UFO Destroyed the Falcon-9 Rocket /SpaceX/Facebook & Israeli Aerospace Industries

So here is a side by side comparison of some other rocket explosions that are slowed down using adobe after effects timewarp. As you can see, there are minor artifacts and smudging but nothing on the magnitude seen in the spaceX video. We've tried building explosions, vehicles and rockets. Nothing comes close to resembling the amos-6 rocket which looks extremely unusual.

SpaceX rocket explosion slowed down




Rocket explosion 1 slowed down:


Rocket explosion 2 slowed down:



Further anomalies can be seen in this still image:
s11.postimg.io...

A lot of right angles.

I'm starting to think that the original footage that leaked out was tampered with from the beginning.

a reply to: westernstar22

Further anomalies can be seen in this still image:

That is not from the original video.

I'm starting to think that the original footage that leaked out was tampered with from the beginning.

It wasn't leaked.

Are there other video angles of it?

If it is picked up by other cameras then you can rule out bugs.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

You mean someone like Bigelow industries that wants exclusive rights to all things space related.... Nah, I'm sure there's no way you could use any type of directed energy/acoustic energy to excite gasses and cause explosions.... That's just crazy. Or maybe cause a "misfire" of an explosive separating bolt... I know, more craziness... I apologize..

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Are there other video angles of it?

Yes. Likely being doctored up as we speak.

image

I wanted to share that. At other sites people keep saying it's a bug close to the camera, and that's why it's blurry.

In that frame you can see the corner of the far left tower is in front of the object. Which proves that the object is far away, and moving extremely fast. It's blurry because of motion blur, a common thing that happens in cameras.

I don't know why the OP only shows 5 frames. There are at least 10 different frames with the object on this Youtube video. Go into options and set the playback speed to 0.25 and it's easier to spot. It happens at 1:11.

video

a reply to: westernstar22

Yes.

You know this?
You have inside information?

a reply to: westernstar22

that video caught my eye - and yes, i read the subsequent heated arguments for oversaturating the CCD, giving the field warp of the rocket, and/or algorithm artifact from video compression.

Interestingly at 1:03 the round "OI" (Object of Interest) 'pinhole' expands static in position into the slowed down frame. I assume that's an interpolated set of frames creating a morph artifact - possibly. Then the same object speeds off to the left in the trajectory we all know.

wonder why there was no lensing artifact from the oversaturation of the initial explosion... Any rocket fuel explosion experts want to comment on light intensity during the initial exothermic reaction?

Both Falcon9 stages are powered by rocket engines that burn liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) propellants.

Falcon9 specs here (wiki0 and (SpaceX site)

DoD PDF of explosive hazards for various rocket fuels here.

Original NASA research into explosion hazards (RP-1/LOX vs LH2/LOX) here.

Interesting NASA research on explosion data (and autoignition from charged static EMFields) of various fuels here. "No autoignition occurred with RP-1/LOX1"

"It should be noted that some appreciable probability
of autoignition does exist for smaller mixes down to the order of a few pounds (or Kg) and that these and smaller quantities can be detonated with high TNT equivalence by an external initiating cause."

Interestingly , RP-1/Lox is less of a hazard than other rocket fuels, a "class 1" compound that results in fire hazard, not as volatile as others (LOX2).

enjoy!

a reply to: drphilxr

What was the propellant for the satellite itself?

a reply to: Phage

I think - according to the SpaceX specs - that is it a non reusable payload stage that also burns the same combo (RP-1/LOX1).

From the wiki site: "Both stages are powered by rocket engines that burn liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) propellants. The first stage is designed to be reusable, while the second stage is not."

a reply to: drphilxr

Did the satellite have a maneuvering system of any sort?

a reply to: drphilxr

Did the satellite have a maneuvering system of any sort?

a reply to: Phage

i wondered if you meant a smaller thruster system for the sat - wouldn't it be an inert gas for space maneuvers?

wiki > Amos-6 specs

spacedaily > Amos-6

I'm frankly having difficulty locating schematics for it.... here is the spacecom link

a reply to: Phage
Sorry for the uneducated post, but don´t you need some sort of maneuvering capability to place it in it´s final orbit, everytime? I know, speed determines the orbital distance, so I guess the final corrections have to be made by the sat itself?

Also for future corrections, if they become necessary?

a reply to: drphilxr

AMOS satellites carry 450kg of hypergolic hydrazine for their OMS.

a reply to: Phage

Found it!

The S400 propulsion system burns MMH and MON...

These are very different from LOX and RP-1. They are hypergolics. Starting to find refs now...

Gunther's Amos-4 site (as Amos-6 data is harder to find)

A forum post on MMH fuel with a qualified SpaceX employee reply




"Hypergolic propellants are fuels and oxidizers that ignite spontaneously on contact with each other and require no ignition source. The easy start and restart capability of hypergols make them ideal for spacecraft maneuvering systems. Also, since hypergols remain liquid at normal temperatures, they do not pose the storage problems of cryogenic propellants. Hypergols are highly toxic and must be handled with extreme care.

Hypergolic fuels commonly include hydrazine, monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH). Hydrazine gives the best performance as a rocket fuel, but it has a high freezing point and is too unstable for use as a coolant. MMH is more stable and gives the best performance when freezing point is an issue, such as spacecraft propulsion applications. UDMH has the lowest freezing point and has enough thermal stability to be used in large regeneratively cooled engines. Consequently, UDMH is often used in launch vehicle applications even though it is the least efficient of the hydrazine derivatives. Also commonly used are blended fuels, such as Aerozine 50 (or "50-50"), which is a mixture of 50% UDMH and 50% hydrazine. Aerozine 50 is almost as stable as UDMH and provides better performance.

The oxidizer is usually nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) or nitric acid. In the United States, the nitric acid formulation most commonly used is type III-A, called inhibited red-fuming nitric acid (IRFNA), which consists of HNO3 + 14% N2O4 + 1.5-2.5% H2O + 0.6% HF (added as a corrosion inhibitor). Nitrogen tetroxide is less corrosive than nitric acid and provides better performance, but it has a higher freezing point. Consequently, nitrogen tetroxide is usually the oxidizer of choice when freezing point is not an issue, however, the freezing point can be lowered with the introduction nitric oxide. The resulting oxidizer is called mixed oxides of nitrogen (MON). The number included in the description, e.g. MON-3 or MON-25, indicates the percentage of nitric oxide by weight. While pure nitrogen tetroxide has a freezing point of about -9 oC, the freezing point of MON-3 is -15 oC and that of MON-25 is -55 oC."

a reply to: drphilxr

Nasty, nasty, stuff.
You don't want it near you even if it doesn't explode.

Somewhere throughout in either this thread or another one I seen the payload drop and then explode.
can anyone explain that? I thought it was a satellite in the payload and not a bomb?

a reply to: Naturallywired
Didn't see that. Hard to explain something I didn't see.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Naturallywired
Didn't see that. Hard to explain something I didn't see.

it was in one of the videos that's been posted. I know I seen it yesterday. it was a longer version video. I was actually surprised that it was not a conspiracy discussion unto itself to be honest. Let's try to look into this Phage.