By Unfortunately the South Koreans have once again had another set back in their attempt to develop their space industry:
A South Korean rocket carrying a climate observation satellite apparently exploded 137 seconds into its flight early Thursday, the country’s second major space setback in less than a year.
The two-stage Naro rocket operated normally during and after liftoff from the country’s space center, Minister of Education, Science and Technology Ahn Byong-man said. But then communications with the rocket were lost.
“We believe that the Naro rocket is likely to have exploded,” he told reporters. “We are sorry for failing to live up to people’s expectations.”
An image from a camera aboard the Naro brightened like a flash of light, possibly evidence of an explosion, Ahn said.
He said South Korean and Russian experts were trying to find the cause of the problem. The first stage of the rocket was designed and built by Russia and the second by South Korea.
Ahn said that South Korea will begin preparations to announce a new launch date as soon as the cause of the setback is determined.
It was not immediately clear where any debris from the rocket fell and there were no reports of injuries. Repeated calls to the ministry and the state-run Korea Aerospace Research Institute went unanswered later Thursday. [Associated Press]
Readers may remember that their first rocket launch this year failed as well. If launching rockets into outer space was easy everyone would be doing it, so there is of course going to be growing pains. Koreans when they put their minds on doing something they always seem to get it done and developing space technology seems to be something that Korea is committed to doing.
2:58 am on June 10th, 2010 1
In a way I'm not surprised it blew up again. I've heard some Koreans accuse SK govt of basically paying the Russians to 'test' the new Russian rockets on Koreans' time. I'm sure SK will get it eventually.
6:59 am on June 10th, 2010 2
Why use Russians?
7:08 am on June 10th, 2010 3
Pete 2 – Russians are big experts on rockets and neighbors of Korea. I'm glad to see those two countries cooperating.
8:46 am on June 10th, 2010 4
#2 …and Russians will soon be the only country capable (and with a proven, successful, track record) due to the US's short sighted leadership and their inability to justify a mere 1% of the federal budget to fund our space program. One of the few programs in the federal budget which seems to have a true return on the investment.
I agree with #3.
9:08 am on June 10th, 2010 5
I heard that US govt wouldn't allow any kind of cooperation on the rocket development work with ROK for fear of helping create yet another competitor in rocket launch business. Russians were the only ones willing to join.
9:13 am on June 10th, 2010 6
So – we have most likely witnessed the last flight of the space shuttle with no viable replacement for it that I know of due out in the foreseeable future. So – who else would SK turn to, except China perhaps. Of those two choices, I'm with Leon and Glans on this one – Russians seem to be the only option…
9:41 am on June 10th, 2010 7
#6 I was specifically referring to human space flight in my little rant. As far as cargo (satellite) launch capabilities, the US is still very much a robust competitor on the government side (NASA and Air Force) and our commercial launch industries.
11:59 am on June 10th, 2010 8
Leon,
I was confused by your comment in #4 which was partially clarified in #7. I understand the return on investment for commercial satellite launches, but what has been the "true return on the investment" of our human space flight program?
I agree with the administration that human space flight should be weened off and subsidized as a private effort. If there is a true return on investment to be made, it should succeed commercially. The government can't afford it right now.
2:09 pm on June 10th, 2010 9
"Why use Russians?"
South Korea still has an agreement with the US to not produce rocket hardware (but allowed to design the technology for research purpose) that can potentially be used on ballistic missiles that can reach farther than 300-km.
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_…
This agreement was in part to establish the justification on sanctioning North Korea for launching rockets such as the Taepodong-2, without posing double standard — to play fair, South Korea itself too would be subject to the same restrictions, that South Korea will not produce such long-range rocket hardware. Another reason for that agreement would be to prevent further arms race between South Korea and its neighbors (an ROK missile being theoretically able to hit Beijing, for example, would cause a lot of largely unnecessary diplomatic headache).
The first stage has to be imported from Russia because of that aforementioned agreement, but the second stage could be indigenously produced because it did not violate that criteria. And Naro's second stage is actually 4.5 times more powerful than the second stage of the Angara rocket which the first stage of Naro came from.
3:04 pm on June 10th, 2010 10
“Why use Russians?”
You don't "use Russians". Russians use YOU!
4:14 pm on June 10th, 2010 11
“Why use Russians?”
Russians spent billions over the last 60 years to develop technology and procedures that Korean "space tourists" can learn for a few hundred million in a few years.
Like past nation-building and industrial development, forward-thinking Korea is committed to space… and they have the educated workforce, financial resources, manufacturing infrastructure and political will to back that up…
With the same strategies that succeeded with cars, ships and electronics, Korea will very likely succeed at being a world player, if not leader, in space-related equipment technology and manufacturing.
America should partner with Korea and, in exchange for base technology, let the Korean taxpayer finance the next generation of joint American-Korean space research.
…but, no…
Instead, America squanders it future investment resources on bailouts, aid packages, perpetual war and stimulus checks so Americans can buy Chinese products and finance the next generation of Chinese space exploration… or conquest.
5:13 pm on June 10th, 2010 12
The U.S. can't give SK advanced technology because there's too many infiltrators who'll give it to the North.
8:34 pm on June 10th, 2010 13
If any more of these blow up a few seconds after launch, I'll start wondering whether it was intentional or not.
2:58 am on June 11th, 2010 14
#9
My understanding is that SK already possess enough cruise missiles to hit Beijing and cause enough damage, IF it somehow comes down to it…
Reason SK developed cruise missiles was get around the restriction US and ROK agreed on, which was that SK wouldn't develop a ballistic missile with range of more than 400 km (?).
I agree with #11, but looks like it won't happen.
2:47 pm on June 11th, 2010 15
^
Cruise missiles are categorized as 'strike aircraft' in US portfolio, and they do not fit into the 'WMD' category unless they are armed with warhead heavier than 500 kg (incidentally, Korea's not allowed to produce cruise missiles with warhead heavier than 500 kg). I think that distiction was sufficient for the US to draw different sets of limitations for a cruise missile development and a ballistic missile development. And, if the US disallowed Korea from possessing cruise missiles, while allowing posession of strike aircraft such as KF-16 and F-15K, which can already strike targets such as Beijing, it would have required a lot of explanations as to why that is so.
Also, the limitation on cruise missiles will not provide to the South and the US with the same advantage as the limitation on ballistic missiles. One purpose of the ballistic missile range limitation agreement was to prevent double standard between the South and the North from the perspective of the international community, but such double standard can't exist on cruise missiles, as North does not possess nor plan to develop long-range cruise missiles. To impeded the North's non-existent cruise missile program, we impede the South's by the same margin, and that's clearly an ineffective measure in curtailing the North's WMD ambitions. There's no use, simply.
3:28 pm on June 11th, 2010 16
A large focus of South Korea's rocket technology is placed on miniaturization, compacting more power on a smaller motor. The KSR-III rocket successfully test-launched in 2002 was more powerful than North Korea's Hwasong-6 missile (122.50 kN vs. 93 kN), but was only 1/4 the size of Hwasong-6. The economics of space exploration though often disagrees with the feasibility of clustering multiple smaller rockets together to achieve the same power of a single big rocket, as big as the RD-151 of Naro. It's very expensive.
http://video.nate.com/clip/view?video_seq=2075960…
7:53 am on June 12th, 2010 17
#12, Exactly.