UFO detected near ISS and NASA cut transmission!

reply to post by tarifa37


Not a "booster" just an attitude control thruster. They fire frequently, and their plumes will move small particles around, like the little bits of ice that frequently are found in the orbiter environment..

There are all kinds of reasons why the transmission would stop that are completely ordinary.

So, I don't think we have an interesting anomaly here.

reply to post by franspeakfree

The object clearly changes direction, meaning that it must be intelligently controlled....

No, not that it "must be".

There have been pointed out several perfectly plausible explanations already. Bits of debris that are nearby the Space Shuttle environment are prone to be affected by any number of influences that come from the Shuttle itself. A tiny release of any gas that affected that small piece of debris would cause that exact same change in motion seen i the video.

I agree. If this thread has attracted Oberg...& in full hostile mode, it must be more than ordinary space ice. It certainly looks like a UFO changing direction.

/me cracks his knuckles....

reply to post by Arken


Yeah, Great Video....

Very interesting.

reply to post by tarifa37

Otherwise was it an ice particle that changed direction due to a booster being fired.

That thing at the top of the video (the big circular thing) isn't attached to the space shuttle, in fact, it was probably just released FROM the space shuttle.

IF the thrusters are firing, why isn't that moving too?

reply to post by Qumulys

I'd suggest the apparent change in trajectory of it is due to the craft rotating (camera is fixed on it).

Again, No... we have a Stationary object in the frame for Reference on any movements of the space shuttle (The satellite thing at the top)

IF the shuttle fired it's thrusters, THAT satellite at the top of the frame would have begun moving in the frame also.

says, its movement is caused by being in the path of a booster.

Boosters point outward from the space shuttle, not inward....

reply to post by ILikeStars

take a grain of sand.... .... Will it change it's trajectory?

The change of trajectory was not instantaneous.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


This was already explained, earlier:

IF the thrusters are firing, why isn't that moving too?

A very, very short (milliseconds) burst of gas ejection, from a thruster, or any other source is not going to appreciably move a mass as large as the Shuttle. It will, however, have a proportionally greater effect on a tiny piece of debris.

Which is what's seen in the video.

I am not sure that "object" should even be called a *UFO* at all. "Unidentified", surely...until it can be ascertained what it actually is. (Ice particle is the most likely culprit).

"Object" also a fact. It has mass and substance. "Flying"? Not so much. Orbiting...or even "floating" in the vernacular. Not technically accurate, but illustrative at least.

SO, better to call it a "UO" seen near the Space Shuttle. Actually, there are many, many, many such examples from the thousands of hours of orbital footage obtained during the Shuttle Program. And yes, even some non-linear motion of the debris, as forces acted upon them. Many of the released gas and such is not visible in the normal spectrum.

small object out of range for a closer idientification with probably a fake cut...

NEXT!!!

but keep digging, by showing such video others post their videos and/or additional information and so every video is important =) like the chinese one that got posted here...
ty OP

Could it be space debris floating around and light reflecting off of the debris?

reply to post by ProudBird

A very, very short (milliseconds) burst of gas ejection, from a thruster, or any other source is not going to appreciably move a mass as large as the Shuttle. It will, however, have a proportionally greater effect on a tiny piece of debris.

Are you suggesting that the "Debris" had thrusters?

That sounds like a UFO to me...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

That thing at the top of the video (the big circular thing) isn't attached to the space shuttle, in fact, it was probably just released FROM the space shuttle.

IF the thrusters are firing, why isn't that moving too?

IF the shuttle fired it's thrusters, THAT satellite at the top of the frame would have begun moving in the frame also.

The value of these conversations is that when intelligent people with conflicting interpretations of an issue are patient and thorough enough to explain their reasoning, as you did, then other people can identify where are flaws in the reasoning or assumptions may be, that lead two different people to two opposite conclusions.

And fix them.

Because you made that contribution, all open-minded folks reading this [and you others, you know who I'm referring to] can learn to improve their models of reality and consequently the judgments they make in the future based on those models.

