Ultra Fast Camera Enhances Understanding Of High Explosive Detonation

I would like to know how this system would compare to those used filming the nuclear detonations that were done above ground in the early days...  lakotahope


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ultra Fast Camera Enhances Understanding Of High Explosive Detonation

Source: Specialised Imaging

by Staff Writers Tring, UK (SPX) Dec 22, 2010 Specialised Imaging has released a new application note that describes how its SIM8 ultra fast camera offers the capability to capture and diagnose the process of detonation of high explosive driven liner. The development of short-duration electrical-pulse detonators such as the exploding bridge wire (EBW) allows initiation of secondary explosives to be done with a higher level of safety, repeatability and reliability than is achievable with hot wire detonators.
With the development of such detonation systems, diagnostic techniques capable of accurately characterising detonator functionality are required.
Application note 14 describes how a SIM8 Ultra Fast Camera running at 1 million frames per second (1360 x 1040 pixels per frame) with 500ns exposures and front lighting was used to record the detonation of high explosive driven liner using a EBW detonator. Initial timing for the detonator and camera were generated using timing from digital delay generators.
Additional synchronization of precise delays to start of frames and flashes were achieved using internal camera timing generators with nanosecond accuracy. Framing data is presented covering the 7.5?s recording period of interest enabling clear diagnosis of how the high explosive driven liner detonates.
Crucial for ultra fast events such as explosive detonation the optical design of the SIM8 provides the choice of up to 8 separate optical channels without compromising performance or image quality. Effects such as parallax and shading, inherent in other ultra fast framing cameras, are eliminated and the high spatial resolution (> 50 lp/mm) is the same from frame to frame and in both axes.
Individual ultra-high resolution intensified CCD detectors, controlled by state-of-the-art electronics, offer almost infinite control over gain and exposure allowing researchers total freedom to capture images of even the most difficult transient phenomena.  

Was It A Missile or Just A Regular Jet?

As I find more  diverse sources to add to my information on this possible missile launch off of California last week, I am leaning in the direction of the naysayers and say, that this is probably a commercial jet.  Some blog sites even list the possible Commercial Carrier and Plane ID number.  Given the military has capabilities that Martians don't know of, why couldn't they come up with this type of data from ATC within the first 48 hours.  After one day and a half, all they could say was it wasn't a threat to the United States, but we still aren't sure what it is....The military did go so far as to say, this contrail didn't belong to them.  Okay.

Now we have here a plethora of data from a guy that has his website geared primarily towards deciphering contrails.  So, in the middle of this episode, he has a diagram detailing the effects of an optical illusion, as what this episode is being labeled by the specialists that know rockets and airplanes. 

I will modify his diagram with one launch trajectory in red that would also show this as a rocket launch and not an optical illusion (just for kicks--playing the devil's advocate here).  Most of the experts say this object was much too slow for a missile, but with this trajectory I laid out, it would give the reason of being slow to an observer, yet still be a missile. ....lakotahope

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FROM CONTRAIL SCIENCE


[This post was originally from Jan 19th, 2010.  I've updated it with information about the "Mystery Missile" contrail of Nov 8, 2010, at the bottom of this post.  Clearly it's the same thing]
An interesting contrail cropped up off the coast of San Clemente, Orange County, California on December 31st 2009. The curious shape led some people to think it’s a missile launch, which it does kind of look like (all taken from San Clemente)

"Missile-like" contrail. Note this is the Dec 31st contrail, not the Nov 8th CBS one. That's at the bottom of the post.

This kind of contrail confusion is nothing new. This article appeared in The San Mateo Times, Jan 12, 1950:

Here’s some more shots of the same contrail. Click these for larger images:


The idea that it’s a missile launch comes from three misconceptions. Firstly that the trail is vertical – it’s not, it’s a horizontal trail, at around 32,000 feet (about six miles). It’s the same as this:

This contrail is no more vertical than the road is, and nor are the power lines at 45 degrees. Everything is horizontal – it’s the just the angle you are viewing it from. All of these show horizontal contrails.
Secondly there’s the misconception of direction, that it’s flying away from the viewer, when it’s actually flying towards the viewer. This is because the “base” of the contrail seems wider than the tip. Perspective tells the brain that this mean the base is closer. But actually you can see the base has been greatly spread by the wind. Since it’s so far away the effects of perspective are greatly diminished, meaning the actual width of the contrail is what is creating the illusion. Imagine if a plane with a 100 mile long spreading contrail were coming towards you; what would it look like? It would look exactly like this.
Thirdly there’s the idea that it goes all the way down to the ground. Now that might be true if the Earth was flat, but the Earth is round, and things go beneath the horizon eventually, no matter how high they are. A plane 200 miles away but five miles up is always below the horizon. If the horizon is raised (as it is here, with Catalina Island), then the distance is less. Here’s some math:



--------------------------------

Given the same parameters as in the previous diagram, the observer would still see this object going slowly, yet moving away at a speed consistent with a missile/ rocket  The plume near the horizon is closer to the observer and according to the average layman, makes some sense.  Object closer to observer, bottom of contrail, is bigger.  While the object further away, top of contrail with moving object, is further away and therefore, smaller!  ....lakotahope

 

 

This was definitely a failed rocket launch from the Russians.  When they fail, they are spectacular. My point is look at the contrail as it is showing the corkscrew effect of rotation.  Burn through of the rocket housing? I dunno, but one specialist said this is typically what it would look like.  In the video, there is a partial corkscrew trail.

This diagram is not to scale, but the math is the same regardless. The solid curved line is the surface of the earth. The dot at the top is San Clemente. The little triangle is Catalina. “d” is the distance to Catalina (d=35 miles). “c” the amount of Catalina that is visible above the horizon (c=0.05 miles, really a bit more, but let’s be conservative). “a” is the altitude of the plane, (a = 6 miles). “r” is the radius of the earth (r=3963 miles).
The green wavy line is the contrail. Notice it’s at a fixed height above the surface of the earth, and is going directly towards the OC.
The point labeled (0,0) is the center of the earth. (0,0) means X=0, Y=0, where X is horizontal and Y is vertical. What we want to know is how far away the plane is, the value x. We do this with cartesian geometry, noting that the lowest visible point of the trail is at the intersection of the dotted line, which is a circle of radius (r+a), hence the equation x^2 + y^2 = (r+a)^2 and the line labeled “sight line”, which is has the equation y=r+x*c/d. Combining these equations to solve for x yields a quadratic equation, which we can solve with Wolfram Alpha:
intersection of (y=r+x*c/d) and (x^2+y^2 = (r+a)^2)
and with the real numbers:
intersection of (y=r+x*c/d) and (x^2+y^2 = (r+a)^2) where a=6 and d=35 and c=0.05 and r=3963
Which gives x = 212, meaning that the bottom of the contrail is around 200 miles away. So if the front of the contrail (the actual aircraft) is somewhere above and behind catalina, then that means the contrail is over 100 miles long. At 500 mph, that means it could have formed in 12-15 minutes, which seems consistent with the descriptions in the discussion above. (feel free to play around with the numbers there to see the affect of various assumptions)
Looking at the satellite image for noon on that day (12/31/2009) and the next day (1/1/2010), we see contrails in approximately the same position, and around 100 miles long, showing it’s quite possible, given the right weather.


Really what makes this odd looking is the position of the people taking the photo. Obviously the same contrail would be visible all the way up the coast, however the only people who though it was really odd were those who were lined up with it, in OC. People in LA would see a dramatic looking contrail, but more obviously just a contrail, so less worthy of writing to the newspaper about. I actually saw it myself, but was in a car, and could only get a poor cell-phone snapshot:


And here’s some excellent points from a real rocket scientist, posting as “Michael”:

I’d like to add to all the evidence above that it was just a jet, because the plume is nothing like a rocket plume to the trained eye. I was a rocket safety inspector for 3 years, have seen countless launches and failures, and have a master’s degree in Astronautical Engineering. Here’s why it’s not a rocket:
It’s too slow (<— biggest reason).
There's no engine flare.
There's no expansion of the plume (as the chamber pressure exceeds the atmospheric pressure more and more during flight).
There's no staging event.
There's no sunset striations across the plume (which would look like this: http://tinyurl.com/2vklwu5).
In the wide shot there's two contrails (off each wing!) instead of one.
The plume at the plane is twirling in different directions (very un-rocket-like).
The plume at the plane is twirling too much — that only happens in the case of a motor burn-through, which is a failure mode, meaning it would be seconds from exploding if it were a rocket.
The wind-blown plume is all wrong, vertical plumes go through several different wind shear layers, which makes it look very different than what the video shows.

There is much more from this WEBSITE.
http://contrailscience.com/
For a complete and very informative presentation on this contrail episode and other contrail phenomenon, go to this site.  You will not be disappointed.   lakotahope

Unexplained Missile Launch Off Los Angeles

As much as I'd like to believe this was unexpected and unplanned, I will go out on  a limb and say, Probably Not!  Why?  Well, a submarine doesn't surface in those waters and the Navy says, no, not ours.  Nope, they would have to cough up this information.  Vandenberg base wasn't scheduled to launch anything.  This missile went straight out to sea from 35 miles or more from shore according to reports.

What missiles do we have that can be launched by accident or with purpose that followed this missiles trajectory?  Several come to mind and more than likely this was either a surface ship or we had a visitor from another nation in the vicinity.

Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Robert Ellsworth commented, that this could have been a demonstration launch in the Pacific, to enhance President Obamas presence while he is in Indonesia.

The USA did a similar launch during the Cold War in the Atlantic to show the Soviets what we had on the table...

We can always assume the worst and say it was an anti-aircraft launch for some important reason.... lakotahope



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Officials 'Confident' Missile Shot Off Los Angeles Not From Foreign Military

Published November 09, 2010

| FoxNews.com

KCBS

Nov. 8: An unexplained missile is shot off the California coast.

A video that appears to show a missile launch off the coast of California is so far "unexplained" by anyone in the military, a Pentagon spokesman told reporters Tuesday morning, but officials say it does not consider the event a threat to the homeland. 

A military official told Fox News that the U.S. military is closer to getting an answer and hopes to have a statement soon.

John Cornelio, a spokesman wiht North American Aerospace Defense Command/U.S. Northern Command, said officials are "very confident" the mystery missile "was not fired from a foreign military, that's not what we are working with. 

"If it were an attack we would have known it and we would have done something about it," Cornelio said.

Earlier in the day, Col. Dave Lapan said the military doesn't know exactly what the so-called mystery missile was so can't say it's harmless.

A local CBS affiliate in Los Angeles on Monday evening captured on video the image of the "spectacular" projectile flying about 35 miles out to sea, west of Los Angeles and north of Catalina Island.

The Missile Defense Agency told Fox News it did not launch any test missile Monday night that could explain the dramatic images. The Navy and the Air Force were also unable to offer an explanation.

Lapan said it does not appear that whatever was flying was part of a "regularly scheduled missile test." He noted that before a missile test, notifications are sent to mariners and airmen. This does not appear to be the case here. 

At this point, the military is working only with video taken from the local news camera, and NORAD and Northcom apparently were not able to detect the contrail on their own.

It appears from the video, Lapan said, the object was launched from the water and not U.S. soil, though at this point there is no way to be certain.

If a test missile or an accidental missile was launched in the region it would have either come from Naval Air Station Point Mugu or Vandenberg Air Force Base. At sea it could have come from a U.S. submarine or a surface ship. But so far, it all remains a mystery.

Click here to see the video captured by KCBS in Los Angeles.

Fox News' Steve Centanni and Justin Fishel contributed to this report.

rt.

Russia Stops Delivery of S-300 Missile System

Well, once again we see that Russia is partially interested in keeping Iran from developing a nastier militaristic regime. Nuclear capable Islam are hard to figure out. After all, we do support Pakistan, but their foe tends to waffle between Afghanistan, the taliban and China.

The greatest thought from me is Iran would try to wipe out Israel. That will never happen as if there ever is a nuclear confrontation, I am pretty sure the U.S.A. will respond with punishment that will be biblical. The Iranian people aren't the real culprits, but the fundamentalist attitudes of the mullahs are a danger to their own people. .... lakotahope

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Medvedev bans weapon sales to Iran

Reuters

Thursday, 23 September 2010

Sponsored Links

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev has issued a decree prohibiting the delivery of S-300 air defence missile systems and other weapons to Iran, the Kremlin said yesterday.

The decree will please the Western nations concerned about Iran's military capability. Israel and the United States in particular have long lobbied Moscow to scrap plans to sell Tehran the high-precision missile systems, and Russian officials had promised not to deliver them after supporting a fresh round of UN sanctions against Iran in June.

The move bars the delivery to Iran of "any battle tanks, combat armoured vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat helicopters, military ships" and missiles covered by a UN register, as well as spare parts. It specifically prohibits the delivery of the S-300 – of particular concern because of fears that Iran could use them to protect facilities crucial to its nuclear programme, which Western governments suspect is aimed at developing a bomb.

