CERN Norway What is happening?
- Thread starter titorite
- Start date
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Done! And as for the math... how about you go first? Also: 3rd stage or 1st stage does not change the fact that oscillatory control malfunctions are the most common with launch vehicles. So I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that statement.
RMT
recall15
Dimensional Traveler
is a Question of Altitute...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude
and vertical distance to reach Norway Sky...
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude
and vertical distance to reach Norway Sky...
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
So what is your question?
You are simply throwing things out, and not making a point or supporting whatever it is you are implying.
You are aware, I am sure, that a missile can follow even a horizontal trajectory after it is launched. Please be clear, because nothing you are saying falsifies or even calls into question what I have explained about thrust vector control, typical failure modes of this form of control, and how they manifest in an errant missile's flight path.
Since I am giving my students their final exams right now, let me just say you are failing right now, recall. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif
RMT
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
The Norweigan object has almost 15 concentric spiral rings around it at one point. I timed it on one of the videos and it's rotating about once every 3 seconds. I find it very hard to believe that an object that is effectively out of control could remain central in the spirals for over 21 seconds ( there are two spirals....so 15 rings is really 7.5 rotations ). Even in Damien's pic with just 2 rotations the rocket is not longer central.
Also, the very fact that there are two spirals.....seem to be about 90 degrees apart....seems odd for a rocket. Whatever the object is, one can clearly see in some videos that there are two sources of exhaust making the spirals.
KerrTexas
Super Moderator
Seems that there would be a host of questions to be answered about this type of an event.
Is it possible to recreate the event in a thread like this ?
The submarine is stationed in a specific location. The crew hits the launch button. From a forensic perspective in recreating the event, what componenets are there that may have taken place during the flight of such a missle ?
The missle leaves the launch tube, what happens next ?
When the missle left the submarine, that it took a different trajectory than was planned seems plausible.
However, if it took the flight path as shown in the posted maps, wouldnt the radar/satelite systems of Norway and other countries, notice that a missle is flying through they're airspace ?
What type of failure would have occurred ?
Guidance system failure, or engine failure ?
When did the Russians realize that something went wrong, and IF the missle is headed over other countries airspace, what would the Russians do in response ?
What would the other countries do as a response ? Having a missle flying overhead would cause some sort of reaction, wouldn't it ?
How "much" control did ( or could ) the Russians still have over the missle ?
Were they trying to correct the problem ? or to get it as high up and as far out over water as possible ?
What kind of remedies does this type of rocket have built into it to stop or destroy it IF and WHEN a rocket of its type "does" fail ?
Would they do a fuel dump with this type of failure ?
What kind of fuel dump system does the rocket have -- or is the propulsion system arranged in a way that such a spin is possible ?
Would any traces of the fuel being dumped be detectable at the ground level or would it all dissipate because of the altitude this event occurred ?
It would seem that the Russians would have tracking devices on-board the "test" missles, wouldnt they know for sure which way it went ?
Wouldnt Russian activity increase in an effort to recover as much of the failed rocket as possible ?
Being a new type of missle, certainly they would want to make sure no one but themselves recovered any portions that may be recoverable.
There are quite a few questions that would apply, and I'm sure you all can come up with additional questions that could be asked in this instance.
As mentioned in the first part of this post...is it even remotely possible to recreate the event in a thread on a discussion forum ?
Is it possible to recreate the event in a thread like this ?
The submarine is stationed in a specific location. The crew hits the launch button. From a forensic perspective in recreating the event, what componenets are there that may have taken place during the flight of such a missle ?
The missle leaves the launch tube, what happens next ?
When the missle left the submarine, that it took a different trajectory than was planned seems plausible.
However, if it took the flight path as shown in the posted maps, wouldnt the radar/satelite systems of Norway and other countries, notice that a missle is flying through they're airspace ?
What type of failure would have occurred ?
Guidance system failure, or engine failure ?
When did the Russians realize that something went wrong, and IF the missle is headed over other countries airspace, what would the Russians do in response ?
What would the other countries do as a response ? Having a missle flying overhead would cause some sort of reaction, wouldn't it ?
How "much" control did ( or could ) the Russians still have over the missle ?
Were they trying to correct the problem ? or to get it as high up and as far out over water as possible ?
What kind of remedies does this type of rocket have built into it to stop or destroy it IF and WHEN a rocket of its type "does" fail ?
Would they do a fuel dump with this type of failure ?
What kind of fuel dump system does the rocket have -- or is the propulsion system arranged in a way that such a spin is possible ?
Would any traces of the fuel being dumped be detectable at the ground level or would it all dissipate because of the altitude this event occurred ?
It would seem that the Russians would have tracking devices on-board the "test" missles, wouldnt they know for sure which way it went ?
Wouldnt Russian activity increase in an effort to recover as much of the failed rocket as possible ?
Being a new type of missle, certainly they would want to make sure no one but themselves recovered any portions that may be recoverable.
There are quite a few questions that would apply, and I'm sure you all can come up with additional questions that could be asked in this instance.
As mentioned in the first part of this post...is it even remotely possible to recreate the event in a thread on a discussion forum ?
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Which makes it all the more odd that they would fly it over northern Norway....assuming that was the intended course.
Apparently the Russian rocket has a history of failure and has gone wrong on 8 out of 13 tests. They could always give the manufacture to all those Lada workers who fear losing their jobs....as the result would ( by Russian standards ) be more reliable.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Believe it. It is not that the rocket remains central in the spirals. You are looking at it backwards. The rocket is creating the spirals around it as a result of the aerodynamic flowfield it is leaving behind! Do you know what a wake vortex is? This term is most familiar to people due to the shedding of these vortices from the wintips of an airplane. In dense air you can see the large swirls (which also GROW with distance) trailing behind an airplane from each wingtip. These cause the classic "wake turbulence" which is why air traffic controllers need to keep at least two minute spacing between a 747/A380 and smaller airplanes behind them.
Well, a missile also sheds wake vortices. However, because the missile has both X-Y and X-Z symmetry, the flowfield it leaves behind...no matter WHAT flight path it is following, controlled or not... is symmetrical in rotation about that flight path.
Look at this 6-DOF simulation video:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/12/this-is-how-the-mysterious-giant-spiral-happened/
I know you may find it hard to believe, but unless you have studied aerodynamic flowfields and modeled them in a finite element (computational fluid dynamic) environment, you may not understand just how normal this is and why the majority of missile flight control failures end up looking like this.
But again I point out: The Russians do NOT feel compelled to follow the same range safety guidelines as we do. There is a very good reason Vandeberg AFB launches occur just as the sun is setting (as opposed to after the sun has set like this one). That is visibility and visualization of the flight path of the vehicle. They purposefully WANT the setting sun to illuminate the vehicle and the contrails as it ascends, as it makes the job of the tracking cameras (which are typically automated these days) that much easier.
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Ummmm...altitude = vertical distance.
But nevermind. I now see where you are getting your silly ideas....GLP. While I usually make it a point to stay away from that place (it has had trojan problems in the past), I did see the thread where you are stealing all your BS from:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message940548/pg1
Now, since you refuse to speak in full sentences, and you also refuse to speak in understanable english (even though I know you are fully capable), I will, instead, refute the OP's nonsense from the GLP thread quoted above:
True. But the inference s/he is making is that you would not be able to see the visual scene that was seen if it was in its 3rd stage going into space... as if the OP had some silly notion that because it is that high, you can't see it....? Well, there are two problems with that:
1) Just because it was in its third stage does not mean it was necessarily on the nominal trajectory to begin with. In other words, it may have still been fairly low. But you don't even need this explanation...
2) In order to know the approximate altitude of the center of the spiral shown in the OP's first photo, you would need to know the range from the person taking the picture to the object at the center of the spiral. Here is the thing with estimating range in a clear sky without many/any distant range/altiude reference objects in the picture: It is damn hard to estimate. I know. I am a pilot. The vast majority of people who are untrained at estimating such ranges get them terribly wrong. It is NOT an inherent capability of the human visual system to estimate range well.
Hence, what I am saying here in (2) is that it is quite possible that the object in the center of that image could be well over 40 miles up already (a bit over 210,000 feet). It all depends upon the range. But more from the OP:
OP has given exactly zero analytical evidence to prove this claim. Nuff said.
