Norway Spiral. Was it Really a Failed Missile Launch or Was it HAARP (EISCAT)

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
In December 2009, an unprecedented spiral appeared over Norway.





So was it really a failed Bulova missile launch or was it caused by EISCAT, the European version of HAARP?

Despite early denials that they had launched a missile, the Russians quickly recanted and admitted responsibility and a failed launch. So, why would the Russians be so willing to accept responsibility, (and embarrassment), if they were not responsible?

But significantly, the phenomenon appeared near Tromso, which is also the location of EISCAT. if the missile malfunctioned over the White Sea as reported, it should have been visible in northern Russia, Finland and Sweden as well as Norway and yet no sightings were reported in Finland or Russia.

Further, since then there have been many similar spirals worldwide, showing up both visually and on radar.

Australia appears to have the best documented examples of this.

This is undeniably an interesting phenomenon which is apparently becoming more and more prevalent, (although there are some very dubious instances). Also, is it linked to at least some of the strange noises which have been heard worldwide of late?

Below is an interesting paper on the spiral's origin, trajectory and dimensionswhich actually tracks the source to the Russian White Sea.

http://www.spellconsulting.com/reality/Norway_Spiral.html


the "Norway Spiral," was observed by many on the dawn of December 9th, 2009. Despite the official cause being reported as a Russian missile failure at high altitude, this event has continued to generate much debate and controversy over its origin and nature. Part of the debate has centered around pinpointing the actual location of this phenomenon, as it was primarily witnessed from the northwest regions of Norway, leading some to conclude that it must have occurred over Norway, while others argue that it was much further east over Russia. In this study, we focus only on the location and progression of the event, through the process of intersecting multiple vectors or "lay lines" established through the superposition of Norway's ubiquitous mountainous backgrounds in Google Earth's 3D terrain model, with photographs of this phenomenon at known locations. The results locate the event over the Russian Kola Peninsula and province of Murmansk near the west coastline of the White Sea. The development of the spiral occurred approximately 60 miles (97 km) inland (west) of the White Sea then traveling northeast across the peninsula and out over the Barents Sea, with the final dissipation of the spiral occurring approximately 143 miles (230 km) northeast of its initial development and some 70 miles (113 km) offshore. In addition, the center of the spiral was calculated at a very high altitude ranging from 107 to 166 miles (172 to 267 km) during its progression, with the initial size of the spiral measured at approximately 95 miles across (153 km). At the time of dissipation and expansion of the void, the spiral grew to an approximate scaled width of 391 miles (629 km), reaching a remarkable altitude along the upper edge some 351 miles (565 km) above sea level. Due to these great altitudes, exceeding the established astronautics/aeronautics boundary of 62 miles (100 km), this event occurred primarily in space, and therefore was not subject to significant atmospheric effects. Although the spiral appears to be slow moving in the video, the vast distance of the observation from over 530 miles (853 km) only gives this illusion. From the video frame captures and the subsequent vector analysis, the estimated velocity of the spiral center along the trajectory was found to exceed 8,000 mph (12,875 kph). The combined expansion of the void and the north-northeast trajectory of the center, give an estimated velocity of the leading edge of the void (northward) at an incredible 13,000 mph (20,920 kph).
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
In December 2009, an unprecedented spiral appeared over Norway.

Further, since then there have been many similar spirals worldwide, showing up both visually and on radar.

Australia appears to have the best documented examples of this.

The Norway spiral did not appear on radar.

Australian event was not reported visually.

So, why do you think they are related?

The Australian event looks really hokey- it looks fake in my humble opinion.

Can you point to any similar visual spirals like the Norway event? Why do you claim there have been "many similar" spirals? These were over 3 years ago...surely you can show more recent examples?

It is interesting to note that the paper you linked on the Norway event cites none-other than Kevin Martin as a reference. A known internet shyster....just sayin :)

Did you donate to Colin Andrews to keep his research going?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
What's the reason for suggesting EISCAT had anything to do with this? What's the mechanism by which EISCAT would achieve this? Is it proposed it's a projected image, or a real phenomenon? Doesn't EISCAT produce very small fluctuations in ionspheric temperature via microwaves, the same as HAARP? How would that translate into the awesome sight on display?
The Australian spirals? There was one in 2010, I think it was rocket-related.
That radar image really just looks like a scanning artifact.
Great information on the speed of the spinning spiral though. Maths is cool.

