Weak Russian component downed Indian rocket: Ex-ISRO chief

[faithfulguy]

From the U.S there is still some sanction problem, and the price is high. The price problem also exists for European and Japanese engines. Chinese engines are cheaper, but India will probably never buy from China or it would lose too much face. So the only one left would be Russia.

What I don't get is, if Russian engines can lift Russian rockets, why they fail Indian rockets so often?

That just show how difficult its to build a rocket and only very few countries can master them. So even if someone hand India an engine, it does not mean that India can produce a reliable powerful rocket. But I think India do have a reliable less powerful rocket.

 

[faithfulguy]

Just looks like a poor excuse to me.

If that was indeed sub-standard, why buy it ? Did they not test it before buying ?

Are you saying that ISRO could not even buy an engine properly? i think its because that India had a chance to grab as much rocket engine from a bankrupting Russia and early 90 so it get as much as it can get. But with that, it comes with risks. When Russia was doing a fire sale, the bound to be some issues with quality.

 

[SQ8]

Yes, we slowly have stopped doing that.

You may have read some other thread on how IAF has finally stood up against Russian spare parts.

But as I said, it will take time and also we need to find other reliable suppliers who can supply similar tech.

Since the early 2000's India has been the darling of the western world..
Has the diplomacy corp done all that work for no fruit??
Would say in 2005 a European company not think twice about supplying India??
would LM not offer tech similar to the DELTA rockets??

 

[fast]

This is a lame excuse. Russian is being used as a scapegoat for Indian's failure. The engines had work quite well in Russian rockets with a long history of success. Why would its structure be too weak now? If it's design fault, most of those past Russian launches would have blown up. You got an engine with certain designed structural strength. If you can't put it together with your rocket or can't do a proper integration job to work within its structural strength, you have no one to blame but yourself for its failure. It's ok to find out which component failed under YOUR rocket design. It's unethical to blame the supplier when you can't use the part properly.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

This is a lame excuse. Russian is being used as a scapegoat for Indian's failure. The engines had work quite well in Russian rockets with a long history of success. Why would its structure be too weak now? If it's design fault, most of those past Russian launches would have blown up. You got an engine with certain designed structural strength. If you can't put it together with your rocket or can't do a proper integration job to work within its structural strength, you have no one to blame but yourself for its failure. It's ok to find out which component failed under YOUR rocket design. It's unethical to blame the supplier when you can't use the part properly.

OH really!!!! Do you even know when was the first successful flight of KVD-1????

For your information: The first successful flight of KVD-1 was done by india using GSLV (12KRB cryo stage) in 2001 (India’s GSLV / Krunivhev’s KVRB First Launch a Success).

KVD-1 was designed for L1 lunar rocket, which was later cancled. Before that, the engine was only ground tested and not flight tested.

India had no option at that time. It had to expedite the process to operationalize the GSLV. KVD-1 was the only cryo-stage fitting in the GSLV upper stage requirement. So it had to go for the untested engine.

The same engine was to be used in proton upper stage (KVRB stage), but later the plan was shelved. Now they Plan it for Angara 5A.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

Since the early 2000's India has been the darling of the western world..
Has the diplomacy corp done all that work for no fruit??
Would say in 2005 a European company not think twice about supplying India??
would LM not offer tech similar to the DELTA rockets??

India has lately become the darling of USA with all the sanction lifted, but still faces problems in getting dual use technology. Hopefully, we will get some tech help for our semi-cryos.

 

[Markus]

Since the early 2000's India has been the darling of the western world..
Has the diplomacy corp done all that work for no fruit??
Would say in 2005 a European company not think twice about supplying India??
would LM not offer tech similar to the DELTA rockets??

The limitations on ISRO and DRDO were lifted in 2011......!!!!!!

 

[KS]

That just show how difficult its to build a rocket and only very few countries can master them. So even if someone hand India an engine, it does not mean that India can produce a reliable powerful rocket. But I think India do have a reliable less powerful rocket.

Dont put words in my mouth.

 

[fast]

So it had to go for the untested engine.

That's exactly my point. IRSO knew the engines were untested yet decided to use it. When things go wrong, it starts blaming the partner but never accepts responsibility for its DECISION and its EVALUATION of using untested part. They knowingly used subpar parts but won't do enough tests themselves to make sure the final integrated system work. It's criminally incompetent. I wonder how much kickback they got for them to accept subpar products.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Guys, guys we all agree that as the Russians helped India (and don't pretend this was out of the kindness of their heart-they made a significant profit) But the idea that India should just put up and shut up is just ignorant. Yes this is true but there is a basic standard of getting what you paid for- I'm sure ISRO (along with others) invested a lot into this so for it to blow up is a HUGE failure.

And I don't think this guy is trying to lay any blame at anyone's door. He was put in charge of a team to find the cause of the failure and in THIS CASE the failure lay at the Russian end. It could easily have been any Indian equipment- he is just stating fact.


It is true India needs to step up its game if it wants to put men into space, we can't have a similar scene in a manned flight. Although the growth rate of ISRO is impressive and I have little doubts it can do it.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

That's exactly my point. IRSO knew the engines were untested yet decided to use it. When things go wrong, it starts blaming the partner but never accepts responsibility for its DECISION and its EVALUATION of using untested part. They knowingly used subpar parts but won't do enough tests themselves to make sure the final integrated system work. It's criminally incompetent. I wonder how much kickback they got for them to accept subpar products.

I cannot help you.

 

[paritosh]

indian always blaming others rather than taking responsibility

even they blame russia for all their mig21s crashing to the ground when its internal policies and carelessness that leads to accidents

Still does not absolve the ISRO of blame..
being partners for decades has nothing to do with accepting sub-standard stuff.. especially in the current economic and diplomatic scenario that India enjoys.

The ISRO chief personally headed the inquisition into the GSLV failure...the commitee took 4+ months out of it's packed schedule to look into what went wrong...they took it very very seriously...

the findings were that the rusian crygenic engines have been rated to lift cargos as heavy as 3 tons...but all the gslv flights with cargos in excess of 2000kgs have had snags...
it was noted that the engine of the said gslv flight passed all the mandatory pre-flight checks*
but had one of it's coilling snapped under the duress afterthe flight...
there is no blaming anyone.
No body has launched a formal complaint with the russians about their giving us faulty equipment..
it is just the finding...you guys have only highlited the blaming part to satisfy your ego...
I request you to rise above all the internet noobs flooding this forum and read the threads and their sources carefully...

*the transfer of cryogenic engines and the technology is safeguarded carefully by the russians...there is always a russian scientist present overlooking the handling of the engine...so our testing of the engine is severly limited...ISRO is and will always be one of the most efficient and commited orgs that are there..

 

[paritosh]

Since the early 2000's India has been the darling of the western world..
Has the diplomacy corp done all that work for no fruit??
Would say in 2005 a European company not think twice about supplying India??
would LM not offer tech similar to the DELTA rockets??

ISRO's commercial arm ANTRIX corp. presents as a cheap alternative to all the space organisations of the world by offering satellite launches for very competitive prices...and has bagged many contracts in the recent past...
when was the last time the US offered it's tech to any country?
by offering tech instead of products companies like LM would endanger their own future and stake in the world market to rising powers like India...
geting engines from the west now after the lifitng of the pokhran sanctions seems feasible...but our aim is to master this tech so that we can become a true functioning global space power.

 

[ptldM3]

Are you saying that ISRO could not even buy an engine properly? i think its because that India had a chance to grab as much rocket engine from a bankrupting Russia and early 90 so it get as much as it can get. But with that, it comes with risks. When Russia was doing a fire sale, the bound to be some issues with quality.

NASA also purchased engines from Russia during that period, Russian engines are regarded as the safest and most reliable engine and this is verifiable. In fact Russia has the highest success-to-failure rate of 93.5% as of 2004, with over 2700 launches from that period. However, in recent times there has been slightly more failures compared to the past but some can be dismissed as carelessness rather than a faulty design.

Engines especially old ones do fail, it just happens. I do, however, believe that it is India's responsibility to ensure every component is in safe working order. It's very possible that ISRO did have high QC standards and the component in question just happened to fail.