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: 121
77
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


and do you have any data from the bosses @ marshall?


TSS-1R mission responsibilities are shared between the Marshall and Johnson Centers, with ASI support at each location. Marshall provides project management, as well as system development, testing and integration. Science teams work under Marshall direction. Marshall will furnish real-time engineering support for the TSS-1R system components and tether dynamics. All remote commanding of science instruments aboard the satellite deployer and the Tethered Satellite will be executed by the Marshall Payload Operations Control team. Because of the unique interaction between the payload and the Shuttle, Mission Control in Houston is responsible for the crew's deployment and retrieval of the satellite. Mission Control also will manage the satellite in orbit and monitor the state of the instrument pallet, the deployer and the satellite. ASI will provide equipment engineering support during the mission.


or dc/rome....


TSS-1R is directed by Program Manager Tom Stuart, Office of Space Flight, and Science Payload Program Manager Mike Calabrese, Office of Space Science, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Responsible for project management at Marshall are Mission Manager Robert McBrayer and Mission Scientist Dr. Nobie Stone, who also serves as project scientist and co-chairman of the Investigator Working Group. The chief engineer is Tony Lavoie. At the Italian Space Agency, Rome, Italy's TSS-1R contribution is directed by ASI Program Manager Dr. Carlo Bonifazi, also the ASI Science Program Manager. Responsible for the Project Management of the satellite and the Core Equipment are, respectively, Raffaele Battaglia and Francesco Svelto. Dr. Marino Dobrowolny is ASI Mission Scientist, with his assistant Dr. Jean Sabbagh.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...


[edit on 13/12/09 by mcrom901]




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
Just got the response from NASA PAO with the Execute Package for the day of the tether video.


where is the more relevant msg no# 101 - fd08 tss science update



if in case you're inquiring about the missing data....

also kindly ask about the following......

liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...
www.nasa.gov...

it seems gone.....


[edit on 13/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
here is another one of those contradictory assessments....


The tether broke near full deployment (19 km) on 26 Feb at 01:30 UT. The initial orbit for the satellite was 316 x 413 km; meanwhile the shuttle was at 291 x 299 km. The break was due to an electrical shortcut inside the cable.


this is a cached link (ignore the user/pass)

now check this....


Loss of NASA/ASI tethered satellite cause by debris.(Italian Space Agency)

Defense Daily | June 6, 1996| Ahles, Andrea

U.S. and Italian space agency officials have concluded that debris caused the loss of the joint NASA and Italian Space Agency (ASI) Tethered Satellite in February.

After a four-month investigation, space officials found that debris sliced through the insulation of the tether--that connected the satellite to the Space Shuttle orbiter--and caused a short that burned through the pencil-thin cable.


www.encyclopedia.com...

hmmmmm.... then what about this....


The anomalies located with radiography were flagged for removal from the tether and analysis. The anomaly shown in Figure 1 was found to consist of several contaminants that may have been introduced during production or handling of the tether.



Figure 1 - Radiographic image of tether showing anomalous material suspended in Kevlar braid. The dimensions of the inclusion are approximately 1.5 x 1.0 mm (0.06 x 0.04in.). This radiograph was produced using the lower energy technique, which did not penetrate the copper strands.

A radiograph of the failed end is shown in Figure 2. Evidence of melting in the copper strand and the surrounding FEP insulation was evident from radiographs of the failed end. This corroborated other visible evidence that the tether failure resulted from excess arcing between the tether and the ambient environment.



Figure 2 - Radiograph of the failed end of the TSS-1R tether. The broken and melted ends of several copper strands and melted FEP insulation are visible.

Beyond the initial 27 m (89 ft) segment, approximately 1,800 m (5,900 ft) of tether remained on the payload bay reel after separation. The remaining tether was also brought to MSFC for analysis. Thirty random locations along the longer segment were selected for radiographic analysis, as well as three anomalies that were noted during visual inspection. The analysis of the 1,800 m (5,900 ft) segment showed that it contained far less particulate contamination than the failed end, which would be consistent with the conclusion that arcing had occurred at the location of the separation.


www.asnt.org...

now which one is it



[edit on 13/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901


recoiling after breaking free.....


(click to open player in new window)


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


came across some interesting comments which are quite contradictory to your earlier comments....


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
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.


check these.....


