-
#440
by
VernierLover
on 08 Dec, 2017 14:02
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/nknewsorg/status/939061056709808128?p=vMore satelites launches, they plan to place in near future over 1000kg satelite into GSO/GEO which would require space launch vehicle larger and more powerful than Tsyklon, Delta or Atlas series.
Before that earth observation satellite over 100kg with resolution of several meters, more than two less than 10 meters if I had to guess. Good enough to spot/track aircraft carrier like Ronald Reagan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_ReaganThis 256 by 256 pixel image should give us a rough idea at amount of detail they could see:
They will have no problem knowing exactly where it is while inside FOV of the satellite.
-
#441
by
Danderman
on 11 Dec, 2017 03:20
-
HS-15 is about 50 percent of a Cosmos-3 class launcher, so it would be limited to payloads to low orbit of 500 - 700 kg. Most recon birds go to very high inclination orbits, and that reduces payload further.
Right now, NK has problems just getting a small satellite to work, let alone a sophisticated recon sat.
As always, I am talking about near term, not in that future where we are all living on Mars, and NK has an SS-18 class ICBM.
-
#442
by
VernierLover
on 11 Dec, 2017 13:37
-
-
#443
by
kevin-rf
on 11 Dec, 2017 14:46
-
If that happens to be accurate estimate than solid fuel ICBM is not far off.
If they get the SLBM to work, why not just use that as their ground based IRBM/ICBM (I think the range is a little short if the real target is the US main land, but puts all of NK's other classic enemies at risk).
Never understood the separate program philosophy, yes an SLBM will cost more, but more than the development costs of two rocket programs?
-
#444
by
VernierLover
on 11 Dec, 2017 15:02
-
If they get the SLBM to work, why not just use that as their ground based IRBM/ICBM (I think the range is a little short if the real target is the US main land, but puts all of NK's other classic enemies at risk).
Never understood the separate program philosophy, yes an SLBM will cost more, but more than the development costs of two rocket programs?
Pukguksong-1 is SLBM, Pukguksong-2 is GLBM of Pukguksong-1 and Pukguksong-3 is direct successor to Pukguksong-1 thus if pattern repeats then Pukguksong-4 could be GLICBM.
*GL as ground launched
That 8-axle TEL and also MEL had containers on them thus it is already in motion.
Added 3 meters would mean its nearly 10.5 meters long so I expect 15-16 meter long ground variant that puts west coast in range.
-
#445
by
Silmfeanor
on 11 Dec, 2017 15:13
-
http://special.tass.ru/politika/2688450
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/NKorea/Kwangmyongsong4ndot2.php
http://www.northkoreatech.org/2016/03/03/north-koreas-satellite-caught-on-camera/
http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20170510009000315&site=0400000000&mobile
What problem? It works and spatial resolution is good enough to spot aircraft carrier.
Did you actually read those links, and paid attention to the dates? The source of the released images are unclear; the zarya.info gives no estimates of actual transmissions, or how the height compare to random noise from other satellites, and explicitely has the heading "Is Kwangmyongsong 4 Alive? That is a big question. ". The Tass.ru image merely finds a trackable object in space, and has no indication whether it works, or not. Timer-based solar panel deploy is something different from working ground control and changing orbital inclinations after weeks, months or years - normal lifespan for sats. So i'd be very hesitant to characterize that satellite as working based on the evidence presented. At most, you could conclude it 'worked' for a few days based on the (presumed) solar panel deployment or stabilization system kicking in - changes in orbit which could also be caused by say a pressure vessel failing, or a battery depressurizing.
Certainly the statement 'they have no trouble' is not supported by that evidence.
It is far more likely to see North Korean on moon before first human lands on Mars.
I'd like to see your argument for this, but it'd be off-topic. Let me just instead say - I very much doubt that.
-
#446
by
VernierLover
on 11 Dec, 2017 16:44
-
Did you actually read those links, and paid attention to the dates? The source of the released images are unclear; the zarya.info gives no estimates of actual transmissions, or how the height compare to random noise from other satellites, and explicitely has the heading "Is Kwangmyongsong 4 Alive? That is a big question. ". The Tass.ru image merely finds a trackable object in space, and has no indication whether it works, or not. Timer-based solar panel deploy is something different from working ground control and changing orbital inclinations after weeks, months or years - normal lifespan for sats. So i'd be very hesitant to characterize that satellite as working based on the evidence presented. At most, you could conclude it 'worked' for a few days based on the (presumed) solar panel deployment or stabilization system kicking in - changes in orbit which could also be caused by say a pressure vessel failing, or a battery depressurizing.
Certainly the statement 'they have no trouble' is not supported by that evidence.
Yes, yes, yes... Sure, pretend that I didn't read all of that if that makes you happy and further more ignore statement of Russian official or you didn't ever to bother to use google translate as I did and thankful translation from Russian to Croatian is perfect.
"Equipment on this craft is active/working/turned on. - he added"
i'd like to see your argument for this, but it'd be off-topic. Let me just instead say - I very much doubt that.
