India Test-Fires Cryogenic Rocket Engine 256
alphakappa writes "Wired News reports that India has successfully testfired a cryogenic rocket engine that can be used to 'launch high-altitude satellites, send a man to the moon -- or build intercontinental ballistic missiles'. The rocket which typically has to fire for 12 minutes during flight was fired for 17 minutes during ground testing. So are we gonna see competition in the moon race? Remember, India has already spoken about sending a mission to the moon and it has joined the Galileo consortium along with China."
Before (Score:4, Informative)
India's bid to develop its own cryogenic engines suffered several setbacks. In 1992, Russia agreed to give India the technology but reversed the decision after Moscow signed the Missile Technology Control Regime with the United States. Washington objected to giving India the technology because of its potential use for nuclear missiles.
Russia later agreed to sell fully built engines, without passing on the technology, to India.
India developed a rudimentary form of its cryogenic technology in 2001 and several tests were held after that to fine-tune it.
Re:Before (Score:2, Interesting)
Just like China I guess, they can send people in orbit... I guess they no longer need foreign monetary aid.
As far as I can see, it is all good news now. It is gonna save us a bunch of money now, oh wait...
Re:Before (Score:2)
Re:Before (Score:2)
The US and other Western and Asian powers put debt against their currencies in the form of bonds. I.e. you get IOUs, and you get to "own" part of the economy. Much like a stock market of sort.
The loans that India and other developing countries get, are not agains their curerncies. Think of it as credit card debt.
So they are two very different types of debt. The world needs a country like the US or the EU that allow money tran
Re:an ultra nationalistic indian...(proud of that! (Score:2)
Re:Before (Score:2)
From the first link you can see that China controls about 8.6% of the foreign debt, trailing the UK (9.8%) and Japan (33%).
Now here's a question. If Federa
Re:Before (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Before (Score:2)
Re:Before (Score:1)
Re:Before (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before (Score:2, Insightful)
Thankfully, Hitler was an egotist and pushed thousands of German intellectuals out of Germany and to America and other Allied nations.
Re:Before (Score:3, Informative)
You may even remember that half of Germany belonged to the Soviets until the 90's. There was a little something called the Berlin wall that separated communist Germany from democratic Germany.
= 9J =
Re:Before (Score:2)
No? No what? You appear to have repeated what I stated, but that's ok. For further information regarding the Soviet-bound East Germany, visit here [wikipedia.org] and here [nationbynation.com].
For further information about captured German scientists working to build Soviet rocket technology, read this [russianspaceweb.com].
= 9J =
Re:Before (Score:3, Informative)
The Americans got the vast majority of the V2 development team and hardware; they then demolished the production lines which fell inside the Soviet sector of Germany.
Sergei Korolev and his team were sent to Germany to review the wreckage, they retrieved plenty of information which they put to good use in the R1 which was a Soviet copy of the V2.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Before (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Before (Score:2)
One of the the great Myths of the modern age is that the US space program dependeded on German technology. Not really. Many inovations where native. The only real decendant of the V2 programs that was the US used was the Redstone.
The Russians also used a few V2s to jump start there programs but again they went there own way pretty quic
Re:Before (Score:2)
moon race? nah... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, we're just going to see India launch a few satelites to show that they can (because if you can launch a satelite, you can build ICBM's), I doubt they will want to go to the moon.
Re:moon race? nah... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:moon race? nah... (Score:4, Insightful)
This rocket is just because they can, and no doubt also an attempt to attract international investment. After all, this is a great adverstisment for the education standards of your workforce if you're able to achieve complex technological goals like this.
Why just Pakistan? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why just Pakistan? (Score:4, Informative)
As for being peace-loving, that's what everybody says themselves to be.
Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 years? (Score:2)
1. USA (fucking scary, but read the doc's!)
2. (far behind) Israel
3. (even bigger gap) India
4. (tie) Pakistan, France, China, N. Korea
Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year (Score:2)
From here [cdi.org] we see a threatened (12/5/2002) Russian use (apparently of nuclear weapons) to destroy the population of Chechnya:
Question: Shamil Basayev is threatening Russia with nuclear terrorism. Should we be frightened?
Answer: If Chechen terrorists attempt to seize a nuclear power station or spread radioactive materials to pollute the air and land, it will amount to proclaiming a nuclear war on Russia. The reply will be ruth
Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year (Score:2)
However, given the instability of Pakistan, it is possible that India will find it necessary to enact a counter-force strike against Pakistan for its own survival, in conditions where Pakistan is taken over by Isamic fundamentalists of a certain stripe. I do not know if such a strike is practical, however, in which case India would instead be forced
Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year (Score:2)
In the case of WW-II, it may be that the only reason that Germany did not use toxic weapons was that Hitler had personally been gassed in WW-I and thus chose not to use them.
Furthermore, WW-I had shown that gas weapons were not that effective if both sides used them. Saddam used them more effectively against
Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year (Score:2)
Perhaps indeed India would not perceive the threat to itself as high enough to instantly attack, in w
Re:Why just Pakistan? (Score:3, Informative)
The ONLY reason nuclear war didn't break out during those years was because a. we'd have volatilized them and b. the Russians were never quite sure their equipment would actually work. Furthermore, they knew that we were highly unlikely to ever fire the first shot.
Please post some sources for this opinion - it's highly unconventional and conflicts with the generally accepted historical view. The Russians were actually fairly confident in
Re:Why just Pakistan? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why just Pakistan? (Score:2)
1) The Russians would have volatilized you too, you might want to check what their nuclear arsenal looked like, you'll be surprised
2) India already has nuclear weapons and proved it
3) China has nuclear weapons since more than 20 years
4) These 3 countries don't really give a damn about what's happening in the Middle East, they're not involved at any level and have never been in any of the previous middle eastern wars.
India and Pakistan have been on brink of war last year w
20 years (Score:2)
Re:moon race? nah... (Score:1)
Re:moon race? nah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:moon race? nah... (Score:2)
Of course, they do have a lingering border dispute with China as well. [cia.gov]
Distance between New Delhi and Islamabad: 406 miles (653 km) [indo.com]
Distance between New Delhi and Beijing: 2341 miles (3768 km) [indo.com]
None of the USA's current fleet of ICBM's (AFAIK) use cryogenic motors for their primary stages. However, previous generations certianly did, (Redstone, Titan, etc)
Although this rocket may very well be intended for civilian or commercial service, I think that it is also to demonstrate to the world India's contin
Re:moon race? nah... (Score:2)
IIRC, Inda's public statements are to the effect that they are more worried about China than Pakistan. Sure the war with Pakistan is hotter, but in the end they claim to see Pakistan as a threat they can deal with, without using nukes. China is a much harder threat to deal with. Pakistan has said essentially the same thing: China is a bigger threat than India.
Having talked to a few people from each of the above I'd agree. The Chinese are used to being brainwashed and controled in some areas that makes
Re:moon race? nah... (Score:2)
Not quite. India and China have had an ongoing border dispute for many years now. The two countries view one another with suspicion and are engaged in an arms race.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Maybe not (Score:2, Interesting)
Who has all this stuff that India will want and need and will be dumped by their friends if India grab for it?
Look at a map.
Why has India being building a blue water navy?
Where could they go with it?
Australia. Unless you think India wants to take on another 100+m Muslims by annexing I
Re:Maybe not (Score:2)
Indonesia is not likely to be an integrated and cohesive nation for a long time yet.
Korolev and the leaking oxygen line (Score:4, Funny)
Anyway, how do you keep a kerosene-LOX rocket on the pad on any kind of alert status (i.e. able to launch in some time less than several days of prep)? The idea was to keep it plugged in to a supply of LOX so as LOX boils off, you pump in more. In a test, they had a leak on a LOX feed line to the rocket, so one of the technicians, like, whipped it out and took aim at the leak -- that froze over and plugged the leak. I work with a fellow whose favorite expression is "running around peeing on all of those problems" and here is where someone did it for real.
New arms race? (Score:1)
Re:New arms race? (Score:1, Funny)
~~~
am i the only one confused ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Am i the only one confused. Indias moon ambitions were said to be restricted to only firing a unmanned galileo type mission to the moon. Which is pretty simple considering that they were planning to use the existing GSLV(Geo-Stationary Launch Vehicle) set-up. Why the sudden shift to a manned mission? A manned mission to the moon will never happen in India because of a number of reasons most notably the fact that we spend peanuts on space, compare isro's(indian space research org.) budget to NASA.
Also i thought GSLV - the satellite launch vehicle was totally indigenously built, Though WIRED seems to claim that the engine was Russian!
Anyway i think its a great achievement considering the amount India spends on space research.
Re:am i the only one confused ? (Score:2, Informative)
why the shift? (Score:2, Troll)
It wasn't all that long ago China and India fought a small border war; their relations are not particularly friendly.
Re:why the shift? (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me, but are you referring to the Apollo program as "useless"? If so, you are a fool.
In terms of long-term scientific and technological returns, the Apollo program in particular, and NASA in general have been some of the most well-spent gummint dollars in history.
It is also very hard to put a value on even one smart child who is inspired to do something great. I have never seen anything more inspirational in my life than the first man setting foot on th
Re:why the shift? (Score:2)
Compare the benifit of Apollo to the benifit from spending all those dollars in some other way. Of course this can only be done in fiction, but I maintain that those dollars would have been more productive spent elsewhere.
