The military knew about Dyatlov deaths since Fev 6th

[alecsandros]

1. Tests Р-12 (R-12) have been FINISHED in December 1958. I hope word "ARE finished" to you clearly? And any actions before acceptance on arms AND manufacturing of new rockets did not undertake. As well as you, cannot buy anything, yet have not got wages. To you it too anybody «is simple so» and will not pay in advance?
2. Tests and rocket P-7 (R-7) operational development passed on range Tura-Tam (or Baikonur - as now it name), but from January, 02nd till February, 17th 1959 any starts were not, because on range there was no suitable rocket. Therefore there was nothing to start. That start trajectories therefrom go in general to other party is an additional minus in your ideas.

On what did they test the V-1000 ABM's ? On paper rockets ? Or on R-12s and R-7s ?

[WAB]

What means "existed"? They were, but any start Р-12 for all time of search and Р-7 till February, 17th 1959 was not. To disguise it as it is difficult how to cover an elephant with a baseball cap. It is possible, if either an elephant small, or a cap big … :)

To exist (verb) = have objective reality or being.

Oh, how everything is négligered in the intellectual field...  If you don't even understand the semantics (meaning) this question, then I don't have any idea how talk to you at all....
The fact that there is a verb doesn't make it out of anything that wasn't launched then. Do you know what this method of discussion is called?
I can call it next time...

By the way, the key question is: what do you want prove? That the white is a black?

They were undergoing test launches from Kapustin Yar.

1. Tests Р-12 (R-12) have been FINISHED in December 1958. I hope word "ARE finished" to you clearly? And any actions before acceptance on arms AND manufacturing of new rockets did not undertake. As well as you, cannot buy anything, yet have not got wages. To you it too anybody «is simple so» and will not pay in advance?
2. Tests and rocket P-7 (R-7) operational development passed on range Tura-Tam (or Baikonur - as now it name), but from January, 02nd till February, 17th 1959 any starts were not, because on range there was no suitable rocket. Therefore there was nothing to start. That start trajectories therefrom go in general to other party is an additional minus in your ideas.

Previously you wrote that rocket tests only existed in controlled environments - target ranges, equipped with the necessary apparatus to evaluate the parameters of the launch.

However, parts from at least one UR-100 were found in Dyatovlav Pass.

That contradicts what you wrote , and is testament to the fact that ICBM's were not as strictly controlled in USSR as some would like to believe.

This is the third time I've written for the "highly educated and understanding":
1. This wreckage has nothing to do with the tests.
2. An emergency launch of an intercontinental missile from a wax building site on an existing range can drop the wreckage anywhere in its trajectory.
3.  Constant twitching of concepts (moving later time to the time of events) is a sign of perception damage.
…………………………………………………….
If you are unable to understand that the subject of this conversation can only be the events within the incident (in reality, from February 01 to February 26, 1959 or extensively from January 23 to May 28, 1959, which is clearly not necessary), then I do not understand how you can even understand more complex questions?
If it is not clear even now, it is necessary either to raise the level of education in the field you are talking about, or go to doctor.
Is the term "ICBM's were not as strictly controlled in USSR" even incomprehensible to you? If you only have your own concept of it, then talk to yourself. Or find yourself a "your own level" interlocutor. 
I'm not going to sink to your level.

PS. Please at least learn the correct name for the group leader - Dyatlov, and do not disgrace yourself with your "knowledge" in this topic.

[WAB]

There is an information in archives which never probably will open. Only what relation it has about discussed theme?
Here you are capable formulate the real reason on which it «is so much years all is confidential»?
Even it is more confidential, than the information, say it so, about murder J.F.Kennedy.
I understand it so that, there is no information only because hid nothing, because there was nothing hide. But if you are not capable explain that occurred the usual and logical reasons it not occasion, what accuse whom that they hide that.

The secrecy of certain documents is imposed by the branch that is archiving the document. It's simple.
IF it is a high-level cover-up, THEN it requires to remain SECRET.
And there is a Government Agency which is mandated, amongst others, to maintain the files in question, and to approve (or not) their viewing by authorised personell only.

You write completely abstract words, so for this case it's just empty words. Which have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
You have found some "beautiful" words on the Internet, and what they mean - do not know at all. Neither in the technical field, nor in the historical field (dates and related events), nor in the economic field (how much does it cost to do it and whether there were such means then), nor in the geography of events. .
Do you intend to continue in the same way?
There is no secrecy where it does not exist. It is especially clear when there is not even any sign of it.
It's because you're replacing real knowledge with fiction.

