The Kim dynasty didn't matter until they got nuclear weapons and long range missiles.
The global warming apocalypse is more than thirty years away. The unfortunate events that become more likely as global warming progresses - like Hurricane Irma
formatting link
don't count as apocalypses. When the Greenland or the East Antarctic ice sheets starting slipping off into the ocean, and global sea levels go up a few metres in a century, that won't be an apocalypse either.
It would be a good idea to make the unfortunate events less likely, or prevent them from happening at all, but that would cost powerful people a lot of income, so it doesn't look like happening any time soon.
Yeah, Big Baddie Saddam was getting ready to destroy freedom with all his WMDs and invasion fleet of super-duper missiles, too. Let's let the media tell us that they actually cloned the MX missile. Let's let them claim they've built a thousand that can strike anywhere in the world in
I could not find any solid information, but the current Minuteman and the Trident missiles are both solid fuel rockets. I suspect the North Koreans copied the latest technology and use solid fuel.
the rightmost image is supposed to be the Hwasong-15, and I see two "tails" to the left and right of the main engine. These could also be exhaust from the turbopumps. US missles usually have these jetting out of the side several feet above the main engine. I don't see such jets on the N.K. missles.
The Wiki entry is now claiming that the first stage uses two of the Russian derived R-250 liquid engines that a single unit of is used on the H-14. Also claims the fuel is UDMH/N2O4 but there's no reference for that. I also read that it's surmised NK doesn't have the capability to produce large quantities of hypergolics domestically. But the fuel isn't cryogenic.
Amusing thought - what if it burns kerosene with hydrogen peroxide/nitrous? Watch the "ignition sequence" of the Hwasong-14:
Vs the 15:
Totally different. Watch the ignition sequence of this lil kerosene/nitrous rocket:
Which one does it more resemble? From the audio it sure sounds to me like the -15 has a pre-flow and ignition like the little rocket does, and why would hypergolic fuels need an igniter?
Tell that to South Korea. Unfortunately when SK gets into a war with NK the US gets into a war with NK. Even a conventional war with NK will be very bloody. I believe they scare the crap out of Japan as well even without nukes.
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
Didn't Russia develop a rocket engine that used this exhaust as part of the main engine thrust getting not only more power for the same size engine, but more boost from the same amount of fuel? I saw something about that a year or two ago. They made some 30 engines for their moon landing program and when they bailed they ordered them all scrapped. Someone said, "bullshit, let's hide them" and they did only to resurface some 50 years later. I think we used some of them or are planning to use some.
I want to say the reason no one had ever done this before is because there are stability issues and everyone else decided it was not worth the problems it would cause. Maybe the NK program has developed this type of engine?
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
Yes, they often end up smoking their own dope - like Prince Harry, poor fool, has just done.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote on 12/1/2017 6:46 PM:
Interesting. I don't think it is the same documentary I saw. This jogged my memory and I think I saw one on Netflix. I only watched the first five minutes of this one at the moment, but I assume it will cover the same ground but possibly a lot more of the overall picture. Maybe I'll watch the rest later tonight.
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
I feel more sympathy for his fiancee. The royal family is a theatrical presentation, but it's not high class theatre, and she seemed to have performed with better companies. But the money seems to be pretty good.
There's a wide range of military explosives. My 1960 chemistry lecturers put some emphasis on PETN
formatting link
RDX seems to be slightly more popular now
formatting link
Both of them can be mixed with TNT. I don't think that TNT is obsolete but rather one of many possible explosives that may be selected for specific applications.
I just think of TNT as the reference explosive these days even though it might still be used... What do they use for blowing up rocks and stuff to make way for hiways ?
It depends on what they're "blowing up". Hard rock takes a different sort of shock (high velocity) than softer rock. Ammonium Nitrate seems to be quite popular, though. Cheap and safe.
Early Soviet atomic bombs were very heavy, so they had to build the huge R-7 booster. The R-7 was then used to send the Sputniks and is still used as the first stage of the Soyuz rocket, carrying three cosmonauts to the ISS.
The US nuclear devices were lighter, so smaller sockets as Atlas or Titan were sufficient.
Later on, rockets of similar size could carry up to 10 MIRV warheads.
Some 1 kt warheads can be shot with an artillery cannon. A small rocket should be sufficient to send such shell to ICBM distances.
In practice, any nation that has the capability to send a satellite into orbit is capable of sending an ICBM. The question is just how heavy the payload can be. Taking the mass of the orbiting satellite, it can be calculated how much heavier the ICBM warhead can be.
The Soviet news agency TASS announced the masses of the three first Sputniks and their orbit parameters, so the US could calculate how heavy ICBM warheads to Soviets could send.
Some Western observers assumed that there was a decimal point error in the TASS announcement for Sputnik 1, while the planned US Vanguard was only 1/10 of that mass.
With Sputnik 2 and 3 with several tons, this caused a great mayhem in the US, when the US realized that th Soviets could send several ton warheads into anywhere in the world.
Thus the real question is, how light warheads with sufficient yield you can build, not so much of the capabilities of the rocket.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.