Slashdot Mirror


Indian Launch Vehicle Explodes After Lift-Off

Indian communications satellite GSAT-5P was destroyed by the explosion of its launch vehicle, the Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle. The GSLV malfunctioned while still in its first phase of its Christmas launch, after less than a minute of flight. YouTube has a video of the explosion, taken from TV9 Kannada.

50 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Video in English by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Informative

    A much better video in English here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH-0OH0MI2Y

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Video in English by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wikileaks has the one where you can see aliens shoot down the rocket.

    2. Re:Video in English by Hynee · · Score: 5, Informative

      So it looks like the GSLV yawed beyond limits, upper stages (I think stage 3 plus payload) broke off (0:34 on video), then stage 1+2 kept going, initially with decreased yaw (it got knocked back on course upon stage 3 separation), but then increasing yaw until 0:45 when stage 2 broke away from stage 1 and the strap-ons broke off too.
      The orange cloud at 0:45 should be the hypergolics in the strap-on boosters, I believe that's what caused the orange cloud in the Challenger disaster.
      According to the wiki article on the GSLV's predecessor the first stage injects chemicals (aqueous strontium perchlorate solution) into the nozzle to control yaw. I wonder if this has been problematic in the past?

      --
      Damn, I already moderated this topic. Now I'll have to log in with my sock puppet to comment.
    3. Re:Video in English by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, the unedited one shows the rocket continuing on into space properly. This video is just for the insurance company...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Video in English by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 2

      But without the red arrow and the circle I'd never be able to spot the explosion! The music was a nice touch too.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  2. Fireworks! by nickovs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pretty!!! That's one expensive fireworks display that they put on for Christmas!

    Seriously though, the GSLV seems to have a pretty poor success rate; this is the third of five operational launches to fail.

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
    1. Re:Fireworks! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously though, the GSLV seems to have a pretty poor success rate; this is the third of five operational launches to fail.

      It is their most ambitious booster to date, and AFAIK, it has more 'indigenous' technology than previous systems. If the Indians are like everybody else, they're gonna go boom for a while.

      It is Rocket Science.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Fireworks! by crymeph0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First rule of spaceflight #9: Most of your early attempts end in tears. I hope to see India's space program try, try again until they get it right, and not let the inevitable early failures dampen their spirit. With the United States government bound and determined to cede our #1 status as a spacefaring nation (unless Elon Musk already has designs for a rocket capable of taking us beyond the moon), I can only hope another democracy like India, and not a fascist regime like China, takes the lead.

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    3. Re:Fireworks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, there have been dozens and dozens of successful Indian launches in the past, only this particular rocket series (GSLV) has a low success rate (2/5). The SLV, PSLV, and others have been remarkably successful.

      And that aside, "learning from your mistakes" is only possible if you give them the tech and details of your launches, which is not happening at the moment.

    4. Re:Fireworks! by hcdejong · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is Rocket Science.

      Not really. As companies like SpaceX have shown, these days it's more rocket engineering than science. The basic principles are well known, the biggest hurdle seems to be quality control on a huge number of parts.

    5. Re:Fireworks! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You nuts? You know where private corporations would manufacture those rockets? Think for a moment before you say something like that!

      Besides, ponder for a moment what that would lead to. First, mothball every idea you had about space exploration. There is no profit in that. Second, drop any notion that information would be shared. Should they stumble upon a new propulsion system, rest assured that it will be patent-bound before the first prototype comes close to making its first cough. Third, unless it's regulated like crazy (and then rest assured it will be heavily lobbied against), pollution and space littering will skyrocket. Exhaust from rockets ain't really "green", even with NASA's efforts to make it "greener". Don't think that private enterprise would. And since it's up in the stratosphere or beyond, who cares about it? It will spread so thinly across the globe that, by the time we notice it, we can't do jack about it anymore anyway. And since there is zero profit in cleaning up the exhausted stages, they'll orbit for a while 'til they come down ... somewhere. Oh, sure, they have to be disposed orderly, but ... let's ponder for a moment... chance to hit something and kill a few people, price to pay when it hits a few people, price to pay to make it really reenter controlled ... let's see what's cheaper.

