It is often very hard to ferret out hard information from media reports. That is why it is so nice to be associated with so many hard working wonk-readers who pick up real information. Wonk-reader Tal Inbar sends these two sets of photos (the above and a montage of images) of the launch of one of the missiles the DPRK launched this weekend. It is obviously a two stage rocket with the second stage having a slightly smaller diameter than the first. I assume it is the “increased accuracy” missile some news reports have mentioned. More analysis will, I hope, follow. Anyway, thanks Tal!
Azr@el | July 6, 2009
Gimbaled!
Jochen Schischka | July 6, 2009
Wow!
Indeed, thank you very much, Tal!
It’s hard to say from these photos (especially without any indicator for size), but i think it’s possible that this thing is based on the two upper stages of the Eunha/U’nha/Taep’odong-B/Taep’odong-2/whatever-you-like-to-call-it (i get a diameter ratio second stage/first stage of ~0.8, and that would be roughly consistent with diameters of 1.5 and 1.25m).
Considering the engine: i’d suggest that this looks like a liquid fueled one with film-cooling by a nitric-acid-based oxidiser; I also wouldn’t exclude a hydrazine-derivative as fuel component and, as strange as that may sound, steering by a gimballed engine.
But, of course, this is only a quick preliminary analysis and i could be wrong. Hopefully, better pictures of this device will be available soon.
Andrew Tubbiolo | July 6, 2009
Wow, look at the amplitude of the gimbal swings! Is that control system bring run too loose, or is the prop sloshing far more than they thought it would? Maybe they computed the wrong slosh modes for launch?
Jochen Schischka | July 6, 2009
There’s a video of the launch on youtube, look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS0T7accVGQ
Geoff Forden | July 6, 2009
Thanks Jochen,
The impression I get from the video, which is very short on its coverage of this new missile, is that it is undergoing a very, very steep pitch-over program very close to the ground and not suffering from a guidance issue. It seems too sustained and too purposeful for a correction. Of course, it could be having real guidance issues already but if that is the case, it seems doubtful that they would show even this brief clip. Hopefully, we will see more footage that clarifies this.
Tal Inbar | July 6, 2009
A few comments;
1. I don’t know WHEN this missile was launched. I SPECULATE that this is a video of the failed July 2006 launch.
2. I don’t know if the NK deliberately gave this footage to AP. I THINK it might not be done in purpose, or in other words – It could be a mistake.
3. I think that the trajectory (the aggresive thrust vectoring) is deliberate; it is consistence with the purpose of the missile – BALLISTIC missile for military applications.
Tal Inbar | July 6, 2009
Norbert Brugge is also dealing with this missile and he also created (simplified) drawing of the beast.
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Diverse/N.Korea%20ICBM/ICBM.htm
Geoff Forden | July 6, 2009
Brugge’s drawing seems to indicate a 2 meter diameter first stage. He must be thinking that this is the first two stages of the Unha-2. I have serious doubts about that, though it is true that it appears impossible to get any kind of size scale from the pictures or video. Media reports seem to indicate it had a range of 1200 km. (If so, where did it land? Perhaps the North Koreans fired it rather straight up but then why the large pitch over so close to the ground? Many questions for us to chew over in the coming days!)
Jochen Schischka | July 6, 2009
I, too, disagree with Mr. Brügge’s reconstruction (well, he also thinks that the first stage of the Eunha was a DF-3/CSS-2, although i personally can neither comprehend the diameter nor the external fuel-lines nor the type of engine he postulates…but he sure is fast with excellent pictures!); There is definitely only one (obviously gimballed) engine on the first stage of the new missile, opposed to the multiple engines (i think it’s four) in case of the Eunha.
Also, the exhaust itself looks totally different in my eyes – rather red fumes around the flame instead of black smoke; I interpret this as an effect associated with oxidiser- (i’d mark IRFNA or NTO as hot candidates) instead of fuel-film-cooling.
I’m not sure about this, but additionally, i perceive the exhaust plume as somewhat transparent, indicating some hydrazine-based propellant – again opposed to the opaque exhaust plume of the Eunha.
Oh, and if this is really only one gimballed thrust chamber – how did the North Koreans implement roll-control on this missile? (I suppose there are additional small thrusters mounted tangentially – maybe in external housings near the top of the first stage?)
This new missile (any name yet?) is perhaps a confirmation of what i started to suspect as the first pictures of the Eunha-2 got available: It’s not only one distinct missile, but a whole family of missiles – all in one!
nobody | July 6, 2009
This is a South Korean “Red Shark” VLA (vertical launched Asroc) Replacement see google for details.
nobody | July 6, 2009
The “Korean Anti-Submarine Missile,” or KASM, will be deployed on the country’s most advanced destroyers starting next year after mass production, the state-run Agency for Defense Development (ADD) said.
The KASM, which can travel about 20 kilometers in the air, carries a lightweight torpedo that is unleashed into the water to find and destroy a target, ADD officials said.
Similar to the U.S.-made Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket, or VLA, the Korean-made rocket comes after nine years of development that cost nearly US$80 million, Bae Yeon-sook, an ADD developer, said in a briefing.
A 2004-built torpedo dubbed “Blue Shark” is loaded into the missile and parachuted into the water to minimize impact, ADD noted.
“The missile can effectively evade enemy detection because it hits its underwater target after flying over the water,” Bae said.
Each missile, nicknamed “Red Shark,” will cost approximately US$1.5 million, he said. KDX-II and KDX-III destroyers, including the Aegis-guided Sejong the Great, will be capable of carrying the weapon.
Azr@el | July 7, 2009
It’s seems to be the AP’s fault; they mixed up their stock footage, or jazzed it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS0T7accVGQ
You can see the outlined superstructure of the South Korean vessel launching the KASM behind the smoke.
This Deutsch site : http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Diverse/N.Korea%20ICBM/ICBM.htm
picked it up without any critical analysis a la the BM-25 fiasco at Der Spiegel and thus it infected the mainstream discourse.
Good catch “nobody”, for what it’s worth today, in my eyes, you are somebody. And not gimbaled after all, just aggressive use of thrust deflection surfaces, being a small rocket with a short flight time it can get away with the high rate of ablation reasonably well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjPzWa7f2eE
Well back to testing new kracked firmware for my phone, QVGA support here I come.
George William Herbert | July 7, 2009
Hah.
I like it.
2-m diameter ICBM, or 21-in-diameter VLS ASROC?
Play the scale-less photo-interpretation game and find out!
(question for those doing this – what external sources do you have, and has anyone checked the apparent time for this vehicle to climb its own height on liftoff, in the video clip? I am busy and away from the proper tools at the moment…)
nobody | July 7, 2009
ROK: RED SHARK
http://techmanic.com/south-korea-second-in-the-world-to-develop-vertical-launch-anti-submarine-rocket/
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/06/119_47274.html
US: VLA = VERTICAL LAUNCH ASROC (ANTI-SUBMARINE ROCKET)
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/anniversary/jpg/vertical_launch_asroc.jpg
http://www.chinalakealumni.org/IMAGES/1984/ASROC%20VLA%2028JUL84%20CLK%20DN-SC-85-06014.jpg
John McKittrick | July 7, 2009
<i>2-m diameter ICBM, or 21-in-diameter VLS ASROC?</i>
Oh my. The folly of seeing what you really <i>really</i> want to see in a photo. Like a “bulbous fairing” on a “peaceful SLV” that was (mis)identified here pre-launch last April.
Jochen Schischka | July 7, 2009
So it’s a classical newspaper hoax!
And i must admit, i fully fell for it.
But with additional photo-/video-material and/or information, everything gets clearer. The early and hard pitch-over-maneuver makes perfect sense for an ASROC-type missile. What i expected to be a large UDMH/NTO-engine now looks more like a small solid rocket with AMRAAM-like smokeless propellant (never let your mindset influence your judging! Now the “red fumes” and the “transparency” make perfect sense, since this is a typical effect associated with that type of grain). What looked like a second stage on first sight is in fact the payload: a torpedo.
Additionally misleading was the slow-motion video sequence of the launch – in reality, the Hongsangeo takes off like a firecracker.
In retrospect, the paint-job of that missile alone should have rang some alarm-bells (this reminded me somehow of the israeli Arrow-2 from the start on…).
Lesson learned: Never trust the media!
Thanks to nobody (gee, that sounds strange…) for pointing us all in the right direction.
Yale Simkin | July 8, 2009
I hope that the main lesson learned from this fiasco is the need for everyone to have a bit less self-assurance and a bit more humility.
There is a parallel thread where possible rocket parts are misidentified and small-shop machine tools are identified (down to catalog numbers) as high-end precision equipment.
As it has been said: far worse than not knowing something, is knowing something that just happens not to be true.
Geoff Forden | July 8, 2009
Yale, “Fiasco” is way over stating this. We are using this blog to tap the collective analysis skills of the AWC community and, unless you wait until various countries open up their various development programs to international inspectors, there are bound to be mistakes made. But it is a self correcting process, to which your comments add nothing.
Yale Simkin | July 8, 2009
Geoff,
I think it is incredibly important to tap the technical and analytical resources that ACW participants bring to the table.
My last comment was quite specific. I refer ONLY to the occasional overly self-assured statements of fact that, rather than help, hinder analyis.
Maybe because I have a scientific rather than engineering background, I always try to express the tentative and conditional characteristics of our knowledge and conclusions.
Hedging and wiggle-room is an important part of my comments here, which opens rather than closes doors to better understanding.
Fiasco may be a bit strong a term, so let me rather put it as too much unnecessary wheel-spinning. (The search for truth does require a certain amount of wheel-spinning and getting lost in the woods, but being overcertain about matters is shooting oneself in the foot).
I hope this clarifies my (in retrospect) irritated (and irritating) comments.
Azr@el | July 8, 2009
What is the first business of one who practices philosophy? To get rid of self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows. -Ἐπίκτητος; born slave at the holy city, Hierapolis, lived as philospher in the Rome of Caesars and died in exile at Nicopolis, city of Agustus Nike at Actium.
Garnered knowledge as opposed to revealed truth is an iterative process, if you have neither heart for failure nor the attendant mockery abandon scientific and rational pursuits for less rigorous endeavors such as beach bingo volleyball. The only definition of a scientist I’ve ever found particularly apt is “one who can be endure being wrong 99.9% of the time for the hope of being right that 0.1% of the time”.
And because I’m a spiteful person let me add that the definition of someone who believes in Cold Fusion is “Someone who can endure being wrong 100% of the time in hopes that he bumps into another nit willing to be wrong with him”.
Geoff Forden | July 8, 2009
I’m beginning to be sorry I let my vanity show when I answered Yale instead of just posting it. Lets say that no offense was intended and hopefully no offense was taken and move on.
Yale Simkin | July 9, 2009
Geoff – I just realized when I read your post that you think I was referring to you!
No,no,no,no,no!
Your posting is the epitome of quality analysis. There is an deep sense of questioning, a searching for truth, that pervades you work. There is a barely concealed air of excitement in the hunt for understanding.
At no time were my comments directed towards you.
This same misunderstanding happened to me here , and it was equally upsetting.
My (irritable) comments earlier today was aimed at very selected statements made very occasionally by a few people (NOT YOU). My expertise is not in military rocketry, where I only have generalist knowledge of the principles, so I get annoyed at people who mislead me by claiming a certitude where none exists.
And as to “vanity” on your part – it doesn’t apply.
I think it was Dizzy Dean who said, “It ain’t bragging
if you can back it up…”.
And Geoff, you can back it up.
With deepest respect…
Jochen Schischka | July 10, 2009
Yale Simkin:
And to whom exactly were your comments directed at, if i may ask?
I hope it’s not me (please reread my comments on this thread – and take note of my explicit use of expressions like “perhaps”, “it is possible”, “preliminary”, “i’m not sure about this” or “i could be wrong”…)!
BTW, a diameter ratio of 12.75in/15in (KASM Hongsangeo) is in fact rather close to 1.25m/1.5m (Eunha-2/Taep’odong-B second and third stages), isn’t it?
In the wrong pretext (”north korean missile” – thanks for the mistakable video, AP!), misunderstandings like this can happen (the most embarrassing to me personally was to be that wide off the mark with guesses in respect to the type of propellant – but compare pictures of rocket-exhausts of modern “smokeless” solid-fuels, e.g. AMRAAM, Sidewinder etc., with that of NTO/UDMH-fueled russian or chinese missiles, e.g. R-27/SS-N-6, R-29/SS-N-8/SS-N-18/SS-N-23, DF-3/CSS-2 or DF-5/CSS-4! Depending on the conditions at launch/settings of the camera, astonishingly similar results can be observed, but size matters big time in this context, since large missiles usually don’t employ that type of solid propellant…while it’s on the other hand normally not worth the effort to design a tiny liquid-fueled engine for a small missile).
Last but not least, it might be advisable if you’d try to put more emphasis on wording your comments more diplomatically in the future if you intend to avoid the appearance of immature schadenfreude…
Azr@el | July 10, 2009
Epikhairekakos is symptomatic of internal deficiencies and as such those individuals exhibiting such exuberance at the missteps of others should be pitied not scolded. That being said, everyone should understand that “open source” analysis is no more an exact practice than it’s closed door brethren. People grope the extremities of the mysterious pachyderm and try to best divine the truth. We present our meager hypothesis and await corrections from those who are either better versed in rocketry, metallurgy or just happen to have better insight into the source data.
This was a perfect case example, everyone had a theory based on “breaking” info, we all jumped in with enthusiasm to unravel this mystery and because everything is open to all someone with superior source information weighed in, thank you “nobody”, and corrected our assumptions. We can all agree a disservice to public knowledge and informed policy debate would be the end result of dampened enthusiasm for this wonderfully insightful site by some unfortunate and perhaps not too unintentinally worded remarks. I for one do not agree with Herr Schischka on many issues, including his attempt to infect English with Deutsch loanwords tsk tsk “schadenfreude” indeed, but everyone recognizes that he speaks from an informed perspective on many topics relating to the core issues of this site and any attempt to rake him over the coals because of this incident is not just unmerited but irreprehnsible. So let us all go forward to the next interesting debate sans petty “gotchas” and more importantly without the fearful inhibitions of “gotchas”.
Yale Simkin | July 11, 2009
I seem to have generated a bit of annoyance.
There is a serious amount of totally unnecessary defensiveness manifesting itself.
I have not named any names, nor ever would. It is NOT directed to any individuals. That is why I mentioned problems in 2 different threads, specifically to avoid singling out anyone – which is not my intent. My intention is totally straightforward, and not directed personally.
Exactly as I said twice now, my concern is the METHOD of bringing “facts” and “insights” to the table, NOT as to whether they stand the test of further input of data. Damn, if being wrong was a virtue, I would have received a couple of Nobel Prizes and a Tony Award by now.
Stumbling through the thickets is how one gets to the Promised Land of understanding. If we already knew the answers, why bother to probe and analyse?
My point is quite specific. An example: suppose you are reseached the distribution by color of stars across the sky.
Imagine reading a description authoritaritively stating that a particular star visible from the southern hemisphere is colored “red”, instead of “it has been reported that the star’s color may be red”.
Now, in the first case, you save the onerous effort of tracking down the information which has been presented as uncontested fact and simply integrating potentailly incorrect information.
The second case, where the uncertainty is declared leads you to fly down to Rio and gaze at the sky – getting a clean set of data.
Nobody needs to get het up over what I have said. It was not meant to target any in particular. I was just flashing some frustration over getting misdirected.
Geoff Forden | July 11, 2009
If anyone has ever doubted the unstoppable forces of escalation, they should follow blog discussions. Hopefully, everyone has had their say. Let us now move on.