For the record, here's the development of the level of checks that spaceflight workers were willing to make to figure out some of the knottier
anomalies Jeff championed [this. on STS-112]. This level of effort soon ceased when Jeff showed his determination to remain defiantly resistant to any
prosaic explanbations.
From: JimO (
[email protected])
Subject: How find archive -- STS-112 'UFO' video discussion
Date: 2004-07-01 12:55:23 PST
A couple of years ago there was a very productive discussion here about allegations from Dr. Oren Swearingen that some video from STS-112 showed a
UFO. I've forgotten how to locate the archives of sci.space.shuttle and retrieve those messages. Please advise me...
Message 2 in thread
From: Jason A. Ciastko (
[email protected])
Date: 2004-07-01 13:09:25 PST
Hi Jim,
groups.google.com...
Click on search group and type in your keywords. Good luck.
Message 3 in thread
From: Jorge R. Frank (
[email protected])
Date: 2004-07-01 21:53:08 PST
The SSRMS was the initial theory, but it was actually determined
to be the shadow of an ISS solar array moving across a radiator on the payload bay door.
There were three threads on the subject; here are links to the articles that started them:
1.
www.google.com...
2.
www.google.com...
3.
www.google.com...
(Watch word wrap.)
Thread 1.
From: James Oberg (
[email protected])
Subject: New Challender STS UFO 'Disk' -- an elbow?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle, alt.alien.visitors, sci.skeptic, alt.astronomy
Date: 2003-01-23 15:38:44 PST
JimO Introduction: Jeff Challender is the ‘shuttle UFO’ enthusiast recently
sympathetically profiled in a local newspaper [not found Dec 2010]
(
www.sacbee.com...)
who also appeared on the ‘Jeff Rense’ radio talk show [not found Dec 2010]
(
www.rense.com...).
His colleague Oren Swearingen’s latest claim to UFO fame was
detecting a ‘UFO fleet’ shadowing the space station at night,
that turned out to be the set of tracking reflectors on one of the station
modules.
This is their latest – and in Challender’s words – best ‘disk’ discovery,
posted on an interesting British UFO site specializing in space cases.
STS-112 – The “Disk” Sequence (posted Jan 19, 2003)
yorkshireufoinfo.homestead.com... [not found Dec 2010]
On 7 October 2002, Shuttle Atlantis lifted off from Cape Canaveral at 2:46PM CDT bound for a rendezvous and docking with the International Space
Station. This flight saw the onboard ISS Expedition 5 Crew hand over the station to the fresh Expedition 6 Crew.
Dr. Oren Swearingen, a skillful and dedicated colleague, and good friend of mine, recorded the entire flight from his home. For three months, it
appeared that all had been normal during this mission. Neither the Doctor, nor I noticed anything out of the ordinary after perusing all of our
videotapes.
All that changed during the second week of January 2003. Dr. Swearingen was taking a second look, when his tape #12 revealed what seemed to be a disk
shaped object retreating slowly behind the cradle of Atlantis' robot arm. The Dr. made a copy of the incident, and mailed it to me here in
California.
It arrived in my mailbox on 17 January 2003. That evening, I began watching this tape and, at first, saw nothing unusual. THEN, upon rewinding, I
notice motion under the arm cradle. I ran the tape again, and again, to observe the disk-like object. I became more convinced with each re-run that
this was not part of Atlantis, the ISS, nor anything normally seen that I could think of. What made the object so easy to miss is the fact that it
moves as slowly as the minute hand on a clock. In real time, the event takes a full 95 seconds to unfold. The anomaly disappears so slowly behind the
arm cradle, that unless one is paying very careful attention, it would most likely go unnoticed.
This object is no mere "dot" displaying enigmatic behavior. This object has what appears to be structure, including a bump on the upper facing
surface resembling a cupola or dome. Shadowing on the object is consistent with shadows on Atlantis, and her robotic arm. Lighting on the anomalous
object is in line with the Solar angle. It has none of the appearance of ice particles, or escaped debris. It displays none of the tumbling usually
associated with such bits of flotsam either. In point of fact, it is extremely stable throughout the entire time it is visible.
This object made its debut on flight day 4, at approximately MET (Mission Elapsed Time) 003 days 03 hours 41 minutes, Orbit 51. At this time, the
Shuttle/Station complex was sailing high over Nova Scotia at circa 5:00 PM (17:00) CDT. The event took place on 10 October 2002.
