Twentith anniversary STS-75 Tether Break

Twentieth anniversary of STS-75 deployment of Tethered Satellite System [Reflight], opening an interesting experiment, unpleasant surprises, bizarre misinterpretations, and wonderful pre-dawn views from my front yard of the tiny dangling tether orbiting for weeks after the shuttle returned home without it.
www.youtube.com...

This is the section on 'Tethered Space Operations' that I wrote for my 1986 NASA book "Rendezvous and Proximity Operations Flight Crew Procedures & Rationale" [in the first paragraph I referred to the possibility of a tether break!], it explains a lot about what happened to TSS-1R after it did break loose ten years later.

www.jamesoberg.com...

To properly understand the weird videos th, after its orbit had also been displaced somewhat off to the side. at followed, you need to understand that:

1. Upon breaking loose, the small satellite and tether were thrown into a higher, slower orbit and fell behind the lower, faster shuttle by about 250 miles per hour relative speed.
2. The shuttle ‘lapped’ the slower TSS-1R and overtook it four days later, after its orbit had been displaced somewhat off to the side. Sun glare made the tether most visible in the short period after sunrise, and it was videotaped from an external TV camera on three successive post-dawn periods.
3. It was also photographed with a 70-mm handheld camera from the cabin.
4. In the meantime, the shuttle had resumed normal waste water dumps that characteristically left small ice chips floating near the vehicle.
5. The crew frequently observed such ice and easily determined the fragments were nearby through using their two-eye ‘binocular vision’, a physiological tool accurate our to 40-60 feet or more.
6. During observation, the tether in its higher orbit rose into sunlight first, followed a few seconds later by the shuttle and any small ice drifting nearby, which could ‘pop up’ at sunrise or shortly afterwards as they drifted out of the shuttles own shadow.
7. The external payload bay cameras were installed for monitoring activities and conditions in the payload bay in visible light, were ruggedized and simple, and were not scientific instruments with high resolution. Their optical system would experience pixel bleed from very bright images ‘smearing’ onto neighboring pixels, and to preserve onboard TV monitors from damage, overbright pixels were automatically ‘grayed out’ electronically.
8. A peculiar feature of brighter dots is perimeter cutouts -- ’notches’ – representing internal structure of the camera optical system. This is easy to prove with videos of this which show that the clocking of the notch is a strict function of where in the camera field-of-view the dot is passing through. www.youtube.com...
9. The illusion of the out-of-focus small nearby ice passing BEHIND the tether is caused by the pixel-bleed and overbright-protect circuitry of the TV cameras. The handheld 70-mm shots show the tether accurately, a hair-thin filament with fuzzy round circles passing nearby.
10. The crew [which included three European scientists] and Mission Control veterans have patiently explained the weird videos as showing the tether and coincidentally in the near foreground some remnants of a recent water dump.

Sorry but I disagree that the UFOs were ice particles. They can clearly be seen to pass behind the tether. Oh....its just an optical illusion, because frozen space pee does that when filmed under certain conditions.....

originally posted by: weirdguy
Sorry but I disagree that the UFOs were ice particles. They can clearly be seen to pass behind the tether. Oh....its just an optical illusion, because frozen space pee does that when filmed under certain conditions.....

Try reading this.

METABUNK

S&F for a great OP

originally posted by: weirdguy
Sorry but I disagree that the UFOs were ice particles. They can clearly be seen to pass behind the tether. Oh....its just an optical illusion, because frozen space pee does that when filmed under certain conditions.....

You're not alone, and that meme is certainly a popular one. The basis for that misunderstanding rests on fundamental misunderstandings of the spaceflight visual and dynamic environment, which is UNEARTHLY -- why shouldn't it be? -- and never before experienced by human sensory systems evolved for [and trained for] totally different conditions.

There's also significant deception and deliberate distortion in the way the story is popularly publicized. The most striking two deceptions -- tell me if you fell for them -- are that the 'swarm' showed up immediately after the tether break [it actually was four days later] and that the TV images were the best view of the event [both the crew's eyeball views, and their 70-mm handheld photos, are far sharper, but popular accounts of the event usually cover up and deny those inputs].

Ask yourself how you could come to a reliably accurate interpretation if that crucial information was withheld from you?

