Russian Rocket Spiral
Only after I posted did I look at your question closely enough to see what you were really asking.
However, logic has nothing to do with the underlying question any more:
New Russian missile failure sparks UFO frenzy
by Stuart Williams
MOSCOW (AFP) – Russia's new nuclear-capable missile suffered another failed test launch, the defence ministry said Thursday, solving the mystery of a spectacular plume of white light that appeared over Norway.
The Bulava missile was test-fired from the submarine Dmitry Donskoi in the White Sea early Wednesday but failed at the third stage, the defence ministry said in a statement.
The pre-dawn morning launch coincided with the appearance of an extraordinary light over northern Norway that captivated observers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091210/sc ... da4D2s0NUE
However, logic has nothing to do with the underlying question any more:
New Russian missile failure sparks UFO frenzy
by Stuart Williams
MOSCOW (AFP) – Russia's new nuclear-capable missile suffered another failed test launch, the defence ministry said Thursday, solving the mystery of a spectacular plume of white light that appeared over Norway.
The Bulava missile was test-fired from the submarine Dmitry Donskoi in the White Sea early Wednesday but failed at the third stage, the defence ministry said in a statement.
The pre-dawn morning launch coincided with the appearance of an extraordinary light over northern Norway that captivated observers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091210/sc ... da4D2s0NUE
Re: Russian Rocket Spiral
Diogenes wrote:I think I know exactly what it was. Some Leftwing Green wackos with a blue laser light show attempting to generate interest in the Copenhagen conference.BSPhysics wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... orway.html
Here is quite possibly the best UFO evah. Any rocket scientists in the house that can analyze this one?
BS
Well, I was absolutely wrong about this. I was so wrong, I couldn't get any more wrong. I was WRONG WRONG WRONG!
This is such a rare event in my experience that I like to highlight it whenever it occurs. So people, pay heed. When you are shown to be wrong, ADMIT IT! This is how it's done. You say "I was wrong." No embarrassment, just man up.
One way to show you are wrong is to shorten urls that foul up page formatting - The MODERATOR
Still looks like a projection/laser show to me though.
DoD News BriefingD Tibbets wrote:I have seen a video of a US launch of an intercept missle (THAAD?) that spiraled upward for several revolutions before streaking off for it's target. I don't know if this was for calibration purposes, sensing purposes, or used to disguise the launch point.
Joseph Yakovac, Brigadier General, USA, Deputy for Systems Management and Horizontal Technology Integration for the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology:
"That comment was, why the spiral? That's the Energy Management System, the THAAD Energy Management System that is employed, based on where they expect the target, at what altitude they expect to intercept the target."
My guess is they try to minimize the amount of propellant early on in order to obtain the highest velocity/energy at intercept (E=0.5mv^2) and the fastest response to steering (lowest inertia) as the interceptor closes on the possibly maneuvering target. The early spiral burns off unnecessary fuel mass that would otherwise have to be lifted/accelerated (a=F/m). No spiral would occur for a target at maximum range.
Spin stabilization would be about the cylinder axis, and any precession relative to the airmass or inertial frame would be very small, unless there's a failure. Normally it would not show up as a corkscrew in the smoke trail. For a missile (SLBM) going against a fixed target, there is no valid engineering reason to corkscrew early in the flight. You want those to leave their most vulnerable phase, and get away from the submarine, as quickly as possible.Aero wrote:By what logic do you conclude the the observation was of a failure mode, as opposed to observation along the z-axis of normal operation of a spin stabilized rocket under power?
During the THAAD testing at White Sands, that was done to make the THAAD missile bleed off initial speed, so it wouldn't accidentally impact beyond the boundaries of the testing site.D Tibbets wrote:A few speculations. I have seen a video of a US launch of an intercept missle (THAAD?) that spiraled upward for several revolutions before streaking off for it's target. I don't know if this was for calibration purposes, sensing purposes, or used to disguise the launch point.
The photo shown above clearly looks to be either fake (CGI) or a projection from some kind of artificial lighting fixture.
EDIT: DeltaV beat me to it. Did anyone even notice the signature on the photo, that says 'Rex FEATURES'? Clearly this is a still from some kind of film production project, possibly a demo shot for in-progress CGI work.
Because we can.
My first impression was pranksters (it looked too perfect), but after seeing videos of various missile failures and enhancing the above photo to reveal the 3D nature of the outer spiral, I'm now of the opinion that it was a failed SLBM. I'm guessing the weird lighting is due to sunlight on exhaust particles at altitude and maybe some sort of glowing plasma effect for the inner corkscrew.
[Edit] And the Russian admission closes the case for me.
[Edit] And the Russian admission closes the case for me.
