Indian Space Program: News & Discussions

[Parthu]

India is signing the Artemis Accords (an American-led effort to return humans to the moon by 2025, with the ultimate goal of expanding space exploration to Mars and beyond. ) In addition, NASA and ISRO have agreed to a joint mission to the International Space Station in the year 2024 .

India to sign Artemis Accords, send joint mission to ISS says White House

India has officially joined the Artemis Accords, a non-binding set of principles designed to guide civil space exploration based on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. NASA and ISRO are working on a human spaceflight cooperation framework, with a joint space mission to the International Space Station...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

It was inevitable I'd say.

There was no place for India in the Russo-Chinese cooperative ventures. We were certainly not going to share a stage with our enemies in space especially at a time like this when we're dealing with policy decisions regarding increasingly strategic uses of space (setting up bases, resource-extraction etc.). On the other hand, there is simply not enough domestic wherewithal or investment capacity to pursue resource-extraction & interplanetary colonization independently.

So Artemis it is. IMO, a wise decision.

++

To be noted, we'd be one of only about half a dozen countries in the Accords who have independent space access. And in next few years, one of only 2 with independent human spaceflight capability. That means we'll be negotiating with a hard hand to get sizeable workshare contracts in a lot of future space infrastructure development (lunar & mars-orbiting space stations, terrestrial bases, cargo missions etc.)

A nice boost for the local Private industry as well.

All in all, a great development!

 

[RISING SUN]

NASA Welcomes India as 27th Artemis Accords Signatory​

Indian Ambassador Taranjit Sandhu, signs the Artemis Accords, as U.S. Department of State, Deputy Assistant Secretary for India, Nancy Jackson, left, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, and Indian Space Research Organization, Space Counsellor, Krunal Joshi, right, look on, Wednesday, June 21, 2023, at the Willard InterContinental Hotel in Washington. India is the 27th country to sign the Artemis Accords, which establish a practical set of principles to guide space exploration cooperation among nations participating in NASA’s Artemis program.
Credits: NASA/Bill Ingalls

During a ceremony at the Willard InterContinental Hotel in Washington on Wednesday, June 21, India became the 27th country to sign the Artemis Accords. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson participated in the signing ceremony for the agency and Taranjit Singh Sandhu, India’s ambassador to the United States, signed on behalf of India.

The Artemis Accords establish a practical set of principles to guide space exploration cooperation among nations, including those participating in NASA’s Artemis program.

“On behalf of NASA, on behalf of President Biden and Vice President Harris, we are very pleased to grow our partnership with India here on Earth and in space,” said Administrator Bill Nelson. “As we venture farther out into the cosmos than ever before, how we go is as important as what we do when we reach our destinations. We want to go in a peaceful way. We want to go in a transparent way. And we want to support each other in times of trouble. We are very grateful for India’s leadership in signing the Artemis Accords and look forward to all that we will accomplish together.”

“India is taking a landmark step in becoming a party to the Artemis Accords, a momentous occasion for our bilateral space cooperation,” said Sandhu. “We reiterate India's commitment to space exploration underpinned by new levels of cooperation and progress. India is a responsible space power and places the highest importance on the peaceful and sustainable use of outer space. We are confident that the Artemis Accords will advance a rule-based approach to outer space. It also underlines our collective belief that exploration is not just the pursuit of knowledge – of knowing the unknown – but is a catalyst in advancing the betterment of humanity. In that sense, signing of these Accords highlights the evolution of a partnership into one for global good.”

NASA, in coordination with the U.S. Department of State, established the Artemis Accords in 2020 together with seven other founding member nations. The Artemis Accords reinforce and implement key obligations in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. They also reinforce the commitment by the United States and signatory nations to the Registration Convention, the Rescue and Return Agreement, as well as best practices and norms of responsible behavior that NASA and its partners have supported, including the public release of scientific data.

Additional countries will sign the Artemis Accords in the months and years ahead, as NASA continues to work with its international partners to establish a safe, peaceful, and prosperous future in space. Working with both new and existing partners will add new energy and capabilities to ensure the entire world can benefit from our journey of exploration and discovery.

Learn more about the Artemis Accords at:

https://www.nasa.gov/artemisaccords​

NASA Welcomes India as 27th Artemis Accords Signatory - NASA

During a ceremony at the Willard InterContinental Hotel in Washington on Wednesday, June 21, India became the 27th country to sign the Artemis Accords. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson participated in the signing ceremony for the agency and Taranjit Singh Sandhu, India’s ambassador to the United...

www.nasa.gov

 

[Parthu]

It seems hot testing of the SCE-200 engine has begun:

First hot test of the Semi-cryogenic engine conducted at IPRC, Mahendragiri

However it seems they ran into a glitch and terminated the test. But it's still positive to know they've moved into hot testing phase. This is such an important step forward.

This engine is the core of ISRO's future launch vehicle ambitions.

For perspective, the SCE-200 is roughly in similar thrust class as the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 that powers the SLS (Artemis) and the Space Shuttle previously. It's also more than twice as much thrust as the SpaceX Merlin 1D.

Of course, the Artemis rockets use 4 x RS-25s in a clustered config:

..and that's the plan for us going forward as well:

Though firstly we will seek to replace the twin-Vikas L110 that forms the LVM3's core stage with a single SC120 stage powered by this engine.

 

[Gautam]

Made a list of Indian liquid rocket engines so far:

@Parthu @Ashwin et al correct me if I got something wrong.