Re:why the shift? (Score:2)
Ok, where?
Re:am i the only one confused ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sharma said the technology was "crucial to the ultimate moon shot," alluding to India's plan to send a manned mission to the moon before 2015.
It sounds like it's the journalist who concluded that the "moon shot" was about sending a man to the moon instead of just a satellite.
Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be accounted for by bad journalism.
Moonshot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps we should wait until India has actually placed someone in orbit before talking about a moonshot? I am all for an increase in competition when it comes to space, but aren't we getting a wee bit ahead of ourselves?
Re:Moonshot? (Score:1)
Re:Moonshot? (Score:1)
Tech support (Score:4, Funny)
Astronauts ? ... (Score:1)
I, for one (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I, for one (Score:2)
KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!!!! [imdb.com]
I don't!
A rimshot for me an my friend... (Score:1, Funny)
great news! (Score:5, Interesting)
Rocketry is yes-- rocket science-- but certainly within the grasp of "second tier" tech nations like China, India, Brazil, and Korea.
Re:great news! (Score:2)
Re:great news! (Score:3, Interesting)
Lots of countries restrict export of payloads, leading to restriction of competition.
One problem is that there aren't enough paying payloads to support these launchers.
The biggest lifters, Saturn V and Energia have been discontinued - despite economy of scale. The shuttle has enjoyed continued funding despite high cost. The ISS would have been MUCH cheaper if lif
India and Pakistan walk into a bar... (Score:5, Funny)
I: We will be having giant-sized moon rocket now.
P: You think you are becoming big shot with moon rocket now?
I: We are becoming superpower now.
P: You are not now.
I: We are too now.
P: We will be building bigger rocket now.
I: You are not now.
O: We are too now.
I: All of your bases are belonging to us now.
Re:India and Pakistan walk into a bar... (Score:2)
P: We will be building bigger rocket now.
I: You are not now.
O: We are too now.
I for India, P for Pakistan, O for... Osama ?
Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
ha, ha, BSoD firecrackers. (Score:2)
Lockheed even provided technical assistance that happens to improve the reliability of chinese ICBM's
Lockheed makes great hardware, but there is no need to fear. China bought into Microsoft's Shared Source nonsense, so their ICBMs will need frequent reboots and will more than likely be disabled by some worm written by a 13 year old Samoan.
And yet another competitor enters the race. (Score:2, Insightful)
Spin offs include environmental technologies which never would have been developed. Smarter more exotic materials. Massive raw protein potential. Getting things to mars or even low earth orbit is alot easier from the moon then from earth. so on, so forth, etc.
ICBM ??? (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with cryogenic fueled rocket engines is that you have to fuel them before you fire them. Filling a missile fleet with LOX takes time and if anyone notices gives them ample opportunity to preemptively strike.
Re:ICBM ??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:ICBM ??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Go India! (Score:1)
Though I am a little confused as to why they would focus on cryogenic engines rather than the other way... ignoring a valuable natural resource and all. They should have made a curry engine instead, which has way more lifting power than a LOX and H engine could ever have if what it does to my gut is any idication...
Race to the Moon? What? (Score:2)
volatile != explosive (Score:2, Informative)
Volatile does not mean explosive!
India's moon mission (Score:1, Funny)
Light the flames (Score:5, Interesting)
all the best (Score:2)
I love the fact that we had to throw in an obligatory terrorism threat. Ah, the mind-set of the public....
Anyway, more power to them. I think everybody should have an equal chance to go into space.
Nobody is going to build a cyrogenic ICBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Cyrogenic ICBMs are first-strike weapons. It takes so long to prep and fuel them that they're useless as a retaliation weapon. The opposition's ICBMs will land on your silos first. Keeping a cyrogenic system at a high state of readiness for years on end is difficult.
The Cuban missile crisis is sometimes said to have occured because the US put cyrogenic ICBMs in Turkey, aimed at the Soviet Union. That looked like the US was planning a first strike on Moscow. The Soviet Union had to respond to that threat.
(Decades later, interviews with the Soviet officials who made that decision revealed that most of them didn't look at it that way, but that's another issue. The communication-by-strategic-threat thing never worked as some of the gurus of deterrence thought it did. The most famous example of such miscommunication was that Kennedy's advisers thought the Soviet missile base in Cuba was deliberately laid out just like the ones in Russia so that the US would recognize it as a threat. Years later, the Red Army colonel in charge of building the base was asked about this, and said "No, we just did it that way because that's what the field manual said to do." All the military personnel present nodded in understanding.)
So it's a launcher, not an ICBM.
Re:Nobody is going to build a cyrogenic ICBM (Score:4, Informative)
The other leading cause for the Cuban Missile Crisis was the missile gap. A number of other factors definitely contributed, so much so that there isn't really historical agreement on the subject at all.
Re:Nobody is going to build a cyrogenic ICBM (Score:2)
This is the same Fidel Castro that peaceniks the world over fawn over.
Kennedy lost a lot in the missile crisis. In order to resolve the crisis, the US had to agree not to ever attack Cuba, and had to remove the missiles from Turkey. Russia lost only a quick attempt to emplace missiles near the US.
Re:Nobody is going to build a cyrogenic ICBM (Score:3, Informative)
Although the first generation Atlas and Titan ICBM's were phased out by 1965, the US continued to operate the liquid fuel Titan II until 1987. SAC actually introduced Titan II two years after the solid fuel Minuteman series. Although more difficult and dangerous to
Moon race -- it's about time for another one (Score:2)
Consider the early history of Antarctic exploration -- there was the "South Pole Race" in the 1909-1912 era (Shackleton, who didn't quite make it, then the real race between Amundsen and Scott), then essentially nothing (except for the Byrd aerial expeditions in the 30s) for about 35 years until the US Navy's Operation Highjump after WWII and then full-time permanent bases since IGY in 1957.
I for one welcome our new Selenite overl^W^W^W^W
actually... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:actually... (+a URL) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:actually... (Score:1)
Re:Cryogenic? (Score:1)
Cryo is freeze.
Re:not the moon (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that the Moon isn't the *real* purpose of the Indian space programme, but, just as with the US 30 years ago, aiming high helps to hit the lower targets, like comsats, earth imaging and so forth, not to mention the huge boost to national self-esteem and all the benefits that can bring in sheer morale terms - when you've got to the Moon, what challenge can you honestly say is too big to even attempt?
Re:not the moon (Score:1)
Re:not the moon (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, let me see, from India's perspective , the bigger challanges are ....
Poverty :- The country's wealth is divided by the 90-10 rule. i.e. 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.
:- More than 50%. And since being literate means being able to sign your name, the actual figures could be as high as 70-75% :- Forget the politicians , I can't get my mail if I don't tip my postman. :- One of the world's worst . So much Red tape everywhere. :- Barring major cities, public transport is a mess and not every one can afford their own vehicle. Road/Rail accidents account for most no. of deaths in the country.
Illiteracy
Rampant Political/Economical and Social Corruption
Infrastructure
Transportation and Safety
Disaster Recovery:- No set plans and procedures for natural disaster recovery from floods , famines, fires etc. People are left at the mercy of nature and rehabilitation is a joke.
I am not a westerner trying to judge india, I am an indian , humbly pointing out what our top priorities should be.
Re:not the moon (Score:2)
Re:not the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a westerner and will now judge india in a burst of hubris:
I think India should also work on its leprosy poblem...and the plague.
Seriously, for a country to simultaniously have atomic weapons and diseases from the middle ages...that's scary.
Then again, there's been an increase in syphilis in the states lately...that's more 19th century than middle ages, but nobody's perfect.
Re:not the moon (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow! If that's your definition of a serious poverty problem we'd better get to work fixing America, too.
Re:not the moon (Score:3, Insightful)
When we say poverty in india, we mean being unable to provide oneself even with daily bread.
There is no govt. program (at least one that works), to educate, support or at the least feed the really really poor indians. Any money generated thru welfare organizations is socked up internally by politicians and o
Re:not the moon (Score:2)
Hmm, let me see, from India's perspective , the bigger challanges are ....
Perhaps you wanted to say "an Indian's perspective" as opposed to "India's perspective". Surely, you don't claim to represent all of India, do you?
Poverty :- The country's wealth is divided by the 90-10 rule. i.e. 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.
With all due respects, you weren't talking about poverty, but wealth distribution. The US, as a matter of fact, has a much worse wealth distribution than India; I believe th
Re:not the moon (Score:2)
1. Wealth distribution. 90% of the _world's_ wealth is in the hands of 10% of its population. It applies for the US, too. What led to this irrelevant stat - oh, poverty. Yes poverty is a problem. But if you look at recent economic indicators, the proportion living below the poverty line has fallen from 36 per cent ten years ago to 27 per cent. That's economic empowerment for you, 90 million people (one-third of the USA population) coming over the pover
Re:not the moon (Score:1)
If I had mod points... (Score:2)
Re:Abu (Score:1)
Re:Abu (Score:1, Insightful)
The government should try to solve that problem... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:The government should try to solve that problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Thats why, pack up, go there and educate those people.
Yeah, according to you, close all those schools that are doing these researches, maybe even stop educating people, and somehow do this magic trick that will make the caste system go away.
How will the government 'dismantle' caste system?
Re:The government should try to solve that problem (Score:1, Insightful)
We've all got our issues, but progress is still progress.
Re:The government should try to solve that problem (Score:2)