On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:29:35 -0400, XjJHGD?? ?????? ? ??????? ??OPMFiN
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/29/2017 9:15 AM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 21:55:55 -0400, DdbRuZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??eLpvTM
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/28/2017 8:42 PM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:31:43 -0400, zUFjUv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??JbAGmI
wrote:

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I think you've nailed that foolish Ed right in the head.

Huh? He's talking about getting the technology from the outside, from
countries who went through the decade or so of failures that we all
went through. You were claiming anybody could make ICBMs from your
cartoon sketches.

That was a schematic diagram of a V2 rocket I showed you. That is the
mother of all modern rockets. Before that there was only the gunpowder
rocket invented by the Chinese long time ago.

After WWII the US captured and shanghaied Hitler's rocket scientists to
work for the US. That's how NASA got started.

A rocket has very little moving parts. It is actually easier to make
than a internal combustion engine.

Fat Boi Kim made leaps and bounds after he'd figured it out and then
incorporated all the sensors available in a smartphone to guide his
missiles.

When the U.S. Army Had its Own V-2 Rockets
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24513/us-army-v-2-rockets/




Your diatribe is ridiculous. Here are real RD-series rocket motors:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/38/0e/6b/3...1a2008d66c.jpg



A rocket motor is a very simple deign. I can look at the picture and
immediate can identify which part does what.

Your ignorance is amazing. Years ago I was stationed at Edwards AFB
and the shop I worked in did considerable work for the Rocket Test
Center which was located on the other side of the dry lake at the
time.

Yes, you can identify the parts of a rocket motor. "That is the back
end where the fire comes out and that is the other end."

But in actual practice even a solid fuel rocket motor is far more
complex then you can imagine. The angle of the exhaust nozzle has an
effect on the thrust. The size of the combustion chamber has an effect
on the thrust.

If it is a liquid fuel motor then it gets even more complex. Where and
how the fuel is admitted, for example. As many rockets utilize
hypergolic propellants simply spraying the fuel into the combustion
chamber ignites it but the location of the injection nozzles and the
pressure at which the fuel components are injected also effect the
combustion rate and thus the thrust of the motor.

And, of course, if a liquid monopropellant is used it does require an
ignition source.


For you, I might have to hold your hand to point at the parts and
explain to you.

Right. This is the back end where the fire comes out and this is the
other end...

Your knowledge of rocket engines and/or missiles is rudimentary, at
best.

Rather like claiming to be an expert in avian behavior because you
watched a Donald Duck cartoon.

--
Cheers,

Schweik