Never before have I seen an anomaly so close, or so structured in appearance. An added boon for the observer is that this event happened in broad
daylight as well. The STS-112 "Disk Sequence" is the best, and most compelling, anomalous NASA event this observer has ever seen. Hats off to Dr.
Oren Swearingen of the great state of Texas, for his diligence, and
persistence. Thank you Doctor.
======
JimO resumes narrative.
I don’t see a ‘disk’, I see the elbow of the RMS as it moves back to cradle after providing TV views of the EVA. But then, our perceptions are
probably shaped by our experiences.
STS-112 launched at 3:46 PM EDT on October 07, 2002. Challender says that
Swearingen’s event was at MET 3d 03h 41m, orbit 51, at about 5 PM CDT (6 PM
EDT). If you add the MET to the launch time you get 7:27 PM EDT.
After the docking the previous day, the activities on October 10 started
with grappling a truss section using the station arm, and docking it in
place at 9:36 AM EDT. The crew began their EVA at 11:21 AM EDT, more than an
hour late, and it took them 7h 01m to complete. They closed their airlock at
6:22 PM EDT.
During the EVA, Jeff Ashby maneuvered the STS RMS to provide ‘overhead’ TV
views of the crew activity. Once the EVA was over Ashby berthed the STS RMS.
I suggest that the video in question shows the STS RMS moving into berthing
position, and that Swearingen and Challender confused which arm was which,
and then used their imaginations to watch an RMS elbow and ‘see’ a ‘disk’.
From: Kim Keller (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-23 19:26:59 PST
I'd like to agree with you, but the arm is definitely not moving; it is already berthed. The sill of the payload bay and the arm retention latches
provide good reference for that. The object, whatever it is, is not a disk. Magnification shows the shape to be a right angle, but I don't know what
it could be beyond that. There is a visibly changing sun angle that could possibly have some bearing on the matter. The camera view is looking
forward, up the port side of the payload bay. Possibly some piece of the station? SSRMS moving?
From: Joe Bob Hankey (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-23 20:16:10 PST
Frankly, it doesn't look like a disk at all. If you look closely, the arm (or whatever) is either a circle with nothing in the center (I suppose
some might call that a disk), or, more likely, a square-like structure (some sort of arm or door). Also, if you look closely enough, you'll see a
glimpse of its shadow underneath, indicating that it appears to be closer to the arm than is another part of the shuttle. Either these are miniature
aliens, or it's a piece of the ship.
Personally, I think it is a square door/structure/whatever-piece-of-the-shuttle moving backwards from the vantage point of the camera.
From: James Oberg (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-24 07:41:06 PST
Thanks, Kim, I'm still confused by what modules we are seeing and which camera is being used. What's your view on this?
From: Chris Bennetts (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-24 14:07:45 PST
I'm with Kim on this, it looks like the SSRMS.
The big thing in the foreground is the shuttle RMS, with two retention latches visible, and the portside payload bay sill visible in the lower
right corner of the shots. It's easy to identify the end of the RMS at left, which means we are looking from the aft end of the payload bay forwards,
and a little to the port side.
The camera is either mounted on the aft bulkhead of the payload bay with plenty of zoom in use, or (less likely) on the end of the arm itself. I
think some of the cameras on the arm can be aimed by the crew on the flight deck, but I don't think there is a camera on the RMS that close to the
end, so I'm more confident that the camera was on the bulkhead.
I consider the first frame in the sequence to be the most useful for identifying the object. It's clearly a white boom (especially looking at the
enlargements of the object further down the page), with an abrupt corner at the left end. The more I look at it, the more certain I become that it is
the SSRMS elbow joint and nearby boom sections.
From: James Oberg (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-24 14:54:09 PST
Chris and Kim, I'm with you on this now -- the perspective has fallen into place. We're not seeing ANY ISS structure in this view, except maybe
that ' Now let's hear from the original sponsors.
Methinks we need to find out exactly where the SSRMS was at the time. If the UFO nuts learn the SSRMS wasn't anywhere near the FOV at the time,
they'll claim a "victory" they don't deserve.
From: Kim Keller (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-25 08:23:32 PST
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote > Well, except for the minority opinion that it's
> a shadow moving over part of the shuttle (port payload bay door radiator).
I don't think that payload bay camera has the view angle to image the deployed orbiter radiator. What do you think?
I now doubt the SSRMS would appear there or in that form. I'm leaning toward a moving shadow, but I can't figure out what surface it might be moving
along.
