What's new

Isro to undertake the heaviest launch in December

That's what was mentioned in my initial post of a gap for 29 years.......... instead of your claim of 40 years

By the way can you elaborate on the differences between the cryogenic engines of both nations which must have been possible in the two decade gap
 
That's what was mentioned in my initial post of a gap for 29 years.......... instead of your claim of 40 years

By the way can you elaborate on the differences between the cryogenic engines of both nations which must have been possible in the two decade gap
lol Technology cannot be compared in years but in capabilities. Yes, China is ahead but not that much. We are developing
SCE-200 semi cryo-engine.
 
Read again, first flight was 1987. When was the first successful test firing of an 'indigenous' Indian engine?

It seems, hot firing happened in 2008. So 2008 - 1975 is a 33 year gap. If you want to measure test flight, the first successful test flight was in 2014, so 2014-1987, that's 27 years.

Failure rate was 50% 2/4 flights? Am I correct?

Fair comparison would be with YF 100/YF 115 as ISRO's first cryogenic engine is based on staged combustion cycle which is more difficult to master.
 
That's what was mentioned in my initial post of a gap for 29 years.......... instead of your claim of 40 years

By the way can you elaborate on the differences between the cryogenic engines of both nations which must have been possible in the two decade gap
Read my posts properly, China having the technology for the past 40 years does not mean the gap between India and China is 40 years, in terms of firing, the gap is 33 years, in terms of first flight it's 27 years. Even then we are comparing an engine which had only been flown 4 times and twice it failed. So can you call it a completed, certified system?

There is nothing wrong in my statement. =)

lol Technology cannot be compared in years but in capabilities. Yes, China is ahead but not that much. We are developing
SCE-200 semi cryo-engine.
Even, comparing capabilities, your engine still suck compared to Chinese engines.
You are, will, should, could, may, might, can....get it done first. Don't boast! Find out what China is developing...

Fair comparison would be with YF 100/YF 115 as ISRO's first cryogenic engine is based on staged combustion cycle which is more difficult to master.
So you mean your CE-20 is actually a less advanced system than CE-7.5? LOL
 
Last edited:
Can you provide precise comparison or you just want to indulge in rhetoric
 
Read my posts properly, China having the technology for the past 40 years does not mean the gap between India and China is 40 years, in terms of firing, the gap is 33 years, in terms of first flight it's 27 years. Even then we are comparing an engine which had only been flown 4 times and twice it failed. So can you call it a completed, certified system?
do Chinese provide data on failed Launch Attempts ?
 
China, failed attempt! Blasphamy!!
China : Very good, very freedom, Hyperpower.
India : Hungry people, toilet and rape.

Now that we have cleared the air, can we get rid of the chinese posts? They are as stale as the noodles in the chinese take out menu. Lets get back to original topic shall we?
 
To be honest, Chinese launch failures are readily available, if only you care to check. The point is CE-7.5 is not a matured system and then all of sudden you move to CE-20. You are doing things half way, then now you want to develop SCE-200. Build up a foundation, learn to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run.
 
Even, comparing capabilities, your engine still suck compared to Chinese engines.
You are, will, should, could, may, might, can....get it done first. Don't boast! Find out what China is developing...

If you want to talk bull $hit instead of numbers than, the name 'chinese product' itself is an insult! :rofl:

To be honest, Chinese launch failures are readily available, if only you care to check. The point is CE-7.5 is not a matured system and then all of sudden you move to CE-20. You are doing things half way, then now you want to develop SCE-200. Build up a foundation, learn to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run.


CE-7.5 took long time to develop and its matured now. CE-20 involves all the experiences from CE-7.5. SCE-200 has a thrust of 2030 kN and its dry weght is only 2700 kg.

A cluster of four SCE-200 engines will be first stage.

Semi_Cryo.png

Clustered_Semi_Cryogenic_Engines.jpg



First prototype is ready for test this year.
 
Last edited:
If you want to talk bull $hit instead of numbers than, the name 'chinese product' itself is an insult! :rofl:

CE-7.5 took long time to develop and its matured now. CE-20 involves all the experiences from CE-7.5. SCE-200 has a thrust of 2030 kN and its dry weght is only 2700 kg.

A cluster of four SCE-200 engines will be first stage.

First prototype is ready for test this year.
Funny how Indians buy 'insulting' Chinese products in the billions. :rofl:. What's more pathetic is Indians can't produce those insulting Chinese products.:rofl:

Matured? Realise how Indians use the word 'in use' instead or 'in service'. With a reliability rate so low, you call your engine matured? SCE-200 is nothing but a Ukrainian copy, and what's more pathetic you don't even have a facility to test this copy. i guess you don't know what the Chinese are developing, well better to keep it quiet, we are not boastful people.
 
Funny how Indians buy 'insulting' Chinese products in the billions. :rofl:. What's more pathetic is Indians can't produce those insulting Chinese products.:rofl:

Matured? Realise how Indians use the word 'in use' instead or 'in service'. With a reliability rate so low, you call your engine matured? SCE-200 is nothing but a Ukrainian copy, and what's more pathetic you don't even have a facility to test this copy. i guess you don't know what the Chinese are developing, well better to keep it quiet, we are not boastful people.
^ we can see here !
 
Since when did I rant about your Russian copy clone 'indigenous' CE-20?

Hey, you pathetic Chinese troll, CE 20 is a 200kN gas generator based design that have nothing to do with any Russian design. Are you simply an idiot or is this CCP fed propaganda?


Btw, cryogenic engines is almost a 30 year old technology for China and you are still testing it now?

