wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,435
Exposure times.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
What do you mean "not enough"? Step one must be to confirm that footage is original and unedited before trying to figure out what it is.
Why? Because it's been around for a long time? Assuming things like this is just sloppy research methodology.
I'm not grasping at straws here or anywhere else. I am suggesting possible mundane explanations and in this case inform you that it is contrast enhanced. Your methodology in researching this is to exclude all plausible mundane explanations. You now have a few starting points.
I'm providing you with more mundane explanations to rule out. How can I take you seriously when you post a long video compilation of clips where most of them are not properly sourced and seems to be of quite ordinary phenomena? You even admit that yourself. Pick the ones that contain confirmed unaltered photo and that you think are alien and forget the rest.
And the incentive for doing this would be that the first half held so many unexplainable photo sequences?
So no original source. However, it seems like an obvious reflection in glass.
I agree, it's one mans opinion.
Original source missing. Could maybe be a free floating object in the ship that is out of focus?
Original source missing. Could be a reflection f ex.
What? I don't even see anything mysterious in that picture. Can you point it out for me?
Snipped a long text which nowhere contains references to original sources.
Original source missing.
Original source missing.
So, can't it be some kind of small debris?
Original source missing. However, I have to ask. A bright dot moving over a screen in the nasa control room is evidence of aliens exactly how?
Original source missing and also refutes your earlier claim that each clip is fully referenced.
No comment.
Original source missing.
Original source missing.
Original source missing.
Original source missing.
Original source missing.
Original source missing.
Original source missing.
Original source missing.
Original source missing.
Seriously Roger. You have to stop using Youtube as a source for your UFO photage. It's very hard to take you seriously when you can't even show that each clip is original, unedited photage.
Seriously Jocce, how does your endless repetition of “Original source missing” advance our knowledge of these cases?
Let us develop some of the cases that remain outstanding a little further. I am interested in this case for example:
21. Skylab 3 (20 Sep 1973)
Discussion and Analysis:
(http://www.nicap.org/skylabIIIdir.htm)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)
Photos:
2138: (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/...ction=view¤t=SL3-118-2138-SkylabIII.jpg),
2139: (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/...ction=view¤t=SL3-118-2139-SkylabIII.jpg)
2141: (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/...ction=view¤t=SL3-118-2141-SkylabIII.jpg).
NASA photo listing (listed as “Satellite, unmanned” on p41 and as “Blank” on p245):
(http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740007948_1974007948.pdf)
Ramjet in my opinion the photograph from skylab is of the same thing that surrounded the tether that brokeaway from sts75, the only difference as far as i see is that it was visible to the naked eye, whereas with sts 75 it was not visible to the naked eye either from the shuttle or earth bound observations.
However i do not think either is little greenmen or even unmanned alien spacecraft.
I do however believe it is some form of spacial plasma, whatever it is nasa are very
secretive about it for sure.
However i do not think either is little greenmen or even unmanned alien spacecraft.
I do however believe it is some form of spacial plasma, whatever it is nasa are very
secretive about it for sure.
30. STS-75 (25 Feb 1996) The Tether Incident
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFBUS0kiSA)
Debunker:
(http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=121830)
(http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm)
I can accept that the notches displayed on the objects are an artefact of the camera lens construction. That much is clearly apparent and well described in both the above articles. However, that says nothing about the objects themselves - except that they most likely did not contain notches…
Clearly also many of the objects are closer to the camera than the tether - and out of focus. But again this tells us nothing about the nature of the objects themselves – even the tether was out of focus… (Note: The “bunching” of the tether itself, coupled with the lack of focus AND the type of camera used, makes the tether seem thicker that it actually is. So Oberg is actually completely mistaken in all his analyses of thickness and length of the tether in the video. Strangely enough he actually states “The true visual nature of the tether can be determined from observations made around the world at the time of the break…” If Oberg were actually serious in his analysis he would have noted that immediately on breaking the tether “bunched up” – like a recoiling spring – thus shortening its apparent length and thickening its apparent width - yet somehow he manages to “overlook” that tiny detail in his “analysis”. He never mentions the type of camera at all...).
Both articles also claim it is merely an optical illusion that some of the objects were more distant (behind) the tether. However, there does seem to be an apparent difference between the way the light reaching the camera behaves when the objects either pass in front of or behind the tether. The task of observing this is made more difficult by the woeful camera work (just as you get used to the FOV and can begin tracking the objects, the FOV shifts! This is very amateurish. Perhaps NASA should actually train their astronauts in basic camera technique before they send them up there?).
Nevertheless I could almost be convinced that it is all ice debri - except for some glaring inconsistencies. For example at 2:12 a “large” object enters on the left of the picture. It continues on to curve around the “top” of the tether and down the other side! I would like to know how free floating debri can execute such a curved trajectory… These are not the only anomalous trajectories and an analysis of the particle trajectories can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Xx66ba36o&feature=related)
It is interesting to note that in other videos (such as the STS 80 “Star Wars” video) the “debri” moves as if deflected – that is there is a sudden angular change in the debri’s motion – and this is explained as an effect from (micro)bursts of the Shuttles stabilising thrusters, keeping the shuttle on course. However in the STS 75 video, there is curved motion of the debri (and wavy motion too…). To achieve this kind of debri motion, the shuttle would have to follow the debri around in a circle, with its thrusters directed constantly at the debri… clearly that did not happen.
So the question remains: what were the objects?
I find your take on it interesting. I presume you mean the camera used was (according to some sources) designed to capture images in the “near ultraviolet” – thus whatever showed up might be invisible to the naked eye – but clearly the tether was a visible object and just because light is reflecting off an object in the “near ultraviolet”, does not mean that it does not also reflect “visible” light.
“Little green men”? I agree, no serious researcher would conclude such a thing on the evidence presented.
“Spacial Plasma”? I don’t know what that is, but you certainly are entitled to the theory. There are certainly some weird “shapes” filmed out there (for example here (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/net56/sts115_fd01_03_56.asf - at 00:27 bottom right corner) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoxja0zoUWU&feature=related). I cannot however conclude that they are related either to STS 75 or SkyLab 3. I would nevertheless be interested to hear why you might believe they are related…
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFBUS0kiSA)
Debunker:
(http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=121830)
(http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm)
I can accept that the notches displayed on the objects are an artefact of the camera lens construction. That much is clearly apparent and well described in both the above articles. However, that says nothing about the objects themselves - except that they most likely did not contain notches…
Clearly also many of the objects are closer to the camera than the tether - and out of focus. But again this tells us nothing about the nature of the objects themselves – even the tether was out of focus… (Note: The “bunching” of the tether itself, coupled with the lack of focus AND the type of camera used, makes the tether seem thicker that it actually is. So Oberg is actually completely mistaken in all his analyses of thickness and length of the tether in the video. Strangely enough he actually states “The true visual nature of the tether can be determined from observations made around the world at the time of the break…” If Oberg were actually serious in his analysis he would have noted that immediately on breaking the tether “bunched up” – like a recoiling spring – thus shortening its apparent length and thickening its apparent width - yet somehow he manages to “overlook” that tiny detail in his “analysis”. He never mentions the type of camera at all...).
Both articles also claim it is merely an optical illusion that some of the objects were more distant (behind) the tether. However, there does seem to be an apparent difference between the way the light reaching the camera behaves when the objects either pass in front of or behind the tether. The task of observing this is made more difficult by the woeful camera work (just as you get used to the FOV and can begin tracking the objects, the FOV shifts! This is very amateurish. Perhaps NASA should actually train their astronauts in basic camera technique before they send them up there?).
Nevertheless I could almost be convinced that it is all ice debri - except for some glaring inconsistencies. For example at 2:12 a “large” object enters on the left of the picture. It continues on to curve around the “top” of the tether and down the other side! I would like to know how free floating debri can execute such a curved trajectory… These are not the only anomalous trajectories and an analysis of the particle trajectories can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Xx66ba36o&feature=related)
It is interesting to note that in other videos (such as the STS 80 “Star Wars” video) the “debri” moves as if deflected – that is there is a sudden angular change in the debri’s motion – and this is explained as an effect from (micro)bursts of the Shuttles stabilising thrusters, keeping the shuttle on course. However in the STS 75 video, there is curved motion of the debri (and wavy motion too…). To achieve this kind of debri motion, the shuttle would have to follow the debri around in a circle, with its thrusters directed constantly at the debri… clearly that did not happen.
So the question remains: what were the objects?
Welcome to the thread sts75.
I find your take on it interesting. I presume you mean the camera used was (according to some sources) designed to capture images in the “near ultraviolet” – thus whatever showed up might be invisible to the naked eye – but clearly the tether was a visible object and just because light is reflecting off an object in the “near ultraviolet”, does not mean that it does not also reflect “visible” light.
“Little green men”? I agree, no serious researcher would conclude such a thing on the evidence presented.
“Spacial Plasma”? I don’t know what that is, but you certainly are entitled to the theory. There are certainly some weird “shapes” filmed out there (for example here (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/net56/sts115_fd01_03_56.asf - at 00:27 bottom right corner) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoxja0zoUWU&feature=related). I cannot however conclude that they are related either to STS 75 or SkyLab 3. I would nevertheless be interested to hear why you might believe they are related…
Yeah, you're right. Let's just forget about source checking. Who needs to check those pesky data anyway. Let's just assume that everything we see on the interwebs is for real and that everyone tells the truth. Ok with you?
Will do, but not right now. Out of time.
Ramjet i am sorry but i cannot post links yet until i have made 15 posts, so until i can, you and anyone else replying to my posts will just have to trust my veracity.
Some background before i start replying.
I am a retired layman of reasonable intelligence, i saw the footage of sts75 and was appalled at others gullibility and so i decided to look into it.
My travels around the web soon brought me into contact with one James Oberg who was well mannered and helpful to start with, directing me to his site, and then to his explanation on rense.
However i found alot of inconsistencies in his one answer fits all spacial anomaly's, so i went throught a 6 month self education course on flights 73 and 75.
To understand that which makes both these flights unique is to know the nature of the on -board experiments to be under-taken,for both flights the shuttle had a small re-fit, the refit involved the piping of the waste and potable water to the FES.
