It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the spirals NOW? Sapphire-like Solid rocket fuels since 1981!

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I couldn't locate a definitive date that Al2O3 (Aluminum Oxide) started being used in rocket fuels but found dozens of articles back to 1981, 2002, 2003 that discuss it directly.

WHY would the spirals in the sky (allegedly because of rocket failures) start now?

The aluminim oxide in the rocket fuel is basically the same chemical formula is a sapphire which is what gives it the blue color. But the perfect spirals? We've been testing rockets for ages and only getting better I would assume.

The norway spiral was NOT a rocket failure.


(I recognize other threads have been made about the spiral - this is about the chemical make-up of rocket fuel and the timing of seeing spirals so back off all ye would-be "already been posted" fanatics.)


A Global View of the Use of Aluminum Fuel in Solid Rocket Motors

Hermsen, R. W., “Aluminum Oxide Particle
Size for Solid Rocket Motor Performance
Prediction”, 19th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
12-15 January, 1981, St. Louis, MO, Paper number
AIAA 81-0035.


[edit on 17-12-2009 by Thermo Klein]




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I think you are talking about Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant

www.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

This propellant contains Aluminium and is a common rocket propellant.

This is the propellant used in the space shuttle solid rocket Boosters.

Its Ammonium_Perchlorate/aluminium based propellant



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
I think you are talking about Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant

This is the propellant used in the space shuttle solid rocket Boosters.


But that stuff doesn't burn blue. I'm definitely talking about Al2O3. Thanks for the links though



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
You're seeing the spirals now because the specific type of rocket that keeps failing has only been in existence for a few years. That's why. It makes perfect sense if you think about it.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

The norway spiral was NOT a rocket failure.


This video simulation made me convince it was indeed nothing but a rocket failure.

I'll admit I was pretty disappointed, I'd rather have it to be aliens or something spectacular, but reason wins over fantasy in the end...



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 


Yup - that simulation shows exactly how the observed phenomenon could be explained by a simple rocket failure. Unless someone can debunk that explanation, it's irrational to claim anything else.

I'd love it to be aliens too, but as you say - critical thought has to be the winner.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
What about the chaos theory?

My biggest quandary is variables that would impact the trajectory of the rocket while it is spinning. The primary variable to consider is the effect of air on the hind rocket tail fins. The results from a rocket spinning ultimately out of control added to the variable tail fin altercations of trajectory would likely effect the overall path. Inherently you would always see an imperfect spiral because the tail fins are designed to be control centers for a linear trajectory ergo only providing control while in forward motion. While spinning in a nonlinear motion air particles would contact the plain of the fin instead of the edge creating friction / air patterns that would be outside human control. Not to mention the inherent variable air currents that come with disturbing the air under different circumstances. The fluctuations in air currents as well as inherent aerodynamics in the tail would effect overall velocity of the spin as well as trajectory of the rocket.

Remember objects always try to follow the path of least resistance. The tail fins would provide a means for a less resistant path in the form of linear control meaning that the rocket would inherently try to straighten itself out every now and again however would be unable because of its rear propulsion. I've seen this many times in badly designed model rockets, they create a spiral in the sky but that spiral is inherently imperfect because of the influences of outside variables.

That computer simulation does not account for the influences of air currents on the rocket's trajectory nor does it account for many other unmentioned chaotic variables.

I'm not saying this wasn't a failed rocket but to ultimately jump to that conclusion without considering other variables is just bad science.

If ⅓(x+y)=z and x was never taken into account then z will = ⅓y and your calculation will be off.

I could not find the wind patters for that particular date as of yet, however this is what wind conditions in Europe look like right now. I'm sure you will understand the relevance.



Surely even if the rocket behaved in the fashion causing the effects we observed you would at least figure the wind would have affected the particles contained in the afterglow..

--------------------------------------------------

If you don't understand what I am trying to say I would be more than happy to illustrate.

Edit:

I had another thought. how come the spiral ascent (if that is what we see) in the image is unaltered? What I mean by that is aircurrents (whether those are disturbances caused by the rocket or the effects of the prevailing winds, which btw where never mentioned.) added with the 32 ft per second gravitational influence would have created inherently chaotic effects, how come no effects of this nature where observed?

[edit on 17-12-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Oh boy- Not another thread on this, really?

Maybe now because of the manner in which this particular rocket failed?

It's ok to assume that not all rocket failures will be the same you know.... It is possible that this particular failure, given the weather conditions and the suns position with the rockets position in the upper atmosphere created this effect; one that hasn't been seen to this dramatic level before.


Similar but not exact-

Look up the Tromsk rocket launch video from 2006-



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Yes, but like every other rocket spiral previous to this (Norway) one that spiral behaved just as expected and the effects of outside variables could be observed.

Please read my previous post.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
In the simulation though, you can see how it forms a cone. The widest particles are closer to the ground than central ones. I don't see this in the pictures, they look to all be the same distance away. But it does seem to be the best explanation.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
originally from DaMod

I'm not saying this wasn't a failed rocket but to ultimately jump to that conclusion without considering other variables is just bad science.


