North Korean test missile breaks up minutes after launch

[Bush92]

They should start playing the Benny Hill theme when showing video of NK.

North Korea ballistic missile test fails, NBC News confirms

We zapped another one!

Maybe he bought some of them from Target?

I hear smoking pot destroys testosterone. You should just about be a 10 year old girl by now.

 

[RASTAMEN]

North Korean test missile breaks up minutes after launch

I find it very disconcerting that Kim Jong-Un keeps firing those duds. My concern is that one of these times he's going to fire one and it won't be a dud and it won't explode over N. Korean territory.

I think his repeated "failed" tests are feints to lull folks into greater degrees of insouciance. I think that because in this day and age, what it takes to get a missile to launch successfully isn't beyond the capability of all sorts of engineers and physicists. The miniaturization requirements for an nuclear tipped ICBM may well pose some challenges, but firing off an ICBM missile that can reach halfway around the world should not.

Briefly checking to make sure my supposition is on target, I came across this:

There are two challenges that designers have to face: designing the warhead and designing the missile .

A nuclear warhead can be carried by ICBMs/SLBMs , IRBMs , cruise missiles and of late even TBMs . You have to take into account the type of missile before deciding what type of nuclear warhead it can carry .

There are at least 5 layers in any modern day nuclear warhead ( from top to bottom) :

1. The Primary Layer
2. The Secondary Layer
3. Radiation Case
4. Channel Filler
5. Booster Gas Cannister .

Designing each of these stages comes with it's own set of challenges . The warhead should be insensitive and use fire resistant explosives, have a fire resistant Pit , foolproof permissive action link , strong link weak link detonation chain safety mechanisms and two-point explosive lens assembly.

Now , let's assume that the delivery vehicle will be an ICBM . The biggest challenge is the development of a 3 stage Solid propellant rocket motor .

The mass of the booster increases with the missile’s range. So a 1-ton warhead requires an approximately 5-ton missile.The primary way to increase the range of a missile is to make it larger and add propellant.The additional propellant and missile structure increase the missile’s mass. As a result, the engines need to accelerate all this additional mass as well as the original mass of the missile and payload, so the increase in missile size gives you much less increase in range than you might expect .

Building a single stage ICBM is extremely difficult . Building a 2- 3 stage ICBM , somewhat easier .You have to get staging right, and getting it right in your first attempt is very difficult .

Another very important aspect that designers have to accommodate in the design of the missile is low drag re- entry .This is necessary if the idea is to defeat terminal-phase missile defenses and probably necessary if you want the accuracy needed to engage hard targets.
​

I don't know and cannot say that what the writer shared is accurate, but I can say it aligns with the rudimentary physics and engineering ideas of which I'm aware. Assuming the above narrative is on point, I'm curious to find out what is "failing" in the N. Korean missile tests. It'd be nice to know what the test objective(s) are too, but I know I'm not going to be made privy to that information.

Why the doubting glance? Did you miss the part of my post were I clearly stated my uncertainty about the merits of the information I found and the limits of what I know first hand about ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons?

I don't know and cannot say that what the writer shared is accurate, but I can say it aligns with the rudimentary physics and engineering ideas of which I'm aware.

Do you understand why I wrote that? I'll tell you. Because I wanted to share what I thought, but I didn't want to seem authoritative on the matter because I know I'm not. I can quickly become quite knowledgeable -- enough to remark confidently here -- were I of a mind to do so. I, frankly, am not so inclined beyond what I already did.

You see, I don't mind sharing my speculations and making it clear that what I share is speculative. I take exception with folks who share speculations as though they truly know what they are talking about, when really all they know is what little they happen to know, and part of what they know is that they are not a "pro," or nearly so, on the topic.

It's Debbie Downer. I'm just saying your post is a buzzkill. I don't necessarily disagree with you other than that these missile fails are some sort of rope a dope.

