Russian Proton-M Crash and UFO/Missile

P

PerihelionX

Padawan Learner
Forgive me if this has been posted before. I searched the archives and SOTT and didn't see it.

I should note up front that when I say UFO I mean and actual unidentified flying object not necessarily alien/4D object. Apparently careful examination of the moments surrounding the Proton-M malfunction reveals some sort of object intersecting it's trajectory at high speeds.

See for yourself. The object moves very quickly and the RT video recording only captures a few frames.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=NIIKKyBhd-E
 
There is no way to tell if the "object" is at the level of the rocket or if it is far away in the background. The camera follows the rocket as it moves from left to right roughly (relatively to the observer) so if there is a bright star in the background, it would naturally appear to move from right to left (roughly) in the field of view. Then again, who knows.
 
mkrnhr said:
There is no way to tell if the "object" is at the level of the rocket or if it is far away in the background. The camera follows the rocket as it moves from left to right roughly (relatively to the observer) so if there is a bright star in the background, it would naturally appear to move from right to left (roughly) in the field of view. Then again, who knows.
Click to expand...

Then why there are no other stars visible through the whole clip, as far as I can tell? Though it could be one of the brighter stars, or a planet Venus, that were bright enough to be captured by the camera. It's quite a coincidence that a star intersects with the rocket at about the same time when it starts to smoke and fall down, and as the saying goes: "I don't believe in coincidences". Then again, not believing in something doesn't mean it's not so. ;)
 
mkrnhr said:
There is no way to tell if the "object" is at the level of the rocket or if it is far away in the background. The camera follows the rocket as it moves from left to right roughly (relatively to the observer) so if there is a bright star in the background, it would naturally appear to move from right to left (roughly) in the field of view. Then again, who knows.
Click to expand...

The probability of a normal celestial object (i.e. venus) being visible given the camera sensitivity adjustment to the rocket flare seems low. Also the object seems to deflect upward after intersection.
 
PerihelionX said:
The probability of a normal celestial object (i.e. venus) being visible given the camera sensitivity adjustment to the rocket flare seems low. Also the object seems to deflect upward after intersection.
Click to expand...

Even, not considering deflection and/or acceleration of the UFO after intersection, there's the question of plain trigonometry of the two objects in question, the rocket and UFO. The rocket is moving at nearly constant speed and appears as almost stationary object on the sky, and can thus serve as fixed point of reference/orientation on the footage. This means that whatever the UFO was, it couldn't have been a star, because of it's trajectory (speed and position) in relation to the rocket. It first appears coming from the right side of the rocket and then passes at fast pace on the other side, which means the UFO is moving on it's own, and it's not due to motion of camera. If the star was the case, it would remain at almost the same position in relation to rocket through the whole clip.

I showed the video to my skeptic brother who's also programmer and studies physics as a hobby. He right from the start ruled out the star due to the points that I wrote above. He said that if that theoretically was the star it would take minutes, if not hours for it to ostensibly (meaning in relation to the rocket) cross that distance that the UFO crossed in mere seconds.
 
For reference, here's the article carried on Sott.net on this rocket crash:
http://www.sott.net/article/279239-Proton-M-rocket-carrying-Russias-most-advanced-satellite-crashes-after-apparent-malfunction
 
It could be a UFO (or other), but unless other possibilities are discarded, it cannot be considered the only option. A bright star in the field of view is still a possibility IMHO. The camera is not static, it follows the angular motion of the rocket. There is an angular motion because we can see a projection of the longitudinal extent of the rocket exhaust. If the rocket was moving radially relative to the camera, the exhaust would have appeared symmetrical (a big circular spot for instance). Therefore, the camera must follow the angular motion. The camera must adjust to the dimming of the exhaust as long as the rocket get higher in the atmosphere. By doing so, it either opens its aperture or/and increase its exposure time, provided that the detector sensitivity is constant, but all of this depends on the quality of the camera, we cannot know but it doesn't matter at this point. The camera also zooms in. So, in following a high altitude object (zoom in = small field of view) from left to right, any star will appear to move fast from right to left. The star doesn't have to be as bright as planet Venus to appear on a good quality camera.
So, IF it is a star, there is nothing unusual in the footage. The star moves almost horizontally when the exhaust appears almost horizontal. The trajectory of the star is not directed directly to the rocket but a little below. As it moves horizontally it flickers a little (scintillation) which is natural for stars (planets substantially flicker less). As it flickers it seems to almost disappear in some frames, which means that its intensity is just enough for the detection threshold of the camera at that moment. As it approached (angular perception) from the exhaust from the right is disappears and I see no deflection in its trajectory. What the commentator of the video shows as a deflection is part of the exhaust after this later makes a little turn up. The star doesn't appear to the left because that part of the field of view is turbulent (from the rocket exhaust), which distorts so much the quality of the star's image that with it being at the limit of detectability, it becomes invisible to the camera. So, this is what would happen if it is a star in the background. It doesn't rule out other possibilities but the star hypothesis cannot be ruled out.
 
Thank you mkrnhr for that explanation. Yesterday, after posting the UFO theory which was based on the little amount of movement of the rocket, and after thinking more about it I came to the same conclusion as you did. The star theory cannot be ruled out because the rocket is moving and the camera is zoomed in, so we can't know for sure (at least not simply by looking) the distance, nor the size of the area covered by the camera. I thought about adding such a disclaimer of the UFO theory below my post, but 30 mints time frame passed. Maybe I should have made a new post, then perhaps you wouldn't have to spend your time to make yours. But, I wouldn't have explained it as nearly as good as you did. :)
 
I fully agree with mkrnhr's analysis. I could not see the 'object' move away from the rocket, as the video reporter claims repeatedly. Also, the fact that the rocket exhaust 'flares' up at the approximate time the 'object' approaches, doesn't necessarily mean something. The rocket could have passed through a cooler layer of the atmosphere, increasing the visibility of its Contrail. So, it could be anything. Note however the sensationalist, absolute claims of the video reporter, which, to me personally, now seem a bit ridiculous in the face of our analysis.

For such videos with a low signal-to-noise ratio, also consider the video compression algorithm which produces granular artefacts in movie space and time, where image and movements are interpolated, and sometimes even predicted, between key (real) frames which are far apart (look up I-frames, P-frames and B-frames for video compression). Without knowing all the technical details about the camera model, lens type, camera settings, compression methods, postprocessing, etc. it is impossible to arrive at a sensible conclusion.
 
Don't know about the moving light, but rocket's tail becoming bigger just after the light "passes" looks like rocket's staging to me. Also found this video, where they explain that Proton failed after reaching the third stage, and that is consistent with the beginning of rocket's decent that we can see in the first video.


Having said that, who knows if the rocket wasn't tempered with or something else, since the satellite that was supposed to be brought into orbit is the most advanced and sophisticated Russia has.
 
After reading mkrnhr's well thought out points I have to agree a celestial object can't be entirely ruled out. However, to me the coincidence of the intersection with the moment of failure leans me away from the star theory. Granted it's possible the moment of the contrail change and beginning of the dramatic change in trajectory is not the actual "moment of failure" and I have fallen for the typical human error of assuming cause and effect where there is none.
 
Aside from malfunction cause speculation there is interesting info that Express-AM4R is a replacement satellite that was build using insurance money which were paid because of earlier satellite copy - Express-AM4 was also lost at Aug 30, 2011 and fell in Pacific ocean at March 25, 2012.
 
Keit said:
the satellite that was supposed to be brought into orbit is the most advanced and sophisticated Russia has.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, the satellite is not Russian made but rather EU-made, by "Airbus Defense and Space"

_http://www.astrium.eads.net/en/programme/express-am4r-and-express-am7.html
 
I believe Russia Today admitted there were other similar rockets which failed. Though they also quote:

" In 2013, Russia carried out 32 of the 82 space launches completed worldwide, only one of which failed, Interfax reported. "
Click to expand...
_http://rt.com/news/159304-proton-rocket-crashed-kazakhstan/

Having watched the 'UFO' video the other day, and noting how it 'gradually' went off course that - unless the UFO's wanted to be super discrete - i lean toward error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom