New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Never claimed to be an expert on satellite observation, and do not know anyone who has such a hobby. However a quick search on the internet shows that people do look at satellites with telescopes.

We were talking about the tethered satellite, a low-orbit satellite. Did you find, and can you post, links to people using telescopes to observe such targets? Please provide a link -- just your say-so doesn't carry a whole lot of weight in the zero-gravity environment we're now discussing.

Also, a quick search on looking at satellites with the naked eye reveals there is not much to see, and requires special conditions, and you aren't going to see much more than a dot in the sky moving faster than the stars, and not blinking out like a falling star. You're ability to observe is very limited to time and place, more so than viewing with a telescope, or at least a good set of binoculars. Why would anyone go to the effort of getting to the right location without at least a good set of binoculars.

So -- you've never actually seen a satellite yourself, but a quick internet search has made you an expert? How nice for you.

Try this at home: a tether in space 12 miles long, passing at a range of 300 miles. What is its angular size compared to, say, the Moon? Does it look more than just a dot? Do you even KNOW how to derive the answer?

I didn't say anything either way about binoculars, either. I said -- and you seem incapable of believing -- that I saw the tether with my naked eyes. If you do the calculation prescribed above, you may begin to get a clue about how this was possible and what it looked like.

Of course any satellite observation is limited in time and place. What is the implication of this? I was in my front yard. The tether came over before local sunrise. The weather was clear -- THAT'S the dicey part here on the Gulf coast. It was awesome.

I am not trying to dodge anything, I admitted that I wasn't aware you could see such things with the naked eye, and still question how limited your viewing of such events are. You failed to admit in the statement I referred to that your view was from the ground, which was deceptive IMO, and which clearly is very limited. That is what I called you on.

Is that why you called me a 'charlatan'? Because of your own limited understanding?

Personally I think your knowledge of flight control systems and spacecraft instrumentation is more limited than mine, in fact considerably, and if you want to turn this into a spitting contest I will be glad to point out some of the mistakes in your claims. I don't think it is worth the time.

You're welcome to your own opinions over any documentable facts. Gene Kranz has a different opinion of my professional qualifications. If relying on personal biases is enough, and that's the general rule, no wonder these discussions go round and round, and wind up getting nowhere.

So maybe you might want to just stick to the topic at hand, and the likely hood of numerous crystals, and answer the response about how objects move in space, or show some decent characteristics that you might be wrong on some point.

Why should a charlatan do that for you?

Originally posted by easynow
can any of the "experts" explain why some of these ufo's are making 160-180 degree turns in direction ?

Come on, this issue has been discussed time and time again. You don't have to accept the offered explanations, but you should be aware of them and not demand they be repeated for a one-on-one tutorial.

The leading cause of objects changing course in these videos is thruster firings. NASA provides charts of all thruster firings, via FOIA, for specific time intervals on any mission.

But notice that the video posters refuse to provide the dates and times of the scenes they show, making the identification of the time interval -- and the ordering of data on thruster firings during it -- next to impossible.

Then they complain that 'skeptics can't explain it'.

Now does that seem fair to you?

Originally posted by easynow
thanks ArMaP

i agree , the speed factor is puzzling and some objects react differently. good eye, i had not thought about that before. your also correct that not all objects seem to be affected so i am in agreement with you that the gravity explanation doesn't seem to be the answer.

Different particles in large populations do indeed react differently.

This is no mystery when you realize that the depth of the field of view could include particles a few feet away, a few tens of feet away, even farther. And when viewed from the payload bay cameras, as most of these scenes are, objects closest in are in the plume shadow of the shuttle structure -- the expanding plume cloud is blocked by the bay sill, and possibly other structures in other areas of the field of view. And for some thrusters, there's plume impingement and bounce-back off shuttle structures -- example, the aft down-firing jets impinge partially on the elevons and body flap and create a plume 'echo' back upwards.

This is exactly what one should expect from a 3-D swarm of particles with a partially-shielded expanding plume field that varies immensely in strength depending on how far off the thruster centerline the particle is.

It's normal for spaceflight.

