( GSLV F06 SATELLITE AFTER THE BLAST OVER SRIHARIKOTA,INDIA)* ISRO CONFIRMS THAT AFTER T+47 SECONDS, GSLV STARTED LOSING CONTROL
Another disappointing event for all of us in India as ISRO's GSAT 5P (Weighing 2310 kg and mission cost of Rs 125 crore) satellite launch fails after 50 seconds APX from the launch
The launch scenario is similar to what happened with Space Shuttle Challenger disaster happened on Jan 28 1986 when conditions went wrong during after the launch resulting in a blast similar to GSLV.
Another disappointing event for all of us in India as ISRO's GSAT 5P (Weighing 2310 kg and mission cost of Rs 125 crore) satellite launch fails after 50 seconds APX from the launch
THE COUNTDOWN WENT VERY SMOOTH WITH LAUNCH AT 1604HRS. The first stage ignition performed very well but by T+47 seconds apx, the GSLV launch vehicle blasted off over Sriharikota.
The blasts happened at the first stage which is the liquid fuel burn state developed BY ISRO at the basic level AND NOT BY RUSSIAN CRYOGENIC ENGINES. SO NOT PROPER TO BLAME RUSSIAN CRYOGENIC ENGINES WHICH IS A THIRD STAGE ENGINE.
The GS1 stage burn out was targeted for 148.8 seconds from launch at altitude of 68.3km and Inertial velocity of 2.7km/sec BUT GSLV F06 BLASTED ABOUT 47 SEC.
3 comments:
It is difficult to believe that snap of electrical connectors caused GSLV to lose control. Even the connectors on PCs are provided with threaded screws to lock them, then how is that the connectors on a space vehicle can snap? More correct explanation would be breakage of wire harness, and if that is so, then how can such a load come on it? What is puzzling is that ISRO ventured to increase the propellant load on its Russian made cryogenic stage by increasing the length of the tank to derive higher impulse demanded by the heavy satellite (excess weight of 90kg). ISRO should have first proven the basic configuration of the GSLV before attempting to tinker it for launching heavier payload.
Exactly!
What you said is true. ISRO trusted the GSLV more than the limit GSLV needs to be trusted. Its really surprising to see how 10 Connectors on a space vehicle separated at once after performing very well for first 47 seconds from launch.
ISRO should have tested the GSLV with the model satellite weighing the same before as NASA does and then should had proceeded for the launch
Do you think use for inferior quality materials can lead to such connectors snapping off?
I do not think it is the inferior quality of the connectors, rather an unexpected load at the connectors that made the harness snap. The root cause could be unequal thrust from the four liquid fueled boosters, beyond the control threshold. May be the control system was pushed to the limit and consequent increase in angle of attack resulted in high structural load at the connector location, i.e., before the heat shield broke off. Then the question is - was the control margins adequate for the increased weight of the satellite?
Post a Comment