Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by Makalu, Dec 9, 2009.
its inactive Tat3
wow! +1 on your editing skillz :thumbup:
Yeah, replaced it with other picture.
You mean that photobucket account or that Death Star ?
nono the photobucket account. it was inactive or had too much traffic
Don't listen to John, he works for the government! It's a conspiracy! :bugeye:
His CPU being overclocked too much caused this! Either that or the LHC, those bastards at CERN will kill us all! :eek3:
Well I sort of didn't want to either but meh, it's late, I'm bored, why not.
Liquid hydrogen has a molar mas of 2.02g and a density of 67.8kg/m^3 according to wikipedia.
So for n, 67,000g / 2.02g = 33564.36 -> n = 33564.36 moles
Now I have no idea what the temperature of a gas in space is, but from what I've read it depends on whether or not it's in sunlight. I'm just going to use the number from NASA 394 kelvin in sunlight for this calculation. So let T = 394k
R = 8.314472 J(K^-1) (mol^-1)
Low earth orbit occurs in what's called the thermosphere/ionosphere it stretches from 90km to really freaking high. Interesting note, wikipedia says that the particles in this layer reach a temperature of over 2,500C I don't particularly care to change the 394 figure for T though since the particles must heat up directly from the suns rays rather than the air around them (air isn't dense enough to communicate heat quickly at that altitude cording to the wiki).
The pressure in the thermosphere varies form 1Pa to 100nPa which is quite dramatic. Let p=1 Pascal
So anyway V = nRT/p
V = 33,564.36moles * 8.314472 J(K^−1)(mol^−1) * 394K / 1 Pa
Moles & Kelvin cancel out, 33,564*8.314347J*394 / 1Pa
Since J = Pa * m^3, it becomes (33,564*8.313474*394)Pa*m^3 / Pa
Pascals cancel out leaving us with a volume of
109,952,373.65 cubic meters at the most dense part of the thermosphere
So that's my guess anyway.
What this means is that size is not an issue with a leaking rocket theory. Visibility of exhaust maybe, but not size. Eta: this number could easily be about a billion times too small using slightly different assumptions. I'm just saying that a 48m^3 rocket with even a little fuel could easily produce a cloud of this magnitude.
lightsabres here I come
I'll just leave this here:
dont worry guys, we are saved
well I have more questions than answers that's for sure...but some observations...first there's a big difference in the behavior between this and the 2007 Russian video. The object there is moving thru the sky relative to the observer and leaving a single trail behind it as it spirals inward. The object or center of the Norway spiral, presumably a missile, doesn't appear to move thru the sky relative to the observer...even observers several hundred miles apart...so either it's stationary or the trajectory is directly away from the observers and the distance to the object is uhmm at least a 1000 miles away to account for the same apparently stationary observation on the ground hundreds of miles a part.
The other big difference between this and the Russian video is the object or center or source or whatever of the spiral isn't itself moving in a spiral pattern but would seem to be spinning on it's own axis and throwing out two spiral arms due to centrifugal force. You can see the two arms streaming out on opposite sides pretty clearly here:
also this one at first glance looks like one stream but if you zoom in you can see that it's two streams close together...and amazingly the seperation is still there even in the outermost arms...it's pretty clear when zoomed:
hmmm ok so it looks like something not solid spinning fast and centrifugal force creates denser mass on opposite sides until the density becomes to great and it streams out. So it's like the exhaust and presumable the missile itself is spinning very fast...how it got into that state I dunno lol. If the engine nozzle failed equally on both sides and the exhaust streams out at a bit of an angle then that would surely make a missile spin on it's own axis but if the angles are a bit different or one side is producing more thrust than the other then I think that would show as irregularities in the spiral pattern...so the failure must have been "perfect"...possible but not likely.
That PP simulation should have four streams, not two..since there appears to be two blue thingies either streaming out or trailing behind and then braiding together...and then account for the tornadic funnel shape of the blue stuff too lol.
Now different eyewitnesses give different accounts of the chronology...some saw the blue and the spiral appear at once and then the spiral grew, some saw just the spiral and no blue, some saw the spiral first and then the blue...I haven't heard anyone say they saw the blue and then the spiral which is the chronology you would expect from a missile launch. But anyway all of that can be explained by the distance between the observers and the rising sun and like a rainbow all three elements have to be in the right position at the right time relative to each other.
