The Norks appear to have hit their tee shot into the water hazard

[280plus]

Yet not one person seems to think the "failure" is a sham? That they proved that they could launch and then hit the old self destruct button to make the world think they still haven't got it right. Just sayin'. 

[MechAg94]

Yet not one person seems to think the "failure" is a sham? That they proved that they could launch and then hit the old self destruct button to make the world think they still haven't got it right. Just sayin'. 

Maybe they wanted to test an ICBM, but not admit they can't build a satellite. 

[MechAg94]

Thank goodness we had the benefit of former Nazis to jumpstart our rocket program. 

Yeah, the guys who got their start by studying the research and testing of an American. 

[AJ Dual]

If you mean by deploying SS-9 FOBS sufficiently that we put EW radars facing south...sure, abandoned.
Of course, that, or FOBS, wasn't a satellite with a bomb...F is FRACTIONAL, it was simply the "long way around"...of course, that doesn't mean you couldn't do multiple laps at that point, but neither ever intended on long term emplacement of orbiting weapons...FOBS was specifically NOT in orbit, so as to void outer-space treaty implications.

Yeah, I had a big mental asterisk for the "F" for Fractional part of "FOBS", and to get the good low-warning time, or not require an obnoxiously large re-entry motor that had sufficient delta-V... it was an orbit that would generally decay due to the faint atmospheric drag in just a few days or weeks, I'm sure.

But I was posting from my phone and couldn't thumb-cramp my way into those caveats.

Although I've always wondered how many "weather satellites" there are up there. 

[birdman]

Yeah, I had a big mental asterisk for the "F" for Fractional part of "FOBS", and to get the good low-warning time, or not require an obnoxiously large re-entry motor that had sufficient delta-V... it was an orbit that would generally decay due to the faint atmospheric drag in just a few days or weeks, I'm sure.

But I was posting from my phone and couldn't thumb-cramp my way into those caveats.

Although I've always wondered how many "weather satellites" there are up there. 

It didn't require (or even have) ANY retro.  FOBS was injected into an earth surface -intersecting orbit, atmosphere or no atmoshere to avoid treaty or "doomsday weapon" implications.  It was simply, a long-way around SUBORBITAL trajectory.   There was no implication by design or otherwise for even 1 complete orbit to be possible.  The size of the warhead and throw weight of the SS-9 made even a full single orbit iffy. If multiple or even one orbit was required, the warhead would have been much smaller

[230RN]

Well, paraphrasing Thomas Edison, "The experiment wasn't a failure.  Now we know what doesn't work."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK6a6Hkp94o

Took us a couple of tries, too.

Even Goddard had a couple of failures.  That's why they have blockhouses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Qx9T1CHPVRk

Yet not one person seems to think the "failure" is a sham? That they proved that they could launch and then hit the old self destruct button to make the world think they still haven't got it right. Just sayin'.

280plus, I like your thinking.  Not that I think that's actually the case, but it's good to see someone examining (or bringing up) all the possibilities.  A trait sorely lacking in America today.

Terry, 230RN

More:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=wVAmBN28_pw&feature=endscreen

[Gewehr98]

Maybe the Norks were just happy to get their first stage technology ironed out.  Anything after was gravy?

(Dunno if this one was based on No-Dong or Taepo-Dong variants...)

[BlueStarLizzard]

Yet not one person seems to think the "failure" is a sham? That they proved that they could launch and then hit the old self destruct button to make the world think they still haven't got it right. Just sayin'. 

I don't think the north koreans are subtle enough for that. They want so badly to be the big bad wolf, that their is no way they would detract from that image for stratagy. Embarressment is not something wannabe badasses do on purpose.

[230RN]

I don't think the north koreans are subtle enough for that. They want so badly to be the big bad wolf, that their is no way they would detract from that image for stratagy. Embarressment is not something wannabe badasses do on purpose.

Do not underestimate the Asian mind.

Another possibility from Gewehr98:

Maybe the Norks were just happy to get their first stage technology ironed out.  Anything after was gravy?

Or to placate concerns.

Do not underestimate the Asian mind.

Some folks were puzzled by the fact that this was an "open" test, as opposed to their usual secretiveness.

Do not underestimate the Asian mind.

Terry, 230RN

[BlueStarLizzard]

Do not underestimate the Asian mind.

Another possibility from Gewehr98:

Or to placate concerns.

Do not underestimate the Asian mind.

Some folks were puzzled by the fact that this was an "open" test, as opposed to their usual secretiveness.

Do not underestimate the Asian mind.

Terry, 230RN

Things are now being run by the youngen of a paranoid, agressive socieopath. I highly doubt it was supposed to fail. I think the brat was overconfident and honestly belived it would work.

Although, the possibilty of a third party gunning for the brats fancy chair could have made arrangements for such embarrsement.

(and yes, i'm calling him a brat because he looks like a pudgy brat)

[280plus]

or rat, either fits. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

or rat, either fits. 

No, it doesn't. That's an insult to rats.

[280plus]

 My bad...

[MicroBalrog]

FOBS was eventually abandoned due to mutual treaties, not any good will.

But yes, if you can get a satellite in orbit you can get a nuke into a FOBS trajectory too.

[Twycross]

They want so badly to be the big bad wolf, that their is no way they would detract from that image for stratagy. Embarressment is not something wannabe badasses do on purpose.