 

[Bush92]

North Korean test missile breaks up minutes after launch

I find it very disconcerting that Kim Jong-Un keeps firing those duds. My concern is that one of these times he's going to fire one and it won't be a dud and it won't explode over N. Korean territory.

I think his repeated "failed" tests are feints to lull folks into greater degrees of insouciance. I think that because in this day and age, what it takes to get a missile to launch successfully isn't beyond the capability of all sorts of engineers and physicists. The miniaturization requirements for an nuclear tipped ICBM may well pose some challenges, but firing off an ICBM missile that can reach halfway around the world should not.

Briefly checking to make sure my supposition is on target, I came across this:

There are two challenges that designers have to face: designing the warhead and designing the missile .

A nuclear warhead can be carried by ICBMs/SLBMs , IRBMs , cruise missiles and of late even TBMs . You have to take into account the type of missile before deciding what type of nuclear warhead it can carry .

There are at least 5 layers in any modern day nuclear warhead ( from top to bottom) :

1. The Primary Layer
2. The Secondary Layer
3. Radiation Case
4. Channel Filler
5. Booster Gas Cannister .

Designing each of these stages comes with it's own set of challenges . The warhead should be insensitive and use fire resistant explosives, have a fire resistant Pit , foolproof permissive action link , strong link weak link detonation chain safety mechanisms and two-point explosive lens assembly.

Now , let's assume that the delivery vehicle will be an ICBM . The biggest challenge is the development of a 3 stage Solid propellant rocket motor .

The mass of the booster increases with the missile’s range. So a 1-ton warhead requires an approximately 5-ton missile.The primary way to increase the range of a missile is to make it larger and add propellant.The additional propellant and missile structure increase the missile’s mass. As a result, the engines need to accelerate all this additional mass as well as the original mass of the missile and payload, so the increase in missile size gives you much less increase in range than you might expect .

Building a single stage ICBM is extremely difficult . Building a 2- 3 stage ICBM , somewhat easier .You have to get staging right, and getting it right in your first attempt is very difficult .

Another very important aspect that designers have to accommodate in the design of the missile is low drag re- entry .This is necessary if the idea is to defeat terminal-phase missile defenses and probably necessary if you want the accuracy needed to engage hard targets.
​

I don't know and cannot say that what the writer shared is accurate, but I can say it aligns with the rudimentary physics and engineering ideas of which I'm aware. Assuming the above narrative is on point, I'm curious to find out what is "failing" in the N. Korean missile tests. It'd be nice to know what the test objective(s) are too, but I know I'm not going to be made privy to that information.

Why the doubting glance? Did you miss the part of my post were I clearly stated my uncertainty about the merits of the information I found and the limits of what I know first hand about ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons?

I don't know and cannot say that what the writer shared is accurate, but I can say it aligns with the rudimentary physics and engineering ideas of which I'm aware.

Do you understand why I wrote that? I'll tell you. Because I wanted to share what I thought, but I didn't want to seem authoritative on the matter because I know I'm not. I can quickly become quite knowledgeable -- enough to remark confidently here -- were I of a mind to do so. I, frankly, am not so inclined beyond what I already did.

You see, I don't mind sharing my speculations and making it clear that what I share is speculative. I take exception with folks who share speculations as though they truly know what they are talking about, when really all they know is what little they happen to know, and part of what they know is that they are not a "pro," or nearly so, on the topic.

It's Debbie Downer. I'm just saying your post is a buzzkill. I don't necessarily disagree with you other than that these missile fails are some sort of rope a dope.

You must be high.

 

[Bush92]

Rasta man should stick to cooking...

 

[RASTAMEN]

North Korean test missile breaks up minutes after launch

I find it very disconcerting that Kim Jong-Un keeps firing those duds. My concern is that one of these times he's going to fire one and it won't be a dud and it won't explode over N. Korean territory.

I think his repeated "failed" tests are feints to lull folks into greater degrees of insouciance. I think that because in this day and age, what it takes to get a missile to launch successfully isn't beyond the capability of all sorts of engineers and physicists. The miniaturization requirements for an nuclear tipped ICBM may well pose some challenges, but firing off an ICBM missile that can reach halfway around the world should not.