I agree! There are a few variables here that we really don't know. Someone put an excellent video on the internet explaining what this probably was. I could also show you an excellent video of swamp gas making crop circles but it's a correlation and is not proof, just a good hypothesis.

originally from XyZeR
awesome video! And when I saw it I discounted my previous thought that this was from EISCAT.

But then more things started popping up...
Why are there no pictures from any angle besides directly in front of the spiral?
If was a gaseus emission from a low missile it would be visible from other angles. If it were far higher, on the ionosphere, it would basically be the same for everyone viewing due to the further distance.

On the other hand, the way the alleged smoke disipated seems to lean toward the missile failure.

one answer was because these types of rockets are new...
All missiles work in basically the same way - propulsion of a cylindrical object. Do you even know what kind of missile they were said to be testing??



[edit on 17-12-2009 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by XyZeR
 


Yup - that simulation shows exactly how the observed phenomenon could be explained by a simple rocket failure. Unless someone can debunk that explanation, it's irrational to claim anything else.

I'd love it to be aliens too, but as you say - critical thought has to be the winner.


What you're saying, that it's "irrational to claim anything else" is really biased! You are saying that science or what you're comfortable with is satisfying. There is evidence both ways at the moment.

Just a general statement: I never thought this was aliens but it sure did look like energy waves from EISCAT.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 


I do beleive I provided a rational and logical explanation as to how the simulation would be incomplete.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Your entire theory fell apart before it started.

The missile failed at the beginning of it's 3rd stage. By that time the missile was already in space. That means there was no atmosphere to effect the trajectory of the missile.

The spin of the missile itself is what stabilized it.

No air currents effected the spiral because the spiral wasn't in the atmosphere.

Come on people... it was a missile. Stop with these topics.

I can't wait for the day ATS throws all the Norway Spiral topics in the hoax bin.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Well, I see what your saying. The spiral would have actually been somewhere between the mesosphere and ionosphere. About 90 miles up to be exact so there would have been some drag but not much granted (i know this because of simple trigonometry). I say somewhere between to account for the gain/loss of altitude. I was referring more to the spiral exhaust plume which would have started at stage 3 at about 40-50 miles up.

Listen I'm not debunking, it probably is a failed missile but my point is there are a lot of things that people didn't consider (this was but one). Not to consider 'all' variables, even the most minute, is bad science.



[edit on 17-12-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


The missile was most likely well above those weather patterns, by tens of miles. It was most likely up in the very, very rarefied atmosphere.

So unfortunately not, you've not poked holes in the theory.

As for the perfect nature of the spiral, it wasn't perfect - not even close. Missiles have stabilisers, as you said, but they also can steer themselves. They have to, otherwise they can't hit anything. If a rocket senses it's not moving as desired (say, if it is blown by wind at a lower level, or its flight characteristics change due to different temperature air or clouds), it will steer itself back onto its correct trajectory. A rapidly-adjusting missile would account for the blue spiral, which is clearly the rocket exhaust (the blue colour is a pretty decent give-away), as the rocket struggles to maintain a straight trajectory.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The question all the readers here need ask themselves is whether it really involves them in the matter. Did it happen outside your bedroom window? If not then why speculate something you haven't viewed with your own two eyes. Its funny because few of you on here assume that when a topic such as this could be 'actual fact' you do the opposite and convince yourselves its just a rocket failure.. or its this or its that. Where's your proof? Can't you just accept that its happening regardless that it could be a rocket failure or somewhat to do with fuel deposits and not treat it like its a threat to mankind most of the time.

What is it that people fear the most when they hear, or speculate on a topic such as this? I would like to know what makes people like a few of you on here tick?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DClairvoyant
 


That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Your own two eyes are the WORST instruments we have to observe and measure the world. It's pure, unadulterated arrogance to assume that if you see something with your eyes that what you saw actually happened the way you perceived it. That's why scientists (note: we're in the 'Science & Technology' board) use instruments that give off their readings in unambiguous ways that our eyes can perceive with far greater accuracy. Or didn't you wonder why scientists use instruments?

Of course we can say, with massive amounts of certainty, that it was a failed missile launch, because every single shred of evidence - from the multitude of eye-witness accounts, to the behaviour of the phenomenon, to the knowledge thousands of scientists have of missiles (and how they behave), knowledge of the fuels used by said missiles, and of course knowledge of basic physics - all agrees that it was a missile. There is no smoking gun piece of evidence that points to it being anything else. And yet there are people on this board who seem to think it was something to do with UFOs or holograms or some such nonsense.

If you are only concerned with things you can see with your own eyes, turn off your computer and go stare out your window.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
This sounds like a solid rocket fuel so that lets out the
funnel being a fuel leak.
I only trusted the blurry photos so far.
Some representations look too artistic to be reality.
I did see a spiral video a few years back but no fanning out
of any fog disturbance if that happened at all.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DClairvoyant
 


Is this your canned response to all Spiral threads? This has been a totally down to earth (pun intended
) thread with exploration of chemical compounds, timing, altitude, etc. - did you even read the thread? You are way off...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join