      Oh, and finally, I would not really sell an astronaut a life insurance anymore. The same applies here: What's cheaper? Ensuring the one you have stays alive or hiring and training a new one? What's the price of an astronaut, does anyone know? He better pray that this training is expensive enough that the corporation has any interest that his reentry vehicle really works. Or, in other words, I wouldn't ask for too high a salary, it might be interesting if they didn't have to pay it...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Fireworks! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stop that. Stop that this very second.

      I'm trying to be mildly amusing and you go and get all pedantic about it.

      On Christmas, of all days.

      I am so not inviting you to parties next year.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Fireworks! by Arlet · · Score: 2

      It is Rocket Science.

      That's not exactly brain surgery, is it ?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

    8. Re:Fireworks! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2

      Agreed on your last comment. No matter how much America wants the world to become this utopia, it won't ever happen until this type of helpful information is shared. Too bad it all comes down to military technology and egos.

      Privatize the space program already!! Whos in??

      No, it comes down to military technology and egos that really really want to use it. We have a big military (although, to be fair, it's a hell of a lot smaller now that it once was, massive force reductions since the fall of the Soviet Empire) because certain of those big egos were pointing big explosive devices at us. They still are, but certain other big egos in Washington seem constitutionally unable to accept that, in the odd belief that the "world is now safe for Democracy", whatever the Hell that means. Since the USSR collapsed, the world is a lot more dangerous place.

      Furthermore, you seem to be of the (badly mistaken) idea that such information, when shared with allies, will remain with allies. That's just not true. China, for example, is not an ally, and never will be an ally. So far as I'm concerned, if they want to achieve the same capabilities in near-space that we and the Russians have demonstrated, they should have to spend the same untold billions that we did. Period. There's no benefit to us for sharing space technology, none whatsoever, not at this time. The military applications are too real, and too readily exploited. That's pretty basic: you don't give an enemy his weapons, you make him pay to build them for himself, and you make him pay even more if he ever decides to use them. And, in the end, he may decide it's not worth the investment, and find other uses for those resources. And if he does, that's to your benefit, because now he's less of a threat.

      Besides, forgetting the military aspects of space technology for a moment, why should we give any such nation a leg up on the economic advantages of space? That's not what our government (in fact, any government) is paid to do ... give away its citizens hard-earned investments to hostile foreign powers. Frankly, I think the United States Federal Government has already done far too much of that, and it has been to the ongoing detriment of this country. Much more of this give-away-the-candy-store mentality is going to destroy what little we have left, and it's not as much as some people think.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Fireworks! by khallow · · Score: 2

      That's not exactly brain surgery, is it ?

      Yea, if you screw up, then you lose one to two orders of magnitude more money than you'd lose with brain surgery. And with brain surgery, you know in advance that anyone who dies wasn't healthy.

  3. Everyone focuses on the engine.... by fotbr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And completely misses the fact that several seconds before the first stage goes up in a fireball, the top of the rocket falls off and collides with the first stage.

    Someone forgot to apply the indian version of lok-tite to some mating ring bolts. :)

    1. Re:Everyone focuses on the engine.... by OverlordQ · · Score: 2

      And completely misses the fact that several seconds before the first stage goes up in a fireball, the top of the rocket falls off and collides with the first stage.

      It fell off because the rocket started pitching over . . . likely due to the engine.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Everyone focuses on the engine.... by Sanat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe they did not realize the gravity of the situation.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    3. Re:Everyone focuses on the engine.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And completely misses the fact that several seconds before the first stage goes up in a fireball, the top of the rocket falls off and collides with the first stage.

      Someone forgot to apply the indian version of lok-tite to some mating ring bolts. :)

      More likely the explosive bolts exploded a wee bit early....

      From what I've been able to gather from the commentary and looking at the clip a bunch of times, it looks like it lost attitudinal control first, then the upper stage failed. Can't be sure exactly when the RSO blew the rocket up, but I think it occurs much later in the sequence when it's clear that the booster failed. Typically an errant booster is given a bit of time to fall apart before it's blown up as the destruct sequence is manual and one would like to get some video of what failed before everything turns into a bunch of expensive fireworks.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Everyone focuses on the engine.... by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      The ISRO mentions a "large altitude error"; I'm no rocket scientist, but if I had to guess I'd say that the first stage stopped thrusting evenly, causing the GSLV to veer off course and the errant rocket was destroyed for safety reasons. Or the resulting torque from the offset thrust vector tore the second stage off.