For earth-trained eye/brain combos, no doubt at all it looks really really eerie.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by wmd_2008a very very small force may be all thats required to change direction/speed etc.

Yes but unless you wish to challenge the laws of physics, you need to explain why the objects move in curved trajectories. In space where there is no air drag, objects move in a vector when force is applied so they would make angular turns

In order for them to exhibit the curving maneuvers we see they would need a constant force applied. And considering the multitude of directions, you need to account for a lot of force vectors

Here on Earth dust may flit around like we see, but not in space.

But if you wish to rewrite Newton I am all ears.

Otherwise your argument is a lot of hot air

Zorgon, you're a likeable guy, so it pains me to see you making mistakes in such a consistent manner.

There's plenty of air drag in space -- it's why nearby particles are cleared out of the shuttle vicinity in a matter of tens of minutes.

Course changes can occur during thruster firings -- which can last for many seconds, pushing gently all the time -- or other even-more-long-lived effluent dumps such as water releases, flash evaporator runs, APU test firings, other outgassing events.

Boy, it sure would be nice if we could compare these exact scenes with the exact list of shuttle activities during the same period.

But we can't. And you know why -- the coverup. The youtube posters refuse to provide the information needed to determine WHICH intervals to examine.

How convenient for the UFO theories.



[edit on 11-6-2009 by JimOberg]

admin edit: DO NOT resort to childish namecalling, it's not what we do here.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Springer]

reply to post by JimOberg

The leading cause of objects changing course in these videos is thruster firings.

so for the record , your explanation is thruster firings ?

Come on, this issue has been discussed time and time again.

NASA provides charts of all thruster firings, via FOIA, for specific time intervals on any mission.

since it has been discussed time and time again , then there should be no problem with you providing a link to where we all can see the relevant conversations that includes the thruster firing data and the overall accepted opinions that agree with that explanation.

But notice that the video posters refuse to provide the dates and times of the scenes they show, making the identification of the time interval -- and the ordering of data on thruster firings during it -- next to impossible.

since the original NASA copy of this video is not available for anyone to see how can we even be sure of what the exact date and time was ? without confirmation from the official source (NASA) we "video posters" can only guess and hope Martyn Stubbs is telling us the truth and is accurate with his version of the time frame.

in my opinion , until there is an official copy of the video released by NASA no final conclusions can be drawn.

Then they complain that 'skeptics can't explain it'.

if NASA released their official version of that particular video than maybe the skeptics and video posters could explain it.


Now does that seem fair to you?

reply to post by JimOberg

Different particles in large populations do indeed react differently.

Different particles ? are you saying they are not all the same kind of particles ? hmmm...

This is no mystery when you realize that the depth of the field of view could include particles a few feet away, a few tens of feet away, even farther. And when viewed from the payload bay cameras, as most of these scenes are, objects closest in are in the plume shadow of the shuttle structure -- the expanding plume cloud is blocked by the bay sill, and possibly other structures in other areas of the field of view. And for some thrusters, there's plume impingement and bounce-back off shuttle structures -- example, the aft down-firing jets impinge partially on the elevons and body flap and create a plume 'echo' back upwards.

sorry but that is assuming way to much. there is no proof that is what is going on in the video. not saying it isn't the explanation, just saying there's no proof of it.

This is exactly what one should expect from a 3-D swarm of particles with a partially-shielded expanding plume field that varies immensely in strength depending on how far off the thruster centerline the particle is.

It's normal for spaceflight.

how do you know it's "normal" for space flight when you have never even been up there to see it for yourself ?

For earth-trained eye/brain combos, no doubt at all it looks really really eerie.

please provide another example for us to see that is similar and maybe i will accept this as just a really really eerie video



[edit on 11-6-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by JimOberg
Boy, it sure would be nice if we could compare these exact scenes with the exact list of shuttle activities during the same period.

But we can't. And you know why -- the coverup....

Jim, I appreciate your candor in this regard.

*We are still waiting for the NASA link to the STS-75 video.

Perhaps the video's unavailability is a part of this cover-up of which you speak....

