[N. Korean Missile] Taepodong-2 Engine Defect, Exposing its Problems(imperfect combustion)

Donga Ilbo ^ | 07/06/06

[TigerLikesRooster]

/begin my summary

[N. Korean Missile] Taepodong-2 Engine Defect, Exposing its Problems

The source of N. Korean Taepodong-2 missile failure is now being narrowed down to its engine problem.

According to NIS(S. Korean Intelligence Agency,) Taepodong-2 was launched at 5am, on July 5th, from the launch pad at Munsudan-ri, Hwa-dae County, N. Hamkyong Province. After its vertical ascent, it was flying over East Sea when its engine developed 'shaking.'

It is the same as  the situation where imperfect combustion of automobile fuel causes engine to shake. Experts suspect that some technical problems inside booster rockets lead to imperfect combustion of its liquid fuel. According to this scenario, this 'shaking' persisted for (initial) 40 seconds of flight, which caused the combustion chamber to develop cracks, and its fuel to leak, leading to explosion of the missile.

Some other experts argue that, since the missile's liquid fuel is made by mixing highly flammable liquid with nitric acid or magnesium (materials for TNT) as catalysts, the imperfect combustion triggered chemical interaction among these substances, leading to the explosion.

/end my summary

[Sundog]

Thanks for you translation / information on this affair.

[coconutt2000]

Wishful thinking:

At 40 seconds into its flight, a fatal flaw in the North Korean Taepodong-2 ICBM was discovered. Apparently it cannot dodge lasers.

[heldmyw]

So...

The Nork 'dong went limp because of fuel knock?

That's tough.

Maybe a higher octane with Techron?

[TigerLikesRooster]

Ping!

[Spktyr]

Correction for more realistic scenario: "At 40 seconds into its flight, a fatal flaw in the North Korean Taepodong-2 ICBM was discovered. Apparently it isn't shielded against high-power microwave radiation."

Zortch!

[Dosa26]

Apparently it isn't shielded against high-power microwave radiation."

As much as I would like to think we zotted it, it very likely failed because it is a flawed design, poorly constructed, and pushed beyond its limits. Not to mention they fueled it and let it sit for 2 weeks. I don't know what parts the acid was eating, but I know it was eating something.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It seems to me to be a flawed redesign of the Taepodong-1, which was flawed in design to begin with. I seem to remember years ago they had a Taepodong-1 readied on the pad, and it exploded like a bottle rocket. I also have a feeling that the Iranians who were there to witness the launch probably felt they better go shopping elsewhere.

[Southack]

The only North Korean missile to experience a "mid-flight failure event" was their one long-range weapon...just as it overflew a Japanese Aegis destroyer that had just completed a successful anti-missile interception in conjunction with our Valiant Shield naval exercises...in the same area where the U.S. has numerous Aegis vessels and 3 U.S. aircraft carrier battle-groups.

The North Koreans, known for never telling the truth, claim that their long range missile experienced engine knocking!

Uh, huh. Rolls eyes...

[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

I think a test of the Taepodong-1 back in 1998 didn't go as planned either. Personally, I have no problem seeing this for what it looks like, a technical deficiency on the part of the NKs.

Also, I thought the other missiles were Scud types which, if not actually supplied by China or the USSR, could be readily copied (and thus more reliable). The Taepodongs have more indigenous design.

[bruinbirdman]

"Personally, I have no problem seeing this for what it looks like, a technical deficiency on the part of the NKs. "

Where's Bernie Schwartz and Loral when the KoreaComs need them?

yitbos

[Southack]

Their 1998 launch went about 2000 km's. They didn't claim that it was "damaged at sea" as they claim for their July 5 (our July 4) long range launch.

For short-range, Scuds are single-stage, single-engine German V-2 rockets (the V-2's themselves are just scaled up copies of Dr. Robert Goddard's liquid fueled rockets of the 1920's/1930's). Different beasts entirely from the long-range Taepo Dong.

V-2's can go off course, but for the most part the design is simplified enough that fueling them is the most dangerous step. I'm not sure that any V-2's have blown up in flight, and there have been thousands launched by various nations (naturally with non-Nazi names for said rockets).

A regime like NK should be able to copy the proper V-2 construction/fueling/launching steps and not have any problems with those short-range weapons.

Likewise, the U.S. can readily discern long-range rockets from such short-range scuds. We wouldn't be expected to shoot them down.

So for technical and military reasons, NK's scuds were all successful.

Their long-range, multi-engine, multi-stage rocket, however, was not. True, it could have failed from a design or servicing defect...or it could have had external aid in failing. Certainly the assets to knock it down were in the appropriate place at the appropriate time.

...And down it went.

For NK, this is a very bad result. It's bad for them because it may have been a design defect. It's bad for them because it may have been a quality-control failure during construction/assembly. It's bad for them because it may have been a servicing error (e.g. leaving caustic rocket fuel in the missile for a couple of weeks on the launch pad).

It's bad for them because the Japanese may have knocked it down. It's bad for them because the South Koreans may have knocked it down. It's bad for them because the U.S. may have knocked it down.

...And it's bad for them because they very likely **DON'T KNOW** why it came down...in a very public way.

[BossLady]

Where did they get the parts for these pieces of crap? LOL!

[Drammach]

Your report would be consistent with the effects of the missile sitting on the launch pad for an extended period of time, fully fueled...

As has already been pointed out, the fuel is highly corrosive, and the longer the missile sits on the launch pad, the greater oppurtunity for it to find and corrode any imperfections in the tanks, valves, etc...

As has been pointed out before, de-fueling is a complicated and time consuming process, but there is also a possibility that failing to de-fuel and clean the propulsion system in the event of a missed launch window may be equally important..

There may be a maximum launch window of just 3 or 4 days to launch before the fuel begins to affect critical components...

[Spktyr]

Usually, though, if a rocket was left fuelled for the time period this one was, it simply explodes at launch, not downrange (long before stage separation).

[Gondring]

Is we know better than NK what happened, we shouldn't be telling too much. I'm wondering if NIS is playing a game or has a leak or what.

[Loyal Buckeye]

Slick 50 Sale

[MizSterious]

"Is we know better than NK what happened, we shouldn't be telling too much."

I'm guessing "is" should be "if"? If so, I agree--especially we shouldn't be telling too much to our own citizens: if the 'Rats find out, they'll try to halt the project.

[CygnusXI]

Any possibility they just splashed them themselves?
I mean, they were tests, and once they had successfull burn or sufficient trajectory data, maybe they just splashed em?

All I hear is failure, and "we zotted em".

Any possibility?

[AmericanInTokyo]

US intelligence has tracked the movement of a second Taepodong-2, from Pyongyang to a missile site. I am not sure if it is the same Hwadae County, Musudanri site as for the failed TPD the other day, but I assume it is. I assume they will load it on the pad and fuel it within the next few days. I suspect they will launch again in a few days. At least indications of that in the Japanese and Korean media seem to be occuring.

If it makes a greater trajectory this time, and we have the capability, my greatest hope is that we can bring one of these down, AEGIS-wise, or otherwise.