People very much doubted about everything about North Korea with exception anything negative about it without dose of skepticism and those missile failures are primarily for Hwasong-10 submerged closed-cycle gas generator turbopump staged combustion engine which is insanity for North Koreans to try make it work when it was pain in the ass for Russians and west would simply say no to that. That engine is 4D10, overengineered complex engine and to think Hwasong-13 was to have pair of that makes me shiver.
What they learned from that surely was beneficial to engines used in Hwasong 12, 14 and 15 due to remarkable reliability of the engine, they may revisit staged combustion in future.
4D10 is much smaller engine while consumes equally per kilonewton as RD-250 and general rule is the bigger the more efficient it is.
Also as many experts and analysts noted, Hwasong-15's engine has individualy gimballed combustors, North Korea managed to match Russians in terms of having single turbopump feeding two combustor chambers that can move.
-
#447
by
K210
on 13 Dec, 2017 10:58
-
I would not be surprised if north korea soft landed on the moon within the next decade. Now that their missile and nuclear programs are at mature level they can transfer some of the tech and resources back into their space program.
I think 2018 will see some interesting developments in terms of NK's space technology.
-
#448
by
VernierLover
on 14 Dec, 2017 11:23
-
I would not be surprised if north korea soft landed on the moon within the next decade. Now that their missile and nuclear programs are at mature level they can transfer some of the tech and resources back into their space program.
I think 2018 will see some interesting developments in terms of NK's space technology.
It is possible under very aggressive schedule on the level of Cold War's space race that by end of 2018 they send satellite into GEO/GSO and satellite to orbit moon while aim to soft land by 2020 to place small drone rover and or flag on it.
They almost launched satellite in 1998, Unha 2/3 3 failures until it worked and wish they continued with Paektusan which is far smaller rocket far less resource intensive.
-
#449
by
Danderman
on 16 Dec, 2017 01:56
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/mattis-north-korea-icbm/index.htmlMattis says NK ICBM cannot strike the US mainland.
How to square this statement with the obvious improvement in ICBM tech in NK? Either Mattis is saying that NK does not have a weaponized nuke yet, or the NK ICBM is flying with no significant payload. It is possible that DoD is not detecting any transmissions from test flights after payload separation, or there is no payload separation. I don't recall seeing any separation between upper stage impact sites and payload impact sites. Perhaps the second stage is mostly incinerated during re-entry, but some debris should still impact the ocean, and should be distinguishable from the payload. Unless the payload does not separate.
For that matter, the payload fairing should be separating at relatively low speeds, where are they landing? Or do they not separate?
BTW, with these near vertical flights, I am surprised that the first stages are not being recovered, since they fly with lower velocity than a ballistic flight.
-
#450
by
Zed_Noir
on 16 Dec, 2017 12:43
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/mattis-north-korea-icbm/index.html
Mattis says NK ICBM cannot strike the US mainland.
<snip>
BTW, with these near vertical flights, I am surprised that the first stages are not being recovered, since they fly with lower velocity than a ballistic flight.
Presume that extreme flight termination to prevent recovery by South Koreans, Japan and US. IIRC the rockets landed in or near International waters.
-
#451
by
WulfTheSaxon
on 17 Dec, 2017 16:26
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/mattis-north-korea-icbm/index.html
Mattis says NK ICBM cannot strike the US mainland.
How to square this statement with the obvious improvement in ICBM tech in NK? Either Mattis is saying that NK does not have a weaponized nuke yet, or the NK ICBM is flying with no significant payload.
I’d say the latter for now. There’s definitely room between weaponized and small enough to fit on an early ICBM (as opposed to something that could hit South Korea/Japan, or Guam/Hawaii).
It is possible that DoD is not detecting any transmissions from test flights after payload separation, or there is no payload separation.
But is that even necessary?
BTW, with these near vertical flights, I am surprised that the first stages are not being recovered, since they fly with lower velocity than a ballistic flight.
What Zed_Noir said, or else they
are being recovered and we just don’t know…
-
#452
by
Danderman
on 19 Dec, 2017 16:52
-
For test flights, usually there is telemetry for all stages of flight. It’s hard to determine the CEP of a system if you don’t know where it lands.
-
#453
by
Websorber
on 23 Dec, 2017 15:06
-
-
#454
by
Skyrocket
on 03 Jan, 2018 18:03
-
-
#455
by
Danderman
on 04 Jan, 2018 10:03
-
Was this previously reported as an HS-10 launch failure?
-
#456
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 05 Jan, 2018 01:22
-
Was this previously reported as an HS-10 launch failure?
I don't think so. My records had this as HS-12. There might have been a HS-10 failure on 22 March 2017.
-
#457
by
Websorber
on 05 Jan, 2018 07:36
-
-
#458
by
Websorber
on 07 Jan, 2018 17:34
-
-
#459
by
Star One
on 07 Jan, 2018 18:27
-
That first image is missing its text.