Mystery Missile Launched Near LA 858
J. L. Tympanum writes "CBS News is reporting the launch of an unidentified missile off the coast of California. No one wants to take credit for it." The article has visuals taken from a CBS affiliate's helicopter, and a Navy spokesman said it wasn't theirs.
Obvious Explanation (Score:5, Funny)
*ominous voice* Phase II has started ahead of schedule
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obvious Explanation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obvious Explanation (Score:5, Funny)
Feh, good luck on finding them. We only have like 2 million of them.
Re:Obvious Explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
Are we certain that this was a friendly missile, not e.g. a Chinese sub saying "look where we managed to drive this thing"?
Re:Obvious Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Are we certain that this was a friendly missile, not e.g. a Chinese sub saying "look where we managed to drive this thing"?
China may be bold, but sub launching a missile within a few miles of major US cities and military installations is a quick way to nuclear annihilation.
That sort of action would have had even Denzel rushing to turn the second key.
Chinese sub simply popping up in US coastal waters would likely involve it being attacked. (Submarine warfare does not follow the same rules that surface naval warfare follows. If you are on a sub, even in 'peacetime' you are always under threat of being attacked)
The level of provocation that a Chinese sub launching a missile so close to major population centers? They wouldn't try it. It would surprise me if North Korea would try something so bone-headed. No way in hell it was China.
Re:Obvious Explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
China has enough nukes to make the west coast of the usa a mess, killing hundreds of thousands or even several million. The USA has enough nukes to make China the world's largest parking lot, and can activate enough others on standby to make it a solid glass parking lot. They have a few hundred, we have tens of thousands, including some megaton varieties which they don't have. They have enough to prevent nuclear war. We have enough to exterminate the entire humans race. There is a big difference in scale here.
China is already at war with us, but it is an economic war. They wouldn't fuck this up by using their military except to defend themselves, or invade Taiwan. And yes, they are already planning the invasion of Taiwan.
Re:plane not miss (Score:5, Informative)
it was not a missile.
http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/#more-440
it was a plane.
Re:Obvious Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obvious Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Better video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GCgDKNEwyY [youtube.com]
Actual explanation of the event:
http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-los-angeles/missile-launch-over-southern-california-explained [examiner.com]
TL;DR: Was a jet airliner's contrail and the perfect upper-atmospheric moisture level + winds.
I'm sure what follows everything south of this post involves China, Iran, and Dr. Evil.....
YEEEEEHAAAAW (Score:5, Funny)
Slim Pickens was seen straddling the missle, waving his hat, and proclaiming "YEEEEEEHAWWWWW".
The War Room could not be reached for comment, as there was a fight going on at the time.
Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW (Score:5, Funny)
Slim Pickens rode a bomb not a missile.
Yes, but the missile made an awesome WOOOSH sound.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They don't like it when non-military personel (like Steve Buscemi) ride weapons though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, of course not. The last thing the US needs is a weapons riding gap.
Re:YEEEEEHAAAAW (Score:4, Insightful)
hey, wait a moment. Kansas City, MO or Kansas City, KS?
Hmmm .... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, the two likely scenarios would be: 1) The US test firing something, but nobody knows who or what just yet because it is being kept secret. 2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.
I consider 1) likely, and 2) just downright scary.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Funny)
'Test' firing and attempting to keep a secret immediately off the coast of LA don't jive
You're right. They boogie. The difference is subtle. Very acute observation.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Funny)
SLBM launches don't work like that.
It would make just as much sense for you to spill coffee on your keyboard and accidentally install Windows Vista.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Funny)
OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
And you... kept it on?
You, you... PERVERT!
Re:OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
Just trollin'. I'm not German, nor do I have any negative opinions about the Superior Race. Oops, Freudian slip!
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh, there are probably about 25 steps involved in launching an SLBM. Step one would be maintaining a shallow depth, which ballistic missile subs almost never do otherwise except for maybe a brief stop to get instructions. Somewhere in the series of steps probably includes opening the hatch as well.
