Anne wrote: > Just because a lot of people are involved doesn't mean it > works. From what I understand, it doesn't and can't > work, because of design flaws.
Again, I think that there is a misunderstanding as to the system I am referring to. Here is a link again of a successful test using the laser system, as opposed to the "missile hitting a missile" system. http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2002/december/12_24_3.html As for the missile hitting a missile system (which I would tend to agree is the more costlier and less effective system) it has even had at least four out of six successful tests in the past few years. Here is an article reporting on one of those successful tests. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1875864.stm I have also read an article on one of the "missile to missile" tests that failed, which I can't locate right now. The reason for the failure was a technical malfunction where the booster did not detach from the missile. To say that means the system doesn't work is like saying because a car has flat tires, the car radio doesn't work. I remember when there was much opposition to the development of the space shuttle, with many saying it was a boondoggle and would never work. No matter what was reported in the media regarding its early development, the opponents and naysayers never gave up their stance until, I guess, they saw the actual first successful mission. Some people still maintain that we never really went to the moon and that it was all staged on a film lot out in the California desert. Even when the first automobiles were being developed many did not believe there would ever be a safe vehicle they could use for travel and stuck to their horse and buggy long after people were traveling around in their Model Ts. Kakki
