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.

 

New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 107
77
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't think any beings were observed in the STS-75 orbs so I'd have to say this case doesn't appear to be similar either. The mention of a "being" occupant would also seem to rule out a pure plasma craft or creature.


what about the possibility of surface plasmon ?



Sorry....I am no replying to yr comment but I find your 3D icon so amazing....!!!!




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by KissMyTwinkys
reply to post by reugen
 



There is another scientist who said if there were thrusters involved then the satellite would have moved...It did not...So...that is a hard sell for me.
I do not believe those were ice particles, but that is just my opinion.


That's probably Jack Kasher, you can bing his comments and reports -- and my criticisms of them.

When thrusters fire on autopilot to maintain pointing angles within a narrow deadband, they do so very gently, and induce angle rates of a few hundredths of a degree per second -- no angular change would be noticeable over the duration of the video clip.

The telemetry charts that show the thruster firing times and the actual pointing angles and angle rates (and autopilot errors) have been posted on the internet for years. Can you find them?

I guess some people just want to ignore evidence that contradicts their positions. Shocker. They continue to pretend that such data does not exist. Why do you let them get away with it and play with your mind so easily?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Oberg is gonna take pot shots at every person that wants to voice their opinion in this thread yet he has no proof of anything after ten years of working on this case. no Jim there is no proof of what you claim.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


i suppose 'project condign' was the british equivalent of the infamous 'project blue book'....


i have run into a lot interesting infos.....

looool.... you can check these 'skeptical' reports for the time being.....


www.timesonline.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...


Originally posted by KissMyTwinkys
Sorry....I am no replying to yr comment but I find your 3D icon so amazing....!!!!


thanx........ appreciated



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Thanks for mentioning the infamous STS-48 zig-zag UFO video, because here are some insights from an expert about that.

For the whole article.

www.vgl.org...


Thanks for the opportunity to share this with you. Fleming is no expert, and the claimed quotes he got from some unnamed expert whose name can't be revealed, are garbled -- say the real experts.

Reply to Fleming’s Critique of Thruster Flash Theory for STS-48
Jim Oberg

Reference:
Space Shuttle Thrusters, Light Flashes, and Ice Particles --
Some Insights from an Expert
By Lan Fleming
www.vgl.org...



Lan Fleming’s report claims to relay technical information about shuttle RCS thruster firings, obtained from an unnamed “a NASA aerospace engineer familiar with the space shuttle reaction control system… who was involved in the design, testing, and performance evaluation of the RCS from the nearly the beginning of the shuttle program”. But Fleming’s report is full of misinterpretations and misunderstandings of what this engineer may have told him. I base this judgment on my own experience as an “aerospace engineer familiar with the space shuttle reaction control system”, because I served on the OMS/RCS PROP console team in 1978-1981 and supported flight operations for STS-1 and STS-2 in the Mission Control Center, where I observed the thrusters operating under spaceflight conditions.

First sentence: “In a discussion with a NASA aerospace engineer familiar with the space shuttle reaction control system, I learned that the thrusters never generate any light while operating…” Fleming states that thruster firings are only visible in sunlight at the end of each burn when a cloud of unburned propellant is ejected (possibly at the beginning of a burn too, with a ‘light sensitive camera’).

False. The thrusters create visible light flares, noticeable both to the human eye (viewing out the windows) and especially to the external CCTVs. These flares are brightest when there is unburned propellant in the flow, and this most commonly occurs at the beginning and end of a burn because the two propellant valves don’t always open exactly simultaneously, so there can be excess material of one of the two propellants which is heated to incandescence by the hypergolic burning of the thruster.

Claim: Fleming’s source is better informed than me because “unlike Oberg, this engineer observed tests of thruster firings close up on a routine basis.” Later he adds, “while Oberg may well be an expert on many aspects of space flight, he evidently has no particular expertise or experience with the RCS propulsion system.”

No basis for claim. Fleming does not know whether or not I did the same (observe) or had any expertise, so he just ‘makes up’ non-facts about me. Actually, along with my then-colleague Wayne Hale (later director of the space shuttle program), I did indeed observe thruster firings close up at the NASA White Sands Test Facility as preparation for the first shuttle missions. On STS-1 (April 12, 1981), I was on console on the OMS/RCS Propulsion team at the most critical phase, the actual first launch of a space shuttle; on STS-2, the first planned long-duration flight, I was on the planning shift. And even after transferring to the rendezvous flight control team after STS-2, I was intimately involved in developing thruster plume management procedures – and observing them on space missions – for many years.

Claim: Plumes from the “small thrusters” (the verniers, they are called) are “totally invisible without some external source of illumination” because the ‘snow’ from frozen unused propellant only “can be seen as a white plume in reflected sunlight”. This is propellant that remains in the lines after the valves have closed and then ‘dribbles’ out later, when the burn is over.

Confusion: Ice flakes from propellant leaks are indeed visible only in sunlight, but the flares that occur DURING burn start and stop are thermal consequences of excess propellant in the hot plume flow. Both primary and vernier thruster firings are readily apparent optically in scenes observed by external shuttle cameras. They are so routinely seen, especially at night when the camera’s gain has been maximized for low light level operations, that I am astonished that any engineer familiar with thruster operation could ever say they were NEVER visible at night. My suspicion is that an unclear communication here was badly distorted in Fleming’s mind by his eagerness to debunk my prosaic explanation for a favorite UFO case of his.

Claim: Photo shows plumes visible in daylight. “. I have been puzzled for a long time about why the rocket combustion gases were so easy to see when they are supposed to be nearly invisible. The puzzle is apparently solved: these photos show jets of microscopic snow at the end of the firing cycle in reflected sunlight.” Fleming produces “Figure 3” of such a daytime thruster firing.

Nonsense. The scene in Figure 3 is evidently a night time view, exactly the kind of scene that Fleming is trying to prove is impossible. From the viewing angle it appears to be taken from one of the aft windows in the crew cabin. The shuttle payload bay is illuminated from local lights, as you can determine from the shadows on structures. The shuttle’s external surfaces are dark, and in particular the ‘OMS Pods” (where the plumes are originating) are dark, not sunlit – even though Fleming insists that the propellant plumes emanating from both of them ARE in sunlight. The picture shows EXACTLY what Fleming is trying to prove the opposite of.

Claim: The plumes in Fig 3 must be sunlit because the chances of three of them simultaneously having propellant residue required “an unlikely coincidence”.

Misunderstanding. During attitude control firings, thrusters fire briefly and often in pairs or even in groups, to satisfy specific angular deviations. The thrusters are not commanded independently and randomly, but by the autopilot for specific purposes that often require multiple simultaneous firings.

Claim: Plumes cannot be visible in the dark because “in the event that there is any instability during a thruster firing that causes the fuel-to-oxidizer ratio to be out of balance, the unburned propellant would be unlikely to form snow as it exits.”

Misunderstanding: Fleming has misread the theory he is attempting to refute. There has never been any claim that the thruster flare is caused by ice or snow. On the contrary, the molecules are clearly very hot and glowing [Fleming cites an old report of mine with a typographical error that the plume velocity is 1000 ft/sec, it is actually 10,000 ft/sec as even a simple calculation [g x Isp] shows). The formation of ice, and its break-off and slow drift away from the thrusters (unless and until it is entrained by a subsequent firing, while still close by), is a different process occurring at different times.

Claim: “In the light of this new information, it seems that several things that have been written about the STS-48 video have to be reconsidered concerning the behavior of space shuttle thrusters,” which “make the thruster hypothesis seem even more preposterous than it did when I wrote the earlier article, which assumed that thrusters can ‘flare up’ sporadically, as Oberg would have it.” Finally, “the information I've received from an expert in the shuttle's RCS propulsion system provides a compelling refutation of Oberg's argument that thruster firings were the cause of the objects' behavior in both cases. ”

