Jump to content

Hwasong-14 as Space Launch Vehicle

JucheJuiceMan

By JucheJuiceMan
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

sevenperforce

sevenperforce

Posted
Posted

Yeah, this is seriously not good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/30/north-korea-has-shown-us-its-new-missile-and-its-scarier-than-we-thought/?utm_term=.1fc320a92106

It appears that the Hwasong-15 is a completely new missile...perhaps sharing the same first-stage tank and upper-stage engine, but otherwise hugely different. New first-stage engine(s) for higher thrust, much heavier upper stage.

Currently running a frame-by-frame analysis to estimate launch TWR.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanamonde

Vanamonde

Posted
Posted

Current politics is interesting. Current politics is important. 

Current politics also invariably goes bad and turns our forum members into enemies. 

So current politics is banned here. Only the mechanics and flight characteristics of this rocket are relevant to this forum and allowed here as discussion topics. 

Is this frustrating? Is it arbitrary? Is this hair-splitting? 

Yes to all three questions. But it's still better than having to give you all warns until you end up getting banned. 

For these reasons, a number of posts have been removed from this thread. 

Also, an increasingly heated personal exchange has been edited, to keep things polite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevenperforce

sevenperforce

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, JucheJuiceMan said:

Titan's engines are gimballed/rotateable and would you look at that, Hwasong-15s engine does the same with difference being Titan has two separate engines while 15 has two noozles/chambers and one large preburner feeding them in one package.

South Korean analysts have asserted that the Hwasong-15 uses a pair of the Hwasong-14 engines. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/world/asia/north-korea-missile-test.html

Gimballing previously-fixed engines is pretty impressive, if true. 

Do you have any basis for the claim that the Hwasong-15 uses a single staged-combustion preburner and turbopump feeding two chambers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JucheJuiceMan

JucheJuiceMan

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

South Korean analysts have asserted that the Hwasong-15 uses a pair of the Hwasong-14 engines. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/world/asia/north-korea-missile-test.html

Gimballing previously-fixed engines is pretty impressive, if true. 

Do you have any basis for the claim that the Hwasong-15 uses a single staged-combustion preburner and turbopump feeding two chambers?

Paektusan is either based on or very similar to RD-250 which isn't staged combustion, I was caught up in such confusion myself and thankfuly I got friendly by email with hobbyist who is extremely informed for being one that to keep it vague a person whoi he knew   started own project was controversial due to history of his countrymen and Von Braun participated/assisted the project until death. Something akin to western UR.... Many many stages.  That person was impressed by knowledge of the hobbyist.

So my email buddy was correct about gimballed and experts reached same conclussion based on released images and videos such as Jeffrey Lewis of ArmsControlWonk.

Edited by JucheJuiceMan
Correcting, forgot to add its other person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevenperforce

sevenperforce

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, tater said:

Pics show 2 engines, no verniers.

 

26 minutes ago, JucheJuiceMan said:

Paektusan is either based on or very similar to RD-250 which isn't staged combustion, I was caught up in such confusion myself and thankfuly I got friendly by email with hobbyist who is extremely informed for being one that to keep it vague a person whoi he knew   started own project was controversial due to history of his countrymen and Von Braun participated/assisted the project until death. Something akin to western UR.... Many many stages.  That person was impressed by knowledge of the hobbyist.

So my email buddy was correct about gimballed and experts reached same conclussion based on released images and videos such as Jeffrey Lewis of ArmsControlWonk.

Gimballing is obvious due to the lack of verniers; probably single-axis since we have two engines but it could always be more. I'm really interested, however, in how you know it's using a single preburner/turbine for two chambers, as opposed to two completely separate engine assemblies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JucheJuiceMan

JucheJuiceMan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

 

Gimballing is obvious due to the lack of verniers; probably single-axis since we have two engines but it could always be more. I'm really interested, however, in how you know it's using a single preburner/turbine for two chambers, as opposed to two completely separate engine assemblies.

It has single exhaust pipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, JucheJuiceMan said:

My email buddy nearly finished the article/analysis...

excrements some bricks.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/Hwasong-15/index.htm

Why would anyone excrement bricks? Maybe the youth of today don't realize that some of us grew up assuming at any moment we were 20-30 minutes away from a Soviet first strike. My job in 1st grade for bomb drills was to close the metal venetian blinds in the classroom, so the flash would not ignite our crayon drawings posted on the wall opposite the window. We'd then "assume the position" in the windowless hallway outside. Of course being 20 minutes from midtown Manhattan, that was wishful thinking anyway.

When their arsenal exceeds that of the Cold War CCCP, wake me up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kerbiloid

kerbiloid

Posted
Posted
Spoiler
19 minutes ago, tater said:

20 minutes from midtown Manhattan

 

19 minutes ago, tater said:

close the metal venetian blinds in the classroom, so the flash would not ignite our crayon drawings posted on the wall opposite the window. We'd then "assume the position" in the windowless hallway outside

That optimism inspires.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:
  Hide contents

 

That optimism inspires.

 

Right?

LOL.

By the time I was in HS in the early 80s, I was reading a ton about rockets, missiles, and nuclear weapons. I actually had a road atlas that I used a compass to draw blast circles on to scale (assuming air bursts, then a total destruction radius, fire radius, etc).

The real risk is not intentional use, IMHO, it's accidental use.

We all owe our lives to people like Stanislav Petrov. If that is likely to happen in a necrocracy, is another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kerbiloid

kerbiloid

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, tater said:

By the time I was in HS in the early 80s, I was reading a ton about rockets, missiles, and nuclear weapons. I actually had a road atlas that I used a compass to draw blast circles on to scale (assuming air bursts, then a total destruction radius, fire radius, etc).

Like I did.

33 minutes ago, tater said:

We all owe our lives to people like Stanislav Petrov. If that is likely to happen in a necrocracy, is another matter.

I'm not sure if the whole system depends on a single officer's decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Like I did.

I'm not sure if the whole system depends on a single officer's decision.

I just mean someone willing to risk themselves to break hard and fast rules.

If you live in a totalitarian state, and the rules state "if X, then Y," and you question the veracity of X, you might risk rather a lot, even if you turn out to be right, because you've now shown yourself to be "unreliable." You might get used as an AAA target, for a RL example.

This underlines the actually heroic act of Mr. Petrov. His decision to ignore what he thought was a wrong sensor carried actual risk to his career, if not his person.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoSlash27

GoSlash27

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, tater said:

Why would anyone excrement bricks? Maybe the youth of today don't realize that some of us grew up assuming at any moment we were 20-30 minutes away from a Soviet first strike.

Truth.

It was always like this in the '70s and '80s.

Best,
-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoSlash27

GoSlash27

Posted
Posted (edited)

JucheJuiceMan,

 You can compute the Isp of these stages given the information in your OP.

Isp=Tt/g0Mp

Where

Isp= specific impulse in seconds
T= Thrust in newtons
t= burn time in seconds
g0= 9.81 m/sec2
Mp= Propellant mass in kg.

Hwasong-14 stage 1 is 227.7s and stage 2 is 296.5s according to the info in your OP.

I don't know how the figures in your OP were arrived at. If these numbers aren't from sea level testing, then they're pretty dismal; about equivalent to solid fuels.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Edited by GoSlash27
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...