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: 77
77
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
yes jim most impressive another one of your collegues backing up your position.

maybe you can also ask him to name a tv station that aired the footage jim as i am still waiting so desperately wanting to believe atleast one fundermental building block of the footage statement you have made that holds any water to this date.

your good at throwing in the tech data on side issues always trying to establish your credibility but you very very rarely proof anything you say unless its addressing something that will take the thread down a blind alley for a page or 3 .

ofcourse it is all mute as there were no ice crystal/debris to fool the camera.

you and i both know the shuttle logs show that the last dump was 2 days prior.
we both also know that nasa do not ruin their own experiments i.e. filming the tether and they knew atleast 24 hours in advance that they were going to film it.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]




posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
jim
Well, I know that my cable service in the Houston area always carries the NASA TV feed, and so do most cable services in the big cities.

so you cannot name any so as the validity of your statement can be corroborated then..??



and i think you will find martin is the sole recordist and the only one nasa felt it nescasary to sue for possesion.


jim
What is this repeated delusion that Martyn was ever sued by NASA? Where's the slightest shred of proof of that?

i thought martin made his position quite clear only 3 or 4 pages back jim did you miss his replies to your same questions at the time you asked him.


jim i repeat my statement that only nasa and associated agencies ever got to view that footage until martin aired it.


jim
Keep repeating it. It doesn't make it any truer.

and your reply doesnt make it any less true either.


now prove me wrong or move on and stop using this thread to spread deciet.


jim
You are very close to a ToS violation here.

you only have to proof what you say.

your complete inability to back up your statements makes them fraudulent statements when expressed as fact.

you havent said you think this or that.
you make statements only.

this forum is about facts linked facts disputable linked facts but still fact and not speculation dressed up as fact so you will just have to excuse me asking you to show us the proof.

and threats of banishment or reprisals for calling someone deceptive when refusing to backup statements is hardly a capital offense.

easynow is still waiting for your proofing of statements you made to him and this forum days ago.
face it jim the gigs up your no longer going to get away with your scatter gun statements anymore.

your promises of corroborating links so far have proved as worthless as your zig zagging apollo panel theory.

why dont you tell us what we are seeing jim in your own words in one posting...?
break the event down for us and tell us your theory if your company here is for genuine reasons.





[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



You're not opening your eyes, or mind, to sincerely-offered constructive criticism.


I don't mind criticism, it's welcomed and needed.
What i dont welcome however is being 'jumped-on' by these good folks that is giving away free constructive criticism.


You keep imagining that YOUR misinterpretation of spaceflight dynamics is the way the universe MUST behave.

Jim....Jim.... This is how many times in a row you have accused me of having a misinterpretation of space flight dynamics?
And how many times is that just, your 'say so' with out the basis of a fact sheet?


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).

Of course they can.....
And if you missed this.... We Were Talking About The Alleged Water Dump.
Not if the astro's dropped their tools while on a spacewalk.
They have even lost a toolbox for gods sake!
These things can return to the shuttle, they are solid hard things that have a better capability to absorb sun radiation without being affected in a molecular level where they will dissolve into particles/gas.


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.

As far as i can remember, i have not denied this....

What i was talking about was this:




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.

Source

Hmm... I wonder... Yes that is what i have been saying all the time, isn't it?

Mod edit: Corrected formatting

[edit on 11/2/2009 by junglejake]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

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.

Mod edit: Corrected formatting

[edit on 11/2/2009 by junglejake]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

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.



@Balez, I think I'm the one who introduced that source and quote into this thread here:

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


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.

Mod edit: Corrected formatting

[edit on 11/2/2009 by junglejake]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



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.

Drift back?
The only direction they will 'drift' is towards earth.
Free floating ice chips will not last enough time to rendezvous with the shuttle.
1. Their original trajectory has changed due to effects from another source of gravity.
2. Sun radiation will hit the ice objects before they rendezvous with the shuttle.

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 .



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

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 .



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?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

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]



glad your still here jim would you be so good as to give me an answer please.


chuck also said this jim.

It would be nice to have state of the art camera on the
Shuttle, since they are getting old and suffer a lot from optical and
mechanical aggravations. However budget pressure makes you concentrate on
more important issues and we learn to live with things like this.

see where this is heading now jim chuck is just plain lying or did he not know about the tops camera.

do you think he did not know about the very latest especially commisioned camera on that flight or is it wilful deciet jim.


and again jim his own nasa collegues who wrote the documents stating the life span of water dumps contradict his statements.

is dumped and makes a huge cloud of 'snow'. We typically
dump the retrograde to allow orbital dynamics to help dissipate the cloud
away from the orbiter, but there is always a portion that stays with us
since the cloud expands very rapidly in all directions when it hits a
vacuum. It is not unusual to have a cloud of ice crystals around the orbiter
at a variety of distances for several days after dumps. As much as I would
like to think some type of UFO was around, the fact is there was not
anything up there that we did not understand.

several days jim are you going to go along with that statement.
and where does he verify one word he has written.
infact where do you ever.

there was absolutely nothing there but opinion masquarading as fact a situation you nasa people seem at ease with.

and this type of link is supposed to strenghten your stance or what.








[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



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...


Sorry, not calling you a liar.
I only implied that the data input must be correct to show a correct result.


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!

Oh... Hmm and i thought you were talking about the ice particles from the water dump...

Ofcourse there is that, other debris from the shuttle, dust and ice....
Never denied that possibility....
But the amount of objects almost suggest a leakage from somewhere....
Should probably be in a report somewhere.

However, following the shuttle.... they should look like stationary objects from the shuttles viewpoint.
If not... they are not following the shuttle, they are objects with their own trajectory and speed.
Remember the yt video you posted of the water dump and the following ice particles that did stay with the shuttle and followed it until the drag of earth's gravity pulled them down into the atmosphere?

That is what objects look like when they are following the shuttle, being at a constant with the shuttle.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

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.
I went through all of zorgon's post for this thread (151) and I didn't saw any post with data logs.

I saw several links for information about plasma, one or two about the TOPS camera, and two (I think) about a report made by NASA about the particles seen after water dumps and satellite releases (this post).

I may have missed it, but I don't remember it being posted either. Could you please point it to us?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
then you have missed it or i have the contributor wrong.

i read the shuttle logs thru a link i got here in this thread earlier when zorgon was around i may have acredited him in error.

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.

actually it may come under this title i have lots of documents saved under this.

Mission Transcripts:

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I'm still curious about the claim that NASA sued Martyn.

Is there any proof of that anywhere?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
you answer my other posts and i may consider playing your little game of distraction jim .


how about telling us the name of one station that aired the footage live.

how about one verifiable snippet that there was a dump during the 2 days prior to the footage.

and if there is no verifiable way to prove there was a further water dump which wasnt logged after the flush 2 days prior tell us where that leaves your theory.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



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.


Here is some basic physics for you Jim.

The The temperature in space is about -270° Celsius /-455°F (3°k)
Ofcourse this varies allot from place to place in space and what objects are in those places.

However objects orbiting earth can get a temperature of 150°C/280°F.
But it is also controlled by the size of the objects, a bigger object will have a larger area where the background radiation will cool it down so the heating up of one object can take longer time.
For an example:
The side of the shuttle that is hit by the sun radiation can get very hot, but the other side of the shuttle can be extremely cold.

Ice however will start to evaporate and cool down at the same time, the opposite side of the piece will still be cold.
The bigger a piece is the longer time it will take to vaporize.
Particles or droplets in the snowflake size will instantly vaporize, their opposite side is not big enough to let the background radiation to cool it down fast enough.

Or if you wish to see it like this:
The far side from the suns radiation is not big enough to block the suns radiation so the background radiation will have a very diminished affect on
the ice droplet/particle.


Didn't you see Chuck Shaw's note offering the very same explanation for the particles?

Nope i did not read that.
Just to say:
If it is about the ice particles from the water dump will survive the suns radiation.... Wrong.
Two explanations that is the same doesn't change the laws of physics.
Neither does belief.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

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.
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.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



@Balez, I think I'm the one who introduced that source and quote into this thread here:

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Same story just another source for it



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.

You are correct about the sublimation process.
It depends on how much sun radiation is blocked that decides the time it takes to sublimate.
Particles will go fast, they block a very small area of sun radiation.

Not a revelation

But i used another source for it so people will see that there are several statements about the sublimation process, and since i have used your source already once



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
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.

www.nasa.gov...



TSS-1R/USMP-3 Public Affairs Status Report #05
6:00 a.m. CST, Feb. 25, 1996
2/15:42 MET
Spacelab Mission Operations Control
Marshall Space Flight Center

"At this point, all of the instruments are working fine and
returning data," concluded Theory and Modeling in Support of
Tether (TMST) Principal Investigator Dr. Adam Drobot in a
live interview with WSFA-TV in Montgomery, Alabama. "I think
everybody is quite excited that things are going very well."
Last night, data collection for the STS-75 mission continued
to take advantage of the additional science opportunities
afforded by the extra day of predeployment operations as the
crew performed science activities in preparation for this
afternoon's deployment of the Tethered Satellite System (TSS-
1R).

