go interceptors!

From: Spike Jones (spike66@attglobal.net)
Date: Wed Jul 18 2001 - 22:51:22 MDT

spike wrote:

>...even the Raaaaaytheon and Boooeing parts managed to work right...

Doh! I spoke too soon. Turns out the ground radar failed, so in an
actual attack (on Seattle of course) it would have ordered a second
missile to be fired, wasting millions of dollars, even tho the first one

had already saved the fair city on the Pacific. I noticed the LA Times
was true to form in reporting the name of the company that screwed
the pooch, even tho the company name did not appear when they
thought the test successful. {8-[ Fortunately it was Raaaaytheon.
{8-] spike

LA Times wrote:

initially called a success, the system's trial run on Saturday had a
troubling glitch,
some analysts say. Despite initial assessments that Saturday's test was
success, the Pentagon acknowledged that a prototype radar was unable to
tell ground controllers whether a kill vehicle had destroyed its target.
radar, a critical element of the controversial national antimissile
falsely reported that the interceptor had missed the dummy warhead.
Independently, several sensors set up to monitor the test showed a hit.

The Pentagon confirmed the radar problem but downplayed the incident
as a programming glitch. Analysts were troubled by the radar's failure
make the so-called hit assessment. In addition to identifying real
from decoys, the $100-million prototype radar is supposed to help ground

controllers determine whether they should launch backup interceptors if
first failed to hit their targets. The prototype radar is one-third the
size of a
production model that is under development by Ra[aaaa]ytheon Corp. In
Saturday's test, Pentagon officials contend the radar was too sensitive
tried to track all the debris, overwhelming the computer processing the

But Ra[aaaaaa]ytheon officials said the radar's computer was overloaded
with information just seconds before the intercept causing it to lapse
into a
"coast" mode. When the intercept did occur, it was not able to relay the

information instantly. (Los Angeles Times)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:49 MDT