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.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by spacevisitor
So now you want me to believe that those quotes are garbled because it is said by some real experts whose names are also not revealed?
Would you accept as one definition of an 'expert' to be any engineer who has been certified for Mission Control Center operations in the decision-making loop regarding OMS/RCS systems?
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by spacevisitor
Read again what is said in the article regarding that specific picture, and take notice of the fact that it isn’t dark in my opinion because the shuttle’s cargo bay bathes in light as that picture clearly shows.
But I don't think you have enough experience viewing space scenes in all varieties of illumination to judge what's daylight and what's not.
Originally posted by JimOberg
The light in the payload bay is coming, to my interpretation, from the floodlights, a scene i've seen numerous times on screens in the MCC.
Originally posted by JimOberg
If it were external lighting that was illuminating the plumes, how come the pods that the plumes are coming from are dark?
The spherical satellite was 1.6 meters in diameter, with the upper hemisphere containing some of the scientific payload, and the lower hemisphere containing the support equipment. The satellite contained cold gas (nitrogen) thrusters used for deployment, retrieval, and attitude control. The 2.54 mm diameter conducting tether cowas constructed using Kevlar and Nomex with 10 strands of 34 AWG copper wire and a Teflon sheath.
NASA was reponsible for the TSS deployer and systems integration, and Italy for building the satellite. Five investigations from Italy and five from the USA were selected for the first mission. Because of a technical problem (a protruding bolt) the tether could only be released to about 840 feet. A reflight of the tether system (TSS-1R) happened in 1996.
The TSS-1R mission is a reflight of the Tethered Satellite TSS-1 that had been flown on the Space Shuttle mission STS-46 in July of 1992. A protruding bolt had prevented full release of the tether during the TSS-1 mission. The TSS mission equipment consists of the deployer system, the Italian-build satellite, the electrically conductive tether (22km total length) and 6 science instruments. The TSS-1 is to be deployed from a reel in the orbiter payload bay upward (away from Earth) to up to 20 Km (12.5 miles) above the Orbiter. The objectives of this mission are: (1) to verify engineering performance of the Tethered Satellite System (TSS); (2) to determine and to understand the electro-magnetic interaction between the tether/satellite/orbiter system and the ambient space plasma; (3) to investigate and to understand the dynamical forces acting upon a tethered satellite; (4) to demonstrate electrical power generation; and, (5) to develop the capability for future tether applications on the Shuttle and Space Station. The deploying system consists of a motor- driven tether storage reel and level wind system.
Five hours after deployment began on February 25, 1996, with 19.7 km (of 20.7 planned) of tether released, the tether cable suddenly snapped near the top of the deployment boom. The TSS satellite shot away into a higher orbit.
TSS instruments could be re-actived and produced science data for three days until battery power ran out.
SEDS-1, SEDS-2: Designed by Tether Applications, both missions deployed 20 km of Spectra tether (a high-tech polymer). SEDS-2 proved that one can accurately deploy a tether to a stable vertical position by feedback control with a simple friction brake.
Originally posted by mcrom901
now... how is it... that the 2.54 mm tether was obfuscating the 1.6 meters satellite..... if there was a true 'out of focus' phenomenon being observed here.... how is it that the spherical end was not equally distorted....
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We're not allowed to give photography 101 lessons here anymore and we've already been over the focus issue 100 times, so I'll just give you a clue. Maybe if you instead asked "At a distance of 160,000 meters away, why is an object 19,000 meters long visible, but an object 1.6 meters in size is hard to see?"
Originally posted by spacevisitor
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by spacevisitor
So now you want me to believe that those quotes are garbled because it is said by some real experts whose names are also not revealed?
Would you accept as one definition of an 'expert' to be any engineer who has been certified for Mission Control Center operations in the decision-making loop regarding OMS/RCS systems?
Shore, if you can provide me the documentation of that engineer where he or she explains and proofs why he or she claims that those quotes are garbled.
Originally posted by spacevisitor
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by spacevisitor
Read again what is said in the article regarding that specific picture, and take notice of the fact that it isn’t dark in my opinion because the shuttle’s cargo bay bathes in light as that picture clearly shows.
But I don't think you have enough experience viewing space scenes in all varieties of illumination to judge what's daylight and what's not.
Where did I say that the shuttle’s cargo bay bathes in daylight?
Originally posted by JimOberg
The light in the payload bay is coming, to my interpretation, from the floodlights, a scene i've seen numerous times on screens in the MCC.
That was also pretty clear to me to.
Originally posted by JimOberg
If it were external lighting that was illuminating the plumes, how come the pods that the plumes are coming from are dark?
Could in not be then that the plumes where illuminated by those floodlights despite the fact that the pods are a bit dark?
