Did the ISS encounter two UFO's on close collision ?

This is something that boggles my mind a bit, on the sixteenth of July the ISS crew suddenly got the sign to evacuate the ISS as they headed to the Soyuz capsule to wait for orders to leave the ISS it sems some kind of old Russian debris headed straight on the path of the ISS .

Station Crew Takes Precautions for Close Pass of Space Debris

The crew of the International Space Station has moved into the Soyuz vehicle docked to the station as a precaution due to an anticipated close approach of a piece of space debris to the orbiting complex. The debris is expected to pass closest to the station at about 7:01 a.m. CDT July 16, 2015. The crew will remain in the Soyuz until given an all clear by Mission Control. All station systems are currently operating normally

Some of the replies stated :

4 thoughts on “Station Crew Takes Precautions for Close Pass of Space Debris”
Ivan July 16, 2015 at 8:01 am Do we know what kind of debris are we dealing with? What’s its norad designator?
Reply ↓ Mark July 16, 2015 at 12:12 pm
It was a fragment of an old Russian weather observation satellite.

Now we know that evacuation plans are sometimes necessary , but in this case I have some strange doubts if it's not something else . It seems that ISS was following the debris on camera on that day . and there are some videos showing maybe the debris in question ?
I'm not sure because I couldn't find the original footage from NASA



The thing is that most of us knows the guy streetcap1 who I think sits 24/7 observing the ISS camera tracking earth view ..
Now on the 15th he uploads this video of two lights cruising at high speed and on the 16th the other UFO daily sightings drops the othe video online both one day appart? or did the streetcap event happened on the real evacuation and did UFO daily sightings dropped this video one day later ?



Why track something beneath your station if it's heading at you?

I don't seem to figure this one out does this ISS evacuation has anything to do with the two objects in question ? Also look at speeds of these objects ..

I need your brilliant minds on this ATS what are we looking at on this?

The source you quoted explains exactly what it was: a fragment of an old Russian weather observation satellite? Do you have any evidence that it was anything other than what it was stated to be?

Scott Waring , never one to over-exaggerate something.
The UFOs were debris but then that doesn't sound as good.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
The source you quoted explains exactly what it was: a fragment of an old Russian weather observation satellite? Do you have any evidence that it was anything other than what it was stated to be?

The reply quotes I posted from the NASA are they from official NASA astronauts ? if they are just from users then they are not valid as proof that it was debris ?

double post

a reply to: 0bserver1

Right underneath the four comments is a "leave a comment" section so it appears that anybody can leave a reply.

ETA - why would you NOT track something that is headed towards your station? Can't NASA control the cameras from the ground? It doesn't necessarily mean those aboard the ISS were controlling them.

a reply to: Shamrock6

They were in collision with debris , I imagine that i would come from another angle and not from below . But the video's could have not be related to the debris report .. But I find it strange looking at the objects and speed I can't really say that its typical debris we are seeing on those video's

originally posted by: 0bserver1

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
The source you quoted explains exactly what it was: a fragment of an old Russian weather observation satellite? Do you have any evidence that it was anything other than what it was stated to be?

The reply quotes I posted from the NASA are they from official NASA astronauts ? if they are just from users then they are not valid as proof that it was debris ?

Here is piece from NASA stating that it was debris from a Russian weather satellite. Other sources go into more detail, saying that it was Object 36912/1979-95BD (in the US catalogue), and was a piece that broke off in 2009 from the Meteor-2 no. 7 satellite, launched on a Vostok-2M rocket in 1979 from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.

a reply to: 0bserver1

Well that begs the question: do you know where all of the ISS cameras are located? And what their working condition is at any given time?

I don't, so I won't presume to debate why they used one camera to watch something (key element here: they were still watching it) as opposed to another camera.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Right , we have to assume that's what we seeing in the video's is just that , or something else I don't know but it's moving to fast IMO to call it debris . Does debris fly faster then the ISS ,is it possible?

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Does debris fly faster then the ISS ,is it possible?

I don't feel like getting into the math to calculate orbital velocities, but yes, it is possible.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Does debris fly faster then the ISS ,is it possible?

I don't feel like getting into the math to calculate orbital velocities, but yes, it is possible.

No no, please do. I insist.

*waits patiently*

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Does debris fly faster then the ISS ,is it possible?

I don't feel like getting into the math to calculate orbital velocities, but yes, it is possible.

No no, please do. I insist.

*waits patiently*

Tell you what, you find the approximate mass of the debris from the Russian satellite, and I'll give a math lesson.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

12. That is my answer.

Your turn.

The ISS NEVER sees the debris that threatens collision, that's based on ground radar tracking hours in advance.