Refutation: By no means. The alleged “new information” is based on Fleming’s misunderstood conversations and confused claims. I would be curious what Fleming’s alleged source (apparently a genuine RCS engineer, perhaps in the Engineering Division rather than Mission Operations where I served) would have to say about Fleming’s claims about what he told Fleming. Since there is no classified or proprietary information involved, he could talk freely with a third party if Fleming would put them in contact. All the shuttle propulsion people I’ve talked with (former colleagues and their successors) and shared these claims with, are baffled how anyone could so badly misunderstand RCS thruster characteristics.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

RCS jets do seem to make a bit of a flash.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



RCS jets do seem to make a bit of a flash.


do energy weapons make a bit of a flash ?



just wondering



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
EUV-FUV spectroscopy of TSS optical Phenomena



We propose to use the IEH (International Ultraviolet Hitchhiker), a multidisciplinary facility (Astronomy, Solar System, Earth's atmosphere) to be mounted on the Shuttle pallet as a Hitchhiker flight opportunity, in order to obtain 2D images in the EUV-FUV ((400÷1300) Å) of the optical phenomena occurring in the neighborhood of the TSS satellite. These peculiar phenomena, not detectable during the first TSS mission, are primarily due to the interaction of a high-potential conductive body with the surrounding ionospheric plasma.


An overview of plasma science in the first Tethered-Satellite project (TSS-1)



This paper is an overview of the project TSS-1 and of its basic electrodynamic-science objectives. To this purpose, we first discuss the electrodynamics of conducting tethers in orbit and, secondly, provide a detailed description of the project and its payload. We also add, in the final part of the paper, a short account of the first TSS-1 flight which took place in August 1992.



this is concerning the first tether experiment.....

Early results from the RETE experiment in the TSS-1 mission


The experiment RETE was part of the payload of the mission TSS-1 flown with the Shuttle STS-46 in August 1992. In this paper we first give a brief description of the experiment and the measurements it allowed to perform. Some results are then presented on satellite charging, current in the tether and wave excitations in the satellite vicinity. Although preliminary, these data clearly point out the type of scientific investigations that will be possible with such measurements.


and this one is in regards to the experiments carried out via sts-75.....

The TSS-1R electrodynamic tether experiment: Scientific and technological results


The Tethered Satellite System program was designed to provide the opportunity to explore certain space plasma-electrodynamic processes (associated with high-voltage bodies and electrical currents in space) and the orbital mechanics of a gravity-gradient stabilized system of two satellites linked by a long conducting tether. A unique data set was obtained during the TSS-1R mission in which the tether electromotive force and current reached values in excess of 3500 volts and 1 amp, respectively. The insight this has allowed into the current collection process and the physics of high-voltage plasma sheaths is significant. Previous theoretical models of current collection were electrostatic—assuming that the orbital motion of the system, which is highly subsonic with respect to electron thermal motion, was unimportant. This may still be acceptable for the case of relatively slow-moving sounding rockets. However, the TSS-1R results show that motion relative to the plasma does affect current collection and must be accounted for in orbiting systems.


however if you check the following reports..... you will notice.... nothing is being mentioned about plasma.....


apollo.cnuce.cnr.it...
apollo.cnuce.cnr.it...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
The TSS-1R electrodynamic tether experiment: Scientific and technological results


some basic background.....


The TSS (Tethered Satellite System) 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 the TSS-1 mission were to:

* verify engineering performance of the Tethered Satellite System (TSS);
* determine and understand the electro-magnetic interaction between the tether/satellite/orbiter system and the ambient space plasma;
* investigate and understand the dynamical forces acting upon a tethered satellite; and,
* develop the capability for future tether applications on the Shuttle and Space Station.

The TSS released a satellite while remaining attached to a reel in the orbiter payload bay. This mission was intended to demonstrate control of the satellite during deployment, aerodynamic stability at flight altitude, and the ability of the system to collect meaningful scientific data and to return the data to the Orbiter, and then to the Payload Operations Control Center (POCC). The satellite was to be deployed 20 Km (12.5 miles) above the Orbiter. The deploying equipment consisted of a Spacelab pallet, a reel for tether deployment, an extendible/retractable boom for initial deployment and final retrieval of the satellite, an electrical power and distribution subsystem, a communications and data management subsystem, and a tether control capability. A separate support structure carried science instrumentation.

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.

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.

NASA was reponsible for the TSS deployer and systems integration, and Italy for building the satellite. Five investigations from Italy and five from the USA were selected for the first mission.

On the TSS 1 mission, due to a technical problem (a protruding bolt), the tether could only be released to about 840 feet.

The TSS 1R mission was a reflight of the Tethered Satellite TSS 1. 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.


source


[edit on 3/12/09 by mcrom901]

[edit on 3/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
do energy weapons make a bit of a flash ?


hmmmmm........ check this.....

Plasma Laser: UFO Maker?




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


nice find mcrom901



esearchers working with high-power laser weapons discovered that they could create a glowing ball of fire in the sky by crossing the beams of two powerful infrared lasers…By moving the laser beams around the sky, the researchers found they could shift the plasma ball back and forth at very high speed…. At night, they demonstrated their skills, flying their glowing creations in formation high above the cold desert.
www.wired.com...





Ground Laser Fire at the TiPs Tether in Space





hmmm. maybe they were shooting lasers at the STS75 tether ?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JimOberg
 

RCS jets do seem to make a bit of a flash.


Thanks, Phage, that's exactly the picture spacevisitor's "expert" Lan Fleming used in his linked report trying to prove that RCS plumes are invisible in the dark -- except, this picture was TAKEN in the dark. I guess if you choose your conclusions first, you have to really the lower the bar on what passes for an 'expert'.


Relevant to visibility and illumination effects in space, that entire mission (STS-39, which I worked on console) has great video views of shuttle plumes being observed from another spacecraft, showing (as Fleming insists an 'expert' told HIM was impossible) how the thruster plumes do glow in the dark.

STS-39, a mission full of thruster observations and special pluming and other chemical releases… watch the video.
www.nss.org...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
hmmm. maybe they were shooting lasers at the STS75 tether ?


Nice story -- too bad you missed the part that the plasma ball is created in air.

A
I
R

Or don't you recognize the problem with suggesting it could happen in outer space?


V
A
C
U
U
M



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
do energy weapons make a bit of a flash ?
just wondering


When we were running the first ATB laser prototype out behind Manzano in New Mexico in 1971-2, we discovered a bizarre effect of the beam itself. When turned on, it would illuminate its target across the valley, but the point would then DROP several inches. The beam was actually DROOPING.

It took a while to figure out -- and test, to verify -- why that was happening. Bizarre it was.

Any guesses?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Anybody checked out those shuttle CCTV operating specs files I linked to?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
V
A
C
U
U
M


thats a nice one......




Outer space is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum), but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields and neutrinos. Theoretically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy.


en.wikipedia.org...



In everyday usage, vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] The word comes from the Latin term for "empty". Even putting aside the complexities of the quantum vacuum, the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice.


en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Another more general view about thrusters in action. Notice about multiple thrusters simultaneous, and if you put a camera somewhere on the shuttle, it is not necessary for this camera to see (film) the plume into the frame, depending on the positions of the FOV of the camera, and the plume.





from Space Shuttle Flight 102 (STS-98) (~min 15:40)
www.nss.org...




[edit on 3/12/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


is that ground breaking news or something ?

that has already been discussed many times



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Anybody checked out those shuttle CCTV operating specs files I linked to?



I've taken a fast survey... i was on lack of time and sleepy...but i didn't see too many more informations compared to the other one document posted by me before.... of course i've may missed informations due to my rush..

Anyway, we have the camera which took these sts-75 videos, which is camera C, also we have some of its characteristics:


Originally posted by depthoffield
Back to our "C" camera, the C - STBD Aft Corner, B & W Lens camera, we have technicall specification in this NASA document:

www.shuttlepresskit.com...

[]

And some technical data:







details in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...


If there it is something relevant that i missed about these camera, you, mr. Oberg, may inform us.


[edit on 3/12/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 3/12/09 by depthoffield]




top topics



 
77
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join