This guy is a complete idiot and does not even think about what is happening to the velocity of a missile as it progresses through its stages. It is speeding up....like, by quite a large amount! By the time the third stage kicks-in, it should have achieved approximately 75% of full orbital velocity (even though it is not going into orbit, but re-entering). Furthermore, idiot's assumption seems to be that the failure occurred towards the end of the 3rd stage burn (his comments about fuel being mostly spent). Nowhere does the Russian press release say that. It only says the failure occurred during its third stage. For all we know (and this is the most likely in staging situations) the failure manifested as soon as the 3rd stage ignited.
More shallow-thinking stupidity... The part that was HUGE was the spiral, which is formed in the trailing airmass behind the rocket, and illuminated by the sun shining over the horizon. And it always amuses me when an obvious neophyte in aerospace engineering uses such emotional language as "there is no possible way..." when he is clearly, and asbolutely, incorrect in his analysis.
And this from one of his idiot buddies (apparantly):
It was a test. A planned flight path for a missile test does not have to be what it would be for an operational missile launch. It depends what the purpose of the test is. Furthermore, if the disposal intent for this test was to splash it into the north atlantic, then it is very likely they would not want it to loft all the way into orbit... because if they did it would likely overshoot the Atlantic and end up in Greenland, Canada, or worse! :eek:
Face it, recall, you are a hack when it comes to anything aerospace, and so is the OP on GLP. People like this wish to portray that things like this are intuitive or "common sense", and nothing could be further from the truth. I have 25 years of working and teaching in aerospace engineering. Neither you nor this OP know what you are talking about (or in your case, pretending to not be able to talk about).
If you do not clean-up your English, recall, I may have a little discussion with Kerr and Mop about your continued participation on the board. No one likes having to guess what you are trying to say by your feigned poor english. We know it is all an act, and it is time that someone call you on it.
I am calling you on it. Start using full sentences and comprehendable english, or actions will be taken.
RMT
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Well....I'm largely playing devil's advocate.....so I'll beg to differ. A rocket on a ballistic ( sub orbital ) trajectory is by definition following a curved path. It OUGHT to thus be falling or rising ( depending on how far into the path it is ) into the spiral left behind....as seen from the perspective of a viewer watching the rocket move away. Even if the rocket is still ascending, the very nature of the parabolic shape of the flight path means that as time goes by it will be either higher or lower in angle in the sky relative to a straight line drawn through any previous point on the path.
I'm not disputing that the flow is symmetrical.....what I am referring to is the continued motion of the rocket relative to it's own trail. If you drew a circle around the rocket at any point....you would not expect it to still be exactly in the center of that circle 21 seconds or so later.
Of course, there is a point in the path where it may remain close to a tangent to the observer for some time..which may be the case here. But for 21 seconds ? That's 90 - 120 miles....assuming a sub-orbital velociity of 5-6 miles a second or so.
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Except of course.....the Earth is round, and ( without even doing the maths ) I'm pretty sure an object 60-70 miles up, 700 miles away, would actually be just below the horizon !
That's one reason I can't see aurora in the north of Scotland from where I live.
KerrTexas
Super Moderator
The following is an image of an Over-stabilized bullet, which of course has no on-board propulsion system. Seems to me that from certain percpectives, that if it was eminating streams of smoke...would appear similar to the spiral as seen in Norway.
This figure schematically shows an over-stabilized bullet on a high-angle trajectory.
An over-stabilized bullet rotates too fast and its axis tends to keep its orientation in space.
The bullet´s longitudional axis becomes incapable of following the bending path of the trajectory. Over-stabilization is said to occur, if the angle enclosed between the bullet´s axis of form and the tangent to the trajectory (the yaw of repose) exceeds a value of approximately 10°.
Over-stabilization of a bullet is most probable, if a bullet has excessive static stability (a high value of sg and a low value for the tractability factor ) and is fired at a high angle of departure, especially when fired vertically.
An over-stabilized bullet on a high-angle trajectory lands base first.
However, when firing bullets from handguns, over-stabilization is of minor importance in normal shooting situation, but must be considered when firing at high angles of elevation.
Would you, Rainman, say this is what might have happened with the Russian Missle ?
Even though this post is a discussion of the trajectory of a bullet, it seems that similar dynamics could be applied to the Norway Spiral. but on a smaller scale.
What I haven't seen addressed the "conecentric rings" images of the spiral seem flat, when in fact the may be conical in shape, but from where everyone was viewing the event, saw merely a portion of the true shape of the spiral.
The reason why no one else saw the spiral from other locations was due to the angle of illumination. As mentioned previously...just the right time, in just the right trajectory, with just the right ingredients combining to produce the spiral as seen in just the right location.
This figure schematically shows an over-stabilized bullet on a high-angle trajectory.
An over-stabilized bullet rotates too fast and its axis tends to keep its orientation in space.
The bullet´s longitudional axis becomes incapable of following the bending path of the trajectory. Over-stabilization is said to occur, if the angle enclosed between the bullet´s axis of form and the tangent to the trajectory (the yaw of repose) exceeds a value of approximately 10°.
Over-stabilization of a bullet is most probable, if a bullet has excessive static stability (a high value of sg and a low value for the tractability factor ) and is fired at a high angle of departure, especially when fired vertically.
An over-stabilized bullet on a high-angle trajectory lands base first.
However, when firing bullets from handguns, over-stabilization is of minor importance in normal shooting situation, but must be considered when firing at high angles of elevation.
Would you, Rainman, say this is what might have happened with the Russian Missle ?
Even though this post is a discussion of the trajectory of a bullet, it seems that similar dynamics could be applied to the Norway Spiral. but on a smaller scale.
What I haven't seen addressed the "conecentric rings" images of the spiral seem flat, when in fact the may be conical in shape, but from where everyone was viewing the event, saw merely a portion of the true shape of the spiral.
The reason why no one else saw the spiral from other locations was due to the angle of illumination. As mentioned previously...just the right time, in just the right trajectory, with just the right ingredients combining to produce the spiral as seen in just the right location.
paladius
Temporal Navigator
RNT, since you seem to have more than average knowledge in fluid dynamics, can you please explain to me if the missile was 40 miles up in the air, then wouldn;t that mean the spiral was 4-5 miles wide? Would a vortex from a single missile get that large?
And also, when the alleged missile burns out of fuel, why does the illumination dissipate so quickly from the most recent burn location, while the outer rings of the spiral remain illuminated for a while longer?
Then, at that point, why is the faint blue cone glow still visible leading up and all the way to the black hole?
Based on my academic study of aerodynamics, wind tunnel experience, knowledge of atmospheric acoustics, and general material physics, it seems to me that the spiral image and following hole opening up is similar to a sheet of plastic stretched flat and heated by a flame from underneath. It take a while to heat up plastic and eventually and hole is melted through. The the hole quickly gets larger to a size equal to function of the materials melting point and the heat inputted over time. This black hole following the spiral reminds me of that.
And also, when the alleged missile burns out of fuel, why does the illumination dissipate so quickly from the most recent burn location, while the outer rings of the spiral remain illuminated for a while longer?
Then, at that point, why is the faint blue cone glow still visible leading up and all the way to the black hole?
Based on my academic study of aerodynamics, wind tunnel experience, knowledge of atmospheric acoustics, and general material physics, it seems to me that the spiral image and following hole opening up is similar to a sheet of plastic stretched flat and heated by a flame from underneath. It take a while to heat up plastic and eventually and hole is melted through. The the hole quickly gets larger to a size equal to function of the materials melting point and the heat inputted over time. This black hole following the spiral reminds me of that.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
No. Why would you think that the size of the spiral is related to the altitude? The size of the spiral is related to the amount of pressure energy that the missile vortex adds to the airmass as it moves through it. That pressure energy is related to the dynamic pressure induced by the missile's velocity. That dynamic pressure varies with respect to airspeed squared, as do all aerodynamic pressures. You should have learned this in your academic study of aerodynamics and wind tunnels...
Simple... because after the burnout the missile is no longer ejecting a plume of material from its main thrust nozzle that can be illuminated by the sun. But even though there is no plume to illuminate, that does not mean the missile is not still imparting pressure energy to the airmass. This is why the black hole area grows: Because the missile is still imparting swirl to the airmass it leaves behind due to its aerodynamic flowfield around it, but since there is no ejecta that airmass does not get illuminated like the ejecta which is already showing the larger (older) spiral.
