Jump to content

Talk:Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foreign reporting of launch

[edit]

With respect to the possibility of inviting foreign media to witness the launch, it's possible that NASA may get away with accepting an invitation from Pyongyang to cover the launch provided that it is not lured by the Obama administration into rejecting the invitation. As one National Security Council official said last April, "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this is propaganda." (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/white-house-condemns-north-korea-rocket-propaganda/story?id=16108532#.UKsDGI7FUUs). Let's hope that if North Korea's next satellite launch attempt is successful, then the US may tone down its criticism of the launch and admit that the launch was indeed of a satellite rather than a prototype ICBM outright. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian[reply]

WP:FORUM - this is not the place to discuss the subject of the article - only for the discussion of Reliable Sources to improve the article. No on cares about your personal opinions.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glossing over the lack of neutrality in your tone, I think this has little to do with the actual article rather than let us know of your opinion. It would be nice to stick to actual problems surrounding the article, and leave the comments for blogs etc - in addition, I don't see the reason why the launch cannot be both. Obviously the DPRK is using a rocket to launch whatever into space, so it's sort of 2 birds with 1 stone, right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, and also, let's keep the conversation on point, shall we? Skycycle (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in lede

[edit]

We all know that North Korea was just being North Korea by claiming successes with Kwangmyŏngsŏng-1 and 2, but I think for a strict NPOV we should alter the first sentence from "...is the first North Korean satellite" to "...is the first North Korean satellite to be confirmed by foreign space agencies" or something of the sort. Remember that NPOV isn't about objectivity based on evidence but neutrality based on views presented. Just a thought. Dab8fz (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:FRINGE can be applied to the North Korean claims; Only one other country (Zimbabwe, which has no means to detect the satellite), has acknowledged the North Korean position. We should mention the North Korean position, but in my opinion we should not give undue weight to discredited claims. --W. D. Graham 07:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More detail on capabilities

[edit]

Is there any additional information about the instruments, frequency/wavelength bands, sensitivity, resolution, and practical capabilities of the spacecraft? For example, it seems odd that it would be said to be able to estimate crop yields without any quantitative information about how much better it will allow such estimation over current methods. But then again, DPRK is often secretive; it's just that this is the sort of thing that they would be expected to brag about in great detail given past behavior. 2010 SO16 (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC) It is basically a tincan without IMU or A/P or even a repeater ,just maybe a transponder and a cheap MP3 player with playing songs like 'The Internationale'. It never entered a stable orbit unlike the Korean satellites. The "satellite" thing is just a hoax coverup,albeit a very crude one, to hide the intentions of the northern marxist regime to test ICBM. Thus,no orbit,no frequency, no nothing. It is also said that even the tincan was a pig fat container picked up at an eatery in China(thus of same composition as their leader). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob2013 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Providing names of spokespeople

[edit]

Is it necessary to quote the names of spokespeople in-text? In the US reaction to the rocket launch, a quote is attributed to "a spokesman for the National Security Council". An editor has added a "[who?]" tag to that comment, thereby requesting that the name of the spokesman be provided in the article text. The news article containing the quote and the name of the spokesman is cited.

My view is that if a quote uttered by an organisation's spokesperson is referenced by a suitably reliable source, then it is not necessary to provide the name of the spokesperson in-text as it is not important (however, the name of the organisation is). The interested reader may follow the citation to obtain the name of the spokesperson.

Reperireza (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The {{who}} tag is meant to challenge unverifiable claims, and that doesn't apply to this well-sourced statement. I've removed it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"광명성" clearly hoax satellite to hide real intentions-NK as a space club member?

[edit]

There are the following issues related to the so-called "광명성": The world now agrees that the rocket launch was not a real satellite launch but the "satellite" is a hoax to hide a missile test. Reasons: 1)North Korea does not have the electronical technology to develop a real satellites-communication,optics,sensors such as inertial sensors,the semiconductor technology required to implement such(as there are no more vacuum tubes available) etc.-as opposed to South Korea which has all of these technologies and elements indigenously developed and is now the world's 3rd largest maker of minisatellites. Export of related technologies and items to North Korea is against international arms and munition control laws and not even China and Russia sell such things to the northern marxist regime. The fact that the object did not enter controlled orbit and that there is no evidence it established communication are also evidences that the "satellite" is a fake. 2)Use of RFNA as oxidizer: This was used in the '50s for Soviet and Chicom ICBMs and is a very dangerous and corrosive substance totally unsuitable for peaceful satellite launch purpose. Korea on the other hand developed an LO2 based rocket engine of its own incfluenced by Russian design but was not allowed by the US to use it on its satellite launches and Russian 1st stage had to be used instead. (Korea had to listen otherwise there would have been consequences) Thus,the article should be revised to state the fact that it was not a satellite launch but in fact an ICBM test,as it is the opinion of the world. And North Korean marxist regime should be therefore excluded from space club countries.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2. 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:

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) 05:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2. 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:

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) 19:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3_Unit_2&oldid=1208065052"