How can there be a large mystery launch of a rocket?
More video:
MSNBC’s coverage:
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Or should I say, a launch of a larger rocket, mysteriously?
Well, the U.S. Navy recruits high-school drop-outs by now, and all of those buttons *do* look alike when you can’t read the little labels….
Just joking – probably some sort of exercise to check defense readiness, not announced beforehand because that would kinda render it moot.
Aliens.
Or Atlantis is resurrected.
or Virgin’s new affiliate: Virgin Defense.
Hmmm. Near L.A., eh?
Scientologists. Definetly Scientologists.
Probably Zenu going home again.
Not to worry…
just a jet contrail
http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/
It wasn’t a jet contrail. There is film showing a rocket, going up, and fast.
Dynamics of cats has more, and it looks like a US military operation with the Japanese may be the explanation.
http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2010/11/missile_firing_off_la.php#more
The Guardian article below quotes the Pentagon denying that it was theirs…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/09/california-contrail-defence-department-missile
I’ve seen several sources note that the Pentagon denies that they have anything to do with this. Which pretty much proves that it’s theirs.
There can’t.
1) Range safety, NOTAMS are filed, airspace and seaspace are cleared
2) The Russians, they have a frighteningly unreliable space surveillance RADAR. I’m not sure exactly how it’s done, but the Western Space and Missile Center (“owner” of the Pacific test range) notifies the government of Russia before any launch they could detect.
You remember that old story about Pepsi accepting a bunch of submarines in a Russian counter-trade deal? The cola wars just went hot.
There was a NOTAM (notice to airmen) saying that an area was to be closed to flight due to activity at the time the launch occurred. (THey have to do this to avoid unintentionally shooting down a plane). The story is caused by dumb reporters not knowing the first thing about how aviation works. They could have checked the Faa web site for details. A different reporter found this out. So we have the typical reporter goes off half cocked and gets the story wrong. Some seem to be confused by zulu time which is 8 hours ahead of PST. So that an evening launch would be on the 9th in Zulu time. (Saying that the notice says 9-10 nov, which it would be in Zulu (GMT)) time.
The following post explains that it may well be a plane, as a contrail viewed from the right angle looks like a missle.
http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/
Note that the article points out a similar situation occurred Dec 31,2009. The issue is that the camera for the news station just happened to be in the right spot.
What it makes one wonder why there were not more reports of this during the 1970s when the chances of the real use of missles in large numbers was so much higher? Have we all gotten more paranoid, or was the TV station so hungry for viewers?
Of course the media loves to tell us that we are all going to die from something different every day.
Likely a Navy operation that got lost in the need-to-know security and didn’t coordinate ahead of time. Ironic consequence over too tight security is that a launch scheduled ahead of time gets little notice but a mystery attracts attention.
OTOH there is a small but enthusiastic contingent of amateur rocketeers who might get a thrill launching a large vehicle from an unexpected spot to cause a stir. Might not be so pleasant if the authorities were to lack a sense of humor.
Lyle, have you seen the video of the actual thing moving along? This is not a contrail someone noticed. There was no contrail. Then there was this fast moving thing with a very bright light like one sees at the back end of a rocket. Then the contrail formed at that point. Contrails of planes may look like rocket contrails, but not like actual rockets going SWOOOOSH across the sky.
Bah, it’s a jet. The link Sam gave has it right. http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/
It resembles a jet contrail in every way. It’s a high-altitude contrail running parallel to the earth, fading into the horizon. Look at the base of it. It’s not a vertical contrail; it’s a horizontal one which looks vertical.
The video I see does not show the base of the contrail being formed; it’s already there. I see nothing surprising about the speed. A 747 can cruise at 600mph, and if you find that unsatisfying then a Concorde can go 1300mph.
Nomen, the concorde no longer flies. Perhaps you haven’t heard.
Anyway, look again at the videos.
I’ve looked at the video again, and again I don’t see the base of the contrail being formed. It’s just extremely obvious this is a jet contrail, especially in the wider shot where we see that the base is dispersed (i.e., old) and it dissolves into the horizon. That means it’s not vertical.
My bad on the Concorde thing, but of course that doesn’t affect my point.
Did you look at the video that shows the rocket forming the contrail? How do you explain the existence of the rocket at the end of the contrail that you claim to have been formed earlier in the day by a 747?
I’ve watched each video above three times now. I’ve also been looking at other recent ones. Not one shows the base of the contrail being formed.
And WTF I didn’t claim it was a 747.
434/10(18). EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC. CALIFORNIA. MISSILES. 1. INTERMITTENT MISSILE FIRING OPERATIONS 0001Z TO 2359Z DAILY MONDAY THRU SUNDAY IN THE NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER SEA RANGE. THE MAJORITY OF MISSILE FIRINGS TAKE PLACE 1400Z TO 2359Z AND 0001Z TO 0200Z DAILY MONDAY THRU FRIDAY IN AREA BOUND BY 34-02N 119-04W, 33-52N 119-06W, 33-29N 118-37W, 33-20N 118-37W, 32-11N 120-16W, 31-54N 121-35W, 35-09N 123-39W, 35-29N 123-00W, 35-57N 121-32W, 34-04N 119-04W. 2. VESSELS MAY BE REQUESTED TO ALTER COURSE WITHIN THE ABOVE AREA DUE TO FIRING OPERATIONS AND ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT PLEAD CONTROL ON 5081.5 MHZ (5080 KHZ) OR 3238.5 KHZ (3237 KHZ) SECONDARY OR 156.8 MHZ (CH 16) OR 127.55 MHZ BEFORE ENTERING THE ABOVE BOUNDARIES AND MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS GUARD WHILE WITHIN THE RANGE. 3. VESSELS INBOUND AND OUTBOUND FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PORTS WILL CREATE THE LEAST INTERFERENCE TO FIRING OPERATIONS DURING THE SPECIFIC PERIODS, AS WELL AS ENHANCE THE VESSEL’S SAFETY WHEN PASSING THROUGH THE VICINITY OF THE SEA RANGE IF THEY WILL TRANSIT VIA THE SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL AND WITHIN NINE MILES OFFSHORE VICINITY OF POINT MUGU OR CROSS THE AREA SOUTHWEST OF SAN NICOLAS ISLAND BETWEEN SUNSET AND SUNRISE. 4. CANCEL NAVAREA XII 427/10.
