Author Topic: North Korean missile crisis of 2013  (Read 13714 times)

Offline mtakala24

North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« on: 03/28/2013 10:46 pm »
In another news, it has just been reported that North Korea has put their rockets into battle readiness.

Can someone point / link to a list of their rocket types, and whether they are launched from silos, or movable trucks, etc.?
« Last Edit: 04/07/2013 10:32 am by anik »

Offline ISNJH

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #1 on: 03/28/2013 11:05 pm »
Majority of DPRK rockets are road mobile TEL vehicles and are liquid fueled meaning they cant be kept on alert in a silo for long periods of times unlike solid based ballistic missiles..

Until there are any indication that missile launchers have started to be readied at bases and rocket fuel moved for the missiles and warheads taken from storage this is just bluster. Any such mobilizations esp a full activation of ballistic missile forces from bases would be spotted due to the heavy activity at bases and storage sites..

They have a number of Scud based ballistic missiles and this is  the main threat to South Korea since they do have a number of them that will pose a threat if enough can get through air defenses..

Offline jkumpire

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #2 on: 04/03/2013 06:15 pm »
Not trying to dig up an old thread or cause trouble, but I have a question with the recent noise from the Nuks:

The consensus is they can't launch a nuclear weapon on an ICBM class missile. My question; Are they advanced enough to launch chemical or biological weapons to Japan or US territory? Obviously they can shoot short-range stuff to Seoul, but why does the US send an Ageis destroyer to that part of the world if there isn't a threat? 
« Last Edit: 04/03/2013 06:18 pm by jkumpire »

Offline ISNJH

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #3 on: 04/03/2013 07:12 pm »
Part of the estimation about DPRK not being able to strike the US with a ICBM at this time is that any strike to do any damage would require a nuclear warhead, Nuclear warheads are a lot more heavy and means the missile has to lug that over a greater distance thus greatly decreasing the missiles range capability. Chemical warhead depending on type used could be lighter but would be less affective then a HE or more powerful warhead, it is believed that the DPRK could hit US bases on Guam but to be able to strike the US mainland with enough missiles to get through currently deployed missile defense assets its very unlikely.

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3938
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 1033
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #4 on: 04/03/2013 07:22 pm »
Not trying to dig up an old thread or cause trouble, but I have a question with the recent noise from the Nuks:

The consensus is they can't launch a nuclear weapon on an ICBM class missile. My question; Are they advanced enough to launch chemical or biological weapons to Japan or US territory? Obviously they can shoot short-range stuff to Seoul, but why does the US send an Ageis destroyer to that part of the world if there isn't a threat? 


The AEGIS destroyers have the ability to engage the missiles KN has so far launched which can reach Japan, Guam, and perhaps Hawaii.  They were in position (both US and Japanese) during the two recent tests in case the missiles headed towards Japan intentionally or accidentally.
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline plutogno

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 801
  • Toulouse, France and Milan, Italy
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #5 on: 04/03/2013 07:57 pm »
I think that part of the problem is that NK does not apparently have a working heatshield design-entry vehicle for an ICBM, regardless of what kind of weapon it is carrying

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Canada
  • Liked: 454
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #6 on: 04/03/2013 08:24 pm »
I think that part of the problem is that NK does not apparently have a working heatshield design-entry vehicle for an ICBM, regardless of what kind of weapon it is carrying
Why would DPRK need a re-entry vehicle. A polar orbiting EM pulse generation device would do. Almost all consumer electronics within range of the EM pulse will fry. In other words no cell phones, point of sale devices & ATMs. Plus most computers & tablets became fancy paper weights.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #7 on: 04/03/2013 08:27 pm »
...
Obviously they can shoot short-range stuff to Seoul, but why does the US send an Ageis destroyer to that part of the world if there isn't a threat? 

Because the US Navy does not possess destroyers or cruisers without AEGIS anymore.

Online bobthemonkey

Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #8 on: 04/03/2013 10:12 pm »
Also, not all AEGIS ships (even of the same class) have the BMD element enabled from a systems point of view, let alone active SM-3 rounds in their VLS batteries.

