Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012

[EVA]

The news media continues to say that the Korean missile is fueled and ready for take-off at any time.
Excuse my ignorance, but I thought that once a rocket or missile is fueled, it has to be launched within a certain time, or window, or it has to be de-fueled.
Can they continue to let the fuel boil off and keep replenishing it?



I apologize for this not being 100% space flight related, and if this is a dumb question.

[kevin-rf]

GlobalSecurity.org has some predictions on the missile...

They think it is using very corrosive storeable propellants, the missile is fueled, and the fuel has a max time it can sit in the missile before it degrades and is unusable.

[Jim]

Most  IBM use storables (hypergols)

[Space Lizard]

Some Soviet ICBMs were fuelled and then sealed for more than 20 years of deployment into silos.

[mlorrey]

So, what is the US to do about it?

Personally, I was pleasantly surprised that the US activated its ABM installation in the Aleutians. I was thinking that, given the Korean launch is a "test", that the US ought to position some of its Aegis cruisers off the Korean coast, and "test" their new ABM capable PAC3 Aegis missiles on the Korean "test" missile... perhaps they'll test the ground based system instead.

[edkyle99]

mlorrey - 24/6/2006  7:48 PM

So, what is the US to do about it?

Personally, I was pleasantly surprised that the US activated its ABM installation in the Aleutians. I was thinking that, given the Korean launch is a "test", that the US ought to position some of its Aegis cruisers off the Korean coast, and "test" their new ABM capable PAC3 Aegis missiles on the Korean "test" missile... perhaps they'll test the ground based system instead.

I think it would be a mistake to use ABM capabilities unless the missile were clearly headed toward the U.S. or toward another country.  An ABM attempt could give away a lot of information about the system's capabilities and weaknesses, and a failed attempt would be a major embarrassment.  

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

mlorrey - 24/6/2006  9:27 PM

The PAC3 Aegis system has in particular, proven to be quite capable of doing its job, and has been tested for exactly this scenario.

PAC3, as I understand it, is only useful during the terminal (post-boost) stages of flight.  If this were a missile test, North Korea would already have all of the data it needed about the test itself by the time a PAC3 could engage, so the shoot-down would be pointless unless the missle were actually targeting something.  I'm not sure if the US Navy's SM3 missile, which works in mid-flight, would be able to interrupt the powered portion of a missile test either.

Then there is the question of precedent.  If it is OK for the US to shoot down a missile during a test flight that might also be a space launch attempt, what is to prevent another country from shooting down a US missile during a similar test?  Or a Minotaur during a space launch?  Or an EELV?

  - Ed Kyle

[Rocket Guy]

I can't wait to see how many people call the news stations Tuesday night thinking the Delta 4 is the missile defense system shooting this thing down. :-)

[kevin-rf]

You know charles Vick ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/staff/vick.htm ) is keeping a running comentary ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2006/060625-nkir271.htm ) on this test. What is in the public domain, what is missing, and when they can gleam from public domain sources.

If it is a space launch attempt I think we will have some interesting discussions.

It is interesting (right or wrong) that we keep on seeing articles in the press that a shoot down is improbable...

[mlorrey]

edkyle99 - 24/6/2006  11:41 PM

mlorrey - 24/6/2006  9:27 PM

The PAC3 Aegis system has in particular, proven to be quite capable of doing its job, and has been tested for exactly this scenario.

PAC3, as I understand it, is only useful during the terminal (post-boost) stages of flight.  If this were a missile test, North Korea would already have all of the data it needed about the test itself by the time a PAC3 could engage, so the shoot-down would be pointless unless the missle were actually targeting something.  I'm not sure if the US Navy's SM3 missile, which works in mid-flight, would be able to interrupt the powered portion of a missile test either.

Then there is the question of precedent.  If it is OK for the US to shoot down a missile during a test flight that might also be a space launch attempt, what is to prevent another country from shooting down a US missile during a similar test?  Or a Minotaur during a space launch?  Or an EELV?

