What's new

Cryogenic rocket engine : India

@Safriz

What r ur views about the underdevelopment 600kn CE-60, do u think it'll be a closed loop engine n what amount of payload do u expect it to carry???

N is it true that only Russia has been able to develop closed loop engine as stated by another Indian member???:what:

I couldnt find any material on CE-60,so cant say much..Will be helpful if you or any other member can post some material on the CE-60 specs and development....

About second part of the comment,yes that's true.Only Russians have mastered that particular rocket technology.
Their "hands on approach" and radical thinking was the key..
While western scientists deemed "closed, combustion cycle" engine as to dangerous and developed other types of technology...the ruskies experimented again and again with real engines,destroyed them,built new ones,and about 100 destroyed engines later they mastered it.
Western scientists used simulators instead of real engines and software results don't necessarily match the real world real situation results (the downside of relying too much on computers).
The Russian trick lies mainly in the alloy they use for Combustion chamber and all different parts of the engine,and the way fuel is injected....
The flame rotated at about 2000 RPM inside the combustion chamber at very high pressure and temperature,acting as a Rotory saw blade,eating the engine from inside out..
The Soviets used to watch their engines turn into molten puddle,the go back to the drawing board,try some new fuel injection technique and improve on metal alloy.
The technical challenges are the same today..If India can work on improved alloys and tweak the fuel injection,they may come up with their own highly efficient engine.Depends on how ambitious the scientists are and how much money the government wants to spend on the projects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Safriz

Sorry, I don't have much info about CE60 n CE100 which r underdevelopment.

BTW the cryogenic engines initially provided by Russia to India for GSLV were they close loop or open loop???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Safriz

Sorry, I don't have much info about CE60 n CE100 which r underdevelopment.

BTW the cryogenic engines initially provided by Russia to India for GSLV were they close loop or open loop???

Other members may correct me if i am wrong,but as far as i could understand,USA was opposing sales and transfer of any rocket technology from Russia to India.That was in the 90's when USA had the upper hand being the only customer of their Close loop engines,and Russians had to listen to them.
For that reason i am guessing the engines given to India were from one of their ICBMs and was an open loop engine.
The engine given to india were either RD-107 or some variant of RD-869.But currently Ukraine is keen on selling rocket engines and transfer of technology to India,and its ongoing.

20, Number 28, July 23, 1993
Washington pressures Moscow
on India rocket engine deal


Saying all that,there are many other ways of improving on a rocket's performance. For example the solid rocket boosters can be worked upon and with better solid fuel (Very close tech to Indian Missile tech) and better Nozzle design the booster performance can be improved drastically.
The trick is to keep the exhaust in a certain shape so that it doesn't expand out of proportion as the rocket climbs and atmospheric pressure drops.
When the Exhaust plume expands, instead of pushing down to generate upwards lift,it also loses lots of energy in sideways thrust which is of no use.
This page explains importance of Rocket nozzle design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude_compensating_nozzle

Here is an explaination of a modern Nozzle design,mainly used in solid fuel motors for keeping the exaust in shape and to avoid over expansion of exhaust gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_deflection_nozzle

Here we see the Piston or Plus in the cenre of the nozzle fully extended.Thats a consumed solid booster of space shuttle.

d04_20111844.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Other members may correct me if i am wrong,but as far as i could understand,USA was opposing sales and transfer of any rocket technology from Russia to India.That was in the 90's when USA had the upper hand being the only customer of their Close loop engines,and Russians had to listen to them.
For that reason i am guessing the engines given to India were from one of their ICBMs and was an open loop engine.

20, Number 28, July 23, 1993
Washington pressures Moscow
on India rocket engine deal

The long road to cryogenic technology


The United States was the first country to develop cryogenic rocket engines. The Centaur upper stage, with RL-10 engines, registered its first successful flight in 1963 and is still used on the Atlas V rocket. America's early mastery of the technology paved the way for the J-2 engine, which powered the upper stages of the immensely powerful Saturn V rocket that sent humans to the Moon.

Other spacefaring nations followed. The Japanese LE-5 engine flew in 1977, the French HM-7 in 1979 and the Chinese YF-73 in 1984. The Soviet Union, first country to put a satellite and later a human in space, successfully launched a rocket with a cryogenic engine only in 1987.

