India Ascendant: Gravity’s grasp versus poverty’s clasp

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

As to people who post on Bharat Rakshak and their level of knowledge, here is something:

[shiv
Member
Member # 367

posted 02 December 2003 05:50 PM

---

http://www.aircraftplanesandjets.com/fighters/avro_arrow.htm

I suppose the Arro was advanced for its time. To me it does not look like a Tornado at all - no variable geom, nor like an LCA.

The specs on the link speak of a landing speed of 168 kt - that is about 340 kmph !!!]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile) says:

[A nautical mile is a unit of length. It is widely used around the world for maritime and aviation purposes.

The international nautical mile is defined as exactly 1,852 metres. This definition was adopted in 1929 by the International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference, Monaco. The United States adopted it in 1954. Prior to the adoption of the international nautical mile, the nautical mile used by the US and the UK was 6080 feet, or 1853.184 metres.

A nautical mile is approximately a minute of arc along a great circle of the Earth and was formerly defined so. The earth is not a perfect sphere, so a minute of arc can be less than, or more than, a nautical mile by a few metres.

For purposes of practical navigation, the former definition is still widely used: the length of a minute of arc of latitude is found on any nautical chart and can be taken to represent approximately one nautical mile on that particular chart.

The abbreviation nm is often used, although this means nanometre in the SI.

One knot is a unit of speed defined as one nautical mile per hour.]

Microsoft`s calculator on MS-Windows Desktop converts 168 knots to 311 kilometers per hour not 340.

These are the guys who are talking about variable geometry wings and beyond visual range radars.

Looks like Maasanamuthus to me.

Ref AlephNull #25

[I’ve used the FAS site as a resource in the past (especially the high-energy weapons archive). However, I urge using it with caution and skepticism....

A great deal of the material on the FAS website is not quite up-to-date. For instance, the PSLV and GSLV pages were last updated May 1998 and April 2000 respectively. Look at the vintage of the LCA and FC-1 pages (late 1999) and the JF-17 page (non-existent) for a quick reality check.]

The fact I didn`t mention ISRO, Spacedaily, Spacetechandcom doesn`t mean I don`t cross-check.

Funny you should mention HEW. I was surfing there just a few days back. The analysis of Shakti-2 has been presented from both the US scientific establishment viewpoint (the bombs didn`t have the yields claimed by India) as well as opposing viewpoints that defended the Indian claim. Cary Sublette has done a good job of attempting to make sense out of the whole bunch of contradicting claims and counterclaims.

So I did ask a guy from one of the US National labs. He also feels that the bombs were a dud.

I still discount this as negative propaganda to draw out more information from Indian scientists.

I am quite skeptical about people`s intentions so your warning, while well intentioned, are already taken into account by me.

Ref AlephNull #24

[A launcher’s maximum payload to low-earth orbit is primarily a benchmark. As a final orbital destination, I doubt LEO is useful for any applications other than spy satellites with short lifetimes.]

And scientific payloads. A very large number of NASA satellites are/were placed in LEO to study either the Earth or the atmosphere.

Also, things like the Space Station and the Space Shuttle. Their orbit is only a couple of hundred miles above the earth.

Also maned space capsules.

[Actual launches of PSLV and GSLV have targeted orbits of higher utility (for which a given launcher has lower payload capability than it does to LEO.) My point in #2 was that ISRO had achieved the capability to place 3 tons in LEO some time back, contrary to what you claimed.]

The capability has NOT been demonstrated by throwing a 6600 lb (the claimed max payload of the PSLV) satellite into orbit.

[None of the successful PSLV launches placed satellites in low-earth orbit of moderate inclination (which would have allowed maximal payload to orbit). All the launches but the last placed satellites in near-polar orbits with inclinations of about 98 degrees (the point being that launch to polar orbit needs much more energy).]

At least, Indians can`t blame geography. Arianespace needed a location close to the equator to get maximum boost from earth`s own rotation and went to French Guiana (what IS the name of that country anyway?) to get a launch location. India sits close enough to the equator so we can`t complain about Nature conspiring against us.

So what actually prevents India from throwing up a 3-ton satellite into LEO? Prove that the PSLV would actually do the job. There are plenty of spy satellite kind of things one can send up to look in on our friends in China, for instance.

[The last PSLV launch placed a 1060 kg satellite in geosynchronous transfer orbit (from which it eventually was raised to geostationary orbit).]

Yep. That is slightly over 1 ton.

[My impression (and I may be wrong) is that it is precisely the weather satellites for which geostationary orbits make the most sense.]

Weather satellites are of two kinds. The birds that sit up in geostationary orbits don`t necessarily produce the resolution you get from polar orbit (500 miles) satellites.

[All the INSAT satellites were placed in geostationary orbit. The INSAT series of satellites are very large, of the order of 3 tonnes, beyond the capability of the current GSLV.]

China places 3+tons into geosynchronous orbits. This is just for comparison and information. So, we do have a longg way to catch up with China.

