reply to post by tauristercus
Another solid post tauristercus.
However, I'm not so sure I agree with the premise of the first part of your argument- mainly that the object in the center of the photo that you've
blown up doesn't appear to be cylindrical like we'd expect a rocket to be, and therefore it isn't a rocket. So what then would you say it is?
That photo, no matter what you do to it, proves to be virtually inconclusive and shouldn't be considered as an attempt to show that there isn't a
rocket in there. I don't believe that's a fair argument here.
And once you've blown it up and reversed its color, the white blob is now open to your interpretation, which may not be all that objective
no secret that you truly believe that a rocket didn't make that spiral and your looking for anything that may show this to be the case... but now it
seems you're literally putting pictures under the microscope and interpreting it based on your preconceived notions...
We don't know what the nature of the "failure" was, except an indication that something abnormal occurred in the 3rd stage. It's in this 3rd stage
that these types of rockets can become prone to tumbling as they reorient themselves for more precise maneuvering. With that said it can't be
determined with any degree of certainty that the failure (and spiral) was the result of a fuel leak. It's a possibility but that's about it.
It did appear that there was particulate being ejected from two locations, perhaps this was from the thrusters trying to reorient the MIRV,
Have you blown up the original (non-reversed) photo to see what that yields?
Also, do you know at what point in the spirals formation that particular frame is taken from? IOW near the beginning, middle, or end of the formation
of the white spiral?
If it's near the end just before the spiral blows opens, I may have a theory on what we're seeing in the center of this picture...
As for the 2nd part of your post, the speeds you've come up with certainly seem to be out of the ordinary and I wonder why that may be... I'll have
to take a closer look at it.
Good post non the less.
[edit on 7-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]