ISRO recognised the importance of cryogenic technology fairly early. A rocket stage based on a cryogenic engine offered the simplest way of transforming the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), intended to carry one-tonne earth-viewing satellites, into the far more powerful GSLV that could put communications satellites into the orbit.

In December 1982, six months after the PSLV project was cleared, a Cryogenic Study Team was set up. A year later, it submitted a report recommending the development of a cryogenic engine that could generate about 10 tonnes of thrust. The 15-volume report went into every aspect of developing the engine and rocket stage indigenously.

Then, strangely, ISRO went through a long period of indecision, dithering on whether to buy the technology or develop it on its own. Acquiring the technology from abroad would greatly reduce the time that would otherwise be needed, it argued.

But the U.S., Japan and France would either not provide the technology or do so only at an exorbitant price. Finally in January 1991, a deal was signed with the Soviet company Glavkosmos to buy two cryogenic flight stages as well as the technology to make them in India.

The 11D56 cryogenic engine had been developed for one of the upper stages of the mammoth N1 rocket, the Soviet equivalent of Saturn V. But after four successive launch failures, the N1 project was scrapped and its engines were mothballed. Under the Indo-Soviet deal, ISRO would get a stage built around the 11D56 cryogenic engine that could produce 7.5 tonnes of thrust. The stage would carry 12 tonnes of propellant.

But the deal violated the Missile Technology Control Regime, which was intended to prevent the spread of missile-related technology, and fell foul of the U.S. laws meant to enforce its provisions. Despite warnings from within the organisation, ISRO opted to go ahead with the import. In May 1992, the U.S. imposed sanctions on ISRO and Glavkosmos. A year later, Russia, which inherited the contract after the break-up of the Soviet Union, backed out of the deal.

ISRO then had no option but to develop the technology on its own. The Cryogenic Upper Stage project was launched in April 1994. Its aim was to develop a cryogenic engine and stage closely modelled on the Russian design.

At the time, ISRO gave the impression that much of the technology had already been acquired and further development would be quick. A GSLV with an indigenous cryogenic engine would be ready to fly in about four years, Chairman U.R. Rao told The Hindu in July 1993. The space agency's engineers were privately saying then that a flightworthy cryogenic stage was 10 years away. Instead, it has taken 16 years.

The Russian design involves a complicated ‘staged combustion cycle' to increase the engine efficiency. Hydrogen is partially burnt with a little oxygen in a gas generator. The hot gases drive a turbopump and are then injected at high pressure into the thrust chamber where the rest of oxygen is introduced and full combustion takes place. Before going to the gas generator, the incredibly chilly liquid hydrogen is used to cool the thrust chamber where temperatures rise to over 3,0000 Celsius when the engine is fired.

Reproducing the Russian design meant ISRO engineers also learning to deal with new materials and manufacturing methods. A process, known as vacuum brazing needed to make the engine's thrust chamber, for instance, took considerable time to master. Then there was the challenge posed by the powerful turbopump that rotates at a tremendous speed in order to send up to 18 kg of propellants every second into the thrust chamber. It must do so in the face of a sharp temperature gradient, with hot gases at over 5000 Celsius driving the turbine, which then spins the pumps for freezing-cold propellants.

Steps were also taken so that materials required for the engine and stage could be made within the country.

The Indian cryogenic engine is produced by Godrej and the Hyderabad-based MTAR Technologies working together as a consortium. Instead of ISRO first mastering the technology and transferring it to industry, the two companies were involved from the start and even the early prototypes were built by them. Failure on their part was not an option and the space agency had to make sure that these companies succeeded.

Finally, in February 2000, the first indigenous cryogenic engine began to be test-fired on the ground. According to one source, things went wrong in one test and an engine ended up badly damaged. However, by December 2003, three engines had been ground-tested for a cumulative duration of over an hour and half. One of those engines was fired continuously for more than 16 minutes, four minutes longer than it would operate in actual flight. More tests with the engine integrated into the full stage followed. The cryogenic engine that will fly in the forthcoming GSLV launch was tested on the ground for a little over three minutes in December 2008.

Meanwhile, the Russians had supplied ISRO with seven ready-to-fly stages. But their 11D56 cryogenic engine had not flown before and the Indians faced some unpleasant surprises.

