6 ms·
Rocket Carrying North Korean Spy Satellite Crashes into Sea
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoWhat's it doing crashing off of the west coast of Korea? If you're trying for orbit, don't you usually launch east, so that you get a boost from earth's rotation? Or did the rocket just malfunction that badly? (Or is the article just wrong on that detail? Or did I read it wrong?)
- Alupis 3y agoA guess would be to avoid Japanese airspace, who promised to shoot down anything flying overhead. That assumes this rocket was actually intended to reach orbit and deposit a real satellite. It seems very ambitious to try to park a satellite in orbit on your very first orbital rocket. Unless I'm missing something?
- BWStearns 3y agoThey've gotten a couple sats to orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unha
- ancientworldnow 3y agoThey put their first satellite in orbit in 2012 confirmed by NORAD. This is not the first launch of a satellite, only a "spy satellite." Honestly, feels like a concerted media effort to stoke panic about North Korea. Japan and South Korea acted like they didn't know was happening publicly (alarms etc) despite being informed of the launch publicly days before as reported in the media.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago> Japan and South Korea acted like they didn't know was happening publicly (alarms etc) despite being informed of the launch publicly days before as reported in the media. They may have known it was happening, but once the launch malfunctioned, they didn't know where it was going.
- bink 3y agoAnd I don't think either side trusts the other when they say "we're launching a rocket near you but not at you".
- bonestamp2 3y agoNot to mention, they have to trust that they're actually telling the truth because it's basically an ICBM with a satellite as a payload (instead of an explosive weapon). Heck, it could still be both. Since it's a hostile party launching it, they have to treat it as if it's a weapon before it even launches (such as warning they'll shoot it down if it's in their airspace).
- oh_sigh 3y agoTheir launch complex is in the far west of the country, and directly east does cross over portions of Korea Bay(/Yellow Sea). Or, I guess, they could have been going for a polar orbit. 39.65974870373334, 124.70613853508173
- wkat4242 3y agoIt was launched from Tonghae which is in the east right?
- oh_sigh 3y agoTonghae is in the far east, but per the article it was launched from Sohae Satellite Launching Ground.
- wkat4242 3y agoOh strange, in the news here it said Tonghae-Ri. Thanks! Edit: Aha I see it, I looked it up and it says it is from Tongchang-ri which is where Sohae is, not Tonghae. This was what confused me. Little knowledge + too much wikipedia + assumptions = fake news :P
- dylan604 3y agonah, fake news wouldn't have printed the correction and just doubled down on it
- xoa 3y ago>If you're trying for orbit, don't you usually launch east, so that you get a boost from earth's rotation? No, or rather it's somewhat more complicated. Yes there are many popular orbits (or deep space) where that's an advantage, but there are also lots of orbits where it's less so or even outright undesirable such as with polar orbits. Depending on the purpose of the launch in question it may be necessary to cancel out that energy which means it's actively more expensive to have it. Locations far from the equator get less either way and have to take that into account. Launch safety is critical too as well, nobody wants to have debris from a failed launch come down somewhere undesirable. For civilized countries that's anywhere that might cause damage, but even for dictatorships it'd include other countries they don't want to offend that specific way or alternatively to give insights into whatever they are launching that could come from wreckage analysis (failure in low first stage isn't going to mean stuff burns up like a deorbit). So even when a target orbit would indeed benefit from such a directly easterly launch, a dog leg is often part of it. Obviously NK is less than transparent about all this but the basic incentives are still there.
- dylan604 3y ago>For civilized countries that's anywhere that might cause damage Trying to find a joke for that applied to SpaceX/Starship.
- kryptiskt 3y agoSpy satellites are launched to highly inclined orbits (think passing over the poles) so they can cover the whole of the Earth and slightly against the Earth's rotation so they can be sun-synchronous[0]. So this is just what you would expect from such a satellite. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit
- Rebelgecko 3y agoFor some high inclination orbits (like if you want a polar orbit that covers the whole world) it might make sense to launch in a NNW or SSW direction. Even for lower inclinations, sometimes it's easier for geopolitical reasons. IIRC Israel always launches retrograde over the sea to avoid upsetting their neighbors, could be similar with NK
- goalieca 3y agoHow fast will this be torn apart? I wonder what level of technology, sourcing of components, and quality of security there is.
- wkat4242 3y agoIt's most likely already 'torn apart' by the impact and possibly explosion. A lot of parts will have sunk to the seafloor. And any analysis might be classified. Also I'm sure they are able to obtain components from the west, their border with China is pretty porous. But yeah I'm also interested to hear the outcome in case something does surface. Just wouldn't count on it.
- dmix 3y agoIt said it simply lost thrust and descended, I don't think it exploded.
- jmkni 3y agoI'm amazed they admitted it! Not even claiming it was 'shot down' or denying completely that there ever was a spy satellite, just straight up admitting that it didn't work.
- Beached 3y agofor internal drpk propaganda, it would be fairly difficult to keep the launch failure from the public, when success is orbit. the best spin on a failure is partial success. to their population, dprk has one job, to protect the population from the imperialists. losing the rocket to military action which they have been claiming they have successfully been keeping at Bay is a worse internal spin than 2nd stage failure
- mabbo 3y agoI keep telling people: Space is hard. > The rocket lost thrust after the first stage separation due to an “abnormal startup of the engine” on the vehicle’s second stage that may have been caused by an instability in the engine and fuel system, according to KCNA. This is the challenge for most newcomers to space deal with. Every space startup in the US over the last couple years seems to have all had some trouble between stage 1 engine cut off and stage 2 operating. It's so easy in Kerbal Space Program! You need to: Stop your main engine; disconnect the first and second stage cleanly, successfully; put at least a little distance between first and second stage; Start the stage 2 engine in a vacuum and in freefall (which you cannot test out on the ground) and do it remotely/autonomously; have stage 2 correctly identify its own position and speed well enough to aim to the stable orbit you hoped for. Oh, and don't forget to successfully ditch your faring at some point or the satellite is trapped in an egg shell with no solar panels, communications equipment, or (in the case of a spy satellite) telescopes.
- teeray 3y agoNever mind the whole magic trick of landing the first stage on a barge and catching the faring in a big net.
- notfish 3y agoThey actually just scoop em out of the ocean instead of catching the fairings now
- sidewndr46 3y agoThe recovery of the shuttles SRBs was always really cool to me. They float and the process even included manipulating their buoyancy to get them upright for easier recovery!
- gabereiser 3y agoM/V FreedomStar and M/V LibertyStar were the recovery vessels. I named my sailboat the S/V FreedomStar in namesake. Out of Cape Canaveral, FL.
- jerkstate 3y agoI've seen a lot of reporting, including this, which states that this is North Korea's "first" spy satellite. I thought it was well known that NK has performed at least 2 successful satellite launches previously, KMS-3-2 and KMS-4, which are documented on Wikipedia and tracked on n2yo.com. Does anybody understand the disconnect between the reporting and the evidence of 2 existing spy satellites?
- zamadatix 3y agoOfficially, those were non-spy Earth observation satellites. Not that that means much, but this one is actually labeled a spy satellite. Besides that, KMS-3-2 is known to have gotten to orbit while failing to stabilize and KMS-4 is not known to have sent any signals back.
- jerkstate 3y agoGood points, according to the Wiki page, KMS-4 was initially tumbling and then shown to have stabilized, which seems to indicate that communication was established.
- zamadatix 3y agoNot necessarily, at least in terms of communications back https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kwangmyongsong-4.htm https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kwangmyongsong-4.htm. Of course, it's also possible nobody has publicly tried looking at the right time. At the same time, it's also possible it wasn't really a functioning imaging satellite in the first place and was more just another test. Hard to tell when the official source just says whatever sounds most interesting that day.
- boeingUH60 3y ago[flagged]
- kjs3 3y agoSince they've done it successfully before[1][2][3], in addition to that whole working nuclear device thing, why wouldn't we? [1] https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=39026 https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=39026 [2] https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=41332 https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=41332 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy%C5%8Fngs%C5%8Fng-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy%C5%8Fngs%C5%8Fng-4
- boeingUH60 3y agoAh, I stand corrected!
- tomcam 3y ago> The rocket lost thrust At my age I completely understand that issue
- wwilim 3y agoPlot twist - it was a spy submarine all along
- AYBABTME 3y agoFun fact: a wartime-like siren rang in Seoul for 1min, freaking out everybody, until it was announced that it was a false alert. (I wasn't there but I saw people panicking on Kakao Talk group chats)
- geocrasher 3y agoEven before the rocket crashed into the sea, its launch was deemed controversial due to an international ban on North Korea from using ballistic missile technology The takeaway from this is that the international community is concerned that N Korea is developing ballistic missile technology under the guise of an orbital vehicle. The difference between orbit and sub-orbital flight is only a bit of Delta V and different payload.
- jzawodn 3y agoYou used the word "only" there to imply ... well, that it's simple? I don't think most serious aerospace folks would agree with that assessment.
- Thrymr 3y agoWell, sure, it's not that simple, but the main point here is that it's "easier" to hit any point on the surface of the Earth with a rocket than it is to get a payload into orbit.
- geocrasher 3y agoNothing is simple in aerospace, and I'm sure there are things I'm missing. But generally speaking, an orbital vehicle becomes suborbital when it doesn't have enough speed to not fall back to the Earth. There's re-entry to contend with, but that's a solvable issue. And then there's the payload, also solvable.
- giantrobot 3y agoThe word "only" is appropriate here. If you have an ICBM it's still a challenge to get to orbit. If you have a rocket capable of getting to orbit you automatically have an ICBM. If you've got the power to get to orbit you've got the power for a ballistic trajectory.
- HarryHirsch 3y agoThe bigger challenge is to get out of orbit into one piece. Heat shields for the transonic regime are not trivial technology.
- not_your_mentat 3y agoSurprise.