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.

 

Unknown survelliance during Shuttle-ISS mission?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
"We still have the terrestrial spacecraft under surveillance....".
Different unknown objects (probes?), during this NASA footage, fly around the spacecraft during the dock of the external laboratory of the ISS. Incredible manouvers by differenet shape (even triangular) and traslucent shining objects at the beginning and at 3.18 min of the video.

www.disclose.tv...
Seems that we are always in good company when we go out there.

What are those objects? Why those "impossible" manouvers, and NO collision, in proximity of the spacecraft?

edit on 15-10-2011 by Arken because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Here's a nice technical read all about Reaction Control Thrusters (RCTs), ice particles and other fun stuff that's really fascinating.

Thrusters, Light Flashes, and Ice Particles

Those of us that take a reasoned approach to these things will accept most of those ISS and Space shuttle videos as being definitive evidence of ice particles, and other such.
Those of us that take a more emotional and faith based approach, will likely see something else; whether that's UFOs, Angels, Bigfoot in space, or the Easter Bunny all depends on the individual.

Thank you for the post OP.

I think this one is more proof that ice particles can and do exist as a government cover up, and we have secret facilities in places like Area 51 working on backwards engineering better ice particles from an ice particle we caputered back in the 40s.

Objects caught in thrust bursts can behave 'strangely' btw. one moment they go one way, and then due to the rotation of the craft and another other microburst of thuster, they suddenly change direction in 'impossible' acrobatic maneuvering.

Cheers all

edit on 15-10-2011 by nineix because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Good catch..
the picture with the play botton confused me, I kept hitting it

Looks like NASA is aware of it.. the camera is following it, as the object chenge direction



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
looks like just a couple seagulls at the end of the video there, no need to panic folks



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by saskwatch
looks like just a couple seagulls at the end of the video there, no need to panic folks


No. Not seagulls at all.
DUCKS! Space Ducks!



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by nineix
Here's a nice technical read all about Reaction Control Thrusters (RCTs), ice particles and other fun stuff that's really fascinating.

Thrusters, Light Flashes, and Ice Particles




Thanks for the chance to respond explicitly to some of the errors and misperceptions in Fleming’s article.


Space Shuttle Thrusters, Light Flashes, and Ice Particles
Some Insights from an Expert

Lan Fleming



www.vgl.org...



“In a discussion with a NASA aerospace engineer familiar with the space shuttle reaction control system, I learned that the thrusters never generate any light while operating… Quite to the contrary of what might be construed from Oberg's assertion, there is no ‘flash’ in the sense that the propellant itself generates little if any light at all during a burn.”


As discussed below, Fleming’s own ‘proof’ contains evidence that an RCS burn can be visible from light emission from heated combustion products – the same reason a jet or rocket plume is visible here on Earth. When Apollo-17 made its nighttime liftoff in December 1972 it illuminated the entire east coast of Florida – and not with a SUNLIT plume.



“I recently had the opportunity to discuss various aspects of the space shuttle's RCS propellant supply system with a NASA aerospace engineer who was involved in the design, testing, and performance evaluation of the RCS from the nearly the beginning of the shuttle program. Unlike Oberg, this engineer observed tests of thruster firings close up on a routine basis.”


Since none of this material is in any way restricted it would be nice if Mr. Fleming identified the engineer so we can ask him if the article accurately reflected his views. My suspicion is that garbles and conclusion-jumping have crept into the text.



“Oberg had a long career as a flight officer in the Mission Control Center at Johnson Space Center, and frequently appears as an expert on spaceflight for TV news and on the lecture circuit. But it turns out his description is wrong or at least misleading on several important points… while Oberg may well be an expert on many aspects of space flight, he evidently has no particular expertise or experience with the RCS propulsion system.”


There is no such thing as a “flight officer” in the MCC, and Fleming’s use of the non-existent terminology shows his unfamiliarity with the subject. I was a “flight controller” in several specializations, and the first (for STS-1 and -2) was in the RCS propulsion system, as my home page bio clearly states. A typo in a 20-year old report of mine (dropping an extra ‘0’), subsequently corrected, is Fleming’s ‘evidence’ that I don’t know what I’m talking about. As a certified OMS/RCS Flight Controller I was intimately familiar with the RCS system, wrote and delivered technical papers on the functioning of such thrusters and their plume effects, observed test firings of the engines in vacuum chambers at NASA’s White Sands facility, and observed video of firings under all illumination conditions on display screens in Mission Control.


“But the dribble volume is large enough that the snow generated can be seen as a white plume in reflected sunlight. It is totally invisible without some external source of illumination.”


My argument on STS-48 is that the drifting dots change course during and ONLY during the period of a 1.2 sec thruster firing, which also led to sporadic [not continuous] light flashes. That event took place while the shuttle was in sunlight.


“I have been puzzled for a long time about why the rocket combustion gases were so easy to see when they are supposed to be nearly invisible. The puzzle is apparently solved: these photos show jets of microscopic snow at the end of the firing cycle in reflected sunlight. In Figure 3, plumes from two primary RCS rockets on the left can clearly be seen. ”


This picture shows Fleming is wrong. As can be clearly seen from the un-illuminated shuttle exterior, there is no sunlight – the shuttle seems to be in the ‘night’ portion of its orbit.. The visibility of the plumes is due to the thermal heating of the combustion products. Just as on hundreds of other night rocket launches and thousands of night thruster firings observed over past decades.


(more)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

“But the L5D thruster firing supposedly responsible for the flash was 1.2 seconds in duration, so the pre- and post-burn flashes should have been 1.2 seconds apart, not 0.4 seconds. Worse for the thruster theory, the exhaust exits the nozzle at a speed of 3500 meters per second. If it is assumed that the exhaust plume hit the objects just as the thruster shut down, the objects would have to be over 4 kilometers away from the shuttle, since that is the distance the exhaust plume would travel in 1.2 seconds before impinging on the objects.”