Stoney3K wrote:During the THAAD testing at White Sands, that was done to make the THAAD missile bleed off initial speed, so it wouldn't accidentally impact beyond the boundaries of the testing site.D Tibbets wrote:A few speculations. I have seen a video of a US launch of an intercept missle (THAAD?) that spiraled upward for several revolutions before streaking off for it's target. I don't know if this was for calibration purposes, sensing purposes, or used to disguise the launch point.
The photo shown above clearly looks to be either fake (CGI) or a projection from some kind of artificial lighting fixture.
EDIT: DeltaV beat me to it. Did anyone even notice the signature on the photo, that says 'Rex FEATURES'? Clearly this is a still from some kind of film production project, possibly a demo shot for in-progress CGI work.
The picture you are referring to is the one at the end of the very first link of the very first message. My first thought upon seeing it was that no natural phenomenon could have created it, and therefore it must be man made. The perfectness of the spiral made it very improbable to have been formed by a rocket. As I pointed out to one of my friends, the angle of the photograph is nearly horizontal. A rocket can spiral perfectly if it is going straight up, and the camera is directly beneath it. Going parallel to the surface of the earth, a rocket should not make perfect circles unless it is specifically programed to do so, because it would have to counteract the affect of gravity on it's trajectory.
If the rocket was spiraling as a result of failure, the spiral ought to go downward as a result of gravity. (Unless the rocket is designed to compensate for it by thrusting harder on the up side and less on the downside.)
This stretched plausibility to the breaking point in my opinion, so I concluded it had to be some sort of clever projection, especially the blue light.
Who would do such a thing and why? Members of the church of global warming trying to gain world wide attention to atmospheric conditions.
Reminds me of the old story about Dr. Joseph Bell.
"One day Dr. Joseph Bell (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's medical school mentor and the inspiration behind "Sherlock Holmes") assembled a group of students around a patient's bed to demonstrate the deductive method of diagnosis.
"Aren't you a bandsman?" Bell asked the sick man.
"Yes," replied the man.
"You see, gentlemen, I am right," Bell declared. "It is quite simple. This man has a paralysis of the cheek muscles, the result of too much blowing at wind instruments. We need only inquire to confirm. What instrument do you play, my man?"
Said the patient: "The big drum, doctor."
The spiral doesn't look perfect. Also consider the single data point issue: only one perspective is given. Also you can't argue conclusively that the rocket couldn't have looked just like this if it had any failure. Maybe the white spiral is some stage leaking while the active stage is thrusting. Or maybe some other failure is leaving that blue trail while thrusting is still good enough for that much propulsion..
Yep, further down that wikipedia article:Among its claimed abilities are evasive maneuvering,
And again, it looks the same, plume pattern excepted, as the Progress 35 plume from a few weeks back.The Russian defense ministry reported that the first two stages of the rocket worked properly, but a technical failure in the third stage resulted in the launch failure
If you were directly below the rocket, if might look like that. And, I speculate that is actually true. If this was a SLBM balliatic missle launced from the North Sea near upper Norway. The targe would probably be somewhere in Eastern Siberia or the Northern Pacific, So the missle may have been heading nearly directly away from the camera as it exited the atmosphere.
With a similar apperance reported with a Progress launch, I wonder if the display represents a failure at all. The reported third stage failure may have occured after this picture was taken. Alternatly the actual missle with it's third stage may have already left the scene, and all that is left is the lingering plumes. A video would be interesting.
Dan Tibbets
With a similar apperance reported with a Progress launch, I wonder if the display represents a failure at all. The reported third stage failure may have occured after this picture was taken. Alternatly the actual missle with it's third stage may have already left the scene, and all that is left is the lingering plumes. A video would be interesting.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
It would, but I haven't seen any anywhere the story was reported.
What I mean with the Progress similarity is that the plume is just as visible and expansive, so that aspect isn't extraordinary. Then, the pattern itself is totally different.
What use would such a spiraling booster be, if in fact it wasn't a failure?
What I mean with the Progress similarity is that the plume is just as visible and expansive, so that aspect isn't extraordinary. Then, the pattern itself is totally different.
What use would such a spiraling booster be, if in fact it wasn't a failure?
The news reports say the third stage failed. If the corkscrew is a design feature, and the Russians called it a failure only to cover up new technology, then the only reason I can think of to intentionally corkscrew during boost would be to counter boost-phase BMD systems. Decoys are not deployed until clear of the atmosphere, so I don't think that would be the reason. A boost-phase corkscrew would significantly reduce the maximum warhead weight and range, and there would have to be a big vulnerability during boost to do that on purpose. Something like ABL might have a good chance of taking out an SLBM during third-stage boost, since the beam would clear most of the atmosphere that a first- or second-stage intercept would involve, and I doubt a corkscrew would hinder ABL very much. If this is intentional, it's more likely a counter to kinetic intercepts.
Also over at the Orbiter Space Flight Simulator Forum in this thread one guy did an interesting triangulation: