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.'"

23 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Kerosene works well... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Kerosene works well... by Woek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well technically H2/LOX got us to the moon, the RP1/LOX got us out of the atmosphere... And incidentally, using LOX is a lot less primitive than using RFNA.

  2. Laugh at the technology by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Laugh at the technology by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It matters: because only with the right technology you can actually launch a bomb across the ocean. Getting to orbit pretty much implies you can do it of course, the getting there part at least, analysing the technology further will let you know how well the thing was made (gives ideas on reliability and controllability), how much was imported and how much was their own work, etc. Being able to build such a rocket all by themselves means a greater threat than if everything is imported - imports can be blocked.

      Also it gives an idea on how advanced their technology really is, which in turn gives an idea on their overall capabilities. If they build advanced rockets, they likely build advanced versions of other weapons too. The article mentioned they used a light-weight titanium alloy for the tank, instead of steel - showing they have access to that alloy.

      The fuels used are also interesting. They use RFNA for oxidiser which can be stored at room temperature, making it not only easier to use as fuel in a rocket, it also makes it suitable as fuel for a missile which has to sit ready to launch for a long period of time. This may mean they are developing dual-use technology, it may also mean that they don't have the technology to use the more effient cryogenic fuels and have to simplify the design.

      Analysing their technology can also indicate how well they can control their rockets - important for both space launches and dropping bombs on target. It seems they manage control pretty well considering they actually got an object in orbit, which is quite a feat. The obvious next step would of course be an object that stays in orbit.

      No matter what, analysing the debris can tell you a lot. And that's why they're fishing up those debris parts now.

  3. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. where the analysis comes from by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. NK, open up your space/missile programme by Quick+Reply · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  6. Re:whats the big deal by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Is this comment some kind of a joke? by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"?

  8. Re:whats the big deal by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Informative
  9. I always enjoy the unsaid parts of the story by Thagg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  10. Re:whats the big deal by TTL0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    RIght. It's not like it's rocket science or anything...

    --
    Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
  11. Re:North Korea by CptPicard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  12. Re:whats the big deal by sribe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Time to Crush NoKo by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Idiocy? by mha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  15. Re:whats the big deal by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".'
  16. Re:North Korea by ValentineMSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  17. Re:North Korea by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:whats the big deal by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  19. Re:ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, there's a huge difference in quality between NK and US which makes any such comparison ludicrous and false. NK is an absolute totalitarian state in which the very CONCEPTS of individual dignity, human rights, and personal autonomy are not acknowledged at all and are never exercised by individuals. Even the most trivial deviations from rigidly defined acceptable behavior is met with arbitrary and disproportionate force from an elite class of people who answer to no-one and have absolute power. Millions starve to death routinely, there is no economic progress of any kind, and whatever wealth exists is completely controlled by a tiny elite.

    Now, we can complain about inequality, hunger, a political system which favors an elite, etc. However you are not subjected to anything like the sort of state power and restrictions on your freedom that you would be in NK. Nor are people routinely punished or killed in horrible ways without any recourse, etc. Is half the population of the US grossly malnurished? No. Is there no right at all to private property or even basic privacy? No. You cannot say there is any meaningful equivalence between NK and the US, thus my original comment stands.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  20. Re:whats the big deal by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  21. Re:North Korea by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.