STS-75 Tether Incident - Mystery solved! Breaking News!, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 10:08 AM by bloodcircle

Originally posted by redshirt0202
Maybe the debris collides with other debris and therefor changes direction or atleast slows down.

oO what an entirely dangerous space is then, if these specs are near the camera as stated, and there are so many of them. A dust storm in space?

Common activity?

no shuttles should be left at all, imo. And it should be verifiable with all the footage we have of space walks, shuttle activity, et al, yet.. nada.

?

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 10:13 AM by WitnessFromAfar

Two quick mentions, these posts should be reviewed by all who believe these 'objects' to be 'debris':
www.abovetopsecret.com...
- Balez
www.abovetopsecret.com...
- Oleg

And two quick points.

1) If these objects are debris from the tether, they should be orbiting the tether, PERIOD.

2) If they are debris orbiting the tether, they would be large, not particle sized, even with a lens effect. Remember, the tether is like 12 miles long.

These objects, even if they are debris (which is highly unlikely in the face of the above points) are nowhere near the camera lens. If debris from the tether, they would drift and orbit relative to the tether.

By the by, it's amusing to me how nobody ever seems to comment on why the tether 'broke off' in the first place.

Great posts as always Oleg! Way to go Balez, nice to meet you!

-WFA

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 10:20 AM by squiz

Originally posted by redshirt0202
Maybe others are doing it , you just don't see it because they are to transparent or not in the camera's field of view.

Let me get this straight, they could be rotating because there either invisible or outside the cameras view. I can't compete with that logic.

Maybe the debris collides with other debris and therefor changes direction or atleast slows down.

Slows down then changes direction. That's not collision.

Look closely, it's not constant, it's kind of 'pulsating'.

They sure are, with a vortex to boot.

If the sun is behind the camera then there'd be a wide range where the object is still going to be iluminated. Also notice that the field of view of the camera is relatively small, maybe they do infact get darker once they leave the camera's field of view.

The cameras field of view holds the 12 mile long tether, beyond that lightyears of space. Those cheeky devils performing for the cameras view.

Once again, the reflection only looks so big because it is out of focus, in reality the actual debris is much smaller and therefor muhch farther apart.
And it really is a death trap up there. There's a reason why the sapce shuttle has extremly thick and strong walls.

If these objects are close to the lens then they cannot possibly be very far apart. Also see the previous post concerning the paint chip and the shuttles window. If there were that much debris in such a localized space then I doubt we'd have any astronauts returning to earth.

You seem to be mixing your explanations, is it dust/ice close to the lens as NASA claims or space debris at a distance?

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 10:25 AM by redshirt0202

Slows down then changes direction. That's not collision.

The debris first collides with an object which slows it down, it then shortly after collides with another object causing it to change it's path.
On the second collision the debris already had less energy because it already collided with another object before.

It could also be that the second time the debris was hit at a different angle causing it to change direction.

2) If they are debris orbiting the tether, they would be large, not particle sized, even with a lens effect. Remember, the tether is like 12 miles long.

And the tether is a few miles away from the shuttle and yet it appears as a rather thick line in the video when in reality it's very thin so it's been "magnified" a few hundred times due to the oout of focu effect, the same thing happend to the space debris.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by redshirt0202]

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 10:33 AM by WitnessFromAfar

reply to post by redshirt0202

Actually no, it appears larger due to the fact that it's being viewed in Ultra Violet.

But thanks for further proving that you don't have a grasp of the physics of this incident, nor the equipment involved in capturing the data.

By the by, no comment on the original 'tether snap'?

Also, you haven't addressed the fact that if Debris, it's from the tether, and should be next to the tether (relative to the camera) MILES away, as you confirm.

Sometimes your arguments cancel each other out Redshirt. It makes it difficult to have a conversation involving physics and math.

Do the calculations for the distance of the tether and figure the size of the debris (even assuming a lens effect). When you are shocked and amazed at your results, I'd love to speak on this incident further.

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 10:44 AM by redshirt0202

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

Actually no, it appears larger due to the fact that it's being viewed in Ultra Violet.

The ultraviolet adds to the magnification but the tether seems bigger because it is out of focus. You can try this at home if you want to

. Take any object, place it infront of a camera in such a way that it is out of focus and it will appear to be bigger than it actually is.

Really, go ahead, try it!

Also, you haven't addressed the fact that if Debris, it's from the tether, and should be next to the tether (relative to the camera) MILES away, as you confirm.

It's not debris form the tether ( no one said it is ) .

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 10:57 AM by WitnessFromAfar

reply to post by redshirt0202

Actually, NASA says it's debris from the tether.

But, taking your point in context, if not from the tether, where did this mysterious debris come from?

Also keep in mind before you reply the physics involved. If you are talking about particles even 1cm in diameter, you're talking about debris that would/should penetrate the ISS or Shuttle (in this case) hull.

Remember the speeds involved, and please check Oleg's post that I cited at the outset of my participation in this thread.

I'm assuming that you believe that ALL of the 110,000 objects categorized by NASA as potential hazards are 'right next to' the shuttle camera?