Anything with n average altitude higher than ISS will be faster that ISS when it dips down to ISS altitude, but that's useless information. The RELATIVE VELOCITY depends on the criss-cross angle of the two orbital paths, and could be 1000's of meters per second.

a reply to: JimOberg

Dammit Jim, must you ruin everything with facts and logic?

Fake, UFO videos are mostly fake. I prefer alien caught videos

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Right , we have to assume that's what we seeing in the video's is just that , or something else I don't know but it's moving to fast IMO to call it debris . Does debris fly faster then the ISS ,is it possible?

Your opinion based on what

originally posted by: JimOberg
"The ISS NEVER sees the debris that threatens collision, that's based on ground radar tracking hours in advance."
says the skeptic...That means that all the objects we all have seen on my NASA video discoveries, (my 'Martyn Stubbs' /secretnasaman You Tube channel has hundreds of NASA UFO examples), are not DEBRIS, because you CAN see the unknown objects...clearly!

or...it must be "debris" that "does not threaten collision"?

I don't see how the UFOs that follow & swarmed the MIR are 'a threat' based on the fact that the astronauts pay no attention to them. CAP COM never even mentions them. So they are a known known. Jim O always says they are ice! Yet there is a NASA video I posted, where an astronaut is told that 'there is an object right in front of you'...only to be told by another astronaut ..."don't worry about it"

HELLO! If it is therefor ice (debris=death) then why point it out at all? How is it a mystery to anyone? And how is it that ice is "right in front of you"?

There is also a 34 min. long video of UFOs continually moving around the MIR in all directions. So if debris = death it is not debris! AND if it is thus 'ice' we are all watching, why is it that for the entire fly around, the MIR is swarmed & buzzed by ice that is nothing to worry about? That much ice, in all sizes & shapes...zooming close to the MIR & shuttle, in ALL directions is important! At least to get a mention by someone...yet

Ice is NEVER ever mentioned. Nothing is ever said of the endless activity by these unknown objects, by anyone. This fly by was super important to NASA & Russia..., as it was following NASAs 1st. ever Shuttle/MIR get together. NASA & the Russians were all watching the LIVE feed.

The space objects that my videos & ISS videos show are UFOs.

They are not ice. NASA spends an amazing amount of time on my videos following & zooming in on the UFOs. The NASA cameras are always panning OFF real space activities to follow these moving objects!

NASA is not studying ICE! They would not go off script while sending an important "live video feed" to CAP COM... if it was ice. They would not send out astronauts to spacewalk with ice 'right in front of them' ...& if they were studying ice, the astronauts would not be told to ' not worry about it'!

These ANALOGUE video days meant that the live feed was the only visual way to see what was going on during a mission. There was no piggybacking of a second video feed. A mission cost over a 1/2 billion dollars. They are not engaged in a study of ice.

And they are not meteors always zooming around our spacecraft & space station....not at over 200 miles high & not for 30+ mins.!

So NASA video cameras see UFOs all the time & when we find them & post them... NASA needs Jim O to appear & "blind us with science"! His version is 'it can not be a UFO' so it must be "ICE" or space dust!.

Amazing how long he has got away with this explanation for the hundreds of video examples of UFOs seen by NASA cameras that I have now released in my documentaries & my (Martyn Stubbs) You Tube channel.

Jim does get things wrong.
Jim called me names when I said that the STS-75 Tether mission I released had used the same tether that it used on an earlier failed "tether" mission. I had to post a press conference by NASA... with them saying that it was the same failed "tether" that was they reused that had failed again. Jim was wrong.

Jim had to back away from the official NASA explanation , right here at ATS, explaining that the UFOs zooming around space...during a search for the MIR by NASA shuttle cameras...were "SHOOTING STARS" ...meteors!!!

Jim agreed that they are not shooting stars at 200 miles up! So why did NASA CAP COM go on & on along with the astronauts (including Story Musgrave) saying they were Meteors when they HAD to know better?

It was because they were UFOs & everyone is heard scrambling for an explanation!

Do not let these skeptics shout 'case closed'! Keep an open mind. To glorify & magnify the skeptics such as Mr. Oberg is a mistake. They are just doing there job keeping us all in line.

originally posted by: buzzEmiller
originally posted by: JimOberg "The ISS NEVER sees the debris that threatens collision, that's based on ground radar tracking hours in advance." says the skeptic...That means that all the objects we all have seen on my NASA video discoveries, (my 'Martyn Stubbs' /secretnasaman You Tube channel has hundreds of NASA UFO examples), are not DEBRIS, because you CAN see the unknown objects...clearly!

