Author Topic: North Korea missiles  (Read 275108 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #140 on: 07/09/2017 07:32 pm »
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.....


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.

The alleged 80 ton engine test fired by NK did not have verniers, whereas Hwasong 14 has 4. Clearly not the same engine.


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #141 on: 07/10/2017 08:11 am »
The 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/
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #142 on: 07/11/2017 06:51 am »
What is True and Not True About North Korea’s Hwasong-14 ICBM: A Technical Evaluation

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling071017/


Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #143 on: 07/11/2017 10:10 am »
The 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/

I am looking at the left  image from the 38 North article

« Last Edit: 07/11/2017 10:11 am by Danderman »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #144 on: 07/11/2017 10:24 am »
The drawing of Hwasong 14 shows the first stage to essentially have the same dimensions as Hwasong 10, which is a poor copy of R-27.

More to the point, having a tiny upper stage tells us that this is not intended as an ICBM, but rather a missile capable of long range, with a small payload. ICBMs, with few exceptions, are designed so that the second stage has a significant fraction of the mass of the first stage. On the other hand, two stage satellite launchers designed for GTO missions typically have a large first stage and relatively small upper stage, which provides max range/velocity.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #145 on: 07/11/2017 10:26 am »
https://www.rt.com/news/395791-north-korea-russia-un/

Russia claims they monitored the launch, and it was not an ICBM.  Rather than hand wave away their data, it may be the case that they only "saw" the first stage, so what is in the chart is first stage performance.

« Last Edit: 07/11/2017 10:29 am by Danderman »

Offline RLA

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #146 on: 07/11/2017 06:57 pm »
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.
I'm very skeptical about the whole R-27 theory about the first stage main engine, not only it would having not enough trust for building a serious ICBM, but also with the key fact North Korea can't make the first stage of the R-27 reliable.

We can't proof it 100% but I still hold on the realistic possibility that North Korea is having it's own spin-off of the RD-250 engine, besides it can deliver 80 tons of trust, it would also being an improvement in performance if they using UDMH - N2O4

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #147 on: 07/12/2017 05:36 am »
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.

Offline RLA

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #148 on: 07/13/2017 07:03 pm »
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.
Very interesting, do you have some sources where there is a link between Energomash and NK?

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #149 on: 07/13/2017 08:33 pm »
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.

This is quite far from clear. If Hwasong-12 and Hwasong-14 share the same diameter of the first stage, the Hwasong-14 first stage is shorter than the Hwasong-12.

Interesting is, that both missiles are about the same length, if we assume the same diameter for the first stage.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2017 08:34 pm by Skyrocket »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #150 on: 07/14/2017 06:45 am »
Concerning EnergoMash and NK, obviously there is no link. NK uses knock-offs of Isayev engines.

As far as the Hwasong 14 first stage vs Hwasong 12, there may be quibbles about how close they are in size, but there is no doubt they are in the same class.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2017 09:50 am by Danderman »

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #151 on: 07/14/2017 03:24 pm »
Via the armscontrolwonks podcast the HS-14 measured to ~1.9m diameter which is a larger than the HS-12. Thrust for the HS-12 was estimated at ~47 tons, structural mass under 7%. They made a range estimate for the HS-14 of up to 9500km and the case for 10000km because hitting NY is a real objective.

I hope that we'll get a written posting but events will postpone that. KCTV released the to celebrate the HS-14 launch which had a whole treasure trove of previously not seen images and video running as stage background...

Dave Schmerler posted screen captures of most of them here.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #152 on: 07/16/2017 04:11 am »
A lot of assertions in the armscontrolwonk assessment with not much evidence.

Structural mass of only 7 percent for a roadmobile missile would involve integration of a certain amount of magic.

Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that such a missile would be fitted with a tiny upper stage, if the HS14 missile were that magical, it could carry a Scud class upper stage like Unha. Unha was known to cluster 4 Scud engines in the first stage to be able to carry a Scud as a second stage plus a third stage similar to the HS14 second stage. But HS14 did not use a real second stage, just a small tweaker stage.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #153 on: 07/16/2017 04:15 am »
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.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13998
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #154 on: 07/16/2017 07:15 am »
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.
Yet it can be argued you also have no real evidence to back up that assertion just educated supposition. TBH all such analysis at this stage is somewhat pointless when dealing with this topic and in the absence of further data is just causing this thread to eat it's own tail.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2017 07:20 am by Star One »

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #155 on: 07/16/2017 10:27 am »
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.

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.....

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13998
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #156 on: 07/16/2017 11:13 am »
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.

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.....

The problem I have with those saying this is old technology is that they don't seem to be allowing for the possibility that they have had covert assistance from other nations. I was under the impression that Iran was suspected of giving them assistance in this area?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #157 on: 07/17/2017 01:44 am »
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.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #158 on: 07/17/2017 01:48 am »
The evidence that HS14 is not a real ICBM is that it is in the same class as HS10, and therefore too small to carry a useful payload a long distance. The second stage is only 6 feet long.

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #159 on: 07/17/2017 06:10 am »
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.

You seem dead set on the notion that NK used Musadan technology to build this icbm. Care to share why?

Anyway if what your saying is true that NK used the 25 ton thrust engine of the musadan to power this icbm then a second stage would not be possible due to insufficient thrust in the first stage. Furthermore more why would they test a whole new engine and claim that it is made "in their own way" only to reuse tech from the musadan?

Also it is worth nothing the Musadan has over a 80% failure rate whereas both HS-12 and HS-14 flew without any issues. This adds further weight to the theory that HS-12 and HS-14 use a completely new engine that is more reliable than the R-27 engine in the musadan.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0