Note how the false assumption leads to an apparent contradiction with observed behavior, which Fleming then touts as proof the false assumption is actually correct. But since it seems to me that the plume flow [visible or invisible, doesn’t matter] is the cause of the change in motion, the postulated ‘dribble flow’ at the end of the firing [a physical effect I have no argument with] never had anything to do with it.

Re STS-102 analysis:

“In a previous article [8] I noted that the time display in the Mission Control Room, which appeared briefly in the STS-102 video, indicated that the light flash occurred at least 5 seconds before the closest thruster firing, which occurred at 12:30:39 GMT. Since it is impossible for the thruster firing to be the cause of an event that preceded it in time, it could not have been the cause of the light flash – assuming the mission control time display was accurate.”


This is a erroneous conclusion from good, precise observations that have been misinterpreted. As I recently confirmed from a discussion with telemetry display experts (INCO console), there was a several-seconds processing delay in getting downlinked video onto display screens, so images that were time-tagged at moment-of-origin could show up next to current-time MCC clocks that were several seconds later. Actual telemetry was downlinked and display almost instantaneously – this was a video signal conversion issue, I was told,.


“Based on Oberg's statements, it had seemed to me that in both the STS-48 and STS-102 videos the high-speed "projectiles" seemingly pursuing slower-moving objects might be explained as ice chunks expelled from the nozzle during the rocket burn. But as the presence of such ice in the thruster would indicate a possibly serious problem with the shuttle propulsion system, this explanation no longer seems feasible. ”


I’m sorry it was not clear that I never argued that the drifting dots in the STS-48 video came from the thruster firing in question, but I thought that would have been obvious because they were observed BEFORE the firing. They are postulated to have been typical ‘shuttle dandruff’, probably ice, drifting in the close vicinity of the shuttle, released in the period well before the time of the video.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

“The information I've received from an expert in the shuttle's RCS propulsion system provides a compelling refutation of Oberg's argument that thruster firings were the cause of the objects' behavior in both cases.”


My argument from the entirety of the video and telemetry and trajectory evidence goes as follows:

1. Shuttle emerges into sunlight, as shown both by orbital reconstruction and by development of marginal glare in camera FOV. No sunlit portions of the shuttle happen to be in the field of view [FOV], but forward scatter from probably the Ku-band antenna dish reaches the edge of the camera at the back of the payload bay.

2. Simultaneously, several small drifting dots also appear. This suggests they are also sunlit and near the shuttle [farther away, the time of sunrise would have been significantly different].

3. During the course of the next minute, some drift out of the FOV and others drift into it.

4. Because of the post-sunrise solar illumination conditions, the shuttle is casting a shadow zone down-sun that is not [as happens later in each daylight pass] ‘filled in’ with reflected sunlight from the ground. For several minutes each orbit, this shuttle umbra is in total darkness.

5. Small objects drifting away from near the shuttle can move from the shadow out into sunlight and suddenly appear “from nowhere” in the FOV.

6. Because the shuttle camera is being aimed deliberately backwards toward the earth horizon for the Mesoscale Lightning Experiment [‘Skeet’ Vaughan, principal investigator], any dots coming out of the shuttle’s shadow will appear against the Earth horizon area of the FOV.

7. The shuttle’s autopilot is holding attitude to within a narrow deadband, and in these moments it drifts up against the boundary of that deadband in one axis [shown by telemetry records].

8. In response, it fires several thrusters including the L5D thruster to correct the drift.

9. The 1.2 L5D thruster firing creates an expanding field of combustion products at approx 10000 ft/sec. That field, because of the particular placement of the vernier down-firing jets, impinges partially on shuttle structure such as wing elevon and body flap and some bounces back up along the left side.

10. Entrainment by this flow alters the drift direction of several dots, including one that had only recently exited the shuttle’s shadow.

11. The dots that change direction do so during – and ONLY during – this thruster firing interval.

12. KEY: Another particle also entrained and course-changed by the thruster firing was one of the original dots that appeared at sunrise a little more than a minute earlier. That particle’s simo appearance with shuttle sunrise is evidence it was very close to the shuttle. Its subsequent course change by the thruster firing confirms this interpretation of nearby drifting particles impinged by plume flow.

13. This very restrictive set of circumstances is in fact the exact combination of conditions that have led to several other famous ‘shuttle UFO’ videos. This is not a coincidence or a ‘freak accident’. It is a natural result of the cause-and-effect link between the conditions and the weird video images they give rise to.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Hmmm

An old saying of mine:

If you cant control it, it WILL hit something.
If you try to control it, it WILL hit something.
If you ARE in control it wont hit anything.....



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


quack quack lolol



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by saskwatch
reply to post by Arken
 


quack quack lolol


Any further discussion of my argument regarding the STS-48 zig-zag UFO, probably the best 'shuttle UFO' video ever?



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Great video. I realize there are ice particles floating around out there but I don't see how anyone could say this is the case in the video. If it is just ice then why is the camera man paying so much attention to it? He even took the time to zoom in on it, so it must have been something worth checking out, I'm sure they have seen a dozen ice crystals and would know the difference.

I'm not good with measuring the size of objects unless I'm holding it myself, maybe someone should try to figure out how large that object was. If it is ice then it's a pretty big one.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
"We still have the terrestrial spacecraft under surveillance...."...


You DO know that this tape has been denounced as a prank [by a ham radio operator] by Don Ratsch, the UFO researcher who originally recorded and publicized it, don't you?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join