I don't think anybody could, and that deception seems purposeful to me. Can you suggest other motivations?

20 years ago today -- the tether breaks and drifts away into the darkness.

www.youtube.com...

Nothing else in view.

a reply to: JimOberg

bull#,
if the "ufo's" had only been ice particles then they would not have been capable of making turns in their direction of travel as has been pointed out numerous times by videos like this one


adding tracers onto the objects clearly shows them making numerous turns some over 180 degrees, please view video beyond 4 minute marker to see the tracer's added.
ice particles is a crock of #.

as has always been said, the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one, and your layout of ten point argument on why you think its ice particles (which neglects the fact the objects make controlled turns) is a far more complicated explanation then to simply say they are intelligently controlled craft.

ufo's is a 1 point argument which misses no details to explain it, your 10 point argument is weak by comparison, your belief in such can only be explained as cognitive dissonance, or perhaps you are just one of them "paid shills". definitely one or the other.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: JimOberg

bull#,
if the "ufo's" had only been ice particles then they would not have been capable of making turns in their direction of travel as has been pointed out numerous times by videos like this one

adding tracers onto the objects clearly shows them making numerous turns some over 180 degrees, please view video beyond 4 minute marker to see the tracer's added.
ice particles is a crock of #.

Wow lol. I just checked out their YouTube collection of videos. I don't think they have anything that hasn't been explained.

So, besides a YouTube video, do you have any proof that what was seen were actually ufos?

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: JimOberg

bull#,
if the "ufo's" had only been ice particles then they would not have been capable of making turns in their direction of travel as has been pointed out numerous times by videos like this one

adding tracers onto the objects clearly shows them making numerous turns some over 180 degrees, please view video beyond 4 minute marker to see the tracer's added.
ice particles is a crock of #.

Wow lol. I just checked out their YouTube collection of videos. I don't think they have anything that hasn't been explained.

So, besides a YouTube video, do you have any proof that what was seen were actually ufos?

you are attacking a messenger this is the old strawman tactic that is disallowed on these forums, the video itself is sourced from NASA not youtube, youtube is merely the medium hosting the data in this instance, the same video can be found on numerous other sources,

the video is nothing more then the same NASA video with enhancements made, argue the details pointed out by said enhancements. not the medium hosting the video.

the fact the objects are making turns is clearly demonstrated by that video, if you truly dont trust youtube as a medium then you must discount the OP as well as he also is using them as his video host, you can also go view the original video on nasa's own website and watch the objects making turns yourself, though its a bit less obvious without the tracers

ETA: here i found a different source for you with a different version of the video wherein the instead added the flight paths as an overlay onto the original raw footage, www.thelivingmoon.com...

originally posted by: weirdguy
Sorry but I disagree that the UFOs were ice particles. They can clearly be seen to pass behind the tether. Oh....its just an optical illusion, because frozen space pee does that when filmed under certain conditions.....

Right on.

Bearing in mind the length of the tether, the distance from the camera, the passing from behind and the alterations in direction, tagging them as 'ice crystals' is an escape from lack of explanation.

I have an old friend who is now retired from working at the cape.
He said people there and back then called them... 'space carp'.

...

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

You're "1 point argument" fails. Using your logic, read the following points.

For UFOs
1, it's UFOs

For ice
1, it's ice

Just because you only need 1 point to get to that conclusion it doesn't make it right.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: JimOberg

bull#,
if the "ufo's" had only been ice particles then they would not have been capable of making turns in their direction of travel as has been pointed out numerous times by videos like this one

adding tracers onto the objects clearly shows them making numerous turns some over 180 degrees, please view video beyond 4 minute marker to see the tracer's added.
ice particles is a crock of #.

Wow lol. I just checked out their YouTube collection of videos. I don't think they have anything that hasn't been explained.

So, besides a YouTube video, do you have any proof that what was seen were actually ufos?

you are attacking a messenger this is the old strawman tactic that is disallowed on these forums, the video itself is sourced from NASA not youtube, youtube is merely the medium hosting the data in this instance, the same video can be found on numerous other sources,

the video is nothing more then the same NASA video with enhancements made, argue the details pointed out by said enhancements. not the medium hosting the video.

the fact the objects are making turns is clearly demonstrated by that video, if you truly dont trust youtube as a medium then you must discount the OP as well as he also is using them as his video host, you can also go view the original video on nasa's own website and watch the objects making turns yourself, though its a bit less obvious without the tracers

Show me exactly where I "attacked the messenger". Because I asked for proof of it being UFOs?

