Jump to content

Talk:Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Box problem

The tech-data box is overlapping the Launch Log table. Is there any way to fix this (aside from the obvious of adding more to the article...)? - Aerobird 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the fourth stage?

I see three stages plus the strapon solid fuel boosters on the first stage mentioned. Are those strapons the fourth stage? -- KarlHallowell 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The strap motors are to boost the first stage, and not an additional stage. Of the six strap ons four ignite on launch and the remaining two later in flight.--PremKudvaTalk 04:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox picture resizing problem

The picture in the infobox is resized to 280px width as defined in Template:Infobox Four Stage Launch Vehicle, but it should stay at its original (small) size of 200px width to prevent a 'pixel' look. Usually this works properly as described in Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Size: If the image is already smaller than your specified value, the image stays at its size. Any idea why it doesn't work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.159.248.44 (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Infobox

I have listed the page's current infobox (Template:Infobox Four Stage Launch Vehicle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) at WP:TFD. If it is deleted, I have prepared code for Template:Infobox rocket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which can be used in its place: 

{{Infobox rocket
|image = Pslv_thm.jpg
|imsize = 200
|caption = PSLV at [[Sriharikota]]
|name = Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle
|function = [[Low Earth orbit|LEO]] [[launch vehicle]]
|manufacturer = [[ISRO]]
|country = India
|height = 44 [[metre|m]]
|diameter = 2.8 m
|mass = 294,000 [[kilogram|kg]]
|stages = 4
|LEO-payload =3,250 kg
|alt-LEO =
|status = Active
|sites = [[Sriharikota]]
|launches = 10
|success = 9
|fail = 1
|first = [[20 September]], [[1993]]
|boosters = 6
|boosterengines = 1 [[Solid rocket|solid]]
|boosterthrust = 502.600 [[newton (force)|kN]]
|boosterSI = 262 sec
|boostertime = 44 seconds
|boosterfuel = [[HTPB]] ([[Solid rocket|solid]])
|stage1engines = 1 [[solid rocket|solid]]
|stage1thrust = 4,860 [[newton|kN]] 
|stage1time = 105 seconds
|stage1SI = 269sec
|stage1fuel = [[HTPB]] ([[Solid rocket|solid]])
|stage2engines = 1 [[Viking 4]]
|stage2thrust = 725 kN
|stage2SI = 293 sec
|stage2time = 158 seconds
|stage2fuel = [[N2O4]]/[[UDMH]]
|stage3engines = 1 [[solid rocket|solid]]
|stage3thrust = 328 kN 
|stage3SI = 294 sec
|stage3time = 83 seconds
|stage3fuel = [[solid rocket|Solid]]
|stage4engines = 2 [[liquid rocket|liquid]]
|stage4thrust = 14 kN 
|stage4SI = 308 sec
|stage4time = 425 seconds
|stage4fuel = [[MMH]]/[[UDMH]]
}}

Just copy it in over the code that exists, if/when the template is deleted. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Need images

Someone has marked the only image used in the article as a candidate for deletion from the Wikimedia Commons. But good images are extremely important for good articles! Could someone please find an image of the PSLV that is used in the publicity material of ISRO, and upload it to en.wikipedia.org as a "fair use" image? Ideally, at least one photo and one drawing would be good. Thanks! (Sdsds - Talk) 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PSLV-CA 1.jpg

Image:PSLV-CA 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign payloads table removed

I removed the Foreign payloads table as I included all the necessary information (i.e. country flagicons) in the Launch log table. Hope it's acceptable, if not, please discuss it here rather than having a revert war. Thanks.  S3000  ☎ 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Chromium Coating

I was a bit puzzled by these statements in the intro: "The enhanced range is made possible by adding a special-purpose coating of chromium metal to the blunt nose cone of missiles and launch vehicles. This would add-up on the stated range." I'm skeptical that any coating on the nose cone would greatly enhance the performance of a rocket. I did a quick Google and found that there has been research into adding coatings to the nozzle cones of rocket engines to improve their performance (including coatings containing chromium). This seems more like what the author intended as the coating would allow higher exhaust temperatures, which is often the limiting constraint. The final sentance of the intro just doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm a newbie, so am refraining from editing the page myself, but wanted to throw out my two cents. Aerochimp (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Control Box

