he-man
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2013
- Messages
- 11,018
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
We are not in a space race,are we? We have set our priorities.
We are in a race,indeed we are
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We are not in a space race,are we? We have set our priorities.
We are in a race,indeed we are
I agree with this one
we don't want to be caught with our pants down again
1st time it was the lack of navy becauz of which we were colonized & Humiliated by the Brits
Never again shall our children should share the same fate that our ancestors did
We are not in a space race,are we? We have set our priorities.
I don't know what you both r fighting for or about . Rather than working in tandem we r bitching each other.. Not good .. And by the way we r hell in a race ..a race to achieve greatness, as this cruel world is not belong to loosers as they will perish like the way you both know whome... But is for the winners who helps in change this world to their Wants... As life itself is a race..isn't itWe are in a race,indeed we are
Anyone reading knows what i have written is correct,,the answers u seek are in public domain,,i can just download it from the isro site,,there is nothing secret in that super fanboy.
Lower T/W always doesn't meat to be inferior quality if products......................Lower efficiency of GSLV is due to because its lower power. I mean if you develop 100cc engine of 100kg weight than it doesn't mean that 200cc engine weight would be 200kg. Definitely bigger engine would have efficient T/W ratio.
If your intentions were to bring ISRO's technical backwardness to public, than everybody know about that. Your humble contribution really doesn't contribute here.
And few days earlier you were admiring ISRO on its achievements............................you evoked too much early from your fantasy boy.
china developed a similar cryo with 78 kn thrust in 1994 itself and uses a 700 kn one now
So it took 20 years.
Even russians are struggling now,,,,proton m has crashed 2 times in the previous attempts,they have no money for r&d and result is before everyone.
I just hope we pump more money in cryogenics and semi cryos................we need bigger engines.
currently usa has a cryo with 2900 kn thrust,,,china with 700 kn and we are still at 75 kn and that too only 1 successful launch.
Second problem is due to bad metallurgy our cryo has an inferior t/w ratio compared to global counterparts,,,we need to speed up research there too
The CE-20 is the first Indian cryogenic engine to feature a gas-generator cycle.[3] The engine produces a nominal thrust of 200 kN, but has an operating thrust range between 180 kN to 220 kN and can be set to any fixed values between them. The combustion chamber burns liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen at 6 MPa with 5.05 engine mixture ratio. The engine has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 34.7 and a specific impulse of 444 seconds (4.35 km/s) in vacuum.
They have pumped much more money than us.
Be assured, power of Indian cryogenic engines will only increase in coming years.
Who denies they have not pumped money.
Point is can't we even pump 1billion$ extra per year on research??
Thats the whole point man
As our economy improves and crosses the mark of two trillion dollars, you will see many pleasant changes.
Right now lack of funds is holding back may projects.
As the saying goes... if you pay peanuts, you get monkeysWe have no problem in giving 1 billion$ extra to isro at all if we can afford(which i doubt) 15-20 billion per year on food security and god knows how much more in stupid schemes.
As i stated earlier,,its all about vision,,don't expect shit when fools are sitting at the top
As the saying goes... if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys
A few of my friends actually quit ISRO & BEL just for pay!