      There are also reports of locals finding hunks of charred reindeer throughout the region, but I'd chalk that up to coincidence.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:Everyone focuses on the engine.... by vandelais · · Score: 2

      Wile E Coyote begs to differ.

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  4. Re:LOL by jaypifer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course we can, it's our biggest state.

    --
    Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
  5. Your ignorance is astounding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    You do realize that there's a pretty significant difference between the rockets used to put artificial satellites in orbit and the Space Shuttle, right?

    We've been putting artificial satellites into orbit for over 50 years now. While it's complex, it isn't particularly difficult to do. There's a large base of accumulated knowledge on the subject, and these days it can generally be done flawlessly by many different nations and space programs.

    The Space Shuttle, on the other hand, is so much more complex. America is the only nation that has been able to pull it off so far. Not only that, but it's not just sending some circuitry and solar panels into orbit. The Space Shuttle was dealing with real people who were to be returned safely. It's quite remarkable that in over 30 years and well over 100 launches there have only been two disasters.

    To make a programming analogy that you can understand, this is basically the equivalent of India fucking up a simple "Hello World!" app. It's a fuck up that just shouldn't happen these days.

    1. Re:Your ignorance is astounding. by edremy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Space Shuttle, on the other hand, is so much more complex. America is the only nation that has been able to pull it off so far.

      Actually, we're one of two. The Soviet Buran did fly successfully, albeit unmanned. It probably would have worked at least as well as the shuttle -they avoided some of the mistakes on the shuttle, such as using solid rocket boosters and mounting the main engines on the shuttle itself, but the USSR ran out of cash in the late 80s.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    2. Re:Your ignorance is astounding. by robot256 · · Score: 2

      The only trouble with that confidence is that in the case of both shuttle disasters, it was not fundamentally difficult technology or circumstances but poor design & politics, and old parts & bad communication that caused them. While I'm sure there were cases of senseless politicians sending ill-equipped ships to sea in the fifteenth century, I'm pretty sure fundamental inadequacies of technology (navigation, weather prediction, construction) explain the majority of disasters. In the case of the shuttle, we could have avoided them, but we didn't. It's the program management that deserves most of the blame, yes, but you can still argue that with better technology (that was available at the time), the problems would never have arisen.

    3. Re:Your ignorance is astounding. by sznupi · · Score: 2

      I'd say - unfortunately. The Buran project was pursued primarily because of some misplaced notion of "strategic parity" - mostly pushed by some ignorant Soviet generals paranoid about (nonexistent...) advantage given by the Space Transportation System. Even within the concept of reusable spaceplane (not necessarily a good idea in general), the Soviet engineers wanted to go elsewhere.

      They did do it more sensibly - Energia-approach was basically an Ares V-like one, from the start. But it also meant cancellation of N-1 - second version of which was almost ready (with problems of the first one understood, so maybe v2 would be fine) - before it could give any results. And I wouldn't be too surprised if the Soviets / Russians could maintain (using less than what what Buran cost them) a small Lunar base for the last ~3 decades, if not for few setbacks which meant they lost the Moon Race (as a bonus: in such case US would probably try to reach for the next "big mission", so we would possibly had an Apollo-style Mars landings by now; more fun all-around)

      Well, one could say that provoking them to do the Buran (with its costs) was the true goal of STS. In which case it has done its job a long time ago / why was it allowed to suck NASA dry for the past 2 decades? (while not providing anything as advertised)

      At least we got Zenit out of Energia-Buran, appears to be most cost-effective launcher around...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:Your ignorance is astounding. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2

      I find it had to take seriously any post that likens putting a sattellite into orbit with writing 'Hello World!'

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    5. Re:Your ignorance is astounding. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      Buran flew once with two orbits, even if the American Shuttle program had only one launch, STS-1 it would be considered much more successful.

      Buran 1.01 - 2 orbits, 3 hours and 26 minutes - no life support, no on board software
      STS-1 - 37 orbits, 2 days, 6 hours and 21 minutes - 2 crew, full life support, full software, manual landing

    6. Re:Your ignorance is astounding. by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      100 launches there have only been two disasters.

      According to my official NASA calculator, that's a failure rate of only 0.2%. Not bad at all.

