Slashdot Mirror
What Debris From North Korea's Rocket Launch Shows
Lasrick writes "David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists analyzes the debris from North Korea's December 11th Unha-3 launch. From the article: 'According to press reports, traces on the inner walls of the tank show that the first-stage oxidizer is a form of nitric acid called "red-fuming nitric acid," which is the standard oxidizer used in Scud-type missiles. There had been some speculation that this stage might instead use a more advanced fuel with nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) as the oxidizer. Since the Nodong engines believed to power the first stage are scaled-up Scud engines, the use of RNFA is not a surprise. There have also been claims that the stage uses a more advanced fuel called UDMH, but it appears instead to be the kerosene-based fuel used in Scuds. In his recent RAND study, Markus Schiller noted that a test Iraq performed using UDMH in a Scud engine gave poor performance, and that burning UDMH gives a transparent flame. The North Korean video of the launch instead shows an orange flame characteristic of Scud fuels (Figure 3 is an image from 12:44 into the video). These findings confirm that the stage is still Scud-level technology.'"
I mean, it was the test of an MRBM/IRBM platform, it really is no surprise that it is only a technological hair away from its SRBM/MRBM ancestor...
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
It got us to the moon several times. Dont discount the "primitive" kerosene as a rocket fuel.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
But does it really matter what "technology" it uses if it can launch a bomb across an ocean? I don't think the parameters for success include "spend X billion inventing a new technology". Just the fact that they have managed to scale it up where other countries decided not to implies some sort of innovation. It's either cheaper, or they figured out a way to do it cheaper.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They now have an ICBM. Now they just need to miniaturize their nukes to fit on it. Next they will need submarines with nuclear missiles to protect them against a first strike. Then the only thing that will take them down will be internal strife. Considering that they are a batshit crazy country, China will prop them up as long as possible. So actually this hellhole might last pretty far into the future.
The secret to North Korea's longevity is that nobody wants to go in an clean up their mess. This is ten times more important when they have a reasonable delivery system for their nuclear weapons.
I was wondering whether the analysis was just based on video frames (since they talked about the colors of the flames and such) in the "AllThingsNuclear.org" article. The article itself says that the analysis is based upon four pieces of the first stage of the Unha-3 rocket recovered by South Korea. The author of the article, David Wright, surmises that all four pieces came from the first stage because they "were found in the same area".
.
.
The four parts found were:
1 -- oxidizer tank (made of an aluminum-magnesium alloy)
with a cool picture (fig 4) of the inside of the tank showing hoops and stringers supporting the wall
2 -- two bottles that make the "turbo pumps" to maintain pressure in the oxidizer tank as the fuel flow continues during launch
3 -- another part of the fuel tank (with the number "3" painted on the outside which is visible on the launch video)
4 -- what appears to be a support ring from the first stage body
There's also a comment at the end about using "room temperature fuels" such as RFNA (red fuming nitric acid) allowing the use of a simplified design as compared to using cryogenic fuels which require a more complex design. Someone wrote in pointing out that RFNA is also used in the Russian Kosmos 3M space launch vehicle which is also derived from a ballistic missile. In fact, even the fins and the profile of the Kosmos looks like the fins on and the profile of the North Korean launch rocket. Pretty cool analysis, and I like that the author puts really links to the sources of the pictures he has in the article.
Just imagine all of the PR points you could win just by letting us space nerds in on what you're doing. We'll work most of it out anyway, but take us through all the technical gore. What you are doing seems like the closest thing to launching a fully fledged rocket from your backyard using nothing but spare parts lying around, so we can definitely relate with you here.
All the ballistic missiles and rockets are German V2 scaled ups by your logic.
N.K is now the 11th launch capable country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite ) and they deserve the credit. No analysis and humiliation could change the fact that a small country which has been under severe embargoes has succeeded in its technical (possibly military) ambitions.
I was not expecting them to be able to put such a heavy satellite in 500km orbit. Iran has only been able to put a sub 50km satellite in a lower orbit.
First of all, you can tell a LOT from this particular data point.
That aside, what are you insinuating? That a group widely and routinely chastised as espousing a "liberal" and/or "leftist" agenda by conservatives, opposed the now-cancelled US Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, and is opposed to nuclear weapons in general, is executing a propaganda campaign to make North Korea look more primitive than it really is when it comes to its rocket programs?