(edit)
Good synopsis of Australian 2010 spiral sighting.
http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/australian-spiral-ufo.html
(all my attempts to upload an image are not working, here's a link for one if Mick would be so kind as to embed.)
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?img...o4JUZjYM9GHmQWY0IDIBg&ved=0CE0Q9QEwBg&dur=179
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
What's the reason for suggesting EISCAT had anything to do with this? What's the mechanism by which EISCAT would achieve this? Is it proposed it's a projected image, or a real phenomenon? Doesn't EISCAT produce very small fluctuations in ionspheric temperature via microwaves, the same as HAARP? How would that translate into the awesome sight on display?
The Australian spirals? There was one in 2010, I think it was rocket-related.
That radar image really just looks like a scanning artifact.
Great information on the speed of the spinning spiral though. Maths is cool.

I think it is pretty clear that HAARP/EISCAT etc can produce auroral displays. To put it technically :) much like high energy electrons passing through a resistor become a light bulb.

BTW The power output and heat are massive. I am trying to find a PDF I had which detailed the outputs but can't seem to find it at the mo but here is a link which gives some graphics... just click on the links

http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/whatsnew/haarp/

http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~lkagan/List of Selected Publications_files/Kagan-et-al-JASTP-2009.pdf

In the region where the radio wave frequency matches a local plasma frequency or an upper-hybrid resonance frequency,the radio waves effectively interact with ionospheric plasma. Optical emissions along with other manifestations are the result of these interactions. Experiments first carried out at EISCAT(Leyseretal.,2000; Gustavssonetal.,2001)
and then at HAARP (Pedersen et al.,2003) and Sura (Kagan etal.,
2006) high-power radio transmitter sites showed that the radio wave induced phenomena were significantly enhanced when powerful radio waves were launched into the magnetic zenith
Content from External Source
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA435730

14. ABSTRACT
Generation of artificial light in the sky by means of high-power radio waves interacting with the ionospheric plasma has been envisaged since the early days of radio exploration of the upper atmosphere, with proposed applications ranging from regional night-time street lighting to atmospheric measurements. Weak optical emissions have been produced for decades in such ionospheric "heating" experiments, where they serve as key indicators of electron acceleration, thermal heating, and other effects of incompletely understood wave-particle interactions in the plasma under conditions difficult to replicate in the laboratory. The extremely low intensities produced previously have, however, required sensitive instrumentation for detection, preventing applications beyond scientific research. Here we report observations of radio-iinduced optical emissions bright enough to be seen by the naked eye, and produced not in the quiet midlatitude ionosphere, but in the midst of a pulsating natural aurora. This may open the door to visual applications of ionospheric heating technology or provide a way to probe the dynamics of the natural aurora and magnetosphere.
Content from External Source
http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/50/7/074001;jsessionid=B6C4C191EACA848EADD3F736E4EAFDE5.c2

Artificial auroral lights are optical emissions induced by high-power radiowaves in a manner similar to the creation of natural auroral lights due to precipitation of superthermal electrons. Here the Earth's atmosphere itself plays the role of a plasma laboratory. A high-power radio-transmitter creates superthermal electrons in situ due to radiowave interactions with the ionospheric plasma. Low-altitude (85–125 km) artificial aurora is a relatively rare phenomenon observed for the first time about 10 years ago. Analysis of available observations shows that its intensity and structure, as well as the very possibility of its generation at these altitudes, depend largely on the presence and features of so-called sporadic ionization, best known for its effect on navigation and communication. Thus, all other parameters unchanged, a 20 times increase in the height-extent of sporadic ionization clouds could under certain circumstances result in a 27-fold increase in the intensity of the low-altitude artificial aurora. Understanding the morphology and typical features of sporadic ionization clouds for a given location would allow proper planning of experimental campaigns and noticeably extend our knowledge of the atmosphere and its use for human needs. Equally important is that low-altitude artificial auroras give information about the horizontal structure and dynamics of E-region sporadic ionization, the airglow-source region, the energy of superthermal electrons and perhaps the local atmospheric temperature and water vapor content at 80–90 km.
Content from External Source
 

solrey

Senior Member.
14. ABSTRACT
Generation of artificial light in the sky by means of high-power radio waves interacting with the ionospheric plasma has been envisaged since the early days of radio exploration of the upper atmosphere, with proposed applications ranging from regional night-time street lighting to atmospheric measurements. Weak optical emissions have been produced for decades in such ionospheric "heating" experiments, where they serve as key indicators of electron acceleration, thermal heating, and other effects of incompletely understood wave-particle interactions in the plasma under conditions difficult to replicate in the laboratory. The extremely low intensities produced previously have, however, required sensitive instrumentation for detection, preventing applications beyond scientific research. Here we report observations of radio-iinduced optical emissions bright enough to be seen by the naked eye, and produced not in the quiet midlatitude ionosphere, but in the midst of a pulsating natural aurora. This may open the door to visual applications of ionospheric heating technology or provide a way to probe the dynamics of the natural aurora and magnetosphere.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA435730

Those "naked eye" observations were relatively faint speckles within the natural aurora that were barely visible without the aid of a telescope or camera with filters.

