Quote from: Danderman on 07/08/2017 09:47 pmQuote from: K210 on 07/08/2017 06:37 pmQuote from: Danderman on 07/07/2017 10:05 pmQuote from: K210 on 07/07/2017 11:11 amIt is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine. The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.The engine used on the hwasong-12 and hwasong-14 is probably a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine they are developing for their new SLV. For ICBM application they have probably lowered the thrust to 40-60 tons level and added some steering engines. It is likely NK has scrapped the R-27 engines completely at this point given how unreliable they have proven (90% of tests were failures in 2016).North korea seems to be moving beyond using left overs from the soviet union and developing their own tech from the ground up. At least that is what it looks like from the outside.Again, you are asserting that NK has an 80 ton thrust engine with no proof. I am not saying you are wrong, but I cannot accept an analysis based on a feeling.You do seem to admit that the Hwasong 10 uses the 4D10 derived engine, which is a 25 ton class engine. Therefore, you should understand that it is unlikely that Hwasong 12 and 14 have an engine that is significantly more powerful, since all three missiles are roughly the same size.The more likely scenario is that the Hwasong 10 failures were symptoms of teething pains for R-27 based technology, and as time passes and more tests were conducted, the technicians fixed some of the problems.One further note: the much larger Unha satellite launcher uses 4 Scud class engines clustered in the first stage. NK is probably going to have to either cluster the R-27 engine or seriously upgrade it to generate an ICBM with a usable payload and usable range.In September 2016 North Korea claimed they had tested a 80 ton thrust rocket engine. Analysis of the blast scar at the test stand showed that the engine was indeed significantly more powerful than anything NK had tested before. Here is a link to a report by a expert: http://www.38north.org/2016/09/jschilling092116/I have doubts that a 25 ton thrust engine could be used to power a icbm given the fact that the 1000 Km range Rodong missile is powered by a less efficient but more powerful 27 ton thrust engine. It is likely NK used the experience gained from the R-27 engine to build their own engines based on a more simpler gas generator cycle. Also it is worth noting that iran may also be involved either through direct technical assistance or financing as they recently have alluded to a new family of rockets powered by a 80 ton thrust engine.Either way it is impossible for anyone outside north korea to say with 100% confidence what NK is up to. All we can do is study information avaliable and come to our own conclusions.
Quote from: K210 on 07/08/2017 06:37 pmQuote from: Danderman on 07/07/2017 10:05 pmQuote from: K210 on 07/07/2017 11:11 amIt is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine. The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.The engine used on the hwasong-12 and hwasong-14 is probably a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine they are developing for their new SLV. For ICBM application they have probably lowered the thrust to 40-60 tons level and added some steering engines. It is likely NK has scrapped the R-27 engines completely at this point given how unreliable they have proven (90% of tests were failures in 2016).North korea seems to be moving beyond using left overs from the soviet union and developing their own tech from the ground up. At least that is what it looks like from the outside.Again, you are asserting that NK has an 80 ton thrust engine with no proof. I am not saying you are wrong, but I cannot accept an analysis based on a feeling.You do seem to admit that the Hwasong 10 uses the 4D10 derived engine, which is a 25 ton class engine. Therefore, you should understand that it is unlikely that Hwasong 12 and 14 have an engine that is significantly more powerful, since all three missiles are roughly the same size.The more likely scenario is that the Hwasong 10 failures were symptoms of teething pains for R-27 based technology, and as time passes and more tests were conducted, the technicians fixed some of the problems.One further note: the much larger Unha satellite launcher uses 4 Scud class engines clustered in the first stage. NK is probably going to have to either cluster the R-27 engine or seriously upgrade it to generate an ICBM with a usable payload and usable range.
