.@StuckinArabia concludes that “the Hwasong-14’s re-entry vehicle did not survive during its second test” http://bit.ly/2vZmsi8 pic.twitter.com/nZaDQpwHf7
-
"For more realistic 500-600 kg warheads, the KN-20 would be limited to west coast targets."
I'm still skeptical of this video's value. FWIW, the July 4 RV may have survived to 1km altitude; sufficient for 30kt airburst delivery.
-
-
Adjust for the weird stresses associated with reentry from a 3,700km loft and it looks a lot less clear.https://twitter.com/NarangVipin/status/892573730836230144 …
-
Re-reading KCNA statements after both launches, there is no claim of survival in the 7/28 statement, but it probably doesn't matter.pic.twitter.com/qeyPPZaOJt
-
They're quite up-front about the "harsher than the actual maximum range flying conditions" in this test; no need to demonstrate RV survived.
-
And yes, the July 4 claim of "accurately hit the targeted waters" isn't what I've been told about their RV's performance.
-
But, point is, *even if* the video is the RV and the RV failed to survive, this test appears to have been about testing two things. 1/2
-
First, they were likely testing a Simorgh-based 4-vernier 2nd stage. And second, they were unambiguously demonstrating CONUS range.
-
There's still a Hwasong-14 TE/firing table at Kusong for all we know and we'll get another test to prove RV performance. No IOC call yet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How do we know the object on video isn't the second stage rather than the RV?
-
We don't. I'll hopefully be able to get my hands on the observed RV splashdown point soon. That should help.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1. Get over the EMP thing. It’s a side effect. That’s not KJU thing 2. Didn’t the NK statement say the detonator sequenced in the last test?
-
Who said anything about EMP? Not me.
-
My number 2 was for you. Number 1 was for him. I’m seeing tons of comments all over pushing this EMP crap. You are the one I trust for info.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
My extensive rocketry experience in KSP suggests entry stress on the vehicle would be maximized at a high ballistic trajectory. Am I wrong?
-
No, you're right. So even a partial or complete failure here isn't cause for complacency.
-
I don't know how to tell whether a domain experts in this field has actually done the math implicitly supporting any given assertion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I dunno technicalities, but would that work for a say west coast EMP burst? Is that a realistic threat?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.