reply to post by eupeptic
Interesting stuff, seems like you have done a lot of work.
Great set of pictures, thanks for putting this together.
An exposure of around one second was what I was guessing at, so that makes sense. Did you get the information on what type of camera Jan Petter was
using? I didn't quite get that from the information you posted. That is quite an amazing picture he took.
When you look at the outer circles of the spiral, it appears that the curvature is largest on the top, when I would think if gravity was coming into
play, it would be larger on the bottom, and not the top. If we are looking at exhaust trails, I would think that the gravity would be pulling them
downward, and that if this could be a rocket moving in ever tightening circles, its speed would be greatest when it is moving downward into the well
Something you stated in the post before last that I would like to address.
(assuming the nozzle is at a right angle to the missile's axis of rotation)
The thing is, the maximum angle the cone is probably designed to achieve in relation to the X axis of the rocket is most likely less than 10 degrees,
more like 3 degrees with a total range of 6 or 7 degrees. Rockets simply are not capable of making sharp turns. At hypersonic speeds, a slight
change in direction is more than adequate. By the time the 3rd stage had fired, the missile was most likely going faster than mach 5. From my
understanding, if some side force causes the rocket to change attitude more than a few degrees, it cause the rocket to tumble and self destruct. This
is essentially what the article in your link in that post is stating as I pointed out in my reply.
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
In addition, in order for this missile to have created the spiral seen from Norway in these picture it would have had to make more than one course
change. One course change to head towards the direction needed to present this spiral profile, and second to establish the direction it needed to
present the spiral profile, and then lastly a change to create the spiral. This just seems extremely unlikely. Add this to your estimation that in
order to create this spiral the third stage would have had to burn longer than it was designed to burn, it doesn't seem possible for this third stage
malfunction to create the spiral we see in the pictures.
Notice the corkscrew blue spiral. It is biggest at the center of the spiral, and gets smaller, the further distance it gets from the spiral. This is
exactly the opposite of what it should look like, as demonstrated by all the other pictures or rockets. In all the other pictures of rockets, the
rocket is the point, and the plume behind the rocket get bigger the farther it is away from the rocket. How is it that this blue corkscrew plume is
just the opposite of all of the other rocket photos.
The blue corkscrew looks like something came out of the spiral, and sped off into the distance. This makes the whole wormhole concept seem like an
Being that we are mainly talking about the Norway spiral, we might want to move our discussion to this thread.
edit to change unrealistic guess to realistic guess, don't know why I made that mistake.
[edit on 25-1-2010 by poet1b]