Talk:Naro-1

message: SKorean KSLV's was a successful launch but satellite was failed to coordinate its points into given SKorean magnitude and space coordinates degree. More Info can be found here:
SKorea rocket takes off, satellite launch fails  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.138.179 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful Rocket Launch but Satellite Fails 

message: This looks like it might be a translation of a press release, or perhaps what is said in the video at the source location. (sdsds - talk) 05:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description - source unverified 

message: The April 2010 launch should be another Naro-1. Naro-2 (ex. KSLV-2) won't be operational for a few years yet. --GW… 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naro-1 vs Naro-2 

message: Despite the press reports, South Korea is not the tenth country to "launch a home-made satellite from its own soil". Ignoring the argument that the level of Russian involvement prevents it from being an indigenous launch, then it would be the tenth country to conduct such a launch, however that number includes the UK, which has only ever conducted launches from Australian soil. --GW… 08:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source states the launch is made from Korean soil, regardless of where the rocket is manufactured from. Even if it is from a Russian source, the launch was conducted on Korean soil, which is the whole point of this project. 112.148.104.47 (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the issue. Black Arrow was launched from Australia, so South Korea is not the tenth country to launch from its own soil. We need to decide how to define this term in order to work out the correct number. --GW… 10:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, please don't remove cleanup tags until the issue is resolved. --GW… 10:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing "dubious" about this launch at all and there is no "definition" necessary. Your attempt at trying to "define" it is classified as WP:OR under Wikipedia guidelines. Original research is not permitted at Wikipedia. There is clear consensus about this fact, do not try to vandalise it. Milkmooney (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What? --GW… 11:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with GW. "What?" GW is raising the legitimate point. Do not raise a vandal question to stop discussion. Can anyone explain how the UK can be said to have launched from its own soil if Australia was used? Alan Davidson (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: my suggestion is to get rid of the "own soil" portion of the statement completely, since it comes from simple journalistic sensationalism anyway. The statement then becomes something along the lines of: "South Korea is the <X>th country to have successfully developed a launch system".— V = I * R (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not about the truth. It's about what's reported. And if it's reported that SK is the tenth country to "launch a home-made satellite from its own soil", then that is what we need to include.   Aar  ►  00:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Own soil" 

message: Why is the first launch listed as being successful and having no payload? The fact that it was a partial failure carrying the/an STSAT-2 satellite was referenced, this is not. --GW… 11:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It did not say there was "no" payload - there was a payload called STSAT-2, but it did not reach its orbit, as referenced per source.Milkmooney (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) It implies that there was no payload, 2) The source that you provided says that it reached a higher orbit than planned, which was what this article said before you started messing around with it. --GW… 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if you search google news, most articles consider it a failure or partial failure, and most of the good news sites mention that it reached the wrong orbit. I think the BBC article was just published before all the facts were known. --GW… 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The Russians claim it failed...and they should know, it was actually their rocket. (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/08/south-korea-launch-of-kslv-1/).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.94.66 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Let's not turn this into a futile nationalist debate. Marksspite2 (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The mission was to place a payload in a set orbit. It failed. Even the launch cannot be said to be successful because it did not go where it was suppose to. The launch was a partial success onlt; in that it got off the ground and reached a high altitude. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: South Korea is still a Developing Country. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's it's been classified as a "Developed Country" for about a year now (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/article4810718.ece). Abcfox (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful launch with no payload

message: I don't think the intro should be "The satellite reached an altitude of 360 km rather than the intended 302 km."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Givengels (talk • contribs) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro? 

message: I have updated the article with newer information that seems to have surfaced. A reference article is available here.
It now appears that the mishap is very similar to what happened to the latest Taurus: the fairing failed to separate, as a result the rocket was too heavy and did not accelerate enough to reach orbit. In our case, it appears that it actually surged above the intended altitude at slow speed before falling down - which is consistent with the first news reports. Feel free to make some corrections to my modifications if you feel that they are appropriate.
Now, it is a bit early indeed, but this begs the question on how should we categorize the launch - partial failure, of failure ? The convention on other wikipedia rocketry articles is to call "partial failures" launches that put the payload on a lower than intended orbit, and "failure" launches that did not put the payload on orbit. On the Taurus article, we categorized as "failure" a mishap similar to what happened to Naro-1. Well, this is just food for thought. For now, we should probably leave the launch as a partial failure, until more details are available. Cochonfou (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Khrunichev the payload fairing was South Korea's responsibility. Should we point this out? Offliner (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sourced information can be added. But in my opinion, the launch should be categorized as a failure, since the mission failed. The payload apparently is not anymore in orbit either. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch failure scenario 

