What is your point ?
That Bus left station long back.
Viking Engines ? Shall we move to more blasphemous territory like Nuclear ?
What about CIRUS nuclear reactor from Canada ?
That was 1960 & 1970. It happened when it happened.
Would love to see something fruitful much RECENT apart from Turbo Shaft Shakti Engines. And this also because this is the position still not 100% Indigenous.
The
www.globalsecurity.org
View attachment 16821
With 11% stack what we learned in this engine ???
Than Why we have program for HAL-HTSC-1200. Think about it.
Please Dont compare apples to oranges.
I am posting this for others benefit mostly.
You seem to have some impression that India was some land of great milk and honey in the HR resources it had between 1950 - 2000 (that shape the downstream now).
If there was overabundance of 10 great teams of 1000 tier A folks each to deploy in 10 high-research areas....you have one situation for resource deployment.
Its very different situation if you dont have 10,000 to allocate into 10 teams though.
If you have say 1 or 2 magnitudes less at some prior snapshot of analysis, you face a prioritisation challenge given the scarcity.
With say an example of a scarce number being say 100 and already large list of projects to address at this realm (and the pressing purely civilian sector research areas)...do you take 10 projects and deploy 10 folks each?
Or do you take 4 projects and deploy 25 each. Or 2 with 50 each. Or the other (non equal) combinations.
The team sizes get additional scaled benefit sometimes (having 50 instead of 10 in a team often gets results much more than 5 times faster or better).
I work in this field. Its a large highway of a company but the HR is
the core thing in the end.
Including the collectors upstream that fed into this highway long ago (the distributors today are a different subject altogether).
....i.e what Canada and US (HR tier A wise) had in say the 1950s snapshot.
Not to mention what they then pooled to augment this even further with say NORAD, NATO, the UK, France et al. Things simply unavailable to India at the time.
Lot of old names like Orenda that dont exist anymore (merged into the highway)....but were maybe at that time (or at least its major lab, which still exists somewhat disguised and distributed though) some kind of closer equivalency to GTRE today. To give you an idea of the relative IP+feedback bulk and basis upstream that forms the relevant institutional inertia scope and size today.
The point is there were many very other large highways here that didn't impose the scarcity-prioritisation situation in the degree India was staring at to allocate things.
There was little need to take away from nuclear weapons, missiles, space to then prop up jet engines, defence electronics, general aeronautics, general propulsion and so on....to mention just some large tier A fields and highways. It could all be done simultaneously when scarcity is not an issue in HR.
So if you have say time machine to go back in time and tell the powers that be in India that they are doing a lousy job allocating a full heavy percentage (of scarce HR) to nukes and the missile and space programs w.r.t IGMP (as to why these 3 were prioritised among some others instead of like 10 or 20 things all at once).... and not enough to jet engines and whatever else you have on the "why the hell is this workshare/stake on this specific thing just 11% today while we work on an alternative simultaneously" ....be my guest.
You hedge inertias of the options you have in the end. Every country did this and does this. The more you know how to work in this reality, the better things turn out.
Rather than extremity of "give me everything, I can't do it" dependency or "I'm the best, I can do absolutely everything myself from square one in record time and at nominal cost".
So in that time-traveller sojourn you will eventually (if someone in the know cares enough to explain it to you again, in case a few cups of Joe aren't to your taste) just get the same HR reasoning by people back then that know the actual situation in its inner onion layer.
i.e the basic Tier A RnD people to deploy (working with and prioritizing what you have) to then finance, further train and acquire equipment for.... understanding its best to get the first things prioritised and be competent enough at those first to then be able to move on to other things later. Rather than be jack of all trades and master of none downstream by spreading scarce qualitative things thin (losing out on crucial networking amplification that comes with consolidated team size).
Rather than other way around (e.g Western snapshot of the time)... where theres much more RnD people to begin with and you can finance many more things at once and tinker with fiscal steering among those....given the starting points, bulk and inertias here already.
It is all HR inertia defined, not "lack of money/whip/orange political admin" like there was some milk and honey abundance in HR in the prior years here.
You just didn't read my earlier posts (62 and 63) and understand the upstream at all....instead launching into more circular rote repetition.
I've seen this with the magic wand waving for Indian economy debate in the same period (1950 - 1990)...without a basic understanding of the nature of capital accumulation in the cold war setting, much less basic human resource development.
, arm chair General