As you can see, we currently lack liquid engines that generate over 850 kN of Sea Level Thrust. That's the major roadblock ISRO intends to overcome with the SCE-200.

In upper stage cryogenics, we are pretty sorted. The CE-20 produces enough power with a great Isp, but the thrust to weight ratio could improve. The current thrust to weight ratio of the CE-20 is 38.15. Compare to that of the American RL10C-X with 47.4 & the Japanese LE-5B-2 with 51. ISRO is starting to incorporate 3D-printed turbines, casing & other turbo-machinery parts into the CE-20. If they can reduce ~50 kg of weight, then the thrust to weight ratio will be more than 41.

ISRO indicated that they were studying Fuel rich SCC, GG & Expander cycle for the upcoming Methalox engines. It was also recently revealed that ISRO is making a 1 MN class Methalox engine. I wonder which power cycle they will choose for that engine. GG would be the easiest to design but also the most inefficient. SCC would be the most efficient but also the most complex in design. Expander cycle is an interesting choice. Pure expanders cannot be scaled beyond 300-350 kN, so a 1 MN class engine would require an expander bleed cycle. An expander bleed cycle is an open cycle, like GG, so it wouldn't be as efficient.

 

[Gautam]

Powerful NASA-ISRO Earth Observing Satellite Coming Together in India​

Jul 14, 2023
By Andrew Wang / Jane J. Lee
Editor: Naomi Hartono
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.

Engineers joined the two main components of NISAR – the spacecraft bus and the radar instrument payload – in an ISRO clean room in Bengaluru, India, in June. The payload arrived from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California in March, while the bus was built at the ISRO facility. Credits: VDOS-URSC.

Built on opposite sides of the planet, the NISAR satellite will deepen understanding of climate change, deforestation, glacier melt, volcanoes, earthquakes, and more.​

Two major components of the NISAR satellite have been combined to create a single spacecraft in Bengaluru, India. Set to launch in early 2024, NISAR – short for NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar – is being jointly developed by NASA and the Indian Space Research Organisation, or ISRO, to track movements of Earth’s land and ice surfaces in extremely fine detail. As NISAR monitors nearly every part of our planet at least once every 12 days, the satellite will also help scientists understand, among other observables, the dynamics of forests, wetlands, and agricultural lands.

About the size of an SUV and partially wrapped in gold-colored thermal blanketing, the satellite’s cylindrical radar instrument payload contains two radar systems. The S-band radar is particularly useful for monitoring crop structure and the roughness of land and ice surfaces, while the L-band instrument can penetrate denser forest canopies to study the woody trunks of trees, among other observables. The wavelengths of the S-band and L-band signals are about 4 inches (10 centimeters) and 10 inches (25 centimeters), respectively, and both sensors can see through clouds and collect data day and night.

The payload took a roundabout journey to get to this point. The S-band radar was built at the Space Applications Centre in Ahmedabad in western India, then flown in March 2021 to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, where engineers had been developing NISAR’s L-band radar. At JPL, the two systems were fixed to the payload’s barrel-like frame before being flown to the U R Rao Satellite Centre (URSC) in the southern Indian city of Bengaluru in March 2023.

In the meantime, engineers and technicians at URSC, collaborating with teams from JPL, were busy developing the spacecraft’s main body, or bus, which is covered in blue blanketing that protects it during assembly and testing prior to launch. The bus, which includes components and systems developed by both ISRO and JPL, will provide power, navigation, pointing control, and communications for the mission.

A crane is used to align NISAR’s radar instrument payload, seen partially wrapped in gold-colored thermal blanketing, with the satellite’s spacecraft bus, which is inside blue blanketing, in an ISRO clean room in Bengaluru, India, in June.
Credits: VDOS-URSC

Since the radar payload and bus were joined in a URSC clean room in mid-June, NASA and ISRO teams have been working together to route thousands of feet of cabling between them. Still to be attached: the satellite’s solar panels, as well as the drum-shaped, wire-mesh reflector that will unfold from the end of a 30-foot (9-meter) boom. At nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in diameter, the reflector will be largest radar antenna of its kind ever launched into space.

The NISAR satellite is currently undergoing performance testing, to be followed by several rounds of environmental testing to ensure it can withstand the rigors of launch and meet all of its operational requirements once in orbit. Then it will be transported about 220 miles (350 kilometers) eastward to Satish Dhawan Space Centre, where it will be inserted into its launch fairing, mounted atop ISRO’s Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mark II rocket, and sent into low Earth orbit.

More About the Mission

NISAR is an equal collaboration between NASA and ISRO and marks the first time the two agencies have cooperated on hardware development for an Earth-observing mission. JPL, which is managed for NASA by Caltech in Pasadena, leads the U.S. component of the project and is providing the mission’s L-band SAR. NASA is also providing the radar reflector antenna, the deployable boom, a high-rate communication subsystem for science data, GPS receivers, a solid-state recorder, and payload data subsystem. URSC, which is leading the ISRO component of the mission, is providing the spacecraft bus, the S-band SAR electronics, the launch vehicle, and associated launch services and satellite mission operations.

To learn more about NISAR, visit: https://nisar.jpl.nasa.gov/

Source: Powerful NASA-ISRO Earth Observing Satellite Coming Together in India

 

[Ashwin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1680812936300998657

 

[Gautam]

Russia offers BRICS partners a module on its planned space station​

Reuters
July 24, 20234:23 PM GMT+5:30

A view shows a model of a new Russian orbital space station at the international military-technical forum Army-2022 at Patriot Congress and Exhibition Centre in the Moscow region, Russia August 15, 2022. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov/File Photo.

