north korea launches ICBM capable of hitting U.S. while trump golfs

[schuylaar]

WatchView attachment 3972966

Speaking of which..where's our resident pariah? @UncleBuck? What did you do to him?

 

[A.K.A. Overgrowem]

That statement proves you have absolutely ZERO clue what you're talking about.

Plz. let me know what is not accurate.

 

[PetFlora]

Not to worry they're aiming to take out CNN

 

[TacoMac]

Plz. let me know what is not accurate.

All of it.

You don't just "scale up" a rocket. It's called rocket science for a reason: it's NOT easy. That said, the rocket they just launched if run at a VERY low trajectory as is could POSSIBLY make it to Alaska if the entire planet decided to ignore it.

Unfortunately, nobody would. It would be a very, very easy target to shoot down due to the low trajectory and in all likelihood would never make it as far as the other side of the Sea of Japan.

Secondly, if you load a warhead, guidance, and everything else it takes on that rocket, you're going to cut its effective range by a little over half, so there's no way in hell that rocket could get half way to Alaska, let alone anywhere near California.

Thirdly, nobody is going to 'give' them technology of that order. Russia and China aren't that damn stupid like most Americans are. They know full well all it takes is a bad mood and North Korea is just as likely to aim at them as they are anybody else.

So they've still got at LEAST a decade of work ahead of them, and that's provided that they keep developing at an accelerated pace, which is entirely unlikely.

All they've really managed to do the last 20 years is go from keroseen based to hydrogen based engines. That's about it. They're still no closer on re-entry devices, heat shielding, and effective warhead design now then they were 10 years ago. That's not going to change any time soon.

Does that make them less of a threat? Well, to the U.S., yes. They're years away from that.

But to South Korea and Japan, they're already a huge threat, and THAT is the issue.

The entire "they could build a rocket to reach the U.S." is just the typical red herring media hype bullshit. It has no basis in reality at all.

 

[Chunky Stool]

All of it.

You don't just "scale up" a rocket. It's called rocket science for a reason: it's NOT easy. That said, the rocket they just launched if run at a VERY low trajectory as is could POSSIBLY make it to Alaska if the entire planet decided to ignore it.

Unfortunately, nobody would. It would be a very, very easy target to shoot down due to the low trajectory and in all likelihood would never make it as far as the other side of the Sea of Japan.

Secondly, if you load a warhead, guidance, and everything else it takes on that rocket, you're going to cut its effective range by a little over half, so there's no way in hell that rocket could get half way to Alaska, let alone anywhere near California.

Thirdly, nobody is going to 'give' them technology of that order. Russia and China aren't that damn stupid like most Americans are. They know full well all it takes is a bad mood and North Korea is just as likely to aim at them as they are anybody else.

So they've still got at LEAST a decade of work ahead of them, and that's provided that they keep developing at an accelerated pace, which is entirely unlikely.

All they've really managed to do the last 20 years is go from keroseen* based to hydrogen based engines. That's about it. They're still no closer on re-entry devices, heat shielding, and effective warhead design now then they were 10 years ago. That's not going to change any time soon.

Does that make them less of a threat? Well, to the U.S., yes. They're years away from that.

But to South Korea and Japan, they're already a huge threat, and THAT is the issue.

The entire "they could build a rocket to reach the U.S." is just the typical red herring media hype bullshit. It has no basis in reality at all.

Interesting.

* - Kerosene

 

[Bakersfield]

All of it.

You don't just "scale up" a rocket. It's called rocket science for a reason: it's NOT easy. That said, the rocket they just launched if run at a VERY low trajectory as is could POSSIBLY make it to Alaska if the entire planet decided to ignore it.

Unfortunately, nobody would. It would be a very, very easy target to shoot down due to the low trajectory and in all likelihood would never make it as far as the other side of the Sea of Japan.

Secondly, if you load a warhead, guidance, and everything else it takes on that rocket, you're going to cut its effective range by a little over half, so there's no way in hell that rocket could get half way to Alaska, let alone anywhere near California.

Thirdly, nobody is going to 'give' them technology of that order. Russia and China aren't that damn stupid like most Americans are. They know full well all it takes is a bad mood and North Korea is just as likely to aim at them as they are anybody else.

