5 ms·

speculation as to why the rocket test have been failing? 88% failure rate is pretty dramatic.

jedimastert 10y ago
Apparently, the prevailing theory is a program to cyber-sabotage the launch systems[0]. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-program-sabotage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi...
- accountface 10y ago
  It also seems crazy to me that we'd be successful at sabotage 88% of the time
  - manicdee 10y ago
    Well, it could be 11 agencies each being successful about 10% of the time?
- mulmen 10y ago
  That seems to be a preferable approach since space lasers would require allowing NK to build a functional missile in the first place. If it is possible to sabotage the actual design at some critical point they can be prevented from creating functional missiles at all.
- mc32 10y ago
  I wonder if they could go the next step and make it fall back on Mr Kim's compound --then he'd suspect one of two things, his own people were trying to get him or-- as adversary had critically compromised his systems. Both scenarios would be equally devastating for his goals. Scuttling them at sea is nice and all --having them go up and straight back down would present the regime with quite a problem.
  - tim333 10y ago
    That would be an interesting solution to the North Korean problem if the missile was armed.
dwringer 10y ago
Directed energy weapons used similar to the way kidney stones are dissolved. Several weaker signals constructively interfere directly at the location of the target providing a destructive amount of energy but without a single traceable point of origin?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rangibaby 10y ago
Building rockets is hard, even if you know what you are doing. Neither Russia nor PRC have any interest in DPRK developing their nuclear arsenal. DPRK is resource-constrained (to say the least), and that's not just about money.
pps43 10y ago
Not really. In the first two years (from May 1957 to May 1959), R-7 had 56% failure rate (23 launches, 13 failures). It is now one of the most reliable rockets.

Apparently, the prevailing theory is a program to cyber-sabotage the launch systems[0]. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-program-sabotage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi...

accountface 10y ago
It also seems crazy to me that we'd be successful at sabotage 88% of the time
- manicdee 10y ago
  Well, it could be 11 agencies each being successful about 10% of the time?
mulmen 10y ago
That seems to be a preferable approach since space lasers would require allowing NK to build a functional missile in the first place. If it is possible to sabotage the actual design at some critical point they can be prevented from creating functional missiles at all.
mc32 10y ago
I wonder if they could go the next step and make it fall back on Mr Kim's compound --then he'd suspect one of two things, his own people were trying to get him or-- as adversary had critically compromised his systems. Both scenarios would be equally devastating for his goals. Scuttling them at sea is nice and all --having them go up and straight back down would present the regime with quite a problem.
- tim333 10y ago
  That would be an interesting solution to the North Korean problem if the missile was armed.

dwringer 10y ago

Directed energy weapons used similar to the way kidney stones are dissolved. Several weaker signals constructively interfere directly at the location of the target providing a destructive amount of energy but without a single traceable point of origin?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rangibaby 10y ago

Building rockets is hard, even if you know what you are doing. Neither Russia nor PRC have any interest in DPRK developing their nuclear arsenal. DPRK is resource-constrained (to say the least), and that's not just about money.

pps43 10y ago

Not really. In the first two years (from May 1957 to May 1959), R-7 had 56% failure rate (23 launches, 13 failures). It is now one of the most reliable rockets.