July 24 (Reuters) - The head of Russia's space agency on Monday suggested Moscow's partners in the BRICS group - Brazil, India, China and South Africa - could build a module for its planned orbital station, the Interfax news agency reported.

Reporting from a BRICS meeting on space cooperation in Hermanus, South Africa, Interfax said it was "assumed" that the first module of the Russian Orbital Station (ROS) would be launched in 2027, with construction completed by 2032.

By then, the International Space Station - one of the last forums of cooperation between Washington and Moscow as Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent relations to a post-Cold War low - is likely to have been decommissioned.

"I would like to invite BRICS partners to ... create a fully-fledged module that, being part of the ROS, would allow the BRICS countries to use the possibilities of low-Earth orbit to implement their national space programmes," Interfax quoted Roscosmos Director-General Yuri Borisov as telling the meeting.

Roskosmos said last August that its new space station would consist of six modules and a service platform, to accommodate up to four cosmonauts, and be built in two phases. It gave no dates.

In September, Borisov said the station would orbit Earth around the poles, enabling it to look down on far more of Russia's vast territory and gather new data on cosmic radiation.

Writing by Kevin Liffey; Editing by Andrew Heavens

Russia offers BRICS partners a module on its planned space station

 

[Gautam]

Russia offers BRICS partners a module on its planned space station​

Reuters
July 24, 20234:23 PM GMT+5:30
View attachment 29240
A view shows a model of a new Russian orbital space station at the international military-technical forum Army-2022 at Patriot Congress and Exhibition Centre in the Moscow region, Russia August 15, 2022. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov/File Photo.

July 24 (Reuters) - The head of Russia's space agency on Monday suggested Moscow's partners in the BRICS group - Brazil, India, China and South Africa - could build a module for its planned orbital station, the Interfax news agency reported.

Reporting from a BRICS meeting on space cooperation in Hermanus, South Africa, Interfax said it was "assumed" that the first module of the Russian Orbital Station (ROS) would be launched in 2027, with construction completed by 2032.

By then, the International Space Station - one of the last forums of cooperation between Washington and Moscow as Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent relations to a post-Cold War low - is likely to have been decommissioned.

View attachment 29241

"I would like to invite BRICS partners to ... create a fully-fledged module that, being part of the ROS, would allow the BRICS countries to use the possibilities of low-Earth orbit to implement their national space programmes," Interfax quoted Roscosmos Director-General Yuri Borisov as telling the meeting.

Roskosmos said last August that its new space station would consist of six modules and a service platform, to accommodate up to four cosmonauts, and be built in two phases. It gave no dates.

In September, Borisov said the station would orbit Earth around the poles, enabling it to look down on far more of Russia's vast territory and gather new data on cosmic radiation.

Writing by Kevin Liffey; Editing by Andrew Heavens

Russia offers BRICS partners a module on its planned space station

We have recently signed the deal with the Americans to send Indians to the ISS by 2024. That will presumably happen via an American launcher. Then the Gaganyaan mission will fly with humans on-board somewhere in the 2024-25 time period.

This Russian space station will be built in the 2027-2032 period and from 2030-35 we plan on building our own space station.

ISS is nearly at the end of its life. As such participation in this Russian station can be very beneficial. There is a lot we can learn from that project that could help us optimize our own station design. The only problem is budget. We don't have the budget to do all 3 at once.

What do you reckon @Parthu @Ashwin et. al. ?

 

[Gautam]

Great way of starting the day. PSLV-C56 mission successfully completed.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1685462903993106433

Some incredible photos of the launch on that twitter thread.

 

[Amarante]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1685514531101876224

 

[Gautam]

PSLV-C56/DS-SAR Mission Slow motion Tracking video

PSLV-C56/DS-SAR Mission

 

[RISING SUN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687080343717695488

 

[RISING SUN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684781939612659712

 

[Gautam]

PSLV-C57/Aditya-L1 Mission: Aditya-L1, the first space-based Indian observatory to study the Sun, is getting ready for the launch. The satellite realised at the U R Rao Satellite Centre (URSC), Bengaluru has arrived at SDSC-SHAR, Sriharikota.

This is India's 1st solar observation satellite. The mission will follow a similar orbit raising maneuver to the CY & MY missions except the sat will be injected to solar orbit at the end of orbit raising:

Tentative date of launch is 2nd September 2023. ISRO has put out a NOTAM for this launch, enforcement from 2 to 24 September.

Also, this happened:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1691109733909008385

More than 85% of the land needed for the upcoming Kulasekarapattinam Spaceport has already been acquired.

 

[Parthu]

We have recently signed the deal with the Americans to send Indians to the ISS by 2024. That will presumably happen via an American launcher. Then the Gaganyaan mission will fly with humans on-board somewhere in the 2024-25 time period.

This Russian space station will be built in the 2027-2032 period and from 2030-35 we plan on building our own space station.
View attachment 29242

ISS is nearly at the end of its life. As such participation in this Russian station can be very beneficial. There is a lot we can learn from that project that could help us optimize our own station design. The only problem is budget. We don't have the budget to do all 3 at once.

What do you reckon @Parthu @Ashwin et. al. ?

For some reason, I did not receive this notification.

Anyway, I think that signing of Artemis Accords changed a lot of things. Much like the Nuclear deal, it wasn't the deal itself but what it signified that is the real bottom-line. We are now fully onboard with the US-led space program, not unlike JAXA & ESA. It will take time to figure everything out & gain an informed appreciation of each others' capabilities & opportunities - after all our space sector was essentially a largely isolated development for the longest time. I expect to see some important updates during NASA Administrator Bill Nelson's visit to India later this year.

My take is this: I think we no longer need to waste what little money we have (let's face it, our space budgets are miniscule) in building our own Station. We are almost guaranteed access to the 3-5 commercial stations that NASA is funding as a replacement for the ISS. At least two of them (Orbital Reef & Starlab) have already begun negotiations with ISRO to study the feasibility of using Gaganyaan capsule to ferry people and/or cargo to their stations - which pretty much means an Indian 'stake' in the station's operations is guaranteed. We'll have opportunities to regularly visit & conduct our research programs on those stations.

This gives us the financial bandwidth we need to fully focus on getting one thing right: the Gaganyaan program. It will be the key to unlocking everything. Without it, at best we'd be considered partners in the same breath as JAXA/ESA, perhaps a rung lower as we haven't built any habitation-certified modules. But with Gaganyaan in hand, we'd be a rung higher than either of them when it comes to negotiating for workshare/program access in any future Western endeavour - as we'd be the only one other than the Americans who control space ACCESS.

Does this mean we should no longer build our own Station? No - it just means we can do it later, on our own time. Once our budgets allow that kind of flexibility. We are no longer as desperate as before when it comes to having access to LEO research stations.

+++

As of the Russian opportunity...I really doubt if it can happen. What we need to remember is that pretty much all of Russia's future space programs are tied to China at the hip. That includes the ILRS 'Moonbase' - the Sino-Russian counterpart to Artemis program. While Russia still attempts to do as much of the old Primakov Doctrine as it can (bring India along so as to not be totally dependent on China), the space they have for pulling those moves is getting increasingly little. China doesn't care about puling India away from Western orbit (no pun intended), they absolutely & legitimately see us as an adversary and want nothing to do with us in the strategic space. And that is increasingly becoming vice-versa.

Indian equipment for China’s Tiangong space station faces export delay

Equipment developed by the Indian Institute of Astrophysics to analyse interstellar gas has yet to receive an export licence.

www.scmp.com

So the real question is, can we get along with the Chinese in building & manning this proposed 'BRICS Station'? And what kind of strategic messaging would that send considering our official stand is that China is in illegal occupation of our territory? It's one thing to shake hands in an economically-centered grouping (G20, BRICS etc.), another thing entirely to share a strategic space.

 

[Gautam]

Anyway, I think that signing of Artemis Accords changed a lot of things. Much like the Nuclear deal, it wasn't the deal itself but what it signified that is the real bottom-line. We are now fully onboard with the US-led space program, not unlike JAXA & ESA. It will take time to figure everything out & gain an informed appreciation of each others' capabilities & opportunities - after all our space sector was essentially a largely isolated development for the longest time. I expect to see some important updates during NASA Administrator Bill Nelson's visit to India later this year.

I am highly skeptical of any meaningful progress on the Artemis thingy. That agreement was, as far as I can tell, is a statement of intent saying ISRO & NASA will work closely together. This is a typical low hanging govt-to-govt agreement that binds neither part to do anything. They could have just tweeted that. But I guess signing a formal looking document makes for better showmanship.

To say we are "fully onboard" with the US for signing some useless document is a bit much, I think. As I understand, most of the workshare related to the Artemis program is already assigned to US companies. JAXA & ESA got some of the workshare too. So, even if we are "fully onboard" there is nothing much left for us to do. Becoming a full participant at this stage gives us nothing.

I am usually quite skeptical of any joint development agreements with that US. Most of these agreements with the US produces little to no outcomes. Look at the many working groups we have/had with them: Jet engine tech group, aircraft carrier group, drone something-something group etc. etc. A decade later still no tangible outcome.

My take is this: I think we no longer need to waste what little money we have (let's face it, our space budgets are miniscule) in building our own Station. We are almost guaranteed access to the 3-5 commercial stations that NASA is funding as a replacement for the ISS. At least two of them (Orbital Reef & Starlab) have already begun negotiations with ISRO to study the feasibility of using Gaganyaan capsule to ferry people and/or cargo to their stations - which pretty much means an Indian 'stake' in the station's operations is guaranteed. We'll have opportunities to regularly visit & conduct our research programs on those stations.

This gives us the financial bandwidth we need to fully focus on getting one thing right: the Gaganyaan program. It will be the key to unlocking everything. Without it, at best we'd be considered partners in the same breath as JAXA/ESA, perhaps a rung lower as we haven't built any habitation-certified modules. But with Gaganyaan in hand, we'd be a rung higher than either of them when it comes to negotiating for workshare/program access in any future Western endeavour - as we'd be the only one other than the Americans who control space ACCESS.

I don't agree with this. Sorry.

Some years ago, when some American satellite companies launched a few satellites on a PSLV, US lawmakers wanted a law that stopped that from happening again. The reason given was ISRO was govt. subsidized & this would ruin US pvt. space launch industry. The whole contract was worth a few dozen million USD maybe. This apparently was enough to ruin US industry.

Now, because some American companies have signed a MoU for a feasibility study you are envisioning a future where the US would let us launch people to their space station(s) with our rockets. Launching humans to space is a lot more expensive than satellites. Why would they give up on their monopoly? Camaraderie with a fellow democracy? The way the Americans understand camaraderie is when other nations give up on their commercial/national interests for US geo-political interests, not the other way around.

As of the Russian opportunity...I really doubt if it can happen. What we need to remember is that pretty much all of Russia's future space programs are tied to China at the hip. That includes the ILRS 'Moonbase' - the Sino-Russian counterpart to Artemis program. While Russia still attempts to do as much of the old Primakov Doctrine as it can (bring India along so as to not be totally dependent on China), the space they have for pulling those moves is getting increasingly little. China doesn't care about puling India away from Western orbit (no pun intended), they absolutely & legitimately see us as an adversary and want nothing to do with us in the strategic space. And that is increasingly becoming vice-versa.

Indian equipment for China’s Tiangong space station faces export delay

Equipment developed by the Indian Institute of Astrophysics to analyse interstellar gas has yet to receive an export licence.

www.scmp.com

So the real question is, can we get along with the Chinese in building & manning this proposed 'BRICS Station'? And what kind of strategic messaging would that send considering our official stand is that China is in illegal occupation of our territory? It's one thing to shake hands in an economically-centered grouping (G20, BRICS etc.), another thing entirely to share a strategic space.

Now this I agree with fully. If you combine what I wrote above with the points you made here, you can clearly see the rationale for making our own space station.

That's why I believe the proposed space station should be the logical successor to the Gaganyaan program. We should work with the Americans when it benefits us, otherwise let's keep our distance. Never become dependent on them for access to space or space station.

 

[Parthu]

I am highly skeptical of any meaningful progress on the Artemis thingy. That agreement was, as far as I can tell, is a statement of intent saying ISRO & NASA will work closely together. This is a typical low hanging govt-to-govt agreement that binds neither part to do anything. They could have just tweeted that. But I guess signing a formal looking document makes for better showmanship.

To say we are "fully onboard" with the US for signing some useless document is a bit much, I think. As I understand, most of the workshare related to the Artemis program is already assigned to US companies. JAXA & ESA got some of the workshare too. So, even if we are "fully onboard" there is nothing much left for us to do. Becoming a full participant at this stage gives us nothing.

I am usually quite skeptical of any joint development agreements with that US. Most of these agreements with the US produces little to no outcomes. Look at the many working groups we have/had with them: Jet engine tech group, aircraft carrier group, drone something-something group etc. etc. A decade later still no tangible outcome.

If it was a simple matter of lip service, we wouldn't have waited so long or conducted so many deliberations before signing it.

Like I said, it's not the deal itself but what it signifies that matters. Much like the Nuclear agreement that opened us up to trade in nuclear materials.

Our contribution in the Artemis program, if there is to be any, would comprise of some payloads on some of the CLPS missions (which will be ongoing for over a decade and constantly need new supplies). The workshare for the Airlock Module on the Lunar Gateway is still TBD so possible for us to get something there as well.

Regardless, that is speaking within the Artemis program itself. But like I said, the real benefits lie elsewhere. The most immediate benefit would be that we have the opportunity to begin research activities on Stations much earlier than we otherwise would have.

I don't agree with this. Sorry.

Some years ago, when some American satellite companies launched a few satellites on a PSLV, US lawmakers wanted a law that stopped that from happening again. The reason given was ISRO was govt. subsidized & this would ruin US pvt. space launch industry. The whole contract was worth a few dozen million USD maybe. This apparently was enough to ruin US industry.

Now, because some American companies have signed a MoU for a feasibility study you are envisioning a future where the US would let us launch people to their space station(s) with our rockets. Launching humans to space is a lot more expensive than satellites. Why would they give up on their monopoly? Camaraderie with a fellow democracy? The way the Americans understand camaraderie is when other nations give up on their commercial/national interests for US geo-political interests, not the other way around.

Things change. The point is, the negotiations for Gaganyaan began the moment the Accords were signed. There is a link.

As of monopoly in space access...you are looking at the US on the international stage, but you aren't looking at the business space within the US itself. Right now there is a grand total of ONE company that offers human launch services: SpaceX...there are others which want to, but haven't gotten anywhere just yet (Blue Origin etc.). You're thinking that the US space industry is one unit that walks & talks one way. It's not.

There are American companies that launch every kind of payload from 300 kg (Electron) to 64,000 kg (Falcon Heavy). So why are there American satellites riding on Indian rockets to this day? Why are there space tourists still flying on Soyuz to this day? This industry is just too big for one or two companies to monopolize. Nobody can maintain that level of launch frequency (much less for manned missions).

And this is at a time when there's only 1 space station that accepts multinational crews/visitors (ISS). How do you think things will look when there are 4 or 5 stations in orbit? Can one country really service them all? Majority of these upcoming stations will be privately-operated. Why would a corporate not take advantage of alternatives in order to drive the costs lower?

Now this I agree with fully. If you combine what I wrote above with the points you made here, you can clearly see the rationale for making our own space station.

Never said we shouldn't look to building our own. Just that we can't afford to in the foreseeable future. Maybe if our private companies develop to the level that they can raise capital for their own endeavours, with technology assistance from ISRO.

That's why I believe the proposed space station should be the logical successor to the Gaganyaan program. We should work with the Americans when it benefits us, otherwise let's keep our distance. Never become dependent on them for access to space or space station.

Baby steps. There'll be Indian astronauts on the ISS next year.

If all goes well, Gaganyaan-3 (first manned mission) will complete it's mission by around 2025-26.

S. Somanath said we are working on internationally compatible docking system for the Gaganyaan capsule. So it's highly likely that Gaganyaan-4 will involve docking with the ISS sometime before its decommissioning in 2028-29...and subsequently it's direct successor, Axiom station.