[On the other hand sun-synchronous orbits of lower altitudes make sense for remote sensing satellites such as the IRS series. Multiple IRS satellites have been successfully launched using the PSLV.]

True. Doesn`t disprove my contention that limiting design parameters for payloads haven`t been proven.

Harimau #19

{{The fact is the PSLV thingie HASN`T put a 3-ton satellite into orbit yet.}}

A launcher’s maximum payload to low-earth orbit is primarily a benchmark. As a final orbital destination, I doubt LEO is useful for any applications other than spy satellites with short lifetimes. Actual launches of PSLV and GSLV have targeted orbits of higher utility (for which a given launcher has lower payload capability than it does to LEO.) My point in #2 was that ISRO had achieved the capability to place 3 tons in LEO some time back, contrary to what you claimed.

None of the successful PSLV launches placed satellites in low-earth orbit of moderate inclination (which would have allowed maximal payload to orbit). All the launches but the last placed satellites in near-polar orbits with inclinations of about 98 degrees (the point being that launch to polar orbit needs much more energy). The last PSLV launch placed a 1060 kg satellite in geosynchronous transfer orbit (from which it eventually was raised to geostationary orbit).

{{All the INSAT series satellites are launched by Arianespace. Even weather satellites that do not require geosynchronous orbits.}}

My impression (and I may be wrong) is that it is precisely the weather satellites for which geostationary orbits make the most sense. All the INSAT satellites were placed in geostationary orbit. The INSAT series of satellites are very large, of the order of 3 tonnes, beyond the capability of the current GSLV. The last PSLV launch actually placed a small meteorological satellite (METSAT-1, renamed KALPANA-1) in geostationary orbit.

On the other hand sun-synchronous orbits of lower altitudes make sense for remote sensing satellites such as the IRS series. Multiple IRS satellites have been successfully launched using the PSLV.

Harimau #5

I’ve used the FAS site as a resource in the past (especially the high-energy weapons archive). However, I urge using it with caution and skepticism. It is too closely associated with the viewpoint of the US non-proliferation establishment, and with dubious disarmament, arms control, ‘human rights’ and ‘peace’ organizations and groups, for my taste. The name FAS is now almost as misleading as ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’ – i.e. scientific training is not a requirement for membership.

A great deal of the material on the FAS website is not quite up-to-date. For instance, the PSLV and GSLV pages were last updated May 1998 and April 2000 respectively. Look at the vintage of the LCA and FC-1 pages (late 1999) and the JF-17 page (non-existent) for a quick reality check.

There is also no guarantee that the people who assemble the material on the FAS site necessarily have any technical background. FAS’s fellows (i.e. student interns) mostly have backgrounds in public policy, international relations, political science, and other ‘soft fields’. I counted exactly three past fellows in the last 17 years, with engineering or scientific training of any kind.

Re BR, it is undoubtedly a site for enthusiasts. It does try to maintain a balance between boosterism and skepticism. It has a hard core of habitués who are genuinely knowledgeable – I don’t know of a better clearinghouse for Indian defence issues. The chap who wrote the launcher pages for BR has also written a nifty launch simulator. Ignoring cosmetics like spelling and grammar, I find the BR material on launchers far more informative and up-to-date than the stuff on FAS.

In the end, all sources come with their own agendas and biases. There is no alternative to checking what one reads in one place against other sources and one’s own knowledge.

Ref arjun_m #20

[++
Routes are jammed?
++

Not routes into India...all the slots in destination from where planes take off for India.... ]

Now you are clutching at straws.

Instead of Air India leaving JFK at about 11pm and arriving in India at 12:30am, it can leave at 11am and arrive at 12:30pm. Just flip all schedules by 12 hours for flights into and out of US. That should do the trick.

Harimau # 16

All routes in the air are 20 miles wide corrodores and are between two ground based Navigational aids. Atlantic has no Navigational aids. Now most aircraft are equipped with INS or Inertial Navigation System which requires no ground aid.

Between each aircraft, there is supposed to be a gap of 5 minutes which comes to a lateral separation 35-40 miles. Verticle separation is 2000 feet between eacgh aircraft.

So on the main routes, it is a busy highway - all aircraft crammed up with minimum separations.

Wherever radar coverage is available, the controller can reduce these separations and accomodate more aircraft. Airports like Heatrow, Frankfurt, Chicago, JFK are very busy - and there is a queu of aircraft all day long for take & landing.

Europe & US is now under full radar cover - so aircraft get shortcuts - and more aircraft can be accommodated. But Asia in general is still not fully covered.

In areas of radar coverage with reliable aids, they have introduced RVSM or reduced verticle separation Minima of 1000 ft verticle separation only.

More changes are coming in near future - like complete elimination of corridores + GPS + new systems in aircraft.

