Larry as usual and appropriate you are seeing this through the eyes of an engineer. As usual you add valuable detail that may or may not change the bottom line.

My non-engineers perception is that every demonstration of our ability to intercept a ballistic missle in the context of NMD has been at best a partial success.

As a lender, I would not extend credit to mass produce and deploy my perception (land based interceptors) of the current product. I would extend credit to continue research and development of a land based and satellite based systems.

Maybe I am poorly informed and all of the highly publicized failed demonstrations were of a project not related to NMD. If you are saying that NMD is exclusively a satellite system not involving in any way land based interceptors then I am definitely misinformed. In which case I would fault the developer and the government for allowing Joe Sixpack (me) to have the distinct impression that the tests in question were related to NMD technology and that there has never been a completely satisfactory result.

The point being if you want public and political support you need more than engineers understanding the nuances of the projects state of completion.

As I have said before, I support a functional NMD. If it is ready, deploy it. If not, make it work then deploy it.

Some of your comments:

They have not even launched the interceptor vehicle on the operational rocket yet.

Then what was launched a year or so ago that hit one target and missed another. I don't think I am the only person that was under the impression that it was a test of NMD technology.

Nor are the SBIRs satellites and X-band radars even built yet. The operational rocket was recently launched for the first time and it was a success. Future tests will include the interceptor on the rocket, more difficult challenges for the interceptor, incorporation of radar and satellite data into the tracking process, etc. Testing has barely began and you're already claiming it doesn't work? That's a bit premature, don't you think?

Perhaps my choice of words should have been "unproven" rather than "doesn't work". Again that is a distinction that is only semantics in the business world I know. If it is unproven then it is not ready for mass production and deployment, ie it doesn't work.

Somehow, I get the feeling that we don't disagree on the end result. You are just annoyed by my broad brush comments that admittedly may be inaccurate and misleading if the land based interceptor tests have nothing to do with NMD.