GMD Intercept Success

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

- Ed Kyle

On 1 Sep 2006 13:38:47 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

What's amusing is that the Boeing press release buried the lede.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...60901a_nr.html

"Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle
intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

Yes, just an inadvertent side effect of a test of a *missile defense
system*.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 13:38:47 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

What's amusing is that the Boeing press release buried the lede.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...60901a_nr.html

"Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle
intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

Yes, just an inadvertent side effect of a test of a *missile defense
system*.

Heh. It looks like they are trying *way* too hard to minimize
expectations.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

I gotta question about the timeline of the test that maybe some of the
readership can help with:

I'm trying to figure out what happened in the GBI/EKV test yesterday
and am having a bit of difficulty with the length of time between
target launch and intercept.

What we have from various report is,

Interceptor speed at burnout said to be 18,000 mph, which is the 8 kps
that I remember from BMDO briefings in 1997.

Target speed said to be upward of 15,000 mph or 6.7 kps which is right
for an ICBM with a range of ~8,000 km, about the range from NK to the
west coast of CONUS. Consistent with that, General Obering said, "But
what we saw today was a very realistic trajectory for the threat, for
the target, and a very realistic trajectory, a very realistic intercept
altitude and intercept speeds for the target enemy -- interceptor
against the target. "

So far so good: We can imagine that the target booster rocket might
have flown into a trajectory (X,Y.Z, Xdot, Ydot, Zdot) emulating that
of an NK ICBM rather than a simple minimum-energy trajectory from
Kodiak.

But then we come to the timeline, and there's where I'm having trouble
figuring out what went on.

Target launch from Kodiak at 10:22 or 10:23

GBI launch from VAFB at 10:39, said to be 16 or 17 minutes after target
launch

Intercept at 10:45 or 10:46, said to be 7 minutes after GBI launch

Let's assume it took three minutes for the STARS to get into the 6.7
kps ICBM trajectory and that it didn't get too far downrange while
doing so. That means that it was at least 7500 km from Kodiak at
intercept.

And, applying similar arithmetic, the EKV could have been no more than
about 3,000 km from VAFB at intercept.

So here's the problem I'm having: there isn't anywhere that satisfies
those two distance conditions. The nearest I can come is a location far
south of VAFB, around 8 N, 117 W, and even that is only 6,300 km from
Kodiak.

Clearly I'm failing to understand something, probably something obvious
(it's happened often enough before). Help!

P.S.: It would help a lot to know the launch azimuth of either or both
of the rockets, particularly the GBI . I've checked the usual NOTAM
sources but haven't found anything -- if any of you have them, please
let me know.

Allen Thomson wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

I gotta question about the timeline of the test that maybe some of the
readership can help with:

I'm trying to figure out what happened in the GBI/EKV test yesterday
and am having a bit of difficulty with the length of time between
target launch and intercept.

What we have from various report is,

Interceptor speed at burnout said to be 18,000 mph, which is the 8 kps
that I remember from BMDO briefings in 1997.

Target speed said to be upward of 15,000 mph or 6.7 kps which is right
for an ICBM with a range of ~8,000 km, about the range from NK to the
west coast of CONUS. Consistent with that, General Obering said, "But
what we saw today was a very realistic trajectory for the threat, for
the target, and a very realistic trajectory, a very realistic intercept
altitude and intercept speeds for the target enemy -- interceptor
against the target. "

So far so good: We can imagine that the target booster rocket might
have flown into a trajectory (X,Y.Z, Xdot, Ydot, Zdot) emulating that
of an NK ICBM rather than a simple minimum-energy trajectory from
Kodiak.

But then we come to the timeline, and there's where I'm having trouble
figuring out what went on.

Target launch from Kodiak at 10:22 or 10:23

GBI launch from VAFB at 10:39, said to be 16 or 17 minutes after target
launch

Intercept at 10:45 or 10:46, said to be 7 minutes after GBI launch

Let's assume it took three minutes for the STARS to get into the 6.7
kps ICBM trajectory and that it didn't get too far downrange while
doing so. That means that it was at least 7500 km from Kodiak at
intercept.

And, applying similar arithmetic, the EKV could have been no more than
about 3,000 km from VAFB at intercept.

