What's new

GSLV MKIII Vs. Atlas V 501

C130

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
-1
Country
United States
Location
United States
TH04-ROCKET-BRSC_2231592e.jpg
atlas-5-501__x-37b-otv2__1.jpg


I was comparing rocket systems via Comparison of orbital launch systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I noticed GSLV MK III and Atlas V 501 performance is roughly the same but, GSLV MKIII weights 304 tonnes more. why is that? is GLSV a inefficient design o_O



GSLV Mk III
Mass 640,000KG
LEO 8,000KG
GTO 4,000KG

Atlas V 501
Mass 337,000KG
LEO 8,250KG
GTO 3,970

the math just doesn't add up.
 
.
.
Maths doesn't add up for the GSLV or the Atlas?


I'm not sure. just wondering why the GSLV weighs almost twice as much the Atlas V 501 but they have roughly the same performance in putting satellites in space.

it's like it doing more work or needs more fuel or something.

RD-180 is one hell of a engine.
 
.
I'm not sure. just wondering why the GSLV weighs almost twice as much the Atlas V 501 but they have roughly the same performance in putting satellites in space.

it's like it doing more work or needs more fuel or something.

RD-180 is one hell of a engine.
Hmmmm good point :tup:
 
. .

The boosters - they add a lot of mass:

Solid Rocket Boosters : S200

LVM3 uses two S200 solid rocket boosters to provide the huge amount of thrust required for lift off. The S200 was developed at Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre.

Booster Height: 25 m
Booster Diameter: 3.2 m
Fuel: 207 tonnes of HTPB (nominal)
Thrust: 9316 kN
Vacuum Isp: 274.5 sec
Burntime: 130 sec

Propellant mass: 207,000 kg (456,000 lb):o:

Remember, there are two!

LVM3 - ISRO

Compared to the core stage:

Core Stage - L110

Propellant mass 110,000 kg (240,000 lb)

And the upper stage:

Upper Stage - C25

Propellant mass 27,000 kg (60,000 lb)

Antrix Corporation Ltd - Launch Services > GSLV MK-III

*Note:

The figures given are for propellant mass only, they don't include the rocket's material's mass, thus the short-fall in weight.

I'm not sure. just wondering why the GSLV weighs almost twice as much the Atlas V 501 but they have roughly the same performance in putting satellites in space.

@C130 does this help answer your question?
 
Last edited:
.
The boosters - they add a lot of mass:

Solid Rocket Boosters : S200

LVM3 uses two S200 solid rocket boosters to provide the huge amount of thrust required for lift off. The S200 was developed at Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre.

Booster Height: 25 m
Booster Diameter: 3.2 m
Fuel: 207 tonnes of HTPB (nominal)
Thrust: 9316 kN
Vacuum Isp: 274.5 sec
Burntime: 130 sec

Propellant mass: 207,000 kg (456,000 lb):o:

Remember, there are two!

LVM3 - ISRO

Is is compared to the core stages:

Core Stage - L110

Propellant mass 110,000 kg (240,000 lb)

And upper stage:

Upper Stage - C25

Propellant mass 27,000 kg (60,000 lb)

Antrix Corporation Ltd - Launch Services > GSLV MK-III



@C130 does this help answer your question?



so the common core booster of the Atlas V is more efficent than using those heavy solid rocket boosters??

wonder why India hasn't tried to get the RD-180 from russia?
 
.
wonder why India hasn't tried to get the RD-180 from russia?

Self-reliance most likely. India's boosters might not be up to the RD-180 yet, but if they keep progressing like they have been, and keep developing newer engine tech, they will be.

I'm sure they could get the RD-180 from Russia, Russia needs business and India is a reliable partner, but India is keen on developing its own industries and achieving self-reliance in space exploration.

I commend this.
 
.
.
Self-reliance most likely. India's boosters might not be up to the RD-180 yet, but if they keep progressing like they have been, and keep developing newer engine tech, they will be.

I'm sure they could get the RD-180 from Russia, Russia needs business and India is a reliable partner, but India is keen on developing its own industries and achieving self-reliance in space exploration.