As it happens however, the John S McCain, the AEGIS destroyer referenced, is so equipped and forward based in Japan, so likely one of the closest ships in the area.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2013 10:15 pm by bobthemonkey »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8657
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1125
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #9 on: 04/04/2013 01:19 am »
And the SM-3 can not shoot down all ICBM profiles, it is possible to over fly it. Very hard to go high enough with a 21" solid rocket motor. There have been those who are saying it's better to build more of Orbital's larger Ground Based Interceptors than spending money on the SM-3 Block Ib's we promised Poland and Romania.

But I digress, the SM-3 Block 1A should be sufficient to intercept Japan bound missiles. The height of a Japan bound arc is not high enough to over fly an SM-3. The few GBI's we have should be sufficient to blunt a North Korean US bound ICBM launch. Though it does kinda leave Pearl Harbor hanging out there...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Yarrah

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 6

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19070
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6966
  • Likes Given: 956
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #12 on: 04/07/2013 05:19 am »
On the ABC Insiders program this morning the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs commented that their might be a North Korean "missile test" on 15 April, the birthday of Kim Il Sung. This "missile test" might be another satellite launch attempt.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13172
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4443
  • Likes Given: 805
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #13 on: 04/07/2013 03:23 pm »
On the ABC Insiders program this morning the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs commented that their might be a North Korean "missile test" on 15 April, the birthday of Kim Il Sung. This "missile test" might be another satellite launch attempt.
The U.S. has delayed a Minuteman 3 test that had long been planned to fly on about the same date. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ap-source-us-delays-minuteman-3-missile-test-amid-rising-tensions-with-north-korea/2013/04/06/c2bd5b3c-9f0a-11e2-9219-51eb8387e8f1_story.html

This could be viewed as (1) a sensible step to defuse tensions, (2) an act of cowardice since U.S. actions would have been modified by North Korean threats, or (3) the USAF deciding to commit all of its tracking assets toward a possible NK test - that, based on North Korean threats to attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons, might or might not be a test.

This week will be dicey.

As for the RV question, NK has IRBMs, which presumably have RVs.  RV technology is well known (you can see them in museums and read about them on the Internet).  They have tested nuclear devices on more than one occasion.  We learned only after it flew that Unha 3 used vernier motor steering.  With that flight they proved more advanced in missilery than the experts believed.  I would not dismiss the ICBM possibility.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/07/2013 03:33 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #14 on: 04/07/2013 03:55 pm »
On the ABC Insiders program this morning the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs commented that their might be a North Korean "missile test" on 15 April, the birthday of Kim Il Sung. This "missile test" might be another satellite launch attempt.
The U.S. has delayed a Minuteman 3 test that had long been planned to fly on about the same date. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ap-source-us-delays-minuteman-3-missile-test-amid-rising-tensions-with-north-korea/2013/04/06/c2bd5b3c-9f0a-11e2-9219-51eb8387e8f1_story.html

This could be viewed as (1) a sensible step to defuse tensions, (2) an act of cowardice since U.S. actions would have been modified by North Korean threats, or (3) the USAF deciding to commit all of its tracking assets toward a possible NK test - that, based on North Korean threats to attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons, might or might not be a test.

This week will be dicey.

As for the RV question, NK has IRBMs, which presumably have RVs.  RV technology is well known (you can see them in museums and read about them on the Internet).  They have tested nuclear devices on more than one occasion.  We learned only after it flew that Unha 3 used vernier motor steering.  With that flight they proved more advanced in missilery than the experts believed.  I would not dismiss the ICBM possibility.

 - Ed Kyle

I would add that the focus on a pure nuke does not look at the possible use of a dirty bomb.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8657
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1125
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #15 on: 04/08/2013 12:42 pm »
Ed.

Thanks for pointing out option 3, that actually makes sense. I had been wondering if the delaying of the MinuteMan III test flight was a group of very green foreign policy people in the White House blinking and realizing countering North Korea tit for tat was only ratcheting things up.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline sentinel

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #16 on: 04/08/2013 01:57 pm »
Thanks for pointing out option 3, that actually makes sense. I had been wondering if the delaying of the MinuteMan III test flight was a group of very green foreign policy people in the White House blinking and realizing countering North Korea tit for tat was only ratcheting things up.

I think the delay is primarily a good will gesture towards Chinas repeated request to defuse the tensions. By simply delaying the MinuteMan III test flight a little bit North Korea's primary and only ally is now praising the USA and condemning North Korea.

If the tensions really escalate South Korea and the USA could handle any North Korean aggression. But if China gets military involved we could see a 1:1 repeat of the Korean war including 4 Mio. deaths. So if I would be in foreign policy I would stop focusing my actions directly towards North Korea (at the moment the won't listen anyway) and do my best to sour relations between China and North Korea.

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3938
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 1033
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #17 on: 04/09/2013 11:08 am »
On the ABC Insiders program this morning the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs commented that their might be a North Korean "missile test" on 15 April, the birthday of Kim Il Sung. This "missile test" might be another satellite launch attempt.
The U.S. has delayed a Minuteman 3 test that had long been planned to fly on about the same date. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ap-source-us-delays-minuteman-3-missile-test-amid-rising-tensions-with-north-korea/2013/04/06/c2bd5b3c-9f0a-11e2-9219-51eb8387e8f1_story.html


The NBC Nightly news mentioned the delay last night and showed video of an Atlas 5 launch while talking about the Minuteman III test delay...  I think they at least had a Vandenberg launch so they got something right.   ???
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: Kwangmyongsong-3, Unha-3 launch, December 12 2012
« Reply #18 on: 04/09/2013 03:10 pm »
On the ABC Insiders program this morning the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs commented that their might be a North Korean "missile test" on 15 April, the birthday of Kim Il Sung. This "missile test" might be another satellite launch attempt.
The U.S. has delayed a Minuteman 3 test that had long been planned to fly on about the same date. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ap-source-us-delays-minuteman-3-missile-test-amid-rising-tensions-with-north-korea/2013/04/06/c2bd5b3c-9f0a-11e2-9219-51eb8387e8f1_story.html


The NBC Nightly news mentioned the delay last night and showed video of an Atlas 5 launch while talking about the Minuteman III test delay...  I think they at least had a Vandenberg launch so they got something right.   ???
You will have to ask JimO about that one since he works for that organization.

Offline mtakala24

Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #19 on: 04/10/2013 12:13 am »
I'm so happy to see me as the thread starter. Well done, moderators.

And the answer about the capabilities of different missiles was also posted via a link to a nice picture that does explain things a lot. Thank you.

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #20 on: 04/10/2013 08:44 am »
Somehow I doubt that they are going to launch something into orbit this time - all reports of US intelligence are focusing on shorter range missiles on NK's south-east coast, not the place intended for larger rockets.
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline Comet

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #21 on: 04/10/2013 10:39 am »
I find it a little bit strange, that NO satellite pictures were obtained by the world media.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19070
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6966
  • Likes Given: 956
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #22 on: 04/11/2013 07:50 am »
Yes, the commercial spy satellites should have overflown the eastern launch sites by now. I guess we'll have to wait a few more days before we know if this "missile crisis" is real or not.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #23 on: 04/12/2013 01:24 am »
Yes, the commercial spy satellites should have overflown the eastern launch sites by now. I guess we'll have to wait a few more days before we know if this "missile crisis" is real or not.

could be oh too real. A US DoD unclassified report got into the news.  The north could have small atomic bombs.
 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57579206/u.s-intel-nkorea-has-nuclear-bomb-small-enough-for-a-missile/
« Last Edit: 04/12/2013 01:27 am by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13172
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4443
  • Likes Given: 805
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #24 on: 04/12/2013 01:50 am »
A US DoD unclassified report got into the news.  The north could have small atomic bombs.
 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57579206/u.s-intel-nkorea-has-nuclear-bomb-small-enough-for-a-missile/
This should not be a surprise.  They've developed missiles.  Clearly they would be working on warheads.  They've been working on all of this stuff for many years now.

Now, can we dispense with the fiction that North Korea could only reach California with a missile?  Why would they bother to develop such a useless weapon?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 219
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #25 on: 04/12/2013 02:29 am »
This should not be a surprise.  They've developed missiles.  Clearly they would be working on warheads.  They've been working on all of this stuff for many years now.

Now, can we dispense with the fiction that North Korea could only reach California with a missile?  Why would they bother to develop such a useless weapon?

 - Ed Kyle

Because they're developing incrementally? Also, 12% of the population of the US is in California, along with the second largest metropolitan area.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11502
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 6980
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #26 on: 04/12/2013 04:59 am »
This should not be a surprise.  They've developed missiles.  Clearly they would be working on warheads.  They've been working on all of this stuff for many years now.

Now, can we dispense with the fiction that North Korea could only reach California with a missile?  Why would they bother to develop such a useless weapon?

 - Ed Kyle

Because they're developing incrementally? Also, 12% of the population of the US is in California, along with the second largest metropolitan area.

And Vandenburg. And SpaceX (you know we had to work a SpaceX reference in to this thread SOMEHOW)

My read is that there hasn't been the mobilization of conventional forces that you would expect to see if a war was actually in the offing, and even the most insane Dear Boy has to know that if he actually starts a war that's the end of North Korea as we know it.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8804
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3803
  • Likes Given: 903
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13172
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4443
  • Likes Given: 805
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #28 on: 04/12/2013 05:15 pm »
Now, can we dispense with the fiction that North Korea could only reach California with a missile?  Why would they bother to develop such a useless weapon?
 - Ed Kyle
Because they're developing incrementally? Also, 12% of the population of the US is in California, along with the second largest metropolitan area.
Los Angeles is 9,580 air-kilometers from Pyongyang.  Chicago is 10,464 km.  But we're led to believe that Chicago is unreachable.  Why? 

Because, I believe, someone, unable to be certain of the actual range, picked 10,000 km as a theoretical range.  And that was based on the now-debunked idea that NK would not have a light warhead.

Unha 3 weighed 91 tonnes at liftoff.

Thor-Able, first flown in 1958, weighed just under 52 tonnes and could boost a 318 kg test reentry vehicle (the RV part of which was so light that it had to carry ballast) to a range of 10,137 km.  It became apparent to some that Thor-Able could be made into an ICBM with even longer range (they even named it "Thoric"), but USAF quashed that idea.

If the U.S. could do that with such a small rocket in 1958, there is no reason North Korea could not do it today with more mass to play with.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/12/2013 05:19 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9654
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 465
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #29 on: 04/12/2013 06:19 pm »
Note that the mid range Mususdan missiles is allegedly based on the R-27 SLBM, which cannot be moved once fueled.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5931
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 2391
  • Likes Given: 1820
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #30 on: 04/15/2013 07:22 pm »
How North Korea Tipped Its Hand

By Eli Lake | The Daily Beast

Quote
When North Korean engineers launched a satellite into space on December 12, it seemed like business as usual, with the familiar cycle of condemnations from the west and statements of defiance from the Hermit Kingdom. But that launch also led many U.S. intelligence analysts to assess that Pyongyang possessed the ability to miniaturize the components necessary to yield a nuclear explosion for a crude warhead that would sit atop a ballistic missile.
After the North Korean launch, U.S. Navy ships managed to recover the front section of the rocket used in it, according to three U.S. officials who work closely on North Korean proliferation. That part of the rocket in turn provided useful clues about North Korean warhead design, should the next payload be a warhead rather than a satellite.

http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-tipped-hand-084500657--politics.html
Tony De La Rosa

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13172
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4443
  • Likes Given: 805
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #31 on: 04/16/2013 01:24 am »
How North Korea Tipped Its Hand

