Posted on 02/15/2005 3:09:34 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 - The nation's fledgling missile defense system suffered its third straight test failure when an interceptor rocket failed to launch Sunday night from its base on an island, leaving the target rocket to splash into the Pacific Ocean, the Pentagon said Monday.
The target rocket was launched from Kodiak, Alaska, at 9:22 p.m. Sunday (1:22 a.m. Monday, Eastern Standard Time), but the interceptor that was supposed to go up 15 minutes later remained on its pad in the Marshall Islands, the Missile Defense Agency at the Pentagon said. The target rocket fell into the ocean near Wake Island.
The agency took some consolation from indications that the launching failure was caused by a malfunction in ground-support equipment rather than in the interceptor missile itself, said Richard A. Lehner, a spokesman for the missile agency. "But it's a disappointment, in that we had a test planned and were unable to complete it," he said.
Mr. Lehner said the interceptor reacted to an erroneous "abort" command a few seconds before it was scheduled to launch. Scientists think the order may have been generated by something in the silo, by electronic monitoring equipment or by some other device, he said.
The latest problem with the multibillion-dollar missile system comes at an awkward time, as Congress begins to consider a Defense Department budget of $419.3 billion for the 2006 fiscal year, as well as a supplemental budget of more than $80 billion for this fiscal year, most of which would cover the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Lehner said it was too soon to speculate on when another test might be held, because it takes about 60 days to build a target missile. He said the latest failure was similar to one on Dec. 15, when an interceptor also failed to launch from the Marshall Islands to chase a target sent up from Kodiak, although that misfire was linked to a problem in the interceptor itself.
The Dec. 15 event was a major disappointment, because it was the first full test of the defense system since Dec. 12, 2002, when an interceptor failed to separate from its booster rocket, missed its target by hundreds of miles and burned up in the atmosphere.
Mr. Lehner said the latest test, like the one in December, had a budget of about $85 million. The trials are part of an effort to install a scaled-down version of the "Star Wars" defense system, proposed two decades ago by President Ronald Reagan to protect against missiles from the Soviet Union.
President Bush pledged during the 2000 campaign to work for the deployment of a streamlined system suitable for the era after the cold war, and he has pushed to make it operational even as tests are being carried out, an approach that has prompted heavy criticism, especially with the recent failures.
"It's as if Henry Ford started up his automobile production line and began selling cars without ever taking one for a test drive," said David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which describes itself as a nonprofit organization dedicated to rigorous scientific analysis.
Mr. Wright, a co-director of the organization's global-security program, said it was "irresponsible and potentially dangerous" for the Pentagon to assert that the emerging missile system is a reliable defense.
In December 2002, Mr. Bush said he hoped to have the system operational by September 2004. But by last September, the program was behind schedule by about 10 months, and that was before the two latest failures.
The first group of land- and sea-based missiles and their associated systems will cost more than $7 billion. The overall missile defense program is expected to cost more than $50 billion over the next five years.
The Missile Defense Agency has now conducted 10 tests, scoring five early hits in what critics of the agency called scripted conditions. Six missiles are already in place in Alaska and 2 in California, with 10 more to be installed in Alaska this year, Mr. Lehner said.
Some members of Congress have called the missile program a waste of money and ineffective. But some support it, arguing that it is better to field even a limited system sooner rather than later, especially with North Korea's formidable missile arsenal and its embrace of nuclear weaponry.
Hmmm. For some strange reason I get the feeling the NY Times is happy the test failed.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This system needs years more R&D before we spend billions deploying it.
The nation's fledgling missile defense system suffered its third straight test failure
Proving the necessity of testing.
Well, that's it!! Let's just give up. </sarcasm>
Surprised the title isn't: "Rocket Fails to Launch. Bush's Fault."
FMCDH(BITS)
Good thing we didn't follow that logic when it came to the Manhattan project.
Dear David Stout:
You learned propaganda well...but not well enough to fool anyone with a brain.
As Los Alamos director J. Robert Oppenheimer watched the test of the first atomic bomb, he recalled a line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, "Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds." The bomb was tested before it was deployed. We are already deploying the first elements of the ballistic missile defense. even though the anti missile system has yet to operate successfully in a test.
Ballistic Missile Defense, part of the "No Contractor Left Behind" program.
Meanwhile, there's inadequate money to check the millions of containers coming into the country, where Kim Jong Il could easily hide a bomb in any shipment of toys, or tools, or anything else we buy from China.
You forgot the "throw the hands in the air" graphic...:)
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression the device had indeed been tested successfully. It just has not worked every time. If you define a success as 10 successful interceptions in a row, then no, it has not succeeded. But I do believe it has succeeded at least once. Anyone comment on this?
As Los Alamos director J. Robert Oppenheimer ... recalled a line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, "Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds."
Accurate quote as far as I know. Would you suggest we go back to before the use of the weapon?
I would love to have a "Wayback Machine" and change some things, but alas, I haven't found one, except in cartoons. So, what's your point?
FReegards,
FMCDH(BITS)
The Ballistic Missile Defense system is not designed to address terrorist nuclear attacks. It is designed to shoot down the missiles that North Korea will surely fire at us and at Japan when the balloon finally goes up over there.
There is no technological fix for the terrorist nuclear weapons threat. The only way to address that problem is ultimately to kill those persons or groups that would conduct a terrorist nuclear strike before they try it. A robust program of civil defense training would also do much to alleviate the threat, but, since the Homeland Security people don't want to panic anybody (or risk ridicule for pushing "Cold War bunkers"), that's out of the question.
This BMD test failure is a setback, not a defeat. The whole reason for conducting such tests is to identify problems before deploying the system. I'd much rather have the missile malfunction today than on the day that Kim Jong Il finally loses his last marble and pushes the big red button.
These launch failures are being caused by small glitches in obscure parts of the system. It is not the main interceptor or commmand & control software that is failing. While unfortunate (& embarrasing), this is a necessary shakeout of the system. Not many systems are tested in a fishbowl as this one is (with the MSM watching every test).
Good point as we wait for Peter vE to reply.............
FMCDH(BITS)
0 for 3 means that you don't deploy this thing. I think that it's a great idea, but so far it doesn't work. When the torps didn't work in WW2 they at least changed them, albeit after much handwringing and great knashing of teeth.
Some parts have worked, but never the whole system.
Another good point.
FMCDH(BITS)
As far as I know, it's not being deployed, it's being tested. Am I mistaken here?
FMCDH(BITS)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.