I have been an astronomer for 40 years and a satellite observer for 36. I really got into satellite observing while under the wing of fellow San Antonio resident, Paul Maley, while we were both still in high school here in Texas in 1961. In all the years since, I have not seen a satellite pass to compare with this morning's TSS pass over San Antonio, Texas. It was stunning! I am still amazed after thinking about it for four hours.



TSS popped out of the shadow at 5:53 AM, local time and lit up like a neon sign. It was fully three degrees long with the TSS itself easily visible as a 3 to 3.5 mag point of light at the upper end of the bluish-gray tether. The tether was angled at a position angle (to local vertical) of about 220 degrees and at the lower (snapped-off) end was a noticable condensation of light. It was obviously coiled slightly at the free end.



I am assuming that for the tether to be so visible, it must be coiled like a telephone cord and have more "width" than just the 2.5 mm thickness of the cord.


www.satobs.org...



[edit on 13/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
furthermore.... observation of orbs near other satellites...... 03.96....

www.satobs.org...

edited to remove quote....

mistake.... ignore this message

[edit on 13/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
furthermore.... observation of orbs near other satellites...... 03.96....



Cosmos 1933 + other obs

Here are a few recent observations.
[]


www.satobs.org...




WHAT ORBS??

Maybe you confused "obs" (observations) with "orbs" ??

Where it is said in this link about "orbs"?!?

They describe flashes of the sattelites (like iridium flares if you want, but more precise the variations in brightness due satelite rotation in relation with the sun light)


more, they talk about cosmos sattelites.


it seems the single relation between this quoted satobs post, and the sts75 topic, is that while those amateurs look in the sky and share their observation during the time, you selected one of their observation from Mars 1996, creating the first (temporal) connection, and see some inexistent "orbs" there, creating the second (observational) conection.


So, maybe you confused "obs" (observations) with "orbs" ??




[edit on 13/12/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 13/12/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


loool... my mistake there.... thanks for pointing out....



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
If this light is captured with a lens/mirros, and make images on a senzor (CDD or whatever), (which senzor in this case is a special CCD with a coating to increase efficency), then making the image with light follow the same rule of optics...including focusing.


irrespective of the cameras capabilities in regards to the visible spectrum (or near).... the main point of focus here is the source of light.....

as i notice.... a very important point which has not been mentioned in the two previous links i provided...... can been noted as follows......


By using the TOP images to make measurements of the visible light radiated by the plasma, this process, and how it affects the spacecraft, can be better understood.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
irrespective of the cameras capabilities in regards to the visible spectrum (or near).... the main point of focus here is the source of light.....


The source of light is the tether illuminated by the sunlight. Direct witnesses said that.

Jim Oberg is one, but it seems from some speakers here, he must lie because worked for NASA.

Also, Mcrom901, yourself posted above this information from another direct witness:


Originally posted by mcrom901


check these...




I have been an astronomer for 40 years and a satellite observer for 36.
[]
TSS popped out of the shadow at 5:53 AM, local time and lit up like a neon sign. It was fully three degrees long with the TSS itself easily visible as a 3 to 3.5 mag point of light at the upper end of the bluish-gray tether. The tether was angled at a position angle (to local vertical) of about 220 degrees and at the lower (snapped-off) end was a noticable condensation of light. It was obviously coiled slightly at the free end.



Also, in this STS-75 movies, the crew, and the camera (already pointed to "centar" constelation where they expected to see the tether - according to not so precise orbit determination models including atmospheric drag) hunted the tether before its apparition, but they see it ONLY after the orbital sunrise occures.

Therefore, the tether was invisible in shadow (night), including for the NASA camera C, but visible when the sun illuminated its physical body, the wire.

NASA camera C, a low light camera, saw the sunlit tether, not a plasma ultraviolet thing. While TOP camera was special designed in this mission to be used on the tether experiments, this 1 march 1996 encounter with the tether (and the "UFO's here) was filmed by NASA camera C, not by the TOP camera. Why you continue to speak about TOP camera, since not the TOP camera filmed this UFO's, but a visible spectrum camera ?

Do you DISAGREE with this finding, that the black and white payload bay camera C was the one which filmed the event?



source of initial finding: www.abovetopsecret.com...