message: Official KARI website, http://www.kari.re.kr/ do use "Korea Space Launch Vehicle-I" name. The two references about "Naro-1", one claim rocket "also called" and another one talking Korean name('나로 ???) without mentioning "Naro-1". Renamed article to match English name officially used by KARI. Vitall (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Two different dates, one being today, are given for the second launch. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Under "History," it states, "The launcher would be entirely indigenous, based on the 122,500-kilonewton (27,500,000 lbf) thrust LOX/kerosene motor used in the KSR-3.[6]"
[6] is an external link to an article posted at the website "Jane's Information Group, 24 January 2008," and the statement quoted above is a word-for-word copy of a sentence contained in their article. While I do not know if "Jane's Information Group" is copyrighted material or not, the real issue is the amount of thrust reported in the Wikipedia article as a result of using information from this external link's site. 
As the Wikipedia article points out, the KSR-3 was a sounding rocket which weighed "6,000-kilogram (13,000 lb)." Why would a 6,000 kg. (13,000 lb.) sounding rocket require 122,500 kilonewtons (or 27,500,000 lbs.) of thrust??
The most powerful single-chamber, single-nozzle, liquid-fueled rocket engine ever developed, the Rocketdyne F-1, produced just over 6672 kilonewtons (1.5 million lbs.) of thrust at sea level in its final version. The Saturn V boosters used in the American Apollo Moon missions used five F-1s at a time, generating a total of "only" 33,361 kilonewtons (7.5 million pounds) of thrust at sea level at launch (these are the nominal minimums - the actual amounts were slightly higher), yet the entire launch vehicle, including all the stages, the lunar orbiter and the lander, weighed 3,039,000 kg. (6,699,000 lbs.), according to another article in Wikipedia. 
Obviously, it is inconceivable that a 6,000 kg. (13,000 lb.) sounding rocket would require 959 kg. (2,115 lbs.) of thrust for each kg. (or lb.) of weight when it only required .50 kg (or 1.11 pounds) of thrust for each .45 kg. (1 lb.) of weight to launch a fully-equipped moon mission. 
The Jane's article contains a very serious error which has yet to be corrected. The Wikipedia article should not repeat or reflect such a stunning mistake as this. Unless a credible source can be located with the correct thrust rating for the KSR-3, no amount of thrust should be mentioned for it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by NikiAjax (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100%.  Based on my knowledge of rocket engines and my degree in Aerospace Engineering, there is no way the engine could produce 27 million pounds of thrust.  Like you mentioned, the total thrust of the Saturn V was on the order of 7 million pounds.  I think the Jane's article is incorrect, so I will remove the reference to the article as well as the 27 million pound thrust number until someone can find a correct citation. 76.119.234.47 (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply an error.  is correct. See . ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Editors need to be aware that many european countries use the comma ',' as a decimal point ( and period '.' as thousands separator). Make sure you verify that the numbers are reasonable and do the conversion as needed.
This was almost certainly the cause of this error. --71.214.208.91 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in "History" as a result of an error in an External Link 

message: Implications are that flight termination system on either the first stage or the second stage activated which caused the rocket to undergo unplanned rapid self-disassembly.  I also remember finding another source which stated the second(?) stage fts had been activated by a spurious signal. --Aflafla1 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second launch failure 

message: Will there be a third launch or is the project dead? --95.223.106.63 (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Launch 

message: I'm struck that there is a complete absence of media attention to the possible view of the DPRK's 'civilian', i.e. non military rocket launches as a purely political race with the South for historical access to space. They've put up a satellite just ahead of the ROK and propaganda is served. Decades down the road will history still view it as purely a military rocket program in guise? It's dual use is obvious as the cold war space race, but why does no one seem to take that angle into consideration for their motivation? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this page is about improving the article, not mere internet chat.  If you have a citation from a reliable source about what you say, then by all means add it to the article, as on Wikipedia, WP:Anyone can edit.  04:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DPRK vs. ROK space race 

message: Spaceflightnow.com has the third launch date set for 26 January 2013. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html I updated the page to reflect this.  Cosmonautdjp (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Launch Date Confirmed 

message: With the recent success of South Korea's first orbital launch, 
* the article needs some copyediting to focus more on the high-level summary and less on the dates and times of previous non-launched tries, and
* a variety of related Wikipedia articles need to be updated.  (For example, as of 6 Feb 2013, Comparison of Asian national space programs does not reflect the Korean Republic's recent successful launch).  
N2e (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Such updates should distinguish the launch from fully-indigenous launch capability, which most other launch-capable countries have - Naro-1 is, after all, mostly Russian. --W. D. Graham 02:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful first orbital launch by South Korea 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Naro-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426004639/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kslv.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kslv.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113174954/http://www.kari.re.kr/ to http://www.kari.re.kr/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312012225/http://www.kslv.or.kr/ to http://www.kslv.or.kr/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Naro-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204012038/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-01/30/c_132138953.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-01/30/c_132138953.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100424202019/http://www.astronautix.com/engines/ksr3.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/engines/ksr3.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.koreascience.or.kr/main/board/board_detail.jsp?board_category=newweek&menu=&submenu=&no=276
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130219023719/http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/ArticleEnglish/ArticlePhoto/YIBW_new_showArticlePhotoView.aspx?contents_id=PYH2012 to http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/ArticleEnglish/ArticlePhoto/YIBW_new_showArticlePhotoView.aspx?contents_id=PYH2012
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132221451400/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kslvi.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kslvi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)