STS-61C Astronaut Snaps Pics Of Huge Black Triangle UFO In Space!

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

upload.wikimedia.org...

You do realise that, the black spots are not missing tiles don't you? They are replacement tiles that have not been through a re-entry.

I'd also like someone to explain exactly the science behind how, a tile can "fall off" in a weightless environment where there is no up or down? I'm having a problem understanding how, if something no longer has any adhesive it can ever actually make it into space in the first place? I'm struggling to wrap my brain around how, the tiles suddenly loose adhesion and then float away. Does the vacuum of space sometimes "get under and into the glue" and cause the bond to break?

Plus given each tile should be , in effect, butt jointed to the one next to it how, even if the shuttle uses a thrust to manoeuvre do the tiles come loose?

I can see how tiles are lost on launch and re-entry, I would and I'm sure others would, like to see, the full explanation how they just suddenly, wander off in a weightless vacuum.

The NASA explanation seems to actually suggest, in some sort of blasé way, "Oh yeah man, whilst we were in orbit we'd be shedding tiles like a gazebo in a hurricane". Now, I might not be Einstein however, I reckon one of those tiles could utterly destroy a billion dollar satellite if it ran in to it so, the idea they were "cool" about shedding them at the rate suggested by the statement seems completely cavalier to me.

You know, if they had a problem with the layer of 90% air between the tile and the bonding glue that, in the freeze thaw of space caused them sheer off, fair enough, then say that. I don't believe, for one minute, that that shuttle lost 19 tiles whilst in space. I reckon it probably lost at least 17 and probably 18 exiting the Earth's atmosphere and on re-entry. I strongly suspect, had they lost more than one tile whilst in space, they'd have been having total kittens at NASA and there would be a heap of radio traffic about what could well have been, a life threatening. problem.

From my seat in the cheap seats, I want to understand the exact science involved in losing a tile in space. So far, I see nothing from anyone on here or at NASA that actually goes into the specific detail. If, through the action of cold and heating of launch and outer space some tiles actually lost all adhesion, fair enough, Then say so and explain to people how then, the various vectoring of the shuttle led to them parting company with the shuttle.

Looks like the TR-3B. Fantastic "aircraft" if you will.

Originally posted by FireMoon
...I'd also like someone to explain exactly the science behind how, a tile can "fall off" in a weightless environment where there is no up or down? I'm having a problem understanding how, if something no longer has any adhesive it can ever actually make it into space in the first place?...

...From my seat in the cheap seats, I want to understand the exact science involved in losing a tile in space. So far, I see nothing from anyone on here or at NASA that actually goes into the specific detail. If, through the action of cold and heating of launch and outer space some tiles actually lost all adhesion, fair enough, Then say so and explain to people how then, the various vectoring of the shuttle led to them parting company with the shuttle.

Most of the tiles that did fall off did so during the violent and shaky launch. This flight was still relatively early in the shuttle program (only 5 years and the 24th flight), so they were still working out issues with the tiles. subsequent flights generally lost fewer and fewer tiles.

It was a fact of the shuttle program that tiles fell off during launch. It was a major issue that they did have some success with preventing as the program went on. However, 17 years later, this same shuttle would be destroyed on re-entry due to damage to its thermal protection system (although a carbon wing edge, not a tile issue).

Having said that, the particular tile that is believed to be the object in the OP's image is thought to have come from the bottom of the star tracker well. The star trackers are pieces of equipment used for navigation, and they have doors protecting them from damage at launch, and they have insulating tiles in them. There are two star trackers, and their protective doors are opened once on orbit. One of those tiles could have shaken loose during the violence of the launch, and only floated free after the star tracker doors were opened.

Considering that the tile and the shuttle had the similar initial orbital trajectories at the time the alleged tile floated away, it would stay with ("stationkeep" with) the shuttle until the shuttle changes its orbit, which the shuttle doesn't much do. Even if shuttle makes a few minor orbital corrections without really changing its orbital trajectory, the piece would stay relatively close. I mean, what would make the object NOT stay in a similar orbit.



This was posted before, but here is the post-landing assessment report for that flight :

Ice/Frost /Debris Assessment For Space Shuttle Mission STS-32 (61-C)
NOTE!: This directly links to a large (80+ MB) pdf file


excerpt:

Ice/Frost /Debris Assessment For Space Shuttle Mission STS-32 (61-C)
January 20, 1986

STS-32 (61-C) POST-LANDING DEBRIS DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
JANUARY 18-19, 1986 // report number TM 89192
OV-102, ET-30, 61024 and MLP
Distribution: Publicly Available
Security Classification: Unclassified

p. 78
...A total of 19 diced tile and white tile segments were missing from the left and right hand fuselage sidewalls, nose upper surface and wing and elevon upper surfaces. The tile missing from the bottom of the star tracker well is believed to be that piece which was stationkeeping with the vehicle on-orbit and reported by the crew. One of the missing pieces was found by the Debris Team during the post launch pad inspection.

(color emphasis mine)

Originally posted by FireMoon
From my seat in the cheap seats, I want to understand the exact science involved in losing a tile in space. So far, I see nothing from anyone on here or at NASA that actually goes into the specific detail....

These are good questions and I applaud your intent. Now, instead of sitting back waiting for a one-on-one tutorial, why don't you go to the places where you know thei information is, and look for it there? And report back, for the rest of the class.

You've made a good start, the questions you listed were good ones. Now please follow through.

Thanks for sharing the personal story, it helps fill in the depth of folklore that has enshrouded this story for the entire space age. Lots of sincere and intelligent space workers, especially in the more classified projects, seem to have has precise knowledge about their own work and strange garbles [sometimes intentionally planted] about work next door.

Thanks for your father's service, and for your candor and sharing.

No, I don't think the 'Black Knight' story as commonly recounted is fact-based, but it was widely and honestly recounted orally in those years. Thanks again for illustrating how powerful a legend it had become so early.

Originally posted by vpjanitorial
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I don't know a lot he didn't talk much. He worked for Lockheed and Later Boeing for military applications. When he was dying of cancer he told us that there was an object orbiting earth that they believed was alien. He mentioned that they sent astronauts to it to try sampling or entering the object however they couldn't even scrape it or drill a core or anything. It was discovered to transmit signals (I'm not clear on this part, by Gamma? Radiation?).

He was very vague, I asked him about it several times and he told me that he took an Oath, and didn't want to discuss it, but he wanted us to know that we are definitely not alone in the universe.

reply to post by JimOberg

No, I don't think the 'Black Knight' story as commonly recounted is fact-based, but it was widely and honestly recounted orally in those years.

I like the way you worded this post Jim,

Makes me want to ask, are or were there stories going around about the Black Knight Sat. that aren't commonly recounted?

There was talk around the inner halls of NASA about this? orally as in just chit chat at lunch or at the water fountain?

If it was talked about would there be any documentation of how this legend started?

Point me in the right direction if you could

Thanks

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I like to think that if it was just debris...then why take a photo of it haha....

Its something weird for sure...

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

I like to think that if it was just debris...then why take a photo of it haha....

Its something weird for sure...

First of all, any big debris is a cause for concern.

Secondly it was suspected that this particular debris may have been one of the thermal tiles...

Upon inspection after landing it was found that this particular shuttle mission lost 19 tiles, and they think this may be one of them from an area known as the "star tracker well", which is covered by a door at launch, but is opened while on orbit. One of the tiles from the start tracker well was found to be missing upon inspection, and this debris may be that tile -- which may have floated away after the star tracker door was opened.

Trying to positively identify what it was (such as by taking pictures) may have helped future shuttle missions.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Well technically the thread says ufo. So I obivously said fake.

Originally posted by Specimen
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Well technically the thread says ufo. So I obivously said fake.

Even folks who are not persuaded by the ETI explanation can be quite willing to believe there are useful things being reported as UFOs that need attention paid to them. Especially in space. Ignoring something because it 'looks' like a UFO is even worse than jumping to 'easy' magical explanations for them and not caring what ELSE they might well be.

reply to post by JimOberg


Im just being skeptical about it. I do understand that most people would like to see ufos, or for a better term, advanced vehicles.

Looks like The Aurora spy plane to me, what do you think? iv heard it can reach that type of altitude.



www.anglonautes.com...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I agree....it just looks so far away....I wish we had something to reference it...you know like something measurable...

To me it looks far away and huge...but I guess it really could be something smaller and close which would fit something along the lines of pannelling....

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


If it was a an insulating tile, wouldn't it be more of a square shape in order to fit around and cover as much surface area as possible on the ship?

Originally posted by ZetaExplorer15
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

If it was a an insulating tile, wouldn't it be more of a square shape in order to fit around and cover as much surface area as possible on the ship?

Not all shuttle tiles are square. Some are triangular, pentagonal, and some are parallelograms, like in these images:

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Ahh, I have learned something new today! Thanks!

Deny Ignorance.

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I agree....it just looks so far away....I wish we had something to reference it...you know like something measurable...

To me it looks far away and huge...but I guess it really could be something smaller and close which would fit something along the lines of pannelling....

You are taking some steps into perceiving the greater universe. Attaboy!! Outer space presents such different illumination and attentuation and shadowing phenomena that our earthside instincts of perceptual interpretation can mislead us -- and on youtube, usually do.