(August 11, 2017 at 7:33 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Was the missile 'unloaded' for maximum height (which equals range) and therefore to 'scare' the bejeebers out of potential intimidates? Or even scarier, was it ballasted for a realistic warhead on board, and is there something about it's flightpath that suggest to our side that it was indeed the case?? If it went up to 2300 miles with a 1 or 2 ton load of sand on board, it is far more concerning.
It identifiably reaching the ocean surface just off Japan confirms it wasn't an ephemeral construct of some kind that would have disintegrated at high altitude to no effect, but something substantial enough to 'register' at impact with the water.
Wish we knew more . . .
i don't know if there is anyway to discern a missile with an heavy and inefficient booster mated to a low weight prop from a missile with light and efficient booster mated to realistically weighed inert warhead. Perhaps when the warhead re-enters, how much inertia it exhibits in overcoming aerodynamic drag would give some indication of its density. But you can still have a low weight prop that is small but dense to mimic the drag response of a full weight real warhead.