Slashdot Mirror
Interceptor Missile Fails Test Launch
jangobongo writes "The US missile defense system suffered a serious setback today, just 2 weeks before it was scheduled to be activated. A target ICBM was launched from Alaska, but crashed harmlessly into the ocean as the interceptor missile based on an atoll in the Pacific Ocean shut itself down due to an unknown "anomaly". The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."
I read this article, and all I can think is, "Gosh, that target ICBM must be expensive."
Bliss is having no idea how much my federal government spent on the rest of the program leading up to this test. Just let me worry about this ICBM lying on the bottom of the ocean.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
I try and be non partisan here but I have a few questions: How much money is this system costing? How are we supposed to justify the cost in addition to the $100 Billion (approx 25 Billion more than Bush said we would need before the election) we are going to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan next year? How are we supposed to pay for this with the dollar at an all time low against the Euro? How are we supposed to pay for this and have the tax cuts made permanent? How are we supposed to pay for this and reduce the deficit (at an all time high off of a budget surplus just five years ago)? How are we supposed to pay for this and the new stealth spy satellite program that is currently under congressional review? If we are truly at war, then we have to consider some history: There has never before been a time in the history of the United States where during a time of war, we have had a tax cut. If our soldiers (Semper Fi) are paying the ultimate sacrifice (1,344 US Military and a significant number of British, Spanish and Iraqi troops in addition to unpublished numbers of private contractors), then we should at home be expected to sacrifice as well.
The performance of this program really does make one wonder what we are getting for our tax dollars and investment given all the dramatic failures this program has endured.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
And the United States wonders why we're [Canada] reluctant to join the missile defence programme...
It doesn't work, that is why.
if it was software related it was probably due to a fault in the scheduling algorithm re: data sharing between processes most problems in RTS come from an excessive amount of world inputs that aren't properly accounted for by data structures then again.. it could of just ran out of gas
"The more you know, the less sure you are." - Voltaire
The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."
And let's all speculate aimlessly until we know which.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Stupid rackafratchin' metric conversions ;)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Ignoring for the moment the cost and the dubious necessity for such a system, what worries me more is:
'failed to launch due to an unknown anomaly'
What kind of engineering is this? With all of the possible metrology, the system 'shut down' due to an unknown anomaly? If the scientists and engineers can't grok what causes a 'shut down', then they need new jobs...possibly in the NYC sanitation department.
The system 'shut itself down'...ergo, a failure condition (anomaly) must have existed. I fail to understand how the 'system' knew about a problem that was bad enough to shut itself down, yet somehow the folks running said system aren't able to discern exactly what that was? Hell, even Windows has 'event viewer' and kernel dumps.
This cash cow needs to have her neck severed.
Some have said: A shameful waste of American money. An inducement to start a new nuclear arms race. Another dangerous precedent for continued American unilateralism.
Meanwhile, the thousands of cargo containers entering American ports everyday are rarely inspected.
Meanwhile, tons of radioactive materials are left unsecured in the former USSR.
And more nations are pursuing nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to keep the U.S. from invading their countries.
Someone want to educate the current administration on asymmetrical warfare? And how the next threat is likely to be immune to missile interceptors.
Ideologically at least, I support the idea of national missile defense. But one has to look at this from a cost-benefit angle. A system that could probably stop ICBMs would be worth spending quite a lot on (though not necessarily any obscene amount of money). A system that can maybe stop ICBMs under ideal conditions will probably not stop them in real life. It's still worth a lot, but not billions and billions. This is money that could be much better spent actually protecting America. For example, what's to stop somebody from landing a nuke on our shores in a small boat? How many thousands of times less would it cost to patrol our shores effectively than fuel some military-industrial boondoggle?
English is easier said than done.
Prepare for the chants of "but it will after more development!"
Doesn't matter. It isn't needed. It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be. Even the most hare-brained dictator knows that lobbing ICBMs at the U.S. mainland isn't going to work and will just result in the "liberation" of their country.
At least some of the world is trying to abandon the path of large-scale war and high-tech weapons as a means of resolving disputes and protecting your interests. Financial war can be messy but at least you don't get this.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
as the interceptor missile ... shut itself down...
Well, it could have been worse! Nothing like going from one incoming ICBM to one ICBM and one haywire interceptor...
Just a thought. If I was a terrorist (I'm not honest!) and I heard Americans going on and on about how great this system is knowing full well its faulty I'd probably put it to the test. Seems like that would be the ultimate slap in the face. "Your billions and billions of dollars STILL can't stop us" An unfounded claim just begs to be tested.
Its like those "indestructible" CD holders they sell in those little booths at the mall.... Lets just say I'm not allowed back in that mall for a while.
Wow. That sounded bad. Ok. No more writting in the first person as a terrorist.
--
To sig or not to sig
It was too broadly programmed and decided to become a conscientious objector...
(Now there's a sci-fi story waiting to be written... an AI that refuses to do non-efficient work that it was designed to do..."This job is stupid, I'm not doing it...")
Critics of anti-ballistic missile defense systems have often pointed out the futility of trying to build a missile defense system. As the critics have explained, it will always be easier to build an effective missile offense than it will be to build an effective defense.
So, it seemed tragically humorous when the press spokesman for the missile defense effort inadvertantly agreed with the critics when the press spokesman proclaimed that although the interceptor had failed, the target missile had functioned properly.
With all of the money being spent on this program, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to hire a more savvy spokesman.
Important Notice to Rogue States and Terrorists: If you plan to attack the US, check the weather first and make sure it's a calm, clear day so our missile defence system has a chance of working. Love, the US government.
Personally, I hope the defense project fails... otherwise Canada will be forced to disagree again with American policy. I'm sure there'll be economic consequences.
I wrote this for an English teacher of mine so I won't bother to reformat it, but it shows why us Canadians are reluctant to join into this program.
Winnipeg is among Canadian cities where a North Korean nuclear missile could land if the U.S. shot it out of the sky with its ballistic missile defence technology.
Although the chance of Winnipeg getting hit is distance, it's still a sobering thought for Prairie dwellers at a time when U.S. President George W. Bush is pushing Canada to sign onto his plan.
If the U.S. hit the feared missiles early enough, they would make it no farther then the arctic before landing or breaking apart. But a few minutes delay and a missile could fall much closer to its target, such as in southern Canada.
The anti missile technology works by destroying the rocket's booster rocket.
The Nuclear warhead would either break apart and scatter radioactive material over a wide path, or continue intact but come short of it's target, if it did hit the ground it may, or may not explode.
U.S analysts haven't thought much about the consequences for Canada, which lies in the path or a nuclear missile from North Korea, or of Berlin and Edinburgh, which lie in the path of a nuclear missile from Iran. A United States official commented that saving New York is worth killing one or two of our reindeer.
If you draw a line on the globe from North Korea to Chicago, it passes quite close to Yellowknife, The Pas, Kenora, and Winnipeg . I suppose Chicago is worth the three reindeer in Assiniboine Park, and 600 000 Winnipeggers eh?
The trajectory to Washington passes not far from Toronto.
If Canada joins this plan, we would have to demand protection of our major cities, but more then likely if we do join this, we will just end up being a target.
The system is a total waste.
.. the fact that the system has never yet worked properly under normal expected conditions?
... wouldn't want any real threats to test the system, better to just invade the imaginary threats that never had any WMD's.
It is obsolete before it is even functional.
Why do I say this?
Because to overcome the defense, all you need to do is send more warheads and make the warheads travel faster. A CHEAP EASY WAY TO OVERCOME A TRILLION DOLLAR SYSTEM. They can be real warheads, they can be decoys, just put lots in the air at once, the US won't be able to shoot them all down. Make them move faster, and the defense system can't keep up.
This does not require very many missles.
The new Russian system announced recently does all this. Each missle carries more warheads (10 or 12), and the missle travels much faster than previous missles.
Now, how about the other issue
The ONLY time the system has EVER shot down a missle has been when the target missles have been set to travel and a greatly reduced speed AND have been made to emit a homing signal for the defensive missle to follow in.
Do you really think any 'rogue states' are going to slow their missles down and put nice friendly homing beacons on them? dumbass.
Hmmmm maybe that's why DUBYA is such good friends with the nuclear military dictatorship of Pakistan, as well as the well known terrorist leader of Libya who has murdered hundreds and has billions in the bank to fund any terrorists he wants
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Primary contractor for the interceptor missile system is Boeing. Four previous tests have been successful as tests of at least some parts of the system. At least 1 previous test was spectacularly unsuccessful after the missile boost stage failed to separate, and others have had less obvious problems.
. html/
Orbital Sciences Corp. is an alternate contractor for a booster system in case the Boeing design doesn't meet final acceptance, and several companies such as Lockeed-Martin also have standby programs.
The warhead that may ultimately be deployed is technically an EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle). Raethon has the contract for this design. It contains a sensor suite that is supposed to descriminate between actual nuclear devices and decoys. Tests so far have had balloon decoys whose IR characteristics were relatively easy to discriminate vis-a-vis an actual warhead. This test would have been against a wider selection of balloon decoys.
For more info, and some nice photos, try:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi
Who is John Cabal?
I think you're totally wrong. Iran knows full well that Israel has at least 200 nukes, all within range of Iran. Also, a nuclear strike on Israel would result in nuclear retaliation from the US. Iranians are not suicidal. Fact is, there is no 'rogue state' missile threat. That's a paranoid delusion created by the neocons.
This used to happen to me all the time.
That little sticker that holds the igniter up in the engine probably came loose. Either that, or the alligator clip came off the igniter.
Estes is usually good to deal with, just call their 800 number and they'll send a new pack of igniters.
There is a helpful guide here.
Americans and Europeans are ignorant of their own history if they think they have treated the rest of the world respectfully and justly. American foreign policy for decades has been to exploit weaker countries, manipulate international politics to their advantage. This is documented; it was explicitly outlined by presidents.
England has spent most of its history conquering people, overthrowing cultures and screwing around in places they don't belong.
All people want to live in peace. Hostility does not appear out of thin air. Respect others, and they will respect you. Nobody wants violence. Do you think these are crazy ideas?
Despite what all the official propoganda says, this system is primarily an offensive weapon.
As others have pointed out - no two-bit dictator with a nuke is going to launch it at the US (or any of our allies that might be geographically closer) because they know it is a sure ticket to "liberation."
But, what the US military, and anyone who bothers to think about it for 30 seconds, does know is that if the US premptively liberates a country from its two-bit dictator, then any nuke that guy has at his disposal will be launched just as soon as he can hit that red button.
Ballistic missile defense is designed to neutralize that retaliatory threat and thus make it "safe" for the US to liberate a country like Iran or North Korea. That's the reason all the talk about how "it will never work" because of decoys and whatnot doesn't make an impact on development - they don't (plan to) need to deal with a well-funded and well-planned attack, only the last-minute, "if I'm going down, I'm going to take as many of them with me" kind of attack.
Speaking as a US citizen and a WORLD citizen, I tend to think that the less free the US feels to throw its weight around, the better off the planet is in the long run.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
But it's kind of embarrassing that a Web site that purports to carry "news for nerds" should just parrot the misinformation carried in the wire service report.
How ridiculous that Slashdot should believe the media coverage about a secret event held in a highly-controlled military zone off the coast of Alaska! Why, Rob or Jamie or somebody should have been in a little rowboat, monitoring the whole thing themselves.
And they call themselves geeks... Feh!
-Waldo Jaquith
This is evidence of the Bush's administration new policy of testing and deplying at the same time. The idea is that when the government used to test before deployment, Boeing would actually have to create a working system in order to get the bulk of their money. But they would much prefer it if they start getting their money before their system even works.
There were several tests of the missile defense system some of them succesful some not, but there were certainly not enough tests to ensure that the system would be operational. Yet the DoD decided to go ahead with building the system before testing was complete.
Now we know there is some kind of problem but we can't make major design changes because the whole thing is already being build. Lets just hope it is a software glitch.
Now everyone knows that a system as complex as that cannot work on the first time, but that is why you do tersting before you actually start depoying. This way you can iron out the bugs before you spend several billion dollars on a bunch of hardware that might turn out to be useless.
Huh? so what exactly did the wire reporters get wrong? I am especially eager to know since they are quoting a statement from the Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency.
I guess now any barely coherent rant on how the so called "liberal media" don't know anything is bound to be marked "informative".
The chief weapons tester doesn't even have confidence in the system.
I don't see how this system will ever work unless our attacker warns us in advance of the missile's launch time, its location, flight trajectory,....etc. What a waste of taxpayer money. People should be outraged.
David Parnas predicted in the 1980s that software for missile defence was impossible to test.
Americans and Europeans have just done what humans have done to each other throughout history, they were just better at it.
Before the Europeans took control of other countries were they all peaceful and loving? No, they were killing each other. The Spanish destroyed the Aztecs with the help other local tribes that the Aztecs had conquered. The world's largest empire was created and ruled by the Mongols. Just look at the history of Africa or Asia and you will find plenty of wars before the nasty white Europeans showed up.
Just look at Africa now and you will find plenty of fighting, often driven by tribal or religious differences.
It's trendy to blame the white guys for playing "conquer the other guys" better than everyone else, but everyone else was playing too.
The idea that people just want to live in peace requires a wilful ignorance of human history. Humans naturally form groups (tribes, nations whatever). A person may not want violence, but a society tends to fear the other, and groups of humans have always turned on each other. Fear, greed, anger, prejudice, remembrance of past wrongs real or otherwise. Hostility may not come from thin air, but it comes easily enough.
