India Targets July/August To Test Its Space Shuttle

New submitter gubol123 writes with news that India is close to launching its own space shuttle for the first time. Their space program, ISRO, is planning the shuttle's first test flight for some time in July or August. The unmanned shuttle will fly to a height of approximately 70 kilometers before splashing down in the Bay of Bengal. Oddly, the vehicle itself probably won't be recovered. When it lands in the water, it will sink, and there are no plans to try to bring it back to the surface. The most important obstacles are surviving re-entry and simply staying intact during splashdown. Scientists and ISRO engineers are hoping the shuttle program, when finished, will drop the cost of placing objects in orbit by a factor of 10.

Comments

How is this a shuttle?

[Anonymous Coward]

The term shuttle in murican terms is a piloted thing that lands under control. this seems more like a reusable space container?

Re:How is this a shuttle?

[Richard_at_work]

A shuttle is generally accepted to be something that runs often, doing a job over and over, back and forth, time after time - the airport shuttle, the shuttlecock (more weaving than the sport) etc etc.

So going by its intended use, this meets the naming criteria...

Re:How is this a shuttle?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a limited technical demo. Hence the name 'Reusable Launch Vehicle-Technology Demonstrator' (RLV-TD). Manned landings are planned for around 2025
More inof in wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(spacecraft)

Re:How is this a shuttle?

[Dogtanian]

this seems more like a reusable space container?

Have to admit that's exactly the conclusion I came to when I did a double-take on "Isro's 1.5 [metric] tonne vehicle".

To put this in perspective, that's about the same weight as the current Ford Mondeo (AKA Ford Fusion in North America, apparently); i.e. a typical upper-midsize car by European standards, and lighter than the average American car(!) (*)

(The NASA Space Shuttle orbiter alone is (according to Wikipedia) 78 tonnes when empty.)

I might have dismissed that as a mistake, but the rest of the article seems to suggest that it isn't.

(*) I guessed that was almost certainly the case, and was correct- around 4000 lbs is 1.8 metric tonnes.

Re:How is this a shuttle?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a scaled down model used to test some of the shuttles capabilities. The real thing will be much bigger and will feature manned landing. Target date 2025.

Re:How is this a shuttle?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's your definition. Wikipedia has accurate definitions and none match yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle

I take a shuttle bus to work (in America) BTW

Re:How is this a shuttle?

[Sivaraj]

ISRO never called it a shuttle. It has always been refered to as technology demonstrator (RLV-TD). Current experiment is termed RLV-TD HEX (Hypersonic flight Experiment). The ultimate aim is to develop an RLV named Avatar, which was originally announced over 17 years ago.

This particluar test flight should not be compared to US space shuttle. Better comparison would be X-43A or X51-A Waverider. As these have defence applications, the projects had been running between NASA and DARPA. Similarly, India's Avatar programme has also been shuttling between ISRO and DRDO (Defence Research & Development Organization).

The main feature of Avatar concept is an air breathing Scramjet engine. So far there hasn't been any great success in developing Scramjet engine. The longest one fired for 15 seconds on second flight of X-51A, while its first flight didn't run scramjet. India is nowhere near developing Scramjet in immediate future. But the current flight will test some preliminary technologies related to that project, specifically hypersonic reentry. I don't think this particular vehicle has any propulsion. Even the next two experiments planned on the series (LEX and REX) are planned without any rocket propulsion, but will use turbofan engine for landing. Actual powered flight would be on the SPEX, which will use Scramjet (Source: http://isp.justthe80.com/launc...

Current test is a 100 crore INR (about 16 million USD) experiment. I am happy that ISRO is doing something to take this promising technology further. It may take another 20 years before actually seeing a scramjet engine in action, but that is ok. I would consider it as my tax money well spent.

Re: How is this a shuttle?

[Type44Q]

I don't think that weight figure includes the FPV gear (from HobbyKing, where else?)...

Re:How is this a shuttle?

