kallend 1,647 #26 December 16, 2004 QuoteLess than a century ago some people had the same mentality. Quote On the eve of the World War I, no country was prepared for using aircraft or had even admitted they would make an effective weapon of war. Several had experimented with dropping bombs from aircraft, firing guns, and taking off and landing from aircraft carriers, but no country had designed or built aircraft specifically for war functions. Limited bombing operations had been carried out before 1914, but most thought that aircraft use was limited to reconnaissance or scouting missions. An October 1910 editorial in Scientific American, a respected publication, denigrated the airplane as a war weapon: "Outside of scouting duties, we are inclined to think that the field of usefulness of the aeroplane will be rather limited. Because of its small carrying capacity, and the necessity for its operating at great altitude, if it is to escape hostile fire, the amount of damage it will do by dropping explosives upon cities, forts, hostile camps, or bodies of troops in the field to say nothing of battleships at sea, will be so limited as to have no material effects on the issues of a campaign...." http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/mitchell/AP12.htm Read Scientific American, August 2004 for a full description of why the CURRENT system is doomed to failure. Then come back and argue your point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #27 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I bet you can buy a lot of Humvee armor with $10 billion. Or train and hire a whole bunch of Federal air marshals. Is that armor going to stop the North Korean missile before it reaches San Francisco? ? No, and neither is the so-called "Missile Shield" for reasons that have already been adequately explained. Your crystal ball of pessimism is in fine working order. A development system under test on a launch pad performs an automatic shutdown for reasons not yet known and you say it'll never work. Automatic shutdowns are there to save the vehicle for future tests if something is out of kilter. All that was lost is some time and a test target. The people have spoken, they want the administration to set this as a goal. Read Scientific American, August 2004 for a full description of why the CURRENT system is doomed to failure. Then come back and argue your point in detail.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #28 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I bet you can buy a lot of Humvee armor with $10 billion. Or train and hire a whole bunch of Federal air marshals. Is that armor going to stop the North Korean missile before it reaches San Francisco? ? No, and neither is the so-called "Missile Shield" for reasons that have already been adequately explained. Your crystal ball of pessimism is in fine working order. A development system under test on a launch pad performs an automatic shutdown for reasons not yet known and you say it'll never work. Automatic shutdowns are there to save the vehicle for future tests if something is out of kilter. All that was lost is some time and a test target. The people have spoken, they want the administration to set this as a goal. So your crystal ball on NK's intended delivery system is in fine working order? I doubt their nuke will arrive by missile at all. More likely by ship or truck since US borders are so porous. The people have spoken? Was there a referendum of the missile shields that I missed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #29 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I bet you can buy a lot of Humvee armor with $10 billion. Or train and hire a whole bunch of Federal air marshals. Is that armor going to stop the North Korean missile before it reaches San Francisco? ? No, and neither is the so-called "Missile Shield" for reasons that have already been adequately explained. Your crystal ball of pessimism is in fine working order. A development system under test on a launch pad performs an automatic shutdown for reasons not yet known and you say it'll never work. Automatic shutdowns are there to save the vehicle for future tests if something is out of kilter. All that was lost is some time and a test target. The people have spoken, they want the administration to set this as a goal. in most aspects of the defense industry the contractors involved are required to provide a 'proof of concept' demonstration BEFORE serious cash is granted..... why is this project immune? oh yea.. because its a political football... it makes the administration look good to the otherwise ignorant public, even when the basic design has serious flaws.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #30 December 16, 2004 Quote So your crystal ball on NK's intended delivery system is in fine working order? I doubt their nuke will arrive by missile at all. More likely by ship or truck since US borders are so porous. The people have spoken? Was there a referendum of the missile shields that I missed? I don't have a crystal ball, but I do see the effort NK is putting into building ICBMs that can reach the USA. I have considered the possibility of more primitive forms of delivery but they are slower and have their own flaws especially if we have human intel. The missile systems were mentioned in a presidential debate, Kerry said he'd scrap the program and hold bilateral talks with NK. Anyone who felt sufficiently strongly could have voted accordingly. It is afterall one of the most important issues facing the US. I suspect Bush will implement the agenda he was elected on, you can gripe about single issue referendums till the cows come home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #31 December 16, 2004 Quote in most aspects of the defense industry the contractors involved are required to provide a 'proof of concept' demonstration BEFORE serious cash is granted..... why is this project immune? oh yea.. because its a political football... it makes the