02-07-2010, 11:30 PM
Arunji,
1. Lets say 3500km covered in 800sec with 350km altitude max. This looks like a depressed trajectory, is'nt it ?
what would be its range if the same (unknown) payload is put on a max. range trajectory ? Unfortunately, I do not have access to ROCKSIM...
2. Has A-III been ever tested on a max -Q trajectory ?
3. So, it is ready for induction. Which means that unlike in the A-II case, people should hopefully not make the mistake of avoiding production trials when production shifts to BDL.
4. As of now, A-III has a better record than A-II. 3/4 vs 3/5. Even the failed trial was a partial success. Of course, development trials only validate the design. Hopefully, after A-II lessons are learnt and appropriate quality control is instituted, A-III production trials will be smooth.
5. A-V is likely to have the same first two stages an extra 3rd stage and probably the same guidance hardware, right ? Given this, would A-V trials help in further proving A-III reliability ?
1. Lets say 3500km covered in 800sec with 350km altitude max. This looks like a depressed trajectory, is'nt it ?
what would be its range if the same (unknown) payload is put on a max. range trajectory ? Unfortunately, I do not have access to ROCKSIM...
2. Has A-III been ever tested on a max -Q trajectory ?
3. So, it is ready for induction. Which means that unlike in the A-II case, people should hopefully not make the mistake of avoiding production trials when production shifts to BDL.
4. As of now, A-III has a better record than A-II. 3/4 vs 3/5. Even the failed trial was a partial success. Of course, development trials only validate the design. Hopefully, after A-II lessons are learnt and appropriate quality control is instituted, A-III production trials will be smooth.
5. A-V is likely to have the same first two stages an extra 3rd stage and probably the same guidance hardware, right ? Given this, would A-V trials help in further proving A-III reliability ?