NEWS: U.S. Missile Defense System Flunks Test

A systems test of the U.S. missile defense system failed today. The failure occurred when an interceptor missile failed to launch from its test base in the Pacific ocean. It is the second failure in as many months for the program. A spokesperson for the missile defense agency said that there was a problem with the ground equipment, and not the missile itself.



I have confidence that the system can be brought online and is necessary. Yes there are bugs that will have to be worked out, but when I hear that a North Korean ICBM is on its way to San Francisco, I want to be able to do more than duck and cover. Any system this complex is going to have its issues. They need to work them out and get the system operational as soon as possible.

Originally posted by FredT

I have confidence that the system can be brought online and is necessary. Yes there are bugs that will have to be worked out, but when I hear that a North Korean ICBM is on its way to San Francisco, I want to be able to do more than duck and cover. Any system this complex is going to have its issues. They need to work them out and get the system operational as soon as possible.

Good Grief! Did Bush jump the gun and dismantle our already extensive defense system?



.

what extensive defense system? The SPRINT systems were taken offline decades ago. The Nike-Ajax systems are rusted and forgotten. We have nothing for intecepting real ICBM's, or cruise type missiles. The Airborne Laser is still not deployed, SDI was never deployed or even concretely planned. And the Patriot, for theater defense only, isn't deployed on any American coastlines or borders that I can see. NORAD has even been decentralized.

And for those who are hoping to make a big anti-military or anti-Bush thing out of this failure, remember something-if this was easy, we, or the Soviets, or China, would have had this working *decades* ago. The only thing close that *worked* was launching another nuclear warhead and detonating it, a lot like the game "Missile Command". It's much better, and harder, to go for a hard kill and target the reentry vehicle one on one.

I still think we oughta keep focussing on high energy laser or particle beam weapons-the targetting is a lot easier. And it makes more funding for LLNL (and for Berkeley)

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by FredT

I have confidence that the system can be brought online and is necessary. Yes there are bugs that will have to be worked out, but when I hear that a North Korean ICBM is on its way to San Francisco, I want to be able to do more than duck and cover. Any system this complex is going to have its issues. They need to work them out and get the system operational as soon as possible.

Good Grief! Did Bush jump the gun and dismantle our already extensive defense system?



.

Isn't this a duplicate of www.abovetopsecret.com...?

I think the DREAD system is highly capable of shotting ICBMs down during their mid stage flight to the target. There was in depth look at the system, still in development in CT, on defense review. Their website has all kinds of tidbits on weapons systems for space. It's much easier to shoot down a missle as it's going up, rather than try to hit the warhead coming down. That's like intercepting a bullet on its way to the target, it's not impossible, just difficult.

While the prospect of electro-centrifugal kinetic kill delivery devices orbitting above my head doesn't really make me feel safer, at least it might prevent a global nuclear exchange. Put enough of these things in space and program them to kill any missles that they see. MAD, mutually assured destruction, I say let's shoot for MAS, mutually assured SURVIVAL.

Truth is, probably the most vulnerable part of a nuclear missle is the software than runs its target routines. If I was a weapon developer, I wouldn't be focused on balistics, rather, electronics. It would be easier to scramble a missles brain rather than shoot it out of the sky.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
(Instead of) MAD, mutually assured destruction, I say let's shoot for MAS, mutually assured SURVIVAL.

Truth is, probably the most vulnerable part of a nuclear missle is the software than runs its target routines. If I was a weapon developer, I wouldn't be focused on balistics, rather, electronics. It would be easier to scramble a missles brain rather than shoot it out of the sky.

You're obviously not in military intelligence...


.

Isn't this a duplicate of www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, one of the exception circumstances to the rule, can be in ATSNN and then also in the appropriate forum if applicable. Many such dupes exist.

Personally, I think a lot more of SDI actually went up there in the 80's during all of those "classified payload" launches of the shuttle (when they were going up all the time like crazy). With HELs, etc. I really can't see them going to a missile to missile idea...and I think this is window dressing...

Originally posted by Gazrok
Yes, one of the exception circumstances to the rule, can be in ATSNN and then also in the appropriate forum if applicable.

Many such dupes exist.

The thread I listed is also an ATSNN news story, not a regular forum thread.

[edit on 2/14/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Isn't this a duplicate of www.abovetopsecret.com...?

No, this is a new test. That accounts for the two failures in as many months.

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.

[edit on 2/15/2005 by Majic]

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

[edit on 2/15/2005 by Majic]

Sure: Let SCIENCE dictate the pace of application and not the Feeding of the Military Industrial Complex.

This system was far from being ready to be at the test stage, yet spending for it is lavish, to say the least.

BT, you and the rest of the Bush detracts would be browing pictures of the rubble that was once my home and try to apply blame for the fact that he did nothing to stop the missiles. So for you its a win win scenario, but for us its a better than nothing esp if you fall in a targeting zone. Id rather have some chance as Ive said before than no chance at all.

We have also become so risk adverse as a society, its a wonder that we have any innovation at all.

I must admit I haven't done all my reading on the system, and as such I don't know exactly how the system functions. I have, however, done my physics.

Working a few months back, some friends of mine and I for the hell of it kicked out a missile defense system. Simple, really. They shoot a missile, we shoot one. Bang. Also for the hell of it, we made it realistic. Correct masses, correct velocities, correct trajectory, calculus, etc. Nothing really too hard. Anyway, we calculated a bunch of stuff for it. The short answer: the system fails.

The window for launch is absurdely small. The trajectory is much more complex than on paper because of all the factors that actually take place in real life. The capability to miss is enormous. Even, if by some miracle, you hit the incoming missile, anything on those missiles is coming down. It was by no means practical.

To stop a missile, you would probably want to detonate it nearby, and increase your range of affection. (It was interesting to note in the calculations that the equivalent mass of the rocket in TNT was roughly the same as the kinetic energy of the rocket.) You'd want to possibly try dropping multiple charges, in the hopes that the projectile would hit one of them (much more likely). The second best idea, however, was to simply stop the missile very very near to launch. If you couple efforts in that direction with a more comprehensive safety system, you're doing that much better. The best chance for protection, however, is cheaper, but vastly more complex and unpredictable.

Diplomacy.

If anything I've said is true about the current system, then I apologize for taking up your time, I just wanted to give a physicists view on the matter. BT, I see no reason to NOT let science dictate areas where it is so obviously a ruling matter.

For the record, I support the system. It has a lot of room for improvement, but as FredT has said, it is a good idea.