These activities included observations of electrically
charged, or "ionized," gas in Columbia's environment and its
interactions with electron beams and orbiter water dumps.
This will enhance the control and monitoring of the
electrical charge on the Shuttle as it moves through the
ionosphere. During tethered satellite deployment, the
tether's ability to form a complete circuit and generate
electrical power will be dependent on the path electrons take
while traveling in the vicinity of the orbiter's immediate
environment and the satellite. According to TSS-1R Mission
Scientist Dr. Nobie Stone, the science teams have already
gathered "very interesting data" from these investigations

Another investigation of Columbia's surroundings made use of
the orbiter's Flash Evaporator System (FES). To accomplish
this experiment, the crew participated in activating and
deactivating the orbiter's water release systems and manually
operating the Shuttle's attitude control system jets. This
provided a controlled means of studying the distribution of
neutral and charged particles in the vicinity of the payload
bay during Shuttle water dumps.

Meanwhile, science teams at the Marshall Space Flight Center
used the SETS experiment's instruments to give measurements
which related to the ionized gas as it interacted with the
water cloud. The water molecules in this cloud exchanged electrical charges with the surrounding ionized oxygen and formed a ring shape which could be easily distinguished from
the ionized gas background around Columbia. This gave
scientists and crew members an idea of how the Shuttle's
environment might react to water dumps released while the
tethered satellite is deployed.


no more dumps after day 4 and before day 9 because of the 4 day crystal experiment in the cargo bay which were carried out at 3 differing orbital heights as part of the experiment as previously linked And went aday over their allotted time. .

and the footage Was shot on the 9th day jim not the fifth as you would have us believe
4 whole days after the break and 5 days after the last logged water dumps.



On Sunday, February 25, 1996, 9:30 p.m. CST, STS-75 MCC Status Report # 08 reports:

The tether on the Italian Tethered Satellite broke about 7:30 p.m. CST Sunday as the satellite was nearing the full extent of its deployment from the Shuttle. The satellite, which was nearing the end of its planned 12.8 mile distance, immediately began accelerating away from Columbia at a rapid rate





[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
STS-75 Mission Control Center
Status Report # 17

Friday, March 1, 1996, 8 a.m. CST

Columbia's astronauts had a clear view of the Tethered Satellite as
the two spacecraft passed within about 46 nautical miles
overnight. The closest approach occurred at 11:17 central time last
night (approximately 7/08:59 MET), and was captured on videotape as
the satellite and its 12-mile tether came into view.

Meanwhile, flight controllers monitored the Tethered Satellite through
ground stations as its batteries drained, but not before holding in
for last night's fly-by.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...



now the day after the footage was shot jim.

STS-75 Mission Control Center
Status Report # 19

Saturday, March 2 -- 8 a.m. CST

While science investigations continued on the middeck -- specifically
studying how fire spreads and soot develops in the microgravity
environment of space -- a procedure was performed to remove ice from
the core of Columbia's flash evaporator system which shutdown
earlier this morning.

The FES core flush procedure was identical to one carried out on the
last Shuttle flight to melt ice and recover use of the subsystem which
is designed as a subtle method for dumping excess water overboard
without disrupting the experiments on board. The FES also cools the
freon used to keep orbiter and payload electronics at operating
temperatures.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...

and filmed/videod again on day 13. three days after the previous flushing activities.



STS-75 Mission Control Center
Status Report # 24

Tuesday, March 5 -- 4 p.m. CST

Columbia's astronauts had one last look at the Tethered Satellite
late this morning telling flight controllers they could see both the
satellite and the tether hanging beneath it.

Lighting precluded a viewing opportunity during the point of closest
approach between the two spacecraft, but one orbit later the crew saw
and filmed TSS from a distance of about 450 nautical miles. The
videotape was played back for flight controllers on the ground this
afternoon. Today's pass of the satellite marks the final viewing
opportunity for the seven astronauts on board Columbia.




science.ksc.nasa.gov...


day 14 mission is extended one extra day.

STS-75 Mission Control Center
Status Report # 26

Wednesday, March 6 -- 4 p.m. CST

After 13 days in orbit, Columbia's astronauts are preparing for
their return trip to Earth.

Tonight, the crew will deactivate and stow the Middeck Glove Box
experiment, used during the flight to study the behavior of flame in a
microgravity environment. A special low-light camera in Columbia's
payload bay, called TOP, will make some final observations of the
luminous glow that surrounds the shuttle as its surfaces react to
atomic oxygen.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...



the mission ran 2 days over schedule overall and landed on day 16.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

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.
Could you please explain what you meant, altitude or attitude? Thanks.

PS: if you post a link to the source you don't need to (and you shouldn't) post so much text from that source. Also, you should use the [ex] and [/ex] tags to post text from external sources.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join