as posted by Odium
What do people make of this next set back?

Are America going to be able to finish their Missile Defence system?

I guess you only read the first paragraph and stopped? See this mentioned?

A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.

seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by Odium
What do people make of this next set back?

Are America going to be able to finish their Missile Defence system?

I guess you only read the first paragraph and stopped? See this mentioned?

A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.

seekerof

Lets just hope this will never happen again, and the damn missile will work next time. No excuses.

That's what they want us to know-for some reason?
Dallas

Lets see without any Missile defense system you have 0% chance of stopping a incomming missile. I would rather have a missile defense that only worked 10% of the time then none at all.

Besides this is not our only method or attempt at a missile Defense we also have the ABL for example. Personally I think the new laser systems are going to be ideal for this type of stuff in the future.

Besides this is not our only method or attempt at a missile Defense we also have the ABL for example. Personally I think the new laser systems are going to be ideal for this type of stuff in the future.



Agreed. I think ground based, air based, or space based laser defense system will be ideal for the most part. We still need an effective missile system just to be totally covered from bad weather, like snow, heavy rain, dense clouds, etc. May be some day other countries will thank us for developing a system that can shoot asteroids coming towards earth.

I would always think that Interceptors with 10 kiloton nuclear warheads would work so much better. You don't have to hit the incoming ICBM.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Besides this is not our only method or attempt at a missile Defense we also have the ABL for example. Personally I think the new laser systems are going to be ideal for this type of stuff in the future.

Problem with the ABL is it is only effective against missiles in the boost phase. Therefore it has to be close to the launch site. This may work well for a few missiles in rogue states but against a power like CChina or Russia it is pretty much useless. SHooting down a 747 is kindergarten stuff.

Originally posted by rogue1

Problem with the ABL is it is only effective against missiles in the boost phase. Therefore it has to be close to the launch site. This may work well for a few missiles in rogue states but against a power like CChina or Russia it is pretty much useless. SHooting down a 747 is kindergarten stuff.

Yeah all these anti-missile defense are really made to deal with rogue states non have a hope of stopping the sheer numbers Russia would use. But they might be ideal for say N Korea shooting one at the west coast. Perhaps if they work good enough they could be used to stop a attack from China that only has a couple hundred nukes.

I wouldnt expect the ABL to be in 747s for long either. If it works good on that platform expect some Stealthy UAVS with ABLs that can stay up for days. Perhaps even a Satellite armed with one of these lasers. Laser weapons are still in its infancy compared to other weapons we use.

Likely a missle defense will make use of many different techs Laser,missiles,Satellites so you can attack a incomming missile in every phase of flight. So it would have to run a gauntlet or layers of attacks.



[edit on 14-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

That's What Tests Are For

If there was no chance for failure, there would be no need to conduct tests.

Intimations that the failure of a test -- or a series of them, for that matter -- during the development of a new system amount to program failure have the disadvantage of being bereft of logic.

Every test failure points out flaws that are subsequently corrected.

That's how system development works.

If someone knows of a better way to do it, let's hear it.

Setting up tests like this is a momumental task. All the pieces in the right place to verify and test a system is a huge undertaking.

I watched a NASA show the other night and it spoke of all the 'failures' that led up to the launch of the Mars space probes. There were errors found and fixed up to within 8 hrs of launch and some more found after launch, the point being that you will want failures before actual necessity. Hope you get the point.

Another analogy: Onboard US ships, exercises are done over and over again. Errors are found and exercises are repeated, until you hope to cover all bases in case of an actual casuality or emergency or war.

I'd much rather they find errors now than after an actual launch!

It's the political hit that Bush will take that is most damaging. Since he promised a working BMD system before last years end (and October befor that).

I wonder what the actual problem was, the missile hatch door didn't open? the weather? (storms and wind can be terrible for getting critical mission data) Optical/IR tracking equipment failures?

Either way, you can believe that hundreds of folks were ticked off having to sit through another failed test for hours on end, then have to go home without data.

Something to think about: When the "Test" sites are considered "operational," Where will the testing afterwards be conducted? Because once they're operational, the number of available test sites will be reduced. So places like Kawjelin and Alaska and Hawaii will no longer be "test" sites. Can you imagine the hassle and hoopla of bringing 'down' a national security site for 'testing'!!!!??? NOT LIKELY!

If you think testing is easy your wrong, and if our system goes 'operational' the testing world will be much much worse.

Tuatara's Third Eye
spell check not done