Briefly checking to make sure my supposition is on target, I came across this:

There are two challenges that designers have to face: designing the warhead and designing the missile .

A nuclear warhead can be carried by ICBMs/SLBMs , IRBMs , cruise missiles and of late even TBMs . You have to take into account the type of missile before deciding what type of nuclear warhead it can carry .

There are at least 5 layers in any modern day nuclear warhead ( from top to bottom) :

1. The Primary Layer
2. The Secondary Layer
3. Radiation Case
4. Channel Filler
5. Booster Gas Cannister .

Designing each of these stages comes with it's own set of challenges . The warhead should be insensitive and use fire resistant explosives, have a fire resistant Pit , foolproof permissive action link , strong link weak link detonation chain safety mechanisms and two-point explosive lens assembly.

Now , let's assume that the delivery vehicle will be an ICBM . The biggest challenge is the development of a 3 stage Solid propellant rocket motor .

The mass of the booster increases with the missile’s range. So a 1-ton warhead requires an approximately 5-ton missile.The primary way to increase the range of a missile is to make it larger and add propellant.The additional propellant and missile structure increase the missile’s mass. As a result, the engines need to accelerate all this additional mass as well as the original mass of the missile and payload, so the increase in missile size gives you much less increase in range than you might expect .

Building a single stage ICBM is extremely difficult . Building a 2- 3 stage ICBM , somewhat easier .You have to get staging right, and getting it right in your first attempt is very difficult .

Another very important aspect that designers have to accommodate in the design of the missile is low drag re- entry .This is necessary if the idea is to defeat terminal-phase missile defenses and probably necessary if you want the accuracy needed to engage hard targets.
​

I don't know and cannot say that what the writer shared is accurate, but I can say it aligns with the rudimentary physics and engineering ideas of which I'm aware. Assuming the above narrative is on point, I'm curious to find out what is "failing" in the N. Korean missile tests. It'd be nice to know what the test objective(s) are too, but I know I'm not going to be made privy to that information.

Why the doubting glance? Did you miss the part of my post were I clearly stated my uncertainty about the merits of the information I found and the limits of what I know first hand about ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons?

I don't know and cannot say that what the writer shared is accurate, but I can say it aligns with the rudimentary physics and engineering ideas of which I'm aware.

Do you understand why I wrote that? I'll tell you. Because I wanted to share what I thought, but I didn't want to seem authoritative on the matter because I know I'm not. I can quickly become quite knowledgeable -- enough to remark confidently here -- were I of a mind to do so. I, frankly, am not so inclined beyond what I already did.

You see, I don't mind sharing my speculations and making it clear that what I share is speculative. I take exception with folks who share speculations as though they truly know what they are talking about, when really all they know is what little they happen to know, and part of what they know is that they are not a "pro," or nearly so, on the topic.

It's Debbie Downer. I'm just saying your post is a buzzkill. I don't necessarily disagree with you other than that these missile fails are some sort of rope a dope.

You must be high.

 

[Bush92]

They should start playing the Benny Hill theme when showing video of NK.

North Korea ballistic missile test fails, NBC News confirms

We zapped another one!

Maybe he bought some of them from Target?

[/QUOTTime for the stupid white male failed news journalist commentator...to shut up.

 

[Bush92]

I find it very disconcerting that Kim Jong-Un keeps firing those duds. My concern is that one of these times he's going to fire one and it won't be a dud and it won't explode over N. Korean territory.

I think his repeated "failed" tests are feints to lull folks into greater degrees of insouciance. I think that because in this day and age, what it takes to get a missile to launch successfully isn't beyond the capability of all sorts of engineers and physicists. The miniaturization requirements for an nuclear tipped ICBM may well pose some challenges, but firing off an ICBM missile that can reach halfway around the world should not.

Briefly checking to make sure my supposition is on target, I came across this:

There are two challenges that designers have to face: designing the warhead and designing the missile .