The video is from NASA, then edited and used as proof of it being UFOs. Not exactly evidence.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

You're "1 point argument" fails. Using your logic, read the following points.

For UFOs
1, it's UFOs

For ice
1, it's ice

Just because you only need 1 point to get to that conclusion it doesn't make it right.

incorrect, if its ufo's none of your other questions exist, they all are easily understood,
if its ice then why do they have that shape?
why do they pulsate?
why are they such a great distance away?
why are they such a great size?

your explanation of ice particles requires additional explanations to justify such as you have in your OP, that their are illusions at play that the cameras design is one cause of illusion that the suns angle is another cause of illusion etc etc, you have to make all these different points as you have in your op to try and explain how it could possibly be ice particle's.

none of that is needed if they are intelligently controlled craft. that explain each and every point all on its own.

surely you comprehend that? why waste my time with this false comprehension? you didnt even bother to mention the flight path tracking which was the sole purpose of my post to point out, you just skipped right over it, ignoring it completely. the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

So the UFO thing only has one point? Let's see about that.

1, How are they not symmetrical?
2, Why are they pulsating?
3, How can so many be so close to each other and not collide?
4, Why are they ALL showing the top/bottom of a craft yet no sides?
5, Why are they transparent?
6, Why weren't they seen with the naked eye?
8, Why were they there?

Yeah, UFOs are a much simpler explanation. :
As for the movement? Well the ISS has to use its thrusters to keep it where it is. Also some of the particles bounce off of other particles.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

So the UFO thing only has one point? Let's see about that.

1, How are they not symmetrical?
2, Why are they pulsating?
3, How can so many be so close to each other and not collide?
4, Why are they ALL showing the top/bottom of a craft yet no sides?
5, Why are they transparent?
6, Why weren't they seen with the naked eye?
8, Why were they there?

Yeah, UFOs are a much simpler explanation. :
As for the movement? Well the ISS has to use its thrusters to keep it where it is. Also some of the particles bounce off of other particles.

every single one of those questions is not a question to explain whats being seen, rather they are only strategic and engineering questions which would be directed at whatever was controlling the craft, this is nothing alike to your own ice particles explanation in which your questions are dealing with how it doesn't seem to be ice particles for etc reason. this is not a valid comparison at all, your reaching.

so your missing till now explanation of the objects flight paths is that they were bouncing off each other or being pushed by thrusters........ seriously? its pretty obvious ice particles bouncing off each other or being pushed by thrusters would make SUDDEN sharp changes in direction, not slow arching gradual turns.

its pretty clear your just wasting my time, believe what you want, god knows you will.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

So the UFO thing only has one point? Let's see about that.

1, How are they not symmetrical?
2, Why are they pulsating?
3, How can so many be so close to each other and not collide?
4, Why are they ALL showing the top/bottom of a craft yet no sides?
5, Why are they transparent?
6, Why weren't they seen with the naked eye?
8, Why were they there?

Yeah, UFOs are a much simpler explanation. :
As for the movement? Well the ISS has to use its thrusters to keep it where it is. Also some of the particles bounce off of other particles.

every single one of those questions is not a question to explain whats being seen, rather they are only strategic and engineering questions which would be directed at whatever was controlling the craft, this is nothing alike to your own ice particles explanation in which your questions are dealing with how it doesn't seem to be ice particles for etc reason. this is not a valid comparison at all, your reaching.

so your missing till now explanation of the objects flight paths is that they were bouncing off each other or being pushed by thrusters........ seriously? its pretty obvious ice particles bouncing off each other or being pushed by thrusters would make SUDDEN sharp changes in direction, not slow arching gradual turns.

its pretty clear your just wasting my time, believe what you want, god knows you will.

Well the only arguments I've seen in this thread is the massive 1 point "it's UFOs".

So there were no "UFOs" that moved sharply? Try looking at the unedited version and you'll see there were.

Yeah, I'll believe what I want. That's called science and reality. Things that can be proven with facts and tests without ignoring facts.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

So the UFO thing only has one point? Let's see about that.