The first was that the Russian-supplied stages turned out to be heavier than expected. In order to carry the extra load, it is learnt, the Russians increased the maximum thrust that the 11D56 engine was capable of — from 7.5 tonnes to a little over eight tonnes. The engine operates at the higher thrust for only part of the duration of its flight. The Indian engine too had to be tested and made to work at the higher thrust level. Moreover, the Indian stage is lighter than the Russian one.

When the GSLV was first launched in April 2001, the Russian cryogenic engine was found to be less efficient than predicted, based on a measure that rocket engineers call specific impulse. The increase in stage weight and decrease in efficiency together reduced the rocket's payload capacity significantly.

Where the GSLV with the cryogenic stage was intended to put 2.5 tonnes into the orbit, the rocket carried a satellite weighing just 1.5 tonnes in its first flight. With further optimisation of the Russian cryogenic stage and other parts of the rocket, the GSLV could successfully launch the 2,140-kg Insat-4CR in its fifth launch in 2007.

Sources told this correspondent that the last two stages supplied by the Russians carry an engine with a maximum thrust of over nine tonnes and are capable of accommodating an additional three tonnes of propellant. The GSLV with this stage would be capable of delivering a payload of 2.5 tonnes into the orbit. With further ground testing, the Indian engine too would be upgraded to a similar thrust level.

But the immediate challenge for ISRO and its engineers is to demonstrate in the GSLV launch that they have indeed mastered the intricacies of cryogenic technology.


http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-long-road-to-cryogenic-technology/article397441.ece
 
Other members may correct me if i am wrong,but as far as i could understand,USA was opposing sales and transfer of any rocket technology from Russia to India.That was in the 90's when USA had the upper hand being the only customer of their Close loop engines,and Russians had to listen to them.
For that reason i am guessing the engines given to India were from one of their ICBMs and was an open loop engine.

20, Number 28, July 23, 1993
Washington pressures Moscow
on India rocket engine deal

AFAIK the development of the cryogenic engine(RD-56) provided Russia to India ended by 1971.

So, i don't think its their ICBM engine but idk whether its a closed loop one or an open one???

@S-DUCT
Can u shed some light here....:undecided:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Safriz

Spark has answered the query, RD56 is a closed loop one.

ok,i read Spark's comment.
But there is no evidence as of yet that India is working on a close loop engine.
The point being that close loop engine is "One of the many ways" of improving a rocket's efficiency..There are many other ways to do that.
Some mentioned here
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/104263-cryogenic-rocket-engine-india-3.html#post4175376


SOME SPECS OF RD56

Isayev lox/lh2 rocket engine. 69.6 kN. N1 block R. Development ended 1971. Oxygen-hydrogen engine for cryogenic upper stage. Developed but never flown. Design sold to India in 1990's for GSLV. Isp=462s.
Application: N1 block R.

Engine: 282 kg (621 lb). Chamber Pressure: 55.90 bar. Area Ratio: 198.7. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 25.17. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 6.
Sme specs of RD56

AKA: KVD-1; D-56; RD-56; 11D56.
Status: Development ended 1971.
Unfuelled mass: 282 kg (621 lb).
Height: 2.14 m (7.02 ft).
Diameter: 1.56 m (5.11 ft).
Thrust: 69.60 kN (15,647 lbf).
Specific impulse: 462 s.
Burn time: 800 s.
First Launch: 1960-77.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@SpArK @S-DUCT @gslv mk3 @sancho @IND151

Can u guys provide some info on the Semi Cryogenic 2000kn SC160 engine being developed by ISRO to replace L110...:undecided:

Has its development completed or not? N will it be used in the April 2014 launch or not?

Plus any other info that u guys deem could be helpful for us noobs to understand this tech....:)

Bluedot do u have any info about this matter or on India's efforts to develop a closed loop cryogenic engine???:what:


PS : Bluedot i think there is some bug on PDF which doesn't allow to directly quote u using Mention function...:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@SpArK @S-DUCT @gslv mk3

Can u guys provide some info on the Semi Cryogenic 2000kn SC160 engine being developed by ISRO to replace L110...:undecided:

Has its development completed or not? N will it be used in the April 2014 launch or not?

