Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russia Confirms Failed Missile Launch Caused Norway's Light Show

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the disney-world-does-it-every-night dept.

Space 236

Ch_Omega writes "According to this article over at BarentsObserver, the giant spiral seen on the sky over Norway Wednesday morning local time has been confirmed to be the result of a failed Russian missile launch. Russia now confirms that '...the missile was launched from submerged position in the White Sea by the nuclear submarine Dmitri Donskoy. Studies of the telemetric data from the launch show that the two first stages of the missile functioned as they should, and that a technical malfunctioning occurred during the third stage.' There is also an article on this at The Daily Mail."

cancel ×

236 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well paint me surprised: (5, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398388)

And all this time I seriously thought that it was some unimaginably interesting plot all about a russian missile program, underwater subs and secrecy beyond everyone's wildest imagination. Wait... what?

Re:Well paint me surprised: (5, Funny)

DJCacophony (832334) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398408)

Underwater subs?
My god, it's worse than I thought.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (4, Funny)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398424)

More interestingly, why were they shooting this off next to Norway? Maybe they were hoping it was so cold outside all the Norwegians would be inside and wouldn't notice...

What exactly was Russia shooting at?

Re:Well paint me surprised: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398442)

Come to think of it, what exactly was it? Merely a routine missile launch (?!??!), a test rocket, or.........something else.

I'm going to have to vote 'something else'. It all seems too convenient now.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398502)

As the previous thread almost managed to show, perhaps at confusion stemming from "the second coming...of Odin"?

Russia probably doesn't like pope very much, after all...

Re:Well paint me surprised: (4, Funny)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398514)

santa. they know if christmas dies, the american economy will succumb to the same fate very quickly.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (5, Insightful)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398816)

Russia doesn't need to do anything to bring down the American economy. America did a fairly decent job of that itself not too long ago.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (2, Insightful)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398940)

They hate us for our big-box retailers.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398756)

Russia was shooting at Kura polygon on Kamchatka. Of course, one would want to shoot from north-west: the rocket flies the longest distance possible, nearly exclusively over Russian territory (this time it seems to be launched from neutral waters), and mainly over polar seas and eternally frozen lands. Given that the Bulava rocket was never built correctly (not for sea launches, at least), not flying it above heavily populated areas seems like a good idea...

Re:Well paint me surprised: (1, Funny)

plague911 (1292006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398498)

It may be a funny statement but as far as I know being able to launch a missile while the sub is submerged would be a huge leap forward in the nuclear arms race. Currently subs must surface in order to launch their missiles during this period they are highly exposed and subject to attack if they could do this while remaining submerged it would drastically reduce the amount of risk incurred.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (5, Informative)

vivian (156520) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398550)

as far as I know being able to launch a missile while the sub is submerged would be a huge leap forward in the nuclear arms race.

This video [youtube.com] seems to show underwater missile launches have been done for quite a while now...

Re:Well paint me surprised: (1)

Failed Physicist (1411173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398626)

Yep, but I don't think the russians had any.
Or else, they somehow feel the need to remind the U.S. that they still got them?

Re:Well paint me surprised: (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398648)

Or a reminder to Norway. I can't imagine why, though. :)

Re:Well paint me surprised: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398866)

Well it is their new SLBM so test launching one from a submarine isn't surprising.

We know that they have them, and they know that we know that they have them, and we know that they know that we know that they have them, and they know that we know that they know that we know that they have them. So there's really no need for them to remind the U.S. that they have them.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398666)

Here is an underwater aircraft carrier launching a jet, the F-15. This is still classified, so when youtube asks if you have security clearance "TOP SECRET" you must click yes to se. If you click no, you will be returnd to front page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clIUY0U0xAU

Re:Well paint me surprised: (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399060)

Awww...and I was hoping it was a rickroll.

Underwater aircraft launch of F-15 (4, Funny)

viking80 (697716) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398700)

Thye can even launch aircrafts from underwater aircraft carriers. When youtube asks you to confirm that you have a TOP SECRET security rating, you must answer yes to see video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clIUY0U0xAU [youtube.com]

Re:Underwater aircraft launch of F-15 (1)

tuxicle (996538) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398850)

Heh, what I'd like to see is that F-15 landing on (in?) the sub.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (4, Interesting)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398970)

Typhoon class submarines (the Dmitri Donskoi belongs to this class) are not supposed to fire missiles from underwater. They are supposed to break the ice pack to launch their payload. So, this is either a very interesting evolution, or bad reporting.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (2, Interesting)

Loupitour (1559257) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399068)

as far as I know being able to launch a missile while the sub is submerged would be a huge leap forward in the nuclear arms race.

This video [youtube.com] seems to show underwater missile launches have been done for quite a while now...

In France, all ICBMs are actually SLBM (Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile) since all the land-based missile launchers have been dismantled in the late 90s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Force_(France) [wikipedia.org] I don't remember a test ending in a huge spinning spiral though. If this is a secret program, I guess they're doing it wrong...

Re:Well paint me surprised: (2, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399182)

as far as I know being able to launch a missile while the sub is submerged would be a huge leap forward in the nuclear arms race.

It was, when the US and USSR both achieved it in 1960. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Well paint me surprised: (1)

Capmaster (843277) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398552)

Actually, American Ohio class SSBNs can fire Trident II missiles while submerged. If I recall correctly, the missile is pressurized with nitrogen, preventing damage to the innards from sea water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile

Re:Well paint me surprised: (4, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398574)

Have you been living in a cave the past 50 years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-27_Polaris [wikipedia.org]

Re:Well paint me surprised: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399162)

Well, duh. Fifty years ago the government told everybody to dig a cave in their backyard to get away from that stuff.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399320)

No, he's just an American

Re:Well paint me surprised: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398946)

Subs haven't had to surface to launch ballistic missiles for years and years, since the sixties.

When the Polaris missile was developed in the late 50's, it was chosen specifically for its ability to be launched from a submerged delivery platform with the first one being launched from the USS George Washington (SSBN-598) in July 1960.

What makes a sub vulnerable during launch is a couple of things. They have to come shallow to a launch depth of around 50 meters, they need to come to a full stop and basically hover in the water to create a stable launch platform, and once they launch a missile everyone knows exactly where they are, and exactly where they are going to be, at least for the next few seconds to minutes.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398982)

You're modded funny and maybe you're trying to be even though I think you're just clueless. Subs have been able to launch missiles while submerged for decades already. Or maybe you're confusing the need to surface with what some Russian subs really can do and which does require surfacing. That is, to penetrate a 30+ ft thick layer of ice in a matter of seconds and then launch missiles (I can only imagine how rough the ride must be when the sub hits the ice). I don't know if there are western subs with the same capability but I'd guess there are since it's such a strategic advantage. I think it's pretty obvious that subs underneath a thick layer of ice are probably the hardest to locate of all nuke launching units unless there are some about which there's absolutely no publicly available information. The Russians made their sub capabilities relatively well known to reinforce the deterrent effect of their nukes and, arguably, their subs were the only weapon that was better than our equivalent.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398600)

Thank got they havn't sorted out overwater subs yet.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398754)

That would be the Jesus Sub.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (3, Funny)

zkp (1634437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398566)

They gave their software engineers vodka while they were working on the code for the missile. Apparently they significantly overshot the Ballmer peak.

Re:Well paint me surprised: (2, Interesting)

tbischel (862773) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398838)

What I want to know is can we hire them for the 4th of july?

Back in the day... (5, Interesting)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398396)

There was once a time that Russia would have just kept schtum. How many UFO reports are due to similar failed firings prior to the end of the Cold War?

Re:Back in the day... (1)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398434)

There was once a time that Russia would have just kept schtum. How many UFO reports are due to similar failed firings prior to the end of the Cold War?

Hopefully none because people had worked out what this was as soon as it happened.

Everyone without a tinfoil hat knew it was a failed rocket of some kind.

