New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by easynow
dude, if you admit it's possible that ice particles can disappear quickly then it is not wrong or incorrect to have a theory that considers the objects are not ice crystals.

Can't accept that you really didn't get the issue... or playing dumb?
Presenting PARTIAL truth, while IGNORING the WHOLE, it is wrong.

I didn't say that is wrong to present any theory, but it is wrong to deny another theory using denial of the WHOLE phenomenon.


There are people here, which denies the ice particles theory saying "ice particles dissapears in seconds". As we see, ice particles not necessarily at all to dissapear in seconds. The asumption "can't be ice particles because dissapears in seconds" it is FALSE, wrong.

Like here:

"People drink water at day. Therefore, people don't drink water at night."

While "people drink water at day" is true, the asumption "people don't drink water at night" is FALSE.

Capisci?



[edit on 30/10/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


didn't you say it's possible that ice crystals can disappear ?

how hard is it to understand that if they can disappear, the objects might not be ice crystals ?

Can't accept that you really didn't get the issue... or playing dumb?

obviously it is you that doesn't get it or are playing dumb because you made a mistake

Originally posted by easynow
how hard is it to understand that if they can disappear, the objects might not be ice crystals ?

Or may be ice crystals very well.

The point is: can't deny ice crystals solutions, which some people here just do: deny it.

www.universetoday.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c8483a0a0a11.jpg[/atsimg]


what was left out of that post was the fact that they didn't know if that was 100% pure water. the Sublimation process could be greatly affected if the water was not pure.

Some reports indicated it was "pristine" water (the shuttle fuel cells' by-product is water) and other reports said it was "waste water and urine"

so it's just more weak evidence

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman
The STS-75 Tether Break was at 7:30 PM, C.T., on the last day in Feb.1996. ....

I'm confused.

Visual observations of satellites are reported here:
satobs.org...

Regarding the tether break, message satobs.org... reports that the tether broke at approx Feb26/0130 GMT

That would indeed by 7:30 PM Feb 25, Central Time in the US and Canada.

NASA’s press release, also dated Feb 26, is here:
www.nasa.gov...

Was February 25 "the last day in February 1996" in Canada?

Clarification, please.

Re: the date Jim...I guess I got it wrong...part of the problem is that I was too fast to post, without checking...I still have not checked, as I believe you.
Watching a clip of the video for a quick answer, the sighting times
NASA states differ...as well as whether they are downloaded times, or live.. ,,,sorry, but I was hoping to answer the question too fast to try to keep up here on ATS,, & should have gone to the NASA Web sight for those type of known knowns!...but admit it...it was fun kicking me around for a bit on that one!...I'll go through this flight again, & if I find anything more specific to these date & time "details", I'll post the videos on my You Tube Channel...

Originally posted by easynow

what was left out of that post was the fact that they didn't know if that was 100% pure water. the Sublimation process could be greatly affected if the water was not pure.

Some reports indicated it was "pristine" water (the shuttle fuel cells' by-product is water) and other reports said it was "waste water and urine"

so it's just more weak evidence

you can't mend it, no?

perhaps you want to how many particles of ice-water, and the composition of the waste to be known in order to be accepted as strong evidence.... and from which astronauts is the human waste and in what quantities..also i "think" we all lack a similar analysis from NASA regarding different "components" and their qualitative and quantitative influence on the dump regarding time... we expect NASA to be more transparent on this "issues"...more diagrams we need

Fact is water dump make ice particles remaining many minutes before sublimating and dissapearing, despite some guys here denying this posibility.




[edit on 30/10/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 30/10/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield

what was left out of that post was the fact that they didn't know if that was 100% pure water. the Sublimation process could be greatly affected if the water was not pure.
Some reports indicated it was "pristine" water (the shuttle fuel cells' by-product is water) and other reports said it was "waste water and urine"

see that above ^^^ ?

attack the science in that statement instead of attacking me and you will find out that i have a valid point. i am guessing you won't because it would not be in favor of your debunking attempts and it's easier to engage in personal attacks. am i right ?

