Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Second Straight Rocket Failure For South Korea

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the rockets-to-space-a-complex-thing dept.

Space 143

eldavojohn writes "South Korea suffered its second straight setback today as its Naro-1 rocket carrying a scientific satellite exploded. The rocket produced a bright flash during stage-one ignition as the ground crews lost contact with it. South Korea paired with Russia to produce the Naro-1 and was looking to both relieve its dependence on other nations to put its satellites in orbit and compete with the space programs of China, India, and Japan. Following a failure on August 25, 2009, this marks the second failed attempt for Naro Space Center to launch a Naro-1 rocket. It appears the old adage revolving around the complexities of 'rocket science' remains valid."

cancel ×

143 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The North (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532206)

I'll bet it was those Comunists in the North up to no good again...

2nd... ? (5, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532308)

"Second straight rocket failure for South Korea"

But would bent rockets work any better?

Re:2nd... ? (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532390)

Damn you, I was going to post the same thing (only i was going to say 'gay rockets').

Re:2nd... ? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532408)

No, but Rocketman always seems to work in non-straight clubs...

Re:2nd... ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532628)

TV said the problem is in the first part made from Russia.

walk in tubs [walk-in-tub.org]

Re:2nd... ? (3, Funny)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532762)

Russian components, Korean components... ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!

Re:2nd... ? (1)

Jeian (409916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532668)

Solution: Gay rockets.

Re:2nd... ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32533534)

As a gay man, I take positive representations where I can get them. Any time a same-gender relationship is portrayed in a positive but very real light benefits us all. The same can be said of Russian missiles, which, much like being gay, will likely remain a minority missile in the a world that seems married to American missiles, and never really "come out of the closet" and be truly ready for acceptance of a constant state of warfare. But anytime we can get some good press, it helps us all. I'm a big fan of Korean missiles in general (because they run Mac OS, which we all know is the gay OS!) and I'm proud that South Korea has taken a stand and acknowledged that some of us are different, and that's ok.

Re:2nd... ? (1)

drej (1663541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532780)

If you bent them too much, they might just fly in an arc and come back down...

Re:2nd... ? (2, Interesting)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533574)

Well, they do for the North!
(In British English 'bent'=stolen, illegal)

Eventually they'll get it right (3, Interesting)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532222)

Progress plods on, and if they keep trying, they will eventually get it right, even if it isn't particularly easy.

I'm not sure I'm discouraged (because this makes it look like it will take more time before humanity can easily colonize space) or encouraged (because this makes it look like it will take more time before every third-world country will be able to produce intercontinental missiles).

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532274)

I doubt it, after all they are made in Korea.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532364)

I doubt it, after all they are made in Korea.

yeah, stupid chinks can't do anything right.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (2, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532276)

Strangely, this actually seems to mean that N. Korea (I guess among the so called "third-world country better not able to produce intercontinental missiles") has quite comparable luck with launches, perhaps even slighhty better one.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (4, Insightful)

NewsWatcher (450241) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532430)

Yeah it would seem to be pretty amazing that North Korea, for all its spit and bile, has managed not only to create working rockets, but nukes as well, despite the world being against it.

South Korea, despite all the world's major powers backing it, has ended up with egg on its face.

Of course, if push really ever came to shove it doesn't really matter how many working missiles South Korea has, as long as the USA has plenty that work correctly.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (0, Offtopic)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532454)

Your signature just blew my mind.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (-1, Troll)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32534042)

Ah. With your mind being so easily blown by the gp's sig, I can see why your sig shows you looking for a job.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532684)

Because the DPRK is pushing more GDP into the program and there is the threat of prison for the scientists and engineers, families, parents and grandparents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aquariums_of_Pyongyang [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodok_concentration_camp [wikipedia.org]

No one in the RoK will be imprisoned or killed if they fail at the rocket program. Now...how successful has the DPRK ICBM/orbital program been?

Not that successful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy [wikipedia.org] ngsng%2D2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_missile_test [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy [wikipedia.org] ngsng-1

Now, the DPRK has SCUD and FROG type missiles that can get a nuke (if their nukes are small and light enough) to the RoK, China and Japan

The first DRPK nuclear test was most likely a failure, far less than 4 KT and the second was also small, a 1-5 KT or so

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55E5BA20090615 [reuters.com]

The danger from the DPRK is the massive amounts of conventional artillery and battlefield rockets they have, not nukes. FROGs and SCUDs can be shot down by Patriots, the US and RoK will hammer them with long range PGMs like MRLS and with airpower.

