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: 71
77
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Let me start with this Mr Oberg.
I dont need to be pompous, rude and arrogant to try and show that someone is at fault as you certainly are trying to do here.


You are being grossly misled by your own imaginary pseudo-facts, such as this. Ice formed from water dumps persists for tens of minutes, and bigger pieces are stable for hours, even days.


Yes if you leave the Sun out of the equation that will be so.

To start with...
Water dumps become ice when it is released into space.
The waste water comes from the waste water tank and when released trough the heated valve and nozzle (yes heated, not even NASA want problem with their plumbing) there is a controlled spray rate trough the nozzle with pressure (it has to leave the shuttle also).

This water is formed to ice under extreme conditions.
Background radiation (the temperature we know as "cold) and vacuum, these two ingredients during the formation of an ice particle will boil the water until it is iced and the vacuum will compress the ice particle.

Now let's add the third ingredient to this process.
Our Suns own radiation (the temperature we know as "heat").
This starts a breakdown of the ice particle, it will split and reform several times over, and the pieces becomes smaller and smaller.
This is the same process we see with comets and their tails.
The difference here between the ice from the waste tank and a comet is the size.
Also the nozzle on the shuttle is made so there will be no major pieces of ice formed.
Probably due to safety reasons.

And now this.....
When the shuttle is in orbit around our beautiful planet it has to make several course corrections just to stay in orbit, now this is several course corrections p/hour.
So please dont come and say that these ice objects from the waste water tank will be around for days when the shuttle itself has to do corrections to stay where it is.


Back off, recognize the greater-than-expected depth of your ignorance, study and learn, and then re-approach the problem. Your energy is commendable and a worthy contribution -- your overconfidence in your imaginary factoids is not.

You seem to take this very personal... Why?
I've claimed this to be a theory and not fact.
Your reactions are similar to a jealous child in kindergarten over a toy.

reply to post by easynow
 



ok i understand what your saying but you do realize this video was supposedly taken a day or more after the tether broke right ?

Yes i am aware of that

There is one thing though, i dont think we have all the data on why and how the tether broke free from the satellite.


i don't see how a cloud of particles from the broken tether from a day previous or day's could just happen to be right there with the shuttle.

Because they never were with the shuttle, they were around the tether all the time.

and do you also realize your theory is completely different than what the so called experts that have been posting in this thread believe ?

Yeah i know, someone has to be different here



it's possible that this video has been heavily edited (not by Stubbs) and until we see NASA's version, i personally won't be satisfied with anyone's explanation....... just saying

Can't say more than that i agree on that.... And perhaps some more data on the tether.
And perhaps that data will tell us exactly what kind of electric charge(s) made the tether break free from the satellite.




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Quoting Will Rogers:

It ain't what you don't know what makes you
look like a fool -- it's what you DO know what ain't so.

Take this to heart, fellas.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


you feeling ok there Jim ?

the last couple posts you made in this thread and the other one are kinda strange and off topic........




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 


you feeling ok there Jim ?

the last couple posts you made in this thread and the other one are kinda strange and off topic........



By no means -- and the fact that you think they are 'off topic' shows EXACTLY how 'on target' they are.

Differences in interpretation of many of these puzzling events has little to do with intelligence or motivations or any mental or character features of the arguers. In my experience, it has a lot to do with the unnoticed assumptions of (and wrong guesses at) background facts that people come into the conversation with.

When those assumptions are wrong, due to unfamiliarity with the really unearthly and genuinely weird features of spaceflight and the space environment, all subsequent deductions based on them are unjustified. A lot of brainpower and enthusiasm is wasted.

The space ice guesses by the previous poster were just the most recent glaring examples of people getting tripped up by their own overconfidence that they adequately understand the context of the events.

Admittedly, people find it jarring that in these discussions, where usually each contributor approvingly encourages the others to keep on imagining and dreaming stuff up, some grownup appears and advises them they are hopelessly lost in their own erroneous assumptions. They probably already get that sort of negativity from their family and friends -- I'm guessing they come here to escape into an imaginary world where they are super smart and far better informed than all those folks in the real world who make fun of their ideas.

But if they, or any of us, are going to better understand this phenomenon, reality has got to be the touchstone, not self-pleasing imaginations.

And if there are forces at work that prefer to use the UFO phenomenon to disguise their own activities [which I suspect], such blind alleys and dead ends must please them, since it serves their purpose for camouflage. Now isn't THAT ironic?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


so when are you going to post a link to the data that shows a water dump did in fact occur that relates to the objects in the video ?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
so when are you going to post a link to the data that shows a water dump did in fact occur that relates to the objects in the video ?


Why bother? You've never believed any other links I've posted, as far as I recall.

I do need to put the technical data on my website's sectionon 'space folklore', for other readers, so I'll be getting to it.

Why the sudden passion for verifiable links? I don't recall your expressed need for other folks to show proof.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Why bother?


Nice !

:shk:





You've never believed any other links I've posted, as far as I recall.


what links ?

you mean the ones that lead to your biased website ?




I do need to put the technical data on my website's sectionon 'space folklore', for other readers, so I'll be getting to it.


ok well make sure you include a verifiable link that shows were you got the data from or you know what will happen ......right ?





Why the sudden passion for verifiable links? I don't recall your expressed need for other folks to show proof.


"sudden" ?

but mr. gatekeeper ,





this thread is over 1400 replies and WE are still asking you to back up your claims with some kind of proof.

actually it's getting old :bnghd:



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why bother? You've never believed any other links I've posted, as far as I recall.
He is not the only person reading this thread, besides all ATS members, this thread (like almost all other threads on ATS) is available to all people with access to the Internet, so I think that it would be an excellent opportunity to help some people learn something more about space exploration.

Does the fact that you know where to find that data show that other people's skills at looking for that data are not as good as yours? Maybe, but that should not be used as a kind of shield "protecting" your search skills from those of the "common people", it should instead be used as an example, by showing how and where did you got that information.

That's why I always try to explain how and where did I found something or how did I reached some result (like my poorly made videos), because even if they are not as good as they could be they can still be useful to someone else, and if just one person learns something from them it would be worth it.

Also, it's always a good practice to back up the information we post with verifiable data, as you know, saying something does not make it true, specially to other people.

So, could you please post the information about the water dump? Or are going to do the same as secretnasaman and ignore my posts.


Thanks anyway.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
So, could you please post the information about the water dump? Or are going to do the same as secretnasaman and ignore my posts.


Thanks anyway.


I have every intention of doing so, but I've discovered they are not in computer form and need scanning -- which I'll get to as expeditiously as my schedule allows. I have every intention of posting all of this raw data along with methods that folks can use to obtain it themselves to validate it. It's a fair request.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
The STS-75 Tether Break was at 7:30 PM, C.T., on the last day in Feb.1996. The 1st sighting by the crew was at 10:19 C.T. & was videotaped during a loss of signal period, but was down-linked ASAP when the picture was restored. A brief clip of the tether as a small dot unwinding at 150 N. miles was shown. The next time it was spotted & videotaped/downloaded was at 11:17 PM C.T. at a distance of 90 N. miles...


We should thank Martyn for posting this data, and encourage him to do so more frequently with other tapes he puts on youtube.

What is "C.T."? Central time? Canadian Time? Sorry to be too dense.

Martyn writes that the tape broke at "7:30" (February 29, 1996, correct?) and within three hours (by "10:19") it was 150 nautical miles away -- is that the correct interpretation of his reply? And then, about an hour later ("11:17") it was at a range of 90 nautical miles. Martyn, if you want to clarify this, please do so at your convenience.





[edit on 29-10-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
The STS-75 Tether Break was at 7:30 PM, C.T., on the last day in Feb.1996. ....


I'm confused.

Visual observations of satellites are reported here:
satobs.org...

Regarding the tether break, message satobs.org... reports that the tether broke at approx Feb26/0130 GMT

That would indeed by 7:30 PM Feb 25, Central Time in the US and Canada.

NASA’s press release, also dated Feb 26, is here:
www.nasa.gov...

Was February 25 "the last day in February 1996" in Canada?

Clarification, please.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I do appreciate that you are telling me that i am being wrong with this theory of mine


But you know, i would appreciate it even more if you said "what" is wrong and "how" it is wrong.

Every person can say that something is wrong, not everyone can explain the "why" and "how".




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


OK, thanks.

I will wait, I am not in a hurry.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I do appreciate that you are telling me that i am being wrong with this theory of mine


But you know, i would appreciate it even more if you said "what" is wrong and "how" it is wrong.


He did tell you what is wrong with regard to your overestimating how fast the water dump sublimates in sunlight:


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Balez
Even if the shuttle would have done a water dump, they are in direct sunlight and the ice would boil away and disappear with in seconds.


You are being grossly misled by your own imaginary pseudo-facts, such as this. Ice formed from water dumps persists for tens of minutes, and bigger pieces are stable for hours, even days.


One thing you can do to prove you're wrong about water dumps only lasting for seconds, is do a google search on water dumps. There's even a thread on ATS involving a water dump where the dump obviously lasted more than "seconds" as you put it, people on earth noticed it were photographing it, going to get video cameras and videotaping it, etc. So if the water dump it only lasted seconds as you suggest, the observers wouldn't have been able to observe what they observed. And the water dump was illuminated, presumably by the sunlight which you state would make it disappear right away. But I'll even give you a link with a photo:

www.universetoday.com...


And if you're worried about the water ice freezing and becoming projectiles in orbit, NASA says that while waste water usually freezes upon jettison into a cloud of tiny ice droplets, when the sun hits, the ice sublimates directly into water vapor and disperses in space.


So yes it sublimates, and perhaps the smallest particles do so in seconds, but not the entire water dump. Something is illuminating the water dump for that photograph, I'm assuming that something is sunlight, and it hasn't sublimated yet. When I look at the length of the trail of ice, I have to go with Jim Oberg's conclusion that some of the larger ice particles must last at least tens of minutes in the sun, as I don't think that photograph would be possible if they only lasted for seconds as you said, because we would only see them immediately around the shuttle.

This should also demonstrate why the shuttle observers and camera would see the particles at various distances from the shuttle, just look at the dispersion.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Try also googling the 'pissicle' on a 1984 flight, the hunk of ice lasted for days. There was another ice buildup on the top edge of the left payload bay door (which when opened lies directly in front of the vent), that remained in place when the door swuung closed and was still there AFTER landing in Florida (where it quickly melted in the hot air).

The black body temperature of an object in free space at 1 AU is considerably BELOW the melting point of water. That's also a consequence of basic physics.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim i've asked twice for someway to verify what you posted in the other thread. can you please post a link or provide someway to verify what you wrote ?



do you have a link to the Conrad quote you posted ?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

it's not my job to provide a link to what you post and if you don't provide a link or something then what you wrote is meaningless.

maybe ArMaP can ask you to do that ? since he got you to at least acknowledge it's wrong to post things without providing some proof.



[edit on 30-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Try also googling the 'pissicle' on a 1984 flight, the hunk of ice lasted for days.

I saw that sequence before, and i adnotated it at that time. Now i extracted to be easy to see. It is from Space Shuttle flight 12 (STS-41D), Launch: August 30, 1984.

Here it is the sequence, described by the astronauts themselves:



original here: www.nss.org...


They had to position the shuttle with the side with the ice for two days staying on the sun, hopping to reduce the size of the chunk of ice. There was a reducing, but finnally they decided to smash it with the shuttle's arm.

Also, i agree with those some other posters that indeed ice particles in vacuum of space, even hit by the sun, could stay minutes or even hours more, depending on their size. Those which reject this posibility, and say that ice sublimates in space in a matter of seconds (which could be true ONLY for very small particles) , just want to exclude the water dump explanation, because it doesn't fit with their explanation - ufo/alien ship/critter). But as Arbitrageur showed, water dumps in orbit can be seen more than a few seconds, and i also remember there was multiple eye witnesses and photos taken from the ground to these water dumps. A few seconds? Not necessarily.

It could be water dump in these STS-75 videos. The sequences in STS-75 videos are about ten minutes or so, but the NASA study (ntrs.nasa.gov... ) speaks for 19 minutes already (and these 19 minutes just because of sunset, after which paticles can't be seen)

pag 83..84:

Particles were observed promptly in the first frame taken about 1 min after the start of the dump. The optical environment is severely degraded during the dump. Several hundred particles are observed in the 0.13 sr field-of-view. []
The number of visual particles in each 2.7 s exposure is plotted in Figure 2 from the end of the dump until orbital sunset 19 min later.
There is a rapid (nearly 2 orders of magnitude) decrease in the first 6 min followed by a much slower decay.
The water ejection occurs from a jet on the opposite (port) side of the Shuttle well below the opened bay doors.
Ice particles formed in the expansion will undergo complex trajectories due to plume collision effects and atmospheric drag
.


That study allude to one particular event regarding a water dump during one particular shuttle attitude and position.

Essential is that there are tens of minutes of "optical environment degradation" just due to a water dump, and, more, no matter water dump is on oposite direction, particles have complex trajectories in orbit.
So, UFO-advocates, please don't reject this real posibility just saying "ice dissapear in space in a matter of a few seconds". You are wrong.






[edit on 30/10/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   

and say that ice sublimates in space in a matter of seconds (which could be true ONLY for very small particles)



you said that ^





You are wrong.


and then you said that ^


how is it wrong if you admit it's a possibility ?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   


Correct is to say: "ice particles in space dissapear in a matter of a few seconds, to minutes, hours or even days"

Therefore, it is INCORRECT (wrong) to say "it can't be ice particles, because ice particles dissapear in a matter of seconds".

But i'm sure you get this, there is no real need of this post.





[edit on 30/10/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Correct is to say: "ice particles in space dissapear in a matter of a few seconds, to minutes, hours or even days"

Therefore, it is INCORRECT (wrong) to say "it can't be ice particles, because ice particles dissapear in a matter of seconds".
[edit on 30/10/09 by depthoffield]



dude, if you admit it's possible that ice particles can disappear quickly then it is not wrong or incorrect to have a theory that considers the objects are not ice crystals.




But i'm sure you get this, there is no real need of this post.


at least you got that part correct



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join