On the Norway Spirals and their Physically Impossible “Ripple” Propagation
On the morning of December 9th, reports of strange, spinning spirals
flooded the internet and media outlets. They have come to be known as the “Norway Spirals”. Though popularly attributed to a failed test-launch of
a Russian “RSM-56 Bulava” Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM), it can be shown with some basic trigonometry that this explanation is
physically impossible. ….
Amini’s paper has been updated here:
it now reflects input from the hoagland study [www.enterprisemission.com...
] on the geometry of the spiral [the connection
with the missile is solid], a study that I reluctantly cited because, while I find it accurate in its specific assertions, I remain suspicious it's
an intro to something weird soon to come. I know Richard too well.
Hoagland had one question we've now (at ats) found the answer to -- why the spiral was only observed in the NW Norway (Tromso region) area. Weather
satellite images show clearly that the rest of the region was overcast that morning, and as you move eastwards, you move into sunrise and bright skies
that would mask any such visual cues. But I'm still curious about what aircraft pilots or passengers in NW Russia and Finland might have been able to
I was always reluctant to connect the spiral's formation to the official claim of the third stage malfunction, since spirals have been reported and
drawn by witnesses in the past (hand-held camcorders weren't all that common in the 1980s, you have to admit). So I suggested that the spiral was a
'feature', not a 'bug', of some missile operation [I do not dispute the claim the third stage failed, just that the failure was the instigator of
the spiral formation].
Discussion at an arms control wonk website suggests that for solid fuel rockets, which cannot be shut off in flight, excess thrust can be 'dumped'
through opening side ports along the stage and thrusting sideways. Rolling the stage evens out any course disturbances. A spiral, even a double spiral
(when there are two opposite-facing thrust dump ports), is the result under rare solar illumination conditions.
Was this launch a candidate for 'thrust dumping'? Yes, since if you measure the programmed range from launch to Kamchatka, you see it is a LOT
shorter than the claimed maximum range. The solid-fuel rocket stages have a pre-loaded amount of total thrust due to their construction, and for
shorter-than-maximum test missions, some of that thrust has to be dumped at the end of ascent.
This inquiry continues -- but underscores a point I've stressed for years, that 'UFO reports' from the USSR and neighboring countries have
contained highly-sensitive performance clues to their space and missile weapons system performance and test results. Of course the CIA had BETTER be
interested in such reports -- since the 'UFO' identification is a camouflage for technical intelligence data on Soviet (and now Russian) nuclear
As for Amini's math, it still is pathetic (I majored in math in undergraduate and graduate studies, so my eyes don't 'glaze over' with awe when
somebody's pulling a snow job), and he needs a long heart-to-heart with his college career counselor if the report is typical of his physics