Who has solved it?

What do you mean, in English ?

What I mean in any language is that no one can solve what the wreckage can't be there. And this applies to any place, in particular, near the Dyatlov pass.
They are either there or they are not. 
I have already told you three times why they are there and why they have nothing to do with events. If you don't understand it stupidly or don't want to understand it, nobody can help you here anymore.

It is not necessary to confuse wished with the valid. Any "tests" for this place was not. There was an unsuccessful educational start-up from places of usual rocket regiments. Fragments have appeared on this place. If failure has occurred a bit later (or earlier) that fragments would be in other place. But and here relationship to events Dyatlov group?

"Educational start-up" ?
Exactly how did those remains end up on the Dyatlov Pass ?

Do you really stupidly not understand normal words, or do you disguise yourself so skillfully?
If you don't know what "rocket training launch" are, then I don't understand what you can talk about at all?

Well. At us it is accepted speak: «Any initiative should be punished - who has offered, should do it!» Go there and search! Only it is necessary separate that was in events about which we discuss and that was not. For example, that was already after. If it not to do, it will be vain work.
I think that the further conversation should be continued only after you discovered rockets fragments about period of 1969 and earlier.

No, that is not my responsibility. Because I do not parade pretending to know the absolute truth...

Very comfortable position: to lie at home on the sofa and make up tall tales...
As for missile technology in the USSR, I know almost everything - I am professional. And what I wrote is the best proof of that. Especially compared to the murky nonsense that you constantly write with the naivety young child and the obstinacy as maniac, trying find black cat in dark room with his eyes closed.

[WAB]

1. Tests Р-12 (R-12) have been FINISHED in December 1958. I hope word "ARE finished" to you clearly? And any actions before acceptance on arms AND manufacturing of new rockets did not undertake. As well as you, cannot buy anything, yet have not got wages. To you it too anybody «is simple so» and will not pay in advance?
2. Tests and rocket P-7 (R-7) operational development passed on range Tura-Tam (or Baikonur - as now it name), but from January, 02nd till February, 17th 1959 any starts were not, because on range there was no suitable rocket. Therefore there was nothing to start. That start trajectories therefrom go in general to other party is an additional minus in your ideas.

On what did they test the V-1000 ABM's ? On paper rockets ? Or on R-12s and R-7s ?

This is such a good method of conversation, which is called "frank demagogy": all the time moving from one section to another without answering the questions already asked.  And constantly demonstrating its dilettantism in the topic under discussion.
Specifically:
1. For you really, as for young child - all the tests are constant throwing of stones puddle. And that's all it is. What is called the preparatory phase, it does not mean anything to you ... that's what they were doing there. Including construction, setting up equipment, theoretical and application work on site. Or, as you said, "paper rockets." But you are "dark" person in these matters, they (these works) mean nothing to you.
2. The first B-1000 throw missile launches were only in late 1959. Do you know what "throw missile launches" are? Then tell it to other readers here. In your own words and in detail:
-what's the point of these launches, ?
- how they're done, ?
- what results do they want?
- when were they (dates)?
I have known this for  long time, and I have already taught this to my students on the basis of practical experience. And the extent to which you have the right knowledge, and how you can seriously talk to you on this topic will be clear to all readers at once.
Then everyone will understand who is who...
3. The first real rocket launch was only in 1960, so again you are twitching time for the events with Dyatlov's group. It's cheating trick.
4. The first real test wasn't until March 1961, so it's the same as the paragraph #3.
5. All initial tests (in 1960) were only on R-5m missiles, then R-12 were not used yet, so they just started to be supplied to the troops as combat units.
6. For R-7 missiles have never tested any anti-missile. This is your bullshit.
From everything written once again you can see your complete professional unsuitability for such conversations on missile topics, so you can come out with anger and empty words as much as you want, and I'm stopping this unnecessary conversation with you.
For the rest of us, if they are interested, I can answer any questions, even if we have go into detail. You only need have desire understand what they are saying, not try promote your own fantasies at any cost. It is highly recommended that you carefully read the aphorism that is now written in the first page of our forum.

[alecsandros]

Oh, how everything is négligered in the intellectual field...  If you don't even understand the semantics (meaning) this question, then I don't have any idea how talk to you at all....
The fact that there is a verb doesn't make it out of anything that wasn't launched then. Do you know what this method of discussion is called?
I can call it next time...

By the way, the key question is: what do you want prove? That the white is a black?