Even the Chicago-Delhi flight has a stop over in London, I think. It seems we have digressed from the topic, more so because the ``Man on the moon`` bit is far removed from our personal reality but landing at 2am in IGI or Sahar is very much fact.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref arjun_m #11

[++
that in 10 years` time people will be able to speak commands to a computer and the computer would execute them. This was cleverly interposed in an interview where the secretary was talking about research in India on computer science, the implication being that Indians would do it.
++

Umm...you took it that way..]

There is such a thing as tenor of a conversation. This idiot was talking about India`s contributions to computer science in 1987. If I am correct, it was zilch at that time.

Oh yeah, he also talked about how programs would be ``pelletized`` and re-used. My reaction was that the only Indian pellets we are likely to see are those coming out of a goat`s rear-end.

[...people make predictions all the time...]

Just like the statements even in this article such as [In 1903 CE, Indians would have found it difficult to imagine that in 2003 CE, ‘Air India’ airplanes would be flying regularly from Mumbai’s CSM airport to New York’s JFK airport with a stopover at London’s Heathrow. In 2103 CE, a “Space India” spaceship taking off from Mumbai’s ‘Vikram Sarabhai Earth Terminus’ to Mangalpur’s ‘APJ Kalam Terminus’ on Mars with a stopover at Chandrapur’s ‘AB Vajpayee Terminus’ on the moon is not a sci-fi scenario.]

Air-India`s planes aren`t made in India. Any spaceship used in regular transport isn`t likely to be made in India. But we will take credit for operating an airline service -- by the way, one of the poorest in the world -- from Bombay to New York.

PS. China makes tail assemblies for the Boeing 747. They negotiated a deal with Boeing that in return for buying a large number of planes Boeing will have to subcontract a sizeable chunk of work to China. A friend of mine told me that India makes the one-meter long aluminum lever used to close and open doors from the inside. An Indian foundry offered a cheaper price than Boeing could get elsewhere - $190.

Yaaawn again.

Ref ajeet #13

[`.....India is the only country I know of where international flights arrive anytime after at 11pm and departures start at 12:30am....`

I have always wondered why it should be so. Not only Air India but also other airlines land and fly at the ungodly hour close to midnight. Is there any good reason for that?]

The REAL explanation came to me yesterday as I was watching Discovery Wings.

FedEx gets all packages into Memphis by 1 am and flies them out to their destinations starting at 2am.

India`s airline passengers are being treated like so many pieces of baggage.

Ref gujjubania #12

[Harimau , how come a genius like you makes a statement like this > ``India doesn`t even have a launch vehicle capable of lifting a 3 ton satellite into earth orbit``

Even the famous Fosa of Chowk would have known about the PSLV thing....]

The fact is the PSLV thingie HASN`T put a 3-ton satellite into orbit yet. All the INSAT series satellites are launched by Arianespace. Even weather satellites that do not require geosynchronous orbits.

Now go back to cutting code. The Yankees are anxious to get their bugs fixed overnight.

Ref arjun_m #14

[Because European airports don`t take that kind of crap and India does...]

NOW you got it right. Because Indians take it up the tail pipe without a murmur.

[The timing works out in a way by which flights only get to India in the wee hours....At other times all the routes are jammed..]

Routes are jammed? What kind of bullshit is that?

US FAA regulations require {Under instrument flight rules, standard separation between two airplanes depends on a number of factors, including the size of the airplanes being separated and the kind of airspace they occupy. Generally airplanes close to an airport are kept apart by at least three miles horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically. When airplanes are flying between major terminal areas, standard separation is never less than five horizontal miles and 1,000 vertical feet.} This info is from an FAA site (http://www2.faa.gov/ats/zmaartc/skyways.htm) and not from Bharat-Rakshak as posted by some Ram, Tikka or Hari.

Between 25000 and 45000 feet, you can stack 20 planes vertically. Extending the horizontal separation of 5 miles to 10 miles, you can still launch one plane every minute into the air (at 600mph, a plane travels 10 miles in one minute). So, even if you have only one runway at an airport, you still can have 60 planes going up in an hour. Multiply this by number of airports and number of hours between 7am and 10pm. This far exceeds the total number of flights into and out of India as well as within India. You can reduce this by any reasonable safety factor and you still wouldn`t have reached maximum capacity utilization.

Nazar Hayat Khan Saheb, please jump in here with your experience in, say, flying out of JFK and the time separation between flight take-offs.

[Now that they`ve made it SOP to accept flights at all hours, they can`t change that easily...]

Sure they can. Just give the airlines 6 months notice and they would juggle their next regular schedule change (winter, summer, etc.) and come up with an acceptable schedule. Or they will make Air India a monopoly by default for flights in/out of India.

Ajeet # 13

European + US airports are closed between 11 PM to 5 AM for noise pollution.

Even during other periods, the aircraft are required to follow a noise abate procedure - minimum power + V2 speed (minimum practicle speed) and climb to 1500 feet with a steep angle and then accelerate to the normal climbing speed.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts