Strange phenomenon in Norwegian sky | Hacker News Reader

Strange phenomenon in Norwegian sky

thesun.co.uk

93 pointsRexxar35 comments

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&h...

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&...

from the second link:

It was a failed rocket launch from submarine

Sources in the Russian military confirmed to tv2nyhetene.no that the Bulava missile has been launched from a submarine on Wednesday morning.

I wonder how often Russians launch ICBMs from submarines? I suppose they do regular tests?

see the new scientist article linked above - they're trying to develop a new system (and apparently not doing that well).

from spaceweather.com:

UPDATE: Circumstantial evidence is mounting that the phenomenon was caused by a malfunctioning rocket, possibly an ICBM launched from a Russian submarine. A Navtex no-fly alert was issued for the White Sea on Dec. 9th, and photographers appear to have recorded the initial boost phase of a launch below the spiral (see inset). A rocket motor spinning out of control could indeed explain the spiral pattern, so this explanation seems plausible, although it has not yet been confirmed.

http://spaceweather.com/

My thoughts exactly. This looks like a much more photogenic version of what used to happen when I would launch an imbalanced Estes rocket.

From New Scientist, the reason it was such a perfect spiral is because it was a three stage rocket, of which stages 1 & 2 probably went fine, putting it close to the edge of space:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18262-strange-norway-s...

My friend had a great launch failure with one of those. He had a two stage rocket with a payload section, but got the stages backwards. Also, in the payload section, lacking any handy bugs, he put some gravel in (not sure why). So, the thing went up, but because the stages were backwards, it didn't fire the second stage immediately. This gave the rocket time to spin a bit: the gravel held the nose down and the tail flipped up. At that point the second engine kicked in, and the thing shot straight at the ground and smashed to bits. It was pretty cool to watch.

he put some gravel in (not sure why)

The further away the center of mass of a rocket is from center of pressure the more stable the rocket is. Apollo's Launch Escape Vehicle, which was essentially a rocket with the payload below the engine, had a few hundred kilos of depleted uranium ballast placed at the top exactly for this reason—to move CM far enough for the vehicle to be stable.

Interesting, but it wasn't for that reason: those things are designed to be (and mostly are) stable without putting a bunch of weight on one end like that.

Not sure what you mean by "those" things. In LES case the reason was the one I stated for a simple reason: LES did not have gimbaled engines and had to rely on aerodynamics to be stable. Launch Abort System for the new Orion spacecraft will have attitude control motor and thus no need for ballast. See http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2008001... for more. I will quote just a bit:

Another key difference from the Apollo launch escape system is with regard to control. Apollo utilized a passive system that relied on ~1,000 lbm of ballast to keep the abort vehicle passively stable during the escape rocket burn<…>

> Not sure what you mean by "those" things.

Model rockets, sorry.

Right, cuz a failed rocket will stay in one spot spinning in a nice neat spiral...

If it's direction of travel is away from the viewer while it is spiraling, then yes it would appear that way to the observer.

Have you ever seen the contrails of rockets that have spiraled out? They're anything but nice and straight.

Totally. It was definitely the 'greys.' Someone was drunk at the controls.

What about the blue "beam" or "tube" or whatever you want to call it? You have to admit, it looks pretty symmetrical for a malfunction.

Oh please, this is so obviously a laser beam (the blue light) projecting the patterns on the low cloud layer.

Note to self: if I ever choose to test launch an ICBM, don't do it off Norway the day before the US President visits to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.

Nobel prizes are from Sweden, not Norway. But that is close enough.

Except for the peace prize... couldn't edit in time, damn no procast settings...

Oh. Time lapse photography. I didn't even notice the picture my brain tuned it out as photoshopped so quickly, but long-exposure times and a spiraling rocket make a perfect explanation.

It wasn't a long exposure. What you're seeing is the fuel/exhaust spreading out and catching the light in the upper atmosphere.

There's two kinds of chemicals. I guess the yellower is compressed liquid oxygen spilling out laterally as the rocket spins. I don't know what the blue is but it's probably the propellant.

No, it's still long exposure to catch the winding of the flumes. High speed photography would show each flume as being directional.

What the hell? Why the fuck are you linking to The Sun?!? As a source of information there is no source that is less reputable.

TechCrunch?

I don't think that is a fair comparison:

On November 17, 1989, the Sun headlined a page 2 story STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS OFFICIAL."

The Sun Says column added: Forget the idea that ordinary heterosexual people can contract Aids. They can’t anything else is homosexual propaganda.

Not that different from constant TechCrunch scuffles if you ask me...

Arrinton is petty, but mostly harmless. Murdoch on the other hand is a power broker who enjoys spreading FUD to serve his services on both a national and international scale.

HUGE difference IMO.

I have check that the information is true on other sites, but the nicest photo was on The Sun.

In Russian papers they say that the military of Russia denies any rocket tests at all. Though, rocket tests were really planned for the morning of Wednesday. It should have been a 13th test launch of "Bulava" rocket(previously only 5 succeeded partly).

Gee, some people are down-voting through their bad day.

Universe Today has an article on possible explanations, including a comparison between a simulated rocket failure and the actual phenomenon.

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/12/09/what-was-the-norway-...

Fools! This is what happens when you try to collide large hadrons!

russians are gearing up. Lock & load! It's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum - and I'm all out of gum!

A rocket? Doesn't sound plausible. If it is in fact a rocket then someone should be able to replicate the spiral look over a deserted area in the middle of the US. I mean, just look at the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkx7myyAk4s

Did that look like a rocket's exhaust to you?

I'd want to see the thoughts of a fireworks expert in addition to a meterologist. This should be possible to recreate with fireworks.

EDIT: This NAVTEX record, ostensibly published prior to the event, makes the rocket story more plausible.

http://www.frisnit.com/cgi-bin/navtex/view.cgi?id=1159919...

ZCZC FA79 031230 UTC DEC 09 COASTAL WARNING ARKHANGELSK 94 SOUTHERN PART WHITE SEA 1.ROCKET LAUNCHING 2300 07 DEC TO 0600 08 DEC 09 DC 0200 TO 0900 10 DEC 0100 TO 0900 NAVIGATION PROHIBITED IN AREA 65-12.6N 036-37.0E 65-37.2N 036-26.0E 66-12.3N 037-19.0E 66-04.0N 037-47.0E 66-03.0N 038-38.0E 66-06.5N 038-55.0E 65-11.0N 037-28.0E 65-12.1N 036-49.5E THEN COASTAL LINE 65-12.2N 036-47.6E 2. CANCEL THIS MESSAGE 101000 DEC= NNNN

Reply on news.ycombinator.com