That the R-7 and R-12 rockets existed and were capable of being launched as of Fev 1st 1959.

This is the third time I've written for the "highly educated and understanding":
1. This wreckage has nothing to do with the tests.
2. An emergency launch of an intercontinental missile from a wax building site on an existing range can drop the wreckage anywhere in its trajectory.
3.  Constant twitching of concepts (moving later time to the time of events) is a sign of perception damage.

If anyone can translate what WAB writes above, please do... I seriously don't understand what he wrote.

[alecsandros]

You write completely abstract words, so for this case it's just empty words. Which have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
You have found some "beautiful" words on the Internet, and what they mean - do not know at all. Neither in the technical field, nor in the historical field (dates and related events), nor in the economic field (how much does it cost to do it and whether there were such means then), nor in the geography of events. .
Do you intend to continue in the same way?
There is no secrecy where it does not exist. It is especially clear when there is not even any sign of it.
It's because you're replacing real knowledge with fiction.

There is nothing "abstract" about state secrets: they are what they are.
Some comments before, you mentioned the Kennedy assassination. I agree that that event can have parts of it that are classified as state secrets.
I'll give you another example: say you are in 1985 in Soviet Russia. And talking to a friend. He asks you: "do you know the history of Novocherkassk ?". You say "Yes, I have been there many times". "How is it there ?", your friend asks. And you describe de settlement. Years pass and it's 1992. And you both find out that in Novocherkassk happened a major event: "According to official investigation 26 were reportedly killed by troops, and 87 were wounded.[3] Arrests, show trials and cover-ups ensued aftermath: more than 200 were arrested; 7 people were convicted and sentenced to death over various "crimes" such as "mass disorder" and approximately hundreds of others were imprisoned up to 15 years (terms of some of which were later reduced);[4] news about events never appeared in state controlled press and held secret up until 1992]". So you and your friend where both unaware about this in 1985, but found out about it when it was declassified in 1992, or 30 years from the incident.

My hypotheses (I hope you understand the concept of a hypotheses !) is that some aspects of Dyatlov Pass Incident are STILL classified, especially about the way the group met it's end...

As for missile technology in the USSR, I know almost everything - I am professional.

Therefore you know all that is declassified about them - and if you have access to classified information, you wouldn't be posting it anywhere because that is the way such information is treated.

IF (be attentive - IF !) there was a rocket launch on Fev 1st, that gone bad, and caused the demise of the Dyatlov Group, then chances are that such launch was classified and material evidence concerning it be locked in a safe.

For example, I am thinking about:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 (Chinese operational failure of a rocket launch , causing numerous victims).
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe (Russia operational failure of a rocket launch, causing many victims and followed by cover-up);
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_482 (Russian mission that ultimately produced re-entry objects that fell in New Zeeland soil)

[alecsandros]

This is such a good method of conversation, which is called "frank demagogy": all the time moving from one section to another without answering the questions already asked.

What questions ?

[alecsandros]

  And constantly demonstrating its dilettantism in the topic under discussion.

Mmm, it was you who said that R-7 and R-12 were introduced "later" [then the events on Dyatlov Pass] - which is not correct.

Also, you failed to mention the very important aspect of the meteorological rockets which were reported on Fev 1st and Fev 17th... (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-136-198)
"Sheet 167

Radiogram

To Sulman

2/III-59 - 18.30

[...]
The reason could be some kind of extreme natural phenomenon or the flight of a meteorological rocket that was seen on 1/II in Ivdel and on 17/II by Karelin's group period Tomorrow we will continue the search together with the new forces and make the planned shipment of goods. Small messages 0I Chernyshov and Sidorov groups amicably ask to be the last ones left here 2 candles are needed only 5 pieces left 3 tomorrow morning Kurikov group is going back gave them reference for their work period 4 I ask you to give a telegram Sverdlovsk Pervomayskaya 104 energochermet Maslennikov I am in the mountains healthy Zhenya"

I wonder why ?

[sparrow]

I have heard that planes have serial numbers on some (or all parts) and from that number you can tell what kind of plane it is.  Would rocket parts have serial numbers also?

[alecsandros]

I have heard that planes have serial numbers on some (or all parts) and from that number you can tell what kind of plane it is.  Would rocket parts have serial numbers also?

They do have serial numbers, but we would need to find the part of the rocket that had it written on it. Until now, no such parts have been recovered from the Pass, from what I know so far.
However, from the recovered parts, scientist's pronounced themselves that the rocket is of UR-100 type - employed after 1965. What this means for DPI is that that rocket didn't explode on 1959, but it also means that within that region, there did passed rockets , (albeit on a later time). This works for the hypotheses that there was secret launch of some type of weapon at or near the Pass, that started the fatal chain of events.

[PJ]

I suspect more about the ballistic (such as the R-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka and R-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-12_Dvina#The_beginning) and anti-ballistic (such as V-1000 https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/v-1000.htm ) soviet systems... Their range was in the thousands of kilometres, and the explosive warhead was massive.

Yes, it possible that some rocket fall down/exploded in that region when the Dyatlov Group was there but it not give any answers to the question why they leave tent or got that injuries.

Some facts:
-Not possible that it was done by anti-ballistic rockets as V-1000 or anti-aircraft as S-75 Dvina - they have max range of 55km. The closest place where such rackets was (1960 they shoot down U-2 aircraft) Sverdlovsk (today's Yekaterinburg). Later in the 1960s was some in Perm too.
-In late 50s and early 60s all rockets launches was made from bases, there was no mobile launchers on vehicles so we could ruled out the V-1000 or S-75 Dvina. As the territory of Soviet Union was well scanned by US spy aircraft we know locations of the rockets bases, not possible that they was some secret places. Of course US underestimates what Soviet Russia developed there but it is other story.
-the rockets that could reach Dyatlov Pass was  R-7 or R-12. That are ballistic missile so the trajectory is: going up with booster engine, eject booster engine and travel vertically at the high of 200-500km (yeah, very high), the warhead goes down vertically down to the target. As all the launch bases was hundreds of kilometers from the Pass it was only possible that R-7 or R-12 rocket came there during the last stage - so vertical down, just warhead without booster(fuel).
-What important, 99% of tests was done without active warhead, just with dummy one with some measure equipment to get the flight parameters(I think it is obvious why nobody wants to test rocket with active warhead - fail during take off = fuel explosion+warhead explosion = huge distaste) The first knows test with active warhead was done in September 1961(was some attempt in June 1961 but due to tech problems postponed) and what important, they do it at the far north: from Vorkuta to Novaya Zemlya or later in Sary Shagan in Kazakhstan(this test site is almost 500km long so they keep all tests inside it)

Yeah, it is possible that R-7 or R-12 rockets went of target and the warhead fall down within the Dyatlov Pass.

In 1965 after the first ever space walk the Voskhod 2 capsule went hundreds kilometers off course during descent and landed somewhere to the west from Solikamsk (about 300km from the Dyatlov Pass), it takes few hours to locate the two astronauts and because they was in dense forest only some food and warm clothes was dropped from air before night (it was in March so cold nights) the next day the rescue team descended from air and make a camp to stay another night, the helicopters cant land there, and only on another day they traveled on skies to some open space to be airlifted. The capsule was pick up many days later. - so yeah, many things falling from sky in the place where it shouldn't :)

And on February 1, 2003 during the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, it exploded at about 65km over the ground, they recovered 38 percent of the shuttle so is not easy to find pieces of something that explode high in the sky. Not surprised that if some rocket exploded/fall down around Dyatlov Pass there is nothing found, it easily go under the snow and in summer get covered by vegetation. Nobody was searching for any debris at that time.

but back to the  R-7 or R-12:
Option 1: Dummy warhead without explosives/radioactive load: It may fall on the ground and explode(not sure if there is some engine withing the warhead to adjust course during last stage of flight) but it will looks like more as airplane /  jet crash so even if that will happened close to tent, they will not abandon the tent and run to the forest. In this case they will probably dress up and go to check the crash site if someone needs help.
If the explosion will cause some injuries to the members of the group the tent will be completely destroyed but as we know the tent was quite intact except the cuts.

Option 1: Active warhead: That will be big bang high in the sky or on the ground. But again, if that was far away, no reason to run from tent and if close to tent that make some serious/broke bones injuries the explosion/blast wave have to be very powerful so why not damaged tent and trees. There will be significant damage to the area with broken trees and tent will be completely blown out.

So I think that one rocket not make the story at all, it not gives any answers why they leave tent and never returned to it.

[Nigel Evans]

But high altitude tests take a long time to fall and can travel far in high winds?

[PJ]

But high altitude tests take a long time to fall and can travel far in high winds?

Yes, it could. or even could never fall down if is made very high. But it matter anything?

[sparrow]

If we were to assume that the injuries to the hikers were caused by a rocket/plane/? and this happened to them while standing outside the tent, then why were there no burns on the tent (as on George)?  Why would there be broken bones caused by the blast, but yet the tent still stands and is not really messed up inside?  Why would there by scrapes, scratches and cuts yet not a fragment in the bodies?  How is it that all the flying debris would fly close enough to cause many of the afore mentioned injuries and yet  none of the debris entered the bodies?  So many questions.

[Nigel Evans]

But high altitude tests take a long time to fall and can travel far in high winds?

Yes, it could. or even could never fall down if is made very high. But it matter anything?

It matters because it extends the range of the fallout which refutes your argument that SAMs were too far away?

[PJ]

It matters because it extends the range of the fallout which refutes your argument that SAMs were too far away?

Yes, it could extend but not enough in this case. The closest place where was base with SAMs rockets was Sverdlovsk (today's Yekaterinburg) which is about 550km from Dyatlov Pass, how do you want extend the range of V-1000 or S-75 Dvina by 500km?? This rockets have max range of 55km.

[PJ]

If we were to assume that the injuries to the hikers were caused by a rocket/plane/? and this happened to them while standing outside the tent, then why were there no burns on the tent (as on George)?  Why would there be broken bones caused by the blast, but yet the tent still stands and is not really messed up inside?  Why would there by scrapes, scratches and cuts yet not a fragment in the bodies?  How is it that all the flying debris would fly close enough to cause many of the afore mentioned injuries and yet  none of the debris entered the bodies?  So many questions.

Yes, this is the problem with explosion. If there was some explosion it just could scared them but must be far away, otherwise the injuries/damages will be done to all environment around. Because the environment is not damaged it means all injuries happens by direct force to each person, not by one general force as explosion.

[alecsandros]

-In late 50s and early 60s all rockets launches was made from bases, there was no mobile launchers on vehicles so we could ruled out the V-1000 or S-75 Dvina. As the territory of Soviet Union was well scanned by US spy aircraft we know locations of the rockets bases, not possible that they was some secret places.

Still underground complexes existed in both USSR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Yamantau ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosvinsky_Kamen) and USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex), and they were unknown and undetected by aerial reconnaissance and satellites. Secret underground bases existed in both countries, and it was normal that they maintained an adequate level of anti-air defense. IF such a base was located within 50km of Dyatlov Pass, then the range of the S-75 was enough to reach the Pass.

-the rockets that could reach Dyatlov Pass was  R-7 or R-12.

I would add the R-5 rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-5_Pobeda). It had (only) 1200km range, but it was launched from mobile systems, making it possible of reaching any conceivable point of the USSR. Also , the cosmodrome of Plesetsk was at around 1000km distant to the West of Dyatlov Pass, and therefore a theoretical R-5 located there could have reached this point.

In 1965 after the first ever space walk the Voskhod 2 capsule went hundreds kilometers off course during descent and landed somewhere to the west from Solikamsk (about 300km from the Dyatlov Pass), it takes few hours to locate the two astronauts and because they was in dense forest only some food and warm clothes was dropped from air before night (it was in March so cold nights) the next day the rescue team descended from air and make a camp to stay another night, the helicopters cant land there, and only on another day they traveled on skies to some open space to be airlifted. The capsule was pick up many days later. - so yeah, many things falling from sky in the place where it shouldn't :)

I think the same , and my best hunch for Dyatlov Pass Incident is that it was an unfortunate accident of some sort.

but back to the  R-7 or R-12:
Option 1: Dummy warhead without explosives/radioactive load: It may fall on the ground and explode(not sure if there is some engine withing the warhead to adjust course during last stage of flight) but it will looks like more as airplane /  jet crash so even if that will happened close to tent, they will not abandon the tent and run to the forest. In this case they will probably dress up and go to check the crash site if someone needs help.
If the explosion will cause some injuries to the members of the group the tent will be completely destroyed but as we know the tent was quite intact except the cuts.

Option 1: Active warhead: That will be big bang high in the sky or on the ground. But again, if that was far away, no reason to run from tent and if close to tent that make some serious/broke bones injuries the explosion/blast wave have to be very powerful so why not damaged tent and trees. There will be significant damage to the area with broken trees and tent will be completely blown out.

So I think that one rocket not make the story at all, it not gives any answers why they leave tent and never returned to it.