[sanman2]

So far, there's no intent to make it manned. It will be used for automated unmanned flights.

Re:How is this a shuttle?

[Anonymous Coward]

lighter than the average American car

s/car//

Re:How is this a shuttle?

[Eunuchswear]

The term shuttle in murican terms is a piloted thing that lands under control.

So the STS wasn't a shuttle? (The "pilot"s job consisted of pressing the de-orbit button, then when close enough to the ground pressing the "wheels down" button).

ISRO sponsered by BIC

[Anonymous Coward]

The unmanned shuttle will fly to a height of approximately 70 kilometers before splashing down in the Bay of Bengal. Oddly, the vehicle itself probably won't be recovered.

How can it be called a Shuttle if it's only going to be used once?

Re:ISRO sponsered by BIC

[arielCo]

Maybe this prototype won't be recovered, just like the Enterprise never reached space.

Re:ISRO sponsered by BIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering its real purpose is to carry multi-megaton nuclear warheads into Pakistan, recovery is really not high on the priority list.

Re:ISRO sponsered by BIC

[Somebody Is Using My]

The unmanned shuttle will fly to a height of approximately 70 kilometers before splashing down in the Bay of Bengal. Oddly, the vehicle itself probably won't be recovered.

How can it be called a Shuttle if it's only going to be used once?

And while we are at it, since the beginning of "space" is generally accepted to be 100KM and this thing is only going up 70KM, the "space" part of its name is inaccurate too.

But I guess "space shuttle" sounds better than "big can we're chucking high up into the air and then letting sink into the ocean".

Re:ISRO sponsered by BIC

[ihtoit]

you don't need a shuttle orbiter for that, you'd get away with a missile. Hell, for that matter, load the thing into a car and drive across the border with it, they wouldn't even hear it coming.

Re:ISRO sponsered by BIC

[kyrsjo]

Considering its real purpose is to carry multi-megaton nuclear warheads into Pakistan, recovery is really not high on the priority list.

Yes, that occurred to me too - the stuff they are testing sounds closer to the US hypersonic flight stuff than a "space shuttle":

The mission, which will attract global interest, will evaluate technologies such as hypersonic flight, autonomous landing, powered cruise flight and hypersonic flight using air-breathing propulsion.

Re:ISRO sponsered by BIC

[dj245]

The unmanned shuttle will fly to a height of approximately 70 kilometers before splashing down in the Bay of Bengal. Oddly, the vehicle itself probably won't be recovered.

How can it be called a Shuttle if it's only going to be used once?

And while we are at it, since the beginning of "space" is generally accepted to be 100KM and this thing is only going up 70KM, the "space" part of its name is inaccurate too.

But I guess "space shuttle" sounds better than "big can we're chucking high up into the air and then letting sink into the ocean".

India does things on the cheap. This is what happens when your engineers have degrees from the school of Kerbal Space Program.

Re:ISRO sponsered by BIC

[Applehu Akbar]

"How can it be called a Shuttle if it's only going to be used once?"
It's a scaled prototype, Sheldon.

Re:ISRO sponsered by BIC

[Anonymous Coward]

These are test, validation and systems integration flights. There's nothing wrong with the terminology India is using. Everyone developing such a vehicle would have to go through some test program like this.

Re:ISRO sponsered by BIC

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the call that a brick, but then they called the Shuttle that too.

X-37B

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the X-37B will be taking pictures?

With toilets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they have enough budget to equip with toilets, or is it going to be business as usual?

Craft recovery?

[thegameiam]

I'm very surprised that they wouldn't be at least planning to recover the craft - that would give them all sorts of validation about the actual impact (heh) of launch and re-entry, and could help them get to the next iteration faster. I assume they know what they're doing, but TFA didn't include anything approaching a reason for not attempting recovery.

Re:Craft recovery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they want to study what happens when they lose the vehicle.

Re:Craft recovery?

[Frederic54]

You can be sure USA will recover it, or Russia. I'm sure USA already recovered a Russian fighter to analyze it.