The expulsion of which throught the FES was the focus of one of the experiments, and the sole reason the TOPS camera was there in the first place.
You will need to do some research, i will link you to all you need when i can, but please do not make assumptions about the event as you have in your first reply which is wrong in so many ways.
Also do not take me as anti your point of view as i find sts75 and sts80
quite fascinating, even more so sts 80, however i will only discuss sts75
for now.
Please also bare in mind when i researched this event was several years ago and i will myself need a refresher, and whilst i take that we can discuss sts75 stage by stage through the timeline, the same timeline that destroyed and very much annoyed one mr James Oberg who eventually admitted that he analyzed the footage from a different pass/flyby, so beautifully written was his debunk with shuttle attitude everything, all the little very important details, infact far to much detail, it was his downfall.
For instance his insistance that the camera was filming down on the tether,
and the ice crystals released on the waste water dump drifted down and into view as they fell away behind from the shuttle etc, real detail, you see mr oberg relies on others intelligence and arrogance to pull off his bluffs, he knows that if he gives a detailed prosiac explanation that most intelligent people will accept his word verbatim and move on as most do not know very much about spacial mechanics and would not even think to doubt him as he is telling them what they want to hear, hence their own arrogance being their own flaw and weakness..
Simple to me physics, and i am only a beginner, would mean that any debris
that leaves a shuttle drops down and infront of the craft by virtue of still travelling at the same speed in a shorter orbit, which ofcourse is the case as the merest bit of research at nasa proved beyond any doubt.
Not that that would matter for ice crystals anyway as they sublimate within 10 mins max when out of the shuttles shadow or darkness.
Not that even the above matters on flights 73 and 75 as both used the redirected waste water for the fes experiments, and no waste water dumps were carried out under the normal proceedure after day 2 and before the last day.
Also the line to potable water tank 4 was frozen on the day the footage was shot.
All the above i know and read at nasa sites and have all links or saved pages.
We are only at the beginning of the story now and its a complicated case, so i will stick to fact rather than give opinion, however when complete i will gladly explain further what my take on events are.
I can accept that the notches displayed on the objects are an artefact of the camera lens construction. That much is clearly apparent and well described in both the above articles. However, that says nothing about the objects themselves - except that they most likely did not contain notches…
You do not know they were objects of any description.
please research the TOPS camerabefore replying, they certainly did not need to be solid objects.
Clearly also many of the objects are closer to the camera than the tether - and out of focus. But again this tells us nothing about the nature of the objects themselves – even the tether was out of focus… (Note: The “bunching” of the tether itself, coupled with the lack of focus AND the type of camera used, makes the tether seem thicker that it actually is. So Oberg is actually completely mistaken in all his analyses of thickness and length of the tether in the video. Strangely enough he actually states “The true visual nature of the tether can be determined from observations made around the world at the time of the break…” If Oberg were actually serious in his analysis he would have noted that immediately on breaking the tether “bunched up” – like a recoiling spring – thus shortening its apparent length and thickening its apparent width - yet somehow he manages to “overlook” that tiny detail in his “analysis”. He never mentions the type of camera at all...).
No ramjet you are wrong in saying the tether stayed coiled, it did no such thing.
Firstly it straightened out and rose into a 50ish nautical mile higher orbit than the shuttle{again making a mockery of obergs camera angle etc}.
Mr Oberg went into great detail with me about the camera and its specs, until i pointed out to him that the footage was shot on the tops camera, a camera whose existence he was completely in the dark about and denied their use of until i showed him all he needed to see and it was no longer an issue as he had to concede.
Yes the tether was visible to many sky watchers during its existence.
However many got the 2 tethers mixed up, as the navy's one was only 4.5 miles long if memory serves me right on its lenght as opposed to 12 miles long in the footage of the italian satelite tether.
Both articles also claim it is merely an optical illusion that some of the objects were more distant (behind) the tether. However, there does seem to be an apparent difference between the way the light reaching the camera behaves when the objects either pass in front of or behind the tether. The task of observing this is made more difficult by the woeful camera work (just as you get used to the FOV and can begin tracking the objects, the FOV shifts! This is very amateurish. Perhaps NASA should actually train their astronauts in basic camera technique before they send them up there?).
The camera was not under the astronauts control so your assertion is mute.
Nevertheless I could almost be convinced that it is all ice debri - except for some glaring inconsistencies. For example at 2:12 a “large” object enters on the left of the picture. It continues on to curve around the “top” of the tether and down the other side! I would like to know how free floating debri can execute such a curved trajectory… These are not the only anomalous trajectories and an analysis of the particle trajectories can be found here
Now your asking the right questions.
How can it be ice, how did it rise into the field of view, not only that obergs claim of a waste water dump following the shuttle from a dump 1 hour proir to the footage being shot, i proved beyond doubt to him could not exist in several ways, a point he eventually conceded, how could he not.
It is interesting to note that in other videos (such as the STS 80 “Star Wars” video) the “debri” moves as if deflected – that is there is a sudden angular change in the debri’s motion – and this is explained as an effect from (micro)bursts of the Shuttles stabilising thrusters, keeping the shuttle on course. However in the STS 75 video, there is curved motion of the debri (and wavy motion too…). To achieve this kind of debri motion, the shuttle would have to follow the debri around in a circle, with its thrusters directed constantly at the debri… clearly that did not happen.
Again i redirect you to the experiments being under-taken, they had a big baring on the shuttles activity and thruster usage, its also the reason they did not retrieve the tether.
Fuel consumption was critical on the extended flight.
So the question remains: what were the objects?
They were not objects.
Welcome to the thread sts75.
I find your take on it interesting. I presume you mean the camera used was (according to some sources) designed to capture images in the “near ultraviolet” – thus whatever showed up might be invisible to the naked eye – but clearly the tether was a visible object and just because light is reflecting off an object in the “near ultraviolet”, does not mean that it does not also reflect “visible” light.
“Little green men”? I agree, no serious researcher would conclude such a thing on the evidence presented.
“Spacial Plasma”? I don’t know what that is, but you certainly are entitled to the theory.
I will gladly discuss my theory with you, when we get to that point.
Some background before i start replying.
I am a retired layman of reasonable intelligence, i saw the footage of sts75 and was appalled at others gullibility and so i decided to look into it.
My travels around the web soon brought me into contact with one James Oberg who was well mannered and helpful to start with, directing me to his site, and then to his explanation on rense.
However i found alot of inconsistencies in his one answer fits all spacial anomaly's, so i went throught a 6 month self education course on flights 73 and 75.
To understand that which makes both these flights unique is to know the nature of the on -board experiments to be under-taken,for both flights the shuttle had a small re-fit, the refit involved the piping of the waste and potable water to the FES.
The expulsion of which throught the FES was the focus of one of the experiments, and the sole reason the TOPS camera was there in the first place.
You will need to do some research, i will link you to all you need when i can, but please do not make assumptions about the event as you have in your first reply which is wrong in so many ways.
Also do not take me as anti your point of view as i find sts75 and sts80
quite fascinating, even more so sts 80, however i will only discuss sts75
for now.
Please also bare in mind when i researched this event was several years ago and i will myself need a refresher, and whilst i take that we can discuss sts75 stage by stage through the timeline, the same timeline that destroyed and very much annoyed one mr James Oberg who eventually admitted that he analyzed the footage from a different pass/flyby, so beautifully written was his debunk with shuttle attitude everything, all the little very important details, infact far to much detail, it was his downfall.
For instance his insistance that the camera was filming down on the tether,
and the ice crystals released on the waste water dump drifted down and into view as they fell away behind from the shuttle etc, real detail, you see mr oberg relies on others intelligence and arrogance to pull off his bluffs, he knows that if he gives a detailed prosiac explanation that most intelligent people will accept his word verbatim and move on as most do not know very much about spacial mechanics and would not even think to doubt him as he is telling them what they want to hear, hence their own arrogance being their own flaw and weakness..
Simple to me physics, and i am only a beginner, would mean that any debris
that leaves a shuttle drops down and infront of the craft by virtue of still travelling at the same speed in a shorter orbit, which ofcourse is the case as the merest bit of research at nasa proved beyond any doubt.
Not that that would matter for ice crystals anyway as they sublimate within 10 mins max when out of the shuttles shadow or darkness.
Not that even the above matters on flights 73 and 75 as both used the redirected waste water for the fes experiments, and no waste water dumps were carried out under the normal proceedure after day 2 and before the last day.
Also the line to potable water tank 4 was frozen on the day the footage was shot.
All the above i know and read at nasa sites and have all links or saved pages.
We are only at the beginning of the story now and its a complicated case, so i will stick to fact rather than give opinion, however when complete i will gladly explain further what my take on events are.
I can accept that the notches displayed on the objects are an artefact of the camera lens construction. That much is clearly apparent and well described in both the above articles. However, that says nothing about the objects themselves - except that they most likely did not contain notches…
You do not know they were objects of any description.
please research the TOPS camerabefore replying, they certainly did not need to be solid objects.
Clearly also many of the objects are closer to the camera than the tether - and out of focus. But again this tells us nothing about the nature of the objects themselves – even the tether was out of focus… (Note: The “bunching” of the tether itself, coupled with the lack of focus AND the type of camera used, makes the tether seem thicker that it actually is. So Oberg is actually completely mistaken in all his analyses of thickness and length of the tether in the video. Strangely enough he actually states “The true visual nature of the tether can be determined from observations made around the world at the time of the break…” If Oberg were actually serious in his analysis he would have noted that immediately on breaking the tether “bunched up” – like a recoiling spring – thus shortening its apparent length and thickening its apparent width - yet somehow he manages to “overlook” that tiny detail in his “analysis”. He never mentions the type of camera at all...).
No ramjet you are wrong in saying the tether stayed coiled, it did no such thing.
Firstly it straightened out and rose into a 50ish nautical mile higher orbit than the shuttle{again making a mockery of obergs camera angle etc}.
Mr Oberg went into great detail with me about the camera and its specs, until i pointed out to him that the footage was shot on the tops camera, a camera whose existence he was completely in the dark about and denied their use of until i showed him all he needed to see and it was no longer an issue as he had to concede.
Yes the tether was visible to many sky watchers during its existence.
However many got the 2 tethers mixed up, as the navy's one was only 4.5 miles long if memory serves me right on its lenght as opposed to 12 miles long in the footage of the italian satelite tether.
Both articles also claim it is merely an optical illusion that some of the objects were more distant (behind) the tether. However, there does seem to be an apparent difference between the way the light reaching the camera behaves when the objects either pass in front of or behind the tether. The task of observing this is made more difficult by the woeful camera work (just as you get used to the FOV and can begin tracking the objects, the FOV shifts! This is very amateurish. Perhaps NASA should actually train their astronauts in basic camera technique before they send them up there?).
The camera was not under the astronauts control so your assertion is mute.
Nevertheless I could almost be convinced that it is all ice debri - except for some glaring inconsistencies. For example at 2:12 a “large” object enters on the left of the picture. It continues on to curve around the “top” of the tether and down the other side! I would like to know how free floating debri can execute such a curved trajectory… These are not the only anomalous trajectories and an analysis of the particle trajectories can be found here
Now your asking the right questions.
How can it be ice, how did it rise into the field of view, not only that obergs claim of a waste water dump following the shuttle from a dump 1 hour proir to the footage being shot, i proved beyond doubt to him could not exist in several ways, a point he eventually conceded, how could he not.
It is interesting to note that in other videos (such as the STS 80 “Star Wars” video) the “debri” moves as if deflected – that is there is a sudden angular change in the debri’s motion – and this is explained as an effect from (micro)bursts of the Shuttles stabilising thrusters, keeping the shuttle on course. However in the STS 75 video, there is curved motion of the debri (and wavy motion too…). To achieve this kind of debri motion, the shuttle would have to follow the debri around in a circle, with its thrusters directed constantly at the debri… clearly that did not happen.
Again i redirect you to the experiments being under-taken, they had a big baring on the shuttles activity and thruster usage, its also the reason they did not retrieve the tether.
Fuel consumption was critical on the extended flight.
So the question remains: what were the objects?
They were not objects.
Welcome to the thread sts75.
I find your take on it interesting. I presume you mean the camera used was (according to some sources) designed to capture images in the “near ultraviolet” – thus whatever showed up might be invisible to the naked eye – but clearly the tether was a visible object and just because light is reflecting off an object in the “near ultraviolet”, does not mean that it does not also reflect “visible” light.
“Little green men”? I agree, no serious researcher would conclude such a thing on the evidence presented.
“Spacial Plasma”? I don’t know what that is, but you certainly are entitled to the theory.
I will gladly discuss my theory with you, when we get to that point.
Last edited:
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,435
If you don't understand why it's extremely important then you definitely aren't a scientist.
Okay… but I would argue that there were objects of some nature (solid or not)…
STS-75 (Launch 12 Feb 1996)
(http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/mission-sts-75.html)
Aerial Camera Systems
(http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/AirSci/ER-2/cameras.html)
For a third investigation of the orbiter's ionospheric surroundings, the SETS and SPREE experiments teamed up with the Tether Optical Phenomena (TOP), Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics (ROPE) and Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects (RETE) experiments to study the electron beams fired from the SETS experiment's electron gun. Previous measurements indicated that a thin electron beam emitted from the orbiter quickly expands in width to form a cylinder. The effectiveness of these electron emissions from the orbiter depends on various factors, including the beam's direction, the local ionosphere's density, and the orbiter's electrical potential compared with that of the ionosphere.
While Mission Specialist Claude Nicollier used the TOP camera to watch the electron beams, the tethered satellite-mounted ROPE and RETE experiments used their plasma diagnostic instruments to observe the beams during both sunlight and darkness to obtain data. (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/sts-75-day-04-highlights.html)
Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment(TOP)
NSSDC ID: 1996-012B-12
Mission Name: TSS-1R
Description
Using a hand-held camera system aboard the orbiter with image intensifiers and special filters, this investigation will provide visual data to study the optical effects generated by a tethered satellite system. In place of the conventional photographic experiment package, that has flown on nine previous shuttle missions, a charge-coupled device electronic system will be used to provide realtime high-resolution observations. The basic system consists of a 55mmF/1.2 or 135mmF/2.0 lens atttached to the charge-coupled device equipment. The imaging system will operate in four configurations: filtered, interferometer, spectrographic, and filtered with telephoto lens. (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do?id=1996-012B-12)
STS-75 (Launch 12 Feb 1996)
TSS-1R
NSSDC ID: 1996-012B
Description
