Why North Korea Can't Build An ICBM (yet) 

I tried to approach the topic without mentioning any politics. The whole situation is incredibly complex, but the media have been blowing the threat out of proportion and I wanted to quell the insanity a little. If you would like to get a 2 month free trial with Skillshare, use this link: skl.sh/realengineering3

Does skillshare have classes on building ICBMs??

why did the chicken cross the road? because north korea's long-range missiles cant reach that far

There's a bunch of really good vintage space videos on early ICBMs if you want a more in depth info

Make a new video “how North Korea has made an ICBM”

Great video! Nice animation of a gyroscope too

Im living in south korea and im genuinely scared but real engineering is cheering me up with videos

*Next week:* "Breaking news, North Korea has an ICBM."

How can you stop North Korea? Send Kim a box full of reese's cups

Two fun facts: normal GPS will stop working after a certain speed (Mach 2 I think?) to prevent its use in guided missiles. Similarly, there’s a restriction on the frame rate of thermal cameras to prevent their use in heat-seeking missiles.

North Korea: I’m gonna end this man’s whole career

Because Kim jun un eats too much that it consumes 70% of their military budget lol

Roses are red. Kim Jong Un is hardly a real threat. Why North Korea Cant Build An ICBM (yet)

You don't need GPS. They designed modern missiles that follow the stars for guidance. Not kidding.

Me: *sees title of the video* : kalm Me *sees when it was relased* : PANIKKK

I have a theory as to how they could have potentially made a manned ICBM work in WW2.... if instead of ejecting from the ICBM upwards, could they not devise a mechanism to open up underneath the ICBM and slant his seat - essentially flipping it back to front prior to ejecting. Meaning he will be facing the rear of the missile upon hitting the force of the air outside of the aircraft, being shielded by his seat. Protecting his neck from whiplash while deploying the chute 10 sec after - to allow for safe deceleration as to not tear his parachute. He can be supplied with a 5L air canister strapped to his chest so as to not suffocate from the drop in air pressure at the point of ejection process starting underneath him. ( I know this wont work, but i thought i would give an attempt at it)....

There is a good reason not to freak out too much if you are an American as the video shows. It is Japan and especially South Korea that is under greatest threat right now. But I hope calmer and more rational minds wins out.

The Supreme Leader Thanks You For This Video

South korea is just across the river...

4 yrs later and North Korea has build the ICBM.

This is one of those channels that anyone can enjoy and learn at the same time

Great video! Just one correction. While the A-4 did use a measured fuel system, it was not the means of controlling range, it was found incapable of actually doing so, more importantly it also incorporated automatic fuel cutoff systems to prevent overburning and simply used fuel supplied as an estimate to cover requisite distance. The first systems used a wireless transmission system to send current velocity ground measured velocity to the rocket which would be checked and cutoff if it passed the measured threshold. Later on the I-Gerät 1/3 integrating accelerometers and I-Gerät 2 electrolytic integrative accelerometer were used to accomplish this Brenschluss.

I can't stop watching your videos. I have learned so much. I work in computers but never really knew how a transistor worked, I just knew that it did. keep up the good work.

hah....2 months later

This video didn’t age well

Time to update this video

While some people are freaking out over missiles North Korea has thousands of artillery aimed at the millions of civilians living in Seoul.

Lets hope Kim Jon In doesn't find out about ksp...

0:12 here's your ad skip

Here from future. Bro they took your video as a challenge. Now they have ICBMs😅

Whelp, that didn't age well. Luckily you put "yet" after that sentence, seen how it is 5 years later.

3:20 *Separate* - I always think of _separate_ and _apart_ to remind me it's an _a_

North Korea military parade 2020.

Kim you are not you when your hungry eat a snickers

Worth noting ICBM's don't use blunt body re-entry, and instead have extremely streamlined rentry vehicles. This allows them to reach the ground extraordinarily quickly which is part of why they're so difficult to counter

There is a lot wrong here. 1: ICBMs use stellar navigation. Not satellite. 2: High accuracy only matters for counterforce targeting. For citybusting attacks the warhead only need land in an enemy metropolitan area. 3: Making a warhead small enough to fit on an ICBM is not a difficult task. Six tests in they have one for sure. 4: They have done and shown off heat shield testing. 5: The defensive system you showed was THAAD, which can not target incoming ICBMs. 6: The actual difficulty the DPRK program has ran into is making the missiles mobile. Building an ICBM is easy, its building and ICBM that you can launch in wartime that is difficult.

Great production, this is just miles ahead of mainstream media. It's because of this type of high quality content i don't even own a television anymore :D

Can't*

this video is biased

REVs do not use the blunt body method but solely rely on ablative cooling/shielding. They also use a sharper even worse angle of entry.

A word of caution. Many decades ago some Western countries thought that another country, not far from Korea, did not have the ability to make modern military aircraft. They got a nasty shock on December 7/8th 1941.

North korea: "Hold my beer"

Kim could build ICBM if he use skillshare!

but the Hwasong-14?

They have one now

Chinese military expert as saying China cannot stop North Korea from using Beidou in military operations. Beside Beidou, the other main satellite navigation options for North Korea are the Global Positioning System of the United States and the Russian system known as Glonass.

Because he do not have membership of skillshare.

3:24 Separation not Seperation

Video: Why North Korea can't build an ICM (yet) Me: lol so we're safe. Also Video: 2 years ago.

Really drives home Werner von Braun's full awareness of what he was doing that he named it "Project America". Coupled with his work using Holocaust victims, it really stings that he was so integral to US rocketry. Especially with China scouting him in the middle of that work.

One thing that has me skeptical is that we had icbms well before gps. Also, I don't even think they would need to be very accurate with a nuclear payload.

What? They already have a ICBM.

What about a HEMP? Sure you still need guidance but no heat shielding.

""NORTH KOREA WANTS TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION""

Another channel I didn't know I needed. These kinds of specialised documentary style channels are definitely the future of RU-vid.

One thing:A typical ICBM does not use satellites for guiding, instead, it use celestial navigation system (an optical system which tracks star light, just as the ancient sextant).although it is heavy and expensive, but the reliability is perfect.

Looks like they may have done it. 2800 miles into space and a successful reentry means that they can reach the US. We can't wait for your update video. Thanks for your good work!

I'm watching this video 3 days after North Korea announced the biggest ICMB in the world, the Hwason-17. From being incapable of developing one to having the world's biggest ICMB the North Korean engineers have really come a long way. In a span of five years, the world has made great advancements.

*sees video title* Phew, they can't reach us yet! **Uploaded 2 years ago** Me: (0_0)

Real Engineering thank you so much for taking the time to make these videos. Out of everything I have watched on RU-vid... Real Engineering has been the most informative entertaining. Thank you

Most ICBMs don't use satellite navigation and instead use inertial and celestial navigation as those signals can be easily jammed or spoofed.

this aged well

A real fact is that the world has underestimated the DPRK. Videos like this contribute to kicking the can down the road: "...well they have X, but they can't do Y so we should all not worry." What we should be saying is that "they have X, and they'll have Y soon and it'll be horrible - what are we going to do now so that they don't get Y."

1 month later: *north korea launches ICBM*

You forgot that also in mid course ICBMs use celestial guidance , just like sailors used to use a sextant to calculate their positions.

The re-entry nose cone lasted until 1km in height which is the optimal height for an emp. They have an ICBM, accuracy doesn't matter with 160kt thermonuclear warhead.

So they have the necessary oil and gold but not enough knowledge. Rise of Nations was surprisingly accurate.

Will we see a - How did North Korea manage to build a ICBM - Now?

0:45 YES I GOT MY V2 ROCKET KILLSTREAK

While the United States is being scared by North Korea's missile propaganda but not doing anything, North Korea is building stronger missiles.

Without aiming to cause alarm or reinforce scary things, the evidence presented in this video is shaky at best, and don't support the title. 1) On the RV survivability question - the one in question survived until the final kilometer, which is well low enough for a damaging airburst to take place. 2) Further to that RV burning up, note that the HS14 test was entering the atmosphere from a severely high angle - in an attack scenario, it would be a shallower entry with less pressure/heat on the vehicle. 3) On the accuracy question - GPS satellites are entirely unnecessary (and not even used by the US ICBM force) for accurate ballistic missile shots. We still don't know the HS14's accuracy yet. The backgrounder on ICBMs in general was solid. The conclusion that NK cannot build an ICBM is not supported by the evidence -- and in fact, the bits of evidence we have so far seem to all point to the fact that they can. It's not exactly something

When you come across a rattlesnake, why should you wait until it bites to take action?