The decree was announced hours after Russia's armed forces chief of staff said the military was fulfilling government orders not to deliver S-300s to Iran. The timing of the decree could have been intended to appease the West after the start-up of a Russian-built nuclear power plant in Iran last month and the recent announcement of Russia's plans to sell missiles to Syria, which alarmed Israel and the White House. Reuters

North Korea warns that military forces will respond if UN condemns it for ship sinking

It appears to me that North Korea is doing everything possible to threaten war with South Korea and the United States. They must be under the assumption that the closer they can get us to an "act of war" declaration, then the American people will cry uncle and submit to whatever demands the little weasel Kim Jung il thinks up for the moment. Maybe, but I don't think that the USA will walk away from the North's declarations and I am pretty sure that this country and Iran need to be met head on in the coming months or years. ... lakotahope

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AP

June 15: South Korean Marines work along the fence on Baengnyeong Island, South Korea, near the border with North Korea.

UNITED NATIONS

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — North Korea is warning that its military forces will respond if the U.N. Security Council questions or condemns the country over the sinking of a South Korean navy ship — an act it vehemently denies.

North Korea's U.N. Ambassador Sin Son Ho told a news conference Tuesday there is "a touch-and-go situation that war may break out at any time" because of South Korean accusations that the North torpedoed the ship and killed 46 sailors.

Sin accused South Korea and the United States of cooking up the accusation against the North and demanded that a military investigation team from Pyongyang be permitted to go to the site of the sinking, which the South has refused to allow.

Oil Shale in Abundance, BUT!

800 Billion Barrels of Oil? Awesome, but the techniques to recover oil from this shale need to be examined as it would really destroy much of this land and leave it looking like the moon. If the companies that get their hands on this acreage would rehabilitate the land after they destroy the top layers, then I would be more than willing to consider such a proposal as shale oil recovery.

We need to do something such as developing hydrogen technology as a major supplier of our countries fuel use. 30% to 55% of our total usage should be alternative fuels, which will double in cost, but eventually, it would enable the U.S. to have unlimited fuel that is already in production for the time that will certainly come, when oil is finished as a power source for the world....lakotahope

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Consumerenergyreport.com posting

Posted by JAguilar on Thursday, April 29, 2010

Oil locked in shales situated on Federal lands in the Rocky Mountains are not likely to be tapped any time soon.

“I don’t know when we’ll see commercial development on public lands,” Steve Black, counsel for Interior Secretary announced at the Unconventional Fuels Conference. “It’s an industry that is not ready for prime time.”

The Green River Formation in the Rockies reportedly holds the largest bed of shale oil in the world.

A 2005 study by the Rand Corporation estimated that sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming called the Green River Formation contains an untapped 800 billion barrels. That’s three times the size of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves.

World-renowned geologist Walter Youngquist called the oil beneath the Green River Formation, “a national treasure.”

Nevertheless, in February 2009, Salazar scrapped land leases designed to enable oil developers to tap oil from 1.9 million acres of the range, saying “I am withdrawing that Jan. 14 solicitation because in my view it was a midnight decision, and it was flawed.”

Fuel developers allege that the Obama administration has blocked progress of drilling in the potentially kerogen-rich shale. They believe that the White House is reluctant to endorse drilling for oil generally, and that the Green River Formation shales in particular have been blacklisted.

Yesterday, Black denied that Salazar and President Obama are red-lighting all oil projects. “This administration supports responsible development of all energy resources in the right place and at the right time,” said Black.

“He has never said privately or publicly that his intention is to kill oil shale,” Black added. “We’re not trying to pick winners or losers.”

Obama Administration May Cancel Ares I-X Project

The following small paragraph is the most heinous of actions to be undertaken by NASA and the Obama Administration. Following the grounding of the shuttle fleet, there is quite a bit of talk and pushing towards abandoning the Ares I-X in favor of commercial start up companies. Allowing the commercial companies to be the sole lifter of materials and 'maybe' humans, without the accompanying NASA main launch capacity is close to being treason. .... lakotahope

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once the shuttles stop flying, NASA intends to buy rides for its astronauts on Russian Soyuz vehicles until a new service — either commercial or government — materializes.

NASA, courtesy of Scott Andrews

A bow shock forms around the Ares I-X test rocket traveling at supersonic speed during its Oct. 28, 2009 launch from the Kennedy Space Center, Fla.

If this project is canceled, America will probably be last to develop any program to land a settlement on the Moon or putting men on Mars. ... lakotahope

WASHINGTON — As the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama prepares to propose changes to NASA's human spaceflight program in the president's 2011 budget request to lawmakers Feb. 1, an independent NASA safety advisory panel is warning the space agency against abandoning its current plans.

In an annual report issued Jan. 15, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel cautioned the United States against halting work on NASA's Ares I rocket to fund unproven commercial alternatives.

"To abandon Ares I as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority (or even equivalence) is unwise and probably not cost-effective," the report states.

SLIDESHOW: Ares I-X: The Next Generation of American Space Flight

Designed to launch the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle into low Earth orbit, Ares I is a key element of Constellation, NASA's five-year-old effort to replace the space shuttle with rockets and spacecraft optimized for the Moon.

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel report praises Ares I as a vehicle "designed from the beginning with a clear emphasis on safety" and notes approvingly "that Time magazine cited the Ares rocket as the 'best invention of 2009.'"

The future of Ares I, however, came into question last year when a White House-appointed committee led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine urged Obama to consider dropping Ares I in favor of paying commercial firms to transport astronauts to the international space station.

NASA awarded a pair of contracts totaling $3.5 billion in December 2008 to Dulles, Va.-based Orbital Sciences Corp. and Hawthorne, Calif.-based Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) to haul cargo to the space station aboard unmanned vehicles the companies say could evolve to carry people.

SpaceX, in particular, has been urging NASA to commit billions of dollars to fostering development of commercial crew launch services through the expansion of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) the agency created in 2006 to subsidize development of new cargo delivery systems. SpaceX and Orbital stand to receive a combined $450 million under the COTS program for their competing unmanned systems by the time the two complete demonstration cargo flights.

While the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel report notes satisfication with the COTS program's evolution, progress and demo-first approach, the panel expressed concerns about NASA expanding COTS in the absence of a clear human-rating process for commercial vehicles.

Specifically, it says NASA's current procedures "were not specifically intended to establish requirements for vehicles produced by entities external to NASA, such as COTS firms or international programs."

The panel recommends NASA accelerate its efforts to develop a human-rating process for would-be commercial providers.

"It is the Panel's position that no COTS manufacturer is currently [human-rating-requirements] qualified, despite some claims and beliefs to the contrary," the report states. "Questions that must be answered are: What is the process for certifying that potential COTS vehicles are airworthy and capable of carrying astronauts into space safely? [and] How is compliance assured over the life of the activity?"

The panel also took issue with the Augustine committee's decision to embrace the outsourcing of human spaceflight without having conducted a safety analysis of the commercial concepts SpaceX and others presented to the committee last summer.

"In making this recommendation, the [Augustine] committee also noted that while human safety never can be absolutely assured, safety was assumed to be a 'given,'" the report says. "The Panel believes that this assumption is premature and oversimplifies a complex and challenging problem because there is not a 'cookie-cutter approach' to safety in space."

The report points to the Ares I program as an example of the right way to go about ensuring astronaut safety.

"Its architecture was selected by NASA's Exploration System Architecture Study (ESAS) team because of its potential to deliver at least 10 times the level of crew safety as the current shuttle," the report says. "The launch vehicle configuration has been developed to provide the best possible allowances for crew escape in the event of a launch failure. The independent launch escape system pulls the capsule clear of the launch pad and any attendant explosion or fire. The demonstrated high reliability of the solid rocket booster (SRB) suggests a low likelihood of first stage failure on ascent, but the launch escape system would cover even this low probability of failure."

The panelists warn that switching from a "well-designed, safety optimized" system to commercially-developed vehicles based on "nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a poor choice," according to the report. "Before any change is made to another architecture, the inherent safety of that approach must be assessed to ensure that it offers a level of safety equal to or greater than the program of record."

The report also warned against extending the life of NASA's fleet of aging space shuttle orbiters "significantly" beyond their planned September 2010 retirement absent a thorough vehicle recertification effort.

"With sufficient money, manpower, and recertification efforts, it is possible that the Shuttle could be extended," the report states. "While we are aware of no major systems that are 'on the knee of the curve' of wear out, the funds needed to allow full recertification are substantial, and the probability of finding things that demand even more resources during recertification is very real."

NASA plans to launch five more shuttle missions by October, shut down the program and transfer the three orbiters to museums and science centers.

Once the shuttles stop flying, NASA intends to buy rides for its astronauts on Russian Soyuz vehicles until a new service — either commercial or government — materializes. Space.com