By Eli Lake | The Daily Beast

Quote
When North Korean engineers launched a satellite into space on December 12, it seemed like business as usual, with the familiar cycle of condemnations from the west and statements of defiance from the Hermit Kingdom. But that launch also led many U.S. intelligence analysts to assess that Pyongyang possessed the ability to miniaturize the components necessary to yield a nuclear explosion for a crude warhead that would sit atop a ballistic missile.
After the North Korean launch, U.S. Navy ships managed to recover the front section of the rocket used in it, according to three U.S. officials who work closely on North Korean proliferation. That part of the rocket in turn provided useful clues about North Korean warhead design, should the next payload be a warhead rather than a satellite.

http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-tipped-hand-084500657--politics.html
Hard to decipher this report.  The "front section" - does that mean the second stage, or the payload fairing?  We already knew that South Korea recovered the first stage.

Or did the Navy really recover wreckage from the failed April launch?  That could have included the upper stage, guidance system, fairing, and so on.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/16/2013 02:08 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9654
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 465
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #32 on: 04/16/2013 04:14 pm »
How North Korea Tipped Its Hand

By Eli Lake | The Daily Beast

Quote
When North Korean engineers launched a satellite into space on December 12, it seemed like business as usual, with the familiar cycle of condemnations from the west and statements of defiance from the Hermit Kingdom. But that launch also led many U.S. intelligence analysts to assess that Pyongyang possessed the ability to miniaturize the components necessary to yield a nuclear explosion for a crude warhead that would sit atop a ballistic missile.
After the North Korean launch, U.S. Navy ships managed to recover the front section of the rocket used in it, according to three U.S. officials who work closely on North Korean proliferation. That part of the rocket in turn provided useful clues about North Korean warhead design, should the next payload be a warhead rather than a satellite.


Most of us here know that any part of a satellite launcher/missile that would touch the payload/warhead would enter orbit along with the satellite, and not be accessible to the US Navy.

IF, however, the article is referring to the "top" of the second stage, ie the interface with the third stage, and assuming that this would be the interface with some warhead, well, then that warhead would be attached to a 2 stage missile, which probably cannot launch a warhead more than a few thousand kilometers.


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13172
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4443
  • Likes Given: 805
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #33 on: 04/17/2013 04:04 am »
Most of us here know that any part of a satellite launcher/missile that would touch the payload/warhead would enter orbit along with the satellite, and not be accessible to the US Navy.
Which is why I'm wondering if the recovery really occurred after the failed April 2012 launch.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9654
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 465
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #34 on: 04/17/2013 04:24 am »
Most of us here know that any part of a satellite launcher/missile that would touch the payload/warhead would enter orbit along with the satellite, and not be accessible to the US Navy.
Which is why I'm wondering if the recovery really occurred after the failed April 2012 launch.

 - Ed Kyle

The logic behind the news story is that there is an assertion that North Korea has a miniaturized nuclear weapon, based on recovered payload adapter material. Since we know that the 3 stage design features a small 3rd stage, it doesn't require recovery of a payload adapter/interstage to know that the 3rd stage is small.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19070
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6966
  • Likes Given: 956
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #35 on: 04/17/2013 08:12 am »
Well, its April 17 and two days past Kim Il Sung's birthday. Were there any fireworks or is the "missile crisis" over for now?
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #36 on: 04/17/2013 05:15 pm »
Well, its April 17 and two days past Kim Il Sung's birthday. Were there any fireworks or is the "missile crisis" over for now?
hard to say since media is still mainly focusing on Boston bombs attack.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #37 on: 04/17/2013 10:24 pm »
Well, its April 17 and two days past Kim Il Sung's birthday. Were there any fireworks or is the "missile crisis" over for now?
hard to say since media is still mainly focusing on Boston bombs attack.

far from over, just watched SKorea news....north won't let food trucks in for S.K employees stuck in industrial zone.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 488
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #38 on: 04/17/2013 11:05 pm »
It looks like South Koreans are allowed to travel from Kaesong back home, but not the other way around: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/03/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html. So North Korea isn't actually threatening to kill them.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2013 11:08 pm by deltaV »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: North Korean missile crisis of 2013
« Reply #39 on: 07/23/2013 12:30 pm »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Tags: