| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| Build-up to the TaepÂ’o-dong-2C/3 Satellite Launch Attempt |
| 2006-07-06 |
| Via StrategyPage commenter. Excerpt: This may also indicate that the launch vehicle may not be using large base fins as illustrated below but instead is using gimbals mounted vernier thrust chambers for steering like the No-dong-B uses. This would place this booster in the Russian SS-7/R-16, ICBM design technology category. In retrospect, this appears to have been the real purpose of the North Korean so-called self-imposed testing moratorium in order to buy time to develop this better performance launch vehicle design and with no intentions of doing otherwise. The moratorium was a successful shell game on the World stage with all of its implications. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #2 He confirms the speculation here about the propellants and the cluster induced vibration... it would appear to be a possible propulsion clustering and are evenly divided between highly toxic, corrosive, hypergolic UDMH (Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine) and IRFNA (Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid) propellants |
| Posted by: john 2006-07-06 19:52 |
| #1 The third missile launch, which occured at 4:01 PM, was either a Taep’o-dong-2A or 2B and or 2C/3 configuration that failed between 30 and 60 seconds of launch according to initial reports. Indications are that the telemetry was lost between 50-52 seconds perhaps due to its break-up or possibly sea impact. According to DoD, sources and White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, based on telemetry, it failed between 35-40-42 seconds into the launch over the Musudan-ri (No-dong-A/Taep’o-dong-2) launch infrastructure since it only for burned 42 seconds. . . . This launch failure is indicative of a characteristic max–Q maximum dynamic pressure failure mid-air tilting over folding break-up taking several seconds of in flight catastrophic disassembly. Speculating a little further, it would appear to be a possible propulsion clustering and or Vernier steering control authority, guidance loss of control failure by the first stage which should have burned between 112-120-130 seconds depending on which configuration was launched as the final design. A part of me is in geek heaven reading stuff like that! I wonder if it wasn't an airframe failure because the structure wasn't strong enough to take the aerodynamic stress at Max-Q. That open truss interstage looks awfully flimsy in the diagram. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-07-06 15:21 |