The TSS-1R mission is a reflight of the Tethered Satellite TSS-1 that had been flown on the Space Shuttle mission STS-46 in July of 1992. A protruding bolt had prevented full release of the tether during the TSS-1 mission. The TSS mission equipment consists of the deployer system, the Italian-build satellite, the electrically conductive tether (22km total length) and 6 science instruments. The TSS-1 is to be deployed from a reel in the orbiter payload bay upward (away from Earth) to up to 20 Km (12.5 miles) above the Orbiter. The objectives of this mission are: (1) to verify engineering performance of the Tethered Satellite System (TSS); (2) to determine and to understand the electro-magnetic interaction between the tether/satellite/orbiter system and the ambient space plasma; (3) to investigate and to understand the dynamical forces acting upon a tethered satellite; (4) to demonstrate electrical power generation; and, (5) to develop the capability for future tether applications on the Shuttle and Space Station. The deploying system consists of a motor- driven tether storage reel and level wind system. A separate multipurpose equipment support structure (MPESS) carries all science instruments not integrated on the satellite, with the exception of the Tethered Optical Phenomena (TOP) equipment, which is carried in the crew compartment. The spherical satellite is 1.6 meters in diameter and 6.5 meters in length. The S-band antenna, magnetometers, and Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics (ROPE) equipment are mounted on stationary booms, and the Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects (RETE) Langmuir probe and dipole field antenna are mounted on 2.5 meter deployable/retractable booms. At the base of the satellite, a swivel joint and a bayonet pin attache the tether to the satellite. A connector routes the tether conductor to an ammeter and then to the satellite's skin. The satellite contained cold gas (nitrogen) thrusters used for deployment, retrieval, and attitude control. The 2.54 mm diameter conducting tether was constructed using Kevlar and Nomex with 10 strands of 34 AWG copper wire and a Teflon sheath. NASA is reponsible for the TSS deployer and systems integration, and Italy for building the satellite. Five hours after deployment began on February 25, 1996, with 19.7 km (of 20.7 planned) of tether released, the tether cable suddenly snapped near the top of the deployment boom. The TSS satellite shot away into a higher orbit. TSS instruments could be re-actived and produced science data for three days until battery power ran out. An independent review panel was formed to review the TSS-1R failure. (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1996-012B)
On Sunday, February 25, 1996, 9:30 p.m. CST, STS-75 MCC Status Report # 08 reports:
The tether on the Italian Tethered Satellite broke about 7:30 p.m. CST Sunday as the satellite was nearing the full extent of its deployment from the Shuttle. The satellite, which was nearing the end of its planned 12.8 mile distance, immediately began accelerating away from Columbia at a rapid rate as a result of normal orbital forces. TSS is separating from Columbia at a rate of 420 miles each 90 minute orbit.
The tether apparently snapped near the top of the 39-foot TSS boom in Columbia's cargo bay. Neither the astronauts nor the Space Shuttle were ever in any danger.
Following the break, Mission Control asked the astronauts to record television of the boom and broken tether for post-flight analysis.
Flight controllers now will be determining when and how to secure the TSS support equipment, including the deployment boom, before moving on with other mission objectives. Scientists and engineers managed to gather about five hours of data on the performance of the satellite and tether dynamics before the break. (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/sts-75-day-04-highlights.html)
Data Collection Search Results
There were no data collections returned. (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/data...ment=Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment(TOP))
…Meanwhile, Nicollier took video of Earth's horizon using the Tether Optical Phenomena (TOP) equipment. This experiment, conducted by Stephen Mende of Lockheed Martin, involves the use of a camera system with image intensifiers and special filters and will provide visual data that will allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether motions and optical effects generated during the Tethered Satellite's deployment. In particular, this experiment will examine the high voltage sheath of electrically charged, or "ionized" gas that will surround the satellite as it flies through Earth's ionosphere.
One means to control the current developed by the Tethered Satellite System involves the use of electron accelerators which return electrons to the ionized gas, or plasma, surrounding the orbiter. The interaction between these electron beams and the plasma is not well understood. By using the TOP images to make measurements of the visible light radiated by the plasma, this process, and how it affects the spacecraft, can be better understood. (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/news/sts-75-pocc-03.txt)
Okay… I am beginning to see where your “plasma” explanation might arise from. So now where?
Further comments on your post:
Excellent point (How do you get to “10 mins max” though?)
I stand corrected.
How do you know that it was the TOP camera that produced the vision we see?
…but the voiceovers from MCC seems to suggest it was under astronaut control?
For example from (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFBUS0kiSA) we have:
Shuttle: “…but Edward is trying to do a quick…ahh good job of adjusting the cameras.” (2:01)
MCC: “… (Tommy?) Houston, that’s a much better view… ah a lot more contrast visible.” (2:55)
...and we also have "…Meanwhile, Nicollier took video of Earth's horizon using the Tether Optical Phenomena (TOP) equipment." (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/news/sts-75-pocc-03.txt)
So we have plasma experimentation going on, but how do you draw a link between what we see on the video and your “plasma”?
At this point I still need some explanation of the curved (anomalous etc) trajectories of the “objects” (no matter what they are). Also that they exhibit extraordinary variation in direction and speed – a waste water dump from the shuttle would tend to see it all travelling in basically the same direction surely (and certainly not in opposing directions…)
I think it is time you put your cards on the table regarding your “plasma” theory. I am willing to seriously entertain it as long as you can support it with evidence.
PS: Here is a list of all the experiments listed for the tether (http://spacephysics.msfc.nasa.gov/projects/tether_scienceinv.shtml)
People given up trying to explain in plausible mundane terms these two cases?
Skylab 3 (20 Sep 1973)
(http://www.nicap.org/skylabIIIdir.htm)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)
STS-75 (25 Feb 1996) The Tether Incident
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFBUS0kiSA)
Okay... how about this one then?
Apollo 10 (22 May 1969)
Command Service Module "Charlie Brown" as seen from the Lunar Module "Snoopy" during the Apollo 10 Mission.
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html)
Interestingly you can see that the object is being observed/tracked (or at least an attempt is made) from “Charlie Brown” (the CSM) as it flips its high-gain (deep space) antenna (a four-dish unified S-band antenna) around (lower right) to follow it. (http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad004.gif)
“…operation of steerable antenna during abnormal staging excursions demonstrated ability of antenna to track under very high rates”
(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_10b_Objectives.htm)
System specs here:
(http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-ovcomm.html)
Skylab 3 (20 Sep 1973)
(http://www.nicap.org/skylabIIIdir.htm)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)
STS-75 (25 Feb 1996) The Tether Incident
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFBUS0kiSA)
Okay... how about this one then?
Apollo 10 (22 May 1969)
Command Service Module "Charlie Brown" as seen from the Lunar Module "Snoopy" during the Apollo 10 Mission.
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html)
Interestingly you can see that the object is being observed/tracked (or at least an attempt is made) from “Charlie Brown” (the CSM) as it flips its high-gain (deep space) antenna (a four-dish unified S-band antenna) around (lower right) to follow it. (http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad004.gif)
“…operation of steerable antenna during abnormal staging excursions demonstrated ability of antenna to track under very high rates”
(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_10b_Objectives.htm)
System specs here:
(http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-ovcomm.html)
Ok, let's discuss this then. Maybe we could start by checking that whatever pictures and videos we're using are unaltered? As you should know by now, someones postings on youtube and misc. photo sharing sites doesn't count.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Are you proposing an alien or "alien" explanation for them? If so, please present your hypothesis.
We wouldn't want that burden of proof to get shifted, would we?
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
An error analysis of the numbers produced by Maccabee & Sparks for Skylab 3's red blob would be too much to ask for?
Anyone with good scientific formation and/or unbiased attitude would recognize that without it, the work's conclusions mean nothing.
Anyone with good scientific formation and/or unbiased attitude would recognize that without it, the work's conclusions mean nothing.
Why would you try to track an object with your communication antenna, which would make you lose contact with the ground station?
Do you have mission notes that say this was tried, or are you just speculating?
One of the mission objectives was to test that the high gain antenna could track the ground station, to maintain communication. It did. So if the high-gain antenna was slewing, then there was most likely relative motion between the spacecraft and the ground station.
I'm more interested in the specifications of the time machine that allowed them to use Shuttle equipment on Apollo 10.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
...the mere listing of unanswered puzzles is not equivalent to providing unanswerable arguments.
Dr. William Hartmann (UFOs: A scientific debate - Sagan and Page p. 14)
You can't be serious about using a radio communications antenna to track an object in space? You might as well suggest they were trying to catch it like a net. I think the rapid motion of the antenna indicates the film has been sped up giving the impression of rapid motion for public consumption. My guess is the speed is probably 3-4 X normal speed. Perhaps that is where one could start to determine what potential explanations there are.
It could have been simply a bit of debris floating in front of the camera inside the LM or possibly outside the craft (maybe something propeled by an RCS jet firing). There is nothing to indicate "intelligence" though. It did not alter its path or do any loops around the spacecraft. I don't recall reading any of the astronauts talking about a near miss either. I am sure the transcripts are available. Let us know when you find all this out.
Dr. William Hartmann (UFOs: A scientific debate - Sagan and Page p. 14)
You can't be serious about using a radio communications antenna to track an object in space? You might as well suggest they were trying to catch it like a net. I think the rapid motion of the antenna indicates the film has been sped up giving the impression of rapid motion for public consumption. My guess is the speed is probably 3-4 X normal speed. Perhaps that is where one could start to determine what potential explanations there are.
It could have been simply a bit of debris floating in front of the camera inside the LM or possibly outside the craft (maybe something propeled by an RCS jet firing). There is nothing to indicate "intelligence" though. It did not alter its path or do any loops around the spacecraft. I don't recall reading any of the astronauts talking about a near miss either. I am sure the transcripts are available. Let us know when you find all this out.
That’s a good question. However if Astrophotographer is correct that the film we see is actually 3-4 times normal speed, then the slewing of the antenna and the passage of the of the object being so precisely coordinated becomes even more outrageously coincidental.
Note: The max. distance between the CM and LM during the separation and recapture was 150 ft ( Young from June 1969 Technical Debrief: "We applied 0.6 ft/sec velocity to about 40 seconds and nulled the velocity to zero, essentially. We then started our pitch around at about a degree and a half per second. When we got around, we were about 150 feet away from the S-IVB…” (http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad004.gif))
The time when they “got around” and commenced the docking procedure was about 003:06:00 and the docking was complete at about 003:17:30. That’s about 11 minutes. Unfortunately, the video we see is edited in a number of places, so determining if the film we see was “sped up” (as Astrophotographer contends) is difficult.
Interestingly, if Astro is correct, then the “meteor” theory for the object becomes even less likely (it would then have to be the slowest meteor in history - http://www2.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2109).