Our own Station on the other hand, is unlikely to be ready until late next decade.

 

[Gautam]

If it was a simple matter of lip service, we wouldn't have waited so long or conducted so many deliberations before signing it.

What deliberations were conducted before signing it? I came to know of it the day it was signed. Were any publicly known meetings, discussions held before signing it? Could you provide some reading material on that?

Like I said, it's not the deal itself but what it signifies that matters. Much like the Nuclear agreement that opened us up to trade in nuclear materials.

Yes, the nuclear deal with the Americans opened up nuclear trade with everyone but the Americans. A perfect case in point of how top-level govt. to govt. agreements don't necessarily result in anything commercial.

Similarly, perhaps signing the Artemis accords may open up collaboration opportunities with the ESA or JAXA. Maybe we can rope them in to our space station project. I don't see us doing a lot on Artemis or any other US led program.

Our contribution in the Artemis program, if there is to be any, would comprise of some payloads on some of the CLPS missions (which will be ongoing for over a decade and constantly need new supplies). The workshare for the Airlock Module on the Lunar Gateway is still TBD so possible for us to get something there as well.

Regardless, that is speaking within the Artemis program itself. But like I said, the real benefits lie elsewhere. The most immediate benefit would be that we have the opportunity to begin research activities on Stations much earlier than we otherwise would have.

Again, most of the important modules of the Lunar Gateway are already in an advanced stage of development. The tech we need to develop for our space station is in the PPE & HALO modules of the Lunar Gateway. Learning to make that would allow us to re-purpose that tech for our own projects.

This is why I am skeptical. Participating in that station now would mean we are left transporting fuel & other logistics for that station while NASA, ESA & JAXA build the core tech.

I would very much like to get the LVM3 to launch these logistics missions as long as we are getting paid for it. But let's not commit any money to the Artemis program from our side. But if commercial contracts come our way, we should grab them. This is what I meant by working with the Americans when it benefits us & keeping distance otherwise. Whatever budget ISRO gets that should go into building our own capability like developing the NGLV, vertical landing technology etc.

If sending people to space stations right away is so important, we can use American launchers for now.

Things change. The point is, the negotiations for Gaganyaan began the moment the Accords were signed. There is a link.

Indeed, things do change. Today the Americans want to be our buddy, so they want to do all kinds of deals with us. Tomorrow that might change too. Need I remind you of the cryogenic engine story? For most of history that was the kind of "contribution" the US made into our space program.

Frankly this Artemis program from our POV is worse than the many "joint development" programs with Russia that walked out of. MTA & FGFA programs come to mind. In those programs we went in thinking that this would be a great learning experience & we would develop many critical technologies only to find that our workshare was basically next to nothing.

We were so committed to those Russian JV programs that when we walked out of them there was no Plan B. IAF is still looking to buy MTAs & the AMCA is still under-development. Let us not repeat that foolishness.

As of monopoly in space access...you are looking at the US on the international stage, but you aren't looking at the business space within the US itself. Right now there is a grand total of ONE company that offers human launch services: SpaceX...there are others which want to, but haven't gotten anywhere just yet (Blue Origin etc.). You're thinking that the US space industry is one unit that walks & talks one way. It's not.

Isn't the SLS human rated? & the Delta IV Heavy?
Is the Atlas V going to be decommissioned or do they have a replacement for the RD-180?

There are American companies that launch every kind of payload from 300 kg (Electron) to 64,000 kg (Falcon Heavy). So why are there American satellites riding on Indian rockets to this day? Why are there space tourists still flying on Soyuz to this day? This industry is just too big for one or two companies to monopolize. Nobody can maintain that level of launch frequency (much less for manned missions).

And this is at a time when there's only 1 space station that accepts multinational crews/visitors (ISS). How do you think things will look when there are 4 or 5 stations in orbit? Can one country really service them all? Majority of these upcoming stations will be privately-operated. Why would a corporate not take advantage of alternatives in order to drive the costs lower?

Fair point. How do these companies make their money? Hard to imagine that just space tourism & micro-gravity experiments can make a space station can be profitable.

Never said we shouldn't look to building our own. Just that we can't afford to in the foreseeable future. Maybe if our private companies develop to the level that they can raise capital for their own endeavours, with technology assistance from ISRO.

Let's start developing the tech space docking, solar panels, life support, radiators etc. A lot of this has already been developed for the Gaganyaan program. Then let's spread out the development cost over a few years. We can also try spreading out the launch schedule of the modules. There are ways of reducing cost & if there is political will behind it cost may not be a roadblock at all.

Baby steps. There'll be Indian astronauts on the ISS next year.

If all goes well, Gaganyaan-3 (first manned mission) will complete it's mission by around 2025-26.

S. Somanath said we are working on internationally compatible docking system for the Gaganyaan capsule. So it's highly likely that Gaganyaan-4 will involve docking with the ISS sometime before its decommissioning in 2028-29...and subsequently it's direct successor, Axiom station.

Our own Station on the other hand, is unlikely to be ready until late next decade.

All this is fine. But our space program cannot progress to the next stage without our own heavy lift launcher. I worry that all these additional programs will slow down & take resources away from the NGLV. The peanut we invest in engine development is unbecoming of a major space power.

 

[Parthu]

What deliberations were conducted before signing it? I came to know of it the day it was signed. Were any publicly known meetings, discussions held before signing it? Could you provide some reading material on that?

The proposal to sign the Accords was shuttled around by various think tanks for a long time (including ORF & VIF which are deeply connected with current administration). ISRO had submitted its detailed report on advising the Govt regarding whether they should sign or not before GOI went ahead:

Yes, the nuclear deal with the Americans opened up nuclear trade with everyone but the Americans. A perfect case in point of how top-level govt. to govt. agreements don't necessarily result in anything commercial.

Similarly, perhaps signing the Artemis accords may open up collaboration opportunities with the ESA or JAXA. Maybe we can rope them in to our space station project. I don't see us doing a lot on Artemis or any other US led program.

I drew a parallel between this & the nuclear deal so as to illustrate that often, there's so much more to these deals than what meets the eye. But you are drawing too much of a comparison between the two industries. In the nuclear space, there are several other factors to consider such as cost + viable alternatives. In space, there isn't anyone pursuing manned missions other than the Americans...except the Russians who like I said are tied to the hip with the Chinese.

There aren't very many options for us here within the next 10-15 years. We're just taking advantage of the hand we've been dealt.

Again, most of the important modules of the Lunar Gateway are already in an advanced stage of development. The tech we need to develop for our space station is in the PPE & HALO modules of the Lunar Gateway. Learning to make that would allow us to re-purpose that tech for our own projects.

This is why I am skeptical. Participating in that station now would mean we are left transporting fuel & other logistics for that station while NASA, ESA & JAXA build the core tech.

There are still gaps left we could fill. Such as the habitats to be deployed on the Moon itself.

Majority of the Gateway partnerships (which were decided long before) are essentially ISS partnerships being carried forward, sans the Russians. Not to mention we haven't yet built any habitation modules and so would've been a risky bet in that department anyway. Besides, the modules themselves are essentially sunk cost, chalked up to space science and R&D spending.

With the kind of budgets we can spare, it's better we stick to departments where we actually hope to generate some revenue i.e. cargo & astronaut transport missions.

I would very much like to get the LVM3 to launch these logistics missions as long as we are getting paid for it. But let's not commit any money to the Artemis program from our side. But if commercial contracts come our way, we should grab them. This is what I meant by working with the Americans when it benefits us & keeping distance otherwise. Whatever budget ISRO gets that should go into building our own capability like developing the NGLV, vertical landing technology etc.

If sending people to space stations right away is so important, we can use American launchers for now.

That's what I'm getting it. The Accords & increased cooperation with the Americans allows us to streamline our funding and focus on core technologies that are necessary for us in the next decade instead of spreading what little funds we have on a dozen different programs, all of which suffer extreme delays due to funding issues. ISRO even today is extremely underfunded - even when we don't have to worry about Stations or conducting activities on the Moon.

We lose absolutely nothing by working with the Americans in these areas.

Indeed, things do change. Today the Americans want to be our buddy, so they want to do all kinds of deals with us. Tomorrow that might change too. Need I remind you of the cryogenic engine story? For most of history that was the kind of "contribution" the US made into our space program.

Frankly this Artemis program from our POV is worse than the many "joint development" programs with Russia that walked out of. MTA & FGFA programs come to mind. In those programs we went in thinking that this would be a great learning experience & we would develop many critical technologies only to find that our workshare was basically next to nothing.

We were so committed to those Russian JV programs that when we walked out of them there was no Plan B. IAF is still looking to buy MTAs & the AMCA is still under-development. Let us not repeat that foolishness.

You cannot really draw a direct parallel between Defence programs & Space. In defence, several other factors come into play. Our security calculus for example allows us to buy every kind of military equipment from the US - except for Fighter jets. With Russians, we'd rather not buy any of their crap, except in areas where they are literally the only ones willing to sell - like nuclear submarines. And that kind of forces us to maintain a broader relationship with regard to other purchases.

Space is pretty different. It's an area where until very recently, Americans & Russians were working with each other.

Besides, like I said, in defence & commercial nuclear areas, we have lots of options. In space, that is very limited.

Isn't the SLS human rated? & the Delta IV Heavy?
Is the Atlas V going to be decommissioned or do they have a replacement for the RD-180?

SLS is a Moonshot rocket. Too expensive for LEO missions. Delta IV-H to the best of my knowledge never achieved human certification.

Atlas V is confirmed to be retired by around mid-2020s as no further RD-180s can be sourced. The new Vulcan Centaur rocket is the replacement from ULA. But it can never really compete with SpaceX as it's not designed to be reusable. It can only be used for those missions that are image-conscious about flying on SpaceX (like Blue Origin etc.). But this rocket is still facing teething troubles with their Blue Origin-sourced engines, which means New Glenn is not going to happen anytime soon.

Willing to bet that once Gaganyaan is certified, we'll be doing quite a bit of commercial business. Not just with the Americans but also the Europeans & Japanese (as well as other Western-aligned nations) who don't have their own human launch system.

The human-rated HLVM3 will be another, often separately sold product. Reading between the lines of what S. Somanath was saying, they are studying the possibility of American capsules i.e. Boeing Starliner to be launched from that rocket as well.

Fair point. How do these companies make their money? Hard to imagine that just space tourism & micro-gravity experiments can make a space station can be profitable.

They are long-drawn programs. I don't think they expect to make profit in the first decade of operations, if that. However the way these programs work, they are likely to expect a stake in products that emerge as a result of research opportunities they provide i.e. biosciences & pharma.

