N. Korea has nuclear missile capability to hit US territory

So long as they keep working on it, I don't see the problem.

oralloy,

why have they been fiddling with the internal safety system of the interceptor rockets for several YEARS if they would know that it wasn't part of the fielded version?

And why didn't they just switch it off for the next couple of tests after the first time an interceptor failed to launch in a test due to problems with that system?

Wouldn't they rather want to test the KV than go "well, we're not at war, better we leave the safety on"?

You do know that one single test costs between 85 and 100 million dollars, don't you?

So isn't it outright stupid to repeat the same test over and over again, having the interceptor fail to launch again and again, and all that due to a problem in a system that wouldn't be contained in the fielded version?

oralloy

You are correct everyone is lying except the bunch in the White House.

Isn't it time to wake up and smell the roses.

oralloy wrote:

So long as they keep working on it, I don't see the problem.

Yeah, neither do I see the problem. They'll be working on it till the end of Bush's second term, burning another $9 billion a year, and it won't be operational by 2008. But hey, not my money....

Do you know that the problem is an internal system of the interceptor rockets? I've seen references to the problem being in ground equipment.

If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile. Previous failures of these high-profile, $85 million test launches have been regarded as significant setbacks by critics of the program.

In Monday's test, the interceptor missile was to target a mock ICBM fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska. The target missile launched at 1:22 a.m. Monday EST without any problems, but the interceptor did not launch.

The previous test, on Dec. 15, failed under almost identical circumstances. The target missile launched, but the interceptor did not. Military officials later blamed that failure on fault-tolerance software that was oversensitive to small errors in the flow of data between the missile and a flight computer. The software shut down the launch; officials said they would decrease the sensitivity in future launches.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

So long as they keep working on it, I don't see the problem.

Yeah, neither do I see the problem. They'll be working on it till the end of Bush's second term, burning another $9 billion a year, and it won't be operational by 2008. But hey, not my money....

I expect they'll keep working on it long past Bush's term in office.

oralloy wrote:

Do you know that the problem is an internal system of the interceptor rockets? I've seen references to the problem being in ground equipment.

Well, that's what I read:

Quote:

If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile. Previous failures of these high-profile, $85 million test launches have been regarded as significant setbacks by critics of the program.

In Monday's test, the interceptor missile was to target a mock ICBM fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska. The target missile launched at 1:22 a.m. Monday EST without any problems, but the interceptor did not launch.

The previous test, on Dec. 15, failed under almost identical circumstances. The target missile launched, but the interceptor did not. Military officials later blamed that failure on fault-tolerance software that was oversensitive to small errors in the flow of data between the missile and a flight computer. The software shut down the launch; officials said they would decrease the sensitivity in future launches.

Here is another excerpt you posted:

"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."

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

So long as they keep working on it, I don't see the problem.

Yeah, neither do I see the problem. They'll be working on it till the end of Bush's second term, burning another $9 billion a year, and it won't be operational by 2008. But hey, not my money....

I expect they'll keep working on it long past Bush's term in office.

They stopped working on it after Reagan's term. Didn't they?

oralloy wrote:

Here is another excerpt you posted:

"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."

Yup. Never said otherwise.

Having come to office favorably disposed toward strategic defenses, President Reagan was highly receptive to this recommendation from the Joint Chiefs. In a nationally televised speech on 23 March 1983, the president announced his decision to initiate an expanded research and development program to see if strategic defenses were feasible. In April 1984, following a year of technical and strategic studies to determine how best to pursue the president's goal, the Defense Department established the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) Organization under the leadership of its first director, Lieutenant General James A. Abrahamson of the U.S. Air Force. This organization was to carry out the SDI program of research and development (R&D) to resolve the feasibility issue.

After two and a half years of R&D, at the end of 1986 the President and Secretary of Defense decided to enter a missile defense system into the defense acquisition process. This led to the approval in September 1987 of the Strategic Defense System (SDS) Phase I Architecture, which comprised six major subsystems: a space-based interceptor (SBI), a ground-based interceptor, a ground-based sensor, two space-based sensors, and a battle management system. This architecture provided a structure to guide further refinement of missile defense components that would in turn be integrated into and improve the architecture through an iterative process.

The most significant change in the approved SDS architecture was the replacement of the SBI with an interceptor concept known as Brilliant Pebbles. SBI was to have been a large, garage-like satellite housing a number of individual hit-to-kill interceptors. Several hundred SBIs were to orbit the earth; and in case of an attack by Soviet ICBMs, the SBIs would launch their interceptors at individual Soviet missiles, destroying a large number of them during their boost phase while they were still pregnant with their multiple warheads and decoys.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Here is another excerpt you posted:

"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."

Yup. Never said otherwise.

I think your claim that it was internal to the interceptor contradicts their claim that it was in the ground equipment and not a problem with the interceptor.

Well, there are missile defense plans and there are missile defense plans. You can have ICBM interceptors, or you can have theater-based missile defense systems like Patriot.

Nevertheless, what Reagan had been planning was never realized:

Quote:

Having come to office favorably disposed toward strategic defenses, President Reagan was highly receptive to this recommendation from the Joint Chiefs. In a nationally televised speech on 23 March 1983, the president announced his decision to initiate an expanded research and development program to see if strategic defenses were feasible. In April 1984, following a year of technical and strategic studies to determine how best to pursue the president's goal, the Defense Department established the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) Organization under the leadership of its first director, Lieutenant General James A. Abrahamson of the U.S. Air Force. This organization was to carry out the SDI program of research and development (R&D) to resolve the feasibility issue.

After two and a half years of R&D, at the end of 1986 the President and Secretary of Defense decided to enter a missile defense system into the defense acquisition process. This led to the approval in September 1987 of the Strategic Defense System (SDS) Phase I Architecture, which comprised six major subsystems: a space-based interceptor (SBI), a ground-based interceptor, a ground-based sensor, two space-based sensors, and a battle management system. This architecture provided a structure to guide further refinement of missile defense components that would in turn be integrated into and improve the architecture through an iterative process.

The most significant change in the approved SDS architecture was the replacement of the SBI with an interceptor concept known as Brilliant Pebbles. SBI was to have been a large, garage-like satellite housing a number of individual hit-to-kill interceptors. Several hundred SBIs were to orbit the earth; and in case of an attack by Soviet ICBMs, the SBIs would launch their interceptors at individual Soviet missiles, destroying a large number of them during their boost phase while they were still pregnant with their multiple warheads and decoys.

Never happened.

Nevertheless, I would consider the ground equipment part of the system. Or would you say the fielded version can do without such?

old europe wrote:

Nevertheless, I would consider the ground equipment part of the system. Or would you say the fielded version can do without such?

I'm sure it will have ground equipment, including safety equipment that will let them know if it doesn't think things are right.

But I doubt that the safety equipment will be able to automatically scrub a launch.

I know it hasn't happened yet. They are still working on it.

The Brilliant Pebbles thing was the program that I mentioned under the first President Bush.

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

Nevertheless, I would consider the ground equipment part of the system. Or would you say the fielded version can do without such?

I'm sure it will have ground equipment, including safety equipment that will let them know if it doesn't think things are right.

But I doubt that the safety equipment will be able to automatically scrub a launch.

How do you know that that's what happened?

oralloy wrote:

I know it hasn't happened yet. They are still working on it.

The Brilliant Pebbles thing was the program that I mentioned under the first President Bush.

Oh, and what are you talking about here? SDI has been scrapped (under Reagan), as has been "Brilliant Pebbles" (under Bush the first). So what are they still working on...?