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

This has to be one of the hottest debates on ats in awhile. I must admit that the missile answers feels hallow when looking at it and the "not a missile ufo" seems very unlikely. This is a mystery "to some" that may not be revealed ever. It's all over with and no one will know. "unless you believe it's a missile. I think it's a portal imo and I'm sticking to it. Reasoning is due to the LHC highest output that day being a breakthrough of 2 tev. Although it's hard for me to sit here and have proof with that. That being said I think in "reality" it is a missile. It's either a gate or a missile. no real answer to be found. Plot holes in the missile theory and gaping holes in mine. lol but it's fun to talk about

Originally posted by Jordan River
This has to be one of the hottest debates on ats in awhile. I must admit that the missile answers feels hallow when looking at it and the "not a missile ufo" seems very unlikely. This is a mystery "to some" that may not be revealed ever. It's all over with and no one will know. "unless you believe it's a missile. I think it's a portal imo and I'm sticking to it. Reasoning is due to the LHC highest output that day being a breakthrough of 2 tev. Although it's hard for me to sit here and have proof with that. That being said I think in "reality" it is a missile. It's either a gate or a missile. no real answer to be found. Plot holes in the missile theory and gaping holes in mine. lol but it's fun to talk about

I'm surprised this is being debated about too! Can someone summarize to me in an unbiased fashion the two sides explanations? Missile vs. LHC? Why can't a conclusion be made??

Originally posted by game over man

Originally posted by Jordan River
This has to be one of the hottest debates on ats in awhile. I must admit that the missile answers feels hallow when looking at it and the "not a missile ufo" seems very unlikely. This is a mystery "to some" that may not be revealed ever. It's all over with and no one will know. "unless you believe it's a missile. I think it's a portal imo and I'm sticking to it. Reasoning is due to the LHC highest output that day being a breakthrough of 2 tev. Although it's hard for me to sit here and have proof with that. That being said I think in "reality" it is a missile. It's either a gate or a missile. no real answer to be found. Plot holes in the missile theory and gaping holes in mine. lol but it's fun to talk about

I'm surprised this is being debated about too! Can someone summarize to me in an unbiased fashion the two sides explanations? Missile vs. LHC? Why can't a conclusion be made??

Mine was just an opinion. I just figured out my idea due to the reports of the 2 tev spike in the LHC on the same day! Although, IMO I'm seeing debunkers getting obliterated by the missile theory idea. You can always have two assumptions. Ah freewill!

reply to post by Phage


I think the guy in the article of your link is mixed up. First he reports 3 stage solid fueled rocket, then he claims the third stage is liquid.

Here is another source that gives the specs on the rocket, that was provided by eupeptic on the China spiral thread.

www.astronautix.com...

Stage3: 1 x Topol'-M-3. Gross Mass: 6,000 kg (13,200 lb). Empty Mass: 1,000 kg (2,200 lb). Motor: 1 x 15Zh58V. Thrust (vac): 245.000 kN (55,078 lbf). Burn time: 56 sec. Length: 3.10 m (10.10 ft). Diameter: 1.34 m (4.39 ft). Propellants: Solid.

That is two sources who seem to much better informed than your source that state that the third stage used a solid fuel propellant.

Another factor is what is being used to to steer the third stage. If it is electric motors driving a ball screw to position the cone, then they only at a slow rate, and are limited in how far the cone can be pushed.

There is no feasible way this third stage could have created that spiral.

reply to post by poet1b

Well, it is three staged and it does use solid fuel so even though that first wording is a bit ambiguous it is clarified later.

There may be some confusion because of the Topol-M, which the Bulava is based on. The Topol-M does have three solid fueled stages.

Other sources:
adiewicaksono.files.wordpress.com...
www.russianspaceweb.com...
Aviation Week



[edit on 1/24/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


It looks like we have multiple sources saying different things.

Another latest news story, which again reinstates that the third stage is solid fueled. Some are blaming the failure on the control system, but the manufacturer is denying this.

www.rusbiznews.com...

