Revisiting the NASA STS-75 & STS-80 Mission Footage (Warning: The following may contain science cont

"Dialectric Spectroscopy" explains The pulsating effect

Here is a UI example of what S-Band radar may look like at an end user/analyst experience -

Currently in focus: NOAA 18 Sat

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: ngchunter

What is your point or more Importantly your conclusions... We don't want confusions or disinformation

My point was perfectly clear in my post and was not "disinformation."

a reply to: ngchunter

Apologies, I worded that post badly. I meant disinformation in broad terms.. or more correctly unproductive banter. I'm not looking at this from a "believer" point of view (not matter what my beliefs are). It's more a scientific look at the footage from ground up in an attempt to explain the phenomenon witnessed in the video. It's a thesis based on Electro magnetism and/or related principles.

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: ngchunter

Apologies, I worded that post badly. I meant disinformation in broad terms.. or more correctly unproductive banter.

It wasn't unproductive banter either. I don't know why you decided to suddenly bump the hell out of this thread and accuse my post of being disinfo almost a full year after I made that post, but it is not disinfo and it is not banter, it does show the real cause and the real reason why the "UFOs" look the way they do. Maybe you were hoping I wouldn't notice and would just leave your thread alone?

a reply to: ngchunter

I don't know why you decided to suddenly bump the hell out of this thread and accuse my post of being disinfo almost a full year after I made that post, but it is not disinfo and it is not banter

It needed a bump. You realise you are now contributing to it.. Also, I haven't been on ATS much lately. Just catching up on late mail so to speak.

Apart from that, ok, my initial replies to critical comments may have been hasty and over-zealous. It won't happen again.

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: ngchunter

I don't know why you decided to suddenly bump the hell out of this thread and accuse my post of being disinfo almost a full year after I made that post, but it is not disinfo and it is not banter

It needed a bump. You realise you are now contributing to it.. Also, I haven't been on ATS much lately. Just catching up on late mail so to speak.

It took you a year to "catch up on mail" and to respond to a comment that you already saw a year ago? That wasn't a new comment, it was on the very first page and you had already responded to other comments that followed it. What I realize is that I'm wasting my time here. The behavior just strikes me as really, really odd.

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: VoidHawk

Yes it coiled up when it first detached but it became straight again.. Yes?

No.
Unwrap cable from a drum and see what happens. It will attempt to return to its former coiled shape, but due to gravity etc it cannot manage to completely coil up again.
The lack of gravity in space means a cable will easily coil up again.
As for "became straight again". What force do you suppose acted on the cable to force it to become straight again?

As I said, I'm not trying to debunk the video, I'm just saying the cable as seen in the video would not be twelve miles long, it would be no more than one third its full length due to the coiling.

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: wildespace

Thanks for The input...

Do you understand EMF dynamics and princibles at all..? This thread covers the science behind the NASA experiment. I'm not just randomly spreading conspiracy theories... Lol this isn't misinformation hour friend!

Still waiting for the promised science content.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
'.....
Unwrap cable from a drum and see what happens. It will attempt to return to its former coiled shape, but due to gravity etc it cannot manage to completely coil up again.
The lack of gravity in space means a cable will easily coil up again.
As for "became straight again". What force do you suppose acted on the cable to force it to become straight again?

As I said, I'm not trying to debunk the video, I'm just saying the cable as seen in the video would not be twelve miles long, it would be no more than one third its full length due to the coiling.

Hawk, regarding space tethers, you are tangled helplessly in a web of ignorance compounded by delusion, but not to worry, space tethers are really weird, and you're not alone. Until recently, only a handful of people had ever even thought about the subject.

To get a grasp of the realities of space tether operations, one of the books I wrote for NASA dealt in part with flight crew procedures involving tethers, and the theoretical background of such operations, and a pdf is here:

www.jamesoberg.com...

For a first-time reader with background in basic college physics, this material will probably take ten to twenty hours to get through. Once you do, you'll see why every fact you stated in your post is either wrong, or too garbled to even BE wrong. Then we can listen to your opinions again.

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: ngchunter

Apologies, I worded that post badly. I meant disinformation in broad terms.. or more correctly unproductive banter. I'm not looking at this from a "believer" point of view (not matter what my beliefs are). It's more a scientific look at the footage from ground up in an attempt to explain the phenomenon witnessed in the video. It's a thesis based on Electro magnetism and/or related principles.

What's your basic timeline of what you think you're seeing?

How long between tether break and swarm arrival?

What are the illumination conditions of the observations?

How do you account for the apparent gross differences in what is seen in the external TV views, the internal handheld 70-mm views, and the internal 16-mm cine views?

Aren't these basic questions that any science-content investigator would need to establish?

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: VoidHawk

1. Yes it coiled up when it first detached

2. but it became straight again.. Yes?

1. No.

2. Didn't have to, it stayed pretty straight until reentry a month or two later. Slight bend at the bottom from air drag [I saw it from the ground].

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: VoidHawk

I've always been curious, and in all i've read about this Tether incident there's always been something that bothered be about the tether itself...it snapped, that is made clear in all statements released about this mission...but not why OR how it snapped.

How did it break?

The shuttle was moving at many 1000's of mile per hour, but so was both the tether and it's attached satellite when it was released from the cargo bay. It was gradually allowed to be unwound and released passively behind the shuttle...how does the satellite and tether manage this passively?

The shuttle doesn't speed up or accelerate after it released the satellite from the cargo bay, so why does the satellite recede from the shuttle, since it was travelling at the same speed as the shuttle when released?

Why did the tether snap? The satellite weighed nothing, the tether, regardless of how long it was, weighed nothing so there was no weight jolting or snapping the tether, as they both were weightless and ought to have been travelling at the same speed, and carrying the same momentum as the shuttle they were released from.

Probably a simple explanation for all this...maybe the satellite had thrusters which altered it's speed in relation to the shuttle, but this is not known to me as i understood this to be purely passive.

Anyone know?

Yes, I know, I literally 'wrote the book' on it for NASA. To get a grasp of the realities of space tether operations, one of the books I wrote for NASA dealt in part with flight crew procedures involving tethers, and the theoretical background of such operations, and a pdf is here: www.jamesoberg.com...

It was gradually allowed to be unwound and released passively behind the shuttle...how does the satellite and tether manage this passively?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It was released vertically, with tension on the line imparted by small gas thrusters in the TSS payload until about 1000 ft where gravitational gradient effects [explained in my link] provide enough natural tension.

The shuttle doesn't speed up or accelerate after it released the satellite from the cargo bay, so why does the satellite recede from the shuttle, since it was travelling at the same speed as the shuttle when released?

Wrong, wrong, wrong AND wrong. The tether break caused the tether to be thrown into a higher, slower orbit, and the shuttle into a lower, faster one [but the mass ratio made the tether get effected most]. The induced relative speed went from 0 [connected] to about 250 mph [in free flight].

maybe the satellite had thrusters which altered it's speed in relation to the shuttle, but this is not known to me as i understood this to be purely passive

Did you read the mission Press Kit? If not, where did you get the idea anybody had sympathy for your unfamiliarity with basic features of the hardware and the mission?

Try harder, this stuff is really cool, it's not easy but it rewards the effort, and when your well-deserved facial redness recedes, pitch in, and I'll help.

Any prospect of this discussion restarting?

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary I hope the OP will resume this discussion.

a reply to: VoidHawk

What force do you suppose acted on the cable to force it to become straight again?

Read up on it..


Tether Dynamics in Zero-G

a reply to: JimOberg

Do you have any new data or perhaps a unique perspective on the incident?

In this, my most recent post. I also would like to add to the thread that in my hypothesis, I have consonsidered that rotating or orbiting space "junk" or debris. Yhe pulsating effect could explain that if these objects are simply debris.

However there is a frequency to the pulsations. Also observer the behaviour over the 8-10 minutes. At the beginning of the "failure" the tether acted as an emission source for electrons. This created ionised plasma interference with the objects.


As the time goes on, the amount of individual objects declines... a larger object drifts over and seems (subjectively) to observe what is occuring.


Perhaps from the perspective of the craft the distortions or interference patterns were not visible.. unsure speculation and that part..

I am left with options for the power plant for these objects, craft etc

EM (b)
G
(a)-G

I am curious as to to the air pressure effect on the outer hull of the objects/craft (inter-atmos) or is a field projected or a dimensional phase state...

Dude, it's fustrating!

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: JimOberg

... At the beginning of the "failure" the tether acted as an emission source for electrons. This created ionised plasma interference with the objects.


As the time goes on, the amount of individual objects declines... a larger object drifts over and seems (subjectively) to observe what is occuring.

....

Good to hear from you.

Do I correctly interpret your hypothesis that the objects appeared within minutes of the tether break?

Ah yes STS-75, I remember when this case came to my attention. I recall a video of a person expaining all the things we saw in that video with the help of a blackboard. What's passing in front of what and the size of the objects in view to the frequency relating to the propulsion of said objects. Lots of information from only 1 video, also very entertaining.

But here is my objection. We've heard about the lenght of the tether after snapping. Whether it is 12 miles or 3miles in lenght, consider the diameter of it. This thing is less then a centimeter wide! If that does not warrant a huge warning in regards to what you are seeing and what is actually there then I give up.

originally posted by: Jubei42...
But here is my objection. We've heard about the lenght of the tether after snapping. Whether it is 12 miles or 3miles in lenght, consider the diameter of it. This thing is less then a centimeter wide! If that does not warrant a huge warning in regards to what you are seeing and what is actually there then I give up.

Valid point -- the width of the tether image on the video is an artifact of pixel bleed in the optical system.

That's why a reliable visual assessment of the events needs to rely on the 70-mm film shots the crew took through the windows... as well as the crew eyeball observations [which include reliable depth/distance estimates out to about 50-100 feet from two-eyeball parallax].

Why do you suppose the UFO hucksters conceal the existence of those images, and pooh-pooh what the on-site witnesses actually saw and reported?

On a list of possible motives, accurately reporting the phenomena to inform their audience honestly does not rate high up on the list, IMHO.