I commend this.

ISRO chairman made it clear that one of the main goal of the organization is self reliance.

@C130

Indian space technologies are evolving while US's have matured. Knowing ISRO, I am confident that they will be catching up with other space powers
 
.
TH04-ROCKET-BRSC_2231592e.jpg
atlas-5-501__x-37b-otv2__1.jpg


I was comparing rocket systems via Comparison of orbital launch systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I noticed GSLV MK III and Atlas V 501 performance is roughly the same but, GSLV MKIII weights 304 tonnes more. why is that? is GLSV a inefficient design o_O



GSLV Mk III
Mass 640,000KG
LEO 8,000KG
GTO 4,000KG

Atlas V 501
Mass 337,000KG
LEO 8,250KG
GTO 3,970

the math just doesn't add up.

Solid Rocket Boosters .

Out of the 640 tons weight of LVM3 , two of the SRB weighs 460 tons ... ie almost 72% .
 
.
Be
TH04-ROCKET-BRSC_2231592e.jpg
atlas-5-501__x-37b-otv2__1.jpg


I was comparing rocket systems via Comparison of orbital launch systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I noticed GSLV MK III and Atlas V 501 performance is roughly the same but, GSLV MKIII weights 304 tonnes more. why is that? is GLSV a inefficient design o_O



GSLV Mk III
Mass 640,000KG
LEO 8,000KG
GTO 4,000KG

Atlas V 501
Mass 337,000KG
LEO 8,250KG
GTO 3,970

the math just doesn't add up.
Because later have better engine.specific impulse determines the engine efficence,pls compare specific impulse of the dngines
 
.
so the common core booster of the Atlas V is more efficent than using those heavy solid rocket boosters??

wonder why India hasn't tried to get the RD-180 from russia?
What kinda of Weight of load we are talking about of Both
 
.
TH04-ROCKET-BRSC_2231592e.jpg
atlas-5-501__x-37b-otv2__1.jpg


I was comparing rocket systems via Comparison of orbital launch systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I noticed GSLV MK III and Atlas V 501 performance is roughly the same but, GSLV MKIII weights 304 tonnes more. why is that? is GLSV a inefficient design o_O



GSLV Mk III
Mass 640,000KG
LEO 8,000KG
GTO 4,000KG

Atlas V 501
Mass 337,000KG
LEO 8,250KG
GTO 3,970

the math just doesn't add up.

Becuz you Americans are very far ahead of in Science & technologies & we are just starting in this field
Also the Russian engine you use is a hell of a machine
 
.
TH04-ROCKET-BRSC_2231592e.jpg
atlas-5-501__x-37b-otv2__1.jpg


I was comparing rocket systems via Comparison of orbital launch systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I noticed GSLV MK III and Atlas V 501 performance is roughly the same but, GSLV MKIII weights 304 tonnes more. why is that? is GLSV a inefficient design o_O



GSLV Mk III
Mass 640,000KG
LEO 8,000KG
GTO 4,000KG

Atlas V 501
Mass 337,000KG
LEO 8,250KG
GTO 3,970

the math just doesn't add up.
Its not an inefficient design. Its simply a different design philosophy. Here

Titan IV
Titan_IV_rocket.jpg


Araine V
640px-Ariane_5ES_with_ATV_4_on_its_way_to_ELA-3.jpg


All of them are Heavyweights with the punch of a welterweight. SRB's have very poor Mass Ratio, Specific Impulse and so on. Basically they suck at everything except one..................$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
They are simpler, cheaper and modular.
MK-3 doesn't perform as well as these guys because of its core stage, which is a stop-gap till our Semi-Cyro is ready to take the burden which will make it even more cheaper and even lighter. It is run on Staged Combustion cycle which provides high performance. The problem is it runs in an oxygen rich environment which requires work on the metallurgy. It was to be readied by 2014, but then MK-3 was also supposed to be readied by 2010. Things take time here in Del-india.
Maybe we can then swap SRB's with Semi-cyro booster later.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom