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.
I'd like to see some evidence to back that assertion, because the triangulation the OP used seemed rock solid to me. I'm no ballistics scientist tho, so I'm just hoping to learn something from those who have a grasp of this kind of stuff.
p.s. The angle you think the missile traveled is incorrect on your last topic... and this topic.
Well, as I asked earlier, I'm wondering if the 108km is the distance travelled over ground or the actual linear distance travelled through the air/orbit. Seems to me that the thing could have been moving even faster than your estimate, if you used a ground distance for your calculations?
I'm more than open to anyone wishing to reanalyze my entire work, calculations and results. If the 108 kms is grossly inaccurate, then please speak up and say why !
Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Bunken Drum
Yeah, the maths for that is perfect. The trajectory was calculated to start in the same area as the navigational warning, then through the corridor described in the same warning, on to the missile test grounds on the Kamchatka peninsula, all entirely lining up with every single photo, video, and eye-witness account.
The only maths in this thread that is even possibly slightly dubious in nature, and I know Tauristercus agrees with me (please correct me if I'm wrong), is the 108 km measurement, which could definitely use some cross-referencing with other measurements to ensure it's accuracy.
Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by tauristercusWell, as I asked earlier, I'm wondering if the 108km is the distance travelled over ground or the actual linear distance travelled through the air/orbit. Seems to me that the thing could have been moving even faster than your estimate, if you used a ground distance for your calculations?
Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus
Well, there's something for you to do now It seems, though, that they line up perfectly. Please, oh GE master, tell me if I'm wrong!
As for the measurements, I'm glad we're in agreement. As horrible as this might sound, a mistake in your calculations is far more likely than a new Russian missile that travels twice as fast as anything else. I'd love you to be right. It'd be so fantastic I'd be walking on sunshine, but if we don't get there via critical thought, we might as well not bother. I'm glad you're on board
So, do we have a 2nd "scientific" confirmation ? No Do I PERSONALLY think I need it ? No Do I consider that 108 km distance value to be accurate ? Yes
I agree with you that something somewhere MUST be screwy with either the trajectory OR the distance to get such a wacked out speed.
We are now being told that this particular Bulava test failed because of problems associated with the third stage burn. Now this implies that until the 3rd stage problems, that the 1st and 2nd stages completed their burns nominally which should have lifted the Bulava to an altitude of at least 500 kms.
It would be nice to have the timestamps for the images from Skjervoy to get an accurate timespan . I think the video you used only captured the end of the incident. Various descriptions indicate that it lasted quite a bit longer than 10 seconds.
Using the video from Tromso is problematic. It's possible that your bearing from Tromso is not quite accurate. From your Part 1 post you have obtained only 1 data point for the bearing (the Arctic Cathedral). Unlike Skjervoy, we don't really know where the camera is located except that it is generally to the west of the cathedral. Because the camera is relatively close to the cathedral a difference in camera location of only 100-200 meters would make enough of a difference in the bearing to place the spiral at the end of the track you have established rather than the middle.
Even though we don't have timestamps for the Skjervoy images, something is apparent. Between images 2 ("Spiral 2") and 3 ("Dissipating") the photographer has relocated himself (the gate is no longer in view and water of the harbor fills the bottom of the frame). It's hard to be sure but it looks like he may have passed through the gate to the pier. In any case it would seem it would likely have taken more than 10 seconds to make the relocation.
In fact, the only way to reduce my calculated speed values to even get close to the estimated maximum speed of the fastest Russian missile, I would have had to use a value of 22 secs ... a full 12 seconds longer than in the video clip.
If we don't exercise total critical thought during this process, we might as well give up and say it was unicorn farts.
Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by tauristercus
So, do we have a 2nd "scientific" confirmation ? No Do I PERSONALLY think I need it ? No Do I consider that 108 km distance value to be accurate ? Yes
I agree with you that something somewhere MUST be screwy with either the trajectory OR the distance to get such a wacked out speed.
But a page back you were sure. You also showed that even if you were 50% off, you would end up with dubious speeds still.
Seems like your backpedaling now, adapting the evidence to the popular answer.
Just an observation.
Putting this into perspective ... as of 2006, the Topol SS 27 was rated as THE fastest missile in the world with an estimated speed of 10.800 mph (17,280 kph).
For anything to travel from Kapustny to Balkash in 24 minutes, it had to fly at a speed of three miles a second. That’s 180 miles a minute or 10,800 miles an hour. If the reports were indeed true, the Topol RS 12 or the Topol SS 27, as it is known in military circles around the world, had to be the fastest thing man has ever seen.
So, the collapse and dissipation of the spiral occurred over a distance of 108 kms and apparently at twice the speed of the fastest reported Russian missile !
Those of you who have read my previous thread as well, will by now clearly understand why I state that in my belief, even though a Russian missile most probably was somehow involved in the Norway Spiral event, the evidence is stacking up very quickly against the popular belief/explanation that it was all caused by nothing more than a fuel leak in the 3rd stage.
Something else, something much more significant transpired on that day ... and again, from my point of view, it was NOT a failure as reported by the Russians and the media but more likely a SUCCESSFUL test of new technology, either propulsion or weaponry.