administration look good to the otherwise ignorant public, even when the basic design has serious flaws.... Some proofs of concept take serious cash, numerous exampled exist. There is the early deployment of a limited system that's being pushed through that's slightly unusual but I suspect it's because there's a rapidly developing situation with NK and a limited system while the development is ongoing is one prudent option when you consider the potential consequences. It seems more like a political hot potato than a political football to me. It's high risk IMHO especially with highly publicised tests that could readily fail, they're *tests* afterall. Bush has backed this, he'll get slammed with every negative result or incident (an intentional shutdown is not a big deal) but he'll stick at it until the tests work IMHO. Saying it couldn't be made to work and putting it on the shelf for a later administration would have been the easy option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #32 December 16, 2004 Quotebut he'll stick at it until the tests work IMHO. Exactly the problem. I agree that he'll stick with it until it works. Problem is, it never will. And as far as proof of concept, we already had that. It was called the Patriot Missile. It was an abysmal failure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 15 #33 December 16, 2004 The issue is the test will never work. The whole Patriot missle system proved that. In all the firings in the first Gulf war there was only 1 or 2 possible hits and since they all occured on stripped down Iraqi missles even those possible hits were in doubt. Hitting a bullet with another bullet is so unlikely to happen that we don't set up defence methods like that for ground soldiers. How long should the testing peroid go? Its already been 5+ years and they only had one "hit" and that was on a greatly assisted test. They put a freaking homing beacon on the target and had the missle track and it that. There comes a point in every test program where you need to cut your losses. The Comanche helo program was cut after spending less then this with fully working prototypes and assembly lines almost done.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EricTheRed 0 #34 December 16, 2004 QuoteI suspect Bush will implement the agenda he was elected on What's that? Exit polls showed that the reason Bush was re-elected was based on "Character" not issues. I've yet to see his character agenda. (outside of maybe appointing some pro-life judges and supporting a ban on gay marriage)illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 15 #35 December 16, 2004 All that was needed to make the Patroit useless was a wabble in the Scuds launch. The Patroit could only "guess" where a inbound target would be assuming that it was traveling in a perfect arc. Put the wobble in and the Patroit would lose track and try to guess where to hit at the complete wrong spot. Most the explosions shown on US TV were actually the selfdestructs going off on the missles after the radar confirmed they overshot their targets.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #36 December 16, 2004 QuoteYour crystal ball of pessimism is in fine working order. A development system under test on a launch pad performs an automatic shutdown for reasons not yet known and you say it'll never work. Automatic shutdowns are there to save the vehicle for future tests if something is out of kilter. All that was lost is some time and a test target. The people have spoken, they want the administration to set this as a goal. Smile The thing is, and there is really no getting aroung this, if a missile defense system is implemented, it has to work 100% of the time. A 99.9% success rate translates to sudden death for a lot of people if a 1000 missile volley comes our way.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #37 December 16, 2004 QuoteThe issue is the test will never work. The whole Patriot missle system proved that. In all the firings in the first Gulf war there was only 1 or 2 possible hits and since they all occured on stripped down Iraqi missles even those possible hits were in doubt. Hitting a bullet with another bullet is so unlikely to happen that we don't set up defence methods like that for ground soldiers. How long should the testing peroid go? Its already been 5+ years and they only had one "hit" and that was on a greatly assisted test. They put a freaking homing beacon on the target and had the missle track and it that. There comes a point in every test program where you need to cut your losses. The Comanche helo program was cut after spending less then this with fully working prototypes and assembly lines almost done. This is typical of the kind of unfortunate view of the test process. They put a homing beacon on the target because they were testing the kill vehicle's capacity to hit the target under guidance. It doesn't mean it was rigged to hit, it means the real tracking system was not designed and they were testing other components and designed systems. Of course politically this get's exploited by opponents of the system as a rigged test of a flawed system which it absolutely wasn't. You need sophisticated infrastructure to get the guidance system working on this system. Testing kill vehicle concepts before building all that crap makes a *lot* of sense. If it had missed you'd have a point. The Patriot Missile system says nothing about this systems capabilities, it's antiquated by comparrison and has been superceded by the vastly superior Arrow 2 systems over Israel anyway. The rationale behind cutting the commanche system was that it's primary role and theatre (killing Soviet tanks invading Europe) was gone, at least that's what I read. The program also had no intention of building any helicopters soon. With all their working prototypes I think the numbers looked like spending another $4 billion the following year for no extra systems built. All to face a threat that had been defeated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #38 