Re:Back in the day... (5, Funny)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398460)

Everyone without a tinfoil hat knew it was a failed rocket of some kind.

Thats because the tinfoil hats block that kind of mind control.

Re:Back in the day... (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398524)

Hah! That's what THEY want you to think!

Re:Back in the day... (1)

don depresor (1152631) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398476)

Every tinfoil hat wearer knows that's because without your tinfoil hat, you're vulnerable to the mind control rays that make you think that way!!

Re:Back in the day... (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398472)

In Soviet Russia, UFO reports you!

Testing missiles? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398404)

So where was the missile supposed to go?
Just a test run and then crash into the sea?

Re:Testing missiles? (3, Informative)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398432)

Sometimes, that really is what happens. Put a buoy out there, with a camera to record the missile reaching its target, or not. The delivery system and the detonation system are not necessarily joined-at-the-hip.

Re:Testing missiles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398488)

Most likely into Okhotsk Sea near Kamchatka like in previous tests.

Re:Testing missiles? (5, Funny)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398516)

It was supposed to detonate over the polar cap and melt it to shut up the global warming deniers.

Re:Testing missiles? (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398744)

So where was the missile supposed to go?
Just a test run and then crash into the sea?

Yes. At this point, they would be quite happy if it would at least do that properly. So far, there were 13 (known) tests, and 6 of them failed. Most importantly, the 2 tests preceding this one were failures. This for a weapon that was supposed to be in service 3 years ago originally, and at the beginning of this year was claimed to be fully operational by the end of it.

Since this is supposed to be the next-gen uber missile to replace the venerable Topol-M, is supposed to be able to penetrate "any defense" (it's MIRV with EM shielding, and ability to maneuver and fire decoys in flight if it's shot at), and since it's the first weapon of that kind developed entirely in modern post-Soviet Russia (not a design developed in USSR, and not a project inherited from USSR), its success was supposed to prove that Russia is "up off its knees", and ready to take on the big boys if needed, as in the good old times... And since it's been such an abject failure so far, needless to say that it serves as a good target for related jokes these days.

Launch history of the Bulava (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399224)

The launch history of the Bulava is discussed here. [russianspaceweb.com] It's worked a few times, but they've been having failures in minor components like explosive bolts. That indicates quality control problems in the supply chain, not design problems.

It's hard to restart an entire high-tech supply chain when there hasn't been any demand for years. The US lost the ability to build nuclear weapons for over a decade.

Placement (1)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398410)

This seems odd to me that Russia has so much open coastline to test something like this, yet they choose to do it at the very edge by another country. Is there a logistical reason for this?

Re:Placement (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398452)

Because White Sea is free of ice year round. For that reason most major submarine bases and shipyards are located on its coast. Most of Russia's coastline is devoid of infrastructure needed to support naval operations or whatever they still have left.

Re:Placement (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398484)

It was happening at quite high altitude, visible from vast distance, so it wasn't really at the doorstep of Norway, probably.

Plus Russia doesn't have exactly that much of a coastline as the first glance at many typical maps would suggest - the northern regions are quite close to the north pole, so they end up heavily "distorted" in certain map projections.

Re:Placement (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398538)

Worse, Russia doesn't really have a lot of ice-free coastline, especially during the winter. And the few they do have can easily be blocked from the open sea by NATO countries.

It was one of the big issues during the cold wars, afaik even one of the core reasons for the Vietnam war.

Re:Placement (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398560)

even one of the core reasons for the Vietnam war.

Okay now I am curious, I thought Vietnam was mainly a China vs US gig? How would chinese control of Vietnam help the USSR access north polar waters?

Re:Placement (2, Insightful)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398672)

I thought Vietnam was mainly a China vs US gig?

Can't help with the reason for why it's relevant to USSR's coastal access, but in 196x China wasn't exactly in a position to sponsor a proxy war, having just taken a bit of a misguided jump [wikipedia.org] . The proxy war was still between the USA and USSR.

Re:Placement (4, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398688)

North Vietnam was backed primarily by the Soviets, not the Chinese. In fact, shortly after the end of the Vietnam War, China and Vietnam got into a shooting match over the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia.

The Soviets needed more warm-water ports, and Vietnam was willing to provide this. This also put a significant portion of the world's shipping lanes within striking distance of Soviet forces. The domino theory may have been an overblown fear, but a significant base of operations in that part of the world is all that the USSR needed to make a serious nuisance in case things heated up.

Re:Placement (2, Informative)

styrotech (136124) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398692)

You're not thinking of Korea maybe? North Korea and China were close buddies. North Vietnam was better friends with the Soviets, and never really got on well with China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War [wikipedia.org]

The tensions between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge that led to Vietnam invading Cambodia was a chance for the Soviets and the Chinese to have a little war of their own.

Re:Placement (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398732)

Russia's coastline isn't that open when you look at it.

1. North - Covered with ice during most of the year, including now, so testing here is not an option.
2. East - Would take forever to get there from the sub bases on the west coast (You'd either have to go north and stay under the ice for weeks, or go south down the Atlantic, around Africa, and through the Indian ocean), so also not an option.
3. West - This is the coast of the Baltic sea (And it shares coasts with Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and maybe Norway (I forget where the Baltic ends and the Atlantic beings)), from which you can get to the Atlantic, which puts you right at the south-western coast of Norway, and just a bit northeast of the UK.

Forth Post! (0, Redundant)

Adam7288 (1630001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398412)

Forth Post!

Re:Forth Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398418)

U wish.

Re:Forth Post! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398622)

: X DUP 1+ . . ;

No Fool (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398446)

At first Russia denied it, and then I knew it was true. But now that they've confirmed it, maybe there's more going on here than meets the eye...

Re:No Fool (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398500)

Hot on the heels of the suspicious satellite crash. [nytimes.com] The Baklava, er, Bulava missile is designed to "penetrate missile-defense systems". They're probably ramping up the program in response to the Americans' plans to put missile defense batteries in Central Europe.

Re:No Fool (1)

crymeph0 (682581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398562)

They're probably ramping up the program in response to the Americans' plans to put missile defense batteries in Central Europe.

You're right, we should cancel that plan. Oh wait. [nytimes.com]

Re:No Fool (5, Insightful)

Stuart Gibson (544632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399280)

But this story is in the Daily Mail. Since I don't believe anything they say maybe Russia *hasn't* denied it?

Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? (3, Interesting)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398448)

So happy not to be living in the cold war. Today, I like to think it's harder for fictional missiles to start WW3. Fewer false positives. Of course, here the missile was actually launched...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov [wikipedia.org]

Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398596)

OTOH, it is a bit comforting, in a way, that if the nuclear exchange were to happen, it would actually look quite...nice ;)

(after all even if only few percent of the rockets would malfunction in similar fashion, there would lots of such sights, without hundreds of rockets flying)

Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398632)

I'm sure nuclear armed nations are made aware of missile tests like these well in advance, either by surveillance or being informed directly

Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? (2, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398694)

For ballistic missile launches, other nations are notified well in advance. In this case, Britain, France, and the US were certainly notified, and others may have been provided some level of notice as well.

Re:Nuclear Armageddon or Computer Glich? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399066)

[citation needed]
 
Seriously though, I'm really curious where you heard something like that. I'd like to read up on these sorts of procedures.

Martian invasion has begun; propoganda for masses (1)

fregare (923563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398470)

This stuff about Russian missiles is propaganda for the masses i.e people who drive SUVs and watch reality shows and are no taking their Prosac against their drs advice. Pretty soon the Martians will have taken over enough human bodies so they will effectively control the world. Besides starting wars and voting money for pork, our gobernment leaders don't really do that much. "Power to the Martians!!!" I welcome our Martian overlords. Their women are hot.

Conspiracy theory! (1)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398512)

The failed missile launch is just a cover story. I mean, if we're going to believe extraterrestrials are behind it, why should we let silly things like facts spoil the fun?

But at least it's a more entertaining story than "It was a weather balloon."

Re:Conspiracy theory! (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398568)

Not really. It could be both. A failed launch of missile by aliens in a Russian sub.

Re:Conspiracy theory! (1)

Dewin (989206) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399062)

Illegal or extraterrestrial aliens?

Don't wary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398528)

Norway: Russia, it looks like there is a UFO above our sky. We are very concerned.
Russia: Oh, no. You do not have any reason to wary. It is not a UFO. It just one of our nuclear bomb loaded missile flew away,

This was no test! (1)

upto0013 (1144677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398534)

Cthulhu is coming!

bloody nonsense. (5, Funny)

Cr0vv (1223332) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398536)

That was no danged failed launch of a missile. Has anyone seen the images? This reply by the Russians is a coverup. This event was far, far bigger in scope and influence. This event was viewed by people, there was no mention of a rocket or a missile, besides how could a device like a missile scribe a path in the sky like that, and then break off with a blue spiral? Ugh. These people must think we are so stupid. This is a spiritual event, not a rocket event. blackcrow.

Yeah, but this is Slashdot (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398758)

There is indeed a great deal going on which we cannot see, but this event didn't fit the patterns of any previous UFO/energetic phenomenon I've seen or read about. It did, however, fit the pattern of a rocket launch gone wrong. Watch the videos on the original news site again. I think the spectacular photographs were not accurately reporting the event as it would have been eye-witnessed. They looked like long exposures to me, and probably were in order to get that level of light. A spinning firework would create much the same effect with the correct camera settings.

Anyway, if you want to consider the subconscious meta-game going on here, remember, this is Slashdot. Such an obvious UFO story like this simply doesn't get exposure here unless the outcome is already instinctively recognized in advance to be mundane. That's how it works. People like you go off half-cocked and look/sound nuts, thus further reinforcing fear in the Muggles of exploring the unknown.

Just another, "Fake Moon Landing", I'm afraid.

-FL

Re:bloody nonsense. (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398772)

You are kidding, right?

Related to CERN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398540)

Because this happen just after CERN announced the reactivation of a massive energy "accelerator", which I think can be used as particle beam weapon. Russia needs to counter the threat of old Europe, so they try to launch this missile as a counter-protest.

Re:Related to CERN? (1)

travisb828 (1002754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399236)

No this was really a wormhole opened by the AI at the LHC that became self aware milliseconds before the the planet was destroyed by the same black hole that made the LHC's computer systems become self aware.

Bad fuel mix (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398554)

Given the out of control spiral pattern maybe Vodka wasn't the best choice for rocket fuel even if it was greener.

Re:Bad fuel mix (1)

SanguineV (1197225) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398602)

I believe the spiral pattern is a result of vodka fueled rocket scientists.

If they can repeat the behavior on a smaller scale (3, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398570)

This is a really cool new kind of fireworks. I've never seen one do this before.

Re:If they can repeat the behavior on a smaller sc (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398606)

Looks familiar [youtube.com] .

At least it wasnt a nuke plant going up... (5, Insightful)

thaddeusthudpucker (1082657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398580)

...Like in 1986 when it took radiation alarms going off in fucking SWEDEN before they admitted that they had literally nuked a city or two...

Re:At least it wasnt a nuke plant going up... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399094)

A lot because the winds were unfortunate, and we had a rainy day that moment.

Still bad, but needed nuance in your post.

In Soviet Russia.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398636)

signs of super advanced civilization usually turn out to be a mirage.

ep#!?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398704)

around return it Baby take my you aal is to let

A missile that hypnotizes you (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398706)

Maybe they want to create a weapon that hypnotizes you. And once you are hypnotized they recruit you hahaha

Re:A missile that hypnotizes you (1)

Sumbius (1500703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398926)

...Or nuke you. Just think about it. The entire nation frozen staring and pointing at the sky (swirly thing alert), while the Russians do what they want.