It can be assumed that the movement of FAIs in the scattering
volume at auroral E-region altitudes above Tromsø is
consistent with the movement of the visible aurora

That was discussion of the radar signature of naturally occurring Field Aligned Irregularities (FAI's). UHF doppler radar data was collected in order to develop simulations to compare against other radar data from both natural and artificial FAI's. The artificial FAI's were not visible to the naked eye.

That little bit of cherry picking doesn't help your case at all, in fact if anything those papers when taken in their entirety helps to debunk what you're saying because the most they've ever achieved with E region heating are a few barely visible speckles. Furthermore, among several attempts they've only been able to accomplish that once at one facility, HAARP, and AFAIK the experiment has not been successfully replicated there or anywhere else.

Like PeteTar said, those Australian radar images are just artifacts.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA435730

Those "naked eye" observations were relatively faint speckles within the natural aurora that were barely visible without the aid of a telescope or camera with filters.

Ok, so how do you explain the blue beam which can be seen from ground level to the spiral. It is not part of the spiral but links the ground to the centre of the spiral.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The first stage of the rocket? Different gas? Then the next stage sent it into the catherine wheel spin. Just a guess.
I wonder at what point in the atmosphere these gases are? The way it looks to be coming from below could easily be an illusion and it's really coming in from over the horizon.
It's interesting how the white gas of the second stage seems to trail back to envelop the starting point. I wonder if that's wind dispersal? Or is this above the atmosphere?
I can see how it looks 'projected'.
You mentioned making images in the aurora layers. Then how can this image be an example of that if the visible part seems to start lower down?

BTW The power output and heat are massive.
The interaction of sun and ionosphere produces fluctuations of heat routinely that far outstrip anything any man-made device can yet achieve. I'm sure the induced heating is the tiniest fraction of what is happening all the time. The point is it's controllable and they can read the results.

And they did manage to induce a barely visible glow at one time, but that's not holographic imagery, or detailed auroral display. While auroral physics might be an interesting medium to paint in, I'm afraid it would lead to the lowest common dominator of advertising in the sky. Please god no!
In 2008, Doritos embarked upon an "out-of-this-world" advertising campaign, literally beaming a 30sec ad for Doritos brand tortilla chips into a solar system 42 light years away. This project is in collaboration with EISCAT Space Centre in Svalbard. The "You Make It, We'll Play It" contest chose the winning advertisement that was transmitted on June 12, 2008. The ad was beamed towards a distant star, within the Ursa Major constellation, that is orbited by planets which may harbor life.[1]
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I think it is pretty clear that HAARP/EISCAT etc can produce auroral displays.

I think it is pretty clear that it does not.


from the HAARP FAQ:
Can HAARP create an artificial aurora?
The natural aurora is created when very high energy particles emitted by the sun, reach the Earth's vicinity, are swept toward the Earth's magnetic poles, and collide with gas molecules existing in the upper atmosphere. The energy involved in this process is enormous but is entirely natural and it has been a normal event throughout Earth's history.
HAARP is so much weaker than these naturally occurring processes that it is incapable of producing the type of optical display observed during an aurora. However, weak and repeatable optical emissions have been observed using HAARP (and reported in the scientific literature) using very sensitive cameras.
Content from External Source
the abstract of one of those papers is here with a link to the full 25mb paper itself.

From that paper comes this description of what they used to see these optical effects:

The HAARP imager is a telecentric system utilizing 3.500 narrow-band (2 nm) filters feeding a recently upgraded 100 thermo-electrically cooled bare CCD camera. It can be operated with either a fish-eye lens for all-sky coverage or placed on a mount and equipped with a 16[degree] lens for higher resolution observations of optical emissions within the HAARP beam. The HAARP telescope consists of an 8" diameter refractor telescope with 3" filters imaged by a 1/2" cooled bare CCD camera. It includes a second similar camera with approximately 14[degree] field of view for context. The HAARP photometer has 2 dedicated channels for observation of the 630.0 nm and 557.7 nm oxygen lines, plus a third channel equipped with a filter wheel, which can be operated at a single wavelength or scanned through all of the filters in rapid succession. A recent addition to the HAARP optical diagnostic suite is the first of a network of remote imaging systems, to be discussed in detail in a later section.
Content from External Source
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think it is pretty clear that it does not.