December 16, 2004 QuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #39 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteI suspect Bush will implement the agenda he was elected on What's that? Exit polls showed that the reason Bush was re-elected was based on "Character" not issues. I thought it was "values", make up your mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #40 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? North Korea, et.al. please pay attention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BikerBabe 0 #41 December 16, 2004 QuoteIt doesn't mean it was rigged to hit, it means the real tracking system was not designed and they were testing other components and designed systems. Perhaps you're right. But then again, on a system of this sort, wouldn't the tracking system be the number one priority? I would certainly hope so. That would be my design process... The system can't work. It isn't pessimism, it's science. As for the length of time, that's just the DoD acquisition process in action. The fundamental bottom line is politics decides what systems see the light of day. in the Acq. world we had 3 objectives. Cost, Schedule, and Performance. Cost is the number one priority. Schedule second. Performance (whether the thing actually works or not) is a distant third. Which is why good programs with a widget that actually works get scrapped...because heavan forbid, to make something ACTUALLY work, you have to spend more money on it. Bah! *Bikerbabe throws her hands in the air and stalks off* I'm obviously a poor communicator...no one gets it.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,433 #42 December 16, 2004 >The system can't work. I don't think that's quite true. With enough testing and development, it can be made to work. Problem is that will take 10 years and by that time the threats will be different. It will be able to stop 10 year old missiles but not 2 year old missiles, because that's what it was designed to do. We're designing an impregnable Maginot line that will work as well as the original one did to stop Germany from invading France. (The Maginot line worked as designed, it was just designed for the wrong threat.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #43 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteYour crystal ball of pessimism is in fine working order. A development system under test on a launch pad performs an automatic shutdown for reasons not yet known and you say it'll never work. Automatic shutdowns are there to save the vehicle for future tests if something is out of kilter. All that was lost is some time and a test target. The people have spoken, they want the administration to set this as a goal. Smile The thing is, and there is really no getting aroung this, if a missile defense system is implemented, it has to work 100% of the time. A 99.9% success rate translates to sudden death for a lot of people if a 1000 missile volley comes our way. That's flawed thinking. If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then if it's even partially successful it has been justified. Arguing otherwise is to say we shouldn't build it if it can't be 100% successful, we should just let *all* the ICBMs hit us. To me that makes no sense. Sure 100% success would be nice but it's impossible, but every Nuclear warhead intercepted is one less mushroom cloud over the USA should the worst happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,433 #44 December 16, 2004 >If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then >if it's even partially successful it has been justified. If you need your cypres, and the control unit fires but the cutter doesn't work, was your investment justified? After all, it partially worked, it just didn't open your reserve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #45 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? North Korea, et.al. please pay attention. Get real. You're telling me we're going to implement a missile shield costing hundreds of bilions of dollars to address the minor and unlikely threat of N. Korea launching one of the handful of missiles with conventional warheads at us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #46 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't mean it was rigged to hit, it means the real tracking system was not designed and they were testing other components and designed systems. Perhaps you're right. But then again, on a system of this sort, wouldn't the tracking system be the number one priority? I would certainly hope so. That would be my design process... The system can't work. It isn't pessimism, it's science. That's not science, it's opinion. Scientifically it can clearly work. The engineering is extremely challenging. Yes but it takes infrastructure. I said design, but in fact the design was done, it wasn't built. It has since been built and is being built and tested but it's worth testing a kill vehicle to see if you can hit a bullet with a bullet. When you know where the bullet is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #47 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? North Korea, et.al. please pay attention. Get real. You're telling me we're going to implement a missile shield costing hundreds of bilions of dollars to address the minor and unlikely threat of N. Korea launching one of the handful of missiles with conventional warheads at us? NK have several nuclear warheads and are working on more, off and on depending on their mood. This is not disputed by anyone, unless you're volunteering to be the first. You should probably argue the issue with NK since they're pretty adamant about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #48 December 16, 2004 Quote>If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then >if it's even partially successful it has been justified. If you need your cypres, and the control unit fires but the cutter doesn't work, was your investment justified? After all, it partially worked, it just didn't open your reserve. I think it would be a more accurate analogy to say that if out of 10,000 cypres units sold, there were 1000 that fired and that 999 of those fired the cutter saving 999 lives, do we scap the cypres because 1 failed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #49 December 16, 2004 Quote>If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then >if it's even partially successful it has been justified. If you need your cypres, and the control unit fires but the cutter doesn't work, was your investment justified? After all, it partially worked, it just didn't open your reserve. First a high with the Maginot line and now this low. If 100 jumpers jump with cypresses and don't pull and only 90 of them work was the investment justified? Would you also say we shouldn't armor HMMWVs in Iraq because no armor is 100% effective. I cannot believe that anyone is arguing that a shield that is not 100% effective is useless. I'm risking an aneurism trying to comprehend the though process that would lead to that kind of claim and you actually try to defend it with a flawed analogy. You're actually arguing that if a missile shield can't stop all the missiles then you'd rather have no shield and let them all through. Well good luck with that thinking mate. I have no response adequate for the situation. I'm dumfounded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #50 December 16, 2004 QuoteScientifically it can clearly work. The engineering is extremely challenging. Imagine a leaf falling from a tree. We can know "everything" about that leaf, temperture, mass, volume, surface area, height, etc, as well as windspeeds, air density, air viscocity, etc. What we can't do is accurately predict exactly where that leaf is going to land. The discovery of the major implications of the seemingly trivial "missing information" was discovered by Edward Lorenz, one of the founders of Chaos Theory.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
dorbie 0 #31 December 16, 2004 Quote in most aspects of the defense industry the contractors involved are required to provide a 'proof of concept' demonstration BEFORE serious cash is granted..... why is this project immune? oh yea.. because its a political football... it makes the administration look good to the otherwise ignorant public, even when the basic design has serious flaws.... Some proofs of concept take serious cash, numerous exampled exist. There is the early deployment of a limited system that's being pushed through that's slightly unusual but I suspect it's because there's a rapidly developing situation with NK and a limited system while the development is ongoing is one prudent option when you consider the potential consequences. It seems more like a political hot potato than a political football to me. It's high risk IMHO especially with highly publicised tests that could readily fail, they're *tests* afterall. Bush has backed this, he'll get slammed with every negative result or incident (an intentional shutdown is not a big deal) but he'll stick at it until the tests work IMHO. Saying it couldn't be made to work and putting it on the shelf for a later administration would have been the easy option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #32 December 16, 2004 Quotebut he'll stick at it until the tests work IMHO. Exactly the problem. I agree that he'll stick with it until it works. Problem is, it never will. And as far as proof of concept, we already had that. It was called the Patriot Missile. It was an abysmal failure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #33 December 16, 2004 The issue is the test will never work. The whole Patriot missle system proved that. In all the firings in the first Gulf war there was only 1 or 2 possible hits and since they all occured on stripped down Iraqi missles even those possible hits were in doubt. Hitting a bullet with another bullet is so unlikely to happen that we don't set up defence methods like that for ground soldiers. How long should the testing peroid go? Its already been 5+ years and they only had one "hit" and that was on a greatly assisted test. They put a freaking homing beacon on the target and had the missle track and it that. There comes a point in every test program where you need to cut your losses. The Comanche helo program was cut after spending less then this with fully working prototypes and assembly lines almost done.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #34 December 16, 2004 QuoteI suspect Bush will implement the agenda he was elected on What's that? Exit polls showed that the reason Bush was re-elected was based on "Character" not issues. I've yet to see his character agenda. (outside of maybe appointing some pro-life judges and supporting a ban on gay marriage)illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #35 December 16, 2004 All that was needed to make the Patroit useless was a wabble in the Scuds launch. The Patroit could only "guess" where a inbound target would be assuming that it was traveling in a perfect arc. Put the wobble in and the Patroit would lose track and try to guess where to hit at the complete wrong spot. Most the explosions shown on US TV were actually the selfdestructs going off on the missles after the radar confirmed they overshot their targets.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 December 16, 2004 QuoteYour crystal ball of pessimism is in fine working order. A development system under test on a launch pad performs an automatic shutdown for reasons not yet known and you say it'll never work. Automatic shutdowns are there to save the vehicle for future tests if something is out of kilter. All that was lost is some time and a test target. The people have spoken, they want the administration to set this as a goal. Smile The thing is, and there is really no getting aroung this, if a missile defense system is implemented, it has to work 100% of the time. A 99.9% success rate translates to sudden death for a lot of people if a 1000 missile volley comes our way.