I have added Control category and integrated some basic info available freely and officially. If anybody gets detailed information on control systems please mention. --Anuraag Vaidya 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RISAT

RISAT-2 may have been built by Israel, but it is owned and operated by India, so the Indian flag should be used. Please don't change this without discussion. --GW… 07:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Development

In "Development" paragraph 2, should "altitude" be "attitude"? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding more detailed desciptive text

I propose to add little more descriptive text uniformly for all launches. Hope that is fine - I ask this upfront because I had previously added text for the last launch which was reverted. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm proceeding to make the changes at least for the initial few. Will add more through the course of the week. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The section is getting a bit too long now, we should probably look at moving it to its own article, or cutting down on the text a bit. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 12:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happier with a separate article as I'd like to believe the added text is encyclopedic enough (verifiable sources, no copy-paste). How do we do this ? I'll still need a few more days to complete the descriptions for the rest of the launches. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have just reinstated Ohsin's changes regarding the planned launch of Cartosat-2C. While we do not yet have an article on that satellite, the planned launch obviously cannot refer to Cartosat-2 which was launched in 2007. Other sources indeed confirm that the launch planned for 2016 is for Cartosat-2C, compare for example WMO. I have also removed the various dead external links which served no purpose. It might have been possible to recover some of them - say via the Wayback Machine - but I rather don't think they were particularly relevant in the first place. Huon (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Mission Cost

The article currently quotes http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/science/pslvc21-sends-french-spot-6-japanese-satellite-into-orbit/article3877021.ece that the price of the launch vehicle is ₹90 crore($15M USD). This price is too low to be realistic. Does anyone have a better source for the actual price? Ergzay (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"100th mission"

ISRO have been claiming PSLV C21 to be their 100th mission. This is untrue, or at least highly misleading. ISRO seem to have adjusted the figures to present a propaganda milestone; in reality they have only conducted about 55 missions; the 100 they have given includes counting most spacecraft twice; once at launch, and once upon entering service. It also includes several satellites which were never operated (such as GSAT-4), and counts multiple spacecraft assigned to the same mission as being separate "missions". Therefore, I don't think this is worthy of inclusion as encyclopaedic content. --W. D. Graham 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit weird: I can find a whole host of references (both from India and other countries) listing the mission as the 100th mission. See here, here and here for a few examples. Do you have any external references for your count of 55? (I can't find any). Pending such references, I do think that at least parts of what you removed rightly belong in the article. Piyush (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Piyush.--PremKudvaTalk 06:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I now understand what the confusion is about. The number 55 seems to be about PSLV lauches, as the ISRO webpage cited in the article seems to suggest too. On the other hand, the number 100 might (at least from the coverage) it seems refers to the total number of missions with other vehicles (there was the SLV, and perhaps they are counting the sounding rockets from the 60s too). I believe User:WDGraham chose to remove the relevant parts from the ISRO article but write about these changes on the PSLV article here. If we do decide to put in the information about the "100th launch", we should probably do it at the ISRO article, with a clear statement that it does not refer to the number of PSLV launches. I think the version removed by WD Graham erroneously did refer to the 100th PSLV mission. Piyush (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
No. Actually it clearly said 100th space mission of ISRO which is disputed by User:WDGraham. I have not checked the stats myself. But the ISRO releas mentioned launchers and satellites separately, 38 launch vehicles from Sriharikota [so doesn't include sounding rockets], and 62 Indian satellites. By Indian satellites I do not know if they included the US made INSAT1 series. WDGraham disputed the count of an Indian satellite launched by an Indian launcher as two missions. WDGraham also mentions some failed missions as being counted in the 100.--PremKudvaTalk 04:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Also if this is agreed to be wrong or un encyclopaedic, then its occurrence on the ISRO page is also to be removed. --PremKudvaTalk 04:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I checked the figures myself about a month ago. First of all, the number of launches they gave is easily disprovable. There have been four SLV, four ASLV, 22 PSLV and seven GSLV, for a total of 37 launches, not 38. Looking at satellites, by counting anything launched with ISRO intending to have any role in its operation, and adopting a sufficiently loose definition of "satellite" and "mission" as to include experimental avionics packages bolted to the third stage of PSLVs to test performance during launch, it is possible to get 62 or 63 missions. I can post a full list if you want, but the highlights include counting every Indian spacecraft launched by an Indian rocket twice - for both the launch "mission", and the spacecraft's own mission - including seven spacecraft (the first Rohini, SROSS-A, SROSS-B, IRS-1E, INSAT-4C, GSAT-4 and GSAT-5P) which never even reached orbit let alone began their "missions", plus a further two (GSAT-1 and Rohini 2) which were never operable - the latter barely made it to orbit and decayed within 48 hours. INSAT-4C and 4CR flew the same mission (the latter replacing the former), but are both counted separately. There's also the matter of the INSAT-1s, which were commerically procured, but that's not a big problem - spacecraft built by ISRO for other organisations aren't included either, but joint missions such as Megha-Tropiques are. There's also INSAT-2DT which was an old satellite bought from Arabsat as an emergency replacement for a failed Indian spacecraft - it is counted. We've also got MIP, which was essentially part of the Chandraayan mission.
Obviously I'm not advocating the inclusion of OR in the article, but the point I am trying to make here is that these figures have clearly been manipulated, and I think that's enough to warrant a concious decision to simply not include them. --W. D. Graham 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I've added a citation I chanced upon that seems official but is rehosted unofficially.[1] Ohsin (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "100-missions-of-ISRO" (PDF). Retrieved 1 August 2016.

Should APCP be cited as fuel instead of HTPB?

Details on all components of solid fuel should be added. HTPB is binder primarily. Ammonium_perchlorate_composite_propellant is better suited term.

"The solid propellant stages and strap-ons of PSLV use Aluminium Powder as fuel, a rubbery organic compound (referred to simply as HTPB) as fuel binder and Ammonium perchlorate as the oxidiser. A mixture of these three substances hardens like a concrete block after curing!"[1] Ohsin (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ohsin I suspect this solid fuel is similar to the large number of other rockets that use solid fuel. How do their wikipedia entries work? Greg (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Greg Lindahl: For Ariane_5 comma separated constituents are mentioned like AP, Al, HTPB and for Vega_(rocket) it says HTPB even though in subsection it is mentioned to be in lesser quantity. When mentioning HTPB it really means HTPB based. Ohsin (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Chandrayaan-1: The Launcher".

Notable flights section

Does a prime minister witnessing a launch really make a launch notable? The subsections unnecessarily clutter an otherwise well written article. I think we should get rid of most of the section barring very important missions such as chandrayaan or MOM.Rushil92 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rushil92: PSLV C-29 testing out a critical ability does make it a "Notable Mission". Ohsin (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ohsin: Alright, but what about a lot of the other flights there? Makes the article very cluttered. I think apart from a few extremely notable flights, most of this information can be presented better in the "notes" section in the table. Rushil92 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rushil92: Agreed. VVIP presence shouldn't make a flight noteworthy. Ohsin (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@AKS.9955: D3,C3,C4,C5 are not notable launches. You seem to be filling in the gaps assuming all missions need to be listed under this section but this is only for as it says missions that are noteworthy. Ohsin (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would love to see this section reduced to actual notable flights. "This was the 51st total launch made by ISRO" is not notable. The date is not notable, it's in the table. The name of the satellite(s) launched are in the table, and are usually not notable. If you look at the pages for other launch vehicles, they have more notes in the table and fewer notable launches. Greg (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Greg Lindahl: Absolutely. Whole section can be done away with, keeping just concise notes in table itself and details in their respective articles. Ohsin (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest replacing this section with some prose and a list of missions which introduced an innovation or experienced an unusual event, i.e. in my opinion D1, D2, C1, C4, C7, C8, C11, C25 and the upcoming C37. Maybe I should be bold and just do it? — JFG talk 13:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There are others like C29, as PSLV gained new operational capability with it. I find D3,C3,C4,C5 as regular missions and they were added later in misunderstanding I suppose. Removing anything else without first duplicating elsewhere like in their respective pages would be wrong. Ohsin (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@JFG I would say go ahead and be bold; details like new operational capabilities can be added as notes in the table. E.g. Falcon 9 has had several minor capabilities that are just notes in the table; notable missions include things like "landed the booster for the first time" or significant increase in launch mass. @Ohsin why is relight worth a notable mission instead of a comment in a table? It's important but incremental; lots of upper stages do it. Greg (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
(although clearly any major reduction is fine, it doesn't have to be done perfectly.) Greg (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Greg Lindahl: Given there is no dedicated mission page for it yet I had to put it all under 'notable'. Dependable relight capability for multi orbit delivery was introduced for this campaign. There is some indication they have relighted PS4 main engines way before on C8 campaign[1] but never for payload injection. In PSLV context It is more notable than C37 in technicality. C34,36 are more fit for table and again duplicate first and then trim here. Ohsin (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dhvanilp should be made aware of this discussion, they just added C37 as a notable flight. Greg (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Greg Lindahl: To notify you can use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Reply_to or ping them like @Dhvanilp: Ohsin (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "PSLV C8 Brochure" (PDF).