"some guys here denying this posibility."

no some guy's want to see some real proof ....but it's obvious you don't want the real proof and are just happy to keep spouting your theory's over and over and over. in case you don't know already, those theory's of yours will ultimately NOT prove a dam thing




[edit on 30-10-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by secretnasaman
I'll go through this flight again, & if I find anything more specific to these date & time "details", I'll post the videos on my You Tube Channel...

Please post them here.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim jim jim jim, jim and it would be better to do what?

Watch TV, play video games? It is best to keep ones mind closed?

Rather than in engage in speculation?

This actually gets me to do some interesting research on the internet.

All this stuff about interpretation of data ignores the NASA study on the thread that backs the claims I made much earlier, and exactly what Balez is stating.

According to a NASA study, these particles do not hang around.

Now sure, it does seem possible that occasionally large ice patches form on the shuttle in an area that is protected from the sunlight, that manages to hang around quite a while, but they aren't floating outside of the shuttle in clusters in front of the camera.

Once again, why don't we see this in other videos?

edit to correct misspelled critical word.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by poet1b]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

He did tell you what is wrong with regard to your overestimating how fast the water dump sublimates in sunlight:

Yes Jim did that, but not the 'how' and 'why'.

One thing you can do to prove you're wrong about water dumps only lasting for seconds, is do a google search on water dumps. There's even a thread on ATS involving a water dump where the dump obviously lasted more than "seconds" as you put it, people on earth noticed it were photographing it, going to get video cameras and videotaping it, etc. So if the water dump it only lasted seconds as you suggest, the observers wouldn't have been able to observe what they observed. And the water dump was illuminated, presumably by the sunlight which you state would make it disappear right away. But I'll even give you a link with a photo:

This photo does not prove me wrong one way or the other, it actually confirms what i have been saying about the water dumps.
You do see the resemblance to something else in the picture right?
It has a tail and it consists mostly of dirty ice.

The ice is not illuminated it's reflecting the sunlight.

The picture also suggests something else.... Which i have been saying (not in this thread) that the ice particles will be left behind by the shuttle after the release.
I think the good people at NASA planned it so, so there would not be ice debris around the shuttle when they are conducting experiments.
The nozzle is probably placed in a way on the shuttle that when there is a water dump going on the spray will be directed so the particles will not stay around the shuttle to disturb the crew so much.

So yes it sublimates, and perhaps the smallest particles do so in seconds, but not the entire water dump. Something is illuminating the water dump for that photograph, I'm assuming that something is sunlight, and it hasn't sublimated yet. When I look at the length of the trail of ice, I have to go with Jim Oberg's conclusion that some of the larger ice particles must last at least tens of minutes in the sun, as I don't think that photograph would be possible if they only lasted for seconds as you said, because we would only see them immediately around the shuttle.

That is 'one' picture showing a water dump.
We also see the ISS station making a streak on the night sky.
Now we don't know how the settings of the camera were, but it looks like the exposure time is close to normal.
That would mean that we are seeing only a few seconds of that water dump.
We dont know if they are in direct sunlight either (illumination can come from several places), my guess is that they are not in direct sunlight.

The nozzle for the water dump system creates a spray, the water is sprayed out and away from the shuttle.
IF i remember correctly the pieces is in the sizes of snowflakes (those that are really BIG we see here on earth) and a bit bigger but not by much.

This should also demonstrate why the shuttle observers and camera would see the particles at various distances from the shuttle, just look at the dispersion.

The dispersion field you see on that picture comes from the distance the shuttle has made from the beginning of the release point.
This was a rather big dump also, one of the biggest.
150 pounds sprayed out from the shuttle at a speed of (and) around 17.600mph (around 8000 M/s) this probably takes a while to execute and get the tank empty.
If there had been more pictures we could also probably see that the 'tail' do not get any longer than what it is showing on that picture.
So the likelihood of the ice particles to show on a picture like that before they disappear is not strange at all.

reply to post by JimOberg

Try also googling the 'pissicle' on a 1984 flight, the hunk of ice lasted for days. There was another ice buildup on the top edge of the left payload bay door (which when opened lies directly in front of the vent), that remained in place when the door swuung closed and was still there AFTER landing in Florida (where it quickly melted in the hot air).

