bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Basham) (04/11/89)
From: bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Basham) During all the pad launchings of the new Trident only two failed. There was very little media coverage of these failures (read: almost none) and no coverage on the successes (except very small mentions in aviation week). Then, a missile is launched from the Tennesse with a Soviet "intelligence" ship operating nearby. Suddenly every news broadcast in the country is involved. EVERYBODY knows that the missile failed. Despite this dramatic (well, it was dramatic) failure, the DOD remained very calm and indifferent. So, I'm wondering if maybe this wasn't a setup. Invite the media, operate near the Soviets, and let the missile fail. Sure, this is expensive, but sometimes providing misinformation is more useful than obtaining valid information. Assuming, however, all three failures have been actual, unplanned failures, 3 out of 20 misfires isn't all that great. Maybe the bugs causing each failure have been found and corrected, but if not... Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The world was going down the tubes. They needed a scapegoat. They found the gun-owners." [mod.note: I dunno. I can't think of any reason to fake the results thusly. We *want* the people to think the Trident-II is top-notch; nobody wants a repeat of the Sgt. York debacle. Too, we want the Soviets to think it's reliable, so it's a credible deterrant. To quote Dr. Strangelove, "What good is a doomsday device if you don't *tell* anybody ??!" - Bill ]
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (04/14/89)
From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) In article <5541@cbnews.ATT.COM>, bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Basham) writes: > Assuming, however, all three failures have been actual, unplanned > failures, 3 out of 20 misfires isn't all that great. Maybe the > bugs causing each failure have been found and corrected, but if not... Actually, one of the failures in the pad launches wasn't a failure at all. More properly, there was no technical failure; there was just a human communications failure. To test the ability of the guidance system to recover, the missle was deliberately programmed to go off-course a bit. Ideally, it would have returned to the proper course fairly promptly. No one told this to the range safety officer, though; when he saw the missle veering off-course, he pressed the destruct button.... It's officially been ruled a non-test, not a failure.
brent@Sun.COM (Brent Williams) (04/17/89)
From: rtech!rtech!brent@Sun.COM (Brent Williams) >From article <5541@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Basham): > > So, I'm wondering if maybe this wasn't a setup. Invite the media, > operate near the Soviets, and let the missile fail. Sure, this is > expensive, but sometimes providing misinformation is more useful than > obtaining valid information. > > [mod.note: I dunno. I can't think of any reason to fake the results > thusly. We *want* the people to think the Trident-II is top-notch; > nobody wants a repeat of the Sgt. York debacle. Too, we want the > Soviets to think it's reliable, so it's a credible deterrant. To > quote Dr. Strangelove, "What good is a doomsday device if you don't > *tell* anybody ??!" - Bill ] A relative of mine is heavily involved with the Trident II program. Given how miserable he's been since the crash, I think it's highly unlikely that this is a setup. I raised the possibility that this was a staged failure with him, and he laughed and told me I'd been reading too many Tom Clancy novels. By the way, the soviets are present for nearly every launch of anything. If they were absent, that would be grounds for concern. -- -brent williams Relational Technology, Inc. 1080 Marina Village Parkway {amdahl,sun,mtxinu,cpsc6a,hoptoad} Alameda, CA 94501 !rtech!brent (415)-769-1400