Alert: Mystery Missile Launch Seen Off Calif. Coast 11/09/2010

[Moontanman]

Mystery missile launched near Los Angeles.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyEvk-VTuEI&feature=player_embedded

 

False Flag Event?

[C1ay]

I wonder why they assume it was a missile. A rocket is just a rocket until you add a bomb to it.

[CraigD]

False Flag Event?

To be a false flag event, somebody, presumably the US government, must be responsible, and will have to claim that somebody else is. So far, the US government is doing the opposite, stating they don’t know what this phenomena was, but that they’re certain it wasn’t an act of aggression or provocation by another country, terrorist group, etc.

I wonder why they assume it was a missile. A rocket is just a rocket until you add a bomb to it.

The term “missile” has many conventional meanings, the oldest and most generic being “something thrown”.

 

In military terms, the distinction between a missile and a rocket is that a missiles are self-propelled and guided, a rocket self-propelled and unguided.

 

Like C1ay, and, I think, like much of the public, I think of the distinction being a missile is intended to be a weapon, a rocket, not.

 

Given all this ambiguity, I think news agencies and commentators aren’t at fault for using the term “missile” to describe this event.

 

This said, the burning question remains what was this?!

 

Because it looked to me to be more of a vapor contrail than a smoky rocket exhaust, my wild guess is that it’s the contrail of a single or closely-spaced twin engine jet aircraft in a steep climb. A high-power/weight US military fighter is most likely, I think, though a private jet (eg: Lear, Gulfstream, Citation) might be capable of it – it’s difficult from the views I’ve seen to determine the inclination of the visible streak. It might be a jet airplane traveling at only a slight inclination – again, it’s very hard to guess the angle of the streak.

 

Additional mystifying data are reports in the news that radar aimed at the phenomena didn’t get any returns, suggesting it wasn’t a conventional missile or airplane. I think these reports are insufficiently investigated, and thus as yet inconclusive and unreliable.

 

Another possibility I credit is that it was a boat of sub launched missile from a non-US actor (a nation or terrorist group), intended to demonstrate that they could do such a thing. Possibly such an actor has or will soon communicate with the US government, which might keep the knowledge from the public.

 

My best guess for now is a jet airplane, but mostly, I’m puzzled. :shrug:

[Moontanman]

Living near an airport and a place where air shows are common i have seen many high performance jets doing lots of crazy stuff from accelerating straight up and breaking the sound barrier in level flight. At no time has a low level plane ever caused a contrail of any significance (maybe a little bit of diffuse black smoke), contrails form at high altitudes due to condensation of water vapor. I think this has to be a rocket or missile, I think there is a good chance China has used one of it's super silent subs to thumb it's nose at the USA again, this time right off the coast of Los Angeles :angry:

[C1ay]

In military terms, the distinction between a missile and a rocket is that a missiles are self-propelled and guided, a rocket self-propelled and unguided.

 

So a rocket guided to the space station would be a missile? I think a more practical distinction is that missiles are projectiles intended to be a weapon and rockets are just rockets until you use them as a weapon. I've even heard of projectiles launched at castles from catapults referred to as missiles and those certainly are not self-propelled :shrug:

 

As for what was it....this blog has an interesting theory. In the end though it is White Label Space that has taken credit for the launch of a test satellite from a floating platform off the coast of Los Angeles that seems to answer the question.

[JMJones0424]

So a rocket guided to the space station would be a missile?

If the rocket carried a warhead, most likely yes. Like other English words, the distinction seems haphazard sometimes, but according to the online etymology dictionary, missile is from latin and originally meant "a weapon that can be thrown". It wasn't until the middle of the last century that the notion of guidance became associated with the word missile. However, rocket comes from the Italian for projectile.

 

I think a more practical distinction is that missiles are projectiles intended to be a weapon and rockets are just rockets until you use them as a weapon. I've even heard of projectiles launched at castles from catapults referred to as missiles and those certainly are not self-propelled

It is a mistake to confuse centuries old usage of the word missile with current usage. Whether it be rocket propelled grenades, Multiple Lauch Rocket Systems, anti-tank rockets, or many other examples, the distinction that CraigD made seems to hold true for today's English (at least in the US).

 

Back on topic...

 

How credible is White Label Space? from the November 10th, 2010 blog entry, they claim-

With the launch towards the west, the satellite was injected into a special retrograde Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in order to make it more difficult for other teams in the competition to send spy satellites to uncover the technical secrets while the satellite completes its mission to test critical hardware and subsystem for the team's upcoming moon lander mission

 

Would it even be possible for anyone to attempt to intercept or "send spy satellites" to their satellite given short notice? The news coverage I saw remarked that the FAA didn't know what it was. It seems like a satellite launch would need to be cleared, wouldn't it? I don't know anything about the company other than what a quick google search showed, but that statement just seemed a little odd to me.

[C1ay]

If the rocket carried a warhead, most likely yes.

 

I was simply pointing out that there are guided rockets. Guidance is not a practical distinction between missiles and rockets.

 

Would it even be possible for anyone to attempt to intercept or "send spy satellites" to their satellite given short notice? The news coverage I saw remarked that the FAA didn't know what it was. It seems like a satellite launch would need to be cleared, wouldn't it? I don't know anything about the company other than what a quick google search showed, but that statement just seemed a little odd to me.

 

Yes, it could be shot down with the capabilities of some nations and then recovered, even on short notice.

 

It would only need FAA clearance in U.S. air space under control of the FAA. As a rocket hobbyist myself my current certification requires me to get FAA permission for any rockets over 3 pounds and/or containing more than 62 grams of propellant. Permission to fly is not granted within a 10 mile radius of an airport. In Georgia I am also limited to 10,000 feet of altitude. My rockets that will fly to 20,000 feet or more have to go where I can get clearance, usually Florida. They grant permits to 40,000 feet.

[JMJones0424]

I was simply pointing out that there are guided rockets. Guidance is not a practical distinction between missiles and rockets.

But it is THE distinguishing characteristic when dealing with rockets that are weapons. Remember, CraigD said, "In military terms...". No one claimed that rockets could not be guided, rather that guided rockets which are also weapons are called missiles, whereas unguided rockets which are also weapons are still referred to as rockets. Perhaps this diagram better illustrates my point.

 

 

Yes, it could be shot down with the capabilities of some nations and then recovered, even on short notice.

But this was not the claimed reason for the unannounced launch. Again, White Label Space claimed it was "in order to make it more difficult for other teams in the competition to send spy satellites to uncover the technical secrets while the satellite completes its mission"

 

EDIT: While checking links, I noticed that White Label Space has updated their blog-

Redaction: Test Launch Successful

 

After our last post we have received numerous emails from various parties claiming that they neither own or intend to use spy satellites for the purposes of spying on White Label Space.

 

We accept this fully & would like to state that the last post was intended as a joke & it was not the intension that the absurd content of the post be taken seriously. The celestial bodies were aligned in such a way yesterday that they induced "Moon fever" in a certain not to be named member of our team leading to a temporary loss of sanity & the pressing of the big red publish post button.

 

We also would also like to apologise to any parties that spent much of the night trying to track & identify our satellite in it's supposed retrograde Lower Earth Orbit.

 

So, it appears they are withdrawing their claim that they launched a satellite.

Edited November 11, 2010 by JMJones0424

[C1ay]

In military terms, the distinction between a missile and a rocket is that a missiles are self-propelled and guided, a rocket self-propelled and unguided.

 

 

No one claimed that rockets could not be guided, rather that guided rockets which are also weapons are called missiles, whereas unguided rockets which are also weapons are still referred to as rockets.

 

LOL... My only point was that in military terms there are guided rockets only because of the term "unguided" in Craig's post. It was in that context and quoted as such. In fact, all military satellites are put into orbit by guided rockets. In military terms the only distinction between missiles and rockets are that missiles are always used as weapons. Rockets may or may not be.

[Qfwfq]

Maybe it wasn't China thumbing its nose, maybe it was North Korea...:doh:

 

It is a mistake to confuse centuries old usage of the word missile with current usage. Whether it be rocket propelled grenades, Multiple Lauch Rocket Systems, anti-tank rockets, or many other examples, the distinction that CraigD made seems to hold true for today's English (at least in the US).

Mistake? Nah. Even in current English, a thrown stone, a dart or arrow, a bullet or shell (as well as a rocket meant to strike) can be called a missile. :shrug:

[JMJones0424]

To date, there isn't one shred of evidence that this event wasn't anything other than an optical illusion. The only company claiming responsibility for launching a rocket did so in such an absurd manner that any reasonable reading would have led one to doubt their sincerity. Regardless, since there STILL seems to be debate over the word "missile", let us review for a moment the very much off topic discussion of this term.

 

I wonder why they assume it was a missile. A rocket is just a rocket until you add a bomb to it.

 

This statement is obviously false. Assuming that C1ay meant an explosive when he said "bomb", there are numerous examples (again, in American English) of rockets that have bombs attached and yet are not referred to as missiles.

 

The term “missile” has many conventional meanings, the oldest and most generic being “something thrown”. In military terms, the distinction between a missile and a rocket is that a missiles are self-propelled and guided, a rocket self-propelled and unguided.

 

This statement would have been more correct, if instead of saying, "In military terms," CraigD had said, "In military terms, when describing weapons..."

 

 

So a rocket guided to the space station would be a missile? I think a more practical distinction is that missiles are projectiles intended to be a weapon and rockets are just rockets until you use them as a weapon.

 

Again, this distinction is clearly false, and is in fact the common perception that CraigD was trying to correct.

 

This is such a simple topic, I don't understand where the confusion arises. If a rocket is both intended to be used as a weapon and has some sort of guidance, than it is referred to as a missile. If not, then it is still referred to as just a rocket... in military terms. If there is but one exception to this rule since the middle of the last century, then please enlighten me and accept my apologies.

 

A guided rocket used to launch a military satellite is no more a weapon than a radio or a pair of boots, and therefore is not a missile. And neither are projectiles, such as stones, bullets, or anything else propelled by some outside force. This isn't difficult, don't make it so.

[Qfwfq]

And neither are projectiles, such as stones, bullets, or anything else propelled by some outside force.

This use of the term has become less frequent only because spears and lances, archery, slings and catapults and the likes have fallen out of military use while the specific term shell is more common among artillers. This does not make it an invalid use of the term and I have found it in narrative, even for something used as an improvised weapon such as a crutch thrown like a spear; authors often exploit lexical variety to avoid repetition and as a matter of style.

 

One thing certain, there's not much point keeping up the argument, I think C1ay simply meant there are possibilities which aren't properly a missile. However he worded it, that was his intent and it is an actual point.