I'm sure the launch was deliberate. Now, whether it was planned is a separate matter. Maybe some fault on a missile called for firing it to get rid of it, but that seems unlikely to me. Firing ICBMs is a VERY sensitive matter (if not coordinated with other major powers it certainly would trigger a serious alert and move towards nuclear readiness - not something ANYBODY wants to happen). So, I doubt somebody would write a submarine procedure manual that included firing ballistic missiles except under order. Besides, can you imagine the trouble involved in tracking down the warheads if the thing was armed (which you'd have to assume if it were a standard procedure).
This was almost certainly a test launch. Or, maybe it was smaller than it looked (I didn't see the video so I don't know if it really was an ICBM).
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Has anyone looked at the NOTAMS for that day?
If it was a government launch then a NOTAM must have been filed to clear the air space.
They would not risk an accident that would take out an airliner full of people.
I tried to look but found nothing listed.
As to a demonstration that the US can launch ballistic missiles from a sub... Well yea that has been proven for about the last 50 years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that you do not just pop off long range missile with out telling Russia and China that you are going to do it!
That could be bad...
BTW Subs do not launch intercontinental ballistic missiles "ICBMs". They launch Sub launched ballistic missiles "SLBMs"
At this point the fact that nobody is saying anything and it is getting so little press really scares the daylights out of me.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to know one thing.
Where did it land?
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Funny)
The end of the article says that some Ex Ambassador says that it MIGHT be a demonstration to China that US Subs can launch intercontinental missiles - since Obama is touring over there right now.
Indonesia, China. Same thing.
One BILLION dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody thought that it might be a demonstration to the US from an unnamed entity, trying to make the same point?
Is Dr. Evil on TV right now?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Way too positive. What's the point in demonstrating to China that you still have some missile if you also still have a large nuclear arsenal that is ready to be delivered any time? Its not like China is going to be impressed because of some additional sub-launched missile.
If anything, this is China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed... or a test / accidental firing by the US military.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Interesting)
You are correct about the value to an adversary about a demonstration launch from US waters.
But its a risky move to engage in this kind of stunt because the Russians might think it was a surprise attack of some kind.
Especially if they pick up the red phone (do they still have that?) and ask what the hell is going on and receive only unbelievable denials.
Russia and the US announce to each other ALL launches well in advance.
Countries having the capability of underwater launch include China, Russia, Britain, US, and maybe Iran and India using ex soviet era subs. Maybe a couple others.
The only one of these that could launch without fear of triggering a reprisal by Russia: Russia.
But given the apparent lack of any mad scramble by the Military, you can be fairly sure they knew in advance about this. If the US military was caught flat footed, Obama would already be on his way back, and heads would already be rolling.
There is also the distinct possibility its just more Security Theater to justify what ever is next.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:4, Informative)
"Obama would already be on his way back"
Uh...in other news, he is. [cnn.com]
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Countries having the capability of underwater launch include China, Russia, Britain, US, and maybe Iran and India using ex soviet era subs. Maybe a couple others.
France does. India is developing their own sub/missile which should be ready shortly (according to wikipedia). It wouldn't surprise me if Isreal has this capability as well. The one thing that struck me as somewhat odd when reading the wikipedia page on SLBMs was this: The five countries that are known to have SLBM capability are the five permanent members of the UN security council. India, the only other nation listed on that page, is indicated to be developing SLBMs. The other day, wasn't Obama advocating the inclusion of India as a permanent member of the security council? Something seems a little fishy to me.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Interesting)
India would not demo off our coasts.
The advocating inclusion of India in the security council was strictly for in-country (india) consumption. Don't expect any follow thru.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo!
There's no reason for us to demonstrate our well-known SLBM capabilities to our own country's most populated county. I think it's highly likely that this is one of our 'peer nations' showing-off that we're entirely 'within range'.
Trust me, they saw this at Beale, where they have a huge radar system designed to see incoming ICBMs. If this wasn't an exercise or a test launch (both of which would have likely happened a little more out of the way), you won't hear much more about it. Neither the military nor the media would tell Americans if China, Russia, or India was playing around right off our beaches, the reality that we could all easily become iridescent chalky dust at the drop of a hat distracts from the main objectives: Fighting bad guys with AK-47s to secure cheap energy, and buying stuff on credit.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Interesting)
35 miles out to sea is in international waters..... shy of declaring war the U.S. Navy isn't going to destroy anything with impunity, but you will see a few naval officers get demoted real fast for failing to detect that vessel if it wasn't associated with the Navy.
Launching a sub-based missile off the coast of California, if it was from another country, would be the equivalent between military powers as the "Ha,Ha" of Nelson Muntz.
While I would say that the probable reaction of the U.S. Navy would be to ignore the incident and leave it to the politicians to determine what to do next, if anything, there isn't any reason for a country to expect a neutral reaction out of the U.S. Navy, and firing such a missile that close to a major population center would certainly be considered an act of war.
There are several major military bases in the immediate area (especially at the port of Los Angeles /Long Beach, and at San Diego as well as Vandenberg AFB to the north and even a couple USMC bases in the area), so a lack of a response is due to political concerns and not military capability. It also makes it seem very likely that it was the U.S. military that was involved somehow with this launch. If it was a private launch of some kind, there would be a requirement to file paperwork with the FAA where the identity of the people doing the launch would be very well known. Considering the size of this vehicle, it isn't something you would make in your garage over a weekend and try to sneak a launch in saying "to heck with the gov'ment". Besides, the BATF and other federal agencies keep very close tabs on private launcher groups including commercial rocket builders and amateur rocketry groups too.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Insightful)
35 miles out to sea is in international waters..... shy of declaring war the U.S. Navy isn't going to destroy anything with impunity, but you will see a few naval officers get demoted real fast for failing to detect that vessel if it wasn't associated with the Navy.
Let's ignore that the US hasn't actually ratified the international treaties that sets those rules, meaning it doesn't really care what China or anyone else thinks it can do 35 miles from US coast.
You're forgetting that this was launched in the middle of the Channel Islands off the California coast, it's considered Archipelagic waters and therefore sovereign US territory.
Whole lot of sea-lawyering going on here (Score:5, Informative)
Former naval officer here. I think it's dubious that the water in the vicinity of the Channel Islands constitutes "archipelagic waters" for purposes of the law - I think the islands are too far apart - but you'd need a JAG to help you with that question. However, each of the Channel Islands, as part of the US, are entitled to its own 12 mile band of "territorial waters", which are also sovereign US territory, so if the launch took place within that zone, yeah, you're talking act of war there.
Also: while the US hasn't formally ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty (aka the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - UNCLOS), it has signed it and every administration since then (including Ronald Reagan) have treated it as "customary international law" and have considered us to be bound by it. I can promise you through many years of my own at-sea experience that the USN thinks the UNCLOS is the law.
Finally: you did hit upon something important in your first paragraph. The law notwithstanding, if someone else's submarine really did do this, sure, we'd sink it. The reason is not that it's legal but that we could get away with it - when a submarine sinks, it's really hard to prove what happened, and being as how this took place right off LA we could certainly prevent China (or whoever) from investigating.
Bottom line: no way this was a foreign sub. The whole Navy would be a general quarters so fast it would make your head spin. Mullen, Roughhead, and likely a host of other admirals would be fired. Obama would have flown home from overseas. Etc, etc. This was just the Navy doing the stuff they do, and not wanting to talk about it.
foreign subs free to sail near calif. coast (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so certain that maritime law would allow the US to respond with violence for firing a missile from outside US territorial waters and the trajectory of the weapon never crosses US water or soil. According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], foreign nuclear subs are even allowed passage within US territorial waters and are not "destroyed with impunity" on sight. In this case, however, the missile was launched from 35 nautical miles offshore, which would put it in international waters.
I suspect this was the act of a foreign entity demonstrating a newly-developed capability to the United States. If the submarine doesn't identify its country of origin, then the US would be allowed to destroy it with impunity in international waters.
I also suspect the US knows exactly who did this and knew prior to the incident and was able to discretely provide advance warning to the other superpowers. There are probably a mixture of reasons the US is playing dumb on the identity of the launcher.
Seth
Re:foreign subs free to sail near calif. coast (Score:5, Informative)
1) The US has not ratified UNCOLS, it does not care what is considered international waters.
2) Even if the US has ratified it, military would be allowed "innocent passage" subject to local regulations. Launching an unannounced missile is neither innocent nor regulated.
