What's new

ISRO Tests New Rocket Engine That Could Make Launches 10 Times Cheaper

@SrNair @Shankranthi @liall

Let's say by 2030 we will be a $ 8 trillion economy and there is a considerable amount of money in R&D compared to what we spend now.

Do you guyz see reversal in this trend and more IITians come to work in ISRO, DRDO and other government agencies?

@Nilgiri Will you prefer to work for HAL or GTRE then? :what:

Students get into IIST using the same JEE entrance exam and all students of IIST are guaranteed a job in ISRO.

People who work for ISRO do for for their love or rockets, satellites and space. They do not do it for the money.

Those who run after money will peruse other avenue. ISRO will be better off without such engineers.
 
That is the immediate need of the hour, if you ask me.

It sure is and it has been for years but the problem is that it is not economically viable as of now no investor like to burn their hand. But in next five years we will have $400 billion electronics industry and a flourished electronics ecosystem and skilled manpower. Maybe then investors find it financially viable to invest.
 
Start up in India is painful, if you want to follow all the book rules....

If u don't , people will start extracting ...

Lot of outdated rules are also there.. Mind you..

Perseverance is the key, once you've past all these .. Things will get easier, if you make profit.


To start anything easily you ll be made to approach atleast 10 departments.. All Snail pace..
 
can we use Scram Jet in Agni series ! @PARIKRAMA

As long as we wish to have a missile with propulsion system inside the atmospheric limit (not in vaccum meaning space), scram jet is a viable solution bcz it reduces the weight of the system drastically by reducing the need of the oxidiser. For such a system you will require a a initial rocket to boost it to a particular speed so that scramjet can takeover and begin the flight.

I am quoting here Prof Micheal K Smart, Centre of Hypersonics, University of Queensland

Antonio Ferri aptly described the important differences between rockets and airbreathing engines as:
1) The potential specific impulse of airbreathing propulsion is much larger than any chemical rocket, due to the fact it carries only fuel and not oxidiser.
2) Structural weight of an airbreathing engine is larger for the same thrust than a rocket, because it must process air (oxygen and nitrogen) and have an intake, whereas the rocket has an oxidiser tank and pressurization system.
3) The thrust of an airbreathing engine is a function of flight Mach number and altitude. Large thrust per unit frontal area can only be obtained in the dense atmosphere, while rockets can operate at high thrust per unit frontal area in a vacuum.
4) The necessity for flight in the atmosphere introduces severe structural problems for the airbreathing engine associated with aerodynamic heating and vehicle drag. However, the vehicle has a greater potential for manoeuvring than a rocket traveling in a vacuum, through the use of aerodynamic lift.

The flight corridor for scramjet propelled vehicles, either for cruise or ascent to low-earth-orbit, is constrained at upper altitude by the need to operate the airbreathing engine, and at lower altitude by structural limits of the vehicle. Figure 1 gives an indication of these limits, and includes a suggested ascent trajectory for an airbreathing access-to-space vehicle, with turbojet operation up to Mach 3-4, scramjet operation up to Mach 15-17 and then rocket based propulsion for the final boost to low earth orbital velocity, which is approximately 7.9 km/s.

upload_2016-8-28_18-36-48.png




In the design of hypersonic inlets there are some key operability issues that must be addressed in order to
arrive at a useful configuration. These are:
1) Inlet starting limits.
2) Boundary layer separation limits.
3) Minimization of external drag.
4) Performance at off-design Mach number.


In another paper, Prof Smart gave this
upload_2016-8-28_18-47-12.png

This figure tends to showcase the limitations effect much better than earlier figure

Source:
https://www.sto.nato. int/publications/STO%20Educational%20Notes/RTO-EN-AVT-150/EN-AVT-150-09.pdf
http://www.dtic. mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA581900


What i understand is as on today, we are yet to master this technology with enough confidence to see how it can work for us. The hypersonic Brahmos 2 may be a good way to see the challenges in a weapons delivery platform based challenges together with RLV TD and LEX/HEX missions.

I dont see Agni series being replaced by them for next 2 decades. But i wont be surprised if there is a chance that a new Agni missile is made where upon the boost phase or re- entry the missile payload may contain smaller payloads with scramjet abilities (a la MIRV but with smaller scramjets installed) . A proper anti BMD system which may help us spread our warheads over say a radius of 1000 km and attack at one go multiple HV targets to cripple the enemy.

If you ask me honestly i forsee more destructive power with less issues in a concept called Kinetic Bombardment. I like this concept much more. But then i dont know if India would ever pursue it.
 
Last edited:
Yes Igor Irodov ... I still solve problems from that book... love it. That is one amazing book. His theory book is awesome too. The chapters are I. Conservation of Momentum, II. Con. of Angular momentum, III. con. of Energy etc.
What a brilliant way to learn physics.


beautiful
Brother my day used to start after 11pm & used to wind up around 5-6 am in the morning in those days.... I used to refer lot of books like DC pandey, HC verma, Brilliant tutorials, Fiitjee study material, Bansal classes material & etc including the god of all IRODOV......
 
To start anything easily you ll be made to approach atleast 10 departments.. All Snail pace..

Surprising....are you speaking from personal experience. .because I have consulted a few startups already, and they have had single windows clearances.
 
@Alpha BeeTee
The state funding to ISRO is in tune of $1.5bn which i feel is rather paltry compared to other space giants like US,china etc. DRDO too gets a funding in tune of $3bn- Kindly note that these are just the R&D fundings-and is different from funding allocated to production. If pakistan wishes to compete(which I believe they should!) then they would have to first start producing first class engineers something on the lines of IITs.
Also note that ISRO is directly under PM of india- it is not under defence ministery,whereas SUPARCO if I am not mistaken falls under SPD-which is the custodian of nuclear weapons of pakistan.
ISRO is also blessed with the established indian industrial set up and a lot of academic interaction between ISRO and IITs-this is something that rarely takes place in pakistan- I am sure pakistani members can elaborate more!
being under SPD has its disadvantages. but key problem is poor funding and autonomy. Skill is there, talent is there but freedom of action and funds are missing. suparco and space science is not on priority list of Pak govts. it is right time to set the policies rights. govt should give autonomy to Suparco and other research institutions. provide funds and encourage them to commercialize their products. univ r producing large no of Ph D but they are just PhDs not the researchers and innovators. govt should also focus on quality of university graduates.
 
Back
Top Bottom