Meh. The story is too one-sided. It sounds like a reliability issue. Instead of doing the hot-fire tests on the thrusters, what data did they present on the reliability of the thrusters that makes the testing unnecessary? The story should have presented that information if it was available. The basic question is how sure are you that the thrusters will fire? 90% sure? 99% sure? There is no such thing as 100% sure in reliability engineering. After all, you can't test a rocket for a terminally-guided impact weapon twice.
If you didn't watch the video at the bottom, it's hilarious - in a most ironic and depressing way. That's precisely what happened to the Bradley, the Joint Strike Fighter, and numerous other military projects. It's almost as if they are politicians approving these things...
Well it's not like the tests are for anything important....
(And in case anyone couldn't tell that was sarcasm...) "The tests that are being skipped would evaluate the reliability of small motors designed to help keep rocket interceptors on course as they fly toward incoming warheads."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
(And in case anyone couldn't tell that was sarcasm...) "The tests that are being skipped would evaluate the reliability of small motors designed to help keep rocket interceptors on course as they fly toward incoming warheads."
- George Carlin