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: 111
77
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


thanks buddy....


a little break.... time for da lunar peaches......






posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So now you want me to believe that those quotes are garbled because it is said by some real experts whose names are also not revealed?


Would you accept as one definition of an 'expert' to be any engineer who has been certified for Mission Control Center operations in the decision-making loop regarding OMS/RCS systems?


Shore, if you can provide me the documentation of that engineer where he or she explains and proofs why he or she claims that those quotes are garbled.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Read again what is said in the article regarding that specific picture, and take notice of the fact that it isn’t dark in my opinion because the shuttle’s cargo bay bathes in light as that picture clearly shows.


But I don't think you have enough experience viewing space scenes in all varieties of illumination to judge what's daylight and what's not.


Where did I say that the shuttle’s cargo bay bathes in daylight?


Originally posted by JimOberg
The light in the payload bay is coming, to my interpretation, from the floodlights, a scene i've seen numerous times on screens in the MCC.


That was also pretty clear to me to.


Originally posted by JimOberg
If it were external lighting that was illuminating the plumes, how come the pods that the plumes are coming from are dark?


Could in not be then that the plumes where illuminated by those floodlights despite the fact that the pods are a bit dark?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
i guess the basis for all of the arguments which the ‘skeptics’ have used to build their case around.... has been the 'out of focus' issue…


well.. lets check a few facts then......


@4:25 mark in the below video.... the crew are being questioned about their observations..... particularly as to which side of the 'strand' the satellite is...



as you may notice..... there is no response.... absolute silence for about a minute.... followed by camera zooming..... until they break in with irrelevant distance observations..... its obvious that they are unable to precisely pinpoint the object in question......




The spherical satellite was 1.6 meters in diameter, with the upper hemisphere containing some of the scientific payload, and the lower hemisphere containing the support equipment. The satellite contained cold gas (nitrogen) thrusters used for deployment, retrieval, and attitude control. The 2.54 mm diameter conducting tether cowas constructed using Kevlar and Nomex with 10 strands of 34 AWG copper wire and a Teflon sheath.

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. Because of a technical problem (a protruding bolt) the tether could only be released to about 840 feet. A reflight of the tether system (TSS-1R) happened in 1996.

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.

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.


nasascience.nasa.gov...

now... how is it... that the 2.54 mm tether was obfuscating the 1.6 meters satellite..... if there was a true 'out of focus' phenomenon being observed here.... how is it that the spherical end was not equally distorted....


also considering the nature of these reels... and the fact that the tether was made of copper wires.....




SEDS-1, SEDS-2: Designed by Tether Applications, both missions deployed 20 km of Spectra tether (a high-tech polymer). SEDS-2 proved that one can accurately deploy a tether to a stable vertical position by feedback control with a simple friction brake.


its not too hard to notice.......



the recoiling after breaking free.....


(click to open player in new window)


i.e. the observed diameter not being henceforth the 'virgin' 2.54 mm....

something like.....



therefore......






posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
now... how is it... that the 2.54 mm tether was obfuscating the 1.6 meters satellite..... if there was a true 'out of focus' phenomenon being observed here.... how is it that the spherical end was not equally distorted....



We're not allowed to give photography 101 lessons here anymore and we've already been over the focus issue 100 times, so I'll just give you a clue. Maybe if you instead asked "At a distance of 160,000 meters away, why is an object 19,000 meters long visible, but an object 1.6 meters in size is hard to see?"



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We're not allowed to give photography 101 lessons here anymore and we've already been over the focus issue 100 times, so I'll just give you a clue. Maybe if you instead asked "At a distance of 160,000 meters away, why is an object 19,000 meters long visible, but an object 1.6 meters in size is hard to see?"


i suppose you are still trying to imagine the tether as being fully stretched.... check the comments about the 'width' in the above video... during the same time stamp....



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So now you want me to believe that those quotes are garbled because it is said by some real experts whose names are also not revealed?


Would you accept as one definition of an 'expert' to be any engineer who has been certified for Mission Control Center operations in the decision-making loop regarding OMS/RCS systems?


Shore, if you can provide me the documentation of that engineer where he or she explains and proofs why he or she claims that those quotes are garbled.


Somebody's expertise is established through certification and track record, not because they agree with you. A person should be able to be judged an expert prior to your passing judgment on a specific statement they make.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Read again what is said in the article regarding that specific picture, and take notice of the fact that it isn’t dark in my opinion because the shuttle’s cargo bay bathes in light as that picture clearly shows.


But I don't think you have enough experience viewing space scenes in all varieties of illumination to judge what's daylight and what's not.


Where did I say that the shuttle’s cargo bay bathes in daylight?


Originally posted by JimOberg
The light in the payload bay is coming, to my interpretation, from the floodlights, a scene i've seen numerous times on screens in the MCC.


That was also pretty clear to me to.


Originally posted by JimOberg
If it were external lighting that was illuminating the plumes, how come the pods that the plumes are coming from are dark?


Could in not be then that the plumes where illuminated by those floodlights despite the fact that the pods are a bit dark?



No, it couldn't be, because of where the floodlights are inside the payload bay, and where the plumes are, in the shadow of the aft structure, relative to bay lighting (particularly that one plume on the right, which is extending AFT of the shuttle's back end) -- yet still brightly visible. Also, the link posted to the STS-39 mission highlights video provides more examples of plumes visible at night.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


please stop quoting the entire post

we all can scroll up and read it



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We're not allowed to give photography 101 lessons here anymore and we've already been over the focus issue 100 times, so I'll just give you a clue. Maybe if you instead asked "At a distance of 160,000 meters away, why is an object 19,000 meters long visible, but an object 1.6 meters in size is hard to see?"


i suppose you are still trying to imagine the tether as being fully stretched.... check the comments about the 'width' in the above video... during the same time stamp....


They way I interrpet your comments and postings is that you suggest the tether looks 'thick' in the video because it's curly-coiled as the end of it clearly was, as it separated.

That's a reasonable hypothesis. But it fails because when you watch the tether during camera zooming, the angular length changes by a factor of 2 or 3, but the width never changes. This indicates that the apparent width is a camera artifact, specifically, 'blooming' of the bright pixels of the thin tether onto adjacent pixels. This is a commonly seen feature of low light level systems with high-contrast high-brightness targets.

It also fails because the tether was visually [ed: typo fix] observed, both by the crew and by ground observers, to be long, thin, and straight, except a few days later the bottom few miles slightly curved (due to air drag). There was no corkscrew-curlicuing seen, and the human eye is a much more precise angular and detail resolution instrument.

Heck, I saw it myself from my home in Galveston County. It was one of the eeriest sky sights I've ever encountered. I even saw it one morning rise into sunlight, out of Earth's shadow, passing from invisibility to full brightness in several seconds.





[edit on 4-12-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Astronauts are not allowed to disclose anything that could be a threat to National Security, but Oberg wants you to believe they would despite the fact it would be a crime to do so.




EXECUTIVE ORDER 10501
SAFEGUARDING OFFICIAL INFORMATION IN THE INTERESTS OF THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES
Here is a link to the original 10501 Executive Order from 1953 (Eisenhower Admin.)

www.fas.org...



NASA Office of Defense Affairs: The First Five Years
Chapter 14 - NASA SECURITY CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM.
This chapter deals specifically with the discussion surrounding NASA's adoption of their modified EO 10501 National Security interpretation in 1966

history.nasa.gov...
















reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



We're not allowed to give photography 101 lessons here anymore



all you have to do is hit the button that say's "new thread" and you will be able to discuss photography till the cows come home.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
They way I interrpet your comments and postings is that you suggest the tether looks 'thick' in the video because it's curly-coiled as the end of it clearly was, as it separated.


yups... correct... and as you can also notice in the video... the tether is recoiling back from its broken end.... through out....


That's a reasonable hypothesis. But it fails because when you watch the tether during camera zooming, the angular length changes by a factor of 2 or 3, but the width never changes. This indicates that the apparent width is a camera artifact, specifically, 'blooming' of the bright pixels of the thin tether onto adjacent pixels. This is a commonly seen feature of low light level systems with high-contrast high-brightness targets.


as you have correctly stated.... the angular length changes here.... which in fact shortens as its further wound up.... this is due to the recoiling of the tether.... concerning the width.... you are wrong in stating... it "never" changed.... there are indeed nominal changes which are quite obvious.... not much rocket science here.... just imagine a spring.... which is being pressed by gravity...... i dont think the critters were chewing on it length....