  - Ed Kyle

I've seen NAVY studies of the Aegis being forward deployed to do boost phase interceptions. The reports were  highly positive of the capabilities of the system.

If NK is doing a space launch attempt, they need to document it as such with international agencies, do they not? The burden is on them to demonstrate that it is a space shot and not a military shot. If they are operating outside international agreements, particularly the nonproliferation treaty, the US is entirely within its rights to intercept what could potentially be seen as an attack on the US.

Under the Geneva Conventions, there are already rules established to distinguish a combatant from a noncombatant. If the missile is launched by the military, if there is no announced orbital satellite of a non-weapons nature as its payload, etc. Peaceful nations who seek to protect themselves cannot be blamed if the launching country does not make affirmative steps to establish the missiles peaceful nature.

[mlorrey]

kevin-rf - 25/6/2006  11:02 PM

You know charles Vick ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/staff/vick.htm ) is keeping a running comentary ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2006/060625-nkir271.htm ) on this test. What is in the public domain, what is missing, and when they can gleam from public domain sources.

If it is a space launch attempt I think we will have some interesting discussions.

It is interesting (right or wrong) that we keep on seeing articles in the press that a shoot down is improbable...

Vick sez: "Unrealistic Shoot Down

There have been suggestions of shooting down the Taep’o-dong-2C/3 when its is launched due east at approximately 41 degrees inclination out of the Musudan-ri (No-dong/Taep’o-dong) launch site. The trajectory ground track would head east and south towards the mid pacific equatorial crossing of roughly 150-130 degrees West or 180-210 degrees East. This would, however, place the vehicle's trajectory nowhere near Alaska or California but closer to the Hawaiian islands and Kwajalein Atoll. By the time the payload crosses the equator, it will have probably already have been placed into earth orbit. In order for the launch to approach the US, it would have to be flown on a much higher inclination permitting it to cross the Alaskan route. This is highly improbable and brings into serious question the viability of such public discussions. "

The logical error in this argument is that they are forgetting that the State of Hawaii, Guam, Kwaj Atolls, and American Samoa are part of the US, as well... I have no idea if the US has any ABM capability covering that region, nor do I know what the effective range is of the installation in the Aleutians. However, I would caution people to recall that the last time the US was attacked by an east asian power, they struck Pearl Harbor by air... going after our Pacific Fleet. Even assuming a CEP of 1-2 km for this missile, they should be able to drop a nuke in range to take out any fleet and harbor capability in Honolulu, as well as a minimum of hundreds of thousands of casualties.

[kevin-rf]

The logical error in this argument is that they are forgetting that the State of Hawaii, Guam, Kwaj Atolls, and American Samoa are part of the US, as well... I have no idea if the US has any ABM capability covering that region, nor do I know what the effective range is of the installation in the Aleutians. However, I would caution people to recall that the last time the US was attacked by an east asian power, they struck Pearl Harbor by air... going after our Pacific Fleet. Even assuming a CEP of 1-2 km for this missile, they should be able to drop a nuke in range to take out any fleet and harbor capability in Honolulu, as well as a minimum of hundreds of thousands of casualties.

For lack of a better term, the US approach has been a (sort off) layered defense. Forward boost phased intercepters on US Navy Ships, Boost phase laser interception on highly modified 747's,  Mid Course with interceptors based in Alaska and California,  and terminal intercepton with patriots missiles and US Navy ships.

The section you quoted said nothing about boost phase interceptors. It indicated if it is an orbital shot, the payload would have been delivered to orbit by the time it had reached hawaii,guam, or kwaj. Which is not close to deployed US mid course interceptors and to high for the current navy assets.

This leaves only the option of boost phase interception. Since the modified 747 has not flown, this leaves placing navy assets under the presumed flight path near he launch site. Can we say Pueblo? Are the navy boostphase interceptors at a point where they can even be deployed? You intercept the missile on launch, what are the chances of the North Koreans sending everything they have at that ship?