3) The Channel Islands are not international waters, they are archipelagic waters. The location of this thing was even pinpointed by a damn news station, it's right next to Santa Barabara Island. Well within US territory.
4) The trajectory of a weapon is irrelevant. Are you perfectly fine with someone sneaking up behind you and firing a gun in the opposite direction? The trajectory never crossed you, therefore a crazy man with a gun is not a threat? Bull
5) If this was an unannounced demonstration by another country, there is no international convention that would prevent the US from destroying or attempting to capture the ship.
6) If this was an announced demonstration then the ship would have been refused passage due to its non-innocent nature, meaning there is still no international convention keeping it from being destroyed.
7) The premise of this being a demonstration is that it was meant to demonstrate the ability to evade detection (we already know people can hit us with missiles, who would bother to demonstrate that?). That is antithetical to actually launching a missile, which immediately reveals your location. Also, if you REALLY wanted to demonstrate your sneakiness by launching a missile, why use a big expensive rocket? Send up something short-range, cheap, and shiny. The message is the same.
It's a US Missile (or at least US affiliated, either private or an allied country) and the agency which launched it has not been revealed yet, I don't see any other feasible option.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:4, Insightful)
The end of the article says that some Ex Ambassador says that it MIGHT be a demonstration to China that US Subs can launch intercontinental missiles - since Obama is touring over there right now.
That ability hasn't been a secret since the Nixon administration.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know where I read this, but it seems like there is at least an annual test of the launcher systems of all nuclear submarines, simply to make sure that the crew is sufficiently trained on the procedure and that the equipment is all working as intended. Usually this is accompanies by a "Notice to Mariners" and semi-publicized in terms of warning commercial shipping groups to stay out of the area, as having a ballistic missile bump into the keel of your ship is something most ship's captains would want to avoid if possible. The exact location may be kept secret or given a slightly false location to keep anti-war idiots from trying to be heroic by committing suicide, but a general region of the ocean would be marked as a place to "stay away from" in terms of testing.
Often these notices will be released at the last minute and there certainly won't be much in the way of details, but if this is an official test by the U.S. military there usually is at least some claim to the fact that it happened. The question is ore why that wasn't the case here, or perhaps it was an "oops" where some sailor screwed up and punched the wrong button. If that was the case, expect a cover-up on this because those kind of secrets never get released to the public.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:4, Funny)
it MIGHT be a demonstration to China that US Subs can launch intercontinental missiles
Considering that the US first launched an ICBM from a sub in 1960 [wikipedia.org], this demonstration seems a bit late by now.
What next, will the US demonstrate that cars can be made with tail fins? [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The possibility of an SSBN sneaking up on the American coast was never discounted. This type of attack has always been deterred by US second strike capability.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Informative)
USS Hartford May 2000 - February 2006
You don't understand how big the Pacific ocean is.
The only way that you stop an SSBN is to maintain a large fast attack fleet and track each and every one of them as they leave port and follow them until the return.
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes
Bumpy
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Did someone say Missile? (Score:5, Funny)
No one wants to take credit for it? Okay.
I'll take credit for it. If found please return it. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Did someone say Missile? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm glad you're willing to take that heat.
Of course, I'm Canadian! I'll take any heat I can get!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
QE3 (Score:3, Funny)
It's not a mystery, people are just dumb (Score:4, Informative)
NOTAM for LA. KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 - THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE - FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010
Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was Nov 9 GMT.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would you have a problem with that explanation?
ALL NOTAMS are in GMT time. You expect them to change this world wide rule just for you?
Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb (Score:5, Informative)
You're missing the point. No one is contesting that NOTAMs are timestamped in ZULU. No one is arguing it's a bad idea. No one disputes this at all.
The actual argument is that the NOTAM you cite isn't applicable, because this launch occurred at "at around 5 p.m. Pacific time" [go.com]... or about 01Z 9 October. Yes, the date is right. But that NOTAM wasn't effective yet, and wouldn't be for another 19 hours after the fact.
Seriously. When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.
Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb (Score:4, Funny)
Wrong date. November 9 is today, not last night.
Hah. You think last night was interesting.
Just you wait...
Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb (Score:4, Informative)
Being in the UK, who are currently on GMT, I can tell you that it's not yet 20:00 on 9th Nov. Not for another 2 hours.
If these times are local times then it's even worse.
Either there's been a mega screw up and the missile was launched early (or the announcement was late) or this is for something else.
Tim.
Re:It's not a mystery, people are just dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember - the Internet is killing investigative journalism.
Sounds like... (Score:3, Funny)
Mythbusters (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Funny)
If it was Mythbusters, it was not a rocket, but another water heater.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When those two are involved, 'rocket' and 'water heater' are interchangable.
Engage! (Score:3, Funny)
Just because, you know, we outsourced all our missile manufacturing to China and we just weren't that sure it would work.
Not my secret base (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not my secret base (Score:5, Funny)
I'm onto you, hiding secret messages in your post. Look at the Capital Letters, seems too odd . Rearranging the letters I get this:
I KNOW THIS NOTION GUYS DIAL TIP
Tip, which is of course is 847 on the phone, which is of course the area code for Illinois!
LOOK OUT! THERE'S A MISSILE HEADING FOR ILLINOIS!
It's just a jet contrail (Score:5, Interesting)
An expert named Brian on the seesat-l list [satobs.org] says:
Re:It's just a jet contrail (Score:4, Interesting)
Brian is wrong. Maybe he didn't view the video but it's very clear cut that it is NOT an airliner.
Re:It's just a jet contrail (Score:5, Informative)
This brian has not seen the video, as it becomes immediately apparent that the perspective places the object going away from the viewers, and not travelling towards
I looked at the video. All we can tell from it is that the object is moving to upper right. It could be moving towards or away from our viewpoint, we don't have the perspective to tell. Originally, I too thought it was a rocket contrail, but it is consistent with jet contrails and there's satellite evidence [slashdot.org] that this could be a jet contrail.
Re:It's just a jet contrail (Score:5, Informative)
I'd be modding you up if I hadn't already posted above.
People like ThePhish and DrugCheese are so certain that they can trust their eyes. But they're wrong. Our visual cortex is wired to parse perspective for things on a much smaller scale. Things on the scale of this object confuse the eye, and the mind. You can't trust your eyes in this situation.
For instance, these lines are all parallel lines [nasa.gov], but they certainly don't look like it, and if you saw them in person you'd swear they were all originating from a point on the horizon... as if God were standing over there in all his glory. But they aren't [wikipedia.org].
I'm sorely disappointed that so many smart people on /. are failing to question the assumption that the object is a missile.
Re:It's just a jet contrail (Score:4, Interesting)
Just from looking at the picture [cbsnews.com] I know that's not right.
Parallax on the contrail tells me the object is receding.
So it started in the lower-left corner of the picture.
Which means the helicopter taking the picture was above the contrail.
I'd be willing to bet that no helicopter has ever viewed a contrail of significant length from above.
Re:It's just a jet contrail (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct, I meant perspective.
I ain't buying it about the wider=older thing, though.
It takes some pretty special circumstances to make a contrail spread anisotropically. Once the hot vapor from the engines has expanded, condensed, and been contained by the vortices from the wings, it's a pretty stable situation with little spread unless something else gets involved.
really cool pick at an iffy link here:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rkPt7JME0-8/SbZndqgc2bI/AAAAAAAAAWI/8UVhtw4fwOU/s320/boeing+747+jumbo+contrail.jpg [blogspot.com]
I want that in a glossy 8x10 for my office.
To get the sort of triangular spread you're thinking of you'd need to have the contrail in a wind-shear, and wind-shear means turbulent flight, and a pilot wouldn't hang out in that for that long, so it should happens to the tails of a contrail, not to the whole contrail starting from the head, as we're looking at in the article's picture.
sheared contrail:
http://www.mdbsite.com/skies/contrails/info-3.jpg [mdbsite.com]
So I'm sticking with perspective, not diffusion.