If there was some re-entry event accident, I would expect the falling objects (rocket parts ?) to be falling from the sky and be visible by one or two from the Dyatlov group under the form of "falling stars" - meteors. They would have maybe 20-30 seconds to alert the others and run away from the perceived future impact point. However, what happens is probably an air-burst of the existent (chemical ?) warhead, causing shock (blast) damage followed by chemical fall-out. Several of the group are badly hurt (the man known under the fake name "Zolotaryov", Lyubidina, Thibeaux-Brignolle), others less so. A good account of an airburst damage is given in the "Meteor" area (here: https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=417.msg9025#msg9025).

[alecsandros]

If we were to assume that the injuries to the hikers were caused by a rocket/plane/? and this happened to them while standing outside the tent, then why were there no burns on the tent (as on George)?

IF we examine the possibility of an airburst of a rocket warhead, the burns are unlikely to appear, because the temperature of the explosion did not reach the base (ground).

  Why would there be broken bones caused by the blast, but yet the tent still stands and is not really messed up inside?

Because the pattern of an explosion is NOT spherical (i.e. not having a symmetrical shape of damage), but varies according to the actual load, chemical formula, actual weight and shape of the charge.

  Why would there by scrapes, scratches and cuts yet not a fragment in the bodies?

MAYBE those scrapes were caused later , while trying to dig the den with their bare hadns, and/or to harvest fire wood.

  How is it that all the flying debris would fly close enough to cause many of the afore mentioned injuries and yet  none of the debris entered the bodies?  So many questions.

The blast wave does the killing. The flying fragments can (and do) increase the damage already done.

There is some indication that the scene of the event was known/ discovered somewhat earlier then Fev 26th/27th (lacking photo cameras; present military grade leg protection that Yuri Yudin did not recognize as belonging to anyone; lacking photo films, lacking notebook(s), etc). Therefore some pieces of evidence may have been moved/extracted to produce a complete cover-up and to exhonerate those responsible from the immediate reprimand.

[PJ]

Still underground complexes existed in both USSR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Yamantau ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosvinsky_Kamen) and USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex), and they were unknown and undetected by aerial reconnaissance and satellites. Secret underground bases existed in both countries, and it was normal that they maintained an adequate level of anti-air defense. IF such a base was located within 50km of Dyatlov Pass, then the range of the S-75 was enough to reach the Pass.

Yes, there is lots of underground complexes but they was all detected during construction work. We do not know what is underground but we know that they exist. There was no complex like that in central Russia in 50s/60s. All rocket systems was just under development, was way too early to put it all underground. SAMs systems just started to be created in the second half of 50s.

I would add the R-5 rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-5_Pobeda). It had (only) 1200km range, but it was launched from mobile systems, making it possible of reaching any conceivable point of the USSR. Also , the cosmodrome of Plesetsk was at around 1000km distant to the West of Dyatlov Pass, and therefore a theoretical R-5 located there could have reached this point.

It is the same type of rocket as R-7 and R-12, so Dyatlov Pass will be reached just by the warhead. So generally we talk about ballistic rockets, nothing else could get there.
The 8U25 mobile systems launchers was still very complicated to set up, including the final stage of fueling the rocket with LOX that has boiling temp of −182.96°C; so keeping it cold wasn't easy. For many operational reasons they keep this rockets in bases, never traveled with them around the country. The advantage of mobile systems launchers is that it could be keep safe in bunkers and not be destroyed during air/rocket strike.

If there was some re-entry event accident, I would expect the falling objects (rocket parts ?) to be falling from the sky and be visible by one or two from the Dyatlov group under the form of "falling stars" - meteors. They would have maybe 20-30 seconds to alert the others and run away from the perceived future impact point. However, what happens is probably an air-burst of the existent (chemical ?) warhead, causing shock (blast) damage followed by chemical fall-out. Several of the group are badly hurt (the man known under the fake name "Zolotaryov", Lyubidina, Thibeaux-Brignolle), others less so. A good account of an airburst damage is given in the "Meteor" area (here: https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=417.msg9025#msg9025).

Any explosion/airburst that will cause injuries to people will damage the tent as well - how could you explain that it works with huge force only on some people?
And why they will abandon the tent? The explosion+blast wave will last very short, for what reason to go 45mins to forest?

[alecsandros]

There was no complex like that in central Russia in 50s/60s. All rocket systems was just under development, was way too early to put it all underground. SAMs systems just started to be created in the second half of 50s.

We don't know what the Soviets had in the 50s or 60s underground. Much of it is still secret and will remain like that for some good time.

[quote ]
Any explosion/airburst that will cause injuries to people will damage the tent as well - how could you explain that it works with huge force only on some people? [/quote]
Those people were caught by the blast wave's pattern outside the tent; the center of the tent was knocked down by the blast.

And why they will abandon the tent? The explosion+blast wave will last very short, for what reason to go 45mins to forest?

Perceived or real chemical/nuclear fall out following the airburst, contaminating the area underneath the airburst (which happened to be , unfortunately, the area of their tent...).

[PJ]

We don't know what the Soviets had in the 50s or 60s underground. Much of it is still secret and will remain like that for some good time.

Spies, U-2, secret service... this all works very well between US and Soviet Russia. Maybe info about what is there will be not available but building any underground complex require huge amount of work, twice much as normal complex. So the fact that something is under construction will be well know. And what will be the reason to make base like that in that place in 50s? No rockets that could go beyond Russian borders from that place, no need to install any anti-aircraft systems because nothing to protect around except wolves and bears.

Those people were caught by the blast wave's pattern outside the tent; the center of the tent was knocked down by the blast.

How strong should be a blast wave to break your ribs? I do not have idea... but for sure the tent will be completely destroyed.

Perceived or real chemical/nuclear fall out following the airburst, contaminating the area underneath the airburst (which happened to be , unfortunately, the area of their tent...).

They do not have anything to measure chemical/nuclear fall out so will be not aware of any danger like that. The real danger that they know was COLD. So something that force them out from tent and to forest must be much more dangerous and clearly visible.

[alecsandros]

Spies, U-2, secret service... this all works very well between US and Soviet Russia. Maybe info about what is there will be not available but building any underground complex require huge amount of work, twice much as normal complex. So the fact that something is under construction will be well know. And what will be the reason to make base like that in that place in 50s? No rockets that could go beyond Russian borders from that place, no need to install any anti-aircraft systems because nothing to protect around except wolves and bears.

It protectes wolves and bears of the Northern Urals in the same way that the Cheyenne Mountains Complex protects local grizzly bears and wolves.

How strong should be a blast wave to break your ribs? I do not have idea... but for sure the tent will be completely destroyed.

No - it would depend on the blast waves position relative to the tent and to the skiers. If directly above, the tent would be knocked out in the middle. Again, explosions can have different forms and different strengths in different points (non-linear). See here: an explosion that is significantly different from the "typical" spherical outline.

They do not have anything to measure chemical/nuclear fall out so will be not aware of any danger like that. The real danger that they know was COLD. So something that force them out from tent and to forest must be much more dangerous and clearly visible.

They don't need to measure chemical or nuclear fall out. They are all graduates or students of the Ural Polytechnical Institute. Two of them are working in nuclear facilities. They know what ICBMs are. They know what they carry. They know what the risk is in staying underneath the explosion's source. The cold is a POSSIBLE way of death (IF they don't get the fire started, if the fire isn't stropng enough, if they can't build a shelter, etc), whereas ingesting chemical/nuclear fallout is a CERTAIN way of death.

[PJ]

It protectes wolves and bears of the Northern Urals in the same way that the Cheyenne Mountains Complex protects local grizzly bears and wolves.

Cheyenne Mountains Complex is commando center for North America Aerospace, Peterson Air Force Base and are two big cities around too, so a bit more to protect than local grizzly bears. Close to Yekaterinburg was SAMs base too. And it wasn't secret that Cheyenne Mountains Complex is constructed, all know about it. Not all knows what is inside.

No - it would depend on the blast waves position relative to the tent and to the skiers. If directly above, the tent would be knocked out in the middle.

Even if the skiers will leave tent immediately after seeing the explosion the blast waves will catch them very close to the tent. Simply, it is not possible receive injuries like that from a blast waves close to the tent without significant damage to it.

They don't need to measure chemical or nuclear fall out. They are all graduates or students of the Ural Polytechnical Institute. Two of them are working in nuclear facilities. They know what ICBMs are. They know what they carry. They know what the risk is in staying underneath the explosion's source. The cold is a possible way of death (IF they don't get the fire started, if the fire isn't stropng enough, if they can't build a shelter, etc), whereas ingesting chemical/nuclear fallout is a CERTAIN way of death.

But they was experienced hikers too and clearly know that being without proper clothes during night in winter will mean CERTAIN dead for them. This was for sure. Any chemical/nuclear danger will be just possibility, nothing confirmed so for sure they will protect themselves from cold because it was real danger at that time.

[alecsandros]

Cheyenne Mountains Complex is commando center for North America Aerospace, Peterson Air Force Base and are two big cities around too, so a bit more to protect than local grizzly bears. Close to Yekaterinburg was SAMs base too. And it wasn't secret that Cheyenne Mountains Complex is constructed, all know about it. Not all knows what is inside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex
What major cities are next to this one ? What species of bears are protected from there ?

Even if the skiers will leave tent immediately after seeing the explosion the blast waves will catch them very close to the tent. Simply, it is not possible receive injuries like that from a blast waves close to the tent without significant damage to it.

See the above video link. Not all explosions are the same.

But they was experienced hikers too and clearly know that being without proper clothes during night in winter will mean CERTAIN dead for them. This was for sure. Any chemical/nuclear danger will be just possibility, nothing confirmed so for sure they will protect themselves from cold because it was real danger at that time.

That is what you write from behind a computer. IF you were underneath an ICBM explosion, you would have behaved differently.
They had battled the COLD in the past , with great success , but they knew they couldn't battle CHEMICAL or NUCLEAR fall out. That IF chemical or nuclear fallout was in the air.

[PJ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex
What major cities are next to this one ? What species of bears are protected from there ?

Is this a joke? 100km from this place is Washington(capital of U.S.), this complex is the main emergency operation center for U.S Army.

See the above video link. Not all explosions are the same.

I do not see the video   

That is what you write from behind a computer. IF you were underneath an ICBM explosion, you would have behaved differently.
They had battled the COLD in the past , with great success , but they knew they couldn't battle CHEMICAL or NUCLEAR fall out. That IF chemical or nuclear fallout was in the air.

They battled the cold in the past and they know what they need to win with it. CHEMICAL or NUCLEAR was only possibility, so the first will be protect against cold. I write it from the perspective of different emergency situations in mountains, first you protect against real danger, after you care about other possibilities.

[alecsandros]

Is this a joke? 100km from this place is Washington(capital of U.S.), this complex is the main emergency operation center for U.S Army.

Is 100km "nearby" to you ?

[quote ]
They battled the cold in the past and they know what they need to win with it. CHEMICAL or NUCLEAR was only possibility, so the first will be protect against cold. I write it from the perspective of different emergency situations in mountains, first you protect against real danger, after you care about other possibilities.
[/quote]
If only that was a possibility.
But IF they had the bad luck of being underneath an accidental re-entry event and/or military explosion, THEN that wasn't a possibility anymore, and immediate death was at hand. Immediate death from chemical/nuclear fallout, or possible/probable death from the cold. What would you choose ?

[PJ]

Is this a joke? 100km from this place is Washington(capital of U.S.), this complex is the main emergency operation center for U.S Army.

Is 100km "nearby" to you ?

Sure, it is nearby. Probably it was the closes possible place to build huge complex underground/inside mountainous.
(For people from Russia 100km is very very close  )

If only that was a possibility.
But IF they had the bad luck of being underneath an accidental re-entry event and/or military explosion, THEN that wasn't a possibility anymore, and immediate death was at hand. Immediate death from chemical/nuclear fallout, or possible/probable death from the cold. What would you choose ?

The cold was real, dead from freezing was inevitable not only possible/probable, and they new about it. The chemical/nuclear fallout was only possibility, something that they never experience, so the danger/dead from it will be much less likely for them than from cold.
I will choose take warm clothes, other equipment and leave the tent.
The real could be only explosion and shack wave after, they will never worry about chemical/nuclear fallout.

[alecsandros]

(For people from Russia 100km is very very close  )

Then you will be happy to know that this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosvinsky_Kamen is at 200km distant from Dyatlov Pass...

The real could be only explosion and shack wave after, they will never worry about chemical/nuclear fallout.

There is no "after". The chemical gas cloud spreads in seconds, the nuclear contamination begins instantly. They have to exit that area instantly or die.

[PJ]

(For people from Russia 100km is very very close  )

You will be happy to know that this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosvinsky_Kamen is at 200km distant from Dyatlov Pass...

It was build in 90s, for same reason as the American Cheyenne Mountain Complex or other commando center. What do you want proof by infos like that? And again, the fact that it is under-construction was well know.

There is no "after". The chemical gas cloud spreads in seconds, the nuclear contamination begins instantly. They have to exit that area instantly or die.

I mean that shock wave is coming after seeing the blast. After received shock wave nobody will worry about chemical/nuclear fallout, they will simply pick up stuff from the tent.