(corelation between the movie, and the scene list description)


TOP camera, while itself could maintain an interesant discussion, is irrelevant for this STS-75 movies with tethter and "ufo's", because the movie was done by the payload camera C in visible spectrum, after the orbital sunrise illuminating the tether. Have you any reason for finding TOP camera relevant for this payload camera C movie ?





[edit on 13/12/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 13/12/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

The source of light is the tether illuminated by the sunlight. Direct witnesses said that.


you need to stop saying things as facts

you do not know if there are other reasons the tether was "illuminated"

you weren't there , you've never been in space and science still does not completely understand plasma physics. (it's all theory's)




Jim Oberg is one, but it seems from some speakers here, he must lie because worked for NASA.


woopie do da , Jim supposedly seen the tether from the ground. (I COULD SAY I DID TOO , DOES THAT MAKE IT TRUE ? )

and since he is here for damage control (which he admits) he has a biased agenda which in my opinion is not trustworthy.

does NASA lie about things ?

YES I THINK SO !

Apollo 12's SECRET EVA

www.abovetopsecret.com...



you need to stop shoving your opinions down everyone's throat because you have NO PROOF OF ANYTHING !!!!!! also anyone that does not agree that we need to see NASA's copy of the STS75 video is straight up dis info.





[edit on 13-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
The source of light is the tether illuminated by the sunlight. Direct witnesses said that.

Jim Oberg is one, but it seems from some speakers here, he must lie because worked for NASA.


sorry i dont agree with you.....


and how was jim a direct witness?

why dont you also check the scientific data concerning the tss.... what was the primary function of the tethered satellite?

after the teather break.... where was all that electricity conducted to?

[edit on 13/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 

Many people observed the tether.
www.satobs.org...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
NASA camera C, a low light camera, saw the sunlit tether, not a plasma ultraviolet thing. While TOP camera was special designed in this mission to be used on the tether experiments, this 1 march 1996 encounter with the tether (and the "UFO's here) was filmed by NASA camera C, not by the TOP camera. Why you continue to speak about TOP camera, since not the TOP camera filmed this UFO's, but a visible spectrum camera ?


it seems you did not comprehend what was mentioned earlier.... "VISIBLE LIGHT RADIATED BY PLASMA"




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mcrom901
 

Many people observed the tether.
www.satobs.org...


it seems that is true but what does it prove ?



[edit on 13-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

That people observed it. There seems to be an implication that they did not, that Oberg was lying.

Like all satellites, it was visible shortly after (and before) twilight. While it was illuminated by sunlight.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



that Oberg was lying.


we already know people have seen the tether from the ground but if i said i seen it too does that mean it's true ?

no proof of his claims = no believability.

you know the old saying, no pics or it didn't happen



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


loool.... sunlight is the source of the charge which makes the plasma electrically conductive.......



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

The source of light is the tether illuminated by the sunlight. Direct witnesses said that.


you do not know if there are other reasons the tether was "illuminated"


But i do know if i use my brain, and trust direct witnesses (not Oberg, because you have a problem with him, but other witnesses, for example those posting at satobs, like the 40 years experience in astronomy amateur describing his experience with tether, and there were others, Phage posted some links i remember). It seems that the main brightness at least in visible spectrum, of the tether in orbit, is because sunlight, because witnesses descriptions.
Also, look at the STS-75 movie at the begining..the crew can't see the tether until orbital sunrise ocurred. After that they reorient the camera C and film the tether (and debris, wich also are seen by the astronauts with their naked eyes). Do you have any reason to believe that the NASA camera C somehow is TOTALLY IGNORING the visible light from the tether (easy visible for the naked eye, including to witnesses on the ground) and show us only some exotic UV images?

If these observations can't be accepted as basic starting facts, well, it seems you have a problem with logic.



Originally posted by easynow
also anyone that does not agree that we need to see NASA's copy of the STS75 video is straight up dis info.


I want original NASA video. Everybody wants more or less.
Also, i want any better copy than these Secretnasaman's copies. (You don't want them). I thought this issue was clarified before. Do you like to mock the people?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 

Partly (the solar wind provides most of the charged particles), but the entire ionosphere is charged (that's why it's called that). Dayside and nightside.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
But i do know if i use my brain, and trust direct witnesses


and how about also understanding the dynamics behind the phenomenon?

its not just 'ice' + 'sunlight' + 'out of focus' = bokeh




top topics



 
77
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join