Breaking:North Korea succesfully tests nuclear bomb

[Blake]

at least we know North Korea has been faking it.

In a statement on its website, the US Northern Command said North Korea launched a three-stage Taepodong-2 missile at 0230 GMT.

"Stage one of the missile fell into the Sea of Japan/East Sea. The remaining stages along with the payload itself landed in the Pacific Ocean.

"No object entered orbit and no debris fell on Japan."

US military authorities "assessed the space launch vehicle as not a threat to North America or Hawaii and took no action in response to this launch", the statement added.

Earlier, state media in North Korea said that the "Kwangmyongsong-2" satellite had been placed in orbit.

The satellite was transmitting data and the "Song of General Kim Il-sung" and "Song of General Kim Jong-il" - references to the late founder of North Korea and his son, the current leader - the report said.

The BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul says a failure would seriously detract from North Korea's ability to exploit the propaganda value of the launch, although it may never admit it to its own people.

In a previous satellite launch attempt in 1998, North Korea said it was sending up a device that would orbit the world transmitting revolutionary melodies.

It claimed this was also successful but the launch is believed to have been a failure as no trace of the satellite was ever found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7984254.stm

[Blake]

fyi

.....Introduction
There is a troublesome lack of clarity in public discourse regarding both the rationale for and the technical progress toward an effective U.S. missile defense network. Quite simply, the public statements made by Pentagon officials and contractors have often been at variance with the facts at hand. It is difficult to separate programmatic spin from genuine progress. In particular, the missile defense program has made claims that have not been demonstrated through realistic testing......

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/CoyleHASCfull2_25_091.pdf

I recommend reading all 28 pages of CDI Senior Advisor Philip Coyle's testimony to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the House Armed Forces Committee on "The Future of Missile Defense Testing" on Feb. 25, 2009.....

but I'm betting you won't, so to summarize:

In his testimony, Coyle outlines steps that the MDA must take to establish an effective U.S. missile defense network. Coyle argues that the current systems lack the ability to deal with decoys and countermeasures, lack demonstrated effectiveness under realistic operational conditions, and are not able to prove their ability to handle attacks involving multiple missiles. He proposes dramatically increased and more thorough testing to clarify the claims previously made by Pentagon officials and contractors.

http://www.cdi.org/program/do ent....intversion.cfm

[ChumpDumper]

The first link is an editorial, where someone comes to the conclusion that the results are being faked.

I found this quote on PBSabout those same tests. There appears to be no attempt to hide the fact that there was a GPS in the target, and by the July test they actually weren't relying on the GPS for the entire test.

Except it was hidden until weeks after the fact. You would have known that had you read the article that quoted a Reuters report.

The second link you obviously didn't even read because the "fake targets" they are referring to are the practice targets, as in "fake Russian missile". It has nothing to do with falsifying results.

You're welcome.

I told you exactly what it was about in two separate posts.

No, the results were very much faked in the past.

Last I heard, they were having trouble even making good target rockets. Maybe we should buy a few from North Korea.

Well there was at least one tests in which the target had a homing beacon on it so the missile wouldn't miss it. I remember that quite clearly. Now our target missiles fail so often we can't even get to the point of actually testing the system satisfactorily.

And of course WC already brought up the TRW issue. Even you could google "fake missile test" and find all the information your little heart desired.

Please read the links.

That's gold.

[Obstructed_View]

So you posted one editorial based on a report you failed to link, as well as another link that had nothing to do with the information I asked for, but had something to do with a throwaway comment you made earlier. That's more than you usually provide before declaring yourself the champ. Well done, Chump.

[Wild Cobra]

Please read the links. There are no examples provided. In fact, do you even bother to read the threads? Look four posts above you.

I did read the threads. I understand not only what a GPS is, but being a Microwave Communications Technician, I understand how they work, and somewhat, their limitations. I was attempting to explain why a GPS back then could not be used as a cheat.

My point is that the GPS could not be a beacon for the defense system, but is accurate enough to guide telephoto camera from miles away, to do ent the test.

The acknowledgment that a GPS transponder was in the system does not mean it was used to cheat the test. In fact, the accuracy of 2001 GPS systems would make it unreliable. No electronics engineer would be dumb enough to use a GPS moving so fast as a location devise for precision targeting.

With a GPS, you are calculating a position, using relative distances between satellites, and the timecodes they use. It is not triangulation, and requires four received satellite signals to calculate position and height. Computers were not fast enough to compute position of a target moving. When you look at the fact the target is probably moving 1,000 to 2,000 ft. per second, and how many wavelengths of microwave signal now is shifted with the Doppler effect... Now apply the trigonometry of the signals originating from various moving satellites and their doppler effect... Now keep in mind also, the GPS system operates at 1.57542 GHz and 1.2276 GHZ. A wavelength is 24.4 cm and 19 cm respectively (11.5" and 9".)

What did they do. Place super computers in each target to make accurate enough to be hit by the other missile? In about 2001, the military I think was limited to about 10 meters with the GPS system, for fixed locations. Good luck with a moving target.

The first article gives a false perception of what is possible. If they were to cheat the test, a simple homing beacon would be used, that would allow simple triangulation.

The trick to hitting a missile with a missile, is proper course corrections with the changing wind velocities, and wind shears. The system needs to be tuned to see ahead with something similar to Doppler radar, but will see moving dry air. This is necessary to make timely course corrections rather than being suddenly blown several yards off course. That means a lidar, or something more advanced, at a frequency that the receiver will see the Doppler shift of the reflected light off of the nitrogen or oxygen. This alone requires computation power not available in the 80's and probably not the 90's. We surely have it today. 2001 was probably borderline for reliability.

As for mid course, assuming GPS was used for that, it simple means they didn't develop that part of the system, and were demonstrating the targeting accuracy at detonation. I would say there is little concern about testing to get the missile in the general area. That part's easy. Hitting it's the hard part.

[ChumpDumper]

So you posted one editorial based on a report you failed to link, as well as another link that had nothing to do with the information I asked for, but had something to do with a throwaway comment you made earlier. That's more than you usually provide before declaring yourself the champ. Well done, Chump.

You asked for information. I gave it to you.

It was not a throwaway comment. I made the comment twice and you got indignant at me for your failure to actually read the thread. That's your problem, not mine.

I said I was going off personal recollection.

My recollection was accurate.

There was nothing to win here, but it was indeed pretty well done by me. Thanks.