EKV/KV/KW/KKV/LEAP (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles) Hover Test - Compilation Video (SM-3, GBI, etc.)

What would the mass of said asteroid have to be to accommodate such a design? Maybe you could have a HALO of THORNS (Telemetry homogeneous orbital restrainer nano-lattice stabilizer) - that have 13 satellite thrusters that can maintain the alignment of the nano-pillars... and have them sectionaly distributed as rings on the Z -- with tethered lattice of tubes tying it all together like a Chinese finger trap. ▶ this video <-- These things... link and the carbon lattice is also a fuel-capillary system - that feed like a live thing...

The realistic detail I remember from that movie is that the drones had plausible-looking reaction control thrusters (like those from missile interceptors [1]). There's a behind-the-scenes video that mentions the idea and has some (spoiling) shots from the film. [2] [1] ▶ this video [2] link == Tangential physics nitpick == In a scene (spoilers, [3]) where a hovering drone is firing its side-mounted autocannon turrets, the reaction thruster animation doesn't match what's needed to counter the torque from the recoil: 1. The drone begins by firing both port and starboard turrets forward--no torque from recoil here, only backwards force that is countered by the drone's gimballed main thruster. 2. The drone ceases firing its starboard turret to slew it towards a target directly behind it. Of the aft-facing reaction thrusters visible in the shot, only the starboard ones are firing. But this would exacerbate the torque of the still-firing port turret instead of countering it! 3. The starboard turret finishes targeting and begins firing aft, but the reaction thruster animation remains unchanged. Of course, this level of detail already far exceeds expectations, considering that this all happens in less than a second, and that there's no impact on viewing experience when fast-moving effects don't stand up to frame-by-frame scrubbing. [3] link

There are plenty of "mundane" explanation for the motion of the object to be real as well, and not just camera glare. No need to invoke aliens. For example, this video shows SDI technology from the 80s: ▶ this video which appears perfectly capable (albeit in test) of in-place rotation/motion very similar to that of the object. It could very well have been a drone, but I find it incredible that people dismiss first hand accounts in preference to some internet armchair quarterback.