On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Spike Jones wrote:
> Spike Jones wrote:
>
> DOOOOOH!
>
> CNN is saying the intercept was a miss, due to separation
> failure from the booster. }8-[ dammit. spike
Don't feel so bad, Spike...
I looked around some, and found a short history of the Atlas test program
at the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/6555th/6555c3-5.htm
It is narrative, so I had to do some counting on the fingers. Of the first
first *36* (and there were even more tests later) Atlas test flights, 13
"failed to meet test objectives". Two of the first 3 flights ended in
fireballs. They didn't even *try* a full range test of the complete
system (warhead and all) until the *21st* flight. The first 3 complete
system tests exploded within 3 minutes of launch.
http://www.ilslaunch.com/ILS/launch_services/history/Atlas_Operational.html
lists later test flights. They include, in late 1962, a series of *6*
consecutive failures *after the missile had been operationally deployed*.
Yet this same missile was our first "invincible weapon", deactivated only
because it did not use storable propellants, carried 5 Mercury astronauts
to orbit, and descendants of which are to this day carrying satellites
into orbit.
And we are moaning after 3 tests. Get a grip... As I said before, only
after as many test flights as it took to develope ICBMs to begin with
would I be willing to declare defense a success *or* a failure.
"Failure is not an option"...damn right, it's a *requirement* if you are
trying to do something truly new. Seems people are forgetting this more
and more these days. Sigh...
steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:12 MDT