

Strange phenomenon in Norwegian sky - Rexxar
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2764647/Spiral-UFO-puts-Norway-in-a-spin.html

======
andrewcooke
[http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Fvaer%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D596439&sl=no&tl=en)

[http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&...](http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://www.tv2nyhetene.no/utenriks/-det-
var-en-mislykket-rakettutskytning-fra-
ubaat-3052536.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhgvzEflWP04iNjUxqv2yU-6dK3_Tw)

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._

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

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

------
brm
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/>

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

~~~
davidw
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.

~~~
rimantas
_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.

~~~
davidw
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.

~~~
rimantas
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...](http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080013374_2008012897.pdf)
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 <…>_

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

Model rockets, sorry.

------
tel
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.

~~~
teamonkey
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.

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

------
Quarrelsome
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.

~~~
jm4
TechCrunch?

~~~
Quarrelsome
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.

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

~~~
Quarrelsome
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.

------
Slashed
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).

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

------
bld
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-...](http://www.universetoday.com/2009/12/09/what-was-the-norway-
spiral/)

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

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

------
ramanujan
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...](http://www.frisnit.com/cgi-
bin/navtex/view.cgi?id=1159919&lan=en&type=24H&message_filter=&search=ROCKET&station_filter=&date=2009-12-09&source=a4f7a470329caf85e2488355c7e88328&offset=0)

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