So they've still got at LEAST a decade of work ahead of them, and that's provided that they keep developing at an accelerated pace, which is entirely unlikely.

All they've really managed to do the last 20 years is go from keroseen based to hydrogen based engines. That's about it. They're still no closer on re-entry devices, heat shielding, and effective warhead design now then they were 10 years ago. That's not going to change any time soon.

Does that make them less of a threat? Well, to the U.S., yes. They're years away from that.

But to South Korea and Japan, they're already a huge threat, and THAT is the issue.

The entire "they could build a rocket to reach the U.S." is just the typical red herring media hype bullshit. It has no basis in reality at all.

We most definitely would destroy their missiles, with these:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Interceptor

 

[tampee]

Meanwhile Obama was playing golf while North Korea was building an arsenal of nuclear weapons more than enough to absolutely destroy Japan alone.

 

[SneekyNinja]

All of it.

You don't just "scale up" a rocket. It's called rocket science for a reason: it's NOT easy. That said, the rocket they just launched if run at a VERY low trajectory as is could POSSIBLY make it to Alaska if the entire planet decided to ignore it.

Unfortunately, nobody would. It would be a very, very easy target to shoot down due to the low trajectory and in all likelihood would never make it as far as the other side of the Sea of Japan.

Secondly, if you load a warhead, guidance, and everything else it takes on that rocket, you're going to cut its effective range by a little over half, so there's no way in hell that rocket could get half way to Alaska, let alone anywhere near California.

Thirdly, nobody is going to 'give' them technology of that order. Russia and China aren't that damn stupid like most Americans are. They know full well all it takes is a bad mood and North Korea is just as likely to aim at them as they are anybody else.

So they've still got at LEAST a decade of work ahead of them, and that's provided that they keep developing at an accelerated pace, which is entirely unlikely.

All they've really managed to do the last 20 years is go from keroseen based to hydrogen based engines. That's about it. They're still no closer on re-entry devices, heat shielding, and effective warhead design now then they were 10 years ago. That's not going to change any time soon.

Does that make them less of a threat? Well, to the U.S., yes. They're years away from that.

But to South Korea and Japan, they're already a huge threat, and THAT is the issue.

The entire "they could build a rocket to reach the U.S." is just the typical red herring media hype bullshit. It has no basis in reality at all.

You pretty much do just scale up a rocket...

The physical engineering part isn't the hard part, it's all the math like trajectory calculation, etc that gives "rocket science" it's reputation.

With enough fuel, some kind of attitude control and the prerequisite math knowledge anyone can put something in space and make it fall down again.

And at ballistic speeds it would be interesting to see how well they could be intercepted, my understanding is that you have to intercept them around their second stage and before reentry.

Meanwhile Obama was playing golf while North Korea was building an arsenal of nuclear weapons more than enough to absolutely destroy Japan alone.

They were testing what were assumed to be nuclear bombs inside a mountain and Obama crippled them with sanctions...

Now they're testing real delivery systems and you're trying to excuse Trump for it?

You've been cucked, Tampon.

 

[TacoMac]

You pretty much do just scale up a rocket...

No, you don't. You can't. It's a common misconception.

A rocket in large part is based ENTIRELY on it's engine power. Now, you can get aerodynamic information from smaller scale models, but that has to be done based again on engine power.

The other problem is that as a general rule, 90% of a rockets weight is in fact it's fuel.

Based on that, if you already have a rocket the size of the one launched by North Korea, and we assume it was running at max fuel load, then there are a few very easy to make observations about that rocket:

To use scaling to make that rocket capable of reaching California WITHOUT a payload other than fuel, on a PROPER ICBM trajectory, you would have to increase the size of the rocket by a factor of 4.

If you increased the size of that rocket by a factor of 4 and increased it's fuel load accordingly, it's present engine would never get it off the ground.

That said, the simple fact of the matter is that the present engine they are running is simply nowhere near powerful enough and efficient enough to ever propel a rocket to the United States. Simply "scaling it up" isn't going to help.