Seoul would have to be at least nuked before the US would deploy nuclear weapons that close to Russia and China.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (2, Insightful)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533036)

Because the DPRK is pushing more GDP into the program and there is the threat of prison for the scientists and engineers, families, parents and grandparents.

That is exactly the point. No one has proved that working under threats make you perform better in an intellectual pursuit, which developing ICBM:s and nukes undoubtedly are. In a too controlled environment people get afraid to take decisions, wont question orders and avoids responsibility because they get punished if they do and failure occurs. Which means that no progress is made and easily avoidable accidents occurs. Like Chernobyl, where the engineers on the floor knew the likelihood of a meltdown but didn't dare contradicting the managers orders. Designing weapons is a much different kind of work than digging holes in which the previous strategy might work.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32533838)

In a too controlled environmet the ones who uses the "wrong" methods to achieve result are punished. NK does not necessarily have a controlled environment for development. They just punish failure to achieve result. Oddly enough that is what we usually call freedom with responsibility.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532700)

South Korea can't lock people up for less than perfect engineering.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532870)

Huh-what? North Korea hasn't had ANY successful space rockets, and they've had their share of explosions. Also they've trying very very very hard to develop long-range military rockets -- South Korea isn't. Or even medium-range military rockets. The South has a much more minor non-military actual-space rocket program. And if you'll check the history of everyone's space programs, you'll notice that everyone has had failures.

I'm alarmed you weren't moderated Funny. Please, just bounce around the wikipedia articles on respective rocket programs for a bit. You've gotten quite the wrong impression of who is doing what, and how successfully.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (1)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532890)

I think it does matter; anything from North Korea or China would hit its target far before missiles from America.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532896)

Of course, if push really ever came to shove it doesn't really matter how many working missiles South Korea has, as long as the USA has plenty that work correctly.

I think you can find the answer right there.
Necessity is indeed the mother of invention.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532922)

Not valid argument. There is a hell of a difference in constructing a space rocket and a missile carrier. The involved forces and energies are several order of magnitudes larger and more complex to control....

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32534140)

The difference is that South Korea is trying to create rockets that don't explode.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532696)

Maybe the problem is that they are getting help from the Russians. SpaceX might be a better go. Pay them for a technology transfer deal. License their processes, designs and software. SpaceX gets $$$, SK gets a working system.

Falcon 9 (3, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532796)

Progress plods on, and if they keep trying, they will eventually get it right, even if it isn't particularly easy.

Maybe this will shut up all the people who said that the achievements of SpaceX and Falcon 9 were nothing... when a nation state with a GDP of $929 billion and space agency annual budget of ~$250 million fails twice to achieve the same thing.

Re:Falcon 9 (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32534182)

I'm liking SpaceX enough to be called a "fan"; however, got to set the record straight. You may recall... that the first three SpaceX launches had issues. They were smaller Falcon 1 rockets; but, the Falcon 9 is largely a scaled up version using nearly identical engines and avionics.

  • 1st launch: exploded on pad
  • 2nd launch: fuel sloshing in upper stage tank causes loss of control
  • 3rd launch: first stage strikes second stage post-separation causing failure of 2nd stage engine

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532906)

because this makes it look like it will take more time before every third-world country will be able to produce intercontinental missiles

Your comment is great and I agree with most of it. But, damn, I take offence to that phrase "third-world country". What exactly do you think "third world" means?

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (1)

chronosan (1109639) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533610)

Once, during the cold war, it meant non-aligned nation. Now it means the under-developed world, the have-nots. The point that you're taking offense to is that if SK can't do it, the 3rd world dictators shouldn't be able to as well.

Re:Eventually they'll get it right (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533976)

I'm not sure I'm discouraged (because this makes it look like it will take more time before humanity can easily colonize space) or encouraged (because this makes it look like it will take more time before every third-world country will be able to produce intercontinental missiles).

I'm actually very encouraged because it would mean that they're designing their own rockets, not using the US design that the Clinton fundraisers sold to China in the 90's or whatever Russian designs have made the rounds.

Along the way they'll develop new insights and improve the state of the art. Eventually, there will be a greater base of knowledge upon which to build the next generation of spacecraft.

No need to worry (1)

spaceducky (1758284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532224)

At least if they launch a nuke it won't get very far...

Re:No need to worry (1)

radicalskeptic (644346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532362)

South Korea doesn't even have nukes. That's North Korea [wikipedia.org] . And even if they did have nukes, their "arch-enemy" is right across the border.

Re:No need to worry (1)

spaceducky (1758284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532412)

you must of missed the ... >.>

Re:No need to worry (1)

radicalskeptic (644346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532494)

Since when does an ellipsis denote sarcasm or irony? It just seemed like you were trailing off.