Re:Craft recovery?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an aerodynamics test bed; the finished AVATAR SSTO vehicle will take off and land like a plane, so there's no useful information to be gleaned about how it actually impacts. The impact, in turn, will destroy any useful physical information about its re-entry performance.

Re:Craft recovery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the US recover it? The US is already several generations ahead of this particular tech. Same goes for analyzing a Russian fighter. It might be interesting but US fighter tech already exceeds anything Russia has ever fielded in real combat. The US is the only country that has actually fielded 5th generation fighters and stealth bombers starting way back in 1991 with the F-117 and continuing right up to today with the B-2 and F-22. And so far the US is the only country who has built and used re-usable space vehicles starting with the old space shuttle program and the X-37B vehicle which has been running actual missions over the past 7 years with little fanfare. .

Reduce, reuse, recycle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to outlay a bit more initially so the darned thing can land on a runway, or at the very least just deploy some inflatables so it can float until recovered?

Shuttle?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get to call it a "shuttle" if it's designed to fall into the ocean and sink.

I think the technical term for that is "rock".

Factor of 10

[ckhorne]

The original US Space Shuttle was also designed to reduce costs - It was hoped that it would be able to run 50 missions / yr (one per week!) and cost $50million/mission (in 2011 dollars). Instead, reality set in, and by the end, it was running only a few missions per year at a cost of around 1/2 Billion dollars each.

The Space Shuttle, while a novel idea, simply wasn't the best design for getting into space - it introducing too many safety compromises. Granted, technology has vastly improved since the 1970's, when the Space Shuttle was designed, but that's mostly in the area of computing - material science hasn't changed nearly as much.

I truly hope India does well with their program, but I do wonder if they're ignoring the mistakes made by the US when we went down this road.

Also... 70km... They do realize this isn't planet Kerbin, right?

Re:Factor of 10

[ihtoit]

The Rise and Fall of the Space Shuttle, Book Review: Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program by Pat Duggins, American Scientist, 2008, Vol. 96, No. 5, p. 32, estimates the average STS mission cost at $1.5Bn in adjusted USD.

and Kerbin: funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing! The ISS suffers from atmospheric drag even at 250 miles up. KSP cutoff is shy of 70km, re-entry drag doesn't kick in until you hit 30km. I'd install a real atmosphere mod but I don't have 32GB RAM or a 5GHz processor.

Re:Factor of 10

[caseih]

This is nothing like the America space shuttle. Probably closer to the secret US Airforce mini-shuttle. It's a small vehicle (1.5 tonnes) that goes up on a rocket and then re-enters and lands (eventually) like an aircraft. It won't carry people as it's much too small.

Re:Factor of 10

[trout007]

The costs for the shuttle program were pretty much fixed per year at $5B. The refurbishment of the SRB's and ET's were pretty cheap. If the Air Force didn't bail on the Shuttle a realistic flight rate would be once a month with 4 orbiters which would be about $400m per flight. With the existing infrastructure of 3 OPS's, 3 Bays in the VAB, Two Pads, 3 MLP's and 2 Crawlers you could have added another orbiter at about $1B to ramp up the rate. Also the infrastructure at Vandenburg was nearly finished and that could have upped the launch rate even more.

After the loss of Challenger the Air Force bailed on the Shuttle and instead created and flew the Titan IV at the cost of about $400 m per flight. If that money was kept with the Shuttle program the costs per flight could have been even cheaper.

The costs weren't due to technical problems with the Shuttle but politics.

Re:Factor of 10

[JoshuaZ]

A big part of the US shuttle program was that it was a compromise that had to do everything for everyone. For example, the initial plan was going to be fully reusable, but since they didn't have the money for that, it had to have the singe-use fuel tank. It also had to do orbital profiles for the military, such as being able to launch, release a single satellite and come down after making a single polar orbit. The plan was to Vandenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_AFB_Space_Launch_Complex_6 for the launch. The entire idea was a bit silly since the entire idea was to use it to launch spy satellites faster than the Soviets could shoot term down if the cold war got luke-warm (but somehow not becoming an outright hot war). It is possible that this was actually a cover for another orbital profile that hasn't yet been declassified. But the basic upshot is clear: the shuttle had to many different things for many different people, many who never even ended up using it for the desired purposes. If you make something that has to a hundred different things don't be surprised if is very expensive.