The North Koreans could use the U.S. public GPS network. It's available to anyone. It's just like military-grade (it's from the same satellites), except it's only accurate to ten or twenty meters, not ten or twenty centimeters. But that's good enough for Kim's needs.

Why North Korea can't build ICBMs Me:ಠ◡ಠ (Yet) Me:ಠ_ಠ

Interesting points, but it would be ignorant to underestimate anyone. It's impressive what they've been able to create.

Yeah, they just did it!

6 minutes of explaining German V2s only to tell us NK missiles cant survive reentry, followed by ads first and last time viewer tbh

fast forward to today... ...that was a very short "yet"

They perhaps do not need re-entry: a high-altitude EMP strike would be quite enough to wreak economic havoc on a developed country like the US.

THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS. I get tired of explaining the engineering of ICBMs to people, and now i can just tell people to watch this video when they are freaking out.

This video is now expired.

They already did!

Pretty sure they have several ICBMs...

What if aliens had IPBM's? Interplanetary Ballistic Missiles?

I find it funny when people say. "I'm going ballistic on a person." So your going to fall towards earth? Easiest fight ever.

Title: How NK cant make ICBM Content: *Talks about German Kamikaze Missiles*

guess who just launched one

US doesn't have submarines - Real engineering

(all?) Civil GPS modules have built in limitations: They stop tracking the position for speeds more than 1000 knots (1200 mph / 1900 km/h) And also they stop working for altitudes higher than 60000 feets (18km).. Thats why Korea needs own GPS satellites or get one of the US military ones.. which wont probably work for US targets.

6 years later : DPRK tests à hypersonic missile... yay

It got just proven differently..

Well this aged poorly lol.

This didn't age well

Land is dark, water is light. Always.

Heat shields use a special substance to keep it cool enough to not explode. This could be used on an intercontinental missile. The substance is called “albator” or something.

ok then wtf did they launch 2000 miles straight up.....

THEY CAN AND DO AND ALREADY HAVE THEM

They just did

1. Long distance rocket The Aggregat 4 (aka V2) was the longest ranged missile at it's time, but 320 km --- a distance covered in ca. 65 minutes by a B-17 Flying Fortress --- is not really long range. 2. Intercontinental winged ballistic missile? A (never built) combination of a winged A4 and a first stage for it would be intercontinental, but due to the wings not ballistic (and likely interceptable at least sometimes even with WWII technology, totally unlike the A4). 3. Setting the compass to the right direction There was no compass or compass setting as you describe it. The (marked) wing 1 of the A4 would be pointed exactly the right direction with a rotatable, levelled platform. This allowed using only 1 gyroscope for roll and yaw. Improvements were planned and some flown. 4. The "control fins" in the A4 were both conventional control surfaces at the fins and thrust vectoring with graphite fins inside the exhaust to have control at the slow speeds around launch. 5. The Germans did not use 'the amount of fuel calculated by a slide rule' to set the range. Which one of your sources does claim that crap? The Aggregat 4 used a Mueller-type "Pendulous Integrating Gyroscopic Accelerometer", a PIGA (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIGA_accelerometer), still used today, to switch the engine to low thrust at 95% of the end speed and to shut down the engine completely upon reaching the end speed. Also, the engine was started on the ground at "low thrust", so the responsible officer had a visual proof the engine was running properly before ordering the launch. 6. Suicide jump-out A4 rockets to attack the USA Somebody is confusing and conflating a lot of things ... The diagram, up and down through the atmosphere is likely referring to the "Silbervogel" (suborbital spaceplane) concept, started in 1931. It would rise to 145 km, and repeatedly dip into the atmosphere; the lifting body design would carry up again, for a somehwat shorter hop, lather, rinse, repeat. As bomber it was to drop 4,000 kg onto the continental US, skipping on and landing normally somehwere on Japan-held Pacific territory, before leaving the cockpit the normal way. The jumping out was likely the Fieseler Fi 103R "Reichenberg-Gerät", a manned version of the Fi 103 aka V1. It would be a 99% suicide mission, with a slight chance of bailing out shortly before impact, not being hit by the pulse jet just above and behind the cockpit, and parachuting down onto the attack site. Carrier planes would mount and carry one or two of them to extend the range. The U-Boote surfaced near the coast would be an amalganation of several plans to fire on the continental USA with a Fi 103/V-1 (foundered due to interservice rivalry) and the Aggregat 4. The A4 would be placed inside a 500 ton carrier/launch container, to be towed towards the US coast by a submarine. Ballast tanks would turn the container from horizontal to vertical, the missile would be checked, tanked up and launched. No A4 was ever towed towards the US. 7. Terrain mapping is a cruise missile technique, and totally useless for a ICBM. - ICBM: *B*allistic. Not "Steered". - in vacuum: needs reaction engines to alter the trajectory, wings do not work in vacuum. Additional complexity, mass, error sources. - a 90m drop in terrain, starting from 10m above ground, is a change of 1000%. From 100km up, it's 0.08% - From 100 km up, you need 1.6 billion(!) times the energy to get the same radar return strength than if flying at 500m. - ICBMs don't have engines running all through the flight, which could power the radar. They need something light and compact, like batteries. This means radar is out. - where you dee 20m² from 100m height, you see 19.6km² from 100km height with the same antenna. That is too large to use terrain mapping. - ICBMs tend to fly long distances over water, which does not allow terrain mapping. - During reentry the reentry blackout stops any terrain radar --- and the blackout will likely be a few minutes. - A reentry capsule has only very limited course correction capabilities. - Using a star tracker is easier, cheaper, lighter, passive, less energy intensive, works over water and cannot be jammed. Civilian single-band GPS accuracy is 10-15m and a bit worse in height. - The acceptable accuracy for nukes is kilometres. 8. Weight of the A4 The A4 did not have a reentry capsule. It had therefore to be built in a way to survive complete up to the impact, making it unnecessarily heavy. A "reentry vehicle" would have reduced the total weight, allowing a larger warhead or more range. 9. Creating a TPS (Termal Protection System) today is not that difficult. There are patents, old and new, readily available on the Internet (and North Korea will not listen to patent lawyers). Lots of papers, too, old and new. E.g. research into cork granules + phenolic resin for heat shields --- effective and light weight. Produced commercially. And have been used on the Space Shuttle boosters and Delta rockets. 10. Accuracy problem: - They will have enough accuracy for a nuke. Especially one many times stronger than Fat Man or Tall Boy. - Sub launchable missiles (which North Korea has) havge much less distance to travel, and therefore will be more accurate. - Diesel/Electrosubs can be extremely silent, basically invisible withouot active search. Active search, of course, has it's own disadvantages. Some US aircraft carriers have been successfully torpedoed and "sunk" in maneuvers. Others had the sub surface right next to them on top of it --- unnoticed until then. 11. Miniaturizing nuclear weapons. If the images of the hydrogen nuke Mr. Kim stood at are somewhat accurate by size, they have the miniaturization. 12. Reentry stress and nukes Nukes are pretty sturdy. No moving parts, either (except Tall Boy). The acellerations of launch and reentry will not hurt them, only heat or vessel breakup could. That's why you have a heat shield. Since the capsule will be much lighter per front area compared to, say, an Apollo capsule, it will slow down much faster, needing much less of a heat shield. 13. Triggering A simple barometric switch, a timer, an accellerometer ... all can trigger either dropping the heatshield and turning on a height measuring radar or simply the explosion itself, if you want to be crude. 14. The "rocket broke up" Are you sure you see what you think you see? It could well be that what broke up is the rocket --- except for the rentry capsule. You wouldn't necessarily be able to distinguish between some random, broken part of the rocket and an intact reentry capsule. 15. EMP strikes need no reentry For an EMP strike against the USA you want to detonate at ca. 400km height. And for a good effect 10 kilotons will be plenty, especially if the bomb is optimized for it, according to experts heard at the relevant subcomitee of the congress in 1999-10-07. Yield is only loosely coupled to EMP strength. (And we know North Korea has atom bombs well above 10kT.) 15. Countermeasures It's like the assassins and the bodyguards. The bodyguards fail if even a single assassin survives --- and the assassins need to get lucky only once. Patriot is not exactly 100% effective against Scuds, but at least battle tested.

The heat-shield thing may be solvable by the kind of plastics that go into car brake pads and foamed ceramics seen in industrial ovens (those are basically what's on the Space Shuttle), and even small countries that aren't building rockets can make those things... So as of now I'd say the only limit is that if they put the kind of payload on that can actually do anything, the rocket loses the range needed to really reach out anywhere. It's one thing to fly something nearly empty and say it can reach, when putting something heavy in there changes that significantly. I'd also say it's hard to judge any success at miniturization with just the result of underground tests (bigger boom could just be a bigger bomb to start with), so that factor is still a somewhat ambiguous claim.