So the scenario is something like this...first stage looks fine and normal...second stage also functions fine with a good trajectory for a low orbit ICBM but it leaves an odd spiraling corkscrew of ionized exhaust matter/energy. Seems to me like somewhere in the last 50 years of rocket experiments somebody would have seen this before...or if they have then please link me. The altitude at the end of stage 2 burn would be something like 50-75 miles or more and velocity of several thousand miles per hour. How this blue stream of whatever manages to hold it's integrity for so long...and yes there most certainly has to be some wind somewhere there especially with the sun rising and temps changing nearby...also needs to be explained...to me!
ok third stage...btw I have one russian source that says third stage is liquid fuel and others solid...all other source say solid only. That's possible but highly unusual...especially since this is an upgrade to the Topol M platform. Having a liquid fuel rocket on a sub is problematic IMO...Russians aren't gonna have a fuel on demand system since that's takes too long...but maintaining a constant liquid fuel for months underwater on what something like 15-20 missiles? It's possible but not definately not a liquid oxygen and hydrogen set up since LOX constantly boils off at ambient temps. It would have to be a monopropellant with a catalyst like hydrazine I guess.
ok so anyway it could be liquid fuel in stage three but still it's not simply leaking out unignited I don't think we could see it at all nor would it propel itself outward with so much force to maintain a stable spiral far out...unless there's some unknown photochemical effect happening...which very well could be. Assuming this is hot exhaust then it doesn't matter if stage three is liquid or solid.
So stage three separation failure is what they are saying...but I think that occurs in the upper atmosphere and not in the vacuum of space. If so then the missile would slow immediately and begin to drop back to the ground within a few seconds. So it seems to me that this giant spiral thingie happened in a vacuum or else gravity and wind would have dispersed/deformed it...unless it's a purely optical phenomenon. I dunno guys...I could bore you with some other things I see...just it's hard to put all the peices together with one scenario...what's the cause of the giant kinda tear dropped halo that tapers down to what I assume to be stage one separation and how is it connected with the spiral that I assume to be in low orbital space and certainly several hundred miles downrange or more...
Finally, the Russian Minister of Defence admits that the happening yesterday was a failed launch of a Bulava missile, the 8th in a row.
"nor would it propel itself outward with so much force to maintain a stable spiral far out"
I just got done showing that liquid hydrogen expands from 1 meter to at least a hundred million meters in volume at those pressures... I imagine that implies a tiny bit of force. I agree about storing liquid hydrogen on a sub though, they likely used a different fuel, It was just the easiest one for me to look up. Note that the ideal gas law does not depend on the chemical but rather simply the number of gaseous molecules.
I get what you're saying though if you think the gaseous expansion would erase the spiral. If it were a stationary object I would agree, however ICBM's move very very fast. We're talking miles per second, many times faster than a bullet. IMO the speed accounts for the separation in the spiral.
If the Russians are willing to admit a mistake they must have something to hide! :bugeye:
yeah right after I posted that I realized it wouldn't take much pressure in a vacuum...assuming stage 3 completed then it would be traveling 10-15,000mph in space and just coast from there so I'm having problems with the timeline but it had to have failed very late in the burn right?
sorry I can't visualize how the speed affects the distance between the two spiral arms...assuming two leaks on opposite sides of the missile then it seems like the distance would be about the same as the diameter of the missile but that's only a few meters and wouldn't be visible to the naked eye at that distance so that can't be right
this must have something to do with, u know.. the story behind the Singularity game. maybe came from the island Katorga-12
As the gas exits the craft it begins expanding in all directions. The craft must then rotate another 180 degrees before emitting gas in an identical direction. If the craft were stationary the streams of expanding gas would overlap faster, however since the craft is in motion the prior stream is expanding behind the current streams position. This increases the distance that the gas must travel before erasing the distinction depending on the angle of the observer. But really, as long as the ejection velocity of the gas is high relative to the rotation of the craft the rings should show up.
At least that's what I'm thinking here. I could be wrong. If you watch the video you'll see the rings do quickly disappear.
I'd guess it failed late in its burn, since there's two steams I'm going to guess that some form of separation mechanism malfunctioned. Some are suggesting a stabilizer blew I dunno I'm not quite a rocket scientist but if separation failed it seems plausible to me that it would cause an incomplete burn on the next stage as well as an out of control missile.
That's my last post for the day on this, be back tomorrow.
well yeah I didn't think a missile was stationary...I think it was traveling thousands of miles an hour pretty much directly away from all the observers when this third stage fault happened...and I guess the fault changed the trajectory from what it had been before. And yeah I understand that the gas expands over time and it takes time for the missile to spin 180 degrees but that's the cause of the bigger gap between the two original arms with a smaller gap between them...just uhm it seems remarkable to me that still in the outer arms after several revolutions the gap is the same.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you...I sure don't understand this thing but it's pretty trippy looking. I think stage 2 and 3 had to have separated and then stage 3 had to have burned for awhile or else it would have never got up into space...plus there's you can see not just two streams but also a glob between them which I guess is some unburnt fuel leaking out the tailpipe too lol
Lets concentrate on the ending of the video. Did you notice, that the phenomenon starts to dissolve in the center, then looks as if a big black hole was growing from the inside?
I'd say if it was from a rocket, the spiral must start dissolving from the outside. The outer rings have been in the air the longest, thus they would have also disappeared first.
Eat that, rocket theory!!! :3eyes:
Good point, even if the rocket "blew up" right then, it still doesn't explain how the outer rings haven't dissolved forever and the the inner rings suddenly jsut POOF gone.