Missile Defense Fails Test Again

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14, 2005


An anti-ballistic missile interceptor shown launching from a platform in California. (Photo: AP)


(AP) A test of the national missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile did not launch from its island base in the Pacific Ocean, the military said. It was the second failure in months for the experimental program.

A statement from the Missile Defense Agency said the cause of the failure was under investigation.

A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.

If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile. Previous failures of these high-profile, $85 million test launches have been regarded as significant setbacks by critics of the program.

In Monday's test, the interceptor missile was to target a mock ICBM fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska. The target missile launched at 1:22 a.m. Monday EST without any problems, but the interceptor did not launch.

The previous test, on Dec. 15, failed under almost identical circumstances. The target missile launched, but the interceptor did not. Military officials later blamed that failure on fault-tolerance software that was oversensitive to small errors in the flow of data between the missile and a flight computer. The software shut down the launch; officials said they would decrease the sensitivity in future launches.

Before the Dec. 15 launch, it had been two years since a test. The program had gone five-for-eight in previous attempts to intercept a target.

No date for the next test has been announced. It is unclear how continued test failures would affect two experimental interceptor bases in Alaska and California.

Those two bases, Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., are positioned to oppose the threat of attack from North Korea. Both are still classified as experimental but, officials say, they could fire interceptors in an emergency.

The Pentagon has not declared those bases "operational," but officials say they would work anyway once certain mechanical blocks are removed from the interceptors themselves. Six interceptors are at the Alaska site, with two more in California as a backup. Up to 10 more will go into silos in Alaska this year, officials say.

©MMV, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

At least, on paper, it sounds better than mutually assured destruction.

But still, the plans are riddled with errors, mistakes, and budget-busting revisions.

And when such a system is in place, its ability to avoid obscurity will be tested immediately.

Someone needs to do this thing right (and right soon), or forget the whole damn thing.

I'll go with the latter.

Amazing how much money one can blow on trying to slam one thing into another thing way up in the sky.

the $ involved in this stuff is mind blowing.


we could be using it for health insurance for the country's youth

So very, VERY true.

The plans are certainly there, and the calculations have been made. But somewhere along the vast and convoluted beaurocratic line, someone or something is fucking it up.

Back to the drawing board.....or like you said GH....to hell with it for now.

Although, the Patriot Missile did perform this job relatively well during the Gulf War. I am in strong opposition to the current "star wars" initiative that seems to be supported by the administration, though.

The Patriot missle didn't do nearly as well the Arthur Kent would have you believe, and it was also blowing up missles at low altitude. If a nuke were intercepted at 5000 feet, it would do just as much damage on the ground.

--PunkDavid

Very true. I realize the Patriot was far less successful than what was reported. And by no means am I supporting the current push for a nation missile defense system. Hell, I thought the current administration wanted to establish a colony on Mars anyways, right?

Which do you think is more difficult? Shooting a rocket at a moving target a few miles above the earth, or shooting a rocket at a moving target a few million miles above the earth?

At least going to Mars they'll have time to aim before they shoot.

--PunkDavid