Yeah i read about that, wasn't that the time they were worried that the ice could break free from the shuttle during the landing process and damage the shuttle?

The black body temperature of an object in free space at 1 AU is considerably BELOW the melting point of water. That's also a consequence of basic physics.

Ofcourse it is. Never have i claimed anything else either (and you mean melting point of ice, right? ).
However in direct sunlight that changes drastically.
Objects in direct sunlight can get a temperature of 150c/250F.

And if i remember correctly that ice piece was quite big....

Originally posted by Balez
And if i remember correctly that ice piece was quite big....

Below it is that chunk...also excerpts from NASA study regarding particles of ice from the water dump:

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by JimOberg
Try also googling the 'pissicle' on a 1984 flight, the hunk of ice lasted for days.

I saw that sequence before, and i adnotated it at that time. Now i extracted to be easy to see. It is from Space Shuttle flight 12 (STS-41D), Launch: August 30, 1984.

Here it is the sequence, described by the astronauts themselves:

original here: www.nss.org...


They had to position the shuttle with the side with the ice for two days staying on the sun, hopping to reduce the size of the chunk of ice. There was a reducing, but finnally they decided to smash it with the shuttle's arm.

Also, i agree with those some other posters that indeed ice particles in vacuum of space, even hit by the sun, could stay minutes or even hours more, depending on their size. Those which reject this posibility, and say that ice sublimates in space in a matter of seconds (which could be true ONLY for very small particles) , just want to exclude the water dump explanation, because it doesn't fit with their explanation - ufo/alien ship/critter). But as Arbitrageur showed, water dumps in orbit can be seen more than a few seconds, and i also remember there was multiple eye witnesses and photos taken from the ground to these water dumps. A few seconds? Not necessarily.

It could be water dump in these STS-75 videos. The sequences in STS-75 videos are about ten minutes or so, but the NASA study (ntrs.nasa.gov... ) speaks for 19 minutes already (and these 19 minutes just because of sunset, after which paticles can't be seen)

pag 83..84:

Particles were observed promptly in the first frame taken about 1 min after the start of the dump. The optical environment is severely degraded during the dump. Several hundred particles are observed in the 0.13 sr field-of-view. []
The number of visual particles in each 2.7 s exposure is plotted in Figure 2 from the end of the dump until orbital sunset 19 min later.
There is a rapid (nearly 2 orders of magnitude) decrease in the first 6 min followed by a much slower decay.
The water ejection occurs from a jet on the opposite (port) side of the Shuttle well below the opened bay doors.
Ice particles formed in the expansion will undergo complex trajectories due to plume collision effects and atmospheric drag.

That study allude to one particular event regarding a water dump during one particular shuttle attitude and position.

Essential is that there are tens of minutes of "optical environment degradation" just due to a water dump, and, more, no matter water dump is on oposite direction, particles have complex trajectories in orbit.
So, UFO-advocates, please don't reject this real posibility just saying "ice dissapear in space in a matter of a few seconds". You are wrong.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman
I'll go through this flight again, & if I find anything more specific to these date & time "details", I'll post the videos on my You Tube Channel...

Please post them here.

Yes I will Jim, if you say so...& of course, on ATS media, where I have 30 videos up already, & counting... & I will "learn" to provide actual links!...(Thanks for the motivation)
& just for fun, I will also include a video of a very young you, dissing UFOs, as blurring up genuine "scientific" answers to what UFO sightings might be, "such as ...insect manifestations"! .. ATS members (on this thread) say, that is what the tether break video looks like,...biology!

Originally posted by poet1b

According to a NASA study, these particles do not hang around.

Now sure, it does seem possible that occasionally large ice patches form on the shuttle in an area that is protected from the sunlight, that manages to hang around quite a while, but they aren't floating outside of the shuttle in clusters in front of the camera.

So, below, those ICE CRYSTALS hanging around in cluster in front of the camera are an illusion according to you?



.

[edit on 30/10/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield




i'm still waiting for you to prove those are stars.

did you forget about it for some reason ?

Sorry,
...but just because an astronaut is blindsided by Ground Control to tell us what something might be,...something unknown (or why the question?) that suddenly appears outside the shuttle on live TV, & the surprised astronaut blurts out "ice crystals"...does not make them scientific authorities, as they mumble & stutter about "ice", while being prompted! What else are they going to say? UFOs are there... you know that's not going to happen!..

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Sorry,
...but just because an astronaut is blindsided by Ground Control to tell us what something might be,...something unknown (or why the question?) that suddenly appears outside the shuttle on live TV, & the surprised astronaut blurts out "ice crystals"...does not make them scientific authorities, as they mumble & stutter about "ice", while being prompted! What else are they going to say? UFOs are there... you know that's not going to happen!..

Martyn, is this your secret formula conferring immunity against eyewitness testimony? Just assume anybody who says things inconvenient to your theories is a liar? Come on, that's downright tacky -- and closed-minded.

How about such quotations as:

Andy Allen statement (mission commander)
Date: Friday, April 21, 2000 10:59:51 AM
From: Andrew.M.Allen@
Subj: RE: RE: STS-75
Jim,
As far as the question about floating objects that we see, it is mostly debris and Orbiter induced particulates. We see a lot of dust, ice, and other debris collected in the vehicle during ground processing (it's very clean but not perfectly clean) that will dislodge or float up in zero gravity. We also see a lot of crystals and particles as remnants from water dumps, RCS firings, OMS firings, etc.
Contrary to what some folks may think, there is no direction or effort for astronauts to restrict their conversations and observations. The only exception, which no longer applies, was when we were flying classified payloads on our DOD missions and could only discuss the payload under a need to know. It is utterly impossible that all those who traveled in space from many different countries would have adhered to any restrictions.


Chuck Shaw statement (Lead Flight Director, STS-75 mission)
RE: STS-75 Question //
Date: 03/03/2000 9:26:59 AM Central Standard Time
From: SHAW, CHARLES W. (CHUCK) (JSC-DA8)
To: JamesOberg@

Hi Jim,

I was the Lead Flight Director for STS-75, and was on console for the tethered satellite deploy operations and at the time the tether broke. Operations had been nominal up to the point Jeff Hoffman called down that the tether broke, and then we saw the status in telemetry a couple of seconds later. The behavior of the satellite and the tether remnant on the satellite was exactly as we had expected for a tether break case.

In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT detail post flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what had caused the tether break, we never saw anything that was "unexpected". Your comments as to artifacts and small debris/dust/ice particles/lens reflections/blooming/etc., are all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually every shuttle mission's video. What was present in the video and the data that was examined post flight was all within this type of artifact and/or expected results.

Post break, we called upon tracking and imaging resources world wide to be able to establish a trajectory for the satellite and tether remnant, in order to determine the feasibility of a rendezvous and recovery, in addition to being able to command the satellite transmitter on to gain some science data from it, even though the tether was broken. At no time did any of these tracking data show anything unexpected, and we were LOOKING for unexpected things (like extra pieces of tether, or debris from the satellite and/or science booms) that could cause us to not want to fly up in the vicinity of the satellite

As it turned out, the arcing of the voltage in the tether to the deployer structure burned the tether in two. Rather ironic that the experiment worked so well to show the ability of the system to generate power, and in fact worked so well as to fatally damage the experiment!

I have always been fascinated by UFO investigations, and "personally" I hope we are not really alone in this wonderful universe.

Hope this helps, Chuck

Chuck Shaw, Flight Director
Mission Operations Directorate, NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas



similar case with same origin:

STS-48 co-pilot Reightler, when asked, told me: “We saw a lot of this on STS-48 because we had a dump nozzle that was leaking.” This same nozzle leaked on the next ‘Discovery’ mission as well and “created the same shower of ice particles – but apparently this time no one misinterpreted them as UFOs.”

Mission specialist Mark Brown (STS-48) added: “When illuminated by sunlight they looked like small diamonds floating in space, disturbed only when the maneuvering rockets fired – the plumes from the rockets would hit them and send them off in different directions.”

