Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why did North Korea’s rocket launch fail?
Electronic Products ^ | 4/18/12 | JEFFREY BAUSCH

Posted on 04/18/2012 12:32:29 PM PDT by null and void

A lot was made of the launch, but everyone quickly realized that it was all much ado about nothing.

Late last week, North Korea launched its controversial Unha-3 rocket despite heavy protests from some of the world’s largest powers, including the U.S., Britain, and Japan. After about one minute of flight, though, the 100-foot rocket exploded and its parts fell into the Yellow Sea.


North Korea’s Unha-3 rocket during in the midst of takeoff (Via: csmonitor.com)

The Unha-3, based on the TaepoDong-2 missile, was jointly developed by North Korean and Iranian rocket engineers. It was meant to fly south, to the west of the Korean peninsula between Japan and the Philippines. Upon review of its flight, experts believe that the rocket likely exploded due to severe vibrations at Max Q, or maximum dynamic air pressure.

More specifically, Max Q is the point where aerodynamic stress on the rocket as it is traveling through the atmosphere is at its greatest. The rocket created by the North Korea-Iran team was unable to throttle itself up or down to relieve said stresses and as a result, it splintered into several pieces and fell into the water below.

According to US NORTHCOM, the actual launch of the rocket lasted just a few minutes, before first stage pieces dropped into the sea about 102.5 miles west of Seoul, South Korea; the agency also reported that the missile’s other two stages failed as well, luckily with no debris falling on land.

Insight on the launch

The South Korean government estimates that their controversial neighbor to the north spent an estimated $450 million (USD) on the failed test.

The timing of the launch was meant to honor the 100th anniversary of Kim Il-sung’s birth, grandfather to Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s current dictator. There was a lot of tension surrounding the event, with many of the aforementioned countries claiming that a satellite attached to the rocket was a cover for what was clearly a long-range missile test. Their argument was that the test violated UN resolutions on nuclear and missile activity.

According to North Korea, however, the launch was meant to place a satellite into a 310-mile circular polar orbit.

Failure fallout

The failure of the launch is made even more humiliating because of all the attention that the country had received surrounding the event itself. The government even went so far as to invite a group of foreign press to visit the launch site and missile command and control center prior to the rocket’s blastoff.

Many of those invited reported afterwards that government briefers were no longer available for comment after the rocket exploded. It is now feared that the scientists and engineers associated with the rocket will face prison sentences or death as scapegoats for the project’s failure.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Good. They haven't figured out the real cause.
1 posted on 04/18/2012 12:32:31 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: null and void

” Why did North Korea’s rocket launch fail? “

‘North Korea’ - ‘fail’ — asked and answered...


2 posted on 04/18/2012 12:34:38 PM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
"...the scientists and engineers associated with the rocket will face prison sentences or death as scapegoats for the project’s failure."

That'll do wonders for the esprit de corps of the bunch tasked with designing/launching the next one.

3 posted on 04/18/2012 12:41:00 PM PDT by SnuffaBolshevik (In a tornado, even turkeys can fly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
It is now feared that the scientists and engineers associated with the rocket will face prison.

I'm real worried.

On the plus side I don't think the 'B' team will fare much better. They should probably offer them a cheeseburger as a reward.

4 posted on 04/18/2012 12:41:26 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

It would have been absolutely hilarious if it had veered off course and landed in China.


5 posted on 04/18/2012 12:42:33 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
It is now feared hoped that the scientists and engineers associated with the rocket will face prison sentences or death as scapegoats for the project’s failure.

The Germans had a number of failures before they succeeded at Peenemunde. One thing they did have was great teamwork and a relative absence of political interference. (Von Braun was arrested by the Gestapo once, but his boss managed to get him released. For such a high profile program, they had relatively little political interference.)

6 posted on 04/18/2012 12:43:46 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Queeg Olbermann: Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Are you kidding? Do you realize what "lowest bidder" means in North Korea??!?
7 posted on 04/18/2012 12:45:29 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Why did North Korea’s rocket launch fail?

The passengers on board didn't provide enough juche!


8 posted on 04/18/2012 12:48:31 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (FUMR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

Anyone want to lay a bet that a member of the Iranian team was Israeli?


9 posted on 04/18/2012 12:58:22 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Solyent Pink is Sheeple!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: null and void

10 posted on 04/18/2012 1:00:38 PM PDT by Ben Mugged ("Life's tough..... It's even tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
I bet if they asked this guy



he could tell them exactly what the problem is!
11 posted on 04/18/2012 1:11:05 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

LOVE the donger


12 posted on 04/18/2012 1:24:52 PM PDT by jrg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Vanguard, Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia...

We had our share of failures. Blessedly few, though, considering the mind-boggling complexity of the whole endeavor.

It doesn’t help you get better if you shoot all of the top scientists and engineers and have to start all over. That kind of brain drain is hard to overcome. (pun intended)


13 posted on 04/18/2012 1:54:26 PM PDT by SargeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: null and void
One of the pre-launch videos I saw showed a few guys standing around the rocket and one guy had his hand through a small hatch in the side like he was tightening or spinning something. I though to myself, that's not a good sign there.
14 posted on 04/18/2012 2:06:39 PM PDT by One_American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
They should probably offer them a cheeseburger as a reward.

Which would be made from....

(Consider at this point the example of the learning flatworms.)

15 posted on 04/18/2012 2:07:24 PM PDT by Erasmus (BHO: New supreme leader of the homey rollin' empire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: null and void
The Unha-3, based on the TaepoDong-2 missile, was jointly developed by North Korean and Iranian rocket engineers.

Having Iranian help with their missile program begs the question why have they not transitioned to solid fuel and eliminated all of the jiggity pokery required to make liquid fuel work? The Iranians have already done it and our non-cruse missiles are all solid fueled.

Regards,
GtG

16 posted on 04/18/2012 3:09:08 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SargeK

Having worked on large scale technical efforts, I understand the need to set goals, have schedules and consequences. I also recall at the end of the Cold War, with lots of lay-offs, the fear of failure had a distinctly counter-productive effect. No one would own up to mistakes, or take any risks. More time and money was spent on recriminations and blame ducking than solving problems and getting things done.


17 posted on 04/18/2012 3:58:56 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Queeg Olbermann: Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: null and void

We can only hope this sets them back a good while.


18 posted on 04/18/2012 4:58:12 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

It’s a lot easier to precisely control a liquid fueled rocket, plus you probably get better energy density. The advantage of solid fuel is that it is a “sealed round”, you take it off the shelf and shoot it. Liquid fuel needs maintenance and lead time to fuel. Soviet ICBMs were liquid fueled and were nightmares in terms of maintenance.


19 posted on 04/18/2012 5:09:50 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Queeg Olbermann: Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Erasmus

Maybe Obama would share some of the Dog Meat in his freezer.


20 posted on 04/18/2012 6:40:55 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SnuffaBolshevik

Re: That’ll do wonders for the esprit de corps of the bunch tasked with designing/launching the next one.

The beatings will continue until moral improves


21 posted on 04/18/2012 7:02:39 PM PDT by jesseam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
It’s a lot easier to precisely control a liquid fueled rocket, plus you probably get better energy density. The advantage of solid fuel is that it is a “sealed round”, you take it off the shelf and shoot it. Liquid fuel needs maintenance and lead time to fuel. Soviet ICBMs were liquid fueled and were nightmares in terms of maintenance.

Precise control of a liquid fueled rocket is somewhat problematic, most are designed to run flat out and do not allow throttling back thrust output. They do allow cutting thrust completely but do not allow a restart. Solid fueled rockets may be controlled by employing thrust reverser's and case pressure venting.

Yes, the energy density is better with liquid fuels but when you take into account the added mass of the plumbing and turbo pumps with their own fuel supply and ancillary hardware, the actual advantage is not that much.

Your summery of the advantages/disadvantages is on the button except you left something out. The probability of failure of a mechanism is directly proportional to the number of parts making up the assembly (for want of a nail...). Yes, maintenance can help ease the problem but in the final analysis complexity is the death of reliability.

US missile technology started with solid fuel (Honest John, Pershing) moved to liquid fuel (Redstone, Atlas, Titan) and back to solid fuel (Polaris, Minuteman, and various "Standard" Missiles) with some Titan variants being hybrids with hypergolic main engines and solid boosters. Problems with hypergolic fuel led the US to go solid across the board (a dropped wrench caused a Titan to explode in it's silo and toss it's nuclear package 800 feet it the air w/no damage!).

Regards,
GtG

22 posted on 04/19/2012 12:05:42 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson