What's new

Live:Sixth Cartosat-2 satellite launch(Along with 30 nano)

. . .
. .
Master.jpg.png

Master.jpg.png
 
.
Very reliable vehicle. We don't need to post every launch here anymore b/c we know it's going to function perfectly!
 
.

I think the payload was kept low intentionally (or in effect PSLV-XL chosen instead of lighter configurations) to have the extra buffer needed for the 4th stage re-ignition tests (55 second mark):


Given if needed, 1.7 tons can be lifted to SSO by PSLV-XL.

@dreamer4eva divide my earlier estimate by about 2 -3 times, I assumed the foreign satellites were much higher total mass.
 
. . . . .
The low payload is a surprise as they used the XL configuration.
Most of the satellite weight for gslv gto launch is the fuel required to reach geo from gto.
But for pslv why they cant increase satellite life by increasing fuel load of satellite is surprising.
The deorbit trials is a reason but isro should now optimize the lives of their satellites by using most of the launch vehicle capacity.

Well they could have gone for PSLV-CA, but thats cutting it close with the buffer for the 4th stage tests...probably have none left over:

index.php


I honestly have little idea as regarding the price sensitivity analysis regarding the boosters (XL or G config)/total rocket....I would imagine not a huge deal (its HTPB essentially)...so ISRO probably figured it was worth it for the orbiting re-ignition tests (to better target more market spectrum for exotic nano sat orbits etc in same mission).

As for increasing satellite life, it really depends. Sometimes the most critical (life determining) factor is not the orbit stationing fuel onboard but simply the electronics life, panel life, component life etc etc (Esp nano and micro sats where there is almost no shielding and a minimal thermal budget etc most of the time).. after all its SSO not LEO (where orbit stationing fuel is going to more of an issue a lot of the time).
 
. .
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom