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.
and i think you will find martin is the sole recordist and the only one nasa felt it nescasary to sue for possesion.
jim i repeat my statement that only nasa and associated agencies ever got to view that footage until martin aired it.
now prove me wrong or move on and stop using this thread to spread deciet.
You're not opening your eyes, or mind, to sincerely-offered constructive criticism.
You keep imagining that YOUR misinterpretation of spaceflight dynamics is the way the universe MUST behave.
Naturally, you wind up at preposterous conclusions and deductions.
Ejected objects from one satellite can indeed return to impact that object. It's why dropped tools, for example, are such a big deal, and why on occasion the space station has had to fire a rocket engine to change course after such an accident during a space walk (Exp-2, Jim Voss, for example).
An object departing the space station out of plane will return to the space station in about 45 minutes. This has been known since about, oh, 1954. An object departing local 'up' or 'down' will return in about 90 minutes. This goes for any reasonable separation rate -- several feet per second, say, or less.
Equations of motion, and spaceflight experience, verify this. Your view is only verified by your own misplaced self-confidence.
Some skygazers were treated to the unexpected view of a bright sparkling glow Wednesday night, created when astronauts aboard the space shuttle Discovery dumped the waste out into space.
Waste water usually freezes upon jettison into a cloud of tiny ice droplets. Then when the sun hits, the ice sublimates directly into water vapor and disperses in space.
Originally posted by Balez
Waste water usually freezes upon jettison into a cloud of tiny ice droplets. Then when the sun hits, the ice sublimates directly into water vapor and disperses in space.
Source
Hmm... I wonder... Yes that is what i have been saying all the time, isn't it?
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by Balez
Waste water usually freezes upon jettison into a cloud of tiny ice droplets. Then when the sun hits, the ice sublimates directly into water vapor and disperses in space.
Source
Hmm... I wonder... Yes that is what i have been saying all the time, isn't it?
The issue is the time duration required. Free-floating ice chips can and do last for hours -- plenty of time to show up on shuttle cameras... or drift back and recontact the shuttle if sprayed in the wrong initial direction.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'll even give you a link with a photo:
www.universetoday.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c8483a0a0a11.jpg[/atsimg]
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.
The issue is the time duration required. Free-floating ice chips can and do last for hours -- plenty of time to show up on shuttle cameras... or drift back and recontact the shuttle if sprayed in the wrong initial direction.
Originally posted by Balez
No matter what you say Jim, Ice will sublimate when hit by sun radiation, and vaporize. Unless the Ice are huge blocks, that will take a longer time.
But droplets from the water dump is close to instant .
Originally posted by spacefan
answer a str8 question jim can they last in that volume for 2 days.
they cannot can they.
so now the only way they could be there even hours later is if
they were in the shuttles shadow and that still does not explain the volume of debris does it or they were expended from the shuttle only minutes prior to shooting the footage which is ridiculous and totally unproven and also not in the shuttles logs.
and if the logs did show any possibly reason for contamination you would be trumpeting the data like the cat that got the cream.
its doesnt exist jim because they didnt contaminate their enviroment prior to the footage and you will never be able to prove something thats NOT in the shuttle log.
so tell us jim how could that much debris be there when the footage was shot please.
i know why you cannot let go of the official ice crystal theory as there is no other quasi legit debunk.
i dont know what the footage is all about but i do know that the nasa documentation supplied by zorgon refutes one of the very most basic elements of your thoery therefore making all the other points totally mute no ice no theorys there just HAS to be ice otherwise its totally unexplainable so far.
[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]
So you implied that i manipulate the software in order to show some faked results???
Well, instead try it yourself the software and feed with your own data!
If you want, i could give you my initial imput data (the software save it as a file).
Don't call me a liar, please...
Yes, debris particles in orbit, generated by the shuttle activities and following it, is a common phenomenon. Read that NASA study. it's a must!
I went through all of zorgon's post for this thread (151) and I didn't saw any post with data logs.
Originally posted by spacefan
also zorgon provided links to all shuttle data logs earlier which clearly show the last water dump was 2 days prior to the footage shot.
Well, Balez, you are welcome to your own universe, and I'll be happy with this one and its current physical laws -- which you just don't understand.
Didn't you see Chuck Shaw's note offering the very same explanation for the particles?
Thanks, not knowing the member who posted it makes it a little more difficult to find, specially for those that do not have as much time as they would like.
Originally posted by spacefan
the shuttle logs are there alright and no mistake whether by indirect route thru a link or a direct link i cannot remember however i will check if i made a copy of them.
how hard can it be to find the shuttle logs anyway without any link.
@Balez, I think I'm the one who introduced that source and quote into this thread here:
reply to post by Arbitrageur
So I already addressed that when i introduced it. Based on my knowledge pf physics and thermodynamics the time to complete sublimation of the particle will be partially a function of the size of the particle, so assuming the particles have a size distribution, the smaller particles will sublimate completely in less time than the larger particles. But I don't know why you're posting this as apparently some kind of revelation when I pointed this out from the first post I made on this subject.
Could you please explain what you meant, altitude or attitude? Thanks.
Originally posted by spacefan
also jim you are omitting the fact that the shuttle flew at 3 differing altitudes during that time because of the crystal experiment they were carrying out.
In AADSF, three lead-tin-telluride crystals grown while orbiter flown at three different attitudes to determine effect on crystal growth. Also collected data on crystal’s freezing point. Lead-tin-telluride used in infrared detectors and lasers.