Payload to LEO - source for number?

On 22 August 2016, the payload capacity to LEO in the infobox was anonymously changed from (600 km altitude, 3250 kg) to (620 km altitude, 3800 kg). Neither the old nor the new numbers come with a citation. The PSLV has never been used for a launch to this orbit AFAIK, though of course the launch capacity into low inclination LEO can be higher than launches into polar orbit.

1) Is there a citation for the numbers used (old version or new)?

2) Are the numbers valid?

I would like to believe the high numbers, and cite them in my own work, but not without a reputable source.

KeithLofstrom (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Greg Lindahl and Heman.phinehas: Added citation for 3800 kg to LEO claim but specifics for LEO are not there. Ohsin (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add that the citation is not an official figure. It is of course taken from a presentation by Shri Somanath but it could as well be an error.

--Heman.phinehas (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Should We have a Separate List for Launches

Including the list of launches in the article is making the article too long. My proposal is to move the List of Launches to a new article so that the primary article talks about the vehicle itself. This can also avoid the very long Infobox as most of the content can be put in the main article and the infobox has essential concise information Hagennos (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree! Given how in near future PSLV launch frequency is set to climb up, it would be good to separate List of launches and planned campaigns in a separate page. This page is a mess and trimming 'notable launches' section and info box is much needed. Ohsin (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

A new page List_of_PSLV_launches has been created but it blanks out crucial details on payload mass. It would have been better if the new page was setup properly first and then with a notifying comment here first asking on feedback, the content was removed. Ohsin (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

PSLV-G is not in service anymore

Should the article be updated to mark PSLV-G as 'Inactive' there is plenty of indication to suggest that.

"Today, the PSLV is available in three configurations — the generic vehicle with six strap-ons, which is the earlier edition of PSLV (which will be discontinued soon)"[1]

"The generic version with six strap-ons will be discontinued in future."

From chapter on PSLV in "From fishing hamlet to red planet"

"Currently, two versions of PSLV are operational, namely PSLV-XL (with six extended version of Strap-on motors) and the PSLV Core-alone (without Strap-on motors)." [2]

At 1 min. 28sec. mark in this video for PSLV-C42, they say PSLV has only two variants XL and CA.

https://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c42-mission/pslv-c42-mission-curtain-raiser-video-english

So it appears PSLV-C35 / Scatsat-1 was last of the Genric variant to be launched but it wasn't a ceremonial send off specifically mentioning that it is now discontinued. Ohsin 16:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Where India reaches for the stars: Inside ISRO's Sriharikota Centre". Retrieved 15 September 2018.
  2. ^ "Department of Space, Outcome Budget 2016-2017" (PDF). Retrieved 15 September 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polar_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle/Archive_1&oldid=1152086829"