New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by Mr. Mephistopheles
It looks like O'Leary is trying to get NASA to publish his biography, apparently without success so far:


www.brianoleary.info...

Interesting side trip, here -- thanks for helping open the way.

Do any of the other astronauts get to write their own bios, no questions asked, or does NASA PAO do it on their behalf? Certainly they ll make inputs to the file, but I don't think they are the authors. Does Brian want to give permission for NASA to publish their bio of him, or does he want them to publish HIS bio of him?

There might be differences, subtle or otherwise, in the two versions.

Why doesn't he just belatedly sign the privacy act waiver, and let nature take its course?

Back to the main theme -- what does Brian have to say germane to NASA and the STS-75 video, and to astronaut candor in general?

Originally posted by poet1b

A few thoughts on the nature of plasma in our planets plasma sphere.

When you think about it, a hydrogen atom is really just a proton....

Methinks you're "thinking" overmuch.

Don't hold your breath for your Nobel Prize in chemistry, Poet.

Mr. Oberg: O'Leary is open to contact from the public (see his site), and would likely welcome contact from NASA, either to tweak his submitted bio (submitted in NASA’s style) or allow them to write their own. It looks like the ball has been in NASA's court for a few months now. Maybe you could help nudge NASA along.

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by Phage

 

loool... what am i getting at?

that you too join the party....

Oh, I see.
You're just trolling.

Originally posted by Mr. Mephistopheles
Mr. Oberg: O'Leary is open to contact from the public (see his site), and would likely welcome contact from NASA, either to tweak his submitted bio (submitted in NASA’s style) or allow them to write their own. It looks like the ball has been in NASA's court for a few months now. Maybe you could help nudge NASA along.

If Brian asked me, I'd be glad to, in honor of past and future friendship.

Why is it your business?

You may hear from Brian soon...

Per "Easynow's" request I have moved this thread into "Skunkworks".

Springer...

Originally posted by JimOberg
Re the earlier claim how Paul Maley supposedly was able to see the tether in Earth's shadow due to plasma glow -- as part of an argument for plasma effects being responsible for some part of the STS-75 video...

... shocker, but Maley knows nothing about such a claim, and denies it.

As I said, how startling is THAT??

Thanks for exposing the truth.

I asked the webmaster about the source and apparently he had none or at least none he trusted so he removed the inaccurate statement quoted by Zor.. I mean mcrom901 below:

Originally posted by mcrom901
you need to sort out your facts first.... prior babbling away like you do....

Shadow Entry and Emergence
...
There are also reports of one other satellite being visible
after having entered the Earth's shadow. According to Paul
Maley, the TSS-1R (a tether satellite, basically a long thin
cable) performed such a remarkable feat. This was presumably
due to some kind of luminescence.

www.satobs.org...

Well at least you thought you had a fact because that paragraph WAS on that source, but it was just removed from that link because it's NOT a fact.

So can we put the glow in the dark tether theory to rest?

It may have had a faint glow like Buzz Aldrin's gloves did which he could only see after his eyes got adjusted to the darkness, but not anything I'd expect to be remotely comparable to the intensity of the sunlight reflection.

Originally posted by Springer
Per "Easynow's" request I have moved this thread into "Skunkworks".

Springer...

Easynow, just curious what your thoughts were in having the thread moved to skunkworks? I usually think of those threads as cases where there's not a lot of facts or evidence, but there is a lot of evidence in this case.

Originally posted by poet1b
When you think about it, a hydrogen atom is really just a proton. It has an atomic number of one, and a mass of 1.0008, and a charge of 1+, which means it typically has neither a electron or a neutron. It must simply be a proton in order for it have an atomic weight of approximately 1, and a positive charge of one, being that there is a positive charge of one associated with each proton. If the hydrogen atom had one electron, then its charge would be neutral.

Are you sure about all those things? If my memory is working then you are going the wrong way. As far as I remember, charge is not a property of the elements, all elements are neutral but are more easily changed in positive or negative ions because of some of their properties, not the other way around.

It doesn't affect the talk about hydrogen ions, but I think you should get all the facts correct, even if those are just thoughts.

PS: it could be possible that I am the one going the wrong way, I only had chemistry classes for one year (and that was some 30 years ago), and although I thought it was very interesting I changed my preference to physics and did not had more chemistry classes.

reply to post by ArMaP

An atom is a neutral particle because the number of protons is balanced by the number of electrons. Ions are charged particles because the number of electrons and protons is not balanced.

A hydrogen atom consists of one proton and one electron. When ionized it becomes one proton (a positive ion). The freed electron becomes a negative ion.

Let's move up the periodic table a step. A helium atom consists of 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons. When ionized it becomes a helium nucleus (2 protons, 2 neutrons) and one electron. Because there are two protons and only one electron the ion has a positive charge. The freed electron becomes a negative ion.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by poet1b
When you think about it, a hydrogen atom is really just a proton. It has an atomic number of one, and a mass of 1.0008, and a charge of 1+, which means it typically has neither a electron or a neutron. It must simply be a proton in order for it have an atomic weight of approximately 1, and a positive charge of one, being that there is a positive charge of one associated with each proton. If the hydrogen atom had one electron, then its charge would be neutral.

Are you sure about all those things? If my memory is working then you are going the wrong way. As far as I remember, charge is not a property of the elements, all elements are neutral but are more easily changed in positive or negative ions because of some of their properties, not the other way around.

You're right and poet is wrong, by definition. The negative hydrogen ion has 2 electrons, the positive hydrogen ion has no electrons, and the hydrogen atom has one electron:

web.jjay.cuny.edu...

Hydrogen: a proton surrounded by an electron cloud
H+ : a positively charged hydrogen ion
H- : a negatively charged hydrogen ion

See the illustrations in the link.

there is also considerable confusion in that post between the valence effects versus ionic charge, more than I care to rectify since some of it's off topic, but I guess the plasma effects around the tether are on topic and there are hydrogen ions present.

Originally posted by Springer
Per "Easynow's" request I have moved this thread into "Skunkworks".

Springer...

well, i guess this movement will finnally regress the activity in this topic (subject)..and the public visibility of this great topic regarding this subject, the part of the public which ussually goes for "Allien and UFO's" board subjects".

Which i think is the main reason for this request (despite being for technical reasons maybe).






[edit on 16/12/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield

well, i guess this movement will finnally regress the activity in this topic (subject)..and the public visibility of this great topic regarding this subject, the part of the public which ussually goes for "Allien and UFO's" board subjects".

Which i think is the main reason for this request (despite being for technical reasons also).

huh ?

your jumping to the wrong conclusions

my reasons for requesting this thread be moved has nothing to do with trying to hide anything from the public and "regressing" the subject.

there are plenty of other STS75 threads in the ufo forum that you can work in if you feel the need to be in the publics eye and this thread will always be available to you to post in and reference things from so i don't understand what the problem is.



STS-75 Threads on ATS


[edit on 16-12-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Easynow, just curious what your thoughts were in having the thread moved to skunkworks? I usually think of those threads as cases where there's not a lot of facts or evidence, but there is a lot of evidence in this case.

does it really matter where the thread got moved to ?

it's still open and you can still continue on with everything. i want to post other threads and since this one usually never left the first page of the ufo forum , there would be too many that were started by me. i also have some older threads that i would like to post things in.

i think i would be showing some respect towards everyone else by not crowding the ufo forum with too many of my threads. so yea it's part what i want and part out of respect for everyone else.

hope that explains it for you


[edit on 16-12-2009 by easynow]

Brian's NASA bio was moved:

www.brianoleary.info...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Well at least you thought you had a fact because that paragraph WAS on that source, but it was just removed from that link because it's NOT a fact.

you may continue to build your logic on the basis of the 'facts' available....

So can we put the glow in the dark tether theory to rest?

despite the earlier 'surprising' developments....... that does not rule out that fact....

It may have had a faint glow like Buzz Aldrin's gloves did which he could only see after his eyes got adjusted to the darkness, but not anything I'd expect to be remotely comparable to the intensity of the sunlight reflection.

buzz's gloves.... what a joke...... as if it was emitting secondary particles.....

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by mcrom901
more data.....

AND THIS IS THE REAL KILLER.........

On the other hand, emission of electrons would require an extremely efficient secondary emitter or the presence of a high density gas cloud—such as would be created by thruster operations. However, according to the Orbiter data, no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress at that time. Unfortunately, the TSS data set may not be sufficient to resolve this question.

The above observations are also of critical importance because they would appear to define the plasma environments of large-scale structures in space.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean you think you have totally destroyed any theory to explain the 'debris' in the tether video as based on shuttle-released stuff of any kind? Is that the source of your high-amperage surge of joy?

care to share the contradictory orbiter data?

or the math regarding debris from previous missions......

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mcrom901

 

So what? If the tether displayed this effect in space, so what?

its nice of you to admit to those facts..... kudos

reply to post by mcrom901

buzz's gloves....

check it out...