http://www.newsweek.com/id/205099

Ready. Aim. Never Mind.

Why North Korea probably won’t test a long-range missile on July 4th.
By Mark Hosenball | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 2, 2009

[snip]

…despite the North Koreans’ reported launch today of four short-range missiles, two U.S. national security officials tell NEWSWEEK that an Independence Day launch of another Taepodong 2 is essentially impossible because the North Koreans have not yet assembled such a rocket on a launch pad.

U.S. government experts are monitoring what may be preparations by the North Koreans to assemble another Taepodong 2 for launch. However, the rocket is still in pieces, according to the two officials (who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information) and would take days or even weeks to put together. Even after such a missile is assembled on a launchpad, the officials added, the North Koreans would then need several more days to load it with liquid fuel. The entire process of assembling and fueling such a rocket would be easily visible not only to secret spy satellites and aircraft operated by the U.S. and other Western governments but also to picture-taking satellites operated by commercial companies, one of the officials noted.

The available evidence indicates that if the North Koreans are preparing to launch another Taepodong 2, there is no way it could be launched in time for July 4; best estimates are that even if preparations are pursued at an accelerated rate, the earliest another large missile launch could take place would be several weeks from now. Hence, U.S. experts say, whatever Independence Day fireworks may light up the sky over Hawaii, Alaska, or the West Coast of the U.S., they likely won’t come from a North Korea missile test.

There are a number of local manufacturers of machine tools in iran which produce CNC machines. Have a look at this url:
http://www.mst.ir/english/mst_products.php?p=1

russiannavyblog: I think what you found is their shore-to-ship test zone:

The fact that they are announcing this is further indication, at least to me, that July 4th was chosen by the Western media as a good political date and that they are much farther from launch than we imagined. (Of course, I could be proved wrong in a few hours!)

The SA-2 (S-75) sustainer engine combustion chamber was the first thing that came to mind when I noted the size of the object being machined.
It looks too high thrust for use as a PBV velocity trim engine, which might well use hydrazine monopropellant for simplicity, rather than hypergolics.
Is any gimbaling used on the first or second stage? Because if it’s not, then four of these engines could well be supplying pitch, yaw, and roll control, which would be a well-proven Russian technique.
There are a couple of photos of a SA-2 sustainer engine in this UN report PDF:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf
But the combustion chamber looks considerably longer than the one in the photo.
(I was amazed to see that it is actually turbopump driven rather than simply pressure fed. Considering the time-frame the SA-2 comes out of and the small size of the engine that’s pretty impressive).

I don’t think there are any benefits for them to go through the procedures to announce their test. If they announce, or they don’t announce, the world reaction will be the same, as was shown after the April 5th launch. If I had to make that choice, I would go with not announcing.

HYDROPAC 1213/2009(95). SEA OF JAPAN. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS 2300Z TO 1100Z COMMENCING DAILY UNTIL 10 JUL IN AREA BOUND BY 39-32-07N 127-31-07E, 40-08-30N 128-54-00E, 40-42-30N 130-11-40E, 40-28-00N 130-22-30E, 39-57-30N 129-02-12E, 39-28-20N 127-39-00E.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 111200Z JUL.

http://www.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/MISC/warn/dm_p.html

I’m way too lazy to plot it out, but this may be it.

For the first stage dropping off at least.

Perhaps it’s a thruster for 3rd stage post burn out trimming? Or maybe a small pressure fed ullage engine? Regen cooling is for hot, high Isp engines that burn a long time. All that plumbing requires a large amount of minimal fuel per burst if it were a thruster. Most thrusters are cooled by radiation. I’m more in favor of the vernier theory. That is assuming it’s a flight engine. No new news on what machine it might be. The uniformity in paint makes me think that the rotary table might have come with the machine which if true throws out the Troyke DL-10-B theory. Still chewing on machine ID.

Looks like an Iranian modification to SA-2/Volga sustainer engine combustion chamber. They manufacture an extended range version of the Guideline under the nomenclature “Sayyad-1”.

It is hard to find a good, clear image of the Safir 2nd stage engines but this image probably shows one:

If so, it seems very consistent with the combustion chamber being the same diameter as what John Field estimated. I think the evidence is growing that Iran (and presumably North Korea) has the capability to manufacture the advanced engines needed for the second stage and not to just use components. There is, of course, no evidence one way or the other for indigenous turbopump production.

> What is odd is the small size; this would be something like a vernier engine as far as thrust goes for any good-sized missile unless it’s the engine for a very small liquid-fueled third stage, and one would think that a solid motor would be a lot easier to employ for that.

Well, I’d first note that we’re all way out in speculation-land here. But I’m OK with that and offer the following:

The PBV engines on American and Soviet ICBMs are small and use liquid fuel. What the liquid fuel offers is the option to precisely steer and target the payload as well as (like a solid-fuel stage) to extend the range.