Re:It's just a jet contrail (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I found it:
http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/goeswest-lzw/california/vis/ [nasa.gov]
Start at
1011081945G11I01.tif 08-Nov-2010 15:03 506K
and watch the contrail go south across the coast through
1011082200G11I01.tif 08-Nov-2010 17:23 484K
Re:It's just a jet contrail (Score:5, Interesting)
I made a really primitive animated gif out of those shots:
http://www.sinecreations.com/GOES.gif [sinecreations.com]
Re:It's just a jet contrail (Score:5, Informative)
Seconded. As an engineer for various companies that do such things, I've witnessed launches from San Nicholas, from Vandenberg, Kwaj, Alaska and Hawaii. There are several things visually wrong with the snippets of video I've been able to find online:
1: The contrail is too "solid" looking. It lacks the crazy dispersion that a rising plume sees almost immediately as the launch vehicle passes thru different layers of the atmosphere. Winds move at different speeds and at different directions in the different layers, immediately shearing a rocket plume. Contrails, however, generally stay in the same layer, and remain continuous for much longer. Sometimes very long.
2: The lighting is too uniform. An ascending plume from a launch just after sunset shows a "rainbow" of colors from sunlight refracted through the atmosphere and from grazing incidence reflection from the ocean. This plume shows none of that.
3: Its moving far, far too slowly. Even a suborbital missile that will travel only 600 or so miles moves faster on ascent. They move startlingly fast across the sky.
These clues tell me that it was an aircraft moving horizontally, not a missile moving vertically. The perspectives involved with very long objects in the sky can be very deceiving. You can't trust your eyes.
No one is questioning the appellation "missile" -- the first question asked should be, "What was it?" -- not "Whose missile was it?"
I wager that within hours, NOAA or someone will release a satellite picture showing the plume as a lateral contrail originating from the West.
Re:It's just a jet contrail (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a covert missile launch is so much more interesting (and newsworthy), perhaps?
Seems clear... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems clearly likely that the US military knows exactly what it is and doesn't want to talk about it. (Maybe it's high up enough that even the local commanders don't have a full picture) :P
Considering how this country often goes apeshit over fake or small threats, hell hath no fury like the US facing an actual incident.
Another possilibity... (Score:3, Interesting)
The State Department getting a diplomatic communication from China or Russia that just says, "Don't fuck with us."
NOT the first mystery missile (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a mystery. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Life imitates art (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that stealth aircraft were tested for years before the technology was publicly acknowledged
Re:Life imitates art (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not different at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkT3I6RDPkw&feature=related [youtube.com]
Re:Life imitates art (Score:5, Insightful)
Signed,
Your Overlords
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trident II's are 44 feet tall, which is a good ballpark for this object, but their 'trail looks completely different (~1:20 in the vid). [youtube.com]
New type?
Re:Solid fuel, for sure... (Score:4, Interesting)
Since all you need is a sealed tube with the missile inside it, a sub could deposit such a device on the sea floor. The sub needn't be the actual launch platform. If the US has mastered the ability to do that, it would certainly shake things up some. Tracking subs (a major effort by most nations) suddenly gets a whole lot less effective if it doesn't have to be where the missile it launches is. Which would require the ability to communicate over a significant range underwater, which would itself shake things up.
Another consideration is that this might be a warning to Britain, rather than potentially hostile nations. Remember, Britain isn't upgrading its Trident missile system - something the US is very angry over. (The DoD was depending on that money to fund its fleet of luxury cruises.) Advertising new launch systems and/or new missiles at this precise moment may be intended to shake things up in the UK and persuade the British Government to find more money.
Re:It was mine (Score:5, Funny)
>Laster beam
Well, I've got a firster beam, but it keeps getting modded down.
--
BMO
Zulu time (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FAA NOTAM (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Could that explain this? (Score:5, Funny)
Cruise ship flare sizes are getting out of hand...
Re:Drug Cartels (Score:5, Funny)
Cheech and Chong in SPAAAAAAACE!, man. Hal's not here.
Re:Drug Cartels (Score:4, Funny)
Are you nuts, that's too expensive for the test flight. It's just a family of six for the first go-round.
Re:It was told to pilots ahead of time. (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't do your homework.
The time is wrong, and the location is wrong.
The FAA has already denied publishing any notifications about this launch.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/09/exp.nr.mystery.launch.cnn?hpt=C2 [cnn.com]
PLEASE STOP POSTING THAT NOTAM. WRONG TIME. WRONG PLACE.