Launching: Fill & Download for Free

Because it is. The Soyuz family of rockets, stretching from the very first Soyuz rocket launched in 1966 to its latest launch in February 2020, has enjoyed spectacular reliability, low cost, and simplicity. It is the most launched rocket in the world, with the ability of launching a large variety of payloads into Earth orbit, including cargo and crewed missions to the International Space Station.It is currently the only launch vehicle capable of taking crew to the ISS, pending the launch of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon launch in May of this year. Due to its reliability, at the time that NASA astronaut Nick Hague stated this, the Soyuz has launched close to 2,000 times, while having a success rate of 97%, which means that, out of those thousands of launches, only 60 have been failures.Of those failures, one is particularly memorable, especially to Nick Hague. Here is MS-10, a crewed launch aboard a Soyuz-FG rocket in October of 2018, pictured below launching from Baikonur Pad 1/5.During launch, a booster had a faulty separation, leading to a failure of the second stage. The spacecraft automatically separated from the booster and made a ballistic return, with both crew members surviving.What makes this story particularly relevant to this question, is the Flight Engineer on board the spacecraft, a NASA astronaut by the name of Nick Hague. He, perhaps more than anyone, can attest to the reliability of the Soyuz launch vehicle. He is pictured here, above the Mission Commander, Aleksey Ovchinin, at the launch pad shortly before that “successful failure.”

That depends on the method launch.Cold LaunchThe Russian R36 ICBM (NATO code name SS-18 Satan) uses this type of launching method.Because of this launch method, the missile has a reload capability most other ICBM’s don’t have. The missile is normally stored in a container within the silo. Upon launch, the missile is ejected out of the silo by a piston that is pushed by a black powder charge. The missile’s engines ignite above the ground after leaving the silo.What this means is that the silo itself is not damaged by the launching of the missile like a “hot” launch would. It is possible that the spent container be removed and a new loaded container inserted into the silo in a very short period of time.The US Peacekeeper ICBM used a similar method to launch, with the missile kept in a canister.Hot LaunchThe Minuteman III was a “hot” launch missile meaning its engines ignited inside the silo. You can see this by the smoke rings produced when they launch.The silo would have to repaired before any new missile could be loaded. This would be considerably longer than a “Cold” launch silo would take.

Why is ISRO taking the satellites of the USA in space even in 2019?The only US-ISRO launches I see in 2019 is the launch of a bunch of US-made cubesats: ISRO launches CARTOSAT 3, US satellites into space . I assume you’re talking about that one.A little background:Cubesats are tiny things that many launch companies (launch service providers) add as secondary payloads behind some big satellite. (The pictures below are a 1U cubesat and a larger 3U cubesat.)While it costs $60 million dollars to launch a big satellite on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX offers a ride sharing program for small satellites that will launch small satellites for as little as $1 million.SpaceX’s Falcon 9s aren’t the only rockets that offer ride shares for cubesats. ISRO’s “New Space India Limited” was looking for customers and found those tiny US satellites looking for a ride to space. The US customers didn’t want to pay for a dedicated ride (like a Rocket Lab Electron mini-rocket, which is $6 million per flight) or wait for a larger US rocket, so they launched on an ISRO flight.ISRO seems to be looking for that commercial money - it has launched 319 satellites for 33 countries.Why don't they use NASA?Because NASA is not a launch service provider. NASA does not build rockets. NASA does not own rockets. NASA does not launch satellites for paying customers.If NASA buys a satellite or space probe then it hires an aerospace company like Northrup-Grumman, United Launch Alliance, Arianespace, or SpaceX to launch the satellite.Why is NASA getting ignored?NASA is ignored in this case because NASA has almost nothing to do with the launch of commercial payloads like these cubesats. If you want the US to launch a satellite, then you hire one of these companies:Boeing (part of the United Launch Alliance)Lockheed-Martin (part of the United Launch Alliance)Northrup-GrummanSpaceX (currently launches about 20% of the world’s payloads, second only to China)Rocket Lab (specializes in cubesat launches)And I’m sure I missed some others. There are a lot of aerospace companies launching rockets in the US.But, in this case, ISRO had the competitive launch offer that suited 13 US customers with tiny cubesats to launch.