The latest test of the national missile defense (NMD) system was well oiled. Since the January 18 test, when the interceptor's exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) missed the target, everything had been dissected if not trisected, especially the EKV's infrared sensor's cooling system. According to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), a simple blockage in a pipe carrying coolant to the sensors caused the January failure. This, as every high school science student knows, is a problem not of rocket science but of fluid mechanics.

Furthermore, the summer test had already been delayed once, from June 26, to "tweak" a possible wiring malfunction. Ironically, BMDO attributes the July 7 test debacle chiefly to the failure of an electronic component to signal the EKV to separate from the booster. Again, this is not rocket science but simple electronics. General Ronald Kadish said that this eventuality wasn't even on his "worry list" while Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), an ardent NMD supporter, pointed out during a post-test interview that rocket separation was something solved by Dr. Werner von Braun over 40 years ago.

Even had the EKV separated as programmed and its sensors worked perfectly, test results would have been skewed because the single Mylar balloon decoy carried by the target missile failed to inflate properly.

Another space-related program that reportedly has run into a roadblock is the Discoverer II. This program envisioned a constellation of 24 satellites with overlapping fields of vision able to provide continuous, all weather earth surveillance to spot mobile land targets in critical areas. This, of course, is what the Air Force's Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) does now. But the E-8C aircraft (a modified Boeing 707) on which the 150 mile range system is housed must fly in friendly-controlled air space to avoid being shot down. A space-based system would not have these range limitations, would be able to "see" areas that would be hidden from airborne sensors by intervening terrain features, and are not subject to enemy action that would cost lives.

What seems to be the stumbling block for Discoverer II, according to the trade publication "Defense News," is money -- an estimated $25 billion according to the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. (This is in sharp contrast to a 1999 Air Force estimate that each Discoverer II satellites would cost less than $100 million each with a 20-year life-cycle cost of a large operational system coming in under $10 billion.) The competition for limited funds between Discoverer II and the $10 billion Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) that will be used to detect and track ballistic missiles had already contributed to a 1998 Pentagon decision to portray Discoverer II as a demonstration project of two satellites. But this has had the effect of draining congressional support; the House declined to appropriate any money for the program for Fiscal Year 2001 while the Senate's bill provides the Pentagon's request for $130 million. This will be a major issue in the deliberations of the House-Senate conference committee.

But just as NMD survived on minimal funding in the early years of the Clinton Administration and is now set to absorb billions more, Discover II may only fade for awhile before reappearing either as a rejuvenated program or be incorporated into a successor effort. In fact there already is a secret Future Imagery Architecture spy satellite program underway which could incorporate elements or lessons learned from Discoverer II. Either way, space based radar research will continue as the Pentagon envisions moving intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions into space as part of its drive to achieve "full spectrum dominance."