  6. At least tech support is a local call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just sayin'

    1. Re:At least tech support is a local call by gtall · · Score: 2

      Hello! Hmmm...you say it blew up. Here's what you could try:

      1. Could you try rebooting? Oh, it's already blown up.

      2. How about reinstalling your software? Ah, no machine left to reinstall into.

      3. Please contact your manufacturer. You may have to mail in the remains.

    2. Re:At least tech support is a local call by sjames · · Score: 2

      You gotta expect a bit of venom there. You call for tech support and the very first thing they do is lie to you. About their NAME or all things. How well can a call go when you can't even get past the hellos before the lies start? Just to top it off, it's an insultingly transparent lie.

  7. Not surprising by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My experience with teaching students from India is that they do great on the theory, but in the lab not watch out.

    1. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My experience with teaching students from India is that they do great on the theory, but in the lab not watch out.

      And here we have a pompous ass who extrapolates his "teaching experience" to rocket launches. So, Mr. Pompous Ass, what about the dozens of past successful Indian launches? How does your "teaching theory" account for that, eh moron?

    2. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People like to sling around implications of racism, but the fact is it has everything to do with culture.

      For example, consider the difference between students raised in Asia, and students of Asian decent raised in the west. The students raised in Asia (and not necessarily Asian themselves) cheat like hell because doing well in school is *extraordinary* important in Asia. Students who were raised in the west were not raised in this extreme pressure, and are on average more honest (or at least act more ashamed of their cheating).

      This phenomenon is well documented. Posting as AC, because people will undoubtedly attempt to slander this as "racist" as well.

    3. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also posting as AC, for obvious reasons.

      Asians cheated like fucking crazy throughout grad school, and for the reasons described by parent. The thing is, in the west, there's a great deal of emphasis on honor, personal achievement, etc. In Asia, it's hugely about expectations, meeting them, and being successful.

  8. Re:LOL by hedwards · · Score: 2

    To be fair, Canadians have it easier, just put eh after every letter.

  9. Re:hey, don't knock it by puto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Other than those two, and a few other mishaps, the US has been putting people in space and bringing them back safely for over 40 years.

    --
    The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
  10. Re:hey, don't knock it by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Other than those two, and a few other mishaps,

          So what you're saying is that if we exclude every event where things went wrong, the US has a perfect record?

          Tell me something, do you work for the Federal Reserve?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. Re:No surprise.. this is india after all by BangaIorean · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then, you'll probably explain how India managed to launch 30+ rockets successfully in the past, and launched one rocket successfully to the moon as well?

    See, this is what I detest about Americans. The sheer smugness, ignorance, arrogance and incredible lack of knowledge is mind boggling. We have all this careful "analysis" and "observation" in the parent's post, and I'll bet my ass that this chap didn't know anything about the past record of the Indian space program and simply jumped in to post an inane comment, assuming that "hey, it's Eeeendiaaa, them tech support guys, laaats of them can't speak proper English, so how can they launch rockets?" Disgusting.

  12. Re:No surprise.. this is india after all by 0123456 · · Score: 2

    Certainly not. A few components, early on in ISROs history - sure. But not "most of it".

    According to this article, the earlier versions of this rocket used Russian engines, and they lost another one in April due to replacing Russian engines with Indian engines:

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indigenous-engines-bring-down-GSLV/articleshow/5814028.cms

  13. Re:No surprise.. this is india after all by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then, you'll probably explain how India managed to launch 30+ rockets successfully in the past, and launched one rocket successfully to the moon as well?

    See, this is what I detest about Americans. The sheer smugness, ignorance, arrogance and incredible lack of knowledge is mind boggling. We have all this careful "analysis" and "observation" in the parent's post, and I'll bet my ass that this chap didn't know anything about the past record of the Indian space program and simply jumped in to post an inane comment, assuming that "hey, it's Eeeendiaaa, them tech support guys, laaats of them can't speak proper English, so how can they launch rockets?" Disgusting.

    Either you are that stupid to not realize not all Americans are like, or you have been waiting for a "good" opportunity to level a disgusting generalization of us. Either way, you are not that much better from those you seek to criticize. I've meet quite a few tards from your own country (and from Pakistan) that claim as scientific stupid shit like the Romans couldn't do arithmetic while the Indians of the time could or some other inane shit to prop themselves above every other single race in the world.

    It would never cross my mind to think about generalizing that stupidity over all people of your country. Guess why? It's called brains. You (and I mean you Bangalorean), you might be educated, but intelligent and decent, you are not. Until you realize how stupid it is to generalize, you will never be.

