Talk:Unha

Technical description

I added a brief technical description using a very good report as basis

Illustration

I did a slightly more detailed illustration of the Unha, see here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unha-2.jpeg Perhaps we should use this one? I think with the current one there are some misinterpretations: The satellite capsule in reality is not made of split-halves, the Unha's first stage has very small fins missing on the current drawing, also, according to experts, the Unha does not have one big nozzle but four (which probably are not visible from the side, just like the Scud's nozzles are not visible from the side either) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabe27 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

"運輸火箭銀河二號" is Chinese, not Korean, and means "Transport Rocket Galaxy #2". The Eunha bit of that is "銀河". Jpatokal (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's actually hanmun （漢文）。“銀河二號運輸火箭” correct meaning is rather “Milky Way 2 rocket carrier”； not to be mistranslated by “galaxy” as in hanmun, the word “星系” is used. Etymologically “銀河” means Silver River, designating the bright band on the night sky, thus equivalent to the antique “Milky Way” naming. —222.214.45.162（talk） 公历二〇〇九年四月三日 （星期五）农历三月初八 十五时十九 （标准北京中央时间） —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Although North and South Korea discarded the use of Hanja many years ago, Hangeul is a phonogram and these words can be automatically transcribed to Chinese letters. In this case, the word "Unha", which means "galaxy" in Korean language, is written as 銀河. Note that the meaning of the word is different from Chinese one.--Cervelo21 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Unha-2" may proper for the article name.

Paektusan-1, failed to launch Kwangmyongsong-1 in 1998, appears to be named Unha-1 after launch. According to a TV news recently I watched, an North Korean science museum explained that Kwangmyŏngsŏng-1 was successfully launched by Unha-1. At least, some web news comply with the naming( ex.(in Japanese)). Should the article "Unha" be rename "Unha-2"(or be merged with Paektusan (rocket), as Unha rocket family)? Since "Unha" is generally a rocket name of "orbital" launch systems using Taepogong(= Paektusan), Paektusan (rocket) might be limited as suborbital launch systems. --Gwano (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced. I can't see any evidence that isn't speculation on the part of the South Korean news agency. I'd be inclined to wait until the next launch, and see if the rocket used is officially designated "Unha-2" or "Unha-3". If another "Unha-2" is launched, then I agree that the article should be moved, as it proves that it is a serial number. At the moment, both should be left alone, as Paektusan os the designation associated with Kwangmyŏngsŏng-1. --GW… 08:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course I think also that more information should be needed. There might be no strict source how meaning the numberless Unha rocket has. Sources of Unha-1 are fewer, too. But I have not heard that the rocket is called "銀河(Unha)" without number in Japanese sources. At least, "Unha-2" is only certain term at this time. All interwiki link also "Unha-2" or same meaning. --Gwano (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • With any luck, we'll have another launch next month. --GW… 12:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • However, there is a suspense. The launch preparation this time around is seemed to be similar to 2006 North Korean missile test. If the next launch don't reach orbit without any pre-announcement, DPRK will be able to claim a missile test succeed as same as at 2006. In that case, the name "Unha" will not be given to the rocket (missile).--Gwano (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The 2006 launch failed about 40 seconds after launch, and I am yet to see any evidence that it was not intended to orbit a satellite (possibly in inverted commas). By the way, Taepodong is not an official designation, it is a US intelligence codename.[1] Therefore it is possible that Unha could be the official designation for both the carrier rocket and missile. I believe that "Unha-1" was the 2006 launch. --GW… 06:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Silver River

I think that the interpretation (Silver River) is not required. Korea is a Sinosphere and many words are able to replace with Chinese character (i.e. ideogram). Unha (銀河; galaxy or Milky Way) should be combination between un (銀=silver) and ha (河=wide river). Although the Milky Way is characterized to be Silver River, that is considered to be a kind of idiom and original meaning of each word is almost lost. --Gwano (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Unha-3 be merged into Unha. I think that the content in the Unha-3 article can easily be explained in the context of Unha, and the Unha article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Unha-3 will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Oneiros (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather, the satellite should be merged into the rocket (Unha-3), since the significant part of the whole episode is the rocket, and not the satellite. All the international reaction deals with the rocket launch, and not the existence of the satellite. It could have had an empty payload fairing, and still garner the same reaction. The geopolitical and military technological implications are with the rocket, and not the satellite. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose that Taepodong-2 to be merged into Unha given that the content there is becoming a Unha article. Perhaps, the Paektusan-1 is also named as Unha-1? (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC+8)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There should be no "Unha-1".

Finally, next vehicle of Unha-2 was named Unha-3. Then, there have been no official Unha-1 yet. But few cite called Taepodong-1 flew in 1998 (i.e. Paektusan-1) as Unha-1 (see above[2]) even if it was a kind of mistake. I think, it seems the numbers indicade total orbital launch attempts in North Korea independent of launch vehicles, as same as "Ariane Vxx" (ex, "Ariane V21" was Ariane 3, "Ariane V22" was Ariane 4 and "Ariane V23" was Ariane 2 - see List of Ariane launches). If so, "1" means Paektusan-1 and someone might mistake the "1"(i.e. the Taepodong-1 in 1998) for Unha-1 in the above cite. Either way, as yet there are no official Unha-1. --Gwano (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no "Taepodong 2", that's just a Western intelligence codename for the rocket which is now known to be the Unha. --W. D. Graham 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. But the flight in 2006 is not called "Unha" officially. I think that "Taepodong 2" is better for the flight in 2006.--Gwano (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

But the first stage of the Unha-2 is emblazoned with the Korean characters for Paektusan in the video of the launch publicly released in 2009. Is it possible that North Korea is referring to the 2012 launch as Unha-3 rather than Paektusan-3 just to confuse space experts? I was wondering because North Korea has recently released images of a subscale mockup of the Unha-9 moon rocket (http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-3/Description/Frame.htm) and Unha 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are reportedly intended to launch satellites (we'll see if North Korea's next planned space launch is successful). In this sense, we can intepret the 2006 test as merely the launch of a sounding rocket to test the flight characteristics of future North Korean space rockets. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

100 kg Payload to LEO ???? Very likely wrong. I say its about 1000kg !

Just for the record: IRFNA / UDMH have high energy and impulse. Although i don't like dictators:

Technologically 100kg is only IRRATIONAL North Korea bashing. Tagremover (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted my edit on 22:41, 14 December 2012‎ after new calculations gave lower payload figures.

Undid my deletions today, because i wasn't totally wrong: N. Korea develops missiles capable of reaching US – Seoul South-Korea examined it too:

"Unha 3 ... had secured a range of more than 10,000 km if the warhead is 500 to 600 kg," a South Korean Defense Ministry official said on Sunday"

Love to be the first calculated that others were wrong. Tagremover (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Political impact

I had started a political impact section on this article, but an IP removed it claiming the discussion was not about the rocket. The RFA article clearly mentions the rocket, and so it is related. Radio Free Asia is reliable and is used in hundreds of articles. I think the section should be re-added and expanded. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Update to specifications

The correct dimensions for Unha-2 and Unha-3 are provided at http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-3/Description/Frame.htm, as are the performance figures. The figures provided in the 2009 paper by David Wright were mere estimates subject to revision and now that the launches have passed, it's clear that the flight performance figures in the 2009 paper were a bit off by several seconds. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unha. 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/20121017015121/http://www.northcom.mil/News/2009/040509.html to http://www.northcom.mil/News/2009/040509.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)