I am dismayed that Martyn seems so surprised about my assessment of this because for more than three years it’s been posted on my essay “99 Frequently Asked Questions [FAQs] about astronauts and UFOs” [www.jamesoberg.com...], questions 35-38, here:

35 Q: How much of it is “space junk”?
A: Very, very little, actually – if you use the standard definition of “space junk” to mean other satellites and pieces off of them, which constitute an impact hazard to human space missions and automated satellites as well. Because all orbiting objects are moving at tremendous speeds in different directions, when they do pass closely to each other, they zip past at several miles per second. Thus they are extremely difficult to detect visually. Anything that was seen over a period of time longer than a few seconds would have to have been something closely following the observer, and thus associated with the vehicle from which the observation was being made. Now, that's unless it was somebody else’s vehicle deliberately keeping pace, of course. But "space junk" as we commonly use the term? Hardly ever, maybe never.

36 Q: How often do astronauts see passing satellites out the window, or on TV screens.
A: Astronauts have observed other distant satellites, but not often. On special research programs, some astronauts have been able to spot ‘Iridium flares’ [Don Pettit, for example]. But on occasion when the crew was advised to look for a particularly close [a few miles] pass of a large satellites, every effort to detect the fly-by visually has failed. I have never found a single case of an observed nearby object turning out to be a passing satellite in independent orbit.

37 Q: But aren’t they flying through clouds of ‘space junk’? How could all those tens of thousands of objects be invisible?
A: I’ve got to admit that this has been really surprising to me since like so many others I had at first overlooked how big space is and how FAST criss-crossing orbits diverge. The earthside analogy of airplanes on different headings being visible to each other in midair as they crossed paths just overwhelmed a rational consideration of the way space is so very different, so unearthly. It makes sense now that eyeballs would almost never notice such fast passersby, so I can understand how the public has fallen for the same false analogy.

38 Q: Don’t astronauts keep a visual or radar watch out for approaching satellites in order to dodge a possible collision?
A: Surprisingly, no. At the relative speeds of objects in space, objects would only be detectable [if at all] within a few seconds of impact. Collision predictions are made hours or days in advance because much more powerful ground radars observe and catalog everything in orbit, and powerful computers predict their future flight paths to see if they may soon get close enough to threaten collision. The shuttle’s Ku-band dish antenna was mainly used for communications via relay satellites, but it could operate in a ‘skin-track’ mode for taking navigation ‘marks’ on a target satellite for a rendezvous or separation – but only at a range inside about 10 miles. And when using the antenna for tracking, it could not be used for data or video relay. There is no radar tracking capability on the ISS.

or...it must be "debris" that "does not threaten collision"?

The word is commonly used carelessly, I try to stick to applying ‘junk’ or ‘debris’ to OTHER satellite fragments, and stuff coming off the spacecraft where the observer is located, ‘dandruff’ – but you might call it ‘debris’ if it’s a tile or a latch or a insulation blanket.

I don't see how the UFOs that follow & swarmed the MIR are 'a threat' based on the fact that the astronauts pay no attention to them. CAP COM never even mentions them. So they are a known known. Jim O always says they are ice! Yet there is a NASA video I posted, where an astronaut is told that 'there is an object right in front of you'...only to be told by another astronaut ..."don't worry about it" HELLO! If it is therefor ice (debris=death) then why point it out at all? How is it a mystery to anyone? And how is it that ice is "right in front of you"?

Of course I’ve never said it’s always ice, and the sequence of something near the two spacewalkers was a lens cover. Isn’t that the scene where Martyn misunderstood the CAPCOM routine advisory of “we’re sending you an orbiter state vector” into the nonsensical phrase “we’re sending you an order to ‘stay vector’” which he then proclaimed was code for stay on course and don’t swerve? Schoolboy howler time.

There is also a 34 min. long video of UFOs continually moving around the MIR in all directions. So if debris = death it is not debris! AND if it is thus 'ice' we are all watching, why is it that for the entire fly around, the MIR is swarmed & buzzed by ice that is nothing to worry about? That much ice, in all sizes & shapes...zooming close to the MIR & shuttle, in ALL directions is important! At least to get a mention by someone...yet Ice is NEVER ever mentioned. Nothing is ever said of the endless activity by these unknown objects, by anyone. This fly by was super important to NASA & Russia..., as it was following NASAs 1st. ever Shuttle/MIR get together. NASA & the Russians were all watching the LIVE feed.

That’s the STS 63 approach, right – Jim Wetherbee commanding? Can somebody get for Martyn the press coverage of that pioneering rendezvous to point out the major concern both control centers had over a leaky shuttle thruster that might violate contamination levels and preclude getting as close as planned? Was Martyn once again defiantly clueless [or has my memory failed me – it’s possible, somebody please check, since Martyn clearly won’t].