Re:No need to worry (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532424)

Are they really enemies then?

I don't know much about the history but from the little I read earlier I got more of an impression that it was convenient for everyone else to leave it broken up so China and Japan or whatever didn't had to fight over the area. The Koreans themselves where just Koreans? Wasn't they? Or where they very different when it came to political system / ideology already before that?

Bunch of good links? Though I assume Wikipedia may have enough.

Re:No need to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532652)

I don't know much about the history

Still, you are probably better at it then you are at English.

Re:No need to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532714)

Was there something you didn't understood?

Confused? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532230)

North Korea == evil.
South Korea == good.

Re:Confused? (3, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532648)

South Korea == Hyundai
North Korea == Huh?

Re:Confused? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532728)

North Korea == evil
South Korea == evil

Re:Confused? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532818)

It's good to see the CIA posting on /.

Re:Confused? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32533636)

http://www.google.com/search?q=camp+22 [google.com]

Read world news much? NK is the epitome of an evil, abusive government. If you don't think that doing chemical weapons experiments on political prisoners and their families, or executing starving citizens who practice cannibalism to survive because they are "embarrassing" the state is evil, then you are seriously fucked in the head.

Did it fail? (0, Troll)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532246)

Or did it get shot down? :P

(Hell, it might even have been sabotaged by spies. It's difficult to imagine anything going wrong that close to North Korea being a coincidence. :P )

Re:Did it fail? (2, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532332)

And of course with Russian being involved, they'd have the perfect alibi.
Whether it's military planes at airshows, submarines, preventing terrorism at schools, or trying to help assist at the sites of polish plane crashes without the soldiers going through the dead people's pockets looking for cash and credit cards, there's always some way of Russia fucking things up.

Re:Did it fail? (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532582)

Yeah, good only people from north Korea, China and Russia are bad and that everyone else in all occasions behave well. Most likely everyone from said countries are the same to.

Good your governments communism = bad, Islam = bad, .. = bad tactics work as intended. I guess there's more power to be had for them as long as you're all in fear and need them.

Re:Did it fail? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532754)

Or did it get shot down? :P

(Hell, it might even have been sabotaged by spies. It's difficult to imagine anything going wrong that close to North Korea being a coincidence. :P )

Believe me, the South Koreans do take security seriously. One thing against your idea is that an agent from the north would need to be coerced against defecting to the south. Such coercion would probably expose them to surveillance.

How hard can it be? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532248)

How hard can it be?

Re:How hard can it be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532292)

Rearry harrd

Re:How hard can it be? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532588)

It's rocket science.

Re:How hard can it be? (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532632)

Rocket Science is easy, I've got a book over here that explains everything!

Soviet space program (1)

geirlk (171706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532260)

I guess they're just following the Soviet era tried and tested rocket development program. Start by blowing up rockets, and continue until they stop blowing up. Then strap some pilots on top.

Re:Soviet space program (3, Insightful)

bezenek (958723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532284)

I guess they're just following the Soviet era tried and tested rocket development program. Start by blowing up rockets, and continue until they stop blowing up. Then strap some pilots on top.

This sounds pretty much like the US space program.

It is unfortunate people still have to learn from their mistakes when this has already been done at least twice (CCCP and the US). A person might figure they could afford to hire a couple of engineers who already went through this trial and error.

-Todd

Re:Soviet space program (5, Informative)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532414)

It is unfortunate people still have to learn from their mistakes when this has already been done at least twice (CCCP and the US). A person might figure they could afford to hire a couple of engineers who already went through this trial and error.

Actually, the Naro-1 [wikipedia.org] is a Korean-Russian collaboration, with a Russian-built first stage and a Korean-built second stage. It's still unclear at this point which stage (or interaction thereof) caused the problem.

As an aside, the Russian-built first stage basically a slightly modified first stage of their under-development Angara rocket [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Soviet space program (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533114)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naro-1 [wikipedia.org]

Straight and Naro-1: Looks like the learning stage. BTW is that the second stage on the right.

Re:Soviet space program (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32534098)

Separation was not to have happened for a bit longer. Unless the upper stage collapsed, or the pumps failed, it appears to be the first stage that failed. But I do have to say, that is kind of weird. I would not expect that of Russia.

Re:Soviet space program (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32534130)

oops. The korean 2'nd stage is actually solid fuel (good for a missile). No pumps. Hmmm. They would have to lose their frame for a failure by SK.

Re:Soviet space program (3, Informative)

bezenek (958723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532486)

This sounds pretty much like the US space program.

