Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the analysis of an event (Part 2)

reply to post by Phage

As a comparison, the third stage of the LGM-118A Peacekeeper (medium range) ignites at an altitude of about 60km.

Let's not compare medium range missiles to ICBM's.

Here's a description of a Minuteman III launch.

I don't know if this is a fair comparison, it seems that the Minuteman actually has four stages. It does have a higher apogee, but still.

The missile technically has a three-stage solid propellant design, though it has a quasi-powered fourth stage. Its Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRV) platform was designed in such a way that it is arguably a fourth stage, but as this is restricted by the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II), it is not referred to as such.

This reply goes directly to the OP.

You have done well with the thread, you've kept your cool despite some attacks (a few even by me), and you have maintained a strong integrity with many of your figures. Personally, even if I don't agree with some of your findings I think you're the ideal type of member for ATS.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by tauristercus

 

So does the 1000 km max altitude still stand?

Where did you get that info if I may ask, and do you still have a source?

I've tried to locate the original source that I used but unfortunately with no success.
However, I did come across this reference that corroborates your find as well as my original estimate.

en.wikipedia.org...

This reference also mentions that the Bulava does apparently have an apogee of approx 1000 kms.

As you've pointed out, the altitudes that I've calculated for the final phases of the spiral event are a considerable distance below the Bulava's apogee. I've rechecked my analysis and calculations and will be sticking with them as being correct (in my opinion).

So at this time, I'm unable to reconcile why a significant component of the event took place at a much lower altitude than the Bulavas alleged apogee.

reply to post by davesidious


Finally, the mystery of the incredibly fast spiral collapse speed value has been solved !
And you'll be pleased to know that there was no "turbo charging" of the BUlava involved

And from my point, confirmation that I had NOT screwed up my analysis, calculations or determination of the trajectory path ... so win, win from both our perspectives

How did I resolve that speed mystery ?

Very simply ... I searched high and low for additional photos of the event that I had not already found and to my surprise, actually found one more photo apparently taken at the Skjervoy location but not by the same person that took that group of pics that have become so popular. So looks like there was a 2nd observer that morning at the Skjervoy location.

Heres the new pic:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/392d59de8a2a.jpg[/atsimg]

Here it is overlayed on the Skjervoy location:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7915cc60700e.jpg[/atsimg]

And here combined with the dissipation started:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f99afc1d3e4b.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's the new pic plotted onto the existing trajectory ... as you can see, by using the new Spiral3 position instead of the previous Spiral2 position, we now have a shorter distance of 54 kms, exactly half the original value of 108 kms that I had used.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82489c690786.jpg[/atsimg]

So the new speed value drops from a whopping 38,880 km/h all the way down to 19,440 km/h ... just slightly in excess of the Topol-M's max speed and consequently a much more believable value !

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by tauristercus

 

So does the 1000 km max altitude still stand?

Where did you get that info if I may ask, and do you still have a source?

I've tried to locate the original source that I used but unfortunately with no success.
However, I did come across this reference that corroborates your find as well as my original estimate.

en.wikipedia.org...

This reference also mentions that the Bulava does apparently have an apogee of approx 1000 kms.

As you've pointed out, the altitudes that I've calculated for the final phases of the spiral event are a considerable distance below the Bulava's apogee. I've rechecked my analysis and calculations and will be sticking with them as being correct (in my opinion).

So at this time, I'm unable to reconcile why a significant component of the event took place at a much lower altitude than the Bulavas alleged apogee.

You must have seen the link I posted (February 8, 2010 at 16:46 GMT) which has in fact been reposted by others since, which states that a successful test in at least one case the 1000km Apogee was achieved. That is not to say that it was the case in the spiral incident. The Russians have already said that the missile "Went off course" so could you not take that into account in your analysis as one scenario. For instance, maybe what is seen in the video is a missile coming in from a South Easterly direction, already malfunctioning, veering off sharply to the right, directly away from the camera and climbing at the same time.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by smurfy]

Here's where I think your blue color is coming from:

2CH4+2NH3+3O2=2HCN+6H20

The ammonium perchlorate oxider reacts with the methane (CH4) to form hydrogen cyanide HCN and thus, the bue appearance.

I've looked at photos of the early track and it doesn't have the blue. The methane rises high in the atmosphere.

Here is what I believe to be a methane cloud rising through a cloud bank near Moscow.

www.youtube.com...

They are seeing sea floor outgassing near Norway.

reply to post by tauristercus

So in other words, the trajectory point you originally plotted for the Tromso video is incorrect. It is actually more to the east.

reply to post by Is2012TheDate


Ohhhhh!!! I feel so safe and confortable with the goverments in this world. Specially with the goverment of the United States. I feel so happy that the "meteorite" that felt in Mexico WAS NOT A METEORITE BUT SPACE JUNK NUMBER 33006. As per space-track agency of Defense Department, this "meteorite" was one of the 15 parts that Soviet satellite Cosmos 2421 broke in. And they knew in advance that this part was going to felt SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD but not in the USA. And ohps!! they are sorry because they forgot to comment this to the world. The only thing I'm concern is that the rest 14 parts are not going to fall in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, India, Australia, UK or wherever I have family. SO USA SLEEP IN PEACE TONITE. REST OF THE WORLD WATCH THE SKY AND PUT YOUR HEAD IN A HOLE WHEN THIS HAPEN.
WE, THE HUMANS BEINGS, MUST BE SOOO RETARDED TO BELIVE THIS CRAP....
www.milenio.com...

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
This reply goes directly to the OP.

You have done well with the thread, you've kept your cool despite some attacks (a few even by me), and you have maintained a strong integrity with many of your figures. Personally, even if I don't agree with some of your findings I think you're the ideal type of member for ATS.

Hi EM,

Me again...

So being the mathematician that you are, how would you grade the OP's maths?

Giving an "A" rating for 100% accuracy...

Thanks.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus

 

So in other words, the trajectory point you originally plotted for the Tromso video is incorrect. It is actually more to the east.

Holy crap, Phage ... you almost gave me heart failure !
For a few mins I thought someone had finally found a flaw in my trajectory placement and of the individual spiral events along that trajectory.

But I'm vindicated once more ...

Ok, initially to be able to locate the Tromso observers location and plot a line of site to the event, I screen captured a clear frame in the 1st second of the vid ... whilst the Arctic Cathedral and streets were still visible. The spiral in this frame was then easily placed on the eventual trajectory path at Spiral2 location.

We have to remember that the spiral was IN CONSTANT MOTION and in the 8 or 9 seconds from my initial frame capture (a total of 10 secs), the spiral had moved from the Spiral2 location along the trajectory, to the newly determined Spiral3 location as described by me a few posts previously.
I'm a bit embarrassed that I had actually forgotten that the spiral was in motion and so assumed that the collapse commenced at Spiral2 whereas it had actually moved in those 10 seconds from Spiral2 to Spiral3 before commencing dissipation. Because the observer had moved the camera upwards and no longer had the ground/buildings/streets as a visual reference, there was no immediate visual clue that the spiral had moved considerably.

Now this is perfectly commensurate with my trajectory distance values and is further confirmation that the calculated trajectory path is indeed correct.
Initially, using Spiral2 gave us a distance of 108kms but during the first 10 seconds of the Tromso vid, the spiral actually moved from Spiral2 to Spiral3 ... effectively cutting the original 108 km distance estimate EXACTLY in half to give a newly corrected distance value of 54 kms.

So in the vid, movement from Spiral2 to Spiral3 took 10 secs ... then the dissipation stage from Spiral3 to Dissipated spiral took a further 10 seconds - this is equivalent to a distance translation in the first 10 seconds of 54 kms, followed by a distance translation in the final 10 seconds of a further 54 kms.

54kms + 54 kms = 108 kms
Time in vid from start to final dissipation = 10 + 10 = 20 seconds.

So the conclusion is that the spiral apparently maintained a CONSTANT speed between the trajectory locations of Spiral2 / Spiral3 and between Spiral3 / Dissipated spiral of approximately 19,400 km/h.

reply to post by tauristercus
Is that not ignoring the Russians statement that it went off course, your trajectory is linear, perhaps 54kms or less would be nearer the mark when it veered away to the right, perhaps in the whole sequence, it is veering away from the camera, and climbing. That would bring down the estimated speed considerably.

Link to a Harvard professor,

www.newscientist.com...

[edit on 12-2-2010 by smurfy]

Originally posted by tauristercus

 

... I searched high and low for additional photos of the event that I had not already found and to my surprise, actually found one more photo apparently taken at the Skjervoy location but not by the same person that took that group of pics that have become so popular. So looks like there was a 2nd observer that morning at the Skjervoy location.

Heres the new pic:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/392d59de8a2a.jpg[/atsimg]

hey tauristercus,

can you give the website/link of these new photos from Skjervoy, I been trying to collect as many of this event as i can.

thanks

Aha! Its starting to make a bit more sense now. Just to be a slightly awkward bugger, I did do some quick & dirty calculations over the issue of ground distance vs flight path.
Using a mean earth radius of 6371km & assuming your altitude of 296.5km was constant, I came up with a segment of circumference above 108km of 113km as a flight distance.
Strange, I expected the difference to be more significant. I suppose I just hadn't been imagining the earth anywhere near big enough in my minds eye. Of course, the actual trajectory probably wasn't at constant altitude, but I cant see that making much difference.
Good work geezer!

reply to post by Is2012TheDate


Well as the scientist in Armageddon so succinctly puts it - the budget for tracking objects is about 1/10th of the total and its is a BIG sky

If thats what worries you and you cant sleep over it - good luck to you - I tend to worry about the real issues - my job, the house, my childs welfare and her education. Quit Whining.

The spiral discussion whilst interesting is nothing more than that - its fun - nothing to lose sleep over.

Originally posted by dodgy_boat

hey tauristercus,

can you give the website/link of these new photos from Skjervoy, I been trying to collect as many of this event as i can.

thanks

Here you go:
wenchesinesysler.blogspot.com...

Here's a link to a guy(Tony Spell, M.Sc. Ocean Engineer - © SpellConsulting.com) who has performed a similar analysis to tauristercus'.

www.spellconsulting.com...


Here's his summary:

"4. Summary & Discussion
.
From this lay line analysis and the subsequent determination of the approximate location, trajectory, size, and altitude of the "Norway Spiral" phenomenon, the following is noted:

* Contrary to some assertions that have placed this event over Norway or Finland, the lay line analysis clearly establishes the initial spiral over the Russian province of Murmansk and the Kola Peninsula with the origin (contrail) located in the vicinity of the western White Sea, and within the coastal warning for the Southern White Sea Rocket Launch Area (or simply "missile launch corridor") [6] with the considered error range.

* Through the lay line vectoring and altitude analysis, the apparent origin or tail end of the blue beam was located inland approximately near the northeast tip of missile launch corridor at an elevation of 79 miles (127 km). The initial formation of the spiral was approximately 62 miles (100 km) north of the blue beam origin and 60 miles (97 km) inland, or west of the White Sea, with altitude and diameter of 107 and 95 miles (172 and 153 km), respectively.

* The path of the spiral was to the northeast and climbing in altitude, traveling across the peninsula and out over the Barents Sea. The final dissipation of the spiral occurred approximately 138 miles (222 km) northeast of its initial development and some 70 miles (113 km) offshore and 166 miles up (267 km). From an observer at Skjervoy, this movement of the spiral was primarily translating sideways (right to left) and away as it moved northeasterly over the Barents Sea. However, the dramatic growth of the spiral gives the impression that it is moving closer to the observer.

* At the point of relatively rapid growth of the "void" and spiral, the upper limit of expansion scaled from photographs places the maximum photographed width of the spiral at approximately 391 miles (629 km), with the upper edge of the spiral at a very high altitude of about 351 miles (565 km), well within the orbital range of the Space Shuttle. To gain a perspective on size, a medium size tropical cyclone is in the range of approximately 200 to 400 miles (322 to 644 km) across, so in a sense this spiral can be likened to a hurricane projected vertically on its side.

* This analysis shows the initial spiral most likely forming in front of (west of) the blue beam, but when considering error it may have been behind or in the same plane as the blue beam. It had been suggested in some forum discussions that the helical nature of the blue beam was due to the light being refracted through the spiral bands. Although in some photographs this theory seems plausible, other photographs seem to show this helical pattern still faintly present after dissipation, leaving this unconfirmed at this point.

* All the available photographs and videos are shot from very distant locations and mainly from the northwestern regions of Norway, suggesting perhaps some manner of illumination only visible to these western observers. It may be possible that there was too much light present in the atmosphere from the easterly regions (Finland, Russia) such that the phenomenon was overpowered by the sun in these areas with an earlier sunrise.

* Due to the subjective nature of the lay line mapping, a generous error range was implemented producing an error envelope represented by an ellipse some 40 by 100 miles (64 by 160 km) at the crossing of multiple lay lines, and a corresponding elevation/size error range of ± 8 miles (± 13 km). While these estimates may be considered large, this range does not negate the general conclusions of this analysis, although the locations, trajectory, and altitude may indeed vary from the results presented."



[edit on 13-2-2010 by mrwiffler]

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by dodgy_boat

hey tauristercus,

can you give the website/link of these new photos from Skjervoy, I been trying to collect as many of this event as i can.

thanks

Here you go:
wenchesinesysler.blogspot.com...

thanks ... nice find!
surprised she did not post these pics to the news websites, they are good.

reply to post by tauristercus


Hey Tuaristercus,

In an effort to dig up some info that will show that EM's analysis is faulty, I came across this video that you may want to use, ( that is if you haven't seen it yet)

It looks to be taken in the Tromso area in a similar location as the 10 sec clip you used showing spiral to dissipation. I know you initially tried to determine the speed the spiral was moving across the sky using only that 10 sec clip and perhaps there wasn't enough time (info) for you to go on which may've given you that initial elevated result?...

This clip shows a sequence of 23 seconds from spiral to beginning of dissipation with continuous filming beyond the complete dissipation... a total of 51 sec of continuous filming of this event from the same vantage point...

You also mentioned that in your initial Tromso clip you couldn't see the mountains in the background which made it difficult to triangulate given no discernible reference points.... but you then settled on the catherdral...

In this clip you can clearly make out the mountains AND at the end you'll see the cathedral in the distance.. this looks to be the full version of the clip you used initially or at least its one that was filmed right in the same area...

I'd be curious to see what you'd come up with when analyzing the full clip, if you're up for it

www.youtube.com...

screen shot from vid to show cathedral at dead center near foot of the mountain
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ecb967fe4fe.png[/atsimg]

Firstly I want to make note that your posts on a particular thread about time travel and time itself are what compelled me to finally register. I've been reading ATS for a year+ now and your posts seem to always be well thought out and informative.

Great work.