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #37 December 16, 2004 QuoteThe issue is the test will never work. The whole Patriot missle system proved that. In all the firings in the first Gulf war there was only 1 or 2 possible hits and since they all occured on stripped down Iraqi missles even those possible hits were in doubt. Hitting a bullet with another bullet is so unlikely to happen that we don't set up defence methods like that for ground soldiers. How long should the testing peroid go? Its already been 5+ years and they only had one "hit" and that was on a greatly assisted test. They put a freaking homing beacon on the target and had the missle track and it that. There comes a point in every test program where you need to cut your losses. The Comanche helo program was cut after spending less then this with fully working prototypes and assembly lines almost done. This is typical of the kind of unfortunate view of the test process. They put a homing beacon on the target because they were testing the kill vehicle's capacity to hit the target under guidance. It doesn't mean it was rigged to hit, it means the real tracking system was not designed and they were testing other components and designed systems. Of course politically this get's exploited by opponents of the system as a rigged test of a flawed system which it absolutely wasn't. You need sophisticated infrastructure to get the guidance system working on this system. Testing kill vehicle concepts before building all that crap makes a *lot* of sense. If it had missed you'd have a point. The Patriot Missile system says nothing about this systems capabilities, it's antiquated by comparrison and has been superceded by the vastly superior Arrow 2 systems over Israel anyway. The rationale behind cutting the commanche system was that it's primary role and theatre (killing Soviet tanks invading Europe) was gone, at least that's what I read. The program also had no intention of building any helicopters soon. With all their working prototypes I think the numbers looked like spending another $4 billion the following year for no extra systems built. All to face a threat that had been defeated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #38 December 16, 2004 QuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #39 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteI suspect Bush will implement the agenda he was elected on What's that? Exit polls showed that the reason Bush was re-elected was based on "Character" not issues. I thought it was "values", make up your mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #40 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? North Korea, et.al. please pay attention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BikerBabe 0 #41 December 16, 2004 QuoteIt doesn't mean it was rigged to hit, it means the real tracking system was not designed and they were testing other components and designed systems. Perhaps you're right. But then again, on a system of this sort, wouldn't the tracking system be the number one priority? I would certainly hope so. That would be my design process... The system can't work. It isn't pessimism, it's science. As for the length of time, that's just the DoD acquisition process in action. The fundamental bottom line is politics decides what systems see the light of day. in the Acq. world we had 3 objectives. Cost, Schedule, and Performance. Cost is the number one priority. Schedule second. Performance (whether the thing actually works or not) is a distant third. Which is why good programs with a widget that actually works get scrapped...because heavan forbid, to make something ACTUALLY work, you have to spend more money on it. Bah! *Bikerbabe throws her hands in the air and stalks off* I'm obviously a poor communicator...no one gets it.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,433 #42 December 16, 2004 >The system can't work. I don't think that's quite true. With enough testing and development, it can be made to work. Problem is that will take 10 years and by that time the threats will be different. It will be able to stop 10 year old missiles but not 2 year old missiles, because that's what it was designed to do. We're designing an impregnable Maginot line that will work as well as the original one did to stop Germany from invading France. (The Maginot line worked as designed, it was just designed for the wrong threat.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #43 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteYour crystal ball of pessimism is in fine working order. A development system under test on a launch pad performs an automatic shutdown for reasons not yet known and you say it'll never work. Automatic shutdowns are there to save the vehicle for future tests if something is out of kilter. All that was lost is some time and a test target. The people have spoken, they want the administration to set this as a goal. Smile The thing is, and there is really no getting aroung this, if a missile defense system is implemented, it has to work 100% of the time. A 99.9% success rate translates to sudden death for a lot of people if a 1000 missile volley comes our way. That's flawed thinking. If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then if it's even partially successful it has been justified. Arguing otherwise is to say we shouldn't build it if it can't be 100% successful, we should just let *all* the ICBMs hit us. To me that makes no sense. Sure 100% success would be nice but it's impossible, but every Nuclear warhead intercepted is one less mushroom cloud over the USA should the worst happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,433 #44 December 16, 2004 >If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then >if it's even partially successful it has been justified. If you need your cypres, and the control unit fires but the cutter doesn't work, was your investment justified? After all, it partially worked, it just didn't open your reserve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #45 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? North Korea, et.al. please pay attention. Get real. You're telling me we're going to implement a missile shield costing hundreds of bilions of dollars to address the minor and unlikely threat of N. Korea launching one of the handful of missiles with conventional warheads at us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #46 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't mean it was rigged to hit, it means the real tracking system was not designed and they were testing other components and designed systems. Perhaps you're right. But then again, on a system of this sort, wouldn't the tracking system be the number one priority? I would certainly hope so. That would be my design process... The system can't work. It isn't pessimism, it's science. That's not science, it's opinion. Scientifically it can clearly work. The engineering is extremely challenging. Yes but it takes infrastructure. I said design, but in fact the design was done, it wasn't built. It has since been built and is being built and tested but it's worth testing a kill vehicle to see if you can hit a bullet with a bullet. When you know where the bullet is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #47 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? North Korea, et.al. please pay attention. Get real. You're telling me we're going to implement a missile shield costing hundreds of bilions of dollars to address the minor and unlikely threat of N. Korea launching one of the handful of missiles with conventional warheads at us? NK have several nuclear warheads and are working on more, off and on depending on their mood. This is not disputed by anyone, unless you're volunteering to be the first. You should probably argue the issue with NK since they're pretty adamant about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #48 December 16, 2004 Quote>If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then >if it's even partially successful it has been justified. If you need your cypres, and the control unit fires but the cutter doesn't work, was your investment justified? After all, it partially worked, it just didn't open your reserve. I think it would be a more accurate analogy to say that if out of 10,000 cypres units sold, there were 1000 that fired and that 999 of those fired the cutter saving 999 lives, do we scap the cypres because 1 failed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #49 December 16, 2004 Quote>If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then >if it's even partially successful it has been justified. If you need your cypres, and the control unit fires but the cutter doesn't work, was your investment justified? After all, it partially worked, it just didn't open your reserve. First a high with the Maginot line and now this low. If 100 jumpers jump with cypresses and don't pull and only 90 of them work was the investment justified? Would you also say we shouldn't armor HMMWVs in Iraq because no armor is 100% effective. I cannot believe that anyone is arguing that a shield that is not 100% effective is useless. I'm risking an aneurism trying to comprehend the though process that would lead to that kind of claim and you actually try to defend it with a flawed analogy. You're actually arguing that if a missile shield can't stop all the missiles then you'd rather have no shield and let them all through. Well good luck with that thinking mate. I have no response adequate for the situation. I'm dumfounded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #50 December 16, 2004 QuoteScientifically it can clearly work. The engineering is extremely challenging. Imagine a leaf falling from a tree. We can know "everything" about that leaf, temperture, mass, volume, surface area, height, etc, as well as windspeeds, air density, air viscocity, etc. What we can't do is accurately predict exactly where that leaf is going to land. The discovery of the major implications of the seemingly trivial "missing information" was discovered by Edward Lorenz, one of the founders of Chaos Theory.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
dorbie 0 #40 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? North Korea, et.al. please pay attention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #41 December 16, 2004 QuoteIt doesn't mean it was rigged to hit, it means the real tracking system was not designed and they were testing other components and designed systems. Perhaps you're right. But then again, on a system of this sort, wouldn't the tracking system be the number one priority? I would certainly hope so. That would be my design process... The system can't work. It isn't pessimism, it's science. As for the length of time, that's just the DoD acquisition process in action. The fundamental bottom line is politics decides what systems see the light of day. in the Acq. world we had 3 objectives. Cost, Schedule, and Performance. Cost is the number one priority. Schedule second. Performance (whether the thing actually works or not) is a distant third. Which is why good programs with a widget that actually works get scrapped...because heavan forbid, to make something ACTUALLY work, you have to spend more money on it. Bah! *Bikerbabe throws her hands in the air and stalks off* I'm obviously a poor communicator...no one gets it.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #42 December 16, 2004 >The system can't work. I don't think that's quite true. With enough testing and development, it can be made to work. Problem is that will take 10 years and by that time the threats will be different. It will be able to stop 10 year old missiles but not 2 year old missiles, because that's what it was designed to do. We're designing an impregnable Maginot line that will work as well as the original one did to stop Germany from invading France. (The Maginot line worked as designed, it was just designed for the wrong threat.