It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA STS-63 UFO Footage Discussion

page: 16
10
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Once again. The statement is concerning the data which they wanted to obtain during the rendezvous with Mir. 400 feet was not close enough to get the data that they wanted to obtain during the rendezvous. They were nowhere near each other, not 400 feet, not 1,000 feet, not 1,000 miles when this decision was made.

Fortunately when it was time for the rendezvous;

According to Flight Director Phil Engelauf, "[It] wasn’t until the morning of the rendezvous that we had finally gotten an agreement from the Russians that we were going to be able to go ahead and make the close approach." Onboard Discovery, Wetherbee told veteran cosmonaut Vladimir Titov that, if the leak was still a problem, he would not bring the Orbiter close to Mir—no matter what the flight controllers said. But, when the shuttle crew woke up on the morning of the rendezvous, the leak had diminished.

history.nasa.gov...


After extensive negotiations and technical information exchanges between U.S. and Russian space teams, Russians concluded close approach could be safely achieved and STS-63 crew was given 'go' to proceed.
www.nasa.gov...

For a more detailed report of the mission look here:
www.astronautix.com...




posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks phage!

That is what I wanted to know ;-)

"Discovery flown to 37 feet from Russian space station. "As we are bringing our spaceships closer together, we are bringing our nations closer together," Wetherbee said after Discovery was at point of closest approach. "The next time we approach, we will shake your hand and together we will lead our world into the next millenium."

"We are one. We are human," Viktorenko responded. Wetherbee then backed away to 400 feet (122 meters) and performed one and a quarter-loop flyaround of Mir while station was filmed and photographed. The Mir crew reported no vibrations or solar array movement as result of the approach."

*(This section of the archives is far more concise - I appreciate it)



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


You may find this of interest;
www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org...



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


very cool link they even tell you what music they play for the astronauts. Doesnt say what they eat for breakfast though! Thanks ive got it bookmarked.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Hardly half a dozen..anyway to remind you of what not just me, but others as well, for you to answer is this...

..why are there no full length, unaltered, unedited videos, audio recordings, documents and transcripts available directly from any NASA site?

Also, why should anyone have to jump through hoops to get what we already own as taxpaying citizens who pays for everything that NASA does?




For transcipts, have you tried the 'Apollo Lunar Surface Journal' project?

As for 'jumping through hoops', don't you make requests for services in a formalized way with any bureaucracy? Do you walk into the DMV and demand they renew your license on your say-so, or do you fill out the form ('jump through a hoop')? Did you demand your HS diploma purely because you were confident you were smart enough (well, you might have
), or did you 'jump through hoops'?



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Thanks phage!

That is what I wanted to know ;-)


Exubie, is it possible you just don't read the material you yourself cite? You got outraged over a non-inconsistency because you never finished reading the very link you provided originally, where it was clear the approach was made to 35 feet. Please, read the material over again, see how you have embarrassed and discredited yourself, and learn caution, thoroughness, and a little humility from this experience.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Exubie, is it possible you just don't read the material you yourself cite? You got outraged over a non-inconsistency because you never finished reading the very link you provided originally, where it was clear the approach was made to 35 feet.


"Non-inconsistency"...

Wrong again, Jimbo.

Both the sources I recently cited had different distances(NASA and SPACEWARN).

The link that Phage posted had both distances being mentioned, and unlike the links cited by myself earlier; this one accurately described their relationship, and explained the disparity... which is what I wanted to know more about. ;-)

*You could not even account for the disparity when asked - but given the inconsistent numbers, data and poorly-worded press-kits that are released by NASA; I don't blame you for not being able to answer:

"So which was it Jimbo - Was the distance 400 feet, or was it 'about twelve meters'? "

(It must be difficult to keep one's story straight under such conditions. In such cases, it would make sense to either stay quiet or deliver a 'nonanswer' in reply - as you did...)

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg

Exubie, is it possible you just don't read the material you yourself cite? You got outraged over a non-inconsistency because you never finished reading the very link you provided originally, where it was clear the approach was made to 35 feet.


"Non-inconsistency"...

Wrong again, Jimbo.

Both the sources I recently cited had different distances(NASA and SPACEWARN).

The link that Phage posted had both distances being mentioned, and unlike the links cited by myself earlier; this one accurately described their relationship, and explained the disparity... which is what I wanted to know more about. ;-)


The way it looks to me, when you posted posted on 24-3-2009 @ 09:25 AM, and said

STS 63 was finally allowed to come close to the MIR station, within about twelve meters, as a prelude to a planned docking in the future. Initial orbital parameters were period 91 min, apogee 342 km, perigee 310 km, and inclination 51.6 deg. (nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...)
*Then you have following statement from the astronauts logs - which contradicts the first: "Russian engineers were "very sharp and astute and asked all the right questions." They changed the minimum separation to 400 feet, still not close enough for meaningful data."
(history.nasa.gov...)


... you were stating that the second site had the 400 foot mark, and only that distance. This was the contradiction you freaked out over.

But when I go to the second link, the one you claim asserted the closest approach was 400 feet, I find this statement:


The Discovery crew brought the Orbiter up to within 35 feet of Mir.


Is it possible that you did not see that statement in that link, that you read '400 feet' and then stopped reading the rest of the report?

This is the link YOU posted.

It includes the '35 feet' statement as the actual closest approach. You, apparently, are claiming it did NOT include that information.

Anyone curious about the level of your reading-for-comprehension capability can visit that link and see for themselves.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
...Is it possible that you did not see that statement in that link, that you read '400 feet' and then stopped reading the rest of the report?....


....It includes the '35 feet' statement as the actual closest approach. You, apparently, are claiming it did NOT include that information....



More misrepresentation...

It is statements like this that show you don't bother to fully read people's posts - if you had read my last, you would not bother to post such fallacious commentary. Poor form....

Because you missed it, here it is again:

"The link that Phage posted had both distances being mentioned, and unlike the links cited by myself earlier; this one accurately described their relationship, and explained the disparity... which is what I wanted to know more about. ;-)"

*You still didn't answer my questions about what constitutes "meaningful data", and it was up to Phage to link to a site on NASA's servers that actually accounted for the disparity in such a concise manner to as to greatly increase it's research viability....

This appears to be just another incident of editorial incompetence of NASA's behalf. (Actually, one guy did it right - the other two did the 'Never Any Straight Answer' routine.)

The distance was something I wanted to resolve, and I am also trying to determine why no 'meaningful data" was sent to Mir. (However, some fellow members and I may have already figured that one out)

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Earlier in the thread we debated the issue of whether the shuttle UFO images were in visible or UV. I've finally obtained the detailed technical specs of the shuttle external cameras and the window transmissivity and posted them here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join