It also fails because the tether was visuallt observed, both by the crew and by ground observers, to be long, thin, and straight, except a few days later the bottom few miles slightly curved (due to air drag). There was no corkscrew-curlicuing seen, and the human eye is a much more precise angular and detail resolution instrument.


your comments make no sense..... what do you mean by 'thin'.... how thin?


Heck, I saw it myself from my home in Galveston County. It was one of the eeriest sky sights I've ever encountered. I even saw it one morning rise into sunlight, out of Earth's shadow, passing from invisibility to full brightness in several seconds.


wooo..... that must have been a space serpent.....


[edit on 4/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
Astronauts are not allowed to disclose anything that could be a threat to National Security, but Oberg wants you to believe they would despite the fact it would be a crime to do so.


Bosh. Even Ed Mitchell and Gordo Cooper, UFO believers both, debunked the myth that there's an astronaut 'gag order' regarding UFOs. There have been foreign nationals, including Russians, and private citizens aboard shuttle flights -- none bound by mythical 'gag orders'. And if there IS such a 'gag order', it's got to be the leakiest vessel since 'Titanic' considering all the alleged quotations and photographs and videos crowding the internet and cable documentaries.

I think what torques my shorts worst about these facile and vicious smears is how convenient they are to justify disregarding first-hand witness testimony when it conflicts with precious self-delusions by twerps who could not even understand, much less perform, the activities these men and women have accomplished. To over-inflate one's own pissant ego by sliming the character of far better human beings -- some of them colleagues and personal friends of mine for decades -- strikes me as despicable.

And it doesn't help understand the productive ways to penetrate into the fog (and snow jobs) surrounding this phenomenon to identify the altogether-possible and possibly super important 'signals' that are still hidden by the 'noise'. It's because there's a real chance there's something worthwhile to know lurking behind some stories -- even some space stories -- that anything that further confuses and deflects serious inquiry is also harmful.

Rant mode -- off.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




did i strike a nerve ? yes i think so

Jim answer this question:

if an Astronaut had information that was a threat to national Security would he be allowed to disclose that information to the Public ?

simple question that only needs a simple answer..

1-YES

or

2- NO


pick one



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
They way I interpret your comments and postings is that you suggest the tether looks 'thick' in the video because it's curly-coiled as the end of it clearly was, as it separated.


yups... correct... and as you can also notice in the video... the tether is recoiling back from its broken end.... through out....


The end nearest the shuttle had sprung into coils from elasticity and 'memory' from being wound on the drum for several years, and there was always interest in what form such a tether would take if in free flight -- particularly if it might recontact the shuttle. But as explained in the link I provided to 'Tether Operations' in the Mission Control Center's flight procedures handbook, a tether 20 km long will develop quite strong gravity gradient tension along its length and quickly stretch out. This tether, and all other tethers deployed in space before and since, did exactly that.




That's a reasonable hypothesis. But it fails because when you watch the tether during camera zooming, the angular length changes by a factor of 2 or 3, but the width never changes. This indicates that the apparent width is a camera artifact, specifically, 'blooming' of the bright pixels of the thin tether onto adjacent pixels. This is a commonly seen feature of low light level systems with high-contrast high-brightness targets.


as you have correctly stated.... the angular length changes here.... which in fact shortens as its further wound up.... this is due to the recoiling of the tether.... concerning the width.... you are wrong in stating... it "never" changed.... there are indeed nominal changes which are quite obvious.... not much rocket science here.... just imagine a spring.... which is being pressed by gravity...... i dont think the critters were chewing on it length....


As described above, four days later [when videotaped by the crew] the tether was fully stretched out, no coiling remained anywhere. A spring has inherent tensile strength to resist deformation. A rope does not. Bad analogy.




It also fails because the tether was visually observed, both by the crew and by ground observers, to be long, thin, and straight, except a few days later the bottom few miles slightly curved (due to air drag). There was no corkscrew-curlicuing seen, and the human eye is a much more precise angular and detail resolution instrument.


your comments make no sense..... what do you mean by 'thin'.... how thin?


'Thin' meant no observed thickness at all -- a linear equivalent of a point source. It had been debated how visible the line, with the thickness of a telephone cord, would be from a range of several hundred miles. Because of the maximum contrast -- bright white against black background -- there were sufficient photons from the thin line to register unambiguously both on eyeballs and optics.