1, How are they not symmetrical?
2, Why are they pulsating?
3, How can so many be so close to each other and not collide?
4, Why are they ALL showing the top/bottom of a craft yet no sides?
5, Why are they transparent?
6, Why weren't they seen with the naked eye?
8, Why were they there?

Yeah, UFOs are a much simpler explanation. :
As for the movement? Well the ISS has to use its thrusters to keep it where it is. Also some of the particles bounce off of other particles.

every single one of those questions is not a question to explain whats being seen, rather they are only strategic and engineering questions which would be directed at whatever was controlling the craft, this is nothing alike to your own ice particles explanation in which your questions are dealing with how it doesn't seem to be ice particles for etc reason. this is not a valid comparison at all, your reaching.

so your missing till now explanation of the objects flight paths is that they were bouncing off each other or being pushed by thrusters........ seriously? its pretty obvious ice particles bouncing off each other or being pushed by thrusters would make SUDDEN sharp changes in direction, not slow arching gradual turns.

its pretty clear your just wasting my time, believe what you want, god knows you will.

Well the only arguments I've seen in this thread is the massive 1 point "it's UFOs".

So there were no "UFOs" that moved sharply? Try looking at the unedited version and you'll see there were.

Yeah, I'll believe what I want. That's called science and reality. Things that can be proven with facts and tests without ignoring facts.

ya right, id love to see your "science and facts and tests" experiment proving collisions with thrusters can cause slow arching turns, that would be simply outrageous.

with tiny little ice particles no less, tiny little ice particles wandering into the path of a thruster just gently changing course in all kinds of random directions, must be some realllllllllly weak thrusters if thats all the effect they have on a tiny little ice particle, and those really weak thrusters must have output focused like a laser with how selective they are of which particles they choose to effect, oh and the thrusters position and orientation must be changing quite rapidly to be sending different particles into completely different directions... logic

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

In your one point solution, a couple of questions:

1. Have you even looked at the 70-mm handheld shots, how do they compare to the view in the TV video?

2. Why would the UFO swarm wait four days to show up and THEN only do so by coincidence during the brief interval that the shuttle was passing under the tether?

3. Why, when legions of amateur skywatchers around the world who follow shuttle missions visually, and after the tether broke loose redoubled their efforts to see IT too, not ever report giant spherical UFOs following it? Do the math -- something as big and bright as you propose would have been full-moon sized in the daytime sky, but as far as we can tell, nobody saw it. How do UFOs get away with that?

4. Why, if the crew realized they were seeing immense alien vehicles, didn't they wake up the other astronauts who were asleep downstairs?

5. Why, if the crew realized these were giant distant objects, did they think they were the small nearby drifting stuff they could see out the windows often, coming off the shuttle and its vents?

6. Why, if the notches represent physical structure of the objects, did every one of them rotate deliberately to duplicate its appearance on the crew's TV monitor. How did the aliens know what the monitor was showing?

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal....
ya right, id love to see your "science and facts and tests" experiment proving collisions with thrusters can cause slow arching turns, that would be simply outrageous.

with tiny little ice particles no less, tiny little ice particles wandering into the path of a thruster just gently changing course in all kinds of random directions, must be some realllllllllly weak thrusters if thats all the effect they have on a tiny little ice particle, and those really weak thrusters must have output focused like a laser with how selective they are of which particles they choose to effect, oh and the thrusters position and orientation must be changing quite rapidly to be sending different particles into completely different directions... logic

You've obviously applied your knowledge to this puzzle. Can you summarize where you learned how objects move and are illuminated in space? Why should anyone assume you know what you're talking about instead of just making this stuff up?

I still say the video of "space" (?), shows the movement of objects that look like they are floating in water, not "space"....my 2 cents.

Small fluffy particles change their motion many ways. Being caught in a thruster plume is one way, and depending on how high an angle from the plume centerline, the force varies. There are also longer-term outgassing events such as flash evaporator activity. Over periods of several minutes, air drag can accumulate significant disturbances, as can popcorning of ice fragments off the sunward side of the flakes. These are definitely unearthly phenomena, nobody really expected in advance to see them. It's no wonder that groundlings are astounded by them.