from the HAARP FAQ:
Can HAARP create an artificial aurora?
The natural aurora is created when very high energy particles emitted by the sun, reach the Earth's vicinity, are swept toward the Earth's magnetic poles, and collide with gas molecules existing in the upper atmosphere. The energy involved in this process is enormous but is entirely natural and it has been a normal event throughout Earth's history.
HAARP is so much weaker than these naturally occurring processes that it is incapable of producing the type of optical display observed during an aurora. However, weak and repeatable optical emissions have been observed using HAARP (and reported in the scientific literature) using very sensitive cameras.
Content from External Source
the abstract of one of those papers is here with a link to the full 25mb paper itself.

From that paper comes this description of what they used to see these optical effects:

The HAARP imager is a telecentric system utilizing 3.500 narrow-band (2 nm) filters feeding a recently upgraded 100 thermo-electrically cooled bare CCD camera. It can be operated with either a fish-eye lens for all-sky coverage or placed on a mount and equipped with a 16[degree] lens for higher resolution observations of optical emissions within the HAARP beam. The HAARP telescope consists of an 8" diameter refractor telescope with 3" filters imaged by a 1/2" cooled bare CCD camera. It includes a second similar camera with approximately 14[degree] field of view for context. The HAARP photometer has 2 dedicated channels for observation of the 630.0 nm and 557.7 nm oxygen lines, plus a third channel equipped with a filter wheel, which can be operated at a single wavelength or scanned through all of the filters in rapid succession. A recent addition to the HAARP optical diagnostic suite is the first of a network of remote imaging systems, to be discussed in detail in a later section.
Content from External Source

Well someone is wrong then... Who?

Here we report observations of radio-iinduced optical emissions bright enough to be seen by the naked eye, and produced not in the quiet midlatitude ionosphere, but in the midst of a pulsating natural aurora
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Well someone is wrong then... Who?

Neither is wrong. The HAARP FAQ says:

However, weak and repeatable optical emissions have been observed using HAARP (and reported in the scientific literature) using very sensitive cameras.

In the experiment where they produced naked eye emissions they still used a telescope. They measured the intensity of specific wavelengths and generated a few tiny specks calculated to be visible with the naked eye.

For a period of approximately 10 min between about 06:40 and 06:50, a number of small speckles of enhanced green emission were observed with the HAARP telescope wide-field camera, which provided high-resolution images of the region within the transmitter beam near magnetic zenith.
[..]
The HAARP imager observed an approximately 16' field of view centred on the magnetic zenith and took images at each wavelength once per minute.
[..]
In spite of the rapid pulsations in narrow bands the average auroral brightness at 557.7 nm remained near 4 kR, with an increase to -5 kR near the time the speckles were observed. This intensity calibration, applied to the high-resolution data in Fig. 2, indicates that the brightest speckles were approximately 4 kR in total intensity, well above the threshold for visibility and 1 kR or more above the darker auroral regions.

So in the above experiment they did generate weak optical emissions detected with sensitive cameras, they were just calculated to be visible to the naked eye but apparently were not physically observed with the naked eye. And they were only able to generate them due to the active aurora, whereas they have never generated optical emissions above the threshold for naked eye visibility in the absence of an active auroral display. Most HAARP experiments are conducted when the aurora is quiet because the effects are so weak they can't be detected otherwise.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Try starting with a hypothesis that makes the least assumptions.


I think the graphic an extremely flawed theory that has hardly any substance... basically a spiral fantasy really.

It requires two 'leaks' of precise balance in direction and pressure to form a perfect spiral of massive proportions and a different coloured Bluebeam tracking back to earth. Sorry but least assumptions not!

http://www.ekaterinburg.com/news/spool/news_id-314223.html

Fact
During previous tests, the failure of the first stage engine was reported.
Content from External Source
No spirals reported

Fact
"After the return of the submarine to a naval base, experts examined telemetry returns. The first two stages of the missile operated in normal mode, but a technical failure occurred at the third stage of the flight trajectory." "According to telemetry data, the third stage engine was unstable,"
Content from External Source
Third stage does not kick in to a very high altitude and yet the 'Bluebeam' tracks right back virtually to ground level.

Fact:
During the test launch of the missile from the Dmitry Donskoi nuclear submarine on December 23, 2008, the missile self-destructed in the 28th second of the flight because of malfunctions in the operation of the third stage.
Content from External Source
The formation time of the spiral far exceeded 28 seconds.

Normally, Russian missile test telemetries are from the White Sea to the Kura Test Range in Kamchatka Krai on the Pacific Coast... in the opposite direction to Norway.

Why would Russia risk firing missiles over another Country without permission?
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Third stage does not kick in to a very high altitude and yet the 'Bluebeam' tracks right back virtually to ground level.

The blue corkscrew tracks back to the horizon. Keep in mind the missile was fired on a northerly trajectory towards the Barents Sea from a submarine located in the White Sea over 400 miles from Tromso.

Now why would Russia admit it was a failed launch of a controversial missile program plagued with failed test launches if it was something else?

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091210/157186305.html

There have been several failed launches, including a previous malfunction of the third stage.

http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20110629/164913063.html

Normally, Russian missile test telemetries are from the White Sea to the Kura Test Range in Kamchatka Krai on the Pacific Coast... in the opposite direction to Norway.

Because they follow a "great circle" route that takes them over the arctic circle and that trajectory would be consistent with what was witnessed in Tromso as the missile flew a few hundred miles to the east.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The blue corkscrew tracks back to the horizon. Keep in mind the missile was fired on a northerly trajectory towards the Barents Sea from a submarine located in the White Sea over 400 miles from Tromso.
Yes Horizon, far better definition. Good research, especially the last link.

Do you have any idea why the 'effect' was most reported and apparently best viewed from Tromso? Some say that just happened to be the best view of the spiral effect but it is one hell of a coincidence.

Now why would Russia admit it was a failed launch of a controversial missile program plagued with failed test launches if it was something else?
Agreed... that is extremely puzzling if you are looking at alternatives, as us CTers are apt to do :) but I do regard the questions I have posed as perfectly valid and reasonable. It's not as if I am trying to make something out of nothing.

You are most probably right and it was a launch malfunction but I don't like loose ends so thanks for helping to clear it up.

Someone here seems to think similarly to me
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread526637/pg3

Looking at the following image, the nominal flight path of the Bulava missile when launched from the White Sea area would have placed it almost immediately on a north-east trajectory, following a great circle route to it's intended impact point in the Kamchatka penninsula, approximately 5,500 kms distant.
And yet for the missile to be so clearly visible in the Norwegian sky, implies that the missiles guidance system must have almost immediately failed and changed it's path to a north-westerly direction, almost a 90 degree shift in direction ... and headed instead towards Norway !


Based on the following image, it is clear that if the spiral was the result of a failed missile test and was visible from Norway, then it should also have been clearly visible from both Sweden and Finland which both would have been within the missiles flight trajectory - yet corroborating eye witness reports from either of these countries is almost non-existent. Virtually every report and image originates from Norway alone, implying that the spiral display (irrespective of the source) must have occurred at a very low altitude if only visible from Norway.
Content from External Source
...

It also implies that the missile never reached any appreciable altitude otherwise the spiral effect would have been visible over a vast geographical area and not just Norway.
Content from External Source
This is rebutted in the thread but I think there are still loose ends. Sorry but it is strange IMO.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091210/157186305.html

There have been several failed launches, including a previous malfunction of the third stage.
Apparently on 24.12.2006, when after 3-4 minutes the third stage failed causing a self destruct. I can't find any visual on that flight.
http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20110629/164913063.html



Because they follow a "great circle" route that takes them over the arctic circle and that trajectory would be consistent with what was witnessed in Tromso as the missile flew a few hundred miles to the east.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
I don't have time to draw it up myself but take a look at this map and follow a great circle route from the White Sea to Kamchatka and consider the perspective of a high altitude flight path viewed from Tromso. Also notice the soft glow of the sun on the horizon, in December at almost 70 deg. North latitude. The sun backlit the missile at a high altitude and combined with the position of the sun made Tromso an ideal vantage point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
How do you know this? is there a video of it forming?
Could the gases have kept following the momentum track they'd been given initially?

These are the type of questions which support the CT really. Why the Bluebeam? Why such a perfect spiral, Why so long, Why no (or late) destruct command? etc

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18262-strange-norway-spiral-was-an-outofcontrol-missile.html

The giant, glowing white spiral was reportedly visible all over northern Norway between about 0645 and 0700 GMT. "It consisted initially of a green beam of light similar in colour to the aurora with a mysterious rotating spiral at one end," eye witness Nick Banbury of Harstad said, according to Spaceweather.com. "This spiral then got bigger and bigger until it turned into a huge halo in the sky with the green beam extending down to Earth."

The Bulava missile has three stages that fire in succession as it climbs up in altitude. "Probably what happened is that stages 1 and 2 did just fine and were discarded in turn, and then stage 3 started burning and almost immediately went wrong," McDowell says.
He says the third stage's nozzle, which directs the rocket's exhaust plume, may have fallen off or been punctured, causing the exhaust to come out sideways instead of out the back. "The sideways thrust sends the rocket into a spin, spewing flame as it goes," he says.
"If thrust was terminated right away, then you wouldn't see the spiral," he continues. "The unusual thing this time is that the missile was allowed to carry on firing for a bit after it went wrong.
Content from External Source
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I don't have time to draw it up myself but take a look at this map and follow a great circle route from the White Sea to Kamchatka and consider the perspective of a high altitude flight path viewed from Tromso. Also notice the soft glow of the sun on the horizon, in December at almost 70 deg. North latitude. The sun backlit the missile at a high altitude and combined with the position of the sun made Tromso an ideal vantage point.


That's very interesting Solrey, so you are saying the missile path was supposed to be from the White Sea, over the Barent Sea toward Svaldbard and then following through an arc to Kamchatka Krai. Makes much more sense than what I thought. I thought they were happy to send it overland on a high trajectory.

Do you have a particular interest in this type of thing or is it just good researching?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
The perfect spiral is easy - that is what physics/nature gives you.

Why no destruct? Possibly because it all happened too quickly, or maybe the self destruct was itself damaged.

There are plausible explanations that are a long way more likely than it was really HAARP/EISCAT!
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
a different coloured Bluebeam tracking back to earth. Sorry but least assumptions not!

I make my own solid rocket propellant. It requires a fuel and an oxidizer. The same applies for liquid rocket fuels which power these ICMBs. The two chemicals are stored in separate tanks and mixed in the rocket's combustion chamber. The colour difference in the spirals could be explained by the two tanks venting two different chemicals.

I believe the rest has been covered by others very well.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I make my own solid rocket propellant. It requires a fuel and an oxidizer. The same applies for liquid rocket fuels which power these ICMBs. The two chemicals are stored in separate tanks and mixed in the rocket's combustion chamber. The colour difference in the spirals could be explained by the two tanks venting two different chemicals.

I believe the rest has been covered by others very well.

That's very interesting and unusual that you make your own rocket fuel. Connotes you have hands on experience with rocket launches. Rocket scientist?

But there was only one failure on the 3rd stage, (a nozzle malfunction), so I do not get the two different effects. I am just trying to rationalise it in my own mind. I have taken on board some interesting info from this thread but there are still a few niggles with it, although I am quite happy to admit it may likely be due to my ignorance on a difficult subject... which I am trying to rectify :)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Typical randomness of failed launches... Mike C please note: no perfect physics or nature structure.







See those ufo's attacking the camera from around 2.40 on :)

 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
That's very interesting and unusual that you make your own rocket fuel. Connotes you have hands on experience with rocket launches. Rocket scientist?

No... not a scientist, just a model rocketry hobbyist. The store bought kits are fun, but I really like the thrill of launching a completely homemade rocket.

But there was only one failure on the 3rd stage, (a nozzle malfunction), so I do not get the two different effects. I am just trying to rationalise it in my own mind. I have taken on board some interesting info from this thread but there are still a few niggles with it, although I am quite happy to admit it may likely be due to my ignorance on a difficult subject... which I am trying to rectify :)

This is a complete guess, but here's my take on it.

You've got the third stage of a rocket that has failed. If it's sub orbital, make it self destruct and all the little pieces burn up or rain down on the arctic. If the third stage is in orbit (or it's about to reach orbit), then vent the fuel tanks, because if you don't and it happens to explode while it's in orbit, then you'll have a million little hazardous pieces of space junk whipping around the planet instead of one easily tracked large piece of space junk. The spirals are the tanks releasing unburned fuel.

It makes more sense to me that the spirals are caused by the failure of a known troublesome rocket, than some mysterious blue beam HAARP effect thing.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I didn't see the Norway spiral but I was an eye-witness to the Aussie one. I was doing the red-eye from Perth to Sydney and as we were being vectored for the approach the spiral appeared. The First Officer snapped it with his Iphone, which doesn't work well in low light conditions. The consequent photo doesn't really do it justice as there was at least one more spiral ring than visible here.
It was about 20 minutes before local sunrise, so the gases were beautifully illuminated at altitude. I didn't know what it was at the time. My subsequent thought was that some enterprising company should build a satellite that simply vents gas on command and sell the naming rights to another enterprising company. "The Pepsi Space Spiral" would be a sure-fire hit!

