Article

2004-12-09 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-12-09 2:09:07 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 If we can't test it in bad weather...

Could we use it in bad weather if needed?

Posted by ----------<<<<- 2004-12-09 8:43:57 AM|| 2004-12-09 8:43:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Could we use it in bad weather if needed?
Most likely, yes. When you are doing a test, you don't want any outside elements to mess up your data. Plus, you have the luxury of waiting till conditions are right. In case of a real attack, they'd launch right through a howling blizzard. Plus they'd ripple fire multiple interceptors, just to make sure. Is it 100% fool proof? No, but it's better than laying back and taking it.

Posted by Steve 2004-12-09 9:18:04 AM|| 2004-12-09 9:18:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Can you launch the strike missile in bad weather?
Missles must experiecne turbulence and lighting strikes just like any other object flying through the sky... Any rocket scientist on the board?

Posted by domingo 2004-12-09 9:26:07 AM|| 2004-12-09 9:26:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 You can launch any time. But when you test, weather can be the cause of the test being unsuccessful. This doesn't imply that the test would otherwise have been sucessful. Sooting on a clear day means any failure is more likely due to the system rather than an exogenous variable. After you can make it work in good weather, you should test it in bad, but it is hard to control weather conditions for a test.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-09 9:37:17 AM|| 2004-12-09 9:37:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 All tests are photographed]filmed]recorded from multiple angles. If there is a failure, you may need visual evidence of the cause. Hard to get that through clouds.

Posted by PBMcL 2004-12-09 10:04:53 AM|| 2004-12-09 10:04:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Could we use it in bad weather if needed?

Weapons systems are tested at increasing levels of difficulty, on the principle that you need to learn how to walk before you learn how to run. This is the clear weather test. The rough weather test will happen - just not this time around.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-12-09 10:43:44 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-12-09 10:43:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 As a rocket scientist (though not this kind), I can state that most of the special conditions are necessary for the test and evaluation equipment.

Remember that horrible NYT story about the "rigged" test with a beacon placed on a target for an EKV launch? In fact, the beacon was so that our instrumentation could monitor the target independently of what the EKV or the target was reporting back.

Sometime in a test we lose telemetry from the weapon or the target. Having visual and radar tracks helps reconstruct the event so we don't have to spend mucho bucks to do it all over again.

If you look at the reports of tests of weapons, you'll see quite a few scrubbed because the drone acted funny, the launch plane had an engine problem, a tracking radar went down, or some #$%^&* hikers wandered onto the test range.

Similarly, for this test we want clear weather so that ground and satellite monitors can see as much as possible of the test so there's a visual record to go along with radar and TM. Storms can mess up TM. (especially if lightning strikes your antenna...)

Posted by jackal 2004-12-09 2:30:19 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-12-09 2:30:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Perhaps we should instead announce that we are going to test North Korea's ABM system.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2004-12-09 4:41:50 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2004-12-09 4:41:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 LOL LOR! Perhaps we could launch a Jupiter from Japan as a target, to get idea of what a NORK attack would look like.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-09 5:27:07 PM|| 2004-12-09 5:27:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Hey, that's actually a good idea. I've noticed that all the tests seem to be targets fired from the US and interceptors from an island in the Pacific.

Is this so that any debris comes down in the Pacific (rather than California)?

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2004-12-09 5:36:57 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2004-12-09 5:36:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Mainly it's because these are midcourse or terminal interceptors, so the missile has to go a ways.

If we did it the other way around, certain countries might be concerned if we shot an ICBM from California headed westward across the Pacific.

I suppose we could launch from Florida and shoot it down over China Lake...

Posted by jackal 2004-12-09 6:00:14 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-12-09 6:00:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Um, ignore that last. I don't know what happened, but I got everything all backwards.

Posted by jackal 2004-12-09 6:06:40 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-12-09 6:06:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 What's the frequency, jackal?

Posted by Danbo 2004-12-09 6:32:42 PM|| 2004-12-09 6:32:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Not to worry Jackal..... we're still gonna have to put a complete 12 shooter at Ice Station Larry.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-09 6:53:54 PM|| 2004-12-09 6:53:54 PM|| Front Page Top

23:57 Bomb-a-rama
23:47 lex
23:44 Aris Katsaris
23:42 lex
23:42 AJackson
23:40 lex
23:40 Sobiesky
23:34 lex
23:33 Frank G
23:30 AJackson
23:29 gromky
23:27 Capt America
23:25 Aris Katsaris
23:24 gromky
23:23 AJackson
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:17 Ricky Williams
23:14 VAclerk
23:12 JosephMendiola
23:10 Frank G
22:56 phil_b
22:50 trailing wife
22:49 .com
22:48 .com