So here's the problem I'm having: there isn't anywhere that satisfies
those two distance conditions. The nearest I can come is a location far
south of VAFB, around 8 N, 117 W, and even that is only 6,300 km from
Kodiak.

Clearly I'm failing to understand something, probably something obvious
(it's happened often enough before). Help!

P.S.: It would help a lot to know the launch azimuth of either or both
of the rockets, particularly the GBI . I've checked the usual NOTAM
sources but haven't found anything -- if any of you have them, please
let me know.

I haven't had time to sit down and do the math, but it seems probable
to me that this intercept could have occurred along a track that would
have been similar to the Athena launch track, visibile at:

"http://spaceflightnow.com/athena/kodiakstar/010919track.html"

News reports said that the intercept occurred a "few hundred" miles
off the California coast, so I doubt that the latitude would have been
much south of 30 N. The intercept altitude might have been pretty
high, playing a role in the timing. ICBMs usually reach higher
apogees than LEO launch vehicles do.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
Allen Thomson wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

I gotta question about the timeline of the test that maybe some of the
readership can help with:

I'm trying to figure out what happened in the GBI/EKV test yesterday
and am having a bit of difficulty with the length of time between
target launch and intercept.

What we have from various report is,

Interceptor speed at burnout said to be 18,000 mph, which is the 8 kps
that I remember from BMDO briefings in 1997.

Target speed said to be upward of 15,000 mph or 6.7 kps which is right
for an ICBM with a range of ~8,000 km, about the range from NK to the
west coast of CONUS. Consistent with that, General Obering said, "But
what we saw today was a very realistic trajectory for the threat, for
the target, and a very realistic trajectory, a very realistic intercept
altitude and intercept speeds for the target enemy -- interceptor
against the target. "

So far so good: We can imagine that the target booster rocket might
have flown into a trajectory (X,Y.Z, Xdot, Ydot, Zdot) emulating that
of an NK ICBM rather than a simple minimum-energy trajectory from
Kodiak.

But then we come to the timeline, and there's where I'm having trouble
figuring out what went on.

Target launch from Kodiak at 10:22 or 10:23

GBI launch from VAFB at 10:39, said to be 16 or 17 minutes after target
launch

Intercept at 10:45 or 10:46, said to be 7 minutes after GBI launch

Let's assume it took three minutes for the STARS to get into the 6.7
kps ICBM trajectory and that it didn't get too far downrange while
doing so. That means that it was at least 7500 km from Kodiak at
intercept.

And, applying similar arithmetic, the EKV could have been no more than
about 3,000 km from VAFB at intercept.

So here's the problem I'm having: there isn't anywhere that satisfies
those two distance conditions. The nearest I can come is a location far
south of VAFB, around 8 N, 117 W, and even that is only 6,300 km from
Kodiak.

Clearly I'm failing to understand something, probably something obvious
(it's happened often enough before). Help!

P.S.: It would help a lot to know the launch azimuth of either or both
of the rockets, particularly the GBI . I've checked the usual NOTAM
sources but haven't found anything -- if any of you have them, please
let me know.

I haven't had time to sit down and do the math, but it seems probable
to me that this intercept could have occurred along a track that would
have been similar to the Athena launch track, visibile at:

"http://spaceflightnow.com/athena/kodiakstar/010919track.html"

News reports said that the intercept occurred a "few hundred" miles
off the California coast, so I doubt that the latitude would have been
much south of 30 N. The intercept altitude might have been pretty
high, playing a role in the timing. ICBMs usually reach higher
apogees than LEO launch vehicles do.

- Ed Kyle

And, the reported velocities might have been burnout velocities, rather

than actual speeds at the time of the intercepts. Or the intercept
might have occurred during descent from apogee, while the target
was accelerating so that it would have spent quite a bit of time
flying a lower speed prior to the intercept. Etc.

- Ed Kyle

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 13:38:47 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

What's amusing is that the Boeing press release buried the lede.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...60901a_nr.html

"Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle
intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

Yes, just an inadvertent side effect of a test of a *missile defense
system*.

Indeed, a "missile defense system" which _failed_ to at least
"intercept the warhead and destroy it" would not be the most useful one
imaginable ...

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 13:38:47 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

What's amusing is that the Boeing press release buried the lede.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...60901a_nr.html

"Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle
intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

Yes, just an inadvertent side effect of a test of a *missile defense
system*.

Indeed, a "missile defense system" which _failed_ to at least
"intercept the warhead and destroy it" would not be the most useful one
imaginable ...

- Jordan

This was the first test involving an operational interceptor fired
from an operational GMD silo, with the interceptor performing its
own tracking and using tracking by the upgraded radar at Beale
AFB, controlled by the mission-control center in Colorado Springs.
That's a lot of stuff working together for the first time. It is no
wonder that an actual intercept was not deemed to be a primary
objective. Icing on the cake that a hit was achieved.

This system has a lot of testing ahead of it, and a lot left to
prove in those tests, before it can be considered truly
operational. Even then, it will only provide a limited capability.
Its main use will be to provide a brief interval of "cover" while
the U.S. nuke arsenal returns fire.

Once operational, the greatest rouge threat might be the use
of conventionally-armed missiles against the U.S., something
like the rain of missiles that fell on Israel recently. Such an
attack would quickly deplete an anit-missile system and it
would be politically impossible to respond to it with nuclear
weapons.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

Once operational, the greatest rogue threat might be the use
of conventionally-armed missiles against the U.S., something
like the rain of missiles that fell on Israel recently. Such an
attack would quickly deplete an anit-missile system and it
would be politically impossible to respond to it with nuclear
weapons.

First of all, if any Power chose to launch a "rain of missiles" at
American cities, we would certainly respond at least with a
counterattack on the enemy's strategic targets including their missile
launchers; we might respond with unrestricted conventional bombardment
of their cities, if sufficiently provoked.

Secondly, I don't believe that it _would_ be "politically impossible"
to respond to such an attack with nuclear weapons. Israel can't do so
because they don't want to lose American backing; America _has no_
"America" whose backing she needs.
We are not externally restrained as is Israel.

Given repeated scenes of dead American civilians, the political
pressure on any American President would be quite in the other
direction: to end the enemy attack as rapidly as possible, using
whatever weapons did the job fastest. This might well mean a nuclear
counterattack, especially if we didn't have enough conventional weapons
in range and the attacks were continuous.

You are _seriously_ overestimating the extent to which the American
government, and _particularly_ the American people, care about "world
opinion." In fact, in such a situation, any other countries which
openly protested the American action might do well to be cautious:
their words might be remembered on some future occasion when they
needed our assistance.

After all, the Palestinian Authority paid for their impromptu 9/11
street fair with a strong US tilt against Arafat, and a cutoff in aid
which has caused severe suffering amongst the Palestinian population.
Hope they had a lot of fun on 9-11-2001, and hope the memory of that
fun sustains them as their children die of contagious diseases because
there's no money for the local hospitals

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

Once operational, the greatest rogue threat might be the use
of conventionally-armed missiles against the U.S., something
like the rain of missiles that fell on Israel recently. Such an
attack would quickly deplete an anit-missile system and it
would be politically impossible to respond to it with nuclear
weapons.

First of all, if any Power chose to launch a "rain of missiles" at
American cities, we would certainly respond at least with a
counterattack on the enemy's strategic targets including their missile
launchers; we might respond with unrestricted conventional bombardment
of their cities, if sufficiently provoked.

I would only point out that Israel was unable to stop the attacks,
despite total control of the air, just as the U.S. was unable to
stop the Scud attacks during the first "Gulf War". The use of
mobile launchers to perform "shoot and scoot" attacks makes
it nearly impossible to stop such attacks. Even if the launcher
positions are known, it may prove impossible to take them
out. The U.S. was, for example, never able to "take out"
(or even locate) the mortar and rocket positions that pounded
Khe Sanh for weeks during the Vietnam War even though the
positions were all within relatively short range of the base.

Secondly, I don't believe that it _would_ be "politically impossible"
to respond to such an attack with nuclear weapons.

It depends on the circumstances. A nuke-armed China or Iran
threatening retaliation might limit the response options, for
example. I sincerely hope we never have to find out for sure.

- Ed Kyle