Up close footage of SpaceX Falcon 9 Explosion this Morning!!!

Our 'getting off-world tech' fails.

Lets work together to make it work better...

cause one day soon we might need it.



STFU with the bs 'its an alian o.O' mainstream bullshit. We have bigger fish to fry/save from being fried.

what parts were imported?

Back on subject, here's an interesting gif overlaying the Dragon capsule pad abort test on top of yesterday's explosion to show how it would have faired staying ahead of the blast.

The track record of SpaceX explosions is one reason I was trying to draw attention to Keith Hunter's idea about the SpaceX Dragon last week. Sorry to see all these expensive and dangerous setbacks, though.

Oh for fuck's sakes Berf, the damn capsule came down just fine, it didn't crash land in a populated area like you predicted! How many times do we have to go over this? It wasn't enough that you posted TWO identical threads on that already-failed prophesy, you have to spam my thread with it too?

Don't forget the "UFO" that's going direct through the flames at 1:12.

Given that the payload fairing has a diameter of 5.2 meters, the "UFO" that "exploded" the Falcon was 1.35 meters. And the one that goes direct through the flames was just 75 centimeters.

I guess that "little green men" are real.

.

Post a screenshot of the "movement or trail" you're talking about. I've blown it up and gone frame by frame, and I see nothing like that.

Jesus Christ you're a fucking retard. Your multiple idiotic threads were a complete and total FAIL. Get the fuck over it.

Yup, just like the intro to the documentary "MiB 2"

cool gif... given the anomaly, how realistic is it, in your opinion?




snake

Most rockets that are supposed to go to "space" explode before getting out of sight of the non-Freemasons types. These are the failed launches. The ones that get out of non-Freemason sight before they crash into the ocean are the successful flights.

Just for fun....

I made an attempt at measuring the speed of the object, based on various sizes and approximations measures from stills.

In other words, if we assume the object is x meters across, then we can approximate based on pixel size / pixel movement per frame and frame rate.

[link to oi66.tinypic.com]

So here's what I came up with based on the following assumptions:

The object size is approx 7 pixels
The maximum movement per frame that is certain is 125 pixels

(If the object does continue to move along its trajectory, then it moves 150 or more pixels in the last frame, but there's no way to know. Perhaps it was blown away by the shockwave?)

Here are the end results:

Object real size / Approx speed
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1 cm / 19.29 km/h
2 cm / 38.57 km/h
3 cm / 57.68 km/h
4 cm / 77.41 km/h
5 cm / 96.43 km/h

10 cm / 192.9 km/h
20 cm / 385.7 km/h
50 cm / 964.3 km/h

5 m / 9,642 kph

----------------------------------

Googling around, there are no birds or bugs that come close to matching that speed / size profile, except for one which blows everything out of the water, which is a horsefly which clocks in at a whopping 145 km/h

The fastest bird is the peregrine falcon, maxing out at 389 km/h. Quite fast, but if the object was the size of a _small_ peregrine falcon, it would be moving at over 650 km/h.

If it's not a horse fly, then there is nothing else that I could find that fits the numbers.

If the object was the size of a small craft per se (5 meters), it would be zooming at nearly 10,000 km/h

Not making assumptions one way or the other but I thought the community would like to see the results so you could make up your own mind.

The readers here would have loved the old early Atlas days...damn things were blowing up a lot. But, with effort and smarts, they sorted out their issues, and it became a very successful booster.

They'll figure out what happened and make it better...

Do the same analysis with this video and you'll get similarly ridiculous results.


It's just a bug, can we please move on to more interesting questions of what actually caused this?

Oh I certainly think it's realistic that an abort system would have pulled the capsule off. During the launch abort test for the Apollo abort system the rocket carrying the test article actually failed. The system still pulled the capsule off as soon as structural failure was detected.



It's actually rather simple in principle as the video explains. You have wires running down the length of the rocket and if continuity is lost you automatically fire the abort Rockets. That means that any detonation the breaches the Rocket's casing should pretty much immediately resulting in an abort. The question is whether the overpressure wave would damage the trunk section and possibly cause undesired flight characteristics during the abort.

It's a bird...it's a plane...it's superman!

A pretty reasonable technique I thought, and the approximations erred on the conservative side. No need to call it ridiculous.

Didn't you forget something in your calculation? - Hint: Distance of the object.

The camera is 3,500 meters away from the spacecraft (11 seconds delay of the explosion sound).
The focal length of the camera is about 1000 mm (FOV = 2.75°).
Blurring of objects start at 1,000 to 1,500 meters, depending on the aperture of the lens - everything below this distance is blurred.
Given the amount of blur of the "UFO", it's distance is 500 to 750 meters from the camera, resulting in a size of 18 cm to 28 cm.

Do the same analysis with these numbers and you'll get more realistic results.

.

So they're both UFOs then. Got it. See, your problem is that you assume it can't be something close and small and slow. You disregard the possibility that it's a bug close to the camera.

How many times must I make the point that I predicted nothing? I drew attention to the predictions of Farsight, and the idea of Keith Hunter that it might be good to keep an eye on the return of the Dragon. Neither Hunter nor I predicted anything! My motive was to make sure that Courtney Brown and company were duly excoriated for their exploitations if they were proven yet again to be false prophets.

SpaceX is a bit of a mess, too. I'm wondering if they've exploded more Falcon 9s than they've landed. They blow up on the ground. They blow up on barges. If Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo had had as many catastrophic failures as SpaceX, we'd have never gotten anywhere in space.

yeah, I saw it, too.

appeared on the right of the screen heading to the left across rocket. Rocket explodes at the exact moment the object is in front.

Same object appears a few seconds earlier on the lower right of the screen heading to the left again. Looked like a solid object with some sort of fuzziness beneath it in each of the frames its visible.

I understood you, your wording was fine, and you are absolutely correct.

No it exploded while it was still a little to the right, not in front. The speed of that thing has to be out of this world.

I saw the 'object' in question the first time around without needing to read the comment sections or replay the video which only reconfirmed the existence of the anomaly. I take it that by now, the official explanation is that the 'object' is a bug or a bird and that the explosion (which appeared to occur OUTSIDE of the rocket) was just one of those things. This is like 911 all over again, where we see one thing happen but are led to believe something entirely different.

Cool, I knew it was only a matter of time before one of you came up with a few stats for us to work with. So if the object is say (middle of your measurements) 23cm long and it travels say 200 times its body length in 1/4 second, that would mean it's travelling at 184m/s which is 411.596 mph. Cheers!
[link to www.google.co.uk (secure)]

As usual I have overestimated the intellectual capacity of some GLPers.
I should have had written: "Given the amount of blur of the "UFO", it's distance is maximum 500 to 750 meters from the camera, resulting in a size of 18 cm to 28 cm at best."

Set the passing distance of the "UFO" at 100 meters and you come up with an 8 cm object (bird) at 67 km/h.
Set it at 15 meters and you get a 1 cm "UFO" (bug) at 8 km/h.

Btw.: How many little green men can you fit into a 23 centimeter UFO?

.

Quit whining, fucktard.

You FAILED. Get the fuck over it.

Moron.

The Atlas and Titan boosters had their share of failures during their development. Does that mean they should have just scrapped the designs? They both grew into very successful designs, in part due to learning from the failures.
...and the SpaceX boosters are doing things never before attempted...they are not "quitters" bowing to the naysayers.

more power to them...

I miss the Saturn V days....


[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]