UFOoverSydney.jpg
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I didn't see the Norway spiral but I was an eye-witness to the Aussie one. I was doing the red-eye from Perth to Sydney and as we were being vectored for the approach the spiral appeared. The First Officer snapped it with his Iphone, which doesn't work well in low light conditions. The consequent photo doesn't really do it justice as there was at least one more spiral ring than visible here.
It was about 20 minutes before local sunrise, so the gases were beautifully illuminated at altitude. I didn't know what it was at the time. My subsequent thought was that some enterprising company should build a satellite that simply vents gas on command and sell the naming rights to another enterprising company. "The Pepsi Space Spiral" would be a sure-fire hit!

UFOoverSydney.jpg

Wow, that's really cool. When was that and can you estimate how long it lasted?

BTW like the ufo's on the right lol.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
It was June 2010. We saw it for 3-4 minutes. Hard to say exactly as we were at a busy part of the flight. It was still going when we lost sight of it. Ahh yes the attending UFO's... ;)

One thing I forgot to mention was that the rotation of the stage was obviously quite slow as it did not appear to rotate.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Typical randomness of failed launches... Mike C please note: no perfect physics or nature structure.

They look like physics and natural consequence of it to me - generating shapes that were not spirals because the situations were different

There is no such thing as "perfect physics" - there is just physics. Our understanding of it may be imperfect - but "physics" doesn't care whether we understand it or not.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No... not a scientist, just a model rocketry hobbyist. The store bought kits are fun, but I really like the thrill of launching a completely homemade rocket.



This is a complete guess, but here's my take on it.

You've got the third stage of a rocket that has failed. If it's sub orbital, make it self destruct and all the little pieces burn up or rain down on the arctic. If the third stage is in orbit (or it's about to reach orbit), then vent the fuel tanks, because if you don't and it happens to explode while it's in orbit, then you'll have a million little hazardous pieces of space junk whipping around the planet instead of one easily tracked large piece of space junk. The spirals are the tanks releasing unburned fuel.

It makes more sense to me that the spirals are caused by the failure of a known troublesome rocket, than some mysterious blue beam HAARP effect thing.

I can understand it making more sense to you than it being a HAARP type thing but we have to be honest with ourselves here, to make the missile story fit we have to take a leap of faith and discount some perfectly valid questions.

I cannot help thinking critically on it and looking at it as a logical layman, I think it can't be described as 'being in orbit' as that does not fit it's purpose.

I take your point about millions of shards, so was the missile 'destructed'. If not what happened to it... was it recovered from the sea? Was it destroyed as it came back down?

Interestingly, Solreys link http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20110629/164913063.html does not list a destruct on that date but all previous failures list a destruct or self destruct.

Similarly my link is also slightly ambiguous on whether a destruction occurred

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-missile.html

The giant, glowing white spiral was reportedly visible all over northern Norway between about 0645 and 0700 GMT. "It consisted initially of a green beam of light similar in colour to the aurora with a mysterious rotating spiral at one end," eye witness Nick Banbury of Harstad said, according to Spaceweather.com. "This spiral then got bigger and bigger until it turned into a huge halo in the sky with the green beam extending down to Earth."

The Bulava missile has three stages that fire in succession as it climbs up in altitude. "Probably what happened is that stages 1 and 2 did just fine and were discarded in turn, and then stage 3 started burning and almost immediately went wrong," McDowell says.
He says the third stage's nozzle, which directs the rocket's exhaust plume, may have fallen off or been punctured, causing the exhaust to come out sideways instead of out the back. "The sideways thrust sends the rocket into a spin, spewing flame as it goes," he says.
"If thrust was terminated right away, then you wouldn't see the spiral," he continues. "The unusual thing this time is that the missile was allowed to carry on firing for a bit after it went wrong.
Content from External Source
And I still cannot reconcile the Bluebeam to the horizon. Cobra's snap has no Bluebeam!
 

solrey

Senior Member.
I can understand it making more sense to you than it being a HAARP type thing but we have to be honest with ourselves here, to make the missile story fit we have to take a leap of faith and discount some perfectly valid questions.

Here's the bottom line:

A malfunctioning missile spiraling/tumbling out of control while releasing propellant gases is undoubtedly capable of producing the blue corkscrew "beam" and white spiral whereas a corkscrew or some other type of spiral like formation has never been reported in any ionospheric heater experiment and the weak brightness of optical emissions from the tiny speckles during the one and only experiment so far to produce them is not even close to the brightness of the Norway spiral, nor did the experiment produce blue or white colors, they were green.