May be your CCP godfathers haven't told you that India successfully flight tested its first cryogenic engine in 2014 ?

Pathetic! CHINESE COPYCAT SUPAPOWAH MY AS*

:lol:

Read my post carefully, I did mention the max your pathetic GSLV can take is 4 tonnes, which is what you repeated again before blurting out all the sh*t above. Nobody in their right minds would load a carrier up to the max, there is normally a safety factor, my guess 3.5 tonnes max for a 4 tonner?

Yeah, 'safe loading factor' :lol:

Quoting S. Ramakrishnan, the first project director GSLV Mark-III project.

"The GSLV-Mk III has the mandate to meet the requirement of deploying 4 tonnes to GTO.However, we can reasonably predict that the first development launch which is essentially to prove the vehicle will carry conservative payload of 3 to 3.5 tonnes and the subsequentoperational missions will be with full capacity. The avenues for further enhancement of LVM-3 performance beyond 4 tonnes will definitely be explored once the vehicle stabilises after a few successful missions. Inert mass reduction in the upper stage (C25) and associated assemblies will be the most attractive and efficient route with least risk in terms of mission reliability. Of course, the propellant loading of C25 itself can be further augmented beyond 27 tonnes by stretching the tankages and also requalifying the endurance of the propulsion systems for the longer burn time. Modulating the engine thrust within bounds in terms of uprating /downrating during the long-stage burn time to optimise the needed velocity gain(ΔV), as was done with GSLV CUS stage, can be another strategy to marginally stretch the performance. However, without touching the lower propulsive stages and the overall vehicle architecture the payload growth of GSLV-Mk III may not go beyond 5 tonnes to GTO. With the ongoing programme to develop a 200 tonne thrust LOX-Kerosene semi-cryo engine and subsequently a semi-cryo stage to replace the L110 core, the GTO payload is expected to touch 6 tonnes. " [old data, now 7.5 tonnes is the target]

When you said BHEL made it since 2004, what exactly is 'made' in India. Is it buying Chinese lithium battery, assemble it together, add some power controller?

Slide from a one year old presentation by ISRO chairman.

8BLa40Al.jpg


For you to produce lithium batteries, you need to produce lithium. Can you tell me which facility produces it in India?

You have lithium production facilities, because you have large lithium reserves and is one of the largest consumers of it, given your electronics industry.

The same goes for solar panels, you can buy Chinese cells and stick it together into one module and claim it's made in India. Can you tell me which facility in India produces high purity silicon ingot? In other words, your 'indigenous' satellite is most probably full of Chinese stuff. LOL!

Nice try, but we are self-sufficient on solar cells & module production. Smaller players like Maharishi solar have facilities to produce silicon ingots, while larger firms like BHEL & Lanco are setting up facilities.

BTW ISRO is setting up its own solar cell fabrication facility to reduce dependence of vendors.

When you have a 6 tonner, China would have completed DFH-5, a 9 tonner. I realise there is a pattern I am seeing here, for most technologies, India is almost always a generation or more behind China, be it aircraft, space or RIFLES.

Really ? With GSAT-11 launch happening by the end of this year, I don't see a 'decade' or 'generation' difference between I-6 K (6 tonne+ platform) and your DFH-5 (6-9 tonne). Anyway, do you think we don't have any plans for higher capacity satellites ? I believe I have told you about our plans to increase GTO payload capacity to 7.5 tonnes in the near future & eventually to more than 10 tonnes.

http://wap.business-standard.com/ar...t-indian-science-congress-116010400575_1.html

Some of the most advance ion thrusters are made in China.

Nice. Now learn what we are doing.

Development of Prototype MPD Thruster: The project has successfully developed a technology demonstrator prototype Magneto Plasma Dynamic Thruster (MPD) using Argon propellant with a specific impulse of 2500s at a thrust of 25 mN.

Presently LPSC, ISRO is actively engaged in the development of 75mN SPT to be used in its future high power communication satellites.


75 mN SPT
Thrust

Nominal mode : 75 mN ± 1 mN
Throttling mode : 50 ------ 100 mN
Mass of thruster : 8 kg ( Maximum)
Maximum thermal dissipation from thruster. : 260 Watt

250 mN SPT
Thrust

Nominal mode : 250 mN ± 15 mN
Throttling mode : 200 ------ 300 mN
Mass of thruster : 15 kg (Maximum)
Maximum thermal dissipation from thruster. : 450

So you mean your CE-20 is actually a less advanced system than CE-7.5? LOL

A staged combustion cycle engine is far more difficult than a gas generator cycle based one.

Propulsion engineering 101.

Even then we are comparing an engine which had only been flown 4 times and twice it failed.

Flown three times, had only one failure, that too in the first flight. Stop exaggerating.

The point is CE-7.5 is not a matured system and then all of sudden you move to CE-20. You are doing things half way, then now you want to develop SCE-200.

Haha, you can keep bickering as much as you want. GSLV Mk2 with Indigenous cryogenic upper stage has been declared operational, and another flight is scheduled for next month. CE-20 has undergone successfull ground tests, and will fly this December. As for the SC 200, it will be ready by end of this year and we'll have a fully tested engine & stage by 2018. I' am referring timelines set by ISRO scientists here, not some deranged propaganda bot.

SCE-200 is nothing but a Ukrainian copy, and what's more pathetic you don't even have a facility to test this copy.

Yeah right, whatever that floats your boat.
 
Last edited:
We need to dramatically upscale our GLSV carrying capacity.

We need to cross 12 tons capacity.
 
Back
Top Bottom