# Woops!



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2010)

Woops! See here. Someone, evidently not a foreign power, launched missile off the California coast.

Any Canadian ships or aircraft in the area?


----------



## Haggis (9 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Any Canadian ships or aircraft in the area?



Hopefully not.  Missiles are expensive. That's coming out of someone's paycheque.


----------



## armyvern (9 Nov 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Hopefully not.  Missiles are expensive. That's coming out of someone's next few years worth of paycheques.



There; fixed that for you.    That's a big, expensive _woops_.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Nov 2010)

Filming Iron Man 3? (it is California, after all). 
A late, but extravagant, "Guy Fawkes Day" party?  

;D


----------



## HavokFour (9 Nov 2010)

Model rocket. ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Model rocket. ;D




That was my first reaction, but given the contrail, it must have been a big one?


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Nov 2010)

From the video  :rofl: from an underwater submarine  :brickwall:

Good one ;D


----------



## HavokFour (9 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That was my first reaction, but given the contrail, it must have been a big one?



Quite illegal if it was, considering how big the contrail was. The biggest I've ever made/seen was 7'0"x0'14", and travelled a good 5km before coming down.  :blotto:

EDIT: Considering the size of the projectile in question, don't we have some sort of technology to backtrack it to it's launch site?


----------



## dogger1936 (9 Nov 2010)

mmmmmm

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/757495--french-missiles-or-just-toy-rockets-mystery-deepens-in-newfoundland


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Quite illegal if it was, considering how big the contrail was. The biggest I've ever made/seen was 7'0"x0'14", and travelled a good 5km before coming down.  :blotto:
> 
> EDIT: Considering the size of the projectile in question, don't we have some sort of technology to backtrack it to it's launch site?




There are legal limits?

How big a rocket could a good engineer, a rich one, make, practically?


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> From the video  :rofl: from an underwater submarine  :brickwall:
> 
> Good one ;D



I got a kick out of that.
We launched a missle from a submarine to show Asia that we "have that capability"....


----------



## GAP (9 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are legal limits?
> 
> How big a rocket could a good engineer, a rich one, make, practically?



From the size of that exhaust plume....that's no modeller


----------



## HavokFour (9 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are legal limits?
> 
> How big a rocket could a good engineer, a rich one, make, practically?



Three things:

1. The fuel used. Smaller rockets use ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP), and Pyrodex for parachute ejection.  Model rockets should not contain any combination of motors that total more than 40,960 N-sec (9208 pound-seconds) of total impulse, this one clearly does.

It is considered a high power rocket when:

• Exceeds 62.5 grams of propellant.
• Uses a motor with more than 160 Newton-seconds of total impulse.
• Weighs more than 1,500 grams including motor(s)
• Includes any airframe parts of ductile metal

2. Launching high power rockets requires more preparation than launching model rockets. Not only is a larger field needed, but *FAA clearance must be arranged* well in advance of the launch date. There may also be local or state regulatory issues to be addressed before you can fly your first high power rocket. 

3. Depending on the state, high power rockets can be illegal at a certain point.


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Nov 2010)

Check this video on Trident Missile Launch From a Submarine
or
This one is even better........from the Californial coast Launch of a Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg AFB, CA


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Nov 2010)

The answer is obvious.  The Lizard People, who have been living undetected in Hollywood for decades, have sent a message home declaring the edible biomass on Earth sufficient to support the invasion. It's up to Tom Cruise and the Scientologists to save us now ...... Mission Impossible 2012.    ;D


----------



## kkwd (9 Nov 2010)

Looks like the bad guy finally put his  plan into effect.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2010)

Alas, the answer is quite mundane:

It is an aircraft contrail observed from a very specific angle. An explanation and photographs are here


----------



## Journeyman (10 Nov 2010)

Dammit _Thucydides_...and here I had a perfect, although bizarre, hypothesis.....


With recent background of increasing BEAR bomber flights towards North America, planting of their flag at the North Pole, and hostility towards NATO expansion into former Soviet states, Russian belligerence is increasingly visible within the international arena.

Obama is currently touring Asia; the intent of developing US popularity in that region being highlighted by a growing US rapprochement with China. A perceptibly miffed Russia (yes, "miffed" is an International Relations term   ) decides an SLBM launch would demonstrate that they're still a force to be reckoned with. A Typhoon silently approaches California and launches an old  SS-N-20 -- without warhead obviously -- away from the US, but within what the Russians accept as international waters. 

The world quakes, and takes Putin and Medvedev more seriously.


....and then you bring up "airline contrails." Next you'll be telling us there wasn't another shooter on the grassy knoll   :'(


----------



## GAP (10 Nov 2010)

There was only ONE shooter on the grassy knoll.....the other was behind a wall.....


----------



## JB 11 11 (10 Nov 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Alas, the answer is quite mundane:
> 
> It is an aircraft contrail observed from a very specific angle. An explanation and photographs are here



I've never seen aircraft move that fast when leaving a contrail. For that explanation to be true, I think whatever was making the contrail would have been moving a lot slower... the video quite clearly resembles a launch in terms of how fast its moving. Besides, correct me if I am wrong here (Im not a physic's expert) but, if observing as your link suggestes, and it was indeed an aircraft, would that not also make it appear to be moving much slower than if you viewed the same aircraft from underneath?
My :2c:


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2010)

A blogger thinks he has identified the actual flight which created the contrail. While not quite as eciting as Dr Evil launching his home made death ray, it is a good example of how science works. Images at link:

http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was-us-airways-flight-808



> *It was US Airways flight 808*
> 
> aviation california contrail missile pentagon Tue, 2010-11-09 17:49
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (10 Nov 2010)

Whoever came up with some of these theories is brilliant   



> I'm about 80% certain this is the right flight, though UPS902 is still a contender.
> For some additional explanation of this non-event, take a look at the Contrail Science blog.
> Other theories I've seen that explain this:
> Accidental missile launch
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Nov 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Alas, the answer is quite mundane:
> 
> It is an aircraft contrail observed from a very specific angle. An explanation and photographs are here



Similar explanation for the "mysterious missile launch"  that occurred off Newfoundland back in January.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Nov 2010)

Obviously, "they" are planting the cover story through bloggers now .....







 ;D


----------



## JB 11 11 (10 Nov 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A blogger thinks he has identified the actual flight which created the contrail. While not quite as eciting as Dr Evil launching his home made death ray, it is a good example of how science works. Images at link:
> 
> http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was-us-airways-flight-808



Ok. Makes sense.... except, I "assume" (I know dangerous!) that US Airways flight 808 flies that route all the time.... I mean the guy found it on a web cam the day after apparently. So...uh, why is it all of sudden a big deal.... ???


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Nov 2010)

Why does everybody want to come up with some complicated theory for such a simple case of a California billionaire testing his home ABM system he acquired under his right to self protection guaranteed by the second amendment ???


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2010)

I'm just waiting for this thread to spiral out of control  ;D

WRT why this became a big deal, the lighting was pretty spectacular and the image the news crew filmed and broadcast was quite compelling in a movie special effects kind of way. When you show someone that and suggest it might be a missile launch, people will tend to put a+b together due to the innate need of the human mind to pattern match. In Radio Chatter, there is a thread where someone suggests the odd behaviour of an actress in a Charlie Chaplin movie is due to her using a cell phone (in 1924?). Onc ethe suggestion is put into your mind, it is actually hard not to agree "yes, she really does look like she is using a cell phone".

Whoever that California billionaire is, he should complain. _My_ ABM doesn't make anywhere near that amount of signature.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Nov 2010)

Not at all! He got the "if you got it flaunt it" model.


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Nov 2010)

I have my doubts, especially with the initial overwhelming amount of smoke and vapour......however: :
             
Pentagon says vapor trail from an aircraft, not a missile
article link

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon said Wednesday it is satisfied an aircraft — and not a missile — was the source of a vapor trail off Los Angeles this week that sparked fears of a mystery missile launch.

It took the Pentagon nearly two days to reach that conclusion after examining video of the plume, FAA radar tracks, its own missile launch detection systems and canvassing the U.S. government.

"There is no evidence to suggest it was anything other than an airplane," said Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman.

The vapor trail was videotaped by a KCBS News helicopter as it arced into the sky off Los Angeles on Monday evening, giving the appearance of a projectile rapidly moving through the air.