North Korea has spent quite a bit of time in the "dangerous enough to demand protection/foreign aid money, not dangerous enough to actually do anything about" zone. Screwing up the missile launch may not be the plan A, but the potential embarrassment isn't a bad plan B, and would tie right in to what they've always been doing. Better explanation at http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/united-states-korea-strategy-inertia

First, they made certain that they were perceived to be always on the verge of internal collapse and thus not a direct threat to anyone but themselves...

Second, they wanted to appear to be fearsome. This would at first blush seem to contradict the impression of weakness, but they managed it brilliantly by perpetually reminding the world that they were close to developing nuclear weapons and longer-range missiles...

Not being there yet meant that no one had to do something about the weapons. Being close to developing them meant that it was dangerous to provoke them.

Read more: The United States in Korea: A Strategy of Inertia | Stratfor

[230RN]

^

North Korea has spent quite a bit of time in the "dangerous enough to demand protection/foreign aid money, not dangerous enough to actually do anything about" zone. Screwing up the missile launch may not be the plan A, but the potential embarrassment isn't a bad plan B, and would tie right in to what they've always been doing. Better explanation at http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/united-states-korea-strategy-inertia

Thank you, thank you very much.  I was trying to point out that we've got to consider all possibilities, not just the off-hand one that they blew it, ha-ha-on them, and nyah-nyah, you dirty rat.

The current crackpot has the same advisory staff as the former crackpot.

Never underestimate the Asian mind.

Terry, 230RN

[AJ Dual]

FOBS was eventually abandoned due to mutual treaties, not any good will.

But yes, if you can get a satellite in orbit you can get a nuke into a FOBS trajectory too.

Which was why I stated it was deemed too destabilizing.

No way to prove it, but I'm certain our side or theirs HAD to have had some undeclared/disguised bombs in orbit, or did at one time or another, perhaps as EMP weapons or to charge up the Van Allen belts for orbit denial in a war etc.

[French G.]

Or maybe the kid is fully versed in Nork foreign policy 101. Do crazy crap, escalate all summer, get talked down and promised lotsa food and fuel aid just in time for winter. Wait 4 months, start crazy again.

I really feel for the ordinary people trapped in that mess. Wireless transmitters on the border and bombard the country with I-phones and food packets.

[birdman]

FOBS was eventually abandoned due to mutual treaties, not any good will.

But yes, if you can get a satellite in orbit you can get a nuke into a FOBS trajectory too.

There is no current or past treaty that would prohibit FOBS. It was abandoned by the russians due to minimal effectiveness and/or destabilizing factors, and was never bothered with by us.
There ARE treaties that prohibit a nuclear OBS. (which is why it was never done)

[AJ Dual]

There is no current or past treaty that would prohibit FOBS. It was abandoned by the russians due to minimal effectiveness and/or destabilizing factors, and was never bothered with by us.
There ARE treaties that prohibit a nuclear OBS. (which is why it was never admitted to)

Sorry... had to. 

[MechAg94]

Or maybe the kid is fully versed in Nork foreign policy 101. Do crazy crap, escalate all summer, get talked down and promised lotsa food and fuel aid just in time for winter. Wait 4 months, start crazy again.

Yes, that dastardly Machiavellian plan otherwise known as "How to get free stuff from Democrats in the US". 

[MicroBalrog]

There is no current or past treaty that would prohibit FOBS. It was abandoned by the russians due to minimal effectiveness and/or destabilizing factors, and was never bothered with by us.
There ARE treaties that prohibit a nuclear OBS. (which is why it was never done)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29#R-36ORB

R36Orb was a nuclear-armed FOBS and was discontinued under SALT. A conventional FOBS, were it to exist, would consist simply of "crashing a satellite into things".

[birdman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29#R-36ORB

R36Orb was a nuclear-armed FOBS and was discontinued under SALT. A conventional FOBS, were it to exist, would consist simply of "crashing a satellite into things".

Did SALT (I/II) explicitly prohibit long way trajectories?  I didn't think so, I thought it prohibited orbital systems
Conventional FOBS is "rods from god"

[Scout26]

 From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOBS

The Outer Space Treaty banned nuclear weapons in Earth orbit. However, it did not ban systems that were capable of placing weapons in orbit, and the Soviet Union avoided violating the treaty by conducting tests of its FOBS system without live warheads.

The Soviets developed three missiles to employ FOBS, with only one entering service:

    The orbital missile 8K69 (also known as R-36orb) was initially deployed in 1968, with the first regiment put on alert in 1969.
    The Global Rocket 1, or GR-1, was cancelled due to engine problems.
    The R-46 was not developed, and eventually scrapped.

The U.S. Defense Support Program early warning satellites, first launched in 1970, enabled the US to detect a FOBS launch.

The SALT II agreement (1979) prohibited the deployment of FOBS systems:

    Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy:
    (...)
    (c) systems for placing into Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, including fractional orbital missiles;

The missile was phased out in January 1983 in compliance with this treaty.

[birdman]

Based on that, if earth intersecting in less than 1 orbit is prohibited, ALL ICBM's are prohibited.  I'd like to see the original treaty language, because I bet it doesn't ban what that interpretation says.
It is very difficult to achieve treaty language that bans less than one orbit without banning normal ICBM's, as any large ICBM is quite capable of (with a reduced payload) achieving a long way trajectory.

And that is mathematically provable.
What I would bet is that the treaty banned missiles with a payload capable of operating for greater than one orbit--basically, banning PBV capability >90min (or some period of time)