If this is not an orbital launch and is aimed at the US we do have a chance of knocking it down as it over flys the artic ocean to get to the US. I think this is why the US has activated the missles in alaska...

[josh_simonson]

If the ABL were operational I'd think it likely they'd try to shoot down the missile with it, but not the current missile based system.  If the laser misses or fails, nobody knows, but the missiles will easilly be detected and if they fail it would be a win for N. Korea and a big loss of confidence in our ABM systems.  It's likely they'll track the missile and do a live dress rehearsal of shooting it down, then simulate how our interceptors would do against the tracking data after the fact.  

Perhaps N. Korea has developed a decoy system for their warheads and this test launch will deploy it to hurt the confidence in ABM systems and strengthen N. Korea's hand for strategic blackmail.  Getting their instruments illuminated by the ABM radar systems might also give them valuable information about how to design stealthier vehicles.

[Chris Bergin]

This thread is now sanitised from political discussion. Space stuff only, thanks.

[EVA]

I did some research on the internet and found this info on the missile, the Taep'o-dong 2 (TD-2).

Technical Details  
 
Payload (kg) 100-500
700-1,000
Range (km) 3,500-4,300 (2-stages)
4,000-4,300 (3-stages)
CEP (m) unknown
Diam. (m) 2.2/1.3
Height (m) 32
L. W. (kg) 80-85,000
Thrust (Kg f) Effective: 30,432 per chamber
Actual: 31,260 per chamber
or
Effective: 104,204
Actual: 170,040
Burn time (sec.) <330?
Launch Acceleration (g's) ~1.4-1.5 or 1.3
Thrust Chambers 4, 1, 1
Stages 2, 3
Type LRICBM
 
Stage 1
Height (m) ~16
Diameter (m) ~2.2
Launch Weight (kg) ~60,000-61,000
Launch Thrust (kg f) ~102,880-104,000
Burn Time (sec.) ~120-130
Fuel TM-185
(20% Gasoline + 80% Kerosene)
Oxidizer AK-27I
(27% N2O4 + 73% HNO3 +
Iodium Inhibitor)
 
Stage 2
Height (m) ~14
Diameter (m) ~1.32-1.35
Launch Weight (kg) ~15,200
Thrust (Kg f) Effective: ~13,160
Actual: 13,300-13,380
Burn Time (sec.) 110 max
Isp. (sec.)  Effective: 226 - SL
Due to vanes steering drag loss of 4-5 sec.
Actual: 230 - SL
Vac: 264  
Thrust Chambers 1
Fuel TM-185
(20% Gasoline + 80% Kerosene)
Oxidizer AK-27I
(27% N2O4 + 73% HNO3 +
Iodium Inhibitor)
Propellant Mass (kg) 12,912
 
Stage 3
Height (m) ~3-4 total package
Diameter (m) ~1.3-2.0 flared skirt type design
Launch Weight (kg) unknown
Launch Thrust (kg f) unknown
Burn Time (sec.) ~100
Propellant Solid motor*
* May have been derived from existing Chinese designs.

Sorry for not doing the research first.
Also, this is from the internet, so the accuracy is not certain.
It was an interesting article.
I'm not sure about the policy for posting links,
so if you'd like it, just pm me.

[Chris Bergin]

EVA - 26/6/2006  10:19 PM


I'm not sure about the policy for posting links,
so if you'd like it, just pm me.

Post whatever links you feel are relevant.

[kevin-rf]

Chris Bergin - 26/6/2006  4:00 PM

This thread is now sanitised from political discussion. Space stuff only, thanks.

Aren't most national space political in nature. If the north koreans are planning an orbital attempt it may have a political root, to mask development of an ICBM.

That is a valid reason to put something in orbit. It might give many in the US an uneasy feeling, but it is valid.