That's like saying you want to run a quarter mile in 10 seconds flat and you bring a Ford F150 to the track. You make your first run and it's at 16 seconds at around 80 mph. You can't just make the truck bigger, add more fuel to it, and expect that to help you. It wont. It will in fact hurt you. HUGE.

If you don't have the engine capable of the job to begin with, no amount of scaling in either direction is going to do a damn thing for you.

The only thing you can do with scale models is sort out aerodynamics...and even then it's not perfect. You'll still have to run test launches to verify the aerodynamics work at the 100% scale.

 

[Chunky Stool]

No, you don't. You can't. It's a common misconception.

A rocket in large part is based ENTIRELY on it's engine power. Now, you can get aerodynamic information from smaller scale models, but that has to be done based again on engine power.

The other problem is that as a general rule, 90% of a rockets weight is in fact it's fuel.

Based on that, if you already have a rocket the size of the one launched by North Korea, and we assume it was running at max fuel load, then there are a few very easy to make observations about that rocket:

To use scaling to make that rocket capable of reaching California WITHOUT a payload other than fuel, on a PROPER ICBM trajectory, you would have to increase the size of the rocket by a factor of 4.

If you increased the size of that rocket by a factor of 4 and increased it's fuel load accordingly, it's present engine would never get it off the ground.

That said, the simple fact of the matter is that the present engine they are running is simply nowhere near powerful enough and efficient enough to ever propel a rocket to the United States. Simply "scaling it up" isn't going to help.

That's like saying you want to run a quarter mile in 10 seconds flat and you bring a Ford F150 to the track. You make your first run and it's at 16 seconds at around 80 mph. You can't just make the truck bigger, add more fuel to it, and expect that to help you. It wont. It will in fact hurt you. HUGE.

If you don't have the engine capable of the job to begin with, no amount of scaling in either direction is going to do a damn thing for you.

The only thing you can do with scale models is sort out aerodynamics...and even then it's not perfect. You'll still have to run test launches to verify the aerodynamics work at the 100% scale.

Aren't you the guy who uses Miracle Gro?

 

[UncleBuck]

Here's a story. Drumpf gave the generals more authority than O' Bama. At least one used it. Put some Kurds and helicopters together, flew them into Isis territory and kicked some ass. Read this yesterday. Don't know when it happened. Haven't Googled yet. Could be a good story.

cool story that lacks citation completely, trump cock sucker.

 

[UncleBuck]

Not to worry they're aiming to take out CNN

the same retard who thinks that bush killed bin laden and fogot to tell everyone is also repeating the trump propaganda verbatim.

seriously, take his fucking dick out of your mouth before posting here.

 

[UncleBuck]

Meanwhile Obama was playing golf while North Korea was building an arsenal of nuclear weapons more than enough to absolutely destroy Japan alone.

why is there a pedophile in this thread?

 

[TacoMac]

Aren't you the guy who uses Miracle Gro?

Yes, I am. And I've never had an issue. Not my fault people in general can't do basic math.

 

[SneekyNinja]

No, you don't. You can't. It's a common misconception.

A rocket in large part is based ENTIRELY on it's engine power. Now, you can get aerodynamic information from smaller scale models, but that has to be done based again on engine power.

The other problem is that as a general rule, 90% of a rockets weight is in fact it's fuel.

Based on that, if you already have a rocket the size of the one launched by North Korea, and we assume it was running at max fuel load, then there are a few very easy to make observations about that rocket:

To use scaling to make that rocket capable of reaching California WITHOUT a payload other than fuel, on a PROPER ICBM trajectory, you would have to increase the size of the rocket by a factor of 4.

If you increased the size of that rocket by a factor of 4 and increased it's fuel load accordingly, it's present engine would never get it off the ground.

That said, the simple fact of the matter is that the present engine they are running is simply nowhere near powerful enough and efficient enough to ever propel a rocket to the United States. Simply "scaling it up" isn't going to help.

That's like saying you want to run a quarter mile in 10 seconds flat and you bring a Ford F150 to the track. You make your first run and it's at 16 seconds at around 80 mph. You can't just make the truck bigger, add more fuel to it, and expect that to help you. It wont. It will in fact hurt you. HUGE.

If you don't have the engine capable of the job to begin with, no amount of scaling in either direction is going to do a damn thing for you.

