft must result in a cargo variant to make economic sense. Although ISS will be gone by then. Yes, it's something we should've invested in by now.

 

[jamahir]

Money is always a problem. I don't think a Soyuz mission has enough returns for investment.

At one time private space tourists were paying 20 million dollars to RosCosmos to fly in the Soyuz to ISS. India lost a chance.

As for Returns for Investment, I will quote Elon Musk who when asked about the business plan for Mars, said he did not have one.

If my calculation is correct, the new big budget Hindi film "Thugs of Hindostan" was made with 40+ million dollars. So...

Whatever we've, we've invested in the basics with iterative improvements, while exploring new fields when the time comes. As the launch vehicles, satellites and engines got bigger and better, with AstroSat, Chandrayaan and MOM, we forayed into basic science in space. And as we extend that to Chandrayaan2, Venus and our Sun, we'll foray into having man-rated equipment.

For me, being man-rated (or sending a man) is still a luxury and there are a million better things to do in space. But surely it'll be another leap.

Well, I disagree. Man-rating a system should be the prime goal of a space agency, government or private. Other projects should be satellites ( pun intended ) around this goal.

But I agree that MOM and Chandrayaan were successes technically.

Our manrated spacecraft must result in a cargo variant to make economic sense.

Ah, like the Dragon 1 of SpaceX.

Although ISS will be gone by then. Yes, it's something we should've invested in by now.

Maybe the runners of the ISS ( mainly the Americans and Russians ) will decide to delay the decommissioning of ISS for some time, like the Russians did with Mir.

I say this because there is no alternative to the ISS as of yet. I vaguely recall a new Russian space station project but nothing's there at present in a practical sense.

This is a good discussion on StackExchange about this topic.

@django @Hamartia Antidote , do join this discussion.

 

[Turingsage]

Congrats to ISRO, though by now after having launched so many satellites ISRO should have made the proposition of delivering cargo and scientific experiment modules to the International Space Station.

And I don't understand why ISRO hasn't been a passenger on the Soyuz trips to the ISS. Money should be no problem to ISRO, I imagine.

@KapitaanAli , your view ??

Soyuz remains the most cost effective way of delivery to the ISS. It is cheaper than an Indian launch and also has all the ancillary equipment like the pioneer craft that remotely locates propels and securely attaches itself to the ISS via its docking mechanism.
Elon musk's reusable rockets are now closing the gap in terms of cost effectiveness. They are the only ones that can replace Soyuz.

 

[Kompromat]

Lovely.

Congratulations to all of you.

 

[jamahir]

Soyuz remains the most cost effective way of delivery to the ISS. It is cheaper than an Indian launch

I didn't know that.

Also, Soyuz is safe. There was that recent launch failure yet all three cosmonauts were safely recovered.

I don't know how the SpaceX BFR will ensure human safety when there is a launchpad failure. Currently the Soyuz has a pull rocket tower at the top. The BFR is missing this.

Elon musk's reusable rockets are now closing the gap in terms of cost effectiveness. They are the only ones that can replace Soyuz.

I agree. Even though there is a competitor like NASA's SLS, SpaceX will lead the way.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I didn't know that.

Also, Soyuz is safe. There was that recent launch failure yet all three cosmonauts were safely recovered.

I don't know how the SpaceX BFR will ensure human safety when there is a launchpad failure. Currently the Soyuz has a pull rocket tower at the top. The BFR is missing this.



I agree. Even though there is a competitor like NASA's SLS, SpaceX will lead the way.

Too large for an abort. First Space shuttle had ejection seats for two pilots. Later Shuttles did not.

 

[jamahir]

Too large for an abort.

So how does SpaceX work around this ??

First Space shuttle had ejection seats for two pilots. Later Shuttles did not.

So for two pilots/passengers out of generally max seven ??

And I didn't know about the below ( source - wikipedia entry for Space Shuttle ) :

Another proposal was to convert the payload bay into a passenger area, with versions ranging from 30 to 74 seats, three days in orbit, and cost US$1.5 million per seat

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

So how does SpaceX work around this ??



So for two pilots/passengers out of generally max seven ??

And I didn't know about the below ( source - wikipedia entry for Space Shuttle ) :

The ejection seats were mostly for low level anyway (probably within 1 mile of the pad) because you'd never get far enough sideways away from the rocket engine exhaust flare when it was going at a high speed. Plus you'd be ripped to shreds after a certain speed just by not being aerodynamic.

Would be tricky and heavy to have a quick abort for the BFR.

 

[HariPrasad]

Ohhh This is great but now I am awaiting for the vehicles with double payload. ISRO has said that they will double the payload of all her vehicles. PSLV shall carry 3+ ton, GSLV MKII will carry 4.5 ton and GSLV MK3 will carry 8+ ton payload. Just let the semi cryogenic engine get operational and others motors improve its performance.