
Isro’s new GSLV Mk III rocket places GSAT-19 communication satellite in orbit - dmingoddd
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/isros-most-powerful-rocket-gslv-mk-iii-places-gsat-19-communication-satellite-in-orbit/articleshow/59001591.cms
======
jgrahamc
Some really nice photos of this on the ISRO site:
[http://www.isro.gov.in/gslv-mk-
iii-d1-gsat-19-mission/gslv-m...](http://www.isro.gov.in/gslv-mk-
iii-d1-gsat-19-mission/gslv-mk-iii-d1-gsat-19-mission-gallery)

Also the launch video is amazing. The moment the engines ignite the whole
thing is moving most likely because those are solid rocket boosters and
there's no throttle up time:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae6LVG0j1Pg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae6LVG0j1Pg)

~~~
jpeg_hero
Props to them for having old school, Apollo-style consoles in the mission
control room. You loose something when you have youngsters with a bunch of
Dell monitors like spaceX. I've seen twitch on the second monitor in spacex
control room.

~~~
ceejayoz
> You loose something when you have youngsters with a bunch of Dell monitors
> like spaceX.

What, exactly, do you lose?

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
Vaguely worded nostalgia

~~~
slackingoff2017
zing

------
alphadog_78
Congratulations ISRO.. Good step in right direction.

If we compare this to current SpaceX Falcon 9 (not Falcon Heavy )
[http://www.spacex.com/falcon9](http://www.spacex.com/falcon9)

Falcon 9 can deliver 8300 Kg to GTO and 22,800kg to LEO.

GSLV MK III delivers 4000 Kg to GTO and 8000KG to LEO (
[http://www.isro.gov.in/launchers/gslv-mk-
iii](http://www.isro.gov.in/launchers/gslv-mk-iii) )

Mr. Musk will be delivering hell lot of stuff to space with his reusable
rockets. SO, he will be very cost competitive to ISRO w.r.t launch price.

~~~
flerchin
The ISRO is pegging the price at Rs 400 Cr which is almost identical to a
Falcon 9 at $62M at current exchange rates. Falcon 9 appears to win on
price/payload, but ISRO is in the ballpark, impressive.

~~~
tankenmate
Except ISRO's margin can't be as good on the materials (although it's probably
better on the staff costs). Th F9 FT has a take off mass of 549 metric tons
and can put just under 23 metric tons into LEO, the GSLV-III has a mass of 640
metric tons and can put 10 metric tons into LEO. The combined propellent mass
for the F9FT is approx 508 metric tons, the GSLV-III is 554 metric tons. So
the non propellent mass for the F9FT is 41 metric tons, and the GSLV-III is 86
metric tons. What's more I'm fairly certain that the solid booster propellent
costs more per ton, they are much much simpler to manufacture than liquid
fuelled engines. F9 however is reusable and is almost completely assembled if
not manufactured in house.

So I strongly suspect that SpaceX's margins are much better than ISRO's and
that the development costs have been viewed as sunk cost by the Indian
government.

Still it is a huge (100% plus) leap for ISRO; I'm sure as they launch more as
well as more often their costs and mass fractions will improve.

~~~
baq
good analysis, but i think you're missing the fact that the upper stage has a
hydrolox engine, which destroys the falcon 9 stage 2 in terms of Isp
(wikipedia gives 443 s). i wouldn't be surprised if it can carry more to
geo-1500 than the f9.

edit: well the same wikipedia cites 4000kg to GTO so my guess is wrong.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Isp is only one factor. The GSLV Mk. 3's upper stage is LOX/LH2 but it's also
fairly small. The Falcon 9's upper stage is 4 tonnes empty 107.5 tonnes
fueled, with an Isp of 348s. The GSLV Mk. 3's upper stage has an Isp of 443s
(good) a dry mass of 5 tonnes (not as good) and a wet mass of 33 tonnes. The
mass fraction on the F9 upper stage utterly dominates the GSLV's upper stage
Isp.

Let's look at GTO payloads and upper stage delta V.

GSLV Mk. 3: 4 tonnes, which translates to a stage delta V of ln((4+33)/(4+5))
x 4.34km/s = 6.135 km/s