That faint blue trail represents the failure that likely sent this thing into the spin to begin with. Most often these oscillatory failures happen as a high pressure leak in the missile that is directed along some axis that is no co-linear with the main thrust plume of the missile. Hence, it makes a different shaped spiral (with different orientation). So when the main thrust reaction is shut down (the black hole starts), the failure leak is still present (still pressure in the fuel tanks) and so that leak is still ejecting matter for the sun to illuminate.
The fact that the Russians admit the 3rd stage is liquid even makes it more likely this was a missile, as they say. Because a solid rocket motor does not have high pressure feed tanks to spring a leak like the liquid third stage. Solids would not have this kind of "tracer" spiral behind them unless the actual case of the solid rocket motor sprung a leak (like the shuttle Challenger accident). But even that would not be as high of a pressure as liquid oxygen or hydrogen which are stored in VERY high pressures in their feed tanks.
Well, what you describe is a 2-D (planar) manifestation. The reason this is not like what you describe is because the flowfield emanating from the missile is 3-D. While it looks like a 2-D spiral in the sky (akin to your sheet of plastic), in reality it is a 3-D conical formation with the aerodynamic body at the apex of that cone.
Introduction to vortex flows is what I spend 2-3 weeks on in my ARO 202 aircraft performance course, which I will be teaching this coming winter quarter at Cal Poly. This vortex 3-D flow is what leads us to a discussion of where induced drag comes from on an airplane wing...it comes from the rotational flow that these vortices impart to the flow around the wing as they shed off the wingtips. Ever wonder what winglets (the funny, bent-up shapes at the tips of wings) are for? they help reduce induced drag. They accomplish this by interrupting the normal vortex rotational flow that would come off the wingtip if there were no winglet. Thus, in interrupting this vorticity they redirect some of the pressure disturbance to keep it from coming back on top of the wing and causing as much drag. A properly designed winglet can reduce total drag up to 1% which, depending on how long the airplan is in cruise flight, can add a significant amount to the airplane's range and endurance.
RMT
paladius
Temporal Navigator
RMT re-question 1 : what diameter do you suppose the spiral is (on a 2d plane, as seem from norway)?
re-q 2 : you say the afterburn of the missile is still exerting force on the sun-illuminated spirals and that is the reason the black hole increaes in size. But it seems to me that the spirals, being 3d and a missile that is likely traveling Mach 2-3 or more would be spread out over a distance of miles. So how could any sort of aerodynamic affect from a missile miles away snuff out the illuminated spirals from such a distance. And likewise, the increasing size of the hole seems somewhat linear in nature from a 2d vantage point (its size increases regularly). If somehow what you say is true that the missile somehow darkened the spiral and created the effect of the black hole, then that means that the force doing so would have had to increase in acceleration to make the conical spiral appear to widen into a hole in a uniform speed as opposed to slowing down greatly with the distance the 3d spiral would have covered.
I understand you are a man of science and logic, but I feel this is one of those times the truth is staring you in the face and you don't believe it because you are so trained not to.
re-q 2 : you say the afterburn of the missile is still exerting force on the sun-illuminated spirals and that is the reason the black hole increaes in size. But it seems to me that the spirals, being 3d and a missile that is likely traveling Mach 2-3 or more would be spread out over a distance of miles. So how could any sort of aerodynamic affect from a missile miles away snuff out the illuminated spirals from such a distance. And likewise, the increasing size of the hole seems somewhat linear in nature from a 2d vantage point (its size increases regularly). If somehow what you say is true that the missile somehow darkened the spiral and created the effect of the black hole, then that means that the force doing so would have had to increase in acceleration to make the conical spiral appear to widen into a hole in a uniform speed as opposed to slowing down greatly with the distance the 3d spiral would have covered.
I understand you are a man of science and logic, but I feel this is one of those times the truth is staring you in the face and you don't believe it because you are so trained not to.
KerrTexas
Super Moderator
I believe the answers y'all are seeking to the effects of the missle and what was witnessed over Norway is contained within the following link.
How Bullets Fly
Now...although the focus of the linked site is regarding bullets...it seems that there are numerous simularities to the flight dynamics of certain type of bullet's and this missle episode.
How Bullets Fly
Now...although the focus of the linked site is regarding bullets...it seems that there are numerous simularities to the flight dynamics of certain type of bullet's and this missle episode.