Note also that ground observers saw NO other objects near the tether. Yet had those disks been at the same range they would have been moon-sized and brighter as they crossed the sky. Nobody saw them. This suggests they weren't there.




Heck, I saw it myself from my home in Galveston County. It was one of the eeriest sky sights I've ever encountered. I even saw it one morning rise into sunlight, out of Earth's shadow, passing from invisibility to full brightness in several seconds.


wooo..... that must have been a space serpent.....



I've got a few of Story's snake photos -- want to see them too? Funny, they look like strips of insulation.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 




did i strike a nerve ? yes i think so



And that makes you happy?

I find that sad.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Were US Astronauts Ordered
Not To Report UFOs & Aliens?





"Alien Vehicles flew within 50 feet of a U.S. space vehicle for one full Earth orbit and then the AV departed; again while Aldrin was present. 'Buzz' Aldrin had a nervous breakdown because of these events and the pressure not to talk. There have been 22 deaths (many 'suicides') at JSC in Houston. No astronaut who has seen AVs or ETs is allowed to talk about it, even amongst themselves. If they do and are caught they may be fined, publicly humiliated, imprisoned, or have all pensions and future salaries taken away.'(my emphasis)

How much of the above account is fictional and how much fact? Only those who went to the moon and back know for certain. There are many second-hand accounts and alleged conversations, (Google UFO Sightings by Astronauts) where both Aldrin and Armstrong state, in no uncertain terms, they saw huge ships and other signs of alien occupation of the moon.

Return to Earth, Aldrin's autobiography, tells of his struggle with depression and alcoholism following his long and dedicated USAF and NASA career. Did NASA, CIA and the Pentagon compell Colonel Aldrin (and every other astronaut) to conceal what they saw on the moon? How much did this contribute to Aldrin's mental problems?


www.rense.com...



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



I find that sad.


aww poor Jim

you know what i think is sad ?

the fact that you constantly attack and hurl insults at everyone and expect nothing in return but cry like a baby when you do get return fire. have you ever heard of the old saying : what comes around goes around and what goes around comes around ? are you so important and special that you think you are immune to that ? do you think the world revolves around you ? i think not and it's time for you to grow up and start treating people with some respect if you want that in return from me or anyone else. remember you only get back what you put out.


my advice to you is drop the "i like to annoy eager believers" attitude and you might have a chance @ redeeming yourself.




And that makes you happy?


it might surprise you to know that it really doesn't make me happy and believe it or not i hate the fact that i have to be the one to keep all you biased non believer skeptibunks who have never seen a ufo from running amuck and going unchecked.










and how come you didn't answer the question Jim ?

if an Astronaut had information that was a threat to National Security would he be allowed to disclose that information to the Public ?

simple question that only needs a simple answer..

1-YES

or

2- NO


pick one



[edit on 4-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
But as explained in the link I provided

four days later [when videotaped by the crew] the tether was fully stretched out, no coiling remained anywhere.

there were sufficient photons from the thin line to register unambiguously both on eyeballs and optics.

Note also that ground observers saw NO other objects near the tether.

I've got a few of Story's snake photos -- want to see them too? Funny, they look like strips of insulation.






posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The discussion on assessing range to point sources based on image behavior in different focus and gain modes appears to be making progress. I'd suggest the next step is to develop discriminating algorithms and then apply them to other available videos of small objects known to be either close to, or far from, the camera, and see if the algorithms accurately differentiate.

So far, all we have are proposed algorithms applied to one video where there seems to be determination to force the desired conclusion -- distant objects NEAR the tether -- and consequently a subconscious tendency to load the dice, to pre-set the fudge factors, so the desired answer comes out.

Sort of like the arguments over manmade global warming. I'm going to regret making that wisecrack.

For STS-75, and equally applicable to other shuttle videos where one interpretation is that the dots are distant and large (eg, STS-48), a usable discriminator of range based on focus behavior seems to me to be a good thing to strive for.

We can get a sample set of shuttle "UFO" videos where we know the dots are near & small because we see them passing in front of nearby structure. The proposed algorithms can be applied to them. If the answer comes up 'far and humongous', then I'd suggest we've disproven the reliability of that algorithm. But it has to be verifiable with blind testing.

Want to try that -- while waiting for the STS-75 Execute Package data [which I hassled PAO over again, this week]?




top topics



 
77
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join