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #43 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteYour crystal ball of pessimism is in fine working order. A development system under test on a launch pad performs an automatic shutdown for reasons not yet known and you say it'll never work. Automatic shutdowns are there to save the vehicle for future tests if something is out of kilter. All that was lost is some time and a test target. The people have spoken, they want the administration to set this as a goal. Smile The thing is, and there is really no getting aroung this, if a missile defense system is implemented, it has to work 100% of the time. A 99.9% success rate translates to sudden death for a lot of people if a 1000 missile volley comes our way. That's flawed thinking. If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then if it's even partially successful it has been justified. Arguing otherwise is to say we shouldn't build it if it can't be 100% successful, we should just let *all* the ICBMs hit us. To me that makes no sense. Sure 100% success would be nice but it's impossible, but every Nuclear warhead intercepted is one less mushroom cloud over the USA should the worst happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #44 December 16, 2004 >If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then >if it's even partially successful it has been justified. If you need your cypres, and the control unit fires but the cutter doesn't work, was your investment justified? After all, it partially worked, it just didn't open your reserve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #45 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? North Korea, et.al. please pay attention. Get real. You're telling me we're going to implement a missile shield costing hundreds of bilions of dollars to address the minor and unlikely threat of N. Korea launching one of the handful of missiles with conventional warheads at us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #46 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't mean it was rigged to hit, it means the real tracking system was not designed and they were testing other components and designed systems. Perhaps you're right. But then again, on a system of this sort, wouldn't the tracking system be the number one priority? I would certainly hope so. That would be my design process... The system can't work. It isn't pessimism, it's science. That's not science, it's opinion. Scientifically it can clearly work. The engineering is extremely challenging. Yes but it takes infrastructure. I said design, but in fact the design was done, it wasn't built. It has since been built and is being built and tested but it's worth testing a kill vehicle to see if you can hit a bullet with a bullet. When you know where the bullet is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #47 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAll to face a threat that had been defeated. So, who has all the missiles that this shield is supposed to defend us from? North Korea, et.al. please pay attention. Get real. You're telling me we're going to implement a missile shield costing hundreds of bilions of dollars to address the minor and unlikely threat of N. Korea launching one of the handful of missiles with conventional warheads at us? NK have several nuclear warheads and are working on more, off and on depending on their mood. This is not disputed by anyone, unless you're volunteering to be the first. You should probably argue the issue with NK since they're pretty adamant about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 December 16, 2004 Quote>If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then >if it's even partially successful it has been justified. If you need your cypres, and the control unit fires but the cutter doesn't work, was your investment justified? After all, it partially worked, it just didn't open your reserve. I think it would be a more accurate analogy to say that if out of 10,000 cypres units sold, there were 1000 that fired and that 999 of those fired the cutter saving 999 lives, do we scap the cypres because 1 failed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #49 December 16, 2004 Quote>If a missile volley comes at us (it's not designed for 1000 missiles) then >if it's even partially successful it has been justified. If you need your cypres, and the control unit fires but the cutter doesn't work, was your investment justified? After all, it partially worked, it just didn't open your reserve. First a high with the Maginot line and now this low. If 100 jumpers jump with cypresses and don't pull and only 90 of them work was the investment justified? Would you also say we shouldn't armor HMMWVs in Iraq because no armor is 100% effective. I cannot believe that anyone is arguing that a shield that is not 100% effective is useless. I'm risking an aneurism trying to comprehend the though process that would lead to that kind of claim and you actually try to defend it with a flawed analogy. You're actually arguing that if a missile shield can't stop all the missiles then you'd rather have no shield and let them all through. Well good luck with that thinking mate. I have no response adequate for the situation. I'm dumfounded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #50 December 16, 2004 QuoteScientifically it can clearly work. The engineering is extremely challenging. Imagine a leaf falling from a tree. We can know "everything" about that leaf, temperture, mass, volume, surface area, height, etc, as well as windspeeds, air density, air viscocity, etc. What we can't do is accurately predict exactly where that leaf is going to land. The discovery of the major implications of the seemingly trivial "missing information" was discovered by Edward Lorenz, one of the founders of Chaos Theory.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
