New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The PROBLEM with his 'gravity' theory is very simple... IF the gravity of the Earth was effecting the 'critters', it would do so EQUALLY on all the particles, pulling them all back to Earth

They would not move independently in multiple directions from a force that is constant and pulling in one direction namely 'down' to Earth

NO ONE has yet explained what FORCES cause all the various directions of travel and the various speeds, no matter WHAT the objects are.

Which... after all is said and done... it the intent in the OP of this thread IE The MOTION STUDY

Zorgon, a hazard of skirting the edge of knowledge is that you might slip over into delusion. Nothing you've said about orbital motion has any relation to reality. There's a special chapter on 'orbitology' in my book 'Space Power Theory' on my home page, drop on over there and read it.

[added] Here's the link, look for 'Orbitology' here:
www.jamesoberg.com...


[edit on 29-9-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by secretnasaman

NASA did hold hearings to discuss what happened during the tether event. A report from the NASA website gives possible causes for the break in the tether cable. They discuss the "optical effects" they filmed.
So the NASA STS-75 "report" states that the "optical effects" were caused by leaks in the $100 million satellite... allowing gas to escape & become ionized like a plasma.
United Press International ("Satellite Signals a Puzzle")...stated
..."For example, the spacecraft nitrogen fuel tank was empty, & it's steering thruster valves were opened." (UPI)
According to this UPI news item, the escaped gas was nitrogen. This places the "optical effects" as being around & near the tether & satellite...not 100 miles away, back at the shuttle Columbia...

... in this report NASA is saying that these UFOs are "plasma" balls that became exited by the planets ionosphere or the energy moving through the tether.

HELLO...some facts ...NASA says the tether is NOT SUNLIGHT & no photo has ever been posted of the escaped tether from the ground...so people here "storytelling" are lying like a sidewalk!...

This is an excellent list of claims to be evaluated, to judge worthiness of belief.

"So the NASA STS-75 "report" states that the "optical effects" were caused by leaks in the $100 million satellite... allowing gas to escape & become ionized like a plasma."

A link to this report would help verify this claim of what it said. Such a link would show that Martyn is misunderstanding and misinterpreting it. so -- he doesn't provide any link.

" this report NASA is saying that these UFOs are "plasma" balls that became exited by the planets ionosphere or the energy moving through the tether. "

Nope, the report does not say this, as a link to it would allow anyone to verify. So -- no link is provided.

"HELLO...some facts ...NASA says the tether is NOT SUNLIGHT"

Nope, NASA did not say that, Martyn wants you to BELIEVE it said that, so to avoid contradiction from what NASA really said, no link is provided.

"No photo has ever been posted of the escaped tether from the ground...so people here "storytelling" are lying like a sidewalk!... "

Dozens of photographs of the tether from the ground have been published -- Martyn is arguing that because HE'S never seen them, they positively DON'T exist.

what links has Jim Oberg provided ?

none

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Good find! I stand corrected...it shows a very bright tether 200 miles up...just as some of the space video shows it at over 500 miles from the shuttle! That is the whole point. Why so bright. Why so straight. Why only a "farmer in the field "video, but nothing from NASA... other than the intercepted "tether/UFO" video this thread is all about?..So many questions ignored! ...So this huge thread is a reflection of the consequences of NASAs post-tether SILENCE......

why so bright?? i've explained somewhere..because not only the thinness of the tether matters, but also the length... thus the surface. I estimated that one single pixel in image receive light from some a few hundred meters of tether. There are enough photons there to impress the pixel.


questions ignored? do you want NASA to not ignore you, (who are you? ;p ) and spent resources to explain you and a thousand of people, how tether is visible from Earth, what camera is used from this or that sequence, how debris act in space, how nasa cameras with catadioptric lens make out of focus images of points of light (debris) positioned outside the depth of field interval..maybe you want they to explain what depth of field is. etcetera. But in the end, it is said that NASA lies, so, why bother...

I don't feel that this thread is a consequences of NASAs post-tether silence, but i feel it is the way from some people to make DVD's or documentaries and promote them, speculating something in fact interesting.



[edit on 29/9/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by secretnasaman
...It sounds so simple & yet it has been pointed out by so many of us at ATS, NASA will not release ANY of them. I agree with NASAs own scientist, Dr. Nuth...show us the videos & we can move on. NASA says no, & states they are under embargo! WHY????? Its 2009, Not 1996.

Where did NASA say they were 'under embargo', and where and when did you ask for them? And why are you quoting Joe Nuth -- who, if anyone asks him, will describe how he has consistently been misunderstood and misrepresented by you and Sereda -- when the real experts on shuttle cameras are at the shuttle operations base in Houston?

Originally posted by easynow
what links has Jim Oberg provided ? none

Come on, Easynow, would you ever actually go to any link I provided -- worried it might shake your faith?

I've provided plenty -- actually, been criticized for providing 'too many'... [sigh]

To repeat for a one-on-one tutorial for the slow section of the class:
tether photo www.eclipsetours.com...
tether observations: www.satobs.org...

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Good find! I stand corrected...

Good for you. Get used to it. But the first step is appreciated.

it shows a very bright tether 200 miles up...just as some of the space video shows it at over 500 miles from the shuttle! That is the whole point. Why so bright.

It's as bright as an informed observer would expect. It's sunlit.

Why so straight.

No surprise to informed space folks -- gravity pulls at both ends. It happens in theory, and is seen in practice with half a dozen tether deployments over the years. It's a puzzle only to the clueless.

Why only a "farmer in the field "video, but nothing from NASA... other than the intercepted "tether/UFO" video this thread is all about?..

What a vicious slur on real talented observers who know their business. So somebody whose evidence contradicts your proclaminations has to be denigrated as 'farmer in a field'? Sad.

NASA released all the videos made during the times the tether was in visual range of the shuttle [do you have any reason to believe they did not??]. They weren't 'intercepted', they were seen on a public live transmission.

So many questions ignored! ...So this huge thread is a reflection of the consequences of NASAs post-tether SILENCE......

Silence? It takes two ends of a link to 'hear', one the sending end (NASA) and one the receiving/understanding end. The failure's been at your end.

Just as they kept the switching of a new, alternative tether for STS-75... with a 5 year old "clunker"...totally quiet until I posted a '96 NASA press conference with this admission.

"Totally quiet"? Like mentioning in the mission press kit that they were using the undeployed sections of the tether from the earlier mission? And why not?

Was this the plan all along? Why else "fuzzify" the evidence , embargo the videos & continually send their attack dog , Jim Oberg out to bark?

Why else indeed? You really seem to think you're important enough to earn your own NASA task force?

reply to post by JimOberg

Come on, Easynow, would you ever actually go to any link I provided -- worried it might shake your faith?

I've provided plenty -- actually, been criticized for providing 'too many'... [sigh]

To repeat for a one-on-one tutorial for the slow section of the class:
tether photo www.eclipsetours.com...
tether observations: www.satobs.org...

yea i would if it was worth looking at but all i see in the two links you posted in a 1200+ reply thread is a silly message board and picures i have already seen.

please explain how these two links will help anyone reading this thread find a explanation for the supposed ufo's in the STS-75 video.

can't wait to read your response







[edit on 29-9-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by depthoffield


From the link provided by Zorgon

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.

reply to post by poet1b


yes i saw it and i said that i saw it.
Again...where it shows that the tether is "glowing like a fluorescent tube?"
Also, from the same nasa link, there was only minutes of plasma activity due to the air trapped on insulation, until the air was lost. Did you read my previous posts today to not make me to repeat?

[edit on 29/9/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by JimOberg


Hmm, really? If these orbits do not need to be maintained, then what is the purpose of the tether?

Sorry I didn't use the correct name for the thrusters, but neither have you in all of your posts. Vector means direction and force, just to give you a clue.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Once the vehicle is in space, it maneuvers using two different systems, the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) and the Reaction Control System (RSC). The orbiter's own OMS engines act as the third stage that puts the craft into orbit. The OMS uses two bipropellant, 6,000 pound thrust rocket engines mounted in pods on the aft end of the orbiter fuselage. The hypergolic propellants consist of monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, with about 21,600 pounds of propellant stored within the orbiter in titanium tanks. The OMS is used for orbit insertion or transfer, orbit circulation, rendezvous and deorbit.

Let me point out the part in this quote you debunkers will probably miss.

The OMS is used for orbit insertion or transfer, orbit circulation, rendezvous and deorbit.

orbit circulation

Here is another article that explains the situation a little better.

www.tsgc.utexas.edu...

In addition to the atmospheric drag and Earth's gravity, there are some other forces that push the satellite up and down away from the desired path. ("up" and "down" cause the satellite to drift westward and eastward respectively on the ground track.) These forces are solar radiation, thermal emissions from the satellite itself, gravitational effects of the Sun, Moon, and mass concentrations in the Earth, and some anomalous forces.

What is the term that comes to mind?

oh yeah, clueless bureaucrat.

I'll get to gravity later on. Gravity isn't even consistent over the surface of the Earth, let alone miles above the surface.

pathetic.

reply to post by depthoffield


Ah, so you are splitting hairs, ignition like a fluorescent tube, glowing like a fluorescent tube, same thing.

What is being ignored is that the insulation around the wire doesn't appear to be all that reflective in the pictures. Exactly what is the outer insulation jacket made of, I doubt shiny metal.

If the outer jacket isn't reflective, then where does the glow come from?

Originally posted by poet1b
Ah, so you are splitting hairs, ignition like a fluorescent tube, glowing like a fluorescent tube, same thing.

the ignition like a fluorescent tube, means the process of making plasma, (ionised matter) from air, with high voltaje, like in fluorescent tubes when you push the buton and some electronics makes some high voltage peaks at the moment of the pushing.
This "ignition" process is not the same meaning with "glowing like a fluorescent tube".
Also, the process was a few minutes, as NASA study says (see one of my previous post for quote) and i doubt the entire 12 miles tether is glowing constanly and even along its length, from leaked air through pinholes in insulation. Is this what you want us to believe?? (because quoted study linked by Zorgon describe this moments when plasma formed from air trapped, acting a few minutes and responsible for breaking the tether)

Originally posted by poet1b
what is being ignored is that the insulation around the wire doesn't appear to be all that reflective in the pictures.

what pictures? the ones with PROPER EXPOSURE?

Originally posted by poet1b
Exactly what is the outer insulation jacket made of, I doubt shiny metal.

who says and why thinking at "shiny metal"? tell me a reason.

Originally posted by poet1b
If the outer jacket isn't reflective, then where does the glow come from?

what glow?

remember there is a sunlit tether on a black bacground. How should be seen? as something gray? gray relative to what?
Also, remember the videos exactly when tether was deployed and when brokens...you see a sunlit tether. Not a glowing one.

Also, as i said, not only the thinness of the tether counts, but its lengh too... THE SURFACE counts. A few hundred of meters reflecting photons into only one pixel of the camera is not the same with a two meters tether.







[edit on 29/9/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 29/9/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by poet1b

The TSS-1 tether was 2.5mm in diameter (the one on the left)

www.delta-utec.com...
The outer covering is white kevlar. White is very bright in sunlight against the blackness of space.

Who cares why it was visible? The point that was trying to be made is that the video was made in UV. There is no indication that the video was shot in UV, the tether is visible to the naked eye from Earth's surface.

[edit on 9/29/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Just a quick note, I'm still reading through the thread (on page 10) it will take a while before I respond to all posts, so please be patient...

Arby, in your post, what he's forgotten is that orbital velocity was achieved.
There is a reason objects float in LEO (as demonstrated in the video of astronauts goofing off...)

You simply do not experience 1 g while moving at orbital escape velocity in LEO.

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
You simply do not experience 1 g while moving at orbital escape velocity in LEO. -WFA

The actual force pulling on the astronauts, the shuttle, and the particles or objects would be about 0.95g at 150km altitude.

The shuttle's trajectory is trying to take it in a straight line away from the earth. but the 0.95g force makes it "fall" toward the earth at such a rate that the altitude remains relatively constant (I know there's some eccentricity in the orbit but I'm trying to keep it simple here).

What we see in the OP video is objects falling to the earth at different rates, not because the force of gravity pulling on them is different (it's the same quite strong force for all of them), but because their velocities and orbital trajectories are different.

Look at another zero G illusion, the "vomit comet", which simulates zero G in a similar fashion, because it's falling, like the Shuttle is falling from a straight line trajectory moving away from the Earth into a curved orbit around the Earth.

www.space.com...

So do you agree with jScytale's 0.95g figure at 150km now? It's not zero g, that's somewhat of an illusion for the reason I described above.

Originally posted by poet1b
Hmm, really? If these orbits do not need to be maintained, then what is the purpose of the tether?

Nothing to do with maintaining the shuttle's orbit. There are speculative proposals for applications a decade or two from now to use electrodynamic tethers to get electrical energy poured into them, have an ion gun at the other end (to complete the curcuit), and create a humongous 'motor' that can slowly drag istelf and anything attached to it into a higher orbit. Or, as happened accidentally on STS-75, cut a tether between two objects and the higher one is thrown higher, the lower one, lower. These are cool applications -- but the STS-75 experiment was never intended to deal with that feature.

Sorry I didn't use the correct name for the thrusters, but neither have you in all of your posts. Vector means direction and force, just to give you a clue.

Uh, no, your supreme cluelessness. A 'vector' is a mathematical construct having direction and size. There is no 'force' factor involved.

Let me point out the part in this quote you debunkers will probably miss.

The OMS is used for orbit insertion or transfer, orbit circulation, rendezvous and deorbit.

orbit circulation

Wouldn't it make more sense tp go to a site that deals with the technology directly rather than a political/diplomatic site? What John Pike's staff was trying to say was that the OMS engines are used an hour after launch to 'circularize' the shuttle orbit -- except that a 'circle' is hardly ever the desire. Orbits have high points and low points, depending on mission needs. But whatever the goal, the 'circularization burn' is a single event on launch day -- it's not continuous, as you seem to insist on misunderstanding it.

Here is another article that explains the situation a little better.
www.tsgc.utexas.edu...
What is the term that comes to mind?
oh yeah, clueless bureaucrat. .. pathetic.

Hey, you show me your space navigation cerificate, and I'll show you mine [grin]. You don't even know enough to realize how little you know and how much of it is wrong.

Originally posted by poet1b

What is being ignored is that the insulation around the wire doesn't appear to be all that reflective in the pictures. Exactly what is the outer insulation jacket made of, I doubt shiny metal.

If the outer jacket isn't reflective, then where does the glow come from?

There. Is. No. Glow.

The outer layer is colored white. Can you think of a brighter color?

reply to JimOberg........

Jim,you don't have this info report by NASA & so you ask me for it & mock me for no link! You give no link as my ATS friend says...

you are the space journalist, so do your homework. I gave the details of the report from my notes from 2000. You don't have it ....just as you said originally here, at ATS, that my "clunker" reused tether report was a fantasy, & false. So I had to educate you with a post of NASAs admission of this totally strange decision! Now you admit it & say it doesn't matter which tether they used! The one they reused BROKE!

So it was a bad decision & one that you did not even know about for 13 years. You are supposed to be a space historian & Space Journalist...my learning curve started in the 1990s.

If you are looking for agreement, I would go suggest you go & buy a parrot.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by poet1b
Hmm, really? If these orbits do not need to be maintained, then what is the purpose of the tether?

Nothing to do with maintaining the shuttle's orbit. There are speculative proposals for applications a decade or two from now to use electrodynamic tethers to get electrical energy poured into them, have an ion gun at the other end (to complete the circuit), and create a humongous 'motor' that can slowly drag istelf and anything attached to it into a higher orbit. Or, as happened accidentally on STS-75, cut a tether between two objects and the higher one is thrown higher, the lower one, lower. These are cool applications -- but the STS-75 experiment was never intended to deal with that feature.

Sorry I didn't use the correct name for the thrusters, but neither have you in all of your posts. Vector means direction and force, just to give you a clue.

Uh, no, your supreme cluelessness. A 'vector' is a mathematical construct having direction and size. There is no 'force' factor involved.

Let me point out the part in this quote you debunkers will probably miss.

The OMS is used for orbit insertion or transfer, orbit circulation, rendezvous and deorbit.

orbit circulation

Wouldn't it make more sense tp go to a site that deals with the technology directly rather than a political/diplomatic site? What John Pike's staff was trying to say was that the OMS engines are used an hour after launch to 'circularize' the shuttle orbit -- except that a 'circle' is hardly ever the desire. Orbits have high points and low points, depending on mission needs. But whatever the goal, the 'circularization burn' is a single event on launch day -- it's not continuous, as you seem to insist on misunderstanding it.

Here is another article that explains the situation a little better.
www.tsgc.utexas.edu...
What is the term that comes to mind?
oh yeah, clueless bureaucrat. .. pathetic.

Hey, you show me your space navigation cerificate, and I'll show you mine [grin]. You don't even know enough to realize how little you know and how much of it is wrong.

edit spelling/typo