Are you serious?
After a veritable comedy of errors, North Korea finally has a successful launch, can't even get or keep the satellite launched from it into a stable orbit, and now an anti-nuclear advocacy group is really a secret US propaganda campaign to inappropriately embarrass the North Koreans, who are really more advanced in rocketry than all of their misadventures would indicate? The same North Koreans who just announced they have uncovered a unicorn lair?
Really? I mean...really?
Please â" I would love to hear how this is "propaganda", and how the DPRK is really a capable member of the space and nuclear clubs. To what possible end? Even IF it were true, why/how would that be a good thing?
Or is this one of those topsy-turvy bizarro-world lines of reasoning where anything and everything that is in ANY way opposed to anything related to any US or Western interest is automatically true and pure, but anything that originates from the US or West, in any way, shape, or form is always "propaganda"?
Actually, if you read the article, it points out that you can infer the use of a low pressure room temperature (non-cryogenic) fuel from (1) the relatively thin wall-thickness of the tank, and from (2) the bottles used in the turbo-pumps to maintain pressure in the fuel tank during launch. It points out (3) that while the Scud uses steel for the body of the first stage rocket, the North Korean one uses a more-lightweight aluminum magnesium alloy. ... BS" to me, but hey maybe I'm being taken in?
.
I do agree with you that the article uses a lot of condescension in tone and uses the word "primitive" a lot to imply poor design, so there probably is a bit of propagandizing going on in order to denigrate the launch vehicle. But in my humble (and not very schooled) opinion, the analysis at least clearly lays out where it makes its inferences from and what the source of the imagery is. It doesn't seems like "pure
This would be a better link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_orbital_launches_by_country
China will squash NK like a gnat if they threaten regional stability...
No, China will use NK to destabilize the region in order to "re-stabilize" it in a configuration more to China's liking. Unfortunately for the world, there is no such stable configuration.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Who claimed the NK didn't launch the weapon? You don't understand what a false flag operation is. I'd advise you to read about the Gulf of Tonkin affair, but you'd probably walk away wondering why we fought Vietnam over little toy trucks.
Not to mention carelessly adding to the space-junk in the atmosphere. Space needs to be co-ordinated on a global stage, not a country specific one IMHO.
Of course, nobody mentions that the Gemini missions used storable propellants not unlike what the North Koreans are using. Now, it's true that Gemini was launched with Titan rockets, and Titans were originally designed as ICBMs, but they were used for civilian purposes as well.
The more interesting part is that we recovered the missile parts. According to everything I read, the exact timing of the launch was somewhat of a surprise (maybe this isn't true) but nevertheless we managed to track the debris and fish it out of the ocean immediately. This tells the North Koreans that not only do they have no secrets, they never will have any.
To me, the North Korean rocket looks a lot more like a satellite launcher than an ICBM. The first nuclear weapons that North Korea will deploy will be very heavy, and this rocket (as tapered as it is, and with such a small, low-powered third stage) just will not carry it. ICBMs are also designed to burn quickly, as they are vulnerable as long as they are in the atmosphere and burning. This rocket burns for many minutes, as satellite launchers do.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
The false assumption that the US should have control the Asian-Pacific region is just as correct as the one that Russia, China or Japan should have control over the N-American region.
Privacy is terrorism.
It's not just "chemistry" it's freakin' rocket fuel chemistry and acronyms matter lest ye blow up!
Red Fuming Nitric Acid
RFNA is some nasty stuff. Worse liquid propellant oxider ever? Chlorine TriFloride (ClF3). Eats and/or combusts with everything and anything , including service & test engineers.
The problem is that "primitive design" is often read as "poor design" by non-technical people. Primitive designs may be pretty good in themselves, and work quite well, but have become obsoleted by more advanced designs. Now in how far the NK rocket design is obsolete I don't know, the article mentions at least the Russians use the same fuels to launch stuff into orbit.
And of course it's being played down. Many people don't want to see up to the fact that this country managed to put an object in orbit (didn't stay there long though), which places them in a quite short list of countries that did so too.
That said I'd much rather they'd put that much effort in actually feeding their own population. For example by getting their farming going again, instead of having to rely heavily on outside supplies.
RIght. It's not like it's rocket science or anything...
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
I'm not all that certain that China will unconditionally prop them up. They already have quite a problem on their hands with NK that they are no longer ideologically interested, and that China's real interests in international trade and so on are just hurt by any overt support of NK.
What China is interested in is that their border region with NK doesn't get flooded with refugees if NK suddenly implodes. So I'd say that China might be our best bet at encouraging internal changes inside NK.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
Everyone knew these were nothing more than scaled up Scuds, it's been reported on for months.
The big deal is that what everyone suspected (not knew) has now been confirmed by physical evidence.
But I'm debating whether we want to let them develop first strike capability.
Yeah, I was just thinking, "Wouldn't another war be nice?" And this whole pre-emptive strike thing has been working out so well!
You are afraid that letting them develop longer will lead to them being more dangerous. Isn't it possible that letting them develop might lead to them being less dangerous? Maybe there will be a popular uprising? Maybe with increased wealth and education will come preasure from the populace to increase freedoms? Why should popular opinion in the US be the decider and enforcer of what North Korea does? Why not let North Korea's neighbors (South Korea, China, Japan, Russia along with many, many others that are much closer) take the lead? Have we learned nothing from the mistakes in Iraq? Why are you so eager for our country to squander what wealth we have by blowing up people half a world away?
As a programmer just the inefficiencies of war (spending billions of dollars buildings things to blow up people and infrastructure) makes me weap let alone the cost in human life. I also strong suspect that all of these wars are going to make things much more dangerous for America down the road.
"These findings confirm that the stage is still Scud-level technology."
Says who, a so-called "scientist" from the nation that just put the space shuttle into the scrapyard (where it belongs) - and has NOTHING to even do the same job as that old piece of junk?
As compared to what, the anti-gravity drive used by the latest US spaceships? Last time I checked EVERYONE still uses good old rockets. Oh sure - they now (occasionally) have a camera looking backwards for nice launch videos. And possibly they use fuel Y instead of fuel X - excuse me guys, you celebrate marginal, tiny advances as being far ahead of the stone-age North Koreans?
As far as getting into space, we ALL are at "stone-age" (1960s) level (i.e. rockets, huge flames, HUGE noise, lots of explosives). But today, progress is measured in micrometers, not in miles, so sure, let's celebrate how much more advanced we (the West) is compared to the most backward nation on earth.
They "deserve the credit"? they've got half their country starving to death behind barbed wire, the other half starving in their crumbling capitol, they're spending all their money on BALLISTIC missle technology, and they... "deserve the credit". Well step forward and claim that prize, Best Korea.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Ah, memories! RFNA and UDMH were what we used in Lance Missiles in the 70's/80's. These were aimed visually with hand cranks, a theodolite and a mirror. (a little more to the left) Interesting to see this called "advanced" in 2012.
Don't even try to compare the US to North Korea. Nothing is perfect, but NK is as close to hell as you will ever find on Earth at any point in history (maybe slightly exceeded by Khmer Rouge era Cambodia).
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
China wasn't really that interested in saving Kim Il Sung's hiney back in the '50's. China got involved in the Korean war because 1) they felt they needed a buffer zone between a US-sponsored South Korea and their borders, and, perhaps more to the point, 2) Mao Zedong didn't just hold grudges. He cherished them, and he was still nine kinds of annoyed at the US for backing Chiang Kai-shek during the Chinese Civil War. Yeah, Koreans fought during the Chinese Civil War, but Mao was never one to be grateful enough for someone to do something against his interest in thanks.
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
Actually, the answers are "yes" and "yes". Just because their first attempt resulted in an object not reaching a stable orbit doesn't mean the design is *incapable* of it.
Also, you're inference of it being unable to hit a target "with reasonable precision" is kind of irrelevant. The Norks have nukes. You don't need pinpoint precision on a nuke unless you're trying to take out small, hardened targets like missile silos. Getting within 10-20 miles of your target is perfectly acceptable if you're lofting a nuke at something as large as a city. Or, with a slightly smaller error radius, a carrier battle group.
Remember, the goal isn't necessarily to develop the capability to go toe-to-toe with a nuclear-armed enemy. The goal is to develop a weapon that gives you *political* leverage and credibility in whatever region you're aiming at. Without nukes and a nuclear delivery system, a carrier battle group is pretty invulnerable to someone like the Norks. Thus U.S. policy can be quite aggressive should we so choose. *With* nukes and a delivery system, the equation changes drastically. The Norks never have to fire a shot, yet they instantly change the game *in their favor* by vastly increasing the vulnerability of the conventional forces they would face in an armed conflict.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
No fucking way. The DPRK has artillerie that can hit Seoul. Nor do the leaders of South Korea really relish the thought of paying the huge costs of unification and bringing the North up to the standards of the South. Look at the fall of the DDR and the cost to Germany during unification. This would be worse, far worse.