Sorry ’bout the caps, but that’s what the original maritime notice was published in, quick cut and paste
YEAH, I SAW THAT!
Near Isla Vista? Probly my kid, sorry for the fuss.
Nomen, you may be right, but I need you to explain how not seeing how the base of the contrail is formed matters when you see the tip of the contrail being formed by something that, in these videos, does not look like a jet plane, and rather, looks like a rocket.
Also where does the plane go? People were watching this. If it was a plane, wouldn’t people have figured that out as it flew by?
The warnings to mariners have been there forever. The previous one, released 10/31/2009, provided the exact same information on missile tests (http://www.nga.mil/NGAPortal/MSI.portal;jsessionid=JbZ1LT6ZhJ46Qy8pmNXPyD07FJK40jNpM4Q1czyVHvnfD5Q8228K!-598230238!NONE?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=msi_ntm_pubview_page&CCD_itemID=200944). It’s just coincidence that the new one came out this week.
What I see is a blob, and planes and missiles both look like blobs at that distance. What makes you think there weren’t people who saw a plane? Seeing a plane in the sky is not newsworthy. Seeing a plane that looks like a rocket is. The people who thought it was a rocket were too far away to discern it was a plane; that’s why nobody saw it “fly by”.
Eventually someone will post the satellite photos and put this silliness to rest.
Satellite photos of what?
Satellite photos of the area showing the contrail. It’s close enough to California to be continually monitored by weather services and government.
Show me a contrail:
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/
Well I didn’t see any satellite close-ups at that site, but I’m sure someone on the Internet will post them.
In the meantime, here’s a map of US Airways flight 808 from Hawaii to Phoenix: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE808
And some more explanation: http://contrailscience.com/a-problem-of-perspective-in-the-oc-new-years-eve-contrail/
The government denies all sorts of things – including, for example, a huge Air Force base in the dessert (well, they no longer deny the existence of that base). I guess the person making the denial is inexperienced; when it comes to rocket launches it’s best to say that a rocket had been fired and all agreed reporting protocols had been followed. There is no need to disclose the purpose of the launch.
@Nomen Clature: Contrails do show up in images in *some* instruments. I never thought of looking for them in the geosync satellite images though – I don’t even know if they will reflect enough light to show up. For aircraft at altitudes well above 6km, the contrails can show up beautifully in some images even though they are not visible to the eye. The only problem with contrails is that rockets leave contrails too – but I guess they may appear much longer since they are formed in a much shorter time interval. I wouldn’t know for sure though – I never had an interest in checking satellite data for rocket trails. I only know of aircraft trails because they’re a minor nuisance at times (not anywhere as big a nuisance as clouds though).
I don’t know, myself. I will note, though, that the conditions are right for an airliner to be a bright light – the sun is low on the horizon, the aircraft is high, and incident light will reflect brightly off a fuselage, but not the wings (which wouldn’t show at that angle). Absent further evidence, I don’t see that first video as proof of a rocket, but the NOTAM may help settle it.
http://tinyurl.com/22jhcpx
Yes, I saw a physicist on the Today show talking about the airplane theory. He said we could not be sure at this time but Occam’s razor suggests plane over rocket.
I saw it. It really looked like a rocket that had blasted into space.
Wow Greg youâ??re really sticking to your story on this one being some kind of supa secret Pentagon rocket.
Wouldnâ??t it maybe be better to wait until a little more information comes out before saying â??I’ve seen several sources note that the Pentagon denies that they have anything to do with this. Which pretty much proves that it’s theirs.â?. You sound like a conspiracy guy and not a level headed scientist.
Couldnâ??t this also be one of those air show planes that run smoke generators for effect? Due to the rather dangerous maneuvers they pull itâ??s very common for them to be flying over water or areas that are relatively uninhabited. These also turn off and on based on what the pilot wants. Could easily explain some of the contrail anomalies without having to resort to the claims you are making. That’s one possibility.
Iâ??m pretty sure weâ??ll have a simple answer to this soon.
Wow, Cheyenne, you should really read my blog. Check it out, get back to me, and if you wan’t I’ll delete your comment so you look less like a clueless dick! 🙂
Actually, I never thought it was a secret Pentagon rocket. The Pentagon doesn’t have rockets, and the sky over LA is not where they would put one if they did.
Seriously Greg â?? Valium time there bud. I do read your blog. I like it. I donâ??t comment much because I agree with a lot of what you say.
Go ahead and delete my comment if you think Iâ??m being a â??clueless dickâ? for pointing out that maybe everybody should avoid conjecturing too much. That real information on things like this ALWAYS comes out and 99.99% of the time itâ??s something basic like â??itâ??s just a friggin airplane peopleâ?.
Naw, it’s OK.
Actually, my resistance to the “It’s a plane” rhetoric is that it was so damn certain.
“Look at this picture of a contrail. It was a plane, end of story.”
If that turns out to be correct, and it may well be, that will not be because the certainty interjected in the original commentary on it made it true.
It isn’t always an airplane. Sometimes it’s a boat
I was under the impression that missiles travel at mach 7 – 12 and have a total flight time of a couple of seconds.