Space missions are inherently hazardous and failures are, therefore, not uncommon. But the crash of the Geo-synchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) needs to be viewed slightly differently simply because of the commercial implications of the communication satellite INSAT-4C that it was meant to put in the space orbit. The aborted mission has put on hold, albeit for the time being only, the plans of several companies which intended to launch or expand their direct-to-home broadcasting services. It has also jeopardised the plans of some of the existing broadcasters to launch channels and services at least till some other arrangement could be worked out. Some of them had already made commercial bookings on the INSAT-4C, which has perished along with the GSLV. This was supposed to be the most powerful and the heaviest communication satellite, weighing 2.16 tonnes and having 12 Ku-band transponders. Besides broadcasting, the satellite was also designed to provide other services like digital picture transmission, meteorological imaging and support for the National Informatics Service. Since it would take at least three months to identify the snags that led to this fiasco and some more time to rectify them, the failure of the GSLV mission is bound to adversely impact the schedule for future space initiatives. These will include the launch of the Cartosat, a remote sensing satellite, scheduled for September this year. The GSLV crash may not put at risk the country's most ambitious Chandrayaan-1 moon mission, slated for early 2008, as that involves the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) and not GSLV. But it will surely mar India's prospects of marketing the GSLV to overseas customers. | |
| Though the GSLV debacle has come on the heels of the collapse of the intermediate-range ballistic missile Agni-III, test-fired by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on Sunday, the two are not inter-connected. The failure of Agni-III is in some respects far more serious. The missile testing was originally scheduled for 2003-04 but was delayed because of technical glitches. Its failure, thus, has come about even after the rectification of the flaws, indicating deeper problems. But the GSLV, on the other hand, has been preceded by at least three successful launches (GSLV-D1, GSLV-D2 and GSLV-FO) after its first flight on March 30, 2001, and was automatically stopped by the computer seconds before the lift-off when it detected a technical snag. Besides, ISRO's past record in this field is fairly good, considering it has seen only four failures in 20 missions since 1979. This is one of the highest success rates globally. Of course, one can argue that ISRO should perhaps have conducted a trial run with a dummy satellite before carrying the first operational INSAT satellite to lift off from domestic soil. One can also argue that such ventures should always be insured against any failure. But, then, the costs that such dummy runs or insurance covers would entail cannot be overlooked. In any case, considering that the domestic launching of satellites turns out to be some 30 per cent cheaper than outsourcing the job to foreign commercial agencies like Arianspace, it is undoubtedly worth taking such risks for the sake of the development and validation of indigenous technological capabilities. |
| |
|
| |