F9 FT: 8.3 tonnes -> ln((8+107.5)/(8+4)) x 3.41 = 7.72 km/s

So the Falcon 9's upper stage is able to push twice as heavy a payload through
about 1.6 km/s more delta V despite having nearly a full km/s lower exhaust
velocity, all because it has a better mass ratio.

~~~
baq
thanks for the writeup!

------
swatkat
GSAT-19 satellite also has electrical propulsion system[1] along with the
regular hypergolic motors. ISRO is validating their Hall effect electrical
propulsion systems for north-south station keeping[2]. Going forward,
electrical propulsion systems will greatly reduce the amount of fuel that need
to be carried in satellite.

[1] [http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/india-to-
av...](http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/india-to-avoid-
foreign-rockets-to-launch-communication-satellites-isro-chief-as-kiran-
kumar/articleshow/59003892.cms)

[2]
[https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33770.0](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33770.0)

------
swatkat
This is an important milestone for ISRO. This launch successfully validated
ISRO's homegrown CE-20[1] gas generator cycle cryogenic engine. With this,
ISRO has mastered both staged combustion (CE-7.5[2]) and gas generator cycle
cryogenic engine technologies.

Next up is SCE-200 RP-LOX engine[3]! There is a plan to swap GSLV Mk III's
L110 hyperglic stage with SCE-200 stage, which should considerably boost
payload capacity.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE-20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE-20)

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE-7.5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE-7.5)

[3][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCE-200](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCE-200)

------
manojlds
The title says nothing, especially given ISRO's track record. The big news is
about the launch vehicle - GSLV Mk III - the most powerful rocket from ISRO.

~~~
v33ra
and the one that has potential to take an Indian to the moon.

~~~
bewaretheirs
With capacity of 10 tons to LEO, 4 tons to GTO, it's somewhere between the
Titan II (used for Gemini) and Titan III.

Would have to be a pretty lean moon mission.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Only for a direct ascent architecture. There are lots of Earth orbit assembly
missions that would be possible and not terribly expensive to pull off (at
least for a lunar flyby style mission).

------
rajathagasthya
This is a big deal for ISRO when it becomes operational. In terms of launching
its own heavy communication satellites, it doesn't have to rely on the Ariane.
I can see a lot of customers queuing up to Antrix to launch commercial
satellites. One can hope it eats into SpaceX's lunch in the near future.

~~~
greglindahl
The last 2 Indian satellites launched on Ariane V fit on this new rocket (~3.2
metric tons), but, that's a medium-sized satellite. Ariane V usually launches
pairs of satellites, one ~ 3mt and one ~ 6mt.

As for price, surfing the Internets I see Rs 350 to Rs400 crore as a price,
which ~ $56-$64 million dollars. SpaceX's price for a "flight proven" GTO
launch is supposedly $62 million less 10%, or about the same.

~~~
rajathagasthya
GSLV MK3 is a crucial enabling technology for future applications for ISRO.
They plan to human certify it. But most importantly, it's planned to evolve
into new family of launch vehicles called Unified Launch Vehicle (ULV). A new
SCE-200 semi-cryogenic engine which is under development and other upgrades
could enhance the payload capacity to 6 metric tons. So the ULV will
eventually replace PSLV and the GSLV MK2.

As for pricing, I definitely agree SpaceX has the edge especially with their
reusable rockets. But one can still hope ISRO catches up :)

------
happy-go-lucky
More about the launch vehicle:

[http://isro.gov.in/launchers/gslv-mk-iii](http://isro.gov.in/launchers/gslv-
mk-iii)

~~~
greglindahl
The current title here "ISRO places communication satellite in orbit" buries
the lede -- the big deal is this new launch vehicle, which has 2X the payload
of India's GSLV mark II.

~~~
sctb
Thanks, we've updated the title (which was likely edited for space) to include
this.

------
dis-sys
Did I miss something here?

The rocket is nicknamed "fatboy" and it is indeed fat. I was having the
impression that india finally made a rocket comparable to Falcon Heavy, Ariane
5, Delta IV Heavy and CZ-5. When I checked its specs, well, 8,000kg to LEO and
4,000kg to GTO, seriously? Not trying to discount its symbolic importance to
india, but technically, why its so fat when the payload capacity is so
limited?

~~~
Symmetry
The Falcon 9 is long and thin, this one is short and stout, and they weight
about the same amount. The payload isn't nearly as good as the current Falcon
9 revision but it's about the same as the Falcon 9 v1.0 from way back in 2010
and most rockets of similar. The payload to mass isn't great compared to other
rockets but most of the gross mass is in the solid boosters so you shouldn't
expect the price to be very high for the mass to orbit.

~~~
dis-sys
Using wikipedia data, Falcon 9 has 20% less weight when it is in the reusable
mode, at the same time its LEO/GTO payload capacity is better. I don't think
those two are on the same level, Falcon 9 is THE state of the art while GSLV
MKIII is just a highly inefficient rocket with some pretty poor specs.

------
superasn
Here is the full launch video:

[https://youtu.be/ae6LVG0j1Pg?t=202](https://youtu.be/ae6LVG0j1Pg?t=202)

------
swatkat
Onboard camera videos:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6S8iBtIJDY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6S8iBtIJDY)

------
filereaper
Great Post on Quora by a ISRO engineer on the significance of GSLV to ISRO:
[https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-GSLV-MK-III-mean-to-
ISRO...](https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-GSLV-MK-III-mean-to-ISRO-and-
India)

