I assume the answer is 'no', but did NK liaise in anyway with the international body that governs orbital slots for satellites, or is it irrelevant for this orbit (or likely to deorbit in a few months anyway).
I'm not sure what is more likely; an NK that goes all first strike, or gets a bit too ambitious in launching satellites without participating in the appropriate international processes and triggers a Kessler Syndrome event in Earth orbit.
It is irrelevant for this orbit. The ITU assigns slots for geostationary orbits but you don't have to get permission to put a satellite into a non-GSO. Countries are, however, expected to notify the ITU of their intentions so that the ITU can disseminate that information to the rest of the world and coordinate to avoid any problems (this is more to do with radio frequencies than avoiding physical collisions).
North Korea notified the ITU a few days before the launch but the information provided was incomplete (they didn't include the frequencies the satellite will be using).
They expect it to have a four year life, by the way.
No, it was reported in the news[1] with the caveat that the information provided was incomplete and the suggestion that the ITU would need to wait until full/complete info was provided before they would publish it to their members.
This makes me think of a movie plot: A rogue nation is suspected of preparing an ICBM launch, but moments after launch it becomes clear that the trajectory will take the payload into orbit and the world breathes a sigh of relief. That is, until a spy discovers that the satellite contains a nuclear weapon and is designed to deorbit a few months later and land in Washington DC...
That would be well into sci-fi movie plot territory though... The atmosphere is far too variable to predict a specific deorbit point months in advance.
Also, the movie would end anticlimactically about thirty minutes after the discovery as the offending satellite orbits too close to a US Navy missile cruiser and gets blown out of the sky. :P
No, there would be a plot twist where the US military threatens to shoot down the satellite, but the hero would stop them from doing this at the last minute due to the threat supposedly posed by having radioactive material raining down on half of the planet. ;-)
Orbital slots apply mostly to geostationary spacecraft, which this is not. It is far too low for geo orbit. I'm not sure how LEO is regulated, but very few commercial spacecraft would be affected by this bird. The only commercial craft that I can think of down there are the satellites that make up the Iridium constellation.
Since neither the article nor the comments here mention this: it is not at all clear that the launched object was a satellite. In fact, the available evidence -- including the fact that no transmissions have ever been detected from this or its three predecessors -- points towards it being an intercontinental ballistic missile test, and the "satellite" is just a cover story.
And there's precedent too: the Kwangmyongsong-1 deorbited almost immediately, but the launch was still hailed in the NK press as a total success, up to and including broadcasting songs extolling the virtues of Kims.
Yes. Then again, you don't have to be a crazy president to do something like that. If I had spare money to build ($?) and launch ($8k http://www.gizmag.com/tubesat-personal-satellite/22211/) a satellite which just circles the world and beams down nyan cat song at standard FM, I'd definitely do that.
Commercial FM transmitters routinely have outputs on the order of several kW, and have ranges in the low hundred kilometres. The lowest low earth orbit is 160 km, TubeSats are in 320 km orbits.
I doubt you could fit enough PV cells on a TubeSat to power a FM transmitter that could be heard on earth with standard equipment.
I guess it's a question of what's the squelch level in retail radios. It's FM modulation, so it doesn't have to be very strong - just high enough above the noise level.
Also local transmitters are either omnidirectional, or it's a few wide-angle antennas that need to send the signal over hills / through buildings, etc. From space you could easily do only ~20 degrees and there's practically nothing in your way.
For comparison, LEO weather satellites send data at around 6-7W (not kW).
> Why does the article quote North Korea's "right" to explore space in a peaceful manner?
Because if you run through the street, it's normal. If you run through the street shouting that you're exercising your right to run through the street in a peaceful manner, it's being super suspicious. (like naming state-controlled newspaper "The Truth") Also because everyone is aware they're experimenting with serious weapons and act as if they are disconnected from consequences, so it's worth paying attention.
>Why is it widely condemned when North Korea launches a satellite?
Because most countries view it as a cover for an ICBM program. Anything that can launch a satellite into orbit can carry a nuke to the other side of the world.
>Why does the article quote North Korea's "right" to explore space in a peaceful manner?
Doesn't it have that right? Who is to say North Korea can't launch satellites?
This is a tricky thing for other countries to navigate. We really don't have the right to tell them they can't have satellites or nuclear power. Other countries collectively launch satellites every week or so, and there are 438 operating nuclear reactors.
On the other hand... nobody trusts the Norks, and with good reason. I guess it's like interpersonal communications - reputation matters.
Reputation and precedent. It's long past time to complain about the US's ICBMs.
And for everyone sarcastically wondering why the US gets a pass, I'm pretty sure there was a lot of criticism at the time over the US's (and Soviets') nuclear buildup.
Still, can't you see it from their side? I'm pretty sure if I were running North Korea or Iran I'd be doing whatever I needed to do to acquire a credible nuclear deterrent.
Particularly after Libya. When the US invaded Iraq the Libyans decided the best way to avoid the same fate was to accede to demands from the West. They gave up their nuclear program, paid compensation for Lockerbie, and generally stopped messing with other countries.
And when it was convenient, we (mostly the UK and France, but the US too) provided the air power to overthrow the Libyan government. Kadaffi himself was tortured to death.
If you're Kim Jong Un, what lesson do you draw from that sequence of events?
Sure, I can see it from their side. What you say makes complete sense. But I'm not on their side.
I'm sure it hasn't been handled well, but the answer isn't to just welcome them into the community of nuclear nations and applaud every time they conduct a weapons test.
Well, okay, I agree with that, but when we go to other countries in the region and say "We'd really like your help in putting pressure on North Korea to give up its missile program," we have to have an answer ready when they say "You have lots of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. If you're not willing to give up your weapons, why should we help you strong-arm the Koreans into giving up theirs?"
I think the argument can be made on behalf of their own rational self-interests. Do other countries in the region feel safer with North Korea maintaining a nuclear arsenal? Japan and South Korea probably do not. Would China prefer that North Korea have long-range nuclear strike capabilities that guarantee the US can never leave the hemisphere, and that NK can effectively challenge their political authority in the region? Probably not.
All things being equal, the choice is between the US' nukes, and the US' nukes aimed at NK's nukes, and NK's nukes aimed who knows where (not necessarily just as the US.)
Other countries in the region (with the exception of China) want DPRK to be constrained. It's not like we need to convince them.
As mentioned in one of the other replies -- sure, I can't fault a government for wanting to pursue nukes and space-launch capability. History has shown that you're either a US-ally, a nuclear power, or largely powerless over your country's destiny.
That doesn't mean I want adversaries to have the same tech as I do. So, the condemnations make perfect sense. It's all a game.
The answer to that question is easy: "those guys are nuts, and there's no reason to think those nukes can't be pointed at you."
There hasn't been much trouble getting other countries to put pressure on North Korea. The trouble is that North Korea is already so isolated that it just doesn't work. Their whole national philosophy is based around self reliance.
>There hasn't been much trouble getting other countries to put pressure on North Korea.
...other countries except China, the important one. North Korean products (legal plus things like drugs and counterfeit cash and weapons) are shipped overland and out through China's ports. The Chinese sell oil to North Korea at below market rates. Plus luxury items for the people in charge. If China decided to play ball the North Korean government could not survive.
China still pressures them. Maybe not enough, but it seems like North Korea is too willing to call their bluff. China doesn't want North Korea to collapse, and that has little to do with whataboutism regarding the US's nuclear arsenal.
Juche (Chosŏn'gŭl: 주체; hancha: 主體; RR: Chuch'e; Korean pronunciation: [tɕutɕʰe]), usually translated as "self-reliance", is the official political ideology of North Korea, described by the regime as Kim Il-Sung's "original, brilliant and revolutionary contribution to national and international thought".
I was asked, very straightforwardly, by a woman I met,"Why does Ronald Reagan want to destroy the world with nuclear weapons?"...I replied that I doubted very much that he did...
The U.S. has certainly received scrutiny abroad...
The UN Security Council has banned North Korea from developing ballistic missile technology. There's not much difference between a rocket that's capable of putting a satellite into orbit and an intercontinental ballistic missile. In fact, Sputnik was launched using an ICBM.
Indeed. I'm actually impressed by the technical achievement - putting something into a (nearly) circular polar orbit is no mean feat.
As for the "it's an ICBM test!" crowd - bollocks. That's like saying the Boeing 747 was a test to see if manned flight is possible - total overengineering.
Also, for context, what exactly do folks think soyuz goes into space on? A magical peace rocket? No. It goes up on an R-7, which is an ICBM - the very first developed, in fact. That nasty ICBM technology has kept the ISS running.
The Mercury programme redstone rockets that put Americans in space - also ballistic missiles that had had warheads replaced with crew capsules.
Should America and Russia have been condemned by the world? By the standards being applied here, yes.