A nuclear warhead can be carried by ICBMs/SLBMs , IRBMs , cruise missiles and of late even TBMs . You have to take into account the type of missile before deciding what type of nuclear warhead it can carry .

There are at least 5 layers in any modern day nuclear warhead ( from top to bottom) :

1. The Primary Layer
2. The Secondary Layer
3. Radiation Case
4. Channel Filler
5. Booster Gas Cannister .

Designing each of these stages comes with it's own set of challenges . The warhead should be insensitive and use fire resistant explosives, have a fire resistant Pit , foolproof permissive action link , strong link weak link detonation chain safety mechanisms and two-point explosive lens assembly.

Now , let's assume that the delivery vehicle will be an ICBM . The biggest challenge is the development of a 3 stage Solid propellant rocket motor .

The mass of the booster increases with the missile’s range. So a 1-ton warhead requires an approximately 5-ton missile.The primary way to increase the range of a missile is to make it larger and add propellant.The additional propellant and missile structure increase the missile’s mass. As a result, the engines need to accelerate all this additional mass as well as the original mass of the missile and payload, so the increase in missile size gives you much less increase in range than you might expect .

Building a single stage ICBM is extremely difficult . Building a 2- 3 stage ICBM , somewhat easier .You have to get staging right, and getting it right in your first attempt is very difficult .

Another very important aspect that designers have to accommodate in the design of the missile is low drag re- entry .This is necessary if the idea is to defeat terminal-phase missile defenses and probably necessary if you want the accuracy needed to engage hard targets.
​

I don't know and cannot say that what the writer shared is accurate, but I can say it aligns with the rudimentary physics and engineering ideas of which I'm aware. Assuming the above narrative is on point, I'm curious to find out what is "failing" in the N. Korean missile tests. It'd be nice to know what the test objective(s) are too, but I know I'm not going to be made privy to that information.

Why the doubting glance? Did you miss the part of my post were I clearly stated my uncertainty about the merits of the information I found and the limits of what I know first hand about ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons?

I don't know and cannot say that what the writer shared is accurate, but I can say it aligns with the rudimentary physics and engineering ideas of which I'm aware.

Do you understand why I wrote that? I'll tell you. Because I wanted to share what I thought, but I didn't want to seem authoritative on the matter because I know I'm not. I can quickly become quite knowledgeable -- enough to remark confidently here -- were I of a mind to do so. I, frankly, am not so inclined beyond what I already did.

You see, I don't mind sharing my speculations and making it clear that what I share is speculative. I take exception with folks who share speculations as though they truly know what they are talking about, when really all they know is what little they happen to know, and part of what they know is that they are not a "pro," or nearly so, on the topic.

It's Debbie Downer. I'm just saying your post is a buzzkill. I don't necessarily disagree with you other than that these missile fails are some sort of rope a dope.

You must be high.

No, he doesn't smoke pot 16 times a day.

 

[RASTAMEN]

Why the doubting glance? Did you miss the part of my post were I clearly stated my uncertainty about the merits of the information I found and the limits of what I know first hand about ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons?

​

Do you understand why I wrote that? I'll tell you. Because I wanted to share what I thought, but I didn't want to seem authoritative on the matter because I know I'm not. I can quickly become quite knowledgeable -- enough to remark confidently here -- were I of a mind to do so. I, frankly, am not so inclined beyond what I already did.

You see, I don't mind sharing my speculations and making it clear that what I share is speculative. I take exception with folks who share speculations as though they truly know what they are talking about, when really all they know is what little they happen to know, and part of what they know is that they are not a "pro," or nearly so, on the topic.

It's Debbie Downer. I'm just saying your post is a buzzkill. I don't necessarily disagree with you other than that these missile fails are some sort of rope a dope.

You must be high.

No, he doesn't smoke pot 16 times a day.

Trump is a "Retard" and he is in over his head.....Thanks Red State Amerika!!!!!