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: 22
77
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Hi Easy. thanks for that link of the STS-75 you posted! After I started to just sit back and watch the vid for about 2 mins.. I began to see something.. actually a couple things..which brought some more questions.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, .. but this vid keeps getting more and more bizarre the more I look at it..

1). The shuttle was towing the Sat when it broke, meaning the shuttle was under power. correct ?

2). In the video, the narrator is stating how far the Sat is away from the shuttle by announcing it in Nautical miles.

3). So, the shuttle is still under power and moving AWAY from the tether or is it at a dead stop and the Sat is moving away ?? Which doesn't make sense, because the tether broke
, (i'm sorry that is so laughable when since I work with a bunch of Engineers, "oh SNAP!, we didn't calculate very well and bummer we lost the 23million $$Sat *yawn*")

sorry anyways, both the Sat and the shuttle should be moving in the same direction, why is the Sat moving AWAY from the shuttle if both were moving at the same speed????? or close to because the Sat was in tow. (kinda like towing a car is what I'm thinking; rope snaps but the car being in neutral will still go at the same speed unless another force acts upon it)

4). IF the shuttle is moving away from the SAT AND the tether, why isn't the tether getting smaller and smaller in the lens of the camera since the shuttle is moving at 100NM/4 mins!!! As announced by the narrator!!!!!!

5) at exactally 4:03 the narrator states the SAT is now at 100NM FROM the shuttle!! 100NM in 240 seconds!!! Would the focus of the camera even begin to keep up with the image of the tether at that speed? !!!




posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by cnuum

If you look at the video in OP, you can see many non-parabolic flight paths where the velocity tails have been marked. Right at the beginning of sequence 1, there's an object in the upper left edge heading right, but it makes a few discrete turns - not constant curving - towards the top of the tether. So there's no constant force acting on that object and many others, but their speed and heading are modified at certain moments of time.


I don't quite see exactly what object you say. maybe an adnotated capture will be better.

Anyway, if you look closely, there are indeed some small deviations in the curved trajectories of some objects, at certain moments. They are at the same time at different objects. It's a clue that not the objects have simultaneously a deviation, but the shutlle with the camera itself have a sudden small change in position. And this is a clue that the reaction and navigation system of the shuttle is working, adjusting the trajectory of the shuttle. And this is more a clue that the "objects" are not too far away from the camera (debris/ ice particles stuff like this), since small changes in shuttle piosition has an effect in the apparent trajectories of the objects.



[edit on 17/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


The satellite, the tether and the shuttle were all moving at the same speed, but the satellite was on a higher orbit, so when the tether broke, the satellite/tether moved to a higher (but slower) orbit.

The increasing in the distance was mostly because the shuttle was now moving faster than the tether.

And I don't understand where did you got that "100NM/4 mins" figure.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Komodo
 


The satellite, the tether and the shuttle were all moving at the same speed, but the satellite was on a higher orbit, so when the tether broke, the satellite/tether moved to a higher (but slower) orbit.

The increasing in the distance was mostly because the shuttle was now moving faster than the tether.

And I don't understand where did you got that "100NM/4 mins" figure.


1). The shuttle was towing the Sat when it broke, meaning the shuttle was under power. correct ?


The satellite, the tether and the shuttle were all moving at the same speed,


3). So, the shuttle is still under power and moving AWAY from the tether or is it at a dead stop and the Sat is moving away ?? Which doesn't make sense, because the tether broke both the Sat and the shuttle should be moving in the same direction. why is the Sat moving AWAY from the shuttle if both were moving at the same speed????? or close to because the Sat was in tow.


The increasing in the distance was mostly because the shuttle was now moving faster than the tether.


4). IF the shuttle is moving away from the SAT AND the tether, why isn't the tether getting smaller and smaller in the lens of the camera since the shuttle is moving at 23NM/4 mins!!! (100-77=23NM/4mins)

Is the below statement true??
5) at exactally 4:03 the narrator states the SAT is now at 100NM FROM the shuttle!! 23NM in 240 seconds!!! Would the focus of the camera even begin to keep up with the image of the tether at that speed? !!!


[edit on 17-6-2009 by Komodo]

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Komodo]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

1). The shuttle was towing the Sat when it broke, meaning the shuttle was under power. correct ?


Incorrect... the shuttle once in orbit is NOT under power. Once it has orbital velosity of approx 17,500 mph it will stay in that orbit for a very long time before the orbit decays.

The tethet was not towed behind like a car. For the tether to function it would be perpendicular to the earths magnetic field.

Don't have a picture of the shuttle but this will do



They fly in tandem, no power needed (save minor course corrections if any)




2). In the video, the narrator is stating how far the Sat is away from the shuttle by announcing it in Nautical miles.


Correct but the video is on the third day after the break



3). So, the shuttle is still under power and moving AWAY from the tether or is it at a dead stop and the Sat is moving away ??


If something were to come to a 'dead stop' in space... the planet and solar system would speed away from that object at 574,585 MPH (Approx Speed of Earth within Our Galaxy) Now if you want to leave the galaxy add another 1,339,200 MPH to the calculations.

So 'standing still' in space is not a very good idea





Which doesn't make sense, because the tether broke
,


The tether did not 'break' as such. It generated so much current that it created a sustained arc that fried the connection, because NASA scientists were CERTAIN that the voltage collected would be minimal so did not include a circuit breaker worth $20.00 so lost a 100 Million dollar satellite.

But I like your engineer's quote


It has not yet been addressed what exact force was generated against the tether once loose to cause it to move away as it did...

What was the trust applied and where was it from; did the shuttle brake or accelerate to account for the distance; or was the tension on the tether enough to cause the force as appears evident by the coiling right after



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


OK, I will try to explain it better.

1. The shuttle, the tether and the satellite were all moving at the same angular velocity, under control of the shuttle. As the satellite was moving "above" the shuttle, its orbit was a little bigger and so it had a slightly higher velocity.

The shuttle was not really "powered", only from time to time, enough to keep it from loosing altitude, while outside the atmosphere there is no need for constant power because there is no air drag slowing it down.

Also, it was not really towing in the sense we usually think, the tether was not behind the shuttle, it was "above", I think it was something like this (the scale is not correct, obviously).


(although the shuttle has its nose pointing "up" it was not climbing, it was orbiting in that position, it can orbit in any position, even "backwards")

2. When the tether broke, the satellite and the tether acted almost like a sling or a hammer during a hammer throw, and it gained altitude until it reached a stable orbit. The satellite was not powered, I think it only had some thrusters to rotate it.

3. So, even if they were at the same speed now (my knowledge of orbital dynamics is not enough for me to know that
), the satellite and the tether were on a wider orbit (219 by 170 nautical miles, while the shuttle was on a 184 by 177 statute miles orbit (why don't they use the metric system?)), so it took longer to make a full orbit, loosing around 420 miles for each shuttle orbit (90 minutes) on the first day and around 340 miles on the following days.

4. The satellite and the tether probably do not look smaller because of the zoom effect, the most noticeable result of a telephoto lens is to "compress" the depth, all things look closer to each other, so differences in distance are not as noticeable. Maybe measuring the tether on the video we can see some difference, I never tried it.

5. I don't know if the "narrator" was correct or not, but being left behind at a rate of 340 miles in 90 minutes is the same as 3.7 miles per minute, not far from your 23 miles in 240 seconds. And you said on your fist post "100NM in 240 seconds!!!", that was what I found strange, I see now that was a mistake.

I hope this explanation is enough, although I always liked physics I do not know a thing about orbital dynamics, just basic physics.

PS: I noticed just before posting that Zorgon already replied, I have to learn to write faster.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Just a question to everybody, where did you got those numbers for the cost of the satellite?



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



They are at the same time at different objects.


sorry dof, but you are wrong on that

i see objects making reverse course directions at different times. you need to watch the video closer.




the reaction and navigation system


there is no way of telling any kind of navigational changes from the video. you are making assumptions with no real evidence to back it up



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Just a question to everybody, where did you got those numbers for the cost of the satellite?


From the Italian company that made it.. I will get the file from the first time they flew that mission. It WAS a used satellite by STS75

Be back shortly

STS 46




Will have to go through some pdf's to pull the price tag, but you can call this guy and see if we can get some direct info in the meantime Sent you number via U2U


Enzo Letico
Italian Space Agency (ASI)
(Phone: snipped)

[edit on 17-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
If something were to come to a 'dead stop' in space... the planet and solar system would speed away from that object at 574,585 MPH (Approx Speed of Earth within Our Galaxy) Now if you want to leave the galaxy add another 1,339,200 MPH to the calculations.

So 'standing still' in space is not a very good idea



that was actually your first post that made sense, grats.

regarding "coming to a dead stop" thats actually impossible under relativity. you could come to a dead stop relative to the sun, or to the earth, or to a distant star, but there is no such thing as "absolutely dead stopped".

point is, you could be in a dead stop relative to the center of the milky way and yes, everything would shoot away, but relative to any individual object you are not stopped, and relative to distant galaxies you are also not stopped.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytalethats actually impossible under relativity.


PFFTT That Einstein dude had it all wrong...

except that one quote of his

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistant one" Albert Einstein. Qauntum Mechanics is proving that


STS-46... the only actual image I have in my collection




posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytalethats actually impossible under relativity.


PFFTT That Einstein dude had it all wrong...

except that one quote of his

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistant one" Albert Einstein. Qauntum Mechanics is proving that


STS-46... the only actual image I have in my collection



regardless of if he was wrong, relativity is still true in that regard. there is no point of reference in the universe that is the "center" as far as we know. there is no universal frame of reference. you can only compare your velocity to other objects.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
thanks for all the great posts!

Let me make this as simple as possible..

Would not the tether be getting smaller and smaller over short period of time in the lens of the camera since the shuttle is still moving away at albeit a accelerated pace AWAY from the tether?

To me, looking at the video, they look as if they are at a near snails pace....



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
To me, looking at the video, they look as if they are at a near snails pace....


Gotcha!

If the shuttle was overtaking the shuttle and had passed it several times in orbit to get to day three when this was taken, the distance between the two should noticeably change during the video

Is that what you mean


Took me a minute





[edit on 17-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
This video challenges the comon explanation of ice particles or space debris , or anything else ( other than UFOs ). S+F



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I took a couple of screenies of the tether ...why do the 'ice crystals' change??

Image 1
Image 2

Mod Note: Image Size – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 18-6-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 

As DepthofField has pointed out several times, the shape of the bokeh discs are dependent upon their position in the frame. The appearance of the out of focus objects changes due to the characteristics of the the camera used. All of the objects in the same sector of the frame have the same appearance.


[edit on 6/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Thanks for the Screencaps komodo!

I'd like to see the debunkers try to explain those away...


Good stuff.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Would not the tether be getting smaller and smaller over short period of time in the lens of the camera since the shuttle is still moving away at albeit a accelerated pace AWAY from the tether?


If first was at 77 miles, and then after 4 minutes was at 100 miles...

What it really means: that is 77/100 smaller at end than the begining.

It means the size at the end is 0.7 from the size in the begining, more than half, ASSUMING THE SAME VALUE OF ZOOM WAS USED.

do you think is easy to determine a slow shirk in size (4 minutes)? and IF ZOOM value is not steady between the two moments in time..what really to observe?



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Komodo please repair your links


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Komodo

As DepthofField has pointed out several times, the shape of the bokeh discs are dependent upon their position in the frame. The appearance of the out of focus objects changes due to the characteristics of the the camera used.


You can say it as many times as you like... I still say your wrong.

Now first of all its time you 'lens artifact' proponents produce the exact camera data that was used in this sequence so we can see if indeed that camera COULD produce such effects. Comparing it to other cameras is not valid.

Also I have yet to see some one reproduce the effects we see here such as some objects having TWO notches while others have only ONE.

I have yet to see someone reproduce these 'lens artifacts' that change as pointed out by Komodo who beat me to it with quick captures


At this point its up to the doubters to provide the camera data to prove their point. In the meantime have a look at this rough draft. I will have a frame by frame animated gif finished by tomorrow but as its 380 frames it will be large

Watch this object closely as it pulsates. You can see the ripples move out from the center to the edge. You can see the hole in the center pulsate like a heart beat... we even have the rhythm timed.

You can clearly see the edge as it undulates and see the notch change shape from above then to two and then to the bottom. This change occurs while it is still in the same area of the screen.

This does not look out of focus to me




[edit on 18-6-2009 by zorgon]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join