NASA: UARS satellite plunged "somewhere in the Pacific Ocean". Was that REALLY a satellite??

There's a video on YT, from Australia, supposedly showing several debris of the satellite crossing the sky.

The title of the video says Canada. The guy talking says Oklahoma.
Where do you get Australia?

Originally posted by Mogget
UARS was a scientific research satellite. Nothing more, nothing less. I remember observing this over a decade ago when I used to track satellites on a regular basis (I managed to see over 600 of them, including tumbling booster rockets that put some of them into orbit).

I understand exactly how Illustronic feels. People keep posting crazy ideas on this forum, without any convincing reasons to back them up. Why is it so difficult to believe that this was just a satellite? Why is it so difficult to accept that C/2010 X1 Elenin is just a comet? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy to hide "the truth" from the public. It's ridiculous.

edit on 24-9-2011 by Mogget because: (no reason given)

If you don't like conspiracies, you definitely shouldn't be here. But always there's time for a spin in the Rolling Stone website, MTV, Celebrity Gossips or for watching Jersey Shore on TV...

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
reply to post by windword

 

Perhaps this whole disinformation about where it was passing over and where it could land, is 'cos it was changing direction and was no satellite.

It was not changing direction. You misinterpreted the ground track shown on a flat projection map.

reply to post by Phage


I was with the ABC News video in my head. The guy says it "dropped in somewhere west of Australia".

reply to post by Phage


I didn't misinterpret the orbital path map, 'cos I was speculating whether what NASA was expecting, was NO satellite and the UARS was used as a cover up.

Funny how we (NORAD) were able to track space junk the size of a nut and bolt as well as incoming warheads twenty years ago and now with all the advancements in technology we can't do what was possible decades ago.

Originally posted by windword
Then this morning I hear it was over California at 11:30 PM???? But it landed in the Pacific around 1:00AM? Since it was heading easterly, that's a fast orbit, isn't it?

This is a fairly typical elapsed time for an oribt. 11:30PM to 1:00AM is 90 minutes.

(The International Space Station) travels at an average speed of 27,724 kilometres (17,227 mi) per hour, and completes 15.7 orbits per day

en.wikipedia.org...

So...if you do the math, the ISS orbits the Earth once every 90 minutes or so.

Now...as it relates to the uncertainties involved in tracking the satellite's descent...it is not that surprising at all really.

1) It was an irregular shaped object, and so once it began to interact with thicker layers of the atmosphere, exactly how it would vibrate, spin or topple would be very difficult to predict. At times it would act like a sail, or a wing...at other angles of attack, it would act like a flap or an air-brake - making calculating the precise rate of orbital decay a real crap shoot.

2) It was made of many different materials, and so would not disintegrate in a uniform way (like, say, an iron cannonball would). Depending on its gyrations as it descended, things would bend, or break, or burn, or melt, at different...impossible to predict...rates.

3) At least one factor that determines the "moments of truth" as it relates to the point of no return in this decay process, is not of this world...and is constantly changing. Fluctuating levels of solar radiation, and solar wind, affect the temperature of the atmosphere. As it warms, it expands. As it cools, it contracts. So the precise timing of the satellites coming into contact with dense enough atmosphere to begin to drag on the satellite will depend on solar activity on those last few critical days. This played a part in why we did not know if it was going to make its final orbit on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

Then why do you think it "changed direction"?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

 

Then why do you think it "changed direction"?

Because of misdirected information released by NASA, first saying the US territory was in the falling range, then saying it was no longer in the range and finally saying AGAIN it was in the range????

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

That had nothing to do with changing direction. It had to do with the timing of re-entry, which was not possible to determine with certainty due to a number of variables.

Double post.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

 

That had nothing to do with changing direction. It had to do with the timing of re-entry, which was not possible to determine with certainty due to a number of variables.

Jonathan McDowell of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said the spacecraft entered the atmosphere around 12:15 a.m. EDT over the coast of Washington.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

But an astrophysicist of Harvard-Smithsonian just told what you said "it was not possible to determine with certainty due to a number of variables."

If this guy knew it, obviously NASA and USAF also knew it and I assume they could have been more precise about the falling area range, but yet they released misdirected information. I still think that there's something about this falling object, that's not being told.

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
reply to post by windword

 

Perhaps this whole disinformation about where it was passing over and where it could land, is 'cos it was changing direction and was no satellite.

It was not changing direction. You misinterpreted the ground track shown on a flat projection map.

Thanks for those charts, I was unable to log onto any of those yesterday, so I was dependant on local news.

Here's my problem, those charts don't show the UARS over California at all, yet the news claimed it was over Los Angeles at 11:30 PM last night.(?)

reply to post by mobiusmale


Thanks for the explaination. I was boggled by the speed, still am!

reply to post by windword

The chart is for a single orbit.

The news are usually idiots when it comes to anything remotely resembling science.
At 11:30 PM last night (LA time, 2:30 eastern) the satellite had been down for more than an hour. Even if it hadn't been, it would not have been over southern California.

Update: According to a post of Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, on Twitter, the alleged video of Okotoks, Alberta, is a hoax.

twitter.com...#!/rasc/status/117637705541754880

Or perhaps, by some reason, TPTB are quickly jumping to discredit amateur sources... It's just weird that after all this buzz on MSM and people all over the world aware and ready for taking shots of this falling satellite, so far there are only a few not credible videos...

DP.

maybe its because they have been bs'ing us the entire time?

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


S & F

I started to speculate this very idea when they kept saying they didn't know where it was or where the debris had landed...

They are able to monitor planes, helicopters, other satellites and space junk..yet they 'have no clue' about this???

Glad to see I wasn't the only one to speculate......

reply to post by ButterCookie


Fresh video from Poland. The guy who filmed it believe is the UARS. Compare with the other video from Alberta, Canada. Looks like the same pattern, which to me is a UFO fleet.