It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NPO Energomash “V. P. Glushko” is a Russian manufacturer originated from design bureau, which focuses primarily on the development and production of liquid propellant rocket engines. NPO Energomash is based in Khimki, Moscow state, with satellite facilities in Samara, Perm, and St. Petersburg, and employs close to 5500 workers.[1] Originally founded in 1946 as OKB-456, the company is noted for its long history of large scale LOX/Kerosene engine development, notably the RD-107, RD-170, and RD-180 engines. These engines have functioned as prime movers for such vehicles as R-7, Proton, Soyuz, Energia and Atlas V. NPO Energomash acquired its current name on May 15, 1991, in honor of its chief designer.
Q: Why are there more short-lived contrails than persistent contrails? A: For a particular geographical location, it may seem that there are more of one type of contrail than another. Actually, the type and number seems to depend on the amount of moisture and temperature in the atmosphere where the plane is flying. If the area is fairly dry, then more short-lived contrails might be observed. If there is more moisture, such as along the east coast of the United States, there might be more persistent contrails observed. To look at observations from other areas, you might like to visit the GLOBE website and click on the Data Access button.
Yesterday: Humidity97%
Today: Humidity75%
71 %
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Back to the spiral - I'm of the opinion it was not caused by anything in flight, but rather an engine test (ground-based and pointing skyward) or something vented upward, the skewed angle of the spiral may simply be caused by wind.
Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by mr10k
A 3D spiral will look like a "twist" depending on your perspective of it. Such as in the case of the Norway spiral. Obviously, the spiral we see in the pictures from Norway has depth to it, not just length and width (especially if it is supposed to be from a rocket). If we somehow saw the spiral from the side, It would look much like the "twist" we see in these pictures. Conversely, if the "twist" in the OPs pictures were scene from the bottom (or looking straight up at it if one were directly below it), it would look like a spiral.
Example:
Some more ways one could look at a spiral:
Spirals
An anecdotal example: I bought some decorations for my boyfriends 30th birthday. In the package, they look like 2D spirals, but when you take them out to hang on the ceiling, they are actually 3D spirals (you pull up from the center and let the rest hang down) and look like the OPs "twist".edit on 26-12-2012 by nunya13 because: fix image link
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The Norway 'spiral cloud' was alleged to be a malfunctioning Russian submarine-launched rocket. This latest one is in Moscow. Another faulty rocket...?
My first thoughts are that these two look absolutely nothing like each other in any way at all.
The new one looks more like some acrobatic planes were doing some work and left some contrails behind them.
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The Norway 'spiral cloud' was alleged to be a malfunctioning Russian submarine-launched rocket. This latest one is in Moscow. Another faulty rocket...?
My first thoughts are that these two look absolutely nothing like each other in any way at all.
The new one looks more like some acrobatic planes were doing some work and left some contrails behind them.
Congratulations!
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by Uncinus
Great information, but the images in the OP still don't look like a contrail - they are too brief and appear too close to the ground. I have seen contrail appear and disappear in bands due to the changing atmospherics conditions the plane flew through, but this was over a large swath of sky.
The images in the OP also appear to be much more vertical than a typical flight path - either this was a stunt plane, or it's not a contrail. None of the conditions shown or comments made in Russian from the original source seems to indicate there was any unusual flying in the area - no air shows, stunt planes, etc.