Our people tend to have life expectancies in the very late 70s, and have the ability to leave the country whensoever we want. Check out the situation in N Korea, you might find that its slightly different.
The Iranian and North Korean governments are a bunch of nutbags with or without the ability to rain down destruction on the rest of the planet. Not every space shot induces panic. Not every country is as stupid or as evil as the worst example you can find.
It's also important to note that the original space race was far from benign. Sputnik was a side venture of the Soviet ICBM program and the main American efforts were also military in nature.
The people that are the most hysterical probably have a properly grounded historical perspective.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Except that deanklear was largely correct. Post-Vietnam War East Asian geopolitics have been largely about maintaining the status quo at any cost. China needs DPRK to stay afloat because otherwise they're virtually guaranteed to clean up the mess and lose their buffer (a lot of Western pundits don't realize that Korea as a buffer for China is not a Cold War phenomenon, it's been the case since at least Ming/Chosun relations and the Imjin War in the late 16th century). The US wants the Korean peninsula situation to stay the same because they don't want NK to become a full-on Chinese protectorate/territory (ironically the same thing China wants, but for different reasons). Even though both countries want the status quo, they can't be seen to want it. Because both the US and China have been using SK and NK as proxies for over half a century, they must be seen to, at some level, continue to desire the original goals of the arrangement ('unified "free" Korea'). This has been mere theater for something like three decades, and actually both sides have more contingencies for preventing the "goal" than anything else.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I'd bet a considerable sum that any freighters (suspiciously modified or otherwise) stopping in North Korea are monitored, and they don't have any SLBM submarines. The closest thing their navy's got are some ancient (designed in the late '40s) ex-USSR Whiskey-class submarines that might be able to handle cruise missiles, which are very different beasts from that bastardized Scud the DPRK launched.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It is stored in caves and wheeled out when needed. It is about the only thing they can keep running.
They have kept them stored there for ages, who knows if they work but they are there.
Even if they did not costs of reunification are so high no one wants to touch it.
To be honest, if the resources of the US were treated in the same way that NK treats it's own people, we'd probably be setting up a colony on Mars right now.
Most of the reason we are not on Mars right now is that people compare the costs of doing that with maintaining standard of living. In NK, there is no health care debate. Everyone there gets free health care, to a maximum of a band aid and a Kim Jong Un lollipop when they have cancer. In essence, you'd almost be better off living on the streets in the US than to be an NK peasant most days.
However, yes, their prestige project of rocket science is moving along, and it will eventually progress. That's what happens when a country focuses itself, even imperfectly, on a narrow set of goals, and treats everything else at a bare minimum level. That focus is part arrogance of their elite class, and partly a need for Kim Jong Un to shore up his power base by keeping his military happy with him.
You could do the same thing in the US too. I assure you, if you did only the minimum you needed to hold down your job, and instead lived in cheap rat infested tenements and ate ramen noodles for your one daily meal, despite the fact that you make more than enough to live in a nice home, you could have a decent nest egg built up. People in the US used to go live in houses they build out of sod so that they could get their hands on some land and make something of themselves. That doesn't mean that I am suggesting that we all sell our houses and go live in shacks to afford good health care, for instance, but a lot of people don't realize that we do actually have a lot of resources at our disposal even if they are limited. It is what we do with those limited resources which makes the difference.
North Korea has chosen its space program over its people, and the space program is progressing because of it.
North Korea is known to have built up a significant level of hardened and hidden shelters for their equipment. I assure you, their equipment is obsolete and would not stand up to any sort of real slugging match with the South, let alone the US, but they do have the capability to seriously damage Seoul with conventional artillery.
Don't think for a second that just because you don't see deployed artillery batteries on hill tops it means they aren't there. It doesn't take long for even towed artillery to move into preplanned firing positions from their shelters. NK has a significant number of tube artillery in place that is low tech, but easy to maintain and very cheap to operate and store. Short of finishing their ICBM dreams, they don't have a prayer of touching the US, but SK is definitely a different matter.