Originally posted by mcrom901
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We're not allowed to give photography 101 lessons here anymore and we've already been over the focus issue 100 times, so I'll just give you a clue. Maybe if you instead asked "At a distance of 160,000 meters away, why is an object 19,000 meters long visible, but an object 1.6 meters in size is hard to see?"
i suppose you are still trying to imagine the tether as being fully stretched.... check the comments about the 'width' in the above video... during the same time stamp....
We're not allowed to give photography 101 lessons here anymore
Originally posted by JimOberg
They way I interrpet your comments and postings is that you suggest the tether looks 'thick' in the video because it's curly-coiled as the end of it clearly was, as it separated.
That's a reasonable hypothesis. But it fails because when you watch the tether during camera zooming, the angular length changes by a factor of 2 or 3, but the width never changes. This indicates that the apparent width is a camera artifact, specifically, 'blooming' of the bright pixels of the thin tether onto adjacent pixels. This is a commonly seen feature of low light level systems with high-contrast high-brightness targets.
It also fails because the tether was visuallt observed, both by the crew and by ground observers, to be long, thin, and straight, except a few days later the bottom few miles slightly curved (due to air drag). There was no corkscrew-curlicuing seen, and the human eye is a much more precise angular and detail resolution instrument.
Heck, I saw it myself from my home in Galveston County. It was one of the eeriest sky sights I've ever encountered. I even saw it one morning rise into sunlight, out of Earth's shadow, passing from invisibility to full brightness in several seconds.
Originally posted by easynow
Astronauts are not allowed to disclose anything that could be a threat to National Security, but Oberg wants you to believe they would despite the fact it would be a crime to do so.
Originally posted by mcrom901
Originally posted by JimOberg
They way I interpret your comments and postings is that you suggest the tether looks 'thick' in the video because it's curly-coiled as the end of it clearly was, as it separated.
yups... correct... and as you can also notice in the video... the tether is recoiling back from its broken end.... through out....
That's a reasonable hypothesis. But it fails because when you watch the tether during camera zooming, the angular length changes by a factor of 2 or 3, but the width never changes. This indicates that the apparent width is a camera artifact, specifically, 'blooming' of the bright pixels of the thin tether onto adjacent pixels. This is a commonly seen feature of low light level systems with high-contrast high-brightness targets.
as you have correctly stated.... the angular length changes here.... which in fact shortens as its further wound up.... this is due to the recoiling of the tether.... concerning the width.... you are wrong in stating... it "never" changed.... there are indeed nominal changes which are quite obvious.... not much rocket science here.... just imagine a spring.... which is being pressed by gravity...... i dont think the critters were chewing on it length....
It also fails because the tether was visually observed, both by the crew and by ground observers, to be long, thin, and straight, except a few days later the bottom few miles slightly curved (due to air drag). There was no corkscrew-curlicuing seen, and the human eye is a much more precise angular and detail resolution instrument.
your comments make no sense..... what do you mean by 'thin'.... how thin?
Heck, I saw it myself from my home in Galveston County. It was one of the eeriest sky sights I've ever encountered. I even saw it one morning rise into sunlight, out of Earth's shadow, passing from invisibility to full brightness in several seconds.
wooo..... that must have been a space serpent.....
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
did i strike a nerve ? yes i think so
"Alien Vehicles flew within 50 feet of a U.S. space vehicle for one full Earth orbit and then the AV departed; again while Aldrin was present. 'Buzz' Aldrin had a nervous breakdown because of these events and the pressure not to talk. There have been 22 deaths (many 'suicides') at JSC in Houston. No astronaut who has seen AVs or ETs is allowed to talk about it, even amongst themselves. If they do and are caught they may be fined, publicly humiliated, imprisoned, or have all pensions and future salaries taken away.'(my emphasis)
How much of the above account is fictional and how much fact? Only those who went to the moon and back know for certain. There are many second-hand accounts and alleged conversations, (Google UFO Sightings by Astronauts) where both Aldrin and Armstrong state, in no uncertain terms, they saw huge ships and other signs of alien occupation of the moon.
Return to Earth, Aldrin's autobiography, tells of his struggle with depression and alcoholism following his long and dedicated USAF and NASA career. Did NASA, CIA and the Pentagon compell Colonel Aldrin (and every other astronaut) to conceal what they saw on the moon? How much did this contribute to Aldrin's mental problems?
I find that sad.
And that makes you happy?
Originally posted by JimOberg
But as explained in the link I provided
four days later [when videotaped by the crew] the tether was fully stretched out, no coiling remained anywhere.
there were sufficient photons from the thin line to register unambiguously both on eyeballs and optics.
Note also that ground observers saw NO other objects near the tether.
I've got a few of Story's snake photos -- want to see them too? Funny, they look like strips of insulation.