[sam_paine]

A miss on this will make us a laughingstock

It's pretty bold, but that doesn't imply that it's equally risky.

In the first place, the spy-sat doesn't work, and everyone knows it.

I don't think anyone questions our ability to launch spy-sats because of that.

So at the high-levels of Chinese, Russian, etc military, I think this is just another test/demo of one element of one system (Raytheon vs. Boeing vs. Lockheed , NMD in alaska, PAC-3, THAAD etc).

Obviously, on a public PR and perhaps funding level, it's a whole different story.

But what about funding? If we miss, won't the brass just argue for more development on different systems, etc etc?

If they hit it, might some senators say "aha, we don't need more research?" I dunno. Interesting times.

[ArrogantBustard]

Miss, and the MSM will blather endlessly about the failed, money-wasting "star wars" program on which the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned BOOOOOoooosh wasted precious resources that could have been spent on poor CHILL'run.

Hit, and the MSM will blather endlessly (but not so loudly) about how the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned BOOOOOoooosh is an aggressive "cowboy", threatening the poor defenseless Russians (or somebody) with destabilization, and recklessly risking global thermonuclar war.

Of the two, I'd prefer the latter.