Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 May 2001 17:57:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1196 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> 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.
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, not shoot things down). So I don't buy that line of reasoning.
Surely you're not saying that we would put components into spacecraft that
weren't QA'ed first??
I'm going to stick to my assertion that space based has a better chance of
working that ground based.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Oops, I thought we were talking about the missile shield program, not one portion of it succeeding with 99% already-proven technology. Clementine was less about proving technology, and more about PR. Badly-needed PR, I might add, for an (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
