In article <
ddfe0eeb-fc20-4598-baf8-fd214ba62400@googlegroups.com>,
David_Powell3006@msn.com says...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/asia/india-space-shuttle-success/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool
<http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/asia/india-space-shuttle-success/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool>
They seem to be putting this one on the top of their stack.
Actually, they "busted out" a hypersonic reentry test vehicle that destructively "landed" in the ocean. This is along the lines of what
the USAF and NASA did in the 1960's which helped develop tech for the
space shuttle.
The Indian test vehicle wasn't even designed for recovery, so I'm not
sure how they expect to validate that the TPS actually worked as
designed. For example, the one and only flight of Buran was successful,
but reports were that the TPS didn't work well enough and that there was significant damage to the orbiter. How would you tell the difference
without recovering the thing?
Still, good job for testing something. That's the only way to develop
new tech on a shoestring budget. Design a little, build a little, test
a little, fly a little, repeat... Each incremental step needs to be
small enough that it's affordable and helps reduce the risk of the next
step.
Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)