Highly unlikely IMHO.

Also, try your trick with a UV camera, and no, I'm not talking about a filtered camcorder, I'm talking about a UV camera. You'll notice several differences.

Further, if this were truly a lens effect, we would expect to see lens flaring. We don't, on ANY object, INCLUDING the tether itself.

-WFA

It's all about the physics! No need for the raspberry

[edit on 18-3-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 11:00 AM by badBERTHA

Hi all just watched both the original and the lens effect video... sorry but my thoughts are that the lens effect video is merely a coincidence of shape, in that they are similar but not the same, like any lens that I have have ever used if you zoom in real close and there is dirt/dust whatever on the lens then you will see it but if you zoom out it disappears, pretty much completely. In the the original tether video the camera zooms in and zooms out and the objects are clearly visible in either zoom. Equally, and I'm no expert but I would have thought that if the dust, ice particles, whatever were caused by the release of the tether (and I always thought that these types of experiments are usually performed in extremely controlled environments to prevent such things as dirt/dust/moisture getting into expensive sensitive equipment) once released into the vacuum of space would do so at a (mostly) regulated speed, formation and direction. What we can all clearly see in the tether video are objects moving at extreme speeds, very slow speeds (1st gear perhaps?) and in a multiple of different directions and distances.

In summary I would say that although the lens effect theory is a potentially plausible viewpoint I would say that it is hanging on a pretty solitary and wobbly nail.

My tuppence (UK money)

berth

[edit on 18-3-2008 by badBERTHA]

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 11:04 AM by WitnessFromAfar

p.s. I'm familiar with the optical illusion you are reffering to.

See David Beidny and Jeff Ritzmans' report on it here, and my own explanation to the layman on what occurs in those cases.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This IMHO is not one of those cases.

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 11:16 AM by scobro

Hi.

In most of the video the tether looks fairly small,right?
And the objects seem to be on the farside of the tether,right?

So this must make these "dust particles" absolutely huge,right?

Or have i lost all grasp of where this thread is going.

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 11:20 AM by b309302

I mentioned this earlier, the tether was part of an experiment to generate electricity from the upper atmosphere. Isn't it possible that the current ionized the dust particles making them charged? Charged dust particles could create eccentric flight paths when they come into proximity by attracting or repelling one another.

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 11:34 AM by redshirt0202

But, taking your point in context, if not from the tether, where did this mysterious debris come from?

Are you serious? Debris is everywhere in space...seriously man...this isn't news. Just for you I have included a link to a page about where space debris (and where it comes from) is explained.

Space debris

Also keep in mind before you reply the physics involved. If you are talking about particles even 1cm in diameter, you're talking about debris that would/should penetrate the ISS or Shuttle (in this case) hull.

That's ONE of the reason why the hull of the shuttle is so thick and why space travel is a dangerous thing.
Everytime an astronaut leaves the space station the NASA people on the ground are holding their breath because this is so very dangerous!

I'm assuming that you believe that ALL of the 110,000 objects categorized by NASA as potential hazards are 'right next to' the shuttle camera?

No, but atleast 4 dozen of them and maybe a few we don't see.

Also, try your trick with a UV camera, and no, I'm not talking about a filtered camcorder, I'm talking about a UV camera. You'll notice several differences.

Several years ago, we had one at our university. Probably not the same and not as expensive as NASAs camera but it was a true UV camera (from sony). We used it to film thunderstorms. Although we never pointed it at stars or lightsources, when used inside objects that we're out of focus appeared to be bigger than they really were. We saw this effect quite often when trying to adjust the focus on the camera.
(If I find a picture of it I'll post a link, I'm not sure if it works the same way as NASAs or not)

Further, if this were truly a lens effect, we would expect to see lens flaring. We don't, on ANY object, INCLUDING the tether itself.

We wouldn't necessarely see lens flaring. I doubt that the light reflected by debris is strong enough to cause a lens flare.

btw, when did NASA ever say it was debris from the tether?

[edit on 18-3-2008 by redshirt0202]

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 11:41 AM by WitnessFromAfar

reply to post by b309302

Great point, and thank you for citing the experiment itself!
This could explain the flight paths of the 'objects', however, you are also talking about a charged tether here. We all know how magnetic fields work. The tether should retain a much higher charge (which makes it look much bigger in UV), and that charge would be the dominant force (even stronger than gravity) in the local tether area of space. In effect, this major bipole would extert an attraction greater than each particle itself, and (if debris from the tether) greater than the combined charge of the particles.

I thought of this too, but including the tether's charge makes this point argue strongly for individual directional control (or thrust) of each 'object'.
Otherwise what we would see here would be charged particles aligning themselves with the magnetic field lines of the tether. We don't see this.

Excellent work going back to the physics of the experiment!

-WFA

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 11:51 AM by WitnessFromAfar

reply to post by redshirt0202

I'm sorry, I stopped reading at "that's why the hull is so thick"

Perhaps you've not heard of Columbia? Hmmm, okay. Check out heating tiles. That's the outer hull of the shuttle. If this layer is damaged, no re-entry.

Thick Hull? I'm sorry, this conversation is going nowhere. You're not discussing the reality of the situation. We risk astronauts out there in space suits.

And about space being 'full of debris', I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. Even the junk we put up there eventually decays in it's orbit and burns up in the atmosphere (example, the Mir spacestation), unless we maintain it's orbit.

If 'debris' existed in such an enormous amount EVERYwhere in space (including earth orbit where the gravity well is in play) you'd see it on EVERY NASA shuttle video/pic. We dont see it, because it isn't there.

Or perhaps in your private archive of NASA footage you can find even a single example of such debris?

-WFA

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 11:57 AM by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by redshirt0202
btw, when did NASA ever say it was debris from the tether?

In the same video. When addressing the astronauts in the shuttle. They are referencing 'debris' from the tether snap. This is why I indicated you study the incident itself. Once the subject was referenced, it can be referred to as an implication.

It's like saying, "I went to the store."
and then later in the conversation, saying, "I found potato chips for $.59!"

The 'store' and the 'I' are implied in the second sentence, later in the conversation.

This conversation between mission control and the shuttle was regarding the tether snap. That's why I referenced the experiment earlier. We must keep things in context.

-WFA

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 12:06 PM by gottago

I've watched the video a good dozen times and a few observations:

In the close-ups, watch the notches: almost all the disks have a single notch on the bottom when above the center line of the screen ( I caught one that had a notch on top, though), and the disks in the lower half of the screen have two notches on top.

When a disk passes diagonally across the screen from top to bottom or bottom to top, its notch configuration changes accordingly: two notches on the top when below the centerline of the screen, one notch on the bottom above it.

Also, you can see some objects go in front of the tether when the camera pulls away.

In all, gives me serious pause if indeed this might be a lensing artifact, though I thought otherwise before this.

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 12:27 PM by mikesingh

reply to post by redshirt0202

Oh? Tether Incident mystery solved? Then what do you say about this incident on the NASA Control Room screen? Notice the object? And no one there seems to care a damn!! Because for NASA, UFOs ain't no big deal!!

YouTube Link

UFO/amoeba-like object on NASA control Room screen! Similar to the pulsating objects in the ‘tether incident’

Cheers!

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 12:31 PM by C.H.U.D.

Here's another UFO filmed from the ground that looks like a UFO from the tether footage:

YouTube Link

If the link doesn't work: uk.youtube.com...

Edit to add: This object can't be close to the camera (if you watch the video this is obvious), so I think we can discount an airy disk artifact.

Note also the unusual behavior at the 1:05 mark. Anyone still think it's an airy disk ?

[edit on 18-3-2008 by C.H.U.D.]

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 12:44 PM by redshirt0202

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

And about space being 'full of debris', I'm sorry but this is just nonsense.
Even the junk we put up there eventually decays in it's orbit and burns up in
the atmosphere (example, the Mir spacestation), unless we maintain it's orbit.

My fault, I meant around earth (sorry for this one). And it's not 100 000 pieces it's 400 000. Read here

In the same video. When addressing the astronauts in the shuttle. They are referencing 'debris' from the tether snap. This is why I indicated you study the incident itself. Once the subject was referenced, it can be referred to as an implication.

They are? Then you must definitally show me that part of the video, because all I heard was ground control saying "...we see a lot of things swimming in the foreground, can you explain what you're seeing?"
and the astronaut says "..well, the line is the tether and there's a little bit of debris flying with us"
No mention of debris from the tether.

f 'debris' existed in such an enormous amount EVERYwhere in space (including
earth orbit where the gravity well is in play) you'd see it on EVERY NASA shuttle
video/pic. We dont see it, because it isn't there.

Or perhaps in your private archive of NASA footage you can find even a single example
of such debris?

Well yes I can!

Enjoy :

First video is not from a NASA mission but still extremly interesting (you SHOULD watch this one before you continue talking about things you don't know anything about.)

Video 1 - Short documentary about space junk

NASA Mission - Space Debris

and some more pictures :

pic 1 - debris

pic 2 - even more debris

Happy? I hope so.

Oh? Tether Incident mystery solved? Then what do you say about this incident on the NASA Control Room screen? Notice the object? And no one there seems to care a damn!! Because for NASA, UFOs ain't no big deal!!

The NASA people don't care because they know that those things are just debris, not UFOs.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by redshirt0202]

reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 12:58 PM by WitnessFromAfar

reply to post by redshirt0202

Your examples do not even slightly resemble what we see in the STS 75 footage.

But I'll let other members make their own decisions regarding your complete disregarding of the physics involved in this situation, and of the experiment itself, and the resulting tether snap accident.

I've illustrated my points adequately, and members can come to their own conclusions.

If you aren't even going to acknowledge that the footage is simply a segment of a longer portion, and that mission control and the astronauts are referring to debris from the tether, it really isn't worth my time to continue here. I'm sorry, but you've debunked nothing.

I'd say nice try, but unless you deal with the data apparent, it wasn't even a nice try.

In the words of the illustrious Mike Singh:

Cheers!

-WFA