This is not flamebait.

The first attempt at launching a US satellite blew up shortly after launch. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_TV3 [wikipedia.org]

The Explorer program [wikipedia.org] which followed, started with the successful launch of Explorer 1, the first satellite placed by the United States.

The Explorer program has launched about 100 satellites, but 8 of the first 17 failed.

Everyone seems to forget that it took a while to make these launches consistent as we saw (mostly) with the Gemini and Apollo missions.

-Todd

Re:Soviet space program (1)

ridgecritter (934252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532532)

And IIRC, it took 13 tries before we got an Atlas to fly without going boom. There's a reason they call it rocket surgery....or brain science....or whatever, it's hard to do!

Re:Soviet space program (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532500)

Angara goes back to Proton, going back to ICBMs, finally back the German V2 era.
Best to look in a US retirement village for that Operation paper clip quality and bypass the Russian world launch service market .
Why rent export quality when you can have German influenced consulting to realise a design thats 100% made in S Korea.
Then S Korea can export to the world.

Re:Soviet space program (3, Insightful)

Stuntmonkey (557875) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532962)

A person might figure they could afford to hire a couple of engineers who already went through this trial and error.

Two failures on a brand-new launch vehicle is not unusual for any country. These are complex systems operating close to their design limits, and they can only be partially tested on the ground. It's certainly a setback for the Korean engineers, but I would not look at two failures and immediately conclude they lack the right talent.

This is an especially difficult case because none of the components have much flight heritage, which is ultimately how you reduce risk. This is why you see so much re-use in rocket designs in general, especially of high-risk components like engines and avionics.

In many ways it's like software development. Any good developer knows that no matter how smart and experienced the engineers are, new code will almost always have bugs early on. Testing under realistic conditions is the only way to identify them. Unfortunately the only fully realistic test for a rocket is a launch.

Re:Soviet space program (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533668)

Test Driven Development in its truest form.
Actually you write the test first and make sure it fails.
Then you write the code (or build the rocket) and re-run the test. It will probably fail the first attempt, but you watch it in the debugger and figure out what you did wrong, then do it again.

According to TDD after two or three more attempts they should be all set.

Checkin (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532272)

Site Checking

problem is not complexity (4, Insightful)

quenda (644621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532288)

Problem is not complexity, but lack of error margin.
In any other field, even aircraft, you can over-engineer it a lot more. But with satellite launch rockets, everything has to be cut to absolute minimum. And even then, payload is only a miniscule fraction of launch weight.
    The other problem is that tests are expensive and failures tend to get noticed. If a new car engine prototype seizes up on the test track, it does not make the news.

Re:problem is not complexity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532992)

Problem is not complexity, but lack of error margin. In any other field, even aircraft, you can over-engineer it a lot more. But with satellite launch rockets, everything has to be cut to absolute minimum. And even then, payload is only a miniscule fraction of launch weight. The other problem is that tests are expensive and failures tend to get noticed. If a new car engine prototype seizes up on the test track, it does not make the news.

Sounds pretty complex to me.

Re:problem is not complexity (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533258)

The other problem is that tests are expensive...

It would be interesting to know what sort of budget they had to work with. Contrast the Korean/Russian effort with that of these [spacex.com] guys. They seem to be able to afford quite rigorous testing, which I think has had a lot to do with their success on the launch pad.

Re:problem is not complexity (5, Informative)

trout007 (975317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533432)

You are correct. In mechanical engineering we use Factor of Safety. This means how many times stronger did you design something than your analysis showed it needs to be. For most stuff I build we use a factor of 2-3 because it stays on the ground and the use of extra material is cheaper than taking time to make it light weight. Cars use around the same numbers. Buildings can go as low as 1.67. Aircraft are around 1.5-2.0. Human rated spacecraft are around 1.4 and some unmanned launchers are as low as 1.2. What this means is the lower the number the more analysis and testing you have to do to make sure you know your loads are right. Also not all material of the same specification is the same strength. If you try to break 10 different samples of aluminum you will get a normal distribution of how strong they are. If you are using a FS of 3 who cares. But if you are at 1.2 then you have to send every batch of material out for testing to make sure it is as strong as you designed for.

Re:problem is not complexity (1)

wisdom_brewing (557753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533598)

The other problem is that tests are expensive and failures tend to get noticed. If a new car engine prototype seizes up on the test track, it does not make the news.

Neither does success...

Damn nigga. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532300)

Second Straight rocket failure. Sheeeeyit.

South Koreans need to be drinking OE like me.

