Hey, all. I am in Tokyo, attending a conference, Collective Security in Space: Asian Perspectives on Acceptable Approaches sponsored by the Space Policy Institute, Center for Nonproliferation Studies and the Research Institute for Peace and Security.
I was having breakfast with John Logsdon who reminded me that the Near Field Infra Red Experiment (NFIRE) is set to launch in the next twenty four hours, sans the Kill Vehicle that irritated me so much.
I am glad to see the satellite going up, both because I think the mission is worthwhile and because the kill vehicle is being left behind, where it belongs.
Jim Oberg nicely sumamrizes the debate about NFIRE—a debate in which this blog played a small role—linking to one of his old posts arguing that the “kill vehicle” couldn’t, well, kill. I thought I should link my response at the time. Oberg and I differed pretty sharply about whether what the Missile Defense Agency called a “kill vehicle” was, well, a kill vehicle. (I took the linguistically straightforward approach.)
As I think is clear from my response, as well as this post, those of us who objected to placing of a kinetic kill vehicle on NFIRE (and firing it at missile!) have no objection to the mission now that the laser communications payload has been substituted for the KV.
God speed, NFIRE.