Something to keep in mind is that ionospheric heaters are not capable of ionizing anything, they just excite the already free electrons in the ionosphere knocked free by UV light from the sun.

Do you have a particular interest in this type of thing or is it just good researching?

I studied aerospace technology and have a knack for troubleshooting complex systems.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I can understand it making more sense to you than it being a HAARP type thing but we have to be honest with ourselves here, to make the missile story fit we have to take a leap of faith and discount some perfectly valid questions.

Very true. For instance, you've not once explained how radio waves could possibly create spiral and corkscrew patterns in the sky. How exactly does that happen?


I cannot help thinking critically on it and looking at it as a logical layman, I think it can't be described as 'being in orbit' as that does not fit it's purpose.

Look... if you're not going to do even basic research into the subject, then please tell me and I'll leave this thread.

ICBMs typically enter a low earth orbit. So if the third stage failed while in such a low or unstable orbit, then it would make sense to empty the fuel tanks to prevent an accidental explosion that would create even more space junk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit


Intercontinental ballistic missile

Flight phases

See also: Missile Defense#Classified by trajectory phase and Depressed trajectory

The following flight phases can be distinguished:

  • boost phase: 3 to 5 minutes (shorter for a solid rocket than for a liquid-propellant rocket); altitude at the end of this phase is typically 150 to 400 km (93 to 250 mi) depending on the trajectory chosen, typical burnout speed is 7 km/s (4.3 mi/s), up to the speed of Low Earth Orbit.
  • midcourse phase: approx. 25 minutes—sub-orbital spaceflight in an elliptic flightpath; the flightpath is part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway through the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km (750 mi); the semi-major axis is between 3,186 and 6,372 km (1,980 and 3,959 mi); the projection of the flightpath on the Earth's surface is close to a great circle, slightly displaced due to earth rotation during the time of flight; the missile may release several independent warheads, and penetration aids such as metallic-coated balloons, aluminum chaff, and full-scale warhead decoys.
  • reentry phase (starting at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi)): 2 minutes – impact is at a speed of up to 4 km/s (2.5 mi/s) (for early ICBMs less than 1 km/s (0.62 mi/s)); see also maneuverable reentry vehicle.
Content from External Source

And I still cannot reconcile the Bluebeam to the horizon. Cobra's snap has no Bluebeam!

It's perspective. Planes appear over the horizon and they are already flying at cruise altitudes. Just because the blue corkscrew pattern LOOKS like started from the ground does not mean it did. It could have popped over the horizon at an altitude of several hundred kilometres.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Very true. For instance, you've not once explained how radio waves could possibly create spiral and corkscrew patterns in the sky. How exactly does that happen?




Look... if you're not going to do even basic research into the subject, then please tell me and I'll leave this thread.

ICBMs typically enter a low earth orbit. So if the third stage failed while in such a low or unstable orbit, then it would make sense to empty the fuel tanks to prevent an accidental explosion that would create even more space junk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit


Intercontinental ballistic missile

Flight phases

See also: Missile Defense#Classified by trajectory phase and Depressed trajectory

The following flight phases can be distinguished:

  • boost phase: 3 to 5 minutes (shorter for a solid rocket than for a liquid-propellant rocket); altitude at the end of this phase is typically 150 to 400 km (93 to 250 mi) depending on the trajectory chosen, typical burnout speed is 7 km/s (4.3 mi/s), up to the speed of Low Earth Orbit.
  • midcourse phase: approx. 25 minutes—sub-orbital spaceflight in an elliptic flightpath; the flightpath is part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway through the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km (750 mi); the semi-major axis is between 3,186 and 6,372 km (1,980 and 3,959 mi); the projection of the flightpath on the Earth's surface is close to a great circle, slightly displaced due to earth rotation during the time of flight; the missile may release several independent warheads, and penetration aids such as metallic-coated balloons, aluminum chaff, and full-scale warhead decoys.
  • reentry phase (starting at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi)): 2 minutes – impact is at a speed of up to 4 km/s (2.5 mi/s) (for early ICBMs less than 1 km/s (0.62 mi/s)); see also maneuverable reentry vehicle.
Content from External Source



It's perspective. Planes appear over the horizon and they are already flying at cruise altitudes. Just because the blue corkscrew pattern LOOKS like started from the ground does not mean it did. It could have popped over the horizon at an altitude of several hundred kilometres.

:) Well that seems to be it then... Debunked... unless someone else knows better lol.

Thanks to all contributors on this, found it very interesting.
 
Top