The only thing you can do with scale models is sort out aerodynamics...and even then it's not perfect. You'll still have to run test launches to verify the aerodynamics work at the 100% scale.

If they have the technology to build one rocket engine then they can build another at a larger scale.

It is simple scaling up, you've fuel and oxidizer mix ignited and the resultant gas is forced out an exhaust nozzle...

 

[KingTutOg]

That's exactly it though! Why the fuck do we care if some one says Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas? Does it really make a difference in the actual holiday? Is it less special if the cashier at Walmart says Happy holidays instead? However if you are in a country that celebrates certain holidays you don't follow then you would also have to respect the local customs like someone saying Merry Christmas to you. I'm not saying you have to run out and buy a Christmas tree but just respectful of each other's views and beliefs.

We have bigger things to think about. Like North Korea, South Korea, Japan and Alaska. Right now as it stands we are in a in a lose-lose situation. Does the world just sit back and keep sanctioning a country that doesn't give a fuck about sanctions and let them build more and more advanced weapons of mass destruction? Or do we invade North Korea and send tens of millions of people in North/South Korea and Japan to their graves? Do you go all Jason Bourne and assassinate Kim Jong Un with black ops and hope their next dictator is nicer and not bat shit crazy? At this point all choices are fucked up in one way or another. Glad I'm not making the decision, it's going to be a hard one. That being said, Trump making any decisions other than what colour socks he puts on in the morning scares the hell out of me!

So you say respect others beliefs but Kim Jong Un is bat shit crazy in his views and beliefs? you know who else has views and beliefs?.......Satan

 

[TacoMac]

If they have the technology to build one rocket engine then they can build another at a larger scale.

LMAO!!!

Engines don't work that way. At all. And once again you fail to use basic common sense along with some basic math. If you increase the engine size, you're going to need more fuel. If you're going to need more fuel, you're going to need a bigger rocket. If you're going to need a bigger rocket, you're going to need a bigger engine.

See where just 'scaling it up' gets you?

You have to start with the engine from the very beginning. You have to know how much weight you're lifting, how far you're lifting it, and how fast you need it to get there. Then you design an engine to do exactly that.

There's a reason NASA have ALWAYS had an engine in testing before they ever bother building rockets. They learned the hard way during the Mercury program that simply "scaling it up" does NOT work.

Ever.

 

[SneekyNinja]

LMAO!!!

Engines don't work that way. At all. And once again you fail to use basic common sense along with some basic math. If you increase the engine size, you're going to need more fuel. If you're going to need more fuel, you're going to need a bigger rocket. If you're going to need a bigger rocket, you're going to need a bigger engine.

See where just 'scaling it up' gets you?

You have to start with the engine from the very beginning. You have to know how much weight you're lifting, how far you're lifting it, and how fast you need it to get there. Then you design an engine to do exactly that.

There's a reason NASA have ALWAYS had an engine in testing before they ever bother building rockets. They learned the hard way during the Mercury program that simply "scaling it up" does NOT work.

Ever.

Rocket engines provide a certain thrust for a certain fuel input and then based on the mass of the rocket overall and it's fuel you can calculate a figure called deltaV.

Again it's not difficult once you understand the underlying technology and obviously NK has scientists and engineers developing them who understand the technology.

America's early dominance of space was based entirely on the idea of scaling the engines so massively that they could carry nearly anything that could be required of them.

For the record I don't agree with the Trump-tard view on it, but it's only a matter of time and they're continuously researching and improving their designs.

A few years ago the threat was that NK had missiles that might hit Japan...now they're capable of hitting Alaska.

 

[TacoMac]

Stop using Wikipedia for your arguments.

Does a 500 cubic inch (8.2 liter) engine produce twice the power of a 250 cubic inch (4.1 liter) engine?

Answer that question and you'll see how foolish your entire argument is.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Stop using Wikipedia for your arguments.

Does a 500 cubic inch (8.2 liter) engine produce twice the power of a 250 cubic inch (4.1 liter) engine?

Answer that question and you'll see how foolish your entire argument is.

It's not a linear relationship and just because they're called "engines" doesn't mean they operate on similar principles.