They should contact North Korea (4, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532316)

North Korea has the most brilliant people in the world and can help its neighbor accomplish anything. North Korea has punched the sky in the face and broke through to the stars where his magnanimous, magnificent even magniloquent Leader, the holiest Kim Jong Il is orbiting the planet right now [youtube.com] making sure the imperialist porcine satellites do not beam deadly radiation again unto the North Korean people's glorious fields of cabbage, rice and giant bunnies [spiegel.de] .

Re:They should contact North Korea (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532718)

I am sure North Korea would be more than pleased to send their southern cousins a test article or two.

Re:They should contact North Korea (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532856)

I had no idea about the giant bunnies. But whoever decided to go for this, must never have heard that rabbits are a pretty bad food source [wikipedia.org] . But I guess I should know by now to take spiegel articles with a grain of salt.

Second straight? (1)

AHarrison (778175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532324)

Seriously? South Korea failed twice IN A ROW? Straight? I can't believe it! I mean, what are the odds of two things going wrong RIGHT AFTER eachother? Erm, editorializing much?

Straight Rocket? (1)

johncadengo (940343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532410)

Straight rocket as opposed to what? Crotch rockets [wikipedia.org] ? Red rockets [wikipedia.org] ? Rice rockets [wikipedia.org] ? Ha. Ha.

Re:Straight Rocket? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532536)

Gay rockets?

Just like straight Ethernet cables and gay ones.

No, RS232 (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532722)

I have got a bunch of gender changers around here somewhere. Male to male, female to female. You name it

Re:No, RS232 (1)

AlterEager (1803124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533152)

These guys [feeldoe.com] make some good female-female gender changers. Pretty reliable in my experience.

Re:Straight Rocket? (4, Funny)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532568)

As opposed to Gay Rockets which head directly to Uranus.

....it had to be done

Re:Straight Rocket? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532848)

I assumed it meant a straight rocket as opposed to a "I can't even *think* straight" gay rocket.

Not to be nasty (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532484)

Not trying to be nasty, but if the people that work on the space program are anything like the Korean I'm working with, then maybe they should stop working through the night, stop working 18 hour days, get a weekend off every now and again, and get some proper food and some sleep.

After a few months of 18 hour days you become a zombie. Regardless of effort (and well done to them for sacrificing their family life for work), Koreans are also human being, and they also need to go home and sleep every now and again, even if "going home" or "sleeping" is not part of the culture.

Re:Not to be nasty (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532732)

This is true of a few Korean people I have known. Speaking generally they do take things seriously over there, though not always to excess.

Re:Not to be nasty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32533236)

Having X zombies working 18hours a day instead of having 2X people working 8hours a day is not serious. it's shortsighted and stupid.

Solution (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532618)

Maybe they should try hiring brain surgeons.

Re:Solution (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 4 years ago | (#32534074)

No way! Rocket surgeons!

expode (1)

homegarden (1831246) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532660)

it seems the first part exloded which was made from russia --------------------Signature---------------- walk in tubs [walk-in-tub.org]

Well there's the problem (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532746)

The rest of the world moved onto gay rockets decades ago.

How do you say ... (0)

popo (107611) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532776)

How do you say "Suppuku" in Korean?

Re:How do you say ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32532986)

Halbok

kaputnik 2.0 (1)

v3xt0r (799856) | more than 4 years ago | (#32532942)

"In Soviet Korea..." anyone?

Get the NKs on the case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32533204)

With their ninja style anti-submarine warfare evasion capabilities, I'm sure they can whip the ass of the technically advanced yet ninja free SKs.

Rocket science is easy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32533216)

rocket engineering is hard.

tshirts (0, Offtopic)

Larafabian (1831318) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533296)

I think nobody can be brief as like your post!Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Cheap Online Whole T-shirts

What adage would that be? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32533512)

That gooks can't build rockets worth a damn unless Bill Clinton sells them missile secrets in exchange for campaign cash?

Perhaps I will hold-off on that new Hyundai (1)

DukeLinux (644551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533600)

I would think rocketry would be pretty well understood and simple for any advanced Country to execute. I am a bit surprised at this given South Korea's standing in the world. I am sure they will sort this out in short order. I have had my eye on the Genesis Coupe. Perhaps I should wait a bit....

In Other news, China... (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 4 years ago | (#32533860)

In other news, China has been conducting further successful tests of their anti-satellite laser system....

Re:In Other news, China... (2, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32534224)

It exploded because.... (1)

rclandrum (870572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32534030)

they also manufactured the on-board batteries.

failure mode (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32534064)

So, any guesses? Structural failure shortly after MaxQ or avionics/guidance failure?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>