From: Jorge R. Frank (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-25 09:45:04 PST
"Kim Keller" wrote > I don't think that payload bay camera has the view angle to image the deployed orbiter radiator. What do you think?
I've seen it enough in the simulators to know it's true, but it should be easy enough to prove geometrically:
Coordinates of
Camera B eyepoint: [1294, -87.5, 446] in
Payload bay sill: [576, -105, 420] to [1307, -105, 420] in
Aft tip of deployed port radiator: [941, -232, 412] in
Since the sill runs at a constant yo = -105 in, that makes the math easy; just find where the line of sight from camera B to the radiator crosses yo =
105. If zo > 420 at that point, the line of sight is above the sill, so the radiator is visible. Otherwise, it's below the sill. Running the numbers,
I get [1251, -105, 441]. 441 > 420, so it should be visible.
Also, the pan/tilt angles corresponding to this line-of-sight are [-22,-5], well within the capabilities of the pan-tilt unit.
Of course, these numbers represent a fairly lo-fi model of the orbiter (note to JimO: it's the wireframe model from the old SMARTS simulator), and
the visibility would change if the radiator were not fully deployed.
I've got some SMS time Monday morning; if I get a few spare minutes I'll see if I can replicate the camera view from the website (first I gotta find
someone who knows how to deploy the radiators and roll out the MPMs... I already know how to operate the cameras...).
> I now doubt the SSRMS would appear there or in that form. I'm leaning toward a moving shadow, but I can't figure out what surface it might be
moving along.
Agreed about the SSRMS. The sharp angle at the left end of the object doesn't appear to be changing, so the arm would have to be in pure translation
without joint rotation. But the only way that could happen is if the arm was motionless on the MBS, and the MT was translating, and I don't think the
arm would be visible that far down if it was on the MBS. If it was on the lab PDGF, it might be visible, but I doubt it could move in the manner
shown on the video: since one end is fixed to the lab, you can't translate the other end without joint rotation.
From: Jorge R. Frank (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-27 17:30:07 PST
Following up on my own post...
There wasn't anybody handy at the SMS at the time who knew how to operate the radiators and the arm. I could have called someone over, but didn't
want to bother for something like this. Fortunately, at least the MPMs were rolled out, so I pointed camera B in the general direction anyway, just to
see what I could see. I was slightly surprised to see the radiator anyway, even though it was stowed against the payload bay door. Moreover, it was in
precisely the same position relative to the EVA slidewire as the "UFO".
Running the numbers, I shouldn't have been surprised. The coordinates of the tip of the stowed radiator are [941, -210, 343] in, so the intercept at
yo = 105 in was [1243, -105, 431] in. Since 431 > 420, the radiator should be visible from camera B in the stowed position.
A picture's worth a thousand words, but unfortunately, the SMS has no "screen capture" capability. Luckily, I had a class to teach at the SES this
afternoon (which uses the same scene generator as the SMS, just no capability to deploy the radiators had I needed to). After the class, I replicated
Challender's image as closely as I could. It's not exactly identical, what with manual camera control, the different orbital lighting conditions,
and the lack of model-to-model shadowing capability, but it's close enough.
The screen capture (link below) shows camera B zoomed at around 40 degrees, panned left about 25 degrees, and tilted down about 5 degrees. The MPMs
are rolled out, the RMS is stowed, and the payload bay doors are fully open with the radiators stowed. Comparing this image to the image on
Challender's website, it's clear that the "disk" is actually just a sliver of sunlit radiator as the shadow of ISS moves forward along it. This is
consistent with the attitude of the shuttle/ISS stack at the time (mated TEA, with the orbiter belly facing the velocity vector, tail facing the Earth
and ISS trailing along the negative velocity vector) and the reported time of the video (orbital afternoon, with the sun therefore near the negative
velocity vector, so that ISS would cast shadows on the orbiter).
www.hal-pc.org...
yorkshireufoinfo.homestead.com...
Case closed: the UFO is an "IFR" (Identified Flying Radiator).
From: Kim Keller (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-27 19:31:35 PST
Bravo, Jorge! Well done!
From: James Oberg (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-28 06:08:29 PST
Bravissimo!
This was, I think, a genuinely 'enigmatic' image, and I appreciate the response. Most of these visuals, it's obvious what causes them. Once and
awhile, one comes along that is a head-scratcher. But I think it's legit to wonder about such cases. My concern in the mid-1990's was the hazard to
ISS of ISS-generated debris, including ice, insulation blankets, wiring harness
flakes, dropped tools, etc., that threatened both recontact (as with Exp-2's experience) damage (windows and solar arrays mainly) and mechanical
fouling. I did a lot of far-ranging reading, including UFO files, to see the scope of previous activity, but I couldn't get the issue raised very
high (there WERE more serious hazards attracting a lot more effort).
I also recalled a document from 1970 when Apollo engineers studied exactly the same issue, regarding 'sightings' out the window. These were called
'moon pigeons'. The report is linked here:
members.aol.com...
From: Blue Resonant Human, Ph.D. (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-28 17:43:05 PST
[ufo nonsense snipped]
From: Kaido Kert (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-24 04:36:08 PST
[anti-ufo nonsense snipped]
From: Eric Dennison (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-24 07:52:45 PST
Isn't this a forward view from the aft orbiter bulkhead, port side, aiming slightly down and to port?
If so, doesn't that suggest that no station components would be in view?
And wouldn't that position, and obvious motions of other shadows, suggest that all we're seeing is the shadow of some station component as it
creeps along the orbiter's port radiator?
From: James Oberg (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-24 14:55:45 PST
We need to work some computer models to map out the geometry, thanks for the suggestion!
From: Jorge R. Frank (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-24 16:00:17 PST
I think you're [Dennison] the first one to get it right so far.
This is a view from the aft bulkhead, portside camera (Camera B), looking forward, panned left, and most likely zoomed in quite a bit. The
structure running left-to-right across the picture is the shuttle RMS: wrist joint at the left, lower arm at the right. The two structures running
vertically from the arm at the center and right-hand side of the view are the MPMs that secure the arm to the payload bay. The payload bay sill itself
is visible to the lower right, and the EVA slidewire can be seen in the background running lower-left to middle-right.
Given those facts, the only thing in the background should be the port payload bay door radiator. There is no ISS structure that could possibly
be that low in the FOV. The radiator is not "moving" to the right; a shadow (most likely ISS structure) is advancing forward along the radiator and
obscuring it from sunlight. This would be consistent with the orbiter/ISS stack being in mated TEA attitude (orbiter on the ISS velocity vector, with
the stack pitched up ~20 degrees), and the video being shot during orbital afternoon. That is consistent with the reported local time on the ground
during the shot (5:00 PM in Nova Scotia).
The picture at the bottom of the website is pathetic. It shows a view of the station arm (SSRMS) in an attempt to prove that the structure in
question could not have been part of the shuttle arm (SRMS).
In my opinion, the author of the website saw a "disc" because he expected to see a "disc."
From: James Oberg (
[email protected])
Subject: STS-112 Enigmatic Image -- A Prosaic Explanation
Date: 2003-01-28 10:08:42 PST
I highly recommend this analysis of the enigmatic STS 112 visual anomaly. It's at:
home.earthlink.net... [no longer valid]
From: Jorge R. Frank (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-28 19:30:38 PST
Very impressive, especially the analysis of lighting and shadows which my analysis didn't cover in detail.
From: Jon S. Berndt (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-28 22:00:06 PST
This was the first I had seen of the picture in question. It *is* a thorough analysis of what the image doesn't show. But I could not have been
more underwhelmed with the "UFO". Is *this* what all the discussion has been about!? What a waste of bandwidth...
From: James Oberg (
[email protected])
Subject: STS-112 Anomaly -- NOT Solved, Says Viewer
Date: 2003-01-30 14:44:57 PST
Jeff Challender is claiming that the shadow on the radiator can't be the solution of his 'moving V' UFO.
www.projectprove.com... [no longer valid]
"The consensus of opinion on the most likely cause for this apparition seems to be that it must be a reflection of some part of the International
Space Station from the surface of one of the two onboard radiators. The first question that comes to mind regarding this conclusion is: If this is
ISSy being reflected from the concave surface of one of the radiators, which can be assumed is not moving relative to the payload bay camera, then
what IS causing the motion. ... It was very near Sunset, but that shouldn't cause the image to move, since the assumed source, ISSy, was static. The
radiator/reflection hypothesis does not explain the motion."
JimO: I believe the consensus is that this is a moving shadow on the radiator, not the reflection of some other piece of the ISS. Can anyone
confirm or deny? I don't recall any serious suggestion that the image is a specular reflection off a shiny radiator, but that appears to be the
explanation that Jeff is attempting to refute. The motion appears to be consistent with the motion of other shadows in the sped-up sequence (which
actually took about 90 seconds, I think I recall).
JimO: Jeff's first picture has a camera view not from the aft bulkhead of the payload bay, as he first presented, but from the FORWARD bulkhead,
and a photograph out one of the two windows. But it does support his point that the doors and radiator are not visible in these scenes.
But if you go to
home.earthlink.net... [no longer valid] you will see images from an aft CCTV that clearly show
the radiator. So one wonders why Jeff's images don't show the radiator.
From: Jorge R. Frank (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-30 16:15:04 PST
> JimO: I believe the consensus is that this is a moving shadow on the
> radiator, not the reflection of some other piece of the ISS. Can
> anyone confirm or deny?
That's correct. The bright part is reflected sunlight off the radiator, the
dark part is the shadow of some part of ISS.
> The motion appears to be consistent with the motion of other shadows in the
> sped-up sequence (which actually took about 90 seconds, I think I recall).
Also correct. At the time, the shuttle-ISS stack was in mated TEA attitude. This is an LVLH (Earth-oriented) attitude, so the stack was rotating (with
respect to the sun) at the orbital rate (360 deg/~90 min) = ~4 deg/min. So, near orbital sunset, one would expect the shadow of ISS to creep forward
along the orbiter, just like it does in the video. The rate depends on just how far the shadowing structure is from the payload bay. If (for example)
the shadowing structure was the port SM solar array (~120 feet from the payload bay), one would expect the shadow to advance forward at about 8
ft/min, or 12 ft during the course of the 90-second ideo.
> JimO: Jeff's first picture has a camera view not from the aft bulkhead
> of the payload bay, as he first presented, but from the FORWARD
> bulkhead, and a photograph out one of the two windows. But it does
> support his point that the doors and radiator are not visible in these scenes.
> But if you go to
home.earthlink.net...
> you will see images from an aft CCTV that clearly show the radiator.
> So one wonders why Jeff's images don't show the radiator.
Jeff's images don't show the radiator because the bulkhead windows are significantly *inboard* from the bulkhead cameras. The fact that the
doors/radiators are not visible *from the windows* does *not* support his point that they would not be visible *from camera B*.
Let's run the numbers ("if you can't say it with numbers, it's opinion, not science."):
Port bulkhead window: [560, -15, 480] in (center of window)
Aft tip of stowed port radiator: [941, -210, 343] in
Payload bay sill: [576, -105, 420] to [1307, -105, 420] in
Running the numbers, I get the yo=105 intercept = [736, -105, 417] in. 417 < 420, so one would not expect the radiator to be visible through the
window. Jeff is comparing apples to oranges.
The other points he attempts to make are similarly wrong. For example, the reason why the radiator doesn't appear to be corrugated is because the
payload bay cameras have a much lower resolution than the still photos he's comparing them with.
From: James Oberg (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-30 21:47:34 PST
Jorge's point about the angle of view (from the camera versus the observation window) over the edge of the sill is well taken. It's like the
visibility of the wing of a 747 out the window from the passenger seats. Seats near the outer edge can peer 'over' the sill line and see down to the
wing; seats in the center of the aircraft, even if the passenger is standing, may not be able to peer down at a sharp enough angle to see the
wings.
A good view of the layout of the forward payload bay bulkhead is found at
www.floridatoday.com...
and
images.jsc.nasa.gov... [not valid]
The camera is the boxy gizmo on the gold-colored platform, just to the left
of the boom-mounted dish antenna on the right sill.
A view of the entire length of the empty bay is at
www.jsc.nasa.gov...
The aft bulkhead is shown here
images.jsc.nasa.gov...
and the camera seems to be a little farther outboard than on the forward bulkhead. Notice its relation to a line dropped vertically from the second
payload door trunnion.
View from inside the Orbiter flight deck aft station is at
history.nasa.gov...
where commander's station is at left, and observer/photographer is at right.
From: Jorge R. Frank (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-31 07:45:07 PST
"James Oberg" wrote
> The aft bulkhead is shown here and the camera seems to be
> a little farther outboard than on the forward bulkhead.
Correct. The aft cameras are 16 inches further outboard than the forward cameras (so it's not proper to use cameras A/D as proof/disproof of
radiator visibility from cameras B/C).
From: James Oberg (
[email protected])
Date: 2003-01-31 14:47:10 PST
Here's his [Challender’s] latest "My Position" -- his eyes and mind are firmly closed to
any prosaic explanation:
projectprove.com...
---