Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

Had a real quick search and I could not find anything with this link in it. But here is some more fuel for the fire.... This is getting very interesting to say the least.

www.viewzone.com...

reply to post by davesidious


Sorry, but I have already explained, and you should bother to look at the video links I provided. When rockets spring such leaks, the hot burning propellant acts like a blow torch and quickly begins to cut through the rocket casing expanding the hole until the rocket blows up. Once the hole starts, it expands rapidly, the rocket does not spiral neatly it tumbles and quickly blows apart. Besides, before the rocket can go too far, avionics on the rocket detonate it before it can head in the wrong direction, possibly hit something or get up over something before it completely comes apart. I have personally tested the very equipment made for this purpose.

No way this is a rocket failure.

reply to post by poet1b


That is not the case for all rockets experiencing all kinds of leaks, as no one has tested every single case. Physics and chemistry don't demand that every single rocket failure has to be catastrophic, although it is likely that any failure will be catastrophic (but not certain).

Not all rocket self-destruct devices work, especially when we're talking about a new missile, and especially an ICBM in space, travelling at many miles per second.

All the evidence points to it being a failed rocket launch, as has been posted here many, many times over. I can do it again if you want.

Read this and this.

The experts don't agree with you.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by poet1b

 

The experts don't agree with you.

I suppose you think you too are an expert.
I have read all your theoretical answers, and NONE of it convinces me that what we saw was a rocket.

Since you ignore the questions you can't answer, I don't expect an answer now. I ask you why is it so important to you to convince us all that this was a missle? Not only is your mind closed to the obvious, but you have spewn insults to peoples intelligence all along the way.

Somthing is fishy about you son, and I don't like it.

reply to post by davesidious

That is not the case for all rockets experiencing all kinds of leaks, as no one has tested every single case. Physics and chemistry don't demand that every single rocket failure has to be catastrophic, although it is likely that any failure will be catastrophic (but not certain).

I would say the degree of uncertainty is around 00.00001% or lower. Not all hammers have been proven to hurt when you smack yourself up side the head with one, but the it has about the same degree of uncertainty.

Extremely hot burning rocket fuel cuts through anything currently known to man.

The real kicker is that this spiral was seen for around TEN MINUTES, which means that traveling at 4 miles a second, it would have traveled 2.400 miles. This spiral sure ain't that big.

it was china missle test... was posted the day it happened...

L INK

LINK

LINK



[edit on 22-1-2010 by werk71]

reply to post by werk71


Ahh no.

Wrong dates.
Wrong location.

The Chinese Rocket test is a completely different incident.

reply to post by poet1b


Not this nonsense again!

Read these links.

You assume to know everything about rocket science, which is arrogant to say the least. How come loads of actual rocket scientists agree with the original story, and only amateurs like yourself don't? Doesn't that speak to you lacking certain knowledge, which your arrogance is stopping you from admitting?

The white spiral might not be actual burned fuel, but a leak from the third stage bus, which would be liquid (even on a solid-fuelled missile). That liquid would instantly vaporise when it entered the vacuum of space, and not burned through anything. So yeah, it very well could be a failing missile, which makes a lot more sense than every single "alternative" hypothesis.

reply to post by davesidious


Why do you debunkers always have to come out with the cheap shots. I don't assume to know everything about rocket science. Only an arrogant twerp would make such assumptions about another.

Here is a link to the visibility of the space shuttle, which is a far larger rocket than the Bulava, so it should be visible from a lot great distance.

www.space.com...

In the Southeast United States, depending on a viewer's distance from Cape Canaveral, the "stack" (shuttle orbiter, external tank and solid rocket boosters) can be easily followed thanks to the fiery output of the solid rocket boosters. The brilliant light emitted by the two solid rocket boosters will be visible for the first 2 minutes and 4 seconds of the launch out to a radius of some 520 statute miles from the Kennedy Space Center.

After the solid rocket boosters are jettisoned, Discovery will be visible for most locations by virtue of the light emanating from its three main engines. It should appear as a very bright, pulsating, fast-moving star, shining with a yellowish-orange glow. Based on previous night missions, the brightness should be at least equal to magnitude -2; rivaling Sirius, the brightest star in brilliance. Observers who train binoculars on the shuttle should be able to see its tiny V-shaped contrail.

If you read the article you will find that the Shuttle, which is heading much higher into space, will only be about a fist above the horizon after the third stage has fired.

How is it that the shuttle launch with a far, far bigger rocket, looks so much smaller, and is not visible from as great of a distance as the article in your link claims that the Bulava should be visible. This Bulava launch takes place beyond the distance where you should be able to see a space shuttle launch, so how do they see it in Norway? Then the rocket is moving away from Norway, so the distance at which the rocket should have been when the third stage fired is even greater.

In addition, the profile of a mountain range in the distance doesn't change much over quite a distance, which means that the direction of the angle looking out across the mountain range could vary extensively, which means this Norway spiral could be in a direction considerably off from the launch projectory of the Bulava.

Even your link admits the evidence that this is a missile is weak.

Then there is the perfection of this spiral.



That is one amazingly symmetrical spiral, I doubt if you could duplicate that with an etchasketch. And it looks huge on the horizon, it dwarfs the mountain range, and it looks higher up than a fist from the horizon, especially when you eliminate the mountain range. How is it that this missile contrail appears bigger than the space shuttle when the space shuttle is much larger, and the the missile appears to be higher when the shuttle is being launched into a much higher orbit? How is it that this missile can be seen at a far greater distance than the space shuttle launch can be seen?

And still the mystery as to why we see no reports and photos from other areas that should have been much closer to this rocket failure.

reply to post by poet1b

The shuttle does not go "much higher into space". The apogee of the Bulava is 1000km. Since the shuttle goes into orbit it follows a very different trajectory than a ballistic missile. Ballistic missile launches from Vandenberg are visible from as far away as Utah and Southern Washington.
www.spacearchive.info...

Here is a photograph of the spiral taken from Puoltsa, Sweden (200km south of Tromso). Since it is in the same direction and has the same perspective, it shows that the spiral is quite distant from both viewpoints.
www.nsd.se...

The spiral looks huge in that photograph because a telephoto lens was used. Telephoto lenses exaggerate the size of distant objects. The spiral has been described as being 2 - 3 times the size of a full moon (1.5º) and many other photographs support that description (including the one from Sweden).

At the time of the launch most of Scandinavia was covered in clouds and fog (except for the northern coastal areas of Norway and, apparently, Puoltsa).

You know, all this has been covered time and time again. You have not presented anything new.





[edit on 1/22/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Your first link doesn't give any estimated distances, nor any idea what you would see five or six hundred miles away. However it doesn't look like the data isn't much different than what I provided, except the information isn't nearly as detailed.

Being that this shows they have regular launches out of Vandenberg, yet most people do not notice, demonstrates that they are not that obvious.

If the camera in the picture with the fence in the foreground has a telephoto lens, the photographer is not using it, that is obvious due to the wide angle we see in the picture. It does look like the shot uses a timed exposure, but not nearly as great as the picture of the satellite out 1,400 miles. I would say it is the timed exposure that displays much more of this spiral.

As for normal visibility, even with clear skies, these areas of Norway where the pictures were taken are at the far edge of the visibility range. If the space shuttle looks like a star at 500 miles distance, this rocket should look smaller at 700 miles or greater. If it exploded from that distance it is hard to believe that it would appear as large as the Moon for ten minutes in a perfect spiral that looks nothing like an explosion.

Russia at first denied this was a launch, and then later admitted they had tested their new ICBM, and have yet to confirm that what we see in the Norway spiral pictures is their rocket. We don't even know if the rocket was being tested at the time the Spiral was seen in Norway.

There is more than enough evidence to doubt that this is a failed rocket launch.

The areas closer to the launch were cloudy, but not blanketed. A great deal more people closer to the launch should have been able to see this.

reply to post by poet1b

My first link shows maps of the areas where the launches are visible. It also has a picture of what a ballistic missile looks like from 2,414 km away.

No the launches are not always obvious. It requires the right viewing conditions

The lighting conditions, and therefore launch visibility, can be different for the same launch from different locations. For example, if a missile lifts-off from Vandenberg AFB in the late afternoon, the Sun is above the horizon in California, limiting the launch's visibility for observers on the West Coast. However, for observers further east, the Sun is below the horizon and they may enjoy an impressive twilight display.

As I said, the spiral has been described as being 2-3 times the size of a full Moon. There are wide angle photos which show a much less dramatic spiral.

We do know the Bulava was launched at the time the spiral was seen.

Kommersant said the reported test-firing before dawn on Wednesday morning coincided with the appearance of an extraordinary light over northern Norway that captivated observers. Images of the white light that appeared in the sky above the Norwegian city of Tromso prompted explanations ranging from a meteor, northern lights, a failed missile or even a UFO.

www.straitstimes.com...

The only clear areas (as I pointed out) were coastal areas of northern Norway and part of northern Sweden. The only clear areas (other than those mentioned) were to the east of the launch site in the White Sea, where the sun was much higher.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c76e78c45cc1.png[/atsimg]
Can you explain the photograph from Sweden? How, if the spiral was not distant, it would appear in much the same direction and have the same perspective from two viewpoints 200 km apart?

reply to post by Phage


You have a very lengthy time exposure of a rocket very distant out that appears to have been taken with a telephoto lens, while I provided a link that tell how far the shuttle should be visible with the naked eye, and what it should like at that distance. The tiny dot at the end of the funnel in the time exposure would be all that you see.

You have Russian sources at first denying, then confirming a rocket launch within several possible windows of time. Nothing confirms the exact time.

www.universetoday.com...

www.universetoday.com...

Lots of speculation, but no real solid explanations.

Don't you have a link for this satellite photo? With any information to verify it is accurate?

reply to post by ALLis0NE


The exhaust trail does not prove it was a missile. Someone could have launched something in that direction to cause the exhaust trail, in order to cover up what really caused the spiral.



[edit on 23-1-2010 by Blender]

Hi
Just to point out to the discounting cold snap as part of the effects......it happened on the 9th Dec 2009. On the 10th the temperature had dropped considerably and in some parts weather warnings were in place. Also the same lights had been spotted over China and they too suffered with the severe cold and snow.
Just to point out the coincidence.
P.s we weren't even at the middle of winter. To clarify January/Febuary middle of UK winter.





[edit on 23-1-2010 by DreamerOracle]

reply to post by DreamerOracle


Exactly. Coincidence. That doesn't mean the two were connected at all. The spiral was in space, not the atmosphere.

Y'know, maybe nobody on earth had anything to do with the spriral @ all? just a thought...

reply to post by The_truth_is_stranger


The evidence points squarely to it being a failing Russian ICBM. No evidence contradicts that explanation. None.

So the third stage is sold rocket propellant, which means it can not be a fuel leak. I had just assumed the third stage was liquid fueled.

This is what is being reported as the possible cause for the Bulava failure.

research.scottrade.com...

The source said that the reason for the failure of [the launch] of the Bulava missile was a break-down in the operation of the solid-fuel engine of the third stage. It is possible that a burn-through occurred in the engine's wall, which led to a change in the trajectory of the missile's flight and its self-destruction.

Here is a good video of what solid fueled rocket failures look like.

www.youtube.com...

I don't know how Russia mixes its solid fueled rocket propellant, but typically one would expect aluminum powder as the fuel, with an oxidizer to provided the oxygen component, which means once it starts burning it continues to burn until the fuel is exhausted. You can not put out an aluminum fire. If these are pictures of a solid fueled rocket failure, we should be looking at something that looks like a star burst, like a fireworks display, not a spiral.

Where is the starburst?

With the direction of the trajectory going across the scene of view from which the photos were taken, if the rocket began to spin out of control in space without atmospheric resistance, it still should have continued on its course from the forward momentum, and we should be seeing a corkscrew, and not a perfect spiral.

No one has yet to come up with any photos of a rocket failure that looks anything like this spiral, but there have been pictures of corkscrews put up.

Being that the Russians are now reporting that the rocket self destructed, the whole rocket failure explanation for the spiral falls apart.

reply to post by poet1b


No.
The first two stages are solid fueled rockets. The third stage is liquid fueled.

It has three stages. Its length in launch container is 12.1 meters and maximum diameter is 2 meters. It is equipped with solid fuel cruise engines of the 1st and 2nd stages. The third stage is equipped with a liquid propellant engine, to ensure the necessary speed and maneuverability at the final stretch of the trajectory.

itar-tass.com...