Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 May 2001 17:02:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1195 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> See today's WSJ. All the pieces of Brilliant Pebbles have been tested and
> shown to work (although not as part of an integrated system). Most of them
> in Clementine, one of the most cost effective civilian space missions ever!
> [...]
> It is clear to me that we CAN develop and deploy a system that can stop
> missle launches anywhere in the world.
Um, wrong. Yet another reason to question anything coming across the pages
of the WSJ. Not that I've read it since they'd declared breatfeeding
dangerous to infants...
I've been seeing the antiballistic missile development more-or-less behind
the scenes for almost 20 years. The 100% accuracy scores reflect only the
components that have passed a certain number of QA milestones. In other
words, the tests are designed to only report the components that do well,
sweeping under the rug even mission-critical items.
The big factor in the success rate of a ABM system, specifically the
performance of the kinetic energy kill vehicle, is abysmally poor. There
are too many variables in the equation to stop a determined ICBM, and too
many scenarios to guess ahead of time. Even in tests where the target
launch window is well-known and all the math has been done months
beforehand, and when conducted only during optimal weather conditions,
without decoys, and with a carefully synchronized launch of both target and
kill vehicle, a hit rate of around 60% is considered superb. That best
effort is a D- in my book. And missing at least 40% of the targets
shouldn't fill anyone with confidence...especially considering what kind of
payloads those 40%+ could be carrying.
Now you must also realize, that 60% accuracy is in optimal conditions. Put
into this system unspecified launch points, unknown number and destination
of targets, unknown mass of targets, unknown number of decoys, unknown
target evasive capabilities, and the very real possibility that most nuke
launches will be conducted fewer than 100 miles from the target...well,
things don't look good for the so-called missile shield.
Now, I can't debunk the article, as I thankfully don't have a subscription
to the What Sorry Journal...perhaps if you could post a copy, I could give a
more accurate rebuttal.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Jeremy... Clementine was a SINGLE spacecraft. No backup. Sure, there was QA performed on components on the ground to put only ones believed to work into it, but all the components worked (for that mission, which of course was to do mapping, (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) See today's WSJ. All the pieces of Brilliant Pebbles have been tested and shown to work (although not as part of an integrated system). Most of them in Clementine, one of the most cost effective civilian space missions ever! According to the (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