Now for the all talk about taking it out, yes it has been over the top and a bit harsh.

There are not assets stationed to take it out if it is an orbital test or heading out into the pacific. The test can be designed so that the alaskan ABM have Zero chance of ever catching the missile. From everything published the launch site is such that test launches take it away from the Alaskan ABM's and the US. A firing at the US would launch inland so as to over fly China (and drop spent stages on China), The Artic, and then go sailing by the US ABM site in alaska. A launch going in that direction could be shot down and (in my oppion) should be shot down. The reason is it is a missile fired at the US.

A orbital attempt would not be fired at the US (We hope, though they are know for making the US blink) and as the analysis on globalsecurity showed the payload would be in orbit before we had a chance to hit it. Assuming we have the assets. Do we want to open the ASAT debate on this board?

This leaves overt hostile acts. Bomb the launch site before launch or fire a missile (that might not exist, it has only been tested, not deployed) during launch that will definately overfly North Korean territory. Not good options, both are really acts of war.

Space is a political game. Look at the discussions in the CEV/CALV section. A political solution may prevent this launch. It may be a orbital launch just hide ICBM development and make it politically more acceptable.

Remember NASA an ESA are political entities that exist as much to push the limits of science as to promote national ego's.

[edkyle99]

mlorrey - 25/6/2006  11:19 PM

The logical error in this argument is that they are forgetting that the State of Hawaii, Guam, Kwaj Atolls, and American Samoa are part of the US, as well...

Kwajalein Atoll is part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.  It is leased by the US from the Republic.

ABM missile test launches have taken place from Kwaj.

 - Ed Kyle

[mlorrey]

kevin-rf - 26/6/2006  10:46 PM

A orbital attempt would not be fired at the US (We hope, though they are know for making the US blink) and as the analysis on globalsecurity showed the payload would be in orbit before we had a chance to hit it. Assuming we have the assets. Do we want to open the ASAT debate on this board?

This leaves overt hostile acts. Bomb the launch site before launch or fire a missile (that might not exist, it has only been tested, not deployed) during launch that will definately overfly North Korean territory. Not good options, both are really acts of war.

Space is a political game. Look at the discussions in the CEV/CALV section. A political solution may prevent this launch. It may be a orbital launch just hide ICBM development and make it politically more acceptable.

Remember NASA an ESA are political entities that exist as much to push the limits of science as to promote national ego's.

Good points, Kevin-rf.

Using satellite launches as a cover for developing ICBMs has a long and storied past. Russia did it, China did it, Iraq did it (Babylon Gun), India did it, Pakistan and Iran are trying to do it (with North Koreas help).

One of the reasons I tend to harsh on our own ICBM industry's manipulations of NASA is that I've come to the conclusion that so long as mounting warheads on ballistic missiles for use as surface to surface weapons is considered a lawful military act, particularly mounting NBC warheads, by ANY country or organization, then there will be serious production-related restraints against the growth of private and commercial space launch markets. As a veteran myself who considers NBC weapons to not be legitimate military weapons, IMHO it is in both the security interests of all nations and peoples, as well as the future of space flight, that arming ballistic missiles with NBC weapons should constitute a war crime and crime against humanity.

Opening the ASAT/ABM debate is IMHO fine, since it is directly space related, though sticking to facts and figures and not whether or not to use it.

If the Korean launch is going to be orbital, I suspect that they will be launching a spysat of modest means that will be needed to observe US ABM capabilities before they can be targeted.

[mlorrey]

edkyle99 - 27/6/2006  7:56 AM

mlorrey - 25/6/2006  11:19 PM

The logical error in this argument is that they are forgetting that the State of Hawaii, Guam, Kwaj Atolls, and American Samoa are part of the US, as well...

Kwajalein Atoll is part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.  It is leased by the US from the Republic.
 - Ed Kyle

Just as Guantanamo Bay is leased from Cuba. The US still has sovereignty over territory it leases (like it does at its embassies).