  14. Re:No surprise.. this is india after all by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Calm down, he's just frustrated that we don't like Cricket.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  15. Re:hey, don't knock it by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Informative

    To be fair, three out of seven GSLV launches have failed. No US space program has that failure rate, even if you don't exclude the mishaps.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  16. American children have a saying... by repetty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    American children have a saying...

    'When you point a finger at me, three point back at you."

    Re-read your rant and think about it.

  17. Re:Kanada! by PPH · · Score: 2

    I was going to say "Blame Kannada!"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Re:No surprise.. this is india after all by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2

    See, this is what I detest about Americans. The sheer smugness, ignorance, arrogance and incredible lack of knowledge is mind boggling.

    So, we're both ignorant and suffering from an incredible lack of knowledge? Wow, we must all be pretty stupid then, low-IQ sub-humans who can, at best, feed ourselves and perhaps learn to tie our own shoes. I guess all the scientific, technological and military progress we've made in the past century is just a figment of your fevered imagination.

    See, this is what I detest about bigoted non-Americans. Matter of fact, I detest it in anyone, from any society. This bland assumption that one can extrapolate from obviously limited experience with another people (in this case, to a nation of some THREE HUNDRED MILLION) goes beyond merely mind-boggling to being truly Biblical in nature. For myself, I know people from a variety of different cultures: some are remarkable individuals, some are truly ignorant, and some are just assholes ... but in none of those cases do I assume that I can extend my knowledge of them to make any judgment whatsoever about their fellow citizens. To do so is bigotry, and the picture you just painted of yourself is one of a bigot.

    I wish you would just read back your own message, and ask yourself, "How would I feel if someone made such an uninformed, demeaning remark about my country, my people? Would I like it?"

    I rather suspect you're not capable of such intellectual honesty, but that's not my problem, fortunately.

    I recommend that you just grow up. It's hard, but once you do you start to see a lot of good in people of other countries. It's a big world out there, and not everyone is as they seem, not everyone can be placed into neat little pigeonholes in order to satisfy your ego, your need for some feeling of superiority. If anyone is being smug, arrogant, and expressing ignorance ... well my friend, in this thread you're it.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  19. Your ignorance however is astronomical by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To make a programming analogy that you can understand, this is basically the equivalent of India fucking up a simple "Hello World!" app

    I am sorry sir, but it is YOUR ignorance that is showing here. A launch vehicle capable of getting a lot of mass as far as geostationary orbit is not simple either.

  20. Reading comprehension failure - you and others by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Either you are that stupid to not realize not all Americans are like

    Or on the other hand perhaps he is not generalising to the entire population of two continents and you have failed to comprehend what it written. I take it as generalising to the poorly educated, ignorant, jingoistic portion of the population that would write an ignorant pile of steaming manure such as the post he replied to. Instead it appears you see the word "American", ignore the context, then think it is aimed at yourself, George Washington and apple pie.
    He's not yelling at you, simply at the smug "USA is greatest and the rest are all monkeys yawl" in the post prior to it.

  21. Re:Monkeys -- I think not by tibit · · Score: 2

    You're a doubly-confirmed fucking moron.

    Any attempts at explanations in the heat of the moment make no sense, because you'd be pretty much making shit up. No one explained anything right after Challenger's blow-up, and you'll hardly find anyone anywhere explaining anything before the formal investigation gets going and they have an inkling as to what happened. If you want to listen to some hilarity, find Challenger broadcasts on youtube, right after the explosion.

    As for the "launch going South" and the "monkeys" at the consoles: the launch is controlled by on-board systems as soon as the umbilicals retract. You could, pretty much, shut everything down in the command center and go home just then, as far as the launch vehicle is concerned. Payload is another matter, but then it's often controlled from a different control center. The people at the consoles -- after the liftoff -- are there pretty much only to make sure they get all the telemetry -- that's one of the real assets from every launch, and worth millions of dollars easy.

    So, once again: past-liftoff, the only souls on the ground you care about in an unmanned mission are the payload controllers and range safety.

    As for riding on trains like monkeys: I'd take that any day over the sue-happy, mind-the-hot-beverage and don't-let-toddlers-play-with-plastic-baggies warn-people-or-else mentality, thankyouverymuch.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.