Speculation that it may have been a missile launch intensified on Tuesday after the Pentagon said it was unable to explain the source of the vapor trail.

Among the new evidence cited Wednesday by the Pentagon to conclude that it was an aircraft — not a missile — vapor trail are FAA radar images of the area, which detected several aircraft but no rockets, Lapan said.

"The FAA, when they looked at the radar replay for that time period, they went out some distance from the coast, and identified that they had no fast moving unidentified objects in that area at that time.

"They did have commercial airliners in that area. None of those commercial airliners reported anything unusual," he said. "So all of those things point again to the fact that we believe this is an aircraft condensation trail."

Until now, the Pentagon had been reluctant to confirm what outside experts were saying: that what the video had recorded was a common optical illusion.

Experts said that the vapor trail, or contrail, of an aircraft approaching the observer often looks like it is rising vertically into sky because the end of the tail is hidden by the curvature of the Earth.

"It's a jet plane contrail, obviously," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org.

He said no sign of a fiery exhaust was evident in the video, and that its movement was too slow and made changes of direction that were uncharacteristic of a missile trajectory.

But he faulted the Pentagon's halting, unforthcoming public response to the sighting for magnifying perceptions that either it was inept or it was hiding something.

"That's the mystery — why I'm spending 750 billion dollars a year and that's the best I can get out of them?"

On Tuesday, the North American Aerospace Command, which is responsible for protecting the skies over the United States and Canada, issued a statement saying there was no evidence of a launch of a foreign military missile.
The command also gave assurances that there was no threat to U.S. homeland.

But the military's initial response left open other possibilities, like a U.S. military or civilian launch of some kind.

In Moscow, Major General Alexander Vladimirov, vice president of Russia's board of military experts, told the Interfax news agency the television image "looks like the launch of a missile from a submarine."

"Most likely we are talking about the launch of a Trident-2 ballistic missile from an Ohio submarine," Vladimirov was quoted as saying.

"There is reason to believe this was an unsanctioned launch of a missile from a submarine. If this is so, then many questions arise about the condition of the U.S. armed forces," he said.

Lapan denied that the Pentagon's fumbling response to the vapor trail sighting was because of an attempt to cover for a secret, or "black" operation.

"That was one of the questions we asked yesterday," he said.

"That didn't take any more time than anything else. The time was canvassing all these different agencies for whatever information they might have, making sure everybody was certain this was something they didn't know about."

              (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2010)

I was rooting for the really smart, rich young engineer who built a f'ing great bloody rocket that scared the B'jeezus out of everyone, but ...


----------



## Loachman (10 Nov 2010)

What _*really*_ happened (it _*must*_ have, because it's on the _*internet*_): "Chinese EMP Attack Prompts US Missile Strike After Cruise Ship Crippled" http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1421.htm


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Nov 2010)

On Youtube also:
Chinese Attack Carnival Splendor with EMP prompting Missile launch ?? What?


----------



## JB 11 11 (11 Nov 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> On Youtube also:
> Chinese Attack Carnival Splendor with EMP prompting Missile launch ?? What?



BWaahahhaha!  :rofl: THAT is my favorite one so far :nod:


----------



## 57Chevy (20 Nov 2010)

Latest updates:
UFO Siting Captured During California Missile Mystery Footage

also

Experts: Mystery contrail was from Chinese missile

Although the U.S. Defense Department and North American Aerospace Defense Command have speculated publicly that the unidentified contrail of a projectile soaring into the skies off the California coast – and recorded by a KCBS television crew – came from a jet and posed no security threat to the U.S., several experts are raising provocative and disturbing questions about the government's official response, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Two governmental military experts with extensive experience working with missiles and computer security systems have examined the television video and conclude the mysterious contrail originating some 30 miles off the coast near Los Angeles did not come from a jet – but rather, they say the exhaust and the billowing plume emanated from a single source nozzle of a missile, probably made in China. 

They further suggest the missile was fired from a submerged Chinese nuclear submarine off America's coast, and point out that the timing of the alleged Chinese missile shot coincided with an increasing confrontation between the U.S. and China, and was likely meant to send a message to Washington. 

Indeed, the Federal Aviation Administration documents that there were no aircraft flying in the area at that time, the night of Nov. 8. 

"The question that still must be answered is why NORAD's muted response was simply that North America was not threatened, and later our government approved the lame excuse that the picture recorded was simply an aircraft leaving a contrail," said retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Cash. 

A former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot and commander of an F-15 squadron and an F-16 wing, Cash was assigned to NORAD as an assistant director of operations at the Cheyenne Mountain complex near Colorado Springs, Colo., and is fully knowledgeable of NORAD procedures. 

"There is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately," he said. 

Even more ominously, cautioned Cash: "We must question the timing of this shot across our bow. The president was abroad being diplomatic, which means trying to placate China which is becoming overly concerned with our handling a totally out-of-control deficit in spending." 

Wayne Madsen, a former naval officer who has worked at the National Security Agency and the Naval Data Automation Command, said the inability to pick up what he described as a Chinese Jin-class submarine-launched ballistic missile isn't the first time U.S. Navy anti-submarine warfare sensors have failed. 

Madsen, who today is an investigative journalist, said the Pentagon is working "overtime with the media and on the Internet to cover up the latest debacle. However, even some reporters who cover the Pentagon full-time are beginning to question the Pentagon's version of events ... over the skies west of Los Angeles." 

Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki of Sentinel Intelligence Services, LLC, said the contrail incident off the Los Angeles coast is "fraught with peril" due to the defense systems and protocols in place that should have detected the alleged submarine. 

"The decision to officially announce that North America was not threatened," he said, "and all the excitement was due to an aircraft leaving a contrail is a decision that reaches beyond the four-star general level and goes directly to a decision made by the commander-in-chief." 

G2Bulletin calls to the Pentagon and NORAD for comment beyond previous official statements were not returned. 

                        (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Nov 2010)

Did it go through this  scenario I wonder....


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Nov 2010)

From the video, link posted by Technoviking: The new crew of that command silo at Minot, ND were based at Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls. MT. They drove over 500 miles to change crews!

Very interesting to see all the vehicle packets, helicopters, etc spread out along the highway when they were changing out a warhead. 

Got a picture of my young two daughters sitting in the two seats in a Minuteman Command Training capsule. 

Just off the highway going North to Lethbridge, and I mean just off, was J-8, a missile silo. Very interesting.

Malmstrom AFB was a huge base. In mid 1980's, home to a Missile Wing. Not a aircraft on the base except static display  including Voodoos and Starfighters which Canada were using front line!


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Dec 2010)

A slight shift in focus, but still a _"woops"_ from our neighbours.

I found this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, a bit humorous:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/citizenship-costs-canadian-top-california-stem-cell-post/article1825135/ 


> Citizenship costs Canadian top California stem cell post
> 
> CAROLYN ABRAHAM
> 
> ...




This is the wholly predictable and silly outcome of _Buy America_ or _Buy Canadian_ policies and legislation. It is the equally predictable outcome of the _culture wars_ that take American and Canadian legislators' focus away from the public good and force them to consider left/right, red/blue, liberal/conservative issues. It's nonsense, but that's the state into which North American politics has degenerated.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Dec 2010)

I think you are reading a little too much in this ERC.

We would do the same (the Montreal Neuro Institute lead by an American example mentioned is misleading: its a private university research  center (McGill)). The situation in California is for a State Agency. We would not accept anymore than they do a non-Canadian to head a Crown Corporation or  be a Deputy-Minister of the crown. Can you see the uproar it would cause if the government was to hire a German scientist to head the National Research Council or the Canadian Space Agency ... or Atomic Energy Canada?


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2010)

Von Braun comes to mind.....something about the forerunner to NASA.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Dec 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think you are reading a little too much in this ERC.
> 
> We would do the same (the Montreal Neuro Institute lead by an American example mentioned is misleading: its a private university research  center (McGill)). The situation in California is for a State Agency. We would not accept anymore than they do a non-Canadian to head a Crown Corporation or  be a Deputy-Minister of the crown. Can you see the uproar it would cause if the government was to hire a German scientist to head the National Research Council or the Canadian Space Agency ... or Atomic Energy Canada?




That's a fair point, OGBD; and, in fairness to me, I indicated that the problem is North American - it's just that this particular instance is American.


----------