Originally posted by easynow

Then they complain that 'skeptics can't explain it'.

if NASA released their official version of that particular video than maybe the skeptics and video posters could explain it.

Now does that seem fair to you?

Let me see what you're saying.

UFO video posters refuse to post the date/time of the videos they claim they made themselves off of NASA transmissions but somehow 'forgot' to log the time the recording was made.

Without such data, the actual video cannot be quickly located.

Without such data, NASA is obligated to locate the original video -- presumably by searching for a match through its thousands of hours of recorded (and time tagged) videos.

You are saying this is a fair solution?

[edit on 11-6-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg

With such data, NASA is obligated to locate the original video -- presumably by searching for a match through its thousands of hours of recorded (and time tagged) videos.

Jim,

Of these "thousands of hours" of recorded videos they have, NASA has released how many minutes to the public?

*I think you are right about the cover-up

Edit: You say the events in the video from the OP are from Days after the tether-break.

”In fact, those scenes were DAYS after the break,”

If NASA released every hour of footage, including all the TOP footage from STS-75 and starting with the moments before the tether breaks - It would take us on less than one week to find out exactly when the OP footage was filmed.

NASA must not want us to see the footage from the days leading up to the UFO event - Perhaps it does not corroborate the explanations put forth by NASA and yourself...


Or maybe NASA have not released the video because they were also testing something else up there that they don't want us to see; like a Beam Transmission Optical System.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Different particles in large populations do indeed react differently.

Different particles ? are you saying they are not all the same kind of particles ? hmmm...

They're not all the same particle -- they're different particles. And yes, there are different kinds of material that can make up (and have made up) particles -- water ice, hydrazine ice, tile fragments, carbon-carbon chips and sections [as on Columbia's last flight], cloth and fasteners from thermal blankets, metallic pieces and fragments, inter-tile gap-filler resin strips, pyrobolt shards, wire insulation flakes, objects left in the bay by ground crews [rare -- but still happens], and about sixteen dozen other lesser-likely sources.

This is no mystery when you realize that the depth of the field of view could include particles a few feet away, a few tens of feet away, even farther. And when viewed from the payload bay cameras, as most of these scenes are, objects closest in are in the plume shadow of the shuttle structure -- the expanding plume cloud is blocked by the bay sill, and possibly other structures in other areas of the field of view. And for some thrusters, there's plume impingement and bounce-back off shuttle structures -- example, the aft down-firing jets impinge partially on the elevons and body flap and create a plume 'echo' back upwards.

sorry but that is assuming way to much. there is no proof that is what is going on in the video. not saying it isn't the explanation, just saying there's no proof of it.

No argument -- it is not proof that this is what they are, just a possible explanation that is consistent with known spaceflight conditions.

This is exactly what one should expect from a 3-D swarm of particles with a partially-shielded expanding plume field that varies immensely in strength depending on how far off the thruster centerline the particle is.

It's normal for spaceflight.

how do you know it's "normal" for space flight when you have never even been up there to see it for yourself ?

Have you ever asked anyone who has been up there, and would you believe them if they told you? Why is it, you suppose, that UFO theorists avoid direct eyewitness testimony on this phenemenon? They don't ask for it, and when it is available, they ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Learning what is normal on shuttle videos can be attained by watching hundreds of hours of live downlink from my various consoles in Mission Control between 1981 and about 1996.... and watching NASA TV feeds when not directly there. And analyzing relative motion in space as part of my professional specialization in orbital maneuvering, docking, and separation. It is not 'obvious' how stuff should look and weird-looking actions really are on the videos -- if you try to interpret them based on Earthside experience and about, oh, two hundred million years or so of eye/brain processing evolution.

For earth-trained eye/brain combos, no doubt at all it looks really really eerie.

please provide another example for us to see that is similar and maybe i will accept this as just a really really eerie video

That is a fair request and I'm going to prepare a general section of my home page with exactly such materials -- just not today or tomorrow.

reply to post by JimOberg

Let me see what you're saying.

UFO video posters refuse to post the date/time of the videos they claim they made themselves off of NASA transmissions but somehow 'forgot' to log the time the recording was made.

