Missile defense system fails another test

Associated Press | February 14, 2005 | JOHN J. LUMPKIN

[HAL9000]

The failed test came less than a week after North Korea declared it had nuclear weapons, giving new attention to a possible threat from that nation.

Of course, North Korea doesn't report their failures.

[82Marine89]

This is what happens when the job goes to the lowest bidder.

[HAL9000]

This is what happens when the job goes to the lowest bidder.

Bill Pogue told me the same thing a couple of weeks before the Challenger blew up.

[Army Air Corps]

Gee, a new technology that is still being tweaked has problems? The h*ll you say! I am shocked! </sarcasm>

If the AP were on the aviation beat in the late 19th and early 20th century, they would declare that human flight was impossible.

[dighton]

Drearily familiar script.

Test fails (press is weak on the concept of test).

Reporter pops champagne, dances jig, quotes pet critics.

[plain talk]

Well if we are going to start using 'Perfect' as a standard for deployment of a government system or program, perhaps we should consider not spending another dime on welfare or numerous other guv'mint programs until someone can produce evidence that they are working successfully.

[Friend of thunder]

This is what happens when the job goes to the lowest bidder.

You may be correct, but if it were easy (that is, shooting a moving missile out of the sky) every one would be doing it – it would have been nice however, if the interceptor missile had at least made it out of the silo.

[theDentist]

Still, the failure drew new fire from critics who say the technology is too expensive and unproven.

Most technologies start off as expensive and unproven; Orbits, Space Shuttles, Lunar landings, heart transplants, nuclear power plants, nuke weapons, airplanes, cross-oceanic flights, and more and more and more. Until they are successful.

[freddiedavis]

lets hope the north korea missile launch is a failure

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Rats!

[82Marine89]

Scary isn't it? If the government didn't violate the constitution by spending our tax dollars on renaming 1/2 of West Virginia after Robert Byrd, pork barrel projects, and global welfare, we would have enough money for the national defense that they are supposed to provide.

[HAL9000]

I'm sure missile defense can work - if it has some redundancy built-in to the system. We need two interceptors for each ICBM aimed at us.

[smonk]

this would be why they test things.

[Friend of thunder]

lets hope the north korea missile launch is a failure

From your lips – or keyboard – to Gods ears.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Of course, North Korea doesn't report their failures.

And of course, our Old Media doesn't report OUR successes! ...

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Time to break out the airborne megawatt lasers and scrap the impractical idea of shooting down a missle with a missle.

[gaijin]

You know, it's funny; when some social program fails, the left rails for more money. But here we have something that really could someday save our very lives, but do we hear calls for more more money? Oh, no!

The message is instead switched: This failure shows the program needs to be DE-FUNDED!

[Constantine XIII]

Really, considering what they're doing, 5 out of 9 ain't bad.

[DBrow]

Gotta respectfully disagree. This is what happens when insufficient test and development funds are allocated by Congress.

By funding say, six full system tests, EACH ONE must succeed if Congress (the ones who funded the six tests) is to be convinced the system works. But what if it takes nine, or twelve? What if you find out in Test Two, that the fuel pump driver electronics interfere with the vane deflectors and both subsystems need a total redesign? Test Three becomes Test One for the redesigned systems.

What if they had funded an additional eight partial tests, in which just booster development or guidance or optoelectronics was tested? The way we are doing it now, each part of a complex mission absolutely has to work perfectly each time, and that just ain't the real world of high technology.

The way this is funded and developed, failure is planned in, which is (imo) what many members of Congress want so that they can avoid being confrontational and possibly upsetting the folks who are trying like mad to target missiles on our country.


What if we had stopped our efforts at orbiting a satellite when the first two launches failed? System does not work, poor technology, bad science, waste of money. It wasn't until Sputnik that we started test and development seriously, and Laika was a real goose to R&D efforts, and Gagarin meant we HAD to launch a human in space even if it meant he peed in his pants before launch. A minor problem like blowing up an entire Redstone on the pad was considered unfortunate but part of the learning experience. Hearing Sputnik beep-beep-beep right over our heads made many think, maybe next time it'll be a Joe-class nuke up there...


Imagine if your boss put a team together with you on it, and said that you'd come up with a complete online database of every medical expense in the USA with physician, service, customer, and insurance data, and that you'd develop the whole thing, then test it seven times, then launch the product nationally. Would you expect the whole thing to work OK after seven trials, with limited subsystem testing? And if it failed two tests, you lose your job. Waste of money...

Or consider way way back, the design changes Garand made to his rifle before deployment, versus the design and release of the M16. The M16 was tested less and needed design changes after deployment, and the cost was US citizens.

[The Duke]

The good news is that usually when the television doesn't come on it merely means that it's unplugged.