The night-time camera views of Earth’s horizon, which included the scene in question, were undertaken as part of an experiment to observe lightning storms. The ‘Principal Investigator’ of that experiment was Otha (‘Skeet’) Vaughan, who reported he frequently saw such moving dots: “They’re an ordinary part of space flight... It’s obviously just more shuttle debris.”

Senior payloads officer James Bates, a veteran of control center support for manned space missions dating back to the Gemini program, also saw these scenes in ‘real time’: “I was a Flight Integration Manager for the Shuttle Program Office during those days and was manager of the Customer Support Room where most of the payloads and other tests were managed or run. I had also worked with Vaughan to get his lightning survey implemented, and was very familiar with all of the low-light TV ‘phenomena’ we watched for hours upon end during many of the flights. During STS-48 I was in the MCC watching the ‘snow’ or ice particles. For many flights during slow times when the crew was asleep (or awake) we would watch chunks of ice float away from main engine nozzles and ice fly out of RCS thrusters. AND we would watch the small ‘snow’ get blasted by the thruster plumes. If someone saw only a piece of such videos, yes, they could think they were UFOs.”

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

 

what was left out of that post was the fact that they didn't know if that was 100% pure water. the Sublimation process could be greatly affected if the water was not pure.
Some reports indicated it was "pristine" water (the shuttle fuel cells' by-product is water) and other reports said it was "waste water and urine"

see that above ^^^ ?

attack the science in that statement instead of attacking me and you will find out that i have a valid point. i am guessing you won't because it would not be in favor of your debunking attempts and it's easier to engage in personal attacks. am i right ?

And what exactly is your point? That water dumps might hang around longer if they have more contaminants? and if that's the point then are you saying you know the contaminant levels of the water dumps in the OP of this thread and/or in the photograph? I don't really get your ultimate point, other than to say it's possible contaminants could like urine could affect the sublimation rate, though I expect that effect would not be nearly as significant as the particle size. While the particle size might not affect the RATE of sublimation, it would affect the TIME it takes to complete the sublimation.

Depending on the nozzle design (which I haven't studied), if the water/urine mix comes out as varying sized droplets that will freeze into various sized ice particles, you could say there is a distribution of particle size (maybe in the shape of a bell curve distribution or some other statistical distribution).

The larger the particle, the longer it will take to completely sublimate. This will be a significant effect regardless of whether the water has urine in it or not.

You can do a very crude analogy of this experiment at home just to show the larger size piece of ice you take out of your freezer, the longer it will take to melt completely, all else being equal. And the pissicle example Jim Oberg mentioned that lasted for days would be an extreme example of the effect of size on how long an ice particle can last, and I'm guessing that one had urine in it since it was called a pissicle but I'm not sure.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


the point is we don't really know what it is we are seeing in the picture you posted because we don't know what exactly it was they were dumping. which makes it weak evidence and you would be using circular logic to claim it as proof of anything in regards to sublimation.

simple as that.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by depthoffield


What you provide is video evidence that clearly shows you are wrong.

Um, these ice crystals aren't hanging around, they are falling back to Earth. Just as is described in the NASA study linked to on this thread.

Also, once again, they twinkle, and look nothing like what we see around the tether.

If the video you posted was longer, we would all see them disappear after only a few minutes.

Why does this (so-called) 'ice', (the non melting kind!) claimed by skeptics as being around the shuttle camera... look like stars (light years away), & how can anyone really watch the tether video & decide which are stars for sure...if any?

There are all kinds of unknowns moving about, & some are appearing or disappearing, while others pulsate as they swarm the tether & satellite. When the camera zooms in or out...so do the tether & its UFOs...
...they remain unknown, scientifically...not debris nor paint bits, ice cubes, micro meteors, camera distortion, house sized water comets..etc.

...there are genuine "unknown objects" among all the activity & that is why this tether NASA clip is #1 on the NASA skeptics agenda.
.
...The skeptics want everyone to have one "single bullet" theory...the skeptics are for ice or camera distortions (like Jim Oberg)..Umbrella explanations! It is their recurring theme, post after post. They are merely proving who is the tallest dwarf.