Passenger planes at risk from North Korean missile tests

[jb747]

You don't fly ICBMs in numbers measured in metres.

The missile that hit the 777 was an anti aircraft weapon that was deliberately aimed at the aircraft. It did what it was designed to do. The US regularly fires all sorts of vehicles out of Vandenburg (in California), and you can see them from the aircraft if you happen to be nearby.

 

[harvyk]

So are you claiming that for some reason an ICBM cannot have an apogee beyond the ISS orbit?

The problem on this thread is not with the CNN article.

Beyond 100 KM is the Kármán line, aka the edge of space. Getting things up to even that altitude is really difficult, expensive, and requires a ton of maths to make sure it actually ends up going where you want it to. It's the ton of maths which would probably make the 4000km scenario unlikely as ideally if you have something like an ICBM you want to type in co-ordinates and press the big red button and be done with it, not have really smart people spending time working out how to actually get it to the target.

Furthermore at 4000 KM it's hardly going to be much of a threat to aviation which typically flies between 0km and 20km. In fact at 4000km the only real risk to aviation is to the plane which happen to be flying directly over the launch pad (and something tells me that NK are going to tell pilots to avoid the area), and the plane which happens to be flying in the general area of the target, and something tells me that NK aren't too worried about the plane flying directly over the target.

I'm not a rocket scientist (no surprises there), but it seems some posters, for reasons unknown, are skeptical of the reported 3,700km altitude.

I'm not a rocket scientist, but my grandfather is. He loves to part stories about getting rockets, satellites and even people up into the sky and even space. He also loves showing some of the equations he uses to do it.

 

[jb747]

Well, I certainly don't have the maths to work this out, but remember that this would not have been the sort of long range firing you'd need to take a (suicidal) shot at the US. And, it's also not the same as trying to get something into orbit. Rather like Jeff Bezos and his space tourism...a rocket that just goes up...stops and then comes down.

Presumably, if you're trying to test something that you mean to travel 10,000 kms, and you only have a much shorter range for your test shot, you'd fire it into a much steeper ballistic trajectory...rather like a mortar shot. 4,000 kms...probably not. But it would be interesting to know the comparison in energy required to put something to (say) 1,000 km ballistically (with zero residual speed), vs putting the same thing into low orbit.

 

[BacchusMarsh]

Beyond 100 KM is the Kármán line, aka the edge of space. Getting things up to even that altitude is really difficult, expensive, and requires a ton of maths to make sure it actually ends up going where you want it to. It's the ton of maths which would probably make the 4000km scenario unlikely as ideally if you have something like an ICBM you want to type in co-ordinates and press the big red button and be done with it, not have really smart people spending time working out how to actually get it to the target.

ICBMs go (well) past 100km all the time.

I wasn't sitting on the North Korean one so I can't vouch for the exact apogee, but those of you arguing that 3,700km cannot possibly be in the right ballpark are just completely in the wrong ballpark. You might like to check with your grandfather.

 

[Berlin]

Apparently, Air France is now expanding its no-fly zone above North Korea and the surrounding seas as a “precautionary” measure. Doesn't sound like a totally far-fetched threat to me:

Air France expands North Korea no-fly zone after missile test - France 24

 

[jb747]

Certainly there is a chance than anything coming down would be able to randomly hit something. The odds against it would have to be huge.

How many aircraft were under Columbia's reentry path across the USA?

Nothing wrong with an abundance of caution, but there are many other threats with far greater likelyhood.

 

[harvyk]

ICBMs go (well) past 100km all the time.

I wasn't sitting on the North Korean one so I can't vouch for the exact apogee, but those of you arguing that 3,700km cannot possibly be in the right ballpark are just completely in the wrong ballpark. You might like to check with your grandfather.

After a google search I am going to respectfully say you may be correct, (and that you learn something new every day). However it now adds weight to the comment about it been a threat to aviation as been completely overstated.