So, shake your fist all you like, but regardless of their politics this is a technical coup, and I congratulate them on a successful launch.
>As for the "it's an ICBM test!" crowd - bollocks. That's like saying the Boeing 747 was a test to see if manned flight is possible - total overengineering.
Not true. The North Koreans aren't at the point yet where they can miniaturize nuclear bombs, so if they're going to make a system that can deliver nuclear warheads, it's going to need to be something like this.
you are deeply wrong, friend. Our, and the soviet, rocket development was very clearly ICBM development - thats no secret. North Korea is quite obviously following the same path. Yes, it is a technical accomplishment - no they are not to be congratulated : do you live in a cave? They are universally condemned not because they can do engineering, but because they are an affront to civilization.
I don't think China has anything to gain by giving NK advanced rocket technology. China already have enough power to impress its neighbors and is not afraid to show it off, so there's no need to prop up a satellite nation which is barely controllable.
If anything, NK rockets are a very handy excuse for Japan to re-arm itself (or continue arming itself, depending on how you look at it), and I can't imagine China liking its prospect. Meanwhile, South Korean government is already discussing plans to introduce THAAD (whatever that is) into SK, and apparently China is pretty upset about that, too. Sigh.
Well, South Korea (thankfully) doesn't have nukes, but we have lots of US military bases and they can easily have nukes.
Honestly, I don't see what difference a missile defense would make to SK, when North Korea can set Seoul in fire with artillery.
At least I understand that having a missile defense system right in front of China will help the US in its geopolitical game against China. What I don't understand is why our politicians think it's a good idea to act as a conspicuous pawn in this game.
>Honestly, I don't see what difference a missile defense would make to SK, when North Korea can set Seoul in fire with artillery.
While I agree the North Koreans can do a tremendous amount of damage to Seoul with artillery, these are really calculations on the strategic, nuclear level. The North Korean conventional ballistic arsenal is too small to matter very much.
What they're really worried about is South Korea developing the capability to stop the North Koreans from delivering a nuclear bomb. The Chinese are probably thinking the US is more likely to nuke the North Koreans if we don't believe they can retaliate effectively.
Still, it doesn't make much sense to me. If we were to make a first strike on North Korea we would get their nukes with a pretty high degree of confidence. Not that we would anyway, but the strategic consideration there is China's response, not North Korea's.
I realize N Korea is pretty isolated, but China shares technology with the country right?
Doubtful at this level. The North Korean missile systems it sold to Syria (and Iran) in the early 2010s were NK development of earlier Soviet systems[1].
So how long is it before western countries intervene? NK has demonstrated that they can build nuclear bombs, they have demonstrated that they can put objects into orbit. Its only a matter of time before they can do both at the same time.
I don't believe that NK has demonstrated that they can build nuclear bombs... If I recall correctly, their claimed nuclear detonation was not in fact a fully-fledged nuclear explosion.
Also, they are weak as heck, and can't realistically attack anyone without being annihilated.
The continuous rhetoric viz-a-viz NK, both from their side and the West is quite ridiculous to behold.
Interesting...the article posits, if frequencies can be discovered, it might be possible to intercept/capture transmissions from the satellite, when in range, using something as simple as a ham radio or SDR dongle (police scanner)...
My understanding of satellite coms is that many satellites are of the "relay" class, and use TDRS--Tracking and Data Relay Satellite--to bounce signals from satellite to satellite when a ground station is not in line of sight...NASA, for instance...
That's assuming it's not encrypted. A lot of the data coming in is transmitted in plain right now, (comms, images, telemetry, ...) because it's just not worth encrypting, or simply could be of interest to other parties. But if anyone wants to put encryption on the data, you're not going to find out much.
That said... it's passing right over me in a few minutes, so I'll be out monitoring the 4xx freqs :)
Edit: in case anyone was wondering - nothing exciting happened. No sign of new signals during a perfect pass: https://i.imgur.com/rMC6gIE.png (at least not at those freqs they used previously)
That seems unlikely to be the reason but I don't know much about how satellites are programmed. On the terrestrial plane a $5 raspberry pi with free software can encrypt and decrypt secure communication. It's trivial and cheap to encrypt.
Raspi isn't rad-hardened and wouldn't last long (about a month is typical if memory serves). Still, rad-hardening a processor wouldn't exactly be the hardest part of the project so the point stands.
I'm not sure what is more likely; an NK that goes all first strike, or gets a bit too ambitious in launching satellites without participating in the appropriate international processes and triggers a Kessler Syndrome event in Earth orbit.