Plus any other info that u guys deem could be helpful for us noobs to understand this tech....:)


Blue *** do u have any info about this matter or on India's efforts to develop a closed loop cryogenic engine???:what:

PS : Blue *** i think there is some bug on PDF which doesn't allow to directly quote u using Mention function...:lol:
SEMI-CRYOGENIC PROJECT: Design of single element thrust chamber was completed and single element thrust chamber injector elements realised and cold flow tested. A rubber composition resistant to ISROSENE was also qualified. Rectangular rings, gaskets and O-rings for control components and turbo pump of semi cryogenic engine as well as Tri-ethyl aluminum (TEA) based hypergolic igniter have also been developed. Hot test was carried out with LOX step injection mode on semi cryogenic pre-burner injector at high pressure after completing cold flow trials and sequence validation tests. Further tests with step injection for ISROSENE and LOX are planned.


Source: ISRO's annual report 12-13.

No it'll not be used in LVM3-X mission.IMO,in 2014 it will complete its first ground run.

Semi-cryogenic engines uses kerosene as oxidiser and liquid hydrogen as fuel.Its engine design is less complicated than cryogenic engine and its fuels are easier to store and are eco-friendly.


LVM3-X will have a crew module as payload(credit:antriksh@NSP)
index.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@S-DUCT

Does ISRO plan to use only Semi Cryogenic engine for 2nd stage in future or it will be upgraded to cryogenic engine in future as in Araine 5.

Btw what r ur thoughts about development of a closed loop cryogenic engine by ISRO n its future prospects???:)

N @S-DUCT will SC160 will be a single 2000kn engine or a combination of 2 engines like L110 ?:what:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Yogi
Future of many ISRO's launch vehicles depends upon mastery SC technology.ULV mainstage will have SC160 engine and it will also power boost stage of RLV-TSTO.Araine 5 2nd stage cryogenic engine is a monster producing around 1.3MN thrust,If ISRO can pull this up I think they will mainstage replace SC with high thrust Cryo engne.

I have not seen any info about Fully closed expander cycle cryogenic engine in open ISRO's literature but i think , CE-60(it will power 2nd stage of RLV-TSTO) will not have expander cycle because maximum thrust that can be developed during expander cycle is only 300KN.So IMO, future of expander cycle engines in indian contexts are dull.

SC160 will be a single 2000kn engine.
isro-semicryo.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Yogi
Future of many ISRO's launch vehicles depends upon mastery SC technology.ULV mainstage will have SC160 engine and it will also power boost stage of RLV-TSTO.Araine 5 2nd stage cryogenic engine is a monster producing around 1.3MN thrust,If ISRO can pull this up I think they will mainstage replace SC with high thrust Cryo engne.

I have not seen any info about Fully closed expander cycle cryogenic engine in open ISRO's literature but i think , CE-60(it will power 2nd stage of RLV-TSTO) will not have expander cycle because maximum thrust that can be developed during expander cycle is only 300KN.So IMO, future of expander cycle engines in indian contexts are dull.

SC160 will be a single 2000kn engine.
isro-semicryo.jpg

hi
for second and third stage thrus requirements are much lower than first stage.so a close loop engine even with lower thrust may do the job
I think there is a close loop European engine already in existance being used for second or third stage.

its the first stage engine that is problematic because of higher thrust requirements
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hi
for second and third stage thrus requirements are much lower than first stage.so a close loop engine even with lower thrust may do the job
I think there is a close loop European engine already in existance being used for second or third stage.

its the first stage engine that is problematic because of higher thrust requirements

Very true thats why the Americans r still using RD180 for their Atlas V, i guess.

The European engine ur talking about is the French
Vinci (rocket engine) which is still undervelopment....:)
 
hi
for second and third stage thrus requirements are much lower than first stage.so a close loop engine even with lower thrust may do the job
I think there is a close loop European engine already in existance being used for second or third stage.

its the first stage engine that is problematic because of higher thrust requirements
True,but ISRO is developing CE of 600KN thrust which exceeds thrust margin of expander cycle.ESA is currently developing Vinci to power upper stage of Ariane-5.
NASA's SLS block1 upper stage engine RL-10 uses expander cycle but they are replacing this upper stage with high thrust gas generator CE engine J-2X in SLS block2

All high thrust CE generally use Gas generator cycle for combustion is mastery in this technology is a must.

PS:My bad,throughout this discussion i assumed only CE using expander cycle.
 

Back
Top Bottom