New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

(11519 previous messages)

gisterme - 08:59pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11520 of 11552)

"...Those pictures offer good evidence on a point I can't remember contesting:..."

What a short memory you have, Robert.

"...These questions apply for "best possible test conditions" (and, in the cases gisterme has cited, tests of subassemblies of the weapons system) but apply also to tactical conditions, including conditions with the existence of particular, defined countermeasures..."

Then, with the exception of countermeasures you agree that "tactical conditions" in space are no different that "test conditions" in space. Right? After all, it's in space that the interception takes place for the mid-course system.

As I recall later tests in the test program are supposed to employ some decoys...presumably to test sensor technology designed to differentiate between the target and the decoys. As we've established before, even in the highest reaches of the atmosphere, decoys with a larger aerodynamic cross section (drag to mass ratio) will soon be left behind by the target. But it doesn't seem at all beyond the realm of possibility that sensors could be built or already exist to visually differentiate the decoys from the target even farther up. Machine vision has become a blossoming field of technology since the computing power to accomlish it has become reality. That this method is being used on the system in test is purely speculation on my part...but the technology does exist to do it. What ever is being done, since decoys are included in the test program, there must be a plan to defeat them. I say, why not let the test program proceed and see how the plan works out?

Likewise with the ABL, condtions above 40,000 ft altitude are relatively constant compared to what goes on in the lower atmosphere. That's even above most cirrus clouds which seldom occur above about 32,000 ft. That's a couple of miles higher than most commercial flights fly. And the ABL specification says "above 40,000 ft" if I recall correctly. Can't say for sure but I'd guess that the ABL adaptation of the 747 will be a "souped-up" version optimized for best high altitude performance. The point is that space and very high altitudes in the atmosphere are quite constant in their composure...along with the deep sea, they're the most consistantly hostile environments in the vicinity of our planet.

Given that, please explain...how would "tactical conditions" be much different than "test conditions" in those already hostile regions of BMD engagement?

One other point...testing of technological items, especially military technological items, includes verifiction of performance under the worst imaginable conditions. That's why "mil spec" hardware is so much more expensive than commercial off-the-shelf hardware of similar function (NOT trying to justify $600.00 toilet seats here!). For example, electronic and mechanical components have to be able to perform within specification over a much wider temperature range compared to commercail equivalents. Mil spec range is -125 to +125 degrees C. Commercial range is 0 - 70 degrees C.

Bottom line...military test programs are designed to verify performance of things under the worst tactical conditions to be sure they'll work when needed no matter what the conditions. That's the whole point of the testing!

gisterme - 09:01pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11521 of 11552)

rshow55 2/12/02 8:39pm

"...the truth should be OUR most important weapon..."

It should. But the only way that the truth can become OUR most important weapon is if you decide to begin embracing it, Robert.

lchic - 02:56am Feb 13, 2002 EST (#11522 of 11552)

Gisterme - if you decide to begin embracing ... Robert

Things might move along with curtesy and speed :)

lchic - 09:09am Feb 13, 2002 EST (#11523 of 11552)

lchic - 09:34am Feb 13, 2002 EST (#11524 of 11552)

rshow55 - 11:25am Feb 13, 2002 EST (#11525 of 11552)