Then there is the issue of respecting others. To respect someone, they have to behave in a way that earns it. Should we have respected the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and the way they treated people? Just chalk it up to cultural differences and ignore it?
Typical of right-wingers with an agenda instead of a cause.
You see the Agenda we can't stand is the smoke & mirrors of these projects. You know the smoke that a missile defense "shield" will make us stronger/"safer" and the mirror that the failure of the program that Bush wants isn't Bush's fault. Take a vote, and I bet the public would drop this for the pork project it is.
If this were a cause, it would be an international & consorted effort of defense of democracies against known enemies and terrorist groups. Instead it's an agenda to line the pockets of specific groups and agenda makers.
Instead we're told pork-barrel projects such as Social Security, Medicare, Health-Care and welfare are a huge waste of tax dollars yet ALL of them could have been solvent for our lifetime had we not insisted on these useless "defense" programs and wars.
Scramjet is completely different than missile defense programs and dummy ICBM's being wasted. Scramjet is a technology that could potentially increase our feasibility of cheaper exploration of space and faster transportation. I guess Scramjet falls under that useless "science" category huh?
Remember, It's a democracy and we can voice our opinions just like you. Dissent and questioning government is the only defense and expectation of a true democracy.
If Bush didn't want us to think his policies were useless then its up to that man to turn those views around. I'm tired of the pointless defenses of this man without any sustenance.
If your not a right-winger or a neo-con I must apologize. However as a citizen of this country and someone who is fitting the bill for our government my voice should be heard and democracy doesn't mean the blind leading the blind.
In order to understand why NMD is so stupid, it helps to take a look at global strategy-making in the nuclear age. During the Cold War, the prevailng idea was deterrence based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (the acronyms just keep comin'!). That is, Russia had missiles and America had missiles, so if one launched an attack on the other, he knew that he himself would be wiped out by the retaliatory strike. Nobody wants to commit suicide, so nobody launches that first attack.
Now, with the emergence in the minds of many of America as the sole Superpower, we're out of MAD and into just AD: Assured Destruction. Anybody who attacks America with a missile will be wiped off the face of the Earth. Deterrence, it seems, has become total and one-sided; under these strategic conditions, who would possibly launch an attack of this kind that would require an NMD to shoot down? The stated bad guys are "rogue nations", by which we mean North Korea or Iraq before we took over or whoever gets on our shit list this week. These are nations, suposedly, run by out-of-control lunatics who could at any moment decide to obliterate themselves and their nation in a futile stab at the belly of the Beast, or something. The problem is that the people who run countries tend to have stakes in remaining alive, so the principle of AD means they're not gonna be launching any surprise attacks on us.
Now, there are some people out there who have demonstrated that they *are* willing to kill themselves in order to stab the Beast, those few thousands of people out there who actually fit the label "terrorists". They'd love to launch a missile attack if they could, but they don't run countries so they just don't have any nuclear missiles. If they had a nuke they could very well try to sneak it into a harbor on a boat or something, but there's not much a faulty system of anti-missile-missiles in Alaska is going to be able to do about that.
So why do we need a missile defense system to shoot down missiles nobody's gonna shoot at us? Because make no mistake, the Bushites are rushing the job on this. Incredibly, they're even suspending experimental and test requirements that are supposed to determine if these things actually work in their haste to get some kind of system up and running by, I think, 2005. They're desperate to deploy these systems, insisting on getting stuff that doesn't even work in place as soon as possible, just so they have something. Why? Part of it is simple Greed, of course. Those billions go into well-connected pockets and it's easy to keep the money tap flowing. But I think there's more than that; they really think they're going to need to be able to shoot down missiles somebody's fired at them. But where are those missiles gonna come from?
The stinky secret is that there *is*, in fact, a use for NMD in Bush's sick interpretation of the Assured Destruction world. By the principles of AD, nobody is going to launch a pre-emptive attack on America. Nation leaders have too much to lose and terrorists don't have them. So who would ever fire a nuclear missile at America? Why, somebody who'd already had a nuclear missile fired at them, of course. Deterrence will ensure that nobody launches an attack on you, but if you've already attacked them you can't really expect to deter them any more. The purpose of NMD is to provide a shield, not from pre-emptive attack, but from retaliatory attack from an enemy or its allies. It's to preserve America's ability to use nuclear weapons without fear of consequence.
Despite their ideological fixations and internal history-rewriting, the Bushites must be capable of understanding that America's conventional military is stretched rather thin at the moment. They're bogged down in Iraq, their soldiers are exhausted, and they just don't have a lot of conventional muscle to throw around right now. If something flares up and threatens their interests in a new l
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.