Quote from: Danderman on 07/07/2017 10:05 pmQuote from: K210 on 07/07/2017 11:11 amIt is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine. The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.The engine used on the hwasong-12 and hwasong-14 is probably a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine they are developing for their new SLV. For ICBM application they have probably lowered the thrust to 40-60 tons level and added some steering engines. It is likely NK has scrapped the R-27 engines completely at this point given how unreliable they have proven (90% of tests were failures in 2016).North korea seems to be moving beyond using left overs from the soviet union and developing their own tech from the ground up. At least that is what it looks like from the outside.
Quote from: K210 on 07/07/2017 11:11 amIt is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine. The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....
The alleged 80 ton engine test fired by NK did not have verniers, whereas Hwasong 14 has 4. Clearly not the same engine.
Quote from: Danderman on 07/09/2017 07:32 pmThe alleged 80 ton engine test fired by NK did not have verniers, whereas Hwasong 14 has 4. Clearly not the same engine.The engine tested last March clearly has verniers. I'm not sure which "80 ton" (785 kN) engine test fire you are referring to.http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/28/asia-pacific/north-korea-carried-another-rocket-engine-test-possibly-icbm-u-s-officials/
On the contrary. It is commonly agreed that Hwasong 10 uses R-27 technology for its engine. R-27 has a 25 ton class engine.It is fairly obvious from photos that Hwasong 14 is comparable to Hwasong 10, as they seem to share a TEL.That tells us that Hwasong 14 uses the same class engine as Hwasong 14, albeit with minor modifications.Still waiting for proof of that 80 ton class engine.
What is clear is that Hwasong 14 is comprised of Hwasong 12 as a first stage, with Hwasong 13 as a tiny second stage. And Hwasong 12 is Hwasong 10 with 2 extra verniers.A claim that NK has access to RD-250 class engines would have to be accompanied by evidence that EnergoMash is doing business with NK.
What is clear is that Hwasong 14 is comprised of Hwasong 12 as a first stage, with Hwasong 13 as a tiny second stage. And Hwasong 12 is Hwasong 10 with 2 extra verniers.
What is going on here is that analysts arguing that HS14 is a real ICBM have to assume facts that are not in evidence, either wonderful mass ratios or really big new engines.Occam's Razor tells us that HS14 is merely a Russian R-27 knockoff with four instead of 2 verniers in the first stage, plus a tiny second stage using two of those verniers as main engines.
Quote from: Danderman on 07/16/2017 04:15 amWhat is going on here is that analysts arguing that HS14 is a real ICBM have to assume facts that are not in evidence, either wonderful mass ratios or really big new engines.Occam's Razor tells us that HS14 is merely a Russian R-27 knockoff with four instead of 2 verniers in the first stage, plus a tiny second stage using two of those verniers as main engines.There is evidence that HS-14 is a icbm. If NK had fired the missile with a max apogee of 500 Km rather then 2,800 km then it would have flown around 6700 km which is well within icbm range.I really get the feeling the NK has used the musadan missile to get a handle on longer range missiles. In the 90s when NK first test fired the Rodong missile analysts thought it had a cluster of four scud engines when in reality it had a single Nodong engine. The Nodong engine is pretty much a upgraded scud engine with double the thrust of a regular scud engine. NK has historically taken foreign tech and improved on it over time. Perhaps they have done the same with the R-27 engine. They could have taken the design and tweaked it to increase thrust and/or ISP.Either way i don't think it is even possible for a 25 ton thrust engine to power a icbm. The musadan was barely able to fly 3000km with R-27 tech dont know how it would suddenly become icbm capable unless some serious improvements have been made.It will be interesting to see what the north koreans do now that they now have a working icbm. The second stage of this missile seems to be underpowered maybe we will see a upgraded HS-14 sometime in the future.....
How could Hwasong 14 fly so far compared to Hwasong 10 (Musudan)?Let me introduce you to the concept of a "second stage". In this case, a very small upper stage, designed to carry a tiny payload a great distance to provide the appearance of an ICBM.The definition of an ICBM is demonstrated range over 5,500 km, but it has to be carrying a useful payload. Otherwise Unha 3 could be considered an ICBM.