Originally posted by Project_Exo
1. The biggest, and most striking incongruence with the rocket story is the simple fact that the falcon 9 was unpowered as it flew over Australia.
The second stage was reignited at some point during the first orbit for a "test burp," after which the remaining fuel was probably dumped. Either
or both of those events would explain its appearance. Fuel dumps are frequently performed well after the launch, such as this dump from a
non-spinning rocket seen from Iran:
Here's another wild looking fuel dump, seen from Africa:
2. The alleged missile over Norway was in a powered stage. How is it possible that two nearly identical phenomenon could be blamed on completely
different missiles, in completely different stages of flight?
It's a mighty big stretch to call them nearly identical; one was moving relatively slowly through the sky such that most people still think it
wasn't moving while this latest one was obviously moving at satellite speed, one showed the trail all the way back to the smoke of the earlier stages
of the rocket, this one latest one did not, one produced a relatively large spiral from what was obviously a great deal of the third stage's fuel,
this one latest one produced a relatively small cloud more akin to a short burn or dump of remaining fuel.
3. I think the official story on the falcon 9 missile is that a correction burn to stop the spin turned it in the opposite direction and was seen for
hundreds of miles away.
Where was that stated? I haven't seen that as the "official story" anywhere.
4. what is the point of venting extra fuel? it seems in the touchy arena of space flight exerting any uncontrolled thrust would be avoided.
As shown above, venting extra fuel is standard operating proceedure. The point is to be sure that the cryogenic fuel doesn't boil and cause an
over-pressure explosion of the upper stage of the rocket, which would be a terrible debris generation event. Normally it's done after
separation of any functional payload so as not to disturb its orbit.
5. why hasn't SpaceX, or NASA taken official responsibility tor this event?
Why should anyone, let alone a government agency that had nothing to do with it, "take responsibility" for a non-event? It's not like the rocket
posed a danger to anyone. You make it sound like a disaster happened.
6. There was a camera on the falcon 9 missile body so it makes sense that they would record any fuel dump, or spin correction (both of which are pure
speculation at this point)
That would require them getting enough radio bandwidth to the stage for a video downlink halfway around the world at a time in the flight when it
wasn't mission critical. I see no reason why they would spend extra money on that when their goal is to make the flight as cheap as possible.
Give me a break people, my gut tells me this was a carefully planed event perpetrated by humans in compartmentalized programs that are fed up with the
business as usual.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Really, fuel dumps are not only common, they're basically mandatory for a craft like this.
[edit on 7-6-2010 by ngchunter]