Successful maiden flight of ISRO's Geo synchronous rocket

[Electroman]

I am surprised there was hardly any coverage in the US media, as signified by no mention in this forum either. I missed it too and happened to stumble on it on a BBC site.

GSLV MK III nicknamed 'Monster rocket' is a massive 3 stage rocket that can lift up to 4 tons of payload to Geo synchronous orbit. Apparently ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) has been working on this one for the past 10 years primary building an upper stage Cryogenic engine. Initially ISRO was planning on buying Russian made Cryogenic engines but later had to develop indigenously due to sanctions from US after the nuclear tests in the early 90s.

I think this is a great achievement, from any space organization but especially coming from a cash strapped one.

India launches 'monster' rocket - BBC News

(very amateur and frustrating video coverage, where on key moments during the flight instead of showing action up in the sky they show the folks on the ground applauding)

 

[Electroman]

 

[LargeHamCollider]

View attachment 230030

Where did you find that graphic? I was looking for GSLV prices a couple months ago. Also it's the maiden flight of a new variant so that means less press.

 

[Electroman]

Where did you find that graphic? I was looking for GSLV prices a couple months ago. Also it's the maiden flight of a new variant so that means less press.

Here:

 

[ICUDoc]

wow, monster rocket is right!

 

[RDoc]

Interesting chart. SpaceX Falcon 9 currently will launch 5.5 T to GTO for $62M with reuse, and 8 T fully expendable, although currently the price seems to be the same for either. It will be interesting to see if lower cost competition pushes them to lower their prices for "flight proven" first stages.

There was at least some coverage of the launch. I saw it in my normal reading, although I can't remember exactly where.

 

[Electroman]

Performance of F9 is impressive. Looks lot more smaller and only 2 stages but still delivers 8T to GTO.

Now FH will probably look like the Indian rocket but can deliver an impressive 26T to GTO.

So the price per KG for SpaceX seems less than Indian GSLV 3 even without reuse

 

[bxr140]

I am surprised there was hardly any coverage in the US media, as signified by no mention in this forum either.

Unfortunately when it comes to rockets, if its not SpaceX news, its not news. (More or less)
More launchers are a good thing. Congrats to India.

 

[RDoc]

Performance of F9 is impressive. Looks lot more smaller and only 2 stages but still delivers 8T to GTO.

Now FH will probably look like the Indian rocket but can deliver an impressive 26T to GTO.

So the price per KG for SpaceX seems less than Indian GSLV 3 even without reuse

I find it very interesting that the GSLV uses a Hydrogen/Oxygen upper stage. That's a very tough technology, as I understand it, and should give them a real advantage.

 

[Electroman]

Another infographic comparing GSLV 3 and Falcon 9. The efficiency and performance of F9 is impressive. The video states that the price above 5.5T for SpaceX is higher as much as 135M, for the recent CRV mission.

 

[Electroman]

 

[jkn]

Rockets using solid fuel are much heavier for same payload than liquid rockets. Solid fuel is good for a missile, because it can be launched immediately from long term storage. I don't believe solid fuel has future in space launches. Refueling is too difficult compared to SpaceX.

Hydrogen is not used much because it requires large (=heavy) fuel tank. New materials might change this.

 

[Grendal]

It's my understanding that the big cost savings for ISRO is because the program is subsidized by the Indian government. So I'm not sure how that will pan out as a successful strategy in the long term for pricing.

Good luck to them though. The more players in the launch game the better.

 

[Electroman]

Correct, and and labor in general is less expensive.

 

[bxr140]

I don't believe solid fuel has future in space launches. Refueling is too difficult compared to SpaceX.

I mean, it's not exactly a prophetic vision.

Solid fuel has its place, and yes, it is not the fuel of the future. Decades ago even GEO spacecraft had solid apogee engines, but time has moved on. (They do make for great stories regaled by the old dawgs, but I digress...)

Big picture, if you throw out the spacex formula (which I fully believe is the winning formula, btw) and the near infinite motivation and singular direction from a genius billionaire, the cost and complexity savings of solid fuel are quite compelling. Not to mention the flexibility in capacity when used as supplemental staging (Atlas 5, Ariane 6).

ISRO made the right choice for the maturity of their rocket program, IMHO.