Missles over newfoundland?

[fresh squid]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/01/26/nl-ufo-012610.html

Crazy stuff.

 

[Urwumpe]

It doesn't look like a meteor on the first glance, it has actually all features what you would expect from a liquid propellant rocket. But there is also the problem, there are not so many liquid propellant rockets... aside of the Russian SS-N-23 "Skiff" missiles.

Which also seem to have some similarities to the photograph:

I can't access a free NAVTEX decoder currently, does somebody else have more luck for finding any indications of an official rocket launch there?

EDIT: It also wasn't launched from Wallops Island: http://sched.wff.nasa.gov/wffsched/

 

[PeterRoss]

They're telling us about every launch, and there was nothing yesterday. But there was a launch of french M51 missile.

 

[Urwumpe]

They're telling us about every launch, and there was nothing yesterday. But there was a launch of french M51 missile.

But the test was over Northwest France.

http://de.news.yahoo.com/2/20100127/tts-frankreich-testet-neue-atomrakete-m5-c1b2fc3.html (German)

Also the M5 is solid fueled and will always leave some amount of smoke behind it, even if it one of the smokeless kinds.

 

[PeterRoss]

Its target was '2000 km off South Carolina' according to Wiki. Is there possible trajectory between northwest France and eastern part of USA that is visible from Newfoundland?

 

[SiberianTiger]

Looking odd, a rocket's exhaust is supposed to be brighter at the tip and dimmer at the tail end. And this is just reverse.

---------- Post added at 00:56 ---------- Previous post was at 00:53 ----------

Its target was '2000 km off South Carolina' according to Wiki. Is there possible trajectory between northwest France and eastern part of USA that is visible from Newfoundland?

Not at the boost phase of flight.

I'm afarid it might be a NATO secret test, in which case no one will reveal the truth.

 

[PeterRoss]

Not at the boost phase of flight.

Oh, haven't thinked about that...

I know nothing about ballistic missiles. Does they have some visible effects during reentry? (They have to go through reentry, right?)

 

[Urwumpe]

Oh, haven't thinked about that...

I know nothing about ballistic missiles. Does they have some visible effects during reentry? (They have to go through reentry, right?)

Yes, reentry heating, they have low drag aerodynamics and thus glow white and bright. This one is different.

SiberianTiger: The darker half seems to be the missile body. The lighter flames look pretty right to me, you even see hints on Mach diamonds inside it.

 

[SiberianTiger]

I've changed my mind. It now looks very much like a daytime bolide (a slow chondrite) or a reentering space debris to me:

 

[Urwumpe]

Like this?

Comparing both photographs, the Canada object doesn't really look like a bolide, The smoke trail is missing, and if it would be caused by fragmentation, the different flame contrails would not converge.

 

[lennartsmit]

Does somebody know if there is a NORAD tracking or report of this? Or is Newfoundland out of range?

 

[SiberianTiger]

Well, okay. You can expect Russian submarines to appear in the most unexpected places, like in Venice; Next up, a surprise SLBM firing from the middle of the Potomac river! :rofl:

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, okay. You can expect Russian submarines to appear in the most unexpected places, like in Venice; Next up, a surprise SLBM firing from the middle of the Potomac river! :rofl:

well, I don't say that it is extremely realistic - but is it impossible? It doesn't look like a bolide, since many typical elements of it are missing. If it isn't fired from a Russian submarine - what else could have launched it as rocket? If it is a Bolide, where did it impact?

Also, there is a second aspect which makes a bolide unlikely - it would have to be photographed right after a fragmentation for having the parts so close, but at the same time, such fragmentations come with a increase in brightness and often tiny detonations.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Why did it have to be a ballistic missile? Could it be a cruise missile instead?

 

[Urwumpe]

Why did it have to be a ballistic missile? Could it be a cruise missile instead?

With such large exhaust flames??? The flames are about as long as the missile body.

 

[PeterRoss]

Yes, reentry heating, they have low drag aerodynamics and thus glow white and bright. This one is different.

One more silly question from me. Article says that 'Darlene Stewart said she was outside taking pictures of the sunset...'
Can't the 'flame' be just a reflection of sunset light from white and bright smoke trail?

 

[Urwumpe]

Can't the 'flame' be just a reflection of sunset light from white and bright smoke trail?

No smoke trail. The object it self glows. The heat shield on a modern ICBM is capacitive, not ablative. It makes no sense to waste a tiny bit of extra energy.

 

[PeterRoss]

No smoke trail. The object it self glows. The heat shield on a modern ICBM is capacitive, not ablative. It makes no sense to waste a tiny bit of extra energy.

OK then, I'm wrong again :hello:

 

[cjp]

Was there no warning to civilian airlines about a missile test? AFAIK, Newfoundland has quite a busy airspace, with many aircraft between Europe and the US east coast passing over it.

BTW, France does have a small piece of territory near the Canadian coast.

 

[fresh squid]

Was there no warning to civilian airlines about a missile test? AFAIK, Newfoundland has quite a busy airspace, with many aircraft between Europe and the US east coast passing over it.

BTW, France does have a small piece of territory near the Canadian coast.

It think thats our best answer right now. I think they have launched missiles from there before.