Without such data, the actual video cannot be located.

With such data, NASA is obligated to locate the original video -- presumably by searching for a match through its thousands of hours of recorded (and time tagged) videos.

You are saying this is a fair solution?

wow talk about making a mountain out of a molehill

good spin zone Jim but your trying to make this more complicated than it really is. it would be my opinion that NASA already knows exactly what part of the mission is in the video in question since it most certainly has been studied over and over again. if they do not already have this portion of the video thoroughly examined with available documentation to reference then i would say they are a piss poor goverment entity and need to be investigated and audited.

so yea , NASA coughing up the data is a fair solution especially since we tax payers are the ones putting food on their table.

wouldn't you agree ?

[edit on 11-6-2009 by easynow]

ok, so far most of my comments have been based on little more than the observations of the original Stubbs video and this new motion vector study. My gut reaction in both cases was "OMG, this is it. It's been slam dunked".

However, after having made assumptions in the past about other subjects in my life that seemed clearly self evident at the time, turn out to be totally false when examined more closely, I've learned to keep an open mind. Even about things for which I hold strong convictions.

At first, Jim's arguments seem myopic to me, but not altogether dismissible. After debating a couple of the finer points, I decided it was time to for me to really drill down into it.

One of the issues that he brought up was that, during the long zooms, many of the objects started out as bright, well defined points of light that bloom out into dimmer, fuzzier forms. After looking again, it occurred to me that he might have a point. The Inverse Square law dictates that a light source should appear brighter as you move or zoom closer to it.

But then I thought this could be explained by a large object that was emitting light from it's entire surface, by means of charged fields. This could account for it because the light was not coming from a single point, but the aggregate of zillions of charged particles spread out over a large area. I felt that if I could find a down to Earth example, my theory would stand up. The only forms of localized, high-density, mega-high frequency charged particle fields I could think of would be in the forms of plasma we've been able to generate. So I set about looking for videos of such things. I found hundreds of them, but none of them included a zoom of more than a few feet at best. After way too many hours, I found a couple that seemed pretty close...

JK Plasma Magnetics Experiment 2

At 1:50 here you can see a rotating field. Although there is no zoom, I figured that if they turned off the other light in the room and shot it from a distance, it would show as a bright well defined shape that might turned into a dimmer, more diffuse one if you zoomed in really close. But the video doesn't show this, so I kept looking.

At 3:20 here things start to look promising...

high frequency Plasma

But still not quite a revelation.

At 0:45 here we're getting closer...

MHD-VORTEX-PLASMA

The zoom still doesn't make it clearly evident.

Finally, at 1:00 here ...

Real Cold Fusion

The effect I'm looking for is clearly replicated. BUT, it's obviously due in main to some kind of auto-gain control. This is ok though, because we've already established that the STS cameras were also doing the same thing. All this proves in the end though, is that brightness changes are inconclusive.

I also found this...

UFO OVNI "Dropa Stone" da janela

About half way in you see a long tight shot and then a zoom out that finally gives us a close reference: the door. Best replication so far but, as stated, moot at this point. To me, it looks like one of those novelty plasma balls that you can buy at any gift shop, probably suspended from a balloon or something.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by Raybo58]

So back to the drawing board. After studying the Stubbs video again I noticed something strange. Several objects appear to pass through the plasma sheath. You'll probably have to view it full screen to see them clearly...

NASA STS-75 Tether Retrospection (ignore annoying music)

Once at 0:16 and again at 0:18. Again at 2:58, and most notably at 3:36 during a zoom. When I consider the options of believing that objects can pass through each other or that I'm seeing optical distortions, the latter has something more a ring to it. I know the sheath itself is not solid, but the wire in the center of it is. And two of the objects, if they're where I thought they were initially, pass right through the center. Their size easily covering the distance between the edges of the sheath.

I'm also finding the consistent changing position of the notches a little disturbing. The "holes", or what I believed to be weaker field densities, always facing us was OK because a translucent sphere with with an opaque center will look the same regardless of your orientation to it. But the notch provides a surface detail that *should* change with orientation.

What we need is another view. So I went looking for one. Looks to me like a jackpot at 1:35 here...

UFO

It's so clear .....If fact it's almost too clear. The features are so well defined it's like you're looking at something up close. And then I notice that the "Hole" and the unusual black bar are moving around proportionally as the viewer tracks it's motion. Not good. This video takes me over the tipping point as far as the actual shapes we're seeing. Unless someone can contribute anything substantial to exclude the "lens artifact" argument, I'm afraid I find myself in that camp now.

That doesn't mean we're done here. There's no question something is there, but in my opinion it's being distorted. So what's left?

Well, there are those vectors. But I've studied several enhancements and all the strange ones I've seen *could* be accounted for by parabolic arcs and, in some cases, nudges from other objects or thruster firings. The best I've seen so far are very acute angles in the apparent trajectory changes. Without an object actually making a closed loop on screen, this also remains inconclusive in my view.

The only angle left with any meat on it that I can think of was inadvertently provided by dragonridr in a debunking attempt. He mentioned the effect of motion parallax. He incorrectly states..

Originally posted by dragonridr
When camera tilts objects close to you will show much further travel in the video than a distant object.

In fact, the opposite is true. I've made a video to demonstrate this. First let's take another look at the Stubbs video.

NASA STS-75 Tether Retrospection (ignore annoying music)

At 0:33 you begin to see a series of zooms, pans and tilts. You'll notice that at all times, objects remain at their relative distances from the tether throughout all of the camera maneuvers. If the critters were close to the camera, this would be impossible.

My Video...
Debunking STS particle theory for STS 75

So the best I can put forward now is this: What we may have here are small objects floating near the tether. Obviously not the size of particles, but probably not miles in diameter either. Perhaps somewhere between golf ball and golf cart sized. And somehow they are reflecting or emitting so much light that distortions are occurring; either in the lens assembly or by virtue of some anomaly in the receptors or the live enhancement algorithms or both.

Final verdict: Unless someone has anything NEW to add, this footage remains inconclusive in my opinion.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Raybo58]

I just wanted to say that it is FACT that NASA picks and chooses what we see and hear... sorry, no links.

there are thousands of hours of missing footage and images from camera film from Apollo missions as well as others from the archives.

I do appreciate the work from all of you guys trying to prove and disprove your theories. But, unfortunately, I have not heard any sound evidence that supports either side. There have been some strong arguments, but they are only just that.

It frustrates me that the government is our only source of information(in regards to space) and we can only wait for them to throw us a bone, which by then of course, it is edited all to hell.

I am so looking forward to the day when an outside source( NOT GOV ) will be able to provide us with some real information. Until then....we are left here debating on these forums.

Anyways....Keep up the good work guys.

Higher quality version of my video can be downloaded here...

www.fileden.com...

During the research I did for this post I found a great many more vids that are far more compelling than the stubs video anyway. Here are a few...

Combat Ship

ufo nellis air base video

worse quality of the same video, but with more info...

1994 Nellis super secret UFO sighting

U.F.O landing in Grand Canyon filmed by tourist 2008

Diamond UFO By Columbia Disaster On FOX NEWS

And the best compilation I've seen so far. I'd never even heard of the Battle Of L.A. before I saw this one...

Ufo the Greatest Story Ever Denied - full video

Also interesting Russian footage...

The Secret KGB UFO Files Complete

Also, check out these shots of standing waves in water. The ones toward the end bare some resemblance...

water at 100hz



[edit on 11-6-2009 by Raybo58]

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Raybo58]

What's this "plasma sheath" sheat?

The dots and the tether are sunlit, they go dark when the sun sets, and they light up when the sun rises.

The camera shows that, the crew noticed and commented on that (you can find this video on the internet -- googel STS-75 and 'Flight Day Highlights') , and ground observers (such as yours truly) observed it with direct eyeballs.

What glowing plasma sheath?

I'm going to put some videos giving examples of the effects I've described, on my home page... it'll take awhile, please be patient.

Originally posted by JimOberg

I'm going to put some videos giving examples of the effects I've described, on my home page... it'll take awhile, please be patient.

Greetings Jim,

Remember; unless the videos you use are also recorded with the TOP camera, they will be inapplicable to our ongoing comparative analysis.

Originally posted by JimOberg

What glowing plasma sheath?

You must have neglected to read Zorgon's posts on the matter.

He even provided external-source documentation for you to read... Which you apparently chose not to do..

Originally posted by zorgon

Be surprised what you find with a simple search for "NASA tether plasma sheath"

High voltage plasma sheath analysis related to TSS-1
adsabs.harvard.edu...

TSS-1 is the STS 75 tether designation in case you didn't know

From NASA STS-75 mission repoert

The specific TSS1-R mission objectives are: characterize the current-voltage response of the TSS-orbiter system, characterize the satellites high-voltage sheath structure and current collection process, demonstrate electric power generation, verify tether control laws and basic tether dynamics, demonstrate the effect of neutral gas on the plasma sheath and current collection, characterize the TSS radio frequency and plasma wave emissions and characterize the TSS dynamic-electrodynamic coupling.

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

Transient plasma sheath model for thin conductors excited bynegative high voltages with application to electrodynamic tethers
ieeexplore.ieee.org...

For one, is the nature of the interaction of a very high-voltage tether structure with the tenuous plasma present at the altitudes where the system would operate?

A plasma sheath could develop around the tether. If that occurs, the range of the high-voltage tether would be impacted. That same sheath might also affect how much power is necessary to pump into the tether, keeping it at high voltage, Hoyt said.

www.space.com...

TETHERED SATELLITE SYSTEM INTERACTIONS WITH THE IONOSPHERIC PLASMA
see.msfc.nasa.gov...

The tether current produces a closed, azimuthal magnetic field around the tether. As a result, the region immediately surrounding the tether is disconnected from the open magnetic field region farther out (a magnetic separatrix exists). Therefore in order to be collected, charged particles must intersect the boundary surface (separatrix) between the regions of closed and open magnetic fields configurations. If the plasma sheath is inside the region of closed magnetic surfaces, the particle can be collected only due to the thermal motion, i.e. finite Larmour radius. To the extend that charged particles are unable to move across these surfaces, collected current will be reduced. This magnetic insulation breaks down if the boundary surface is
inside the region of strong electric field, i.e. inside the plasma sheath.

hsd.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Okay so it GLOWS

As to the TOP Camera...

Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP)

Using a hand-held camera system with image intensifiers and special filters, the TOP investigation will provide visual data that may allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether dynamics and optical effects generated by TSS-1R. In particular, this experiment will examine the high-voltage plasma sheath surrounding the satellite...

In one mode of operation, the current developed in the Tethered Satellite System is closed by using electron accelerators to return electrons to the plasma surrounding the orbiter. The interaction between these electron beams and the plasma is not well understood...

Associate Investigator: Stephen Mende, Lockheed Martin

liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...

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.

This paper was submitted 14 July 1992 four years before the 2nd mission so they KNEW what to look for and it was in UV...

Astronomical observations: ultraviolet (100÷3000) Å

www.springerlink.com...

Heck even the RUSSIANS know about it...

Later vacuum-chamber experiments suggested that the unwinding of the reel uncovered pinholes in the insulation. That in itself would not have caused a major problem, because the ionosphere around the tether, under normal circumstance, was too rarefied to divert much of the current. However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma (in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity.

www.iki.rssi.ru...

So get over it... the tether was GLOWING from the plasma around it, hence why it looked so wide and like a fluorescent tube.

The TOP camera was a camera specifically designed to film this phenomena...

Maybe you should contact the scientists whose papers you're quoting, to ask them to explain them to you. Please report back what you find out.

reply to post by Raybo58


That's the right way of doing things, nothing like doing our own investigation and tests, that is the best way to understand things, and we usually end up by learning a lot of related (or even unrelated) things in the process.

Good posts!

But I think you are wrong in using a 3D program to see how a things happen when a camera pans or zooms in or out, that experiment should be done with a real camera, not a 3D program, the behaviour may not be exactly the same (and I have a subjective feeling that it's not).