Also, being owned by Private companies answerable only to one govt, they are likely to allow research in fields that otherwise would have been problematic to pursue on the ISS due to Russian greenlight needed to go ahead. Such as defence, offensive AIs & cyberwarfare etc.

Let's start developing the tech space docking, solar panels, life support, radiators etc. A lot of this has already been developed for the Gaganyaan program. Then let's spread out the development cost over a few years. We can also try spreading out the launch schedule of the modules. There are ways of reducing cost & if there is political will behind it cost may not be a roadblock at all.

All this is fine. But our space program cannot progress to the next stage without our own heavy lift launcher. I worry that all these additional programs will slow down & take resources away from the NGLV. The peanut we invest in engine development is unbecoming of a major space power.

That's exactly where these deals help - in allowing us to focus our efforts on things we absolutely need. And prioritize accordingly.

 

[Gautam]

The proposal to sign the Accords was shuttled around by various think tanks for a long time (including ORF & VIF which are deeply connected with current administration). ISRO had submitted its detailed report on advising the Govt regarding whether they should sign or not before GOI went ahead:

From that video it seems we would need to commit funding for joining the Artemis program. Now, if they commit to making enough launches from India for us to recover the money invested, then it's a good deal. We don't need to make any profits. We could get some useful experience from these missions & we recover the money invested.

But if the deal is they make the payloads themselves & we launch it for free. Walk away.

I drew a parallel between this & the nuclear deal so as to illustrate that often, there's so much more to these deals than what meets the eye. But you are drawing too much of a comparison between the two industries. In the nuclear space, there are several other factors to consider such as cost + viable alternatives. In space, there isn't anyone pursuing manned missions other than the Americans...except the Russians who like I said are tied to the hip with the Chinese.

There aren't very many options for us here within the next 10-15 years. We're just taking advantage of the hand we've been dealt.

We could try outright purchasing some tech from the Russians. Given their current situation we might get some good deals. Russia had a space station in the past. It is dated tech but still it could provide some valuable insights for us to build our own. The Russians were offering to sell some engines to us recently. I think it was the RD-191. Maybe we should have brought a few until we can get the SCE-200 working.

US is not open to this kind of tech sharing. Buying from them is not always feasible either given our budget. Americans stuff tends to be significantly more expensive.

The IVA suit we plan to use for the Gaganyaan mission at least in the initial phases is the Russian Sokol space suit. Our own suit, whenever we make one, is likely going to be based on the Sokol. If we decided to go with an American suit, we would end up paying significantly more money & would still have 0 access to the tech of the suit.

I guarantee you, if & when we make our EVA suit, that would also be based on the Russian Orlan not some American EVA suit.

There are still gaps left we could fill. Such as the habitats to be deployed on the Moon itself.

Majority of the Gateway partnerships (which were decided long before) are essentially ISS partnerships being carried forward, sans the Russians. Not to mention we haven't yet built any habitation modules and so would've been a risky bet in that department anyway. Besides, the modules themselves are essentially sunk cost, chalked up to space science and R&D spending.

With the kind of budgets we can spare, it's better we stick to departments where we actually hope to generate some revenue i.e. cargo & astronaut transport missions.

If the argument against developing something is that we have never done it before, then we might as well not do human spaceflight either. Look at the ITAR program, we are investing quite a bit on that joint program because we were in the program from the beginning. I imagine if we were in this program from the onset GoI wouldn't mind spending some money on this too. Now it's pointless, there is no RoI.

You cannot really draw a direct parallel between Defence programs & Space. In defence, several other factors come into play. Our security calculus for example allows us to buy every kind of military equipment from the US - except for Fighter jets. With Russians, we'd rather not buy any of their crap, except in areas where they are literally the only ones willing to sell - like nuclear submarines. And that kind of forces us to maintain a broader relationship with regard to other purchases.

Space is pretty different. It's an area where until very recently, Americans & Russians were working with each other.

Besides, like I said, in defence & commercial nuclear areas, we have lots of options. In space, that is very limited.

The co-operation between Russia & US was pretty one sided. The Russians were selling stuff & the US was buying. Would love to know if this co-op would survive if the boot was on the other foot.

Would the Americans sell their engines to the Russians to power a Russian launcher that would occasionally launch Russian military payloads to orbit?

SLS is a Moonshot rocket. Too expensive for LEO missions. Delta IV-H to the best of my knowledge never achieved human certification.

Those rockets are the kind ideal rockets that I dream us having. Massive ground-lit hydrolox stages followed by an upper hydrolox stage. Hydrolox has the highest Isp, so theoretically this is the most efficient rocket design. Of course, the ground-lit hydrolox engines the Americans use are gas generators cycle engines, so not the most efficient.

The only downside was that liquid hydrogen is a nightmare to deal with. The massive 1st stages that made these rockets so efficient would also make them super expensive.

Atlas V is confirmed to be retired by around mid-2020s as no further RD-180s can be sourced. The new Vulcan Centaur rocket is the replacement from ULA. But it can never really compete with SpaceX as it's not designed to be reusable. It can only be used for those missions that are image-conscious about flying on SpaceX (like Blue Origin etc.). But this rocket is still facing teething troubles with their Blue Origin-sourced engines, which means New Glenn is not going to happen anytime soon.

There is an opportunity here. If ULA's Vulcan isn't price competitive because it is an expendable rocket, NASA could join ISRO in the NGLV program. The NGLV is projected to be more capable than the Vulcan, it would be re-usable & would be a significantly less expensive.

I know it's far-fetched to think they would join us in launcher development. But it is more practical than doing human moon mission with us.