There is also this little exchange during the docking procedure around the time the object flies across the field of view:
003:13:29 CapCom (Cooper): Hey, what's that guy doing on the front porch?
003:13:36 Stafford: That's a green man, Gordo.
(http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad004.gif)
…a “green man”?
I provided you this link (http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad004.gif) - but perhaps I could have provided further information (http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad004.gif) …just search “antenna” within the document and about 2/5 of the way down you will see a diagram explaining the antenna setup.
I am not providing arguments, all I am doing is pointing out that we have some data that indicates something anomalous. Considering UFOs are the topic of this thread, I contend that it might possibly be a UFO. I make no judgement on what UFOs might represent. All I am doing is pointing out that there is an object in a place and time that we have no mundane explanation for – and leave it up to others to draw what conclusions they may (while noting that I have specifically, on a number of occasions, stated that just because we have no mundane explanation does not mean we can therefore conclude ET).
Why do you make such assertions that could not possibly be true? The object is clearly outside the LM – concluding that much is probably the most obvious thing about it.
“…something…”? (RSC?)
What “something” could possibly be out there? The only thing(s) that came off (separated from) the CSM/LM combo were the 4 SLA panels that housed the LM:
003:04:55 Cernan: And there goes another [SLA] panel.
003:04:59 Duke: Roger. All retrograde, we hope.
[Charlie Duke is making the observation that he hopes all of the SLA panels are travelling retrograde, that is moving outward and behind the S-IVB / LM combination, so that they do not pose any risk when the CSM moves back in for the docking with the LM 'Snoopy'.] (http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad004.gif)
Now this is all before the LM has separated from the CSM so by the time the LM has got to 150 ft and turned into proper alignment, these panels would be long gone - and at the rate the object moves across the FOV, it simply could not have been one of these panels… so what “something” are you proposing?
Nobody is claiming “intelligence”. All I am interested in is what plausible explanation for the object there might be. Yes the transcripts are available (I’ve been quoting from them). “green man”?
Is it just me, or does there seem to be something very similar between these two objects…?
STS-115 Atlantis (9 Sep 2006)
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/qtime/sts115_fd01_03.mov) (lower right corner just over half way through)
Skylab 3 (20 Sep 1973)
(http://www.nicap.org/skylab3.htm)
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk10/lunacognita/Skylab III anomaly/SL3-118-2141-SkylabIII.jpg)
STS-115 Atlantis (9 Sep 2006)
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/qtime/sts115_fd01_03.mov) (lower right corner just over half way through)
Skylab 3 (20 Sep 1973)
(http://www.nicap.org/skylab3.htm)
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk10/lunacognita/Skylab III anomaly/SL3-118-2141-SkylabIII.jpg)
If the antenna is tracking an astronomical body, like the Earth, which is what it was supposed to do, it doesn't make it outrageous at all.
Most of the apparent motion to an astronomical object would be a function of the two spacecraft's motion around the moon. So the apparent speed of all astronomical bodies would be about the same. If the bright dot were a reflection or refraction of the sun, its apparent angular velocity would be about the same as the Earth. So the antenna would track at about the same speed.
What exactly did it reflect from/ shine through in the spacecraft before hitting the window? I don't know.
Once again: do you have documentation that there was an attempt to do a useless thing like pointing a high gain communication antenna at it, or is this simply conjecture on your part?
Most of your links are to the same .gif picture of Apollo.
Your link to "System specs" pointed to a brief mention of the Shuttle S-band system. Thus my joke about time travel.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
There is a difference between "meteor" and "meteoroid". Look it up. You can't have a meteor on the moon because meteors are produced by meteoroids interacting with the earth's atmosphere. This link is a not applicable.
Why do you make such claims? Have you proven it is "clearly outside the LM"? How did you do so? What allows you to claim this.
RCS (not RSC) were little thrusters used for attitude control on the LM and CM. One or both firing a short burst could propel something away from the LM.
And what have the SLA panels to do with this? The SLA Panels were part of the upper stage and were gone long before they reached lunar orbit. What we seen in this clip is a "dot". Nothing more. A piece of dirt, a fleck of material from the LM's skin, anything freely floating in space that could pass in front of the camera could cause this event. That is my argument. Until you can demonstrate it is not some bit of dirt/material/rock/whatever, that remains the most likely source for the object.
Again, I NEVER said anything about SLA panels. I still can't figure out why you brought it up because they were long gone from the craft days before this sequence was shot (they retrieved the LM from the upper stage a day or so after launch and then proceeded to the moon). The SLA panels tended to follow along but behind the LM/CSM. However, they were never even close to those two craft.
[
If it demonstrated no "intelligence" what prevents us from concluding the most likely cause is a bit of debris or something that passed in front of the camera either inside or outside the craft. That is the most likely explanation.
Trying to mount some ridiculous theory that they attempted to track it with a communications antenna is pretty absurd because the antenna did not have the capability to track anything. It was not a radar, which is what you seem to think it was. Perhaps the antenna array is confusing you into thinking it was some form of radar.
As for the green man comment, can you list the entire context of the conversation. My guess is it was a joke unless you really believe there were "little green men" outside.
- Status