Spaceflight Engineer Says NFIRE "Space Weapon" Story Bogus

It's always interesting to get an opposing opinion on such a story. The question is, where does the political aspect stop and the engineering aspect start?

---
Jesse

What do you have here? The author says the problem is that the nuke is called the kill vehicle, it's a terminology problem. He says it has no steering jets and therefore has had its fangs pulled. Silly me, I thought defusing a bomb was pulling its fangs. He quotes Pentagon officials (it has got to be true if they say it) as saying that because the thing has no steering jets it couldn't kill anything.

If that is not enough the author drags in more Pentagon Officials speaking, (on the condition of anonymity, so it really must be true), who tell him that the project is:
- associated with space research for a future weapons system;
-the system will not necessarily be based in space;
-and it would not necessarily attack space objects.
The author then describes the NFIRE system as being designed to shoot rockets down before they reach outer space because when they get to outer space they turn off their rockets and heat seeking missiles can't track them so it is crucial to get to them before they reach space.

Then the author blames the engineers for causing all this raucous by naming the thing the "kill vehicle". Apparently Pentagon Officials are not adept at handling press releases or of sanitizing their terminology when testifying before Government committees.

You have an Air Force Undersecretary who won't give a precise answer to the question which this article is trying to refute. The Undersecretary doesn't say that the NFIRE will not be turned into a space based weapons system, he says as far as he is aware there is no concept of operations under consideration to turn this system into a space based weapons system.

Then the Pentagon Officials are dragged back in to say that they didn't consider this NFIRE system to be weaponizing space, and even if the government approved the program it would be several years before they launch an experimental system into orbit.

The spectre of the Soviet Union is revisited by claiming that they were the first to put weapons in orbit many moons ago and how dare Russia(the soviet corpse) criticise the US. This is fudged about to imply some sort of justification for possible US deployment of the system at some future time.

I am not impressed with this article at all, IMO it is an attempt to stop serious inquiry into a globally destabilizing military system. This guy writes like an industry apologist.

"NFIRE would be sent into space aboard a commercial Minotaur launcher from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. Once the satellite is in orbit, a small sensor platform would be deployed, and try to get as close as possible to the rocket plume of another missile.

That platform happens to be a modified warhead, originally designed to knock down enemy missiles in the Pentagon's experimental short-range defense system. When the warhead is used in a missile defense system, it's known as a "kill vehicle." That name has carried over for the NFIRE test — and that is what's causing all the trouble." - a quote from the article

If the system can't maneuver how is it going to get close to the missile?

What is a modified warhead?

Duhhh!

It seems that the confused one here is Milton. Referring to the "kill vehicle" as a "nuke" is bewildering and silly. What did you misinterpret to make you believe that the "kill vehicle" is a nuclear weapon? Did you just see the word "warhead" and leap to a totally invalid conclusion? Or are you intentionally distorting the facts?

Even in a final package, which this isn't, the interceptor will "kill" with kinetic energy. If some nation launches an intercontinental nuclear missile, the "kill vehicle" would be steered into its path. The closure speed of the missile (several miles per second) when it strikes the "kill vehicle" is enough to destroy the nuclear missile. A toaster, a block of cheese, or anything with mass would have the same effect when it's moving at high velocity. There's simply no need for "nukes," and claiming anything like this is purely wrong.

A 10 kg object in the path of a missile traveling 4.2 miles per second has the same kinetic energy as a 4000 lb vehicle crashing into it at 500 mph! This is the same amount of energy as is contained in about 3.2 gallons of gasoline. Or a ten-ton truck dropped from a height of 3 miles. The energy of motion is enough. Just get in the way of the missile, and you'll knock it out.