Originally posted by internos

Originally posted by Credulity Kills

Based on the post below yours you were right on!

What's wrong with my post mate?
a mission specialist for the ISS who doesn't know the most famous UFO incident ever occourred during an ISS mission frankly makes me concern:
perhaps you did forget it, or you weren't aware at all of it?

I think he meant mine...since I was asking for evidence that he works for NASA.. or maybe he did mean you? Dang iternos. LOL :lol

But I am sure he will come back soon and provide us some evidence

[edit on 4-5-2008 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by internos
So you are the only person in the world who believes so...

As I recall, the NASA Photo & TV people believe it to be a video artifact of a natural phenomenon thus I hardly think I'm the only person in the world that thinks that. You're probably better read up on the varying alternative opinions than I so feel free to fill me in.

I should point out that most people at NASA don't put much effort into telling their topic-expert colleagues that they're wrong - because they very rarely are. If the Photo & TV group thinks that's what it is, I'll tend to trust them on that in lieu of expert testimonial and evidence to the contrary.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Credulity Kills]

Originally posted by internos
What's wrong with my post mate?
a mission specialist for the ISS who doesn't know the most famous UFO incident ever occurred during an ISS mission frankly makes me concern:
perhaps you did forget it, or you weren't aware at all of it?

[edit on 4/5/2008 by internos]

I have to point out that as a "subject matter expert" you should know that STS-75 was not an ISS mission.

I doubt 5% of the people in mission control have even heard of the "tether incident" as it is oft referred to on sites like this. And why should they? Believe it or not, folks at NASA don't put a lot of credence into the whole UFO thing.

I'm genuinely curious, are there image analysis experts out there who disagree with NASA's position? By experts I also mean people who are not into UFOs - I'm looking for impartial analysis by people who don't want to believe or disbelieve. Just the facts, mam

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Credulity Kills]

Originally posted by Credulity Kills
As I recall, the NASA Photo & TV people believe it to be a video artifact of a natural phenomenon thus I hardly think I'm the only person in the world that thinks that. You're probably better read up on the varying alternative opinions than I so feel free to fill me in.

Honestly, this is the first time that i hear this explanation:
they have been dismissed by NASA as icy particles, and there have been a huge debate about one of the objects visible in the footage:
some claim that it passes behind the tether, some else that it passes in front of it
But no one, as far as i'm concerned, said ever that it was a video artifact:
simply because it does not make sense.
Perhaps we are talking about two different incidents?

Originally posted by internos
Perhaps we are talking about two different incidents?

I don't think so. Ice particles are routinely shed from the shuttle in orbit. I can imagine that with a *very* long focus (20 kilometers!) to view the tethered satellite that ice crystals close to the camera would look odd - certainly different from what they look like when you're focusing on them. In that sense it would certainly be an artifact of the long focus. Perhaps we're getting into a semantic argument over "video artifact."

I had forgotten that Claude Nicollier was on that mission. I know him very well. If I run into him I'll ask, honest!

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Credulity Kills]

Originally posted by Credulity Kills
I have to point out that as a "subject matter expert" you should know that STS-75 was not an ISS assembly mission.

I know what were the Mission Objectives.
My point was another:
it looked to me that someone posed you a question and you did provide a random answer
But of course this is not very important.

I doubt 5% of the people in mission control have even heard of the "tether incident" as it is oft referred to on sites like this. And why should they? Believe it or not, folks at NASA don't put a lot of credence into the whole UFO thing.

I'm genuinely curious, are there image analysis experts out there who disagree with NASA's position? By experts I also mean people who are not into UFOs - I'm looking for impartial analysis by people who don't want to believe or disbelieve. Just the facts, mam

Here i absolutely agree:
no independant/impartial assessment have ever been made, at least as far as i'm concerned.
For example i have no idea what was what we saw in the video, as i know that NASA had many more important things to do than analyze a video like that.
The debate was mostly on the movement of the objects: someone has also tried to prove that they changed direction but definately they never seemed to perform intelligent manoeuvres.
But i know that NASA was very concerned about that specific incident, for technical reasons.

I had forgotten that Claude Nicollier was on that mission. I know him very well. If I run into him I'll ask, honest!

That would be great
I really wonder what comes out: i'm very interested.
Ah!
Welcome to ATS


[edit on 4/5/2008 by internos]

Originally posted by internos
My point was another:
it looked to me that someone posed you a question and you did provide a random answer

My apologies if it came out that way - it certainly wasn't intended. I've been aware of the video for some time, perhaps I just "misremembered" (in the parlance of the 2008 U.S. election) the official explanation.

For example i have no idea what was what we saw in the video, as i know that NASA had many more important things to do than analyze a video like that.
The debate was mostly on the movement of the objects: someone has also tried to prove that they changed direction but definately they never seemed to perform intelligent manoeuvres.

This reminds me of the video that some claim shows a space-based weapon shooting at a UFO. The interesting thing about that video is the "UFO" does indeed change direction. I've seen this exact phenomenon many, many times since the ISS got the cameras on the trusses (much higher resolution) and I'm wholly convinced that it's ice being tossed about by the thruster firings.

That would be great
I really wonder what comes out: i'm very interested.
Ah!
Welcome to ATS

Thanks for the welcome. Claude has retired but I think I've seen him since then. I have little doubt what his response would be (a hearty chuckle) and I'm certain he's aware of the controversy.

Originally posted by internos
Here is it
This really puzzled me for a long time.
I think that a good question would be how can it change direction?
I mean, what forces could have brought it to change path? Could it have been some kind of inertial reaction? This is a very important point, in my opinion, because it would provide a possible explanation to many, many videos that have been debated here

Yup, that's the one! Thanks.

The flash that you see is an automatic shuttle thruster firing. Thrusters are used by the shuttle to maintain attitude or to move to different attitudes when required. There's typically a few degree deadband that the shuttle's computers will control to - if it hits a attitude error of ~5 degrees (modifiable) in any axis, thrusters will fire to correct the orientation.

As mentioned above, the shuttle sheds quite a bit of ice from different places. It's required to regularly dump water overboard (a byproduct of the fuel cells), uses a FES (Flash Evaporator System) to reject heat before the radiators are deployed, and even expels human waste. All of this stuff freezes almost immediately upon hitting vacuum.

The object that you see trending right to left (object 1) is likely frozen crap (figuratively or even literally) that came off the shuttle. The flash is definitely form the hypergolic combustion of some nearby thrusters. While the flash is initially visible, the bulk of the thrust comes in the moments after as the fuel begins to burn. That expansion of gasses is what caused the change in direction of object 1 and made it accelerate. Object 2 which appears to shoot past object 1 could be more ice or the clumped up residue that collects in the thruster manifolds (unburned fuel that freezes).

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Credulity Kills]

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Credulity Kills]

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Credulity Kills]

Originally posted by Credulity Kills
Haha - seriously, don't sweat it - it's the interwebs after all

I'm all up for talking about whatever, but I want to make it clear that my experience is fairly specific. I can speak to just about anything ISS related, and a lot that is manned spaceflight related, but things like image analysis, etc. are not my forte. I will flat-out tell you when I don't know something.

Feel free to introduce me in that thread and I'll fill in the details. My posting might be fairly sporadic but I'll do my best to get to the bulk of the questions addressed to me.

Thank you
I'm going to lay-out the thread right now:
this video has never been discussed as it would deserve, and what is really needed in cases like this one is experience, reason, logic and common sense: so you have all the prerequisites needed in order to provide an excellent contribute.
This video, and its explanation, are by themselves the proof that not all that we see is what it looks to be.

Hey Credulity Kills.

Nice to see another interesting and informative person join ATS. I have always been interested in studying physics, computer science, engineering and the like, but sadly I could not find any welcoming careers to fallow these lines of study to justify the cost of these types post-secondary education. Instead I now find myself getting in the game design industry instead.

Anyway, I am still interested in the sort of jobs NASA may have, so I was just wondering, how exactly do you get a job at NASA? What are all the different types of jobs? What kind of education would I have to get to qualify?

I am just seriously wondering if I might have missed my calling.