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.
Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars
Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?
Here's a better question. Why assume it a missile or a UFO or, for that matter, a rocket propelled aardvark? Why not shut the door on this video without requiring what it will never be able to give us...an answer and closure?
Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by gortex
and thats your proof its a rocket
take a look at your own vid
now look at the two vids together
enough said
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?
Maybe something more like an alcohol-based propellant, rather than the liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen mixture used by the main external tank of the shuttle.
When liquid hydrogen is burned (such as by the shuttle's main engines) a lot of water is created (H + O [in combustion] = H2O. Most of the "smoke" you see on a shuttle launch is condensed water vapor, like in a normal cloud.
Alcohol-based propellants, on the other hand, burn mostly invisible. The sparks could have been caused by the debris from the craft itself.
Originally posted by gortex
Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by gortex
and thats your proof its a rocket
take a look at your own vid
now look at the two vids together
enough said
One's a small off the shelf rocket used for demonstration purposes and the other is a military rocket , what do you expect .... an identical effect
As a demonstration I think the FoF rocket displayed close to the same characteristics as the supposed White Sands UFO and just adds more weight to the rocket theory .
If you don't wish to accept that fine .... enough said .
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars
Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?
Here's a better question. Why assume it a missile or a UFO or, for that matter, a rocket propelled aardvark? Why not shut the door on this video without requiring what it will never be able to give us...an answer and closure?
Because sharing, examining and commenting on videos and other media is what this site is for. If you are uninterested in this thread you are free to leave it be.
Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars
Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?
Here's a better question. Why assume it a missile or a UFO or, for that matter, a rocket propelled aardvark? Why not shut the door on this video without requiring what it will never be able to give us...an answer and closure?
Because sharing, examining and commenting on videos and other media is what this site is for. If you are uninterested in this thread you are free to leave it be.
I'm quite aware of what this site is for and quite aware of my freedoms and limitations while participating on it.
Inclusive of those freedoms is to wonder out loud why this unanswerable question is of relevance...to you in this case. I now have my result.
You seek entertainment. Go for it.
Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by TheFlash
"a fuel which would catastrophically burn with the noted appearance."
the camera used plays a major role in the appearance of the explosion, im sure you know this though?
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?
Maybe something more like an alcohol-based propellant, rather than the liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen mixture used by the main external tank of the shuttle.
When liquid hydrogen is burned (such as by the shuttle's main engines) a lot of water is created (H + O [in combustion] = H2O. Most of the "smoke" you see on a shuttle launch is condensed water vapor, like in a normal cloud.
Alcohol-based propellants, on the other hand, burn mostly invisible. The sparks could have been caused by the debris from the craft itself.
Water and carbon dioxide are the products of burning alcohol just as they are when burning hydrogen.
C2H6O + 3O2 ==> 2CO2 + 3H2O
If a large amount of alcohol was suddenly and catastrophically burned there would be a huge cloud of steam/water vapor as a result. It would be very visible.
Originally posted by TheFlash
You seek entertainment. Go for it.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?
Maybe something more like an alcohol-based propellant, rather than the liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen mixture used by the main external tank of the shuttle.
When liquid hydrogen is burned (such as by the shuttle's main engines) a lot of water is created (H + O [in combustion] = H2O. Most of the "smoke" you see on a shuttle launch is condensed water vapor, like in a normal cloud.
Alcohol-based propellants, on the other hand, burn mostly invisible. The sparks could have been caused by the debris from the craft itself.
Water and carbon dioxide are the products of burning alcohol just as they are when burning hydrogen.
C2H6O + 3O2 ==> 2CO2 + 3H2O
If a large amount of alcohol was suddenly and catastrophically burned there would be a huge cloud of steam/water vapor as a result. It would be very visible.
Armadillo Aerospace used an alcohol-based propellant for the X-Prize challenge, and it created very little visible steam or smoke:
Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Alien Abduct
I don't see this being a missile, people.
The moment it struck ground, it should have exploded. Additionally, there would be flames. I don't see any of that happening here.
Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by TheFlash
"Let's see a video if it blowing up - all at once, so we can compare apples to apples."
Well if the OP's video is just a rocket thruster explained in the fact or faked episode (posted by gortex) then the video you posted above cant really be used to compare. Besides what is gained from knowing what fuel type is used?
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com