FSUE "NPO Automation", the company that designed the missile control system for Bulava, also does not see why they should take the blame for last failure. Lev Belsky, a Deputy Director General of the company, has made a very clear statement in regard to the phrase "the failure was caused by breakdown of the thrust control mechanism of the solid fuel engine": "There are many stupid things they write. This has nothing to do with the control system, and I am not telling you what it is to do with. No comment."

If the rocket the Bulava was based on has three solid fueled stages, most likely the Bulava has three solid fueled stages, as it is basically a smaller version of the other rocket with adaptions for submarine launches.

Looks like we are gong to have to wait for more news to come out.

reply to post by Jordan River


The LHC has nothing to do with this. It is totally incapable of producing anything like what we saw. Ignorance and desire are not good enough reasons to believe something There are no holes in the missile theory.

reply to post by poet1b


The third stage will have a liquid fuel rocket in the bus for maneuvering the individual warheads into position. The Bulava's missile has one of the most advanced MIRV warheads around (according to the Russians), hence it being tested so thoroughly, and failing as we saw in the Norwegian sky.

Hi Just had to point out Rockets and Physics sense to the Rocket theoriests.
Ok firstly Rocket takes off Springs a leak or some malfunction? Its boldly going up till it reaches a single perfect point in the sky then just floats there while spewing out rocket fuel......so as the fuel disepates its just still stays there a constant point in the sky as it runs out of thrust spiralling away........... it doesn't veer off into a death spiral it just floats......Anti Gravity Rockets??........If it were a leak lets say then it stayed there in perfect sync with Gravity and as the fuel ran out the thrust in both the leak and the main thrusters stayed in perfect harmony to just sit there making swurly clouds.......???didn't fall from the sky??? just disepated into a hole in the Ozone??? I'd like to know what the alloy they made these "Rockets" from it must be amazing stuff. Have we had Debris?




[edit on 25-1-2010 by DreamerOracle]

reply to post by davesidious


Do you have any links at all to back up your claims?

Sounds to me like you are posting nothing but poorly formed guesses that demonstrate that you have no idea whatsoever about what you are writing about.

I am also discussing this issue on another thread about the China spiral, but mainly we are discussing the Norway spiral.

In this post eupeptic posted a link to a compilation of pictures of the Norway spiral and other related stuff. Some good stuff.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some additional statements I have made there.

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 links already provided.

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.

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, a 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 eupeptic's 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 of rockets. In all the other pictures of rockets, the rocket is the point, and the plume behind the rocket gets 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 a realistic guess.

reply to post by poet1b


Well then poet-

What could you possible think this was? In all seriousness here....

Originally posted by poet1b

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 a realistic guess.

Dude, come on.

Are you serious? The world doesn't need anymore irrational and illogical people.

I don't mean to get personal here, but a wormhole is a realistic guess in your view?? Seriously? Based on what evidence? I mean, how would you even begin to prove that?

What is the use anymore...

People really need to get out more, I mean really...it's becoming scary around here

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Most likely, in my opinion, it is a natural phenomenon similar to the northern lights.

Maybe we are seeing something like water in the air freezing and crystallizing, and the crystals are high enough up to reflect sunlight. Someone pointed out that there were extreme cold conditions at the time, maybe that is a critical factor.

reply to post by poet1b

The Bulava is designed to defeat US anti missile technology. High acceleration is one way it does that. Another is maneuverability.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


The key word is "almost".

No, not serious, except in a theater of the absurd way, where any thing is possible.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Most likely, in my opinion, it is a natural phenomenon similar to the northern lights.

Maybe we are seeing something like water in the air freezing and crystallizing, and the crystals are high enough up to reflect sunlight. Someone pointed out that there were extreme cold conditions at the time, maybe that is a critical factor.

Why "most likely" poet? Based on what?

Because you're not willing to accept the mundane explanation here?

There's a distinct missile plume rising from the horizon and into the spiral, this is not a natural phenomena...

reply to post by poet1b


I hear ya man- but in this case anything is not possible, because it's already been determined and classified...

You can't just make all the evidence go away.

You could of course just ignore it, in which case, sure have at it...

reply to post by Phage


Yes, I am quite aware of the purpose of this missile as stated by Russia.

I have yet to see any information on how they planned on accomplishing this objective.

If the third stage is designed for maneuvering, why would it fire so early in the launch.

Maybe the only capability it has to avoid anti-missile technology is a last minute change in direction that might be enough to throw tracking off. Considering the time any ABM system has to react, this might work.

If someone doesn't have evidence to back their claims, then they should not post them as facts. If they have evidence, then they should give that evidence. Any hack can insult others and make wild guesses about how things might work.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


There is something called science, where phenomenon is analyzed and theories are developed.

You have what looks kind of like an unusual missile plume in the background, but it could easily be a cloud, or a jet trail.

When you look at how rockets work, their turning capabilities, the spiral is not a realistic product of a rocket failure.

Being that it looks nothing at all like the result of a rocket failure, why do you insist that it must be a rocket failure?

Do you have any analysis at all that explains how a rocket failure could create this spiral. I have yet to see anyone who claims this is a rocket offer any explanation at all of how a rocket could create what we are seeing in these pictures. Something is clearly going on here beyond the norm.

There is nothing mundane about this spiral.

reply to post by poet1b


Of course you'd say that, as you haven't got a clue about ICBMs, but seem to think you are an expert on the matter.

MIRV. RSM-56 Bulava. Intercontinental ballistic missile. Read those, then maybe you'd have a bit more of an understanding of what we're trying to talk about here.

reply to post by poet1b


And here's that fantastical "I don't know what I'm looking at so therefore any idea I can come up with MUST be what happened" attitude again.

A missile spinning out of control due to a leak will not start with a massively wide spiral that then somehow magically contracts into a tighter one. Of course it will start, as all missiles do, travelling in its intended trajectory. As the fault starts, the missile will start to lose control more an more, hence the blue spiral widening.

This is getting absolutely insane now. You clearly have very limited understanding of physics if you are going to spew such rubbish on this board. But that won't stop you.

reply to post by poet1b


Again, a great demonstration of just how little you know. From measuring the photos, independent analysts have shown the spiral to be in space. There is not enough moisture in the near-vacuum of space to cause what we saw, no matter how far we stretch the laws of physics. And you have even less evidence for that hare-brained explanation than the missile proponents.

reply to post by poet1b


Because the missile launch was a failure. Premature ignition would cause what we saw fantastically well. Or a new missile design. Or the curvature of the Earth. Any number of explanations that don't instantly disprove the theory.

You assume Russia to be either:

1. Technically perfect
2. Technically incompetent
3. Endless liars
4. Eternally truthful

when it suits your argument. You flit from one definition of 'Russia' to another depending on whatever blows are dealt to your unfounded and down-right bizarre explanations for what has already, to rational minds at least, been explained as a failed Russian missile test. But please, keep on saying how magic space clouds caused it. We all know how magic space clouds leap from the white sea in the middle of a missile test launch, then proceed in an arc up into space, change colour for no apparent reason, spin around even though there is no force acting on them, and appear to have the same chemical composition as rocket fuel exhaust.

Brilliant. Keeping an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brain falls out.

Any missile that springs an even leak of pressurised gasses will, if it doesn't explode (and ICBMs are fantastically more tough than any solely-atmospheric missile - they're space rockets), cause a perfect spiral in space. It's not far-fetched to assume that could indeed happen. It has nothing to do with their turning capabilities. There is everything mundane about a spiral to anyone who studied physics or applied mathematics at school.

Any body that is travelling forwards, that contains a pressurised fluid (either liquid or gas), that springs a leak that is not in the direction of travel, will start to pinwheel and cause a spiral 'corkscrew' that will appear to extend from behind it. If the body also has a steady exhaust from directly behind it, and this first leak isn't exactly pointing to the centre of gravity of the body, this pinwheeling will push the second leak/exhaust off centre, and cause a secondary spiral behind it. That's basic physics, and it makes me weep for our future as a species that I have to explain it over the internet.