Re:Factor of 10

[Anonymous Coward]

US Space Shuttle and Indian Avatar basically have nothing in common. SS was huge multipurpose rocket-plane, and on other hand Avatar is small hybrid airplane (1t LEO payload). It will combine scramjet and rocket engine, similar to Skylon, using and collecting atmospheric oxygen rather than be launched with stored oxygen.

This is also a poorly written article, they are not launching a working reusable launch vehicle but a scaled down prototype of Avatar named RLV-TD.

Re:Factor of 10

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

See F-4 and F-35 for proof of the principle. If you make something that has to a hundred different things don't be surprised if is very expensive.

The US DoD will never learn. Build something for a single purpose you get it faster, cheaper and it is usually pretty good at the mission, see B-52, A-10, F-16 or F-15. Build it for a single mission then maybe modify it for additional missions afterwards

Re:Factor of 10

[Codeyman]

Well, if the success of Mangalyaan is any indication of things to come, cost reduction will not really be an issue.

However we do need to compare apples to apples. ISRO might be trying to do something different with the shuttle altogether.

Re:Factor of 10

[Sivaraj]

Get real man. Shuttle might have cost a bit higher due to politics, but it was never going to be cheap - just as SLS is not going to be cheap. Shuttle should have been abandoned at least in 1986 when they realised that they forgot to put a launch abort system on it.

Over its lifetime, it has cost $209B. That is over $1.5B for each flight.

Hmm... may be it will look cheaper by 2025 when you are spending over $10B on each launch of SLS (It is expected to cost $41B for 4 flights by that time). Hopefully someone would have mercy and kill it before then.

Re:Factor of 10

[Anonymous Coward]

The F-4 did not have this problem. You are probably thinking of the F-111.

One problem

[Ol Olsoc]

They seem to be having problems getting astronauts to man the thing.

So a solid belief in reincarnation is now one of the job requirements.

Re:One problem

[bkmoore]

They seem to be having problems getting astronauts to man the thing...

...sounds like the plot of a slumdog astronaut movie.

Re:One problem

[Anonymous Coward]

> They seem to be having problems getting astronauts to man the thing.

Indeed. They would need toilets, and Indian technology hasn't got that far.

Re:One problem

[Ol Olsoc]

> They seem to be having problems getting astronauts to man the thing.

Indeed. They would need toilets, and Indian technology hasn't got that far.

Maybe they plan on using their "untouchables" as astronaut fodder.

seems a bit wasteful

[ihtoit]

the US space program had one OV structural test vehicle and one airframe mockup. The test vehicle was refit for service (and became Challenger), the airframe mockup named Enterprise and sent to a museum. Enterprise never actually went into orbit. She was used for atmospheric glide and landing testing. Judging by the amount of money those two vehicles alone cost in construction (never mind development), which had to be a lot since Challenger's replacement, Endeavour, cost $1.7Bn and was built out of spare parts, it's great to see India's economy doing so well that it can afford to throw test articles into the sea and let them sink.

Re:seems a bit wasteful

[John_Sauter]

the US space program had one OV structural test vehicle and one airframe mockup. The test vehicle was refit for service (and became Challenger), the airframe mockup named Enterprise and sent to a museum. Enterprise never actually went into orbit. She was used for atmospheric glide and landing testing....

There is also a Space Shuttle called Pathfinder on display at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, near Huntsville, AL. See http://rocketcenter.com/museum, section Shuttle Park.

Re:seems a bit wasteful

[ihtoit]

Pathfinder was a handling test article made of wood. IIRC it was built to similar weight and balance to a fuel-empty, unladen OV (75 tons?) but there's no way it'd fly. For starters, it doesn't have any control surfaces or even a fly-by-wire.

FWIW, there's also a mockup (Independence, FKA Explorer) built using plans and blueprints by another company (not Boeing/Rockwell, who built the operational orbiters) being installed at Space Center Houston. It also weighs about the same as one of the operational vehicles.

For gits and shiggles, Six Flags had an IMAX-type experience which involved a full size fibreglass mockup of the OV, theirs called "America", that ran until 2007(?). This wasn't an official or endorsed replica, though.

Re:seems a bit wasteful

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a huge size difference between the American shuttles and the Indian spacecraft. And the size of the Indian spacecraft indicates that it is not meant to carry humans, which removes the huge expense associated with providing for safe recovery in as many circumstances as possible. Any comparison with the American or Soviet shuttle programs is totally absurd.

Hmm

[koan]

It's interesting how individuals care about their nations image, over anything else...

Do the needful

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> When it lands in the water, it will sink, and there are no plans to try to bring it back

The outsourced coding joke just kind of writes itself, doesn't it?

Reusable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anybody pointed out that reusable vehicles aren't supposed to sink to the bottom of the ocean to never be recovered? I think that's a minor defect in thinking.

70 km

[pahles]

Re-entry from only 70 km isn't exactly re-entry. It hasn't even been in space at that height...

Re:70 km

[CptJeanLuc]

70 km is exactly the boundary for suborbital flights ... in Kerbal Space Program

The Karman line is 100km

[tlambert]

The Karman line is 100km. This thing is a suborbital. It's not going to space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line

Re:The Karman line is 100km

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's saying it is.

Re:The Karman line is 100km

[wonkey_monkey]

This thing is a suborbital. It's not going to space.

I don't think anyone is claiming it was going to.

Re:The Karman line is 100km

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a limited technology demonstration. The real thing will be sitting on top of a rocket which will send it higher.

Re:The Karman line is 100km

[BigZee]

This thing is a suborbital. It's not going to space.

I don't think anyone is claiming it was going to.

The name "space shuttle" does imply it will be going into space.

Re:The Karman line is 100km

[Anonymous Coward]

This thing isn't even suborbital. Suborbital means that it gets into space, but isn't going fast enough to stay there (i.e. fast enough to be in orbit). This is just a high-altitude atmospheric flight.

Re:The Karman line is 100km

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a test vehicle for systems that will eventually be used in a space shuttle.

Re:The Karman line is 100km

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't reach space, so it's not even suborbital. It's just a high altitude airplane.

What's a cargo cult, Alex?

[Anonymous Coward]

Space is the past, why are countries so hell-bent on these big symbolic Pyramids in the sky? I get it, competing with other nations for giant symbolic gestures is what humans do at a certain age.

Re:What's a cargo cult, Alex?

[CohibaVancouver]

Space is the past, why are countries so hell-bent on these big symbolic Pyramids in the sky?

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

Non-Reusable

[Anonymous Coward]

It will splash down and sink. What is the difference to a rocket then?

It's a freaking Weapon ICMB test for their nukes

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why it's not obvious for everyone that this is a test for the Indian nukes for ICMB under cover of a space program. It's interessting to see that we don't apply the same understanding for North Korea than to India. Both have Nukes, both wants to go further with those nukes.

TSTO (Two-Stage to Orbit)

[sanman2]

This vehicle is a low-cost testbed, which will be use to validate the technologies required to build a larger vehicle: the TSTO (Two-Stage To Orbit)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...

http://antariksh-space.blogspo...

The eventual holy grail is to design, build and fly an SSTO (Single-Stage to Orbit) vehicle called AVATAR which would use scramjet technology. The scramjet-to-orbit concept is considerably more difficult, and may take much longer to accomplish.

Meanwhile the TSTO would just use regular rockets (semi-cryogenic booster & fully cryogenic for upper stage). Multiple copies of the cheap RLV-TD have been built, and will test different technologies across multiple flights, including the scramjet (on a later flight).

Flyback Booster

[sanman2]

I'm more interested in the TSTO, which is supposed to be built from technologies to be validated by RLV-TD. The TSTO will help to bring down cost-per-kg to orbit. Basically, it's a 2-stage launch vehicle based on a winged flyback booster. It won't be as efficient as the F9R, which doesn't carry the weight of wings, but it will be more capable of returning to launch site because of its glide path. No barge required.

Enterprise?

[sanman2]

The first US Space Shuttle, the Enterprise, didn't shuttle a whole lot of stuff back and forth either. But it was meant for developmental purposes, and wasn't the final product.

Re:It's a freaking Weapon ICMB test for their nuke

[sanman2]

This has nothing to do with nuclear delivery systems - India has separate military-run programs for that. This is a civilian program under a civilian agency, and the technologies involved aren't the best-suited for ICBMs.

X37-B clone

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quite surprised by the prejudice of the other commentators in this threat.

If you read the article, you realize that this is a prototype flight on a developing project, and all the jokes about recovery, 70km etc are silly. Compare this to one of the early tests of the space-x landing leg test flights. It's a test flight. It's not going to meet all the requirements. They state that in the article. RTFA.

If you read very carefully, then you realize they are basically building a clone of the X37-B (see recent article on it launching).

Good for them. They are still a number of years behind the X37-B, but the goals are good, and the scientists are iterating to achieve the goals.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/05/18/2257257/robotic-space-plane-launches-in-mystery-mission-this-week

To summarize.
>> India is developing reusable autonomous space shuttle for carrying payloads to orbit, delivers payload and lands back on earth on a runway for quick turnaround ultimately to reduce the cost of putting payloads into orbit ($/kg). ... just like Boeing did for the DoD. This is their first trial run of the new platform to test the design. They do not plan to recover the prototype.

Re:It's a freaking Weapon ICMB test for their nuke

[slew]

I don't see why it's not obvious for everyone that this is a test for the Indian nukes for ICMB under cover of a space program. It's interessting to see that we don't apply the same understanding for North Korea than to India. Both have Nukes, both wants to go further with those nukes.

I'm pretty sure if India attempts to land this thing without warning anyone (e.g., designating a no-sail-zone) into Arabian sea just 200km outside of Karachi, I'm sure that people will be looking at this as an "unwarranted action" like North Korea.

Re:It's a freaking Weapon ICMB test for their nuke

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure if India attempts to land this thing without warning anyone (e.g., designating a no-sail-zone) into Arabian sea just 200km outside of Karachi, I'm sure that people will be looking at this as an "unwarranted action" like North Korea.

The plan is to land this in Bay of Bengal which is not really close to Karachi..

less than 5% of orbital energy

[Anonymous Coward]

This thing will go mach 5 whereas orbital velocity is on the order of mach 20-25, so it will be dissipating less than 5% of the energy it would have if re-entering from orbit.

Not very impressive compared to other space programs, but I guess you have to learn somehow. Go ISRO!

Mod me offtopic, mod me flamebait, just as long...

[Anonymous Coward]

as you mod me FUNNY:

Do you think people in India get frustrated and angry when they call tech-support and get someone named, "Chad" or "Steve" who has their own, very same accent?

Come on, Parehk, or whatever, just be honest with us.

And does "Chad" or "Steve" get mad when someone has HIS same accent, figuring it's some jerkoff in Milwaukee making fun of him?

"Thank you for calling the Tech Support Hotline, my name is Steve, how can I be of excellent service to you today my friend?"

(Brief pause, same accent, snickering in background,) "Oh, HELLO! My name is "Richart," and I am having trouble downloading the newest software update and thought you could walk me through it because it isn't updating properly very much thank you my friend!"

You know this sort of thing has to happen at least once or twice a week. God I miss "Outsourced". Why they canceled THAT and left all the other SHIT on the air, beats the hell out of me.