Re:A missile that hypnotizes you (2, Interesting)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399132)

Is swirly thing above or below orange?

Russia? I doubt it. (1)

Bottoms (1548585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398708)

Russia? I doubt it. I bet Elon Musk was just trying to launch another bottle rocket again. Keep pumping air Elon! You'll eventually get enough pressure into that coke bottle!

CGI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398714)

Request the Russians screw up more missile launches cause those pictures are stonking amazing.

Re:CGI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398840)

And we will - because the entire Bulava project was a bad idea from the beginning, and it doesn't seem close to be axed - unfortunately..

Total Freak Out (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398738)

Imagine though how freaked out one would be walking outside and suddenly seeing a giant spinning spiral with a sci-fi-ish blue trail passing through the middle. Based on the youtube vids I saw, one could actually perceive the spinning motion.

And double freaked out if walking out of a movie theater after seeing a scary movie. That's just one goddam weird pattern.

 

Aliens from outer space (3, Funny)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398790)

"Missile launch" is just a coverup.

Norway's version of "It was just a weather balloon".

ITS OKAY, FOLKS (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398810)

Russia's just launching missiles from nuclear subs, that's all.

Re:ITS OKAY, FOLKS (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399146)

Yup, only evil countries do that. But hey, I knew my country (UK) was evil already :)

I'm shocked! (0)

cyberzephyr (705742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398870)

Anyone could have seen it was a rocket or missile spiralling out of control. I knew it the minute i saw the first picture. It was a very nice pic of an out of control missile. Rockets typically blow up in flight if they are really flawed hopefully.

I rather have peace anyway. Rather a missile blow up in production than a successful one work.

Anti-ICBM Laser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398914)

Being that its public knowledge that Russia and the US have active missile defense programs, when I saw the videos, the only explanation I could come up with is its an argon (blue-green) laser.

A few extra insights: I came up with this idea because at that altitude, the spiral is spinning very fast -- the outlying arms must be going a few mach, which is too fast to be an atmospheric anomaly. I was guessing the blue/green cone and the spiral were an effect caused by a spread pattern of this supposed laser. That makes sense because a spread pattern would be needed to combat MRVs, or Multiple Reentry Vehicles -- basically "cluster-nukes" -- which is what all modern ICBMs are. -- This laser would scan an area of the sky to destroy all of the separate reentry vehicles from an ICBM.

I think this is a much more plausible explanation, mainly because of the speed of that rotation. It would also make sense that Russia would be hush hush about missile defense, because defense against ICBMs brings even more power than ICBMs in themselves.

Underwater launches (2, Interesting)

jamax (228376) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399126)

While reading through suprisingly ignorant comments on _new_ tech of launching an ICMB from submerged position (this is slashdot, we are all supposed to be armchair warriors with underdeveloped muscle tissue and oversized brains filled with data on weaponry we would never, ever see unless its on youtube) and replies of ppl putting the record straight I just want to add this little nugget of information here:

In 199something (don't remember, but it was a crappy year in Russia - lost of bad news, the story got lost and resurfaced only in 2002 I think) Russian submarine has successfully launched ITS ENTIRE PAYLOAD in quick succession (as in several seconds between missiles) from submerged position - quite a feat of technology as well as personel training, since when launching more than one ICBM in quick succession one must take into account subs' weight change after the first missile leaves (it begins to surface), uneven wight distribution as pumps begin to fill ballast tanks with water to compensate just when the second missile fires, actual RECOIL begins to matter too - it's not much of a problem when you fire just once, but it becomes one if the sub's being shaken just as another missile is attmepting its launch..

So all in all - ICBMS from under water = old news.

Cheers

What happened to Russia? (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399144)

Wheres the beloved monolithic wall of paranoid state security? The day after the event and they're all "sorry guys, we screwed up one of our missile tests. Here are the details."

Unless its all a cunning Russkie ruse...

Russians launched a Photoshop missile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399208)

Can't you guys see the PIXELS?! The missile went into the sky and spewed PIXELS!! It's Photoshopped!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>