Space is so unearthly, literally, that interpreting or interpolating its realities using only earthside experience can frequently be misleading. This is such a case.

Your main concept, that a shuttle can significantly disturb or contaminate a satellite over its payload bay by firing some orientation thrusters, is exactly correct. Firing an up-pointed thruster in the nose or tail, say, during the period when approaching or receding from the Hubble telescope, could foul its solar arrays or even its mirror [although it did close a door over the optics during this phase].

So the shuttle developed specific autopilot software to avoid direct upwards blasts.

But amazingly, a thruster's plume is not narrowly focussed directly out its nozzle. More than half of the exhaust departs at angles more than 30 degrees off centerline -- because it's firing in a vacuum and even the slight sideways motion isn't stopped by anything, as it would be in an atmosphere. There's measurable plume effects even more than 90 degrees off centerline -- just not enough to disturb or dirty a massive payload over the bay.

So side-firing jets, or forward/aft jets, do momentarily fill half the sky with 'push', too gentle for a payload to react to, but plenty forceful enough to entrain a snowflake or ice chip and change its motion.

This is exactly what happened on the notorious STS-48 zig-zag video, when the L5D thruster fired [the left pod, manifold 5 (vernier), down-firing] and a small but thick enough residue bounced off the left elevon and enveloped some mid-nearby dandruff particles.

And if the RCS firing tables for this interval of interest were obtained, that's what I'd expect them to show.

But when these videos are usually posted on youtube, as you've noticed, the posters do not provide enough information to determine the exact interval, or even the exact mission, or in Arken's case, even the actual space vehicle involved.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


No.

Are you suggesting that the "Debris" had thrusters?

Don't know how you got that out of what I wrote.

So where is the thruster that is pushing it? The object moves inwards towards where the thrusters would be. How is that possible? You'd expect to see the object veer off to the right instead of left. There is nothing to the right of the object that can push it.

The shield is detached from the arm, so it's basically free floating. If thrusters are applied to the main craft, then you will see the shield move off to the left in relation with the object in question.

If it's a thruster moving the object, then why is it that you don't see a flash of light? The thruster would HAVE to be in view to be able to move the object in question, because the object is in full view the entire time.

There is still nothing here to really write home about. It is an object, and it does move in a curious manner, but that's all. I would say this is probably just a piece of debris, but I don't buy the thruster explanation

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

 

No.

Are you suggesting that the "Debris" had thrusters?

Don't know how you got that out of what I wrote.

Because the object is pushed towards the station, not away from it. There is nothing on the right of the object that could push it. That's why.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Because the object is pushed towards the station, not away from it. There is nothing on the right of the object that could push it. That's why.

What station? If you can't even get the vehicle right, much less provide the activity context, lighting conditions, and -- by the way -- the comments of the on-scene witnesses, how can you make any defense of this item as evidence for anything extraordinary?

Re your expectation that a thruster that's out of the camera's field of view should make a flash across the sky, you DO realize this image was made in the vacuum of space where there's no medium to be lit up by any flash, right? If you keep applying earthside thinking to unearthly scenes, you will continue to misinterpret them and sink deeper into error.

Once and awhile, hot plume flow -- especially when the burn is starting or stopping and the propellant mixture is slightly off so there's an unburned residue -- the flare can be seen because you are seeing the actual super-heated material as it flows past the camera at 10,000 ft/sec. But as those who have actually watched hundreds, if not thousands of hours of such videos know and testify, that's very rare. Usually the drifting dandruff just turns.

Also, you can't define, as you seem to think you can, the direction of the movement along the camera's line of sight. Without knowledge of range, you can't tell the difference between something moving toward or away from you. If you imagine you CAN, your imagination is deceiving you, and your intellect is allowing that to happen.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning in detail so we can diagnose your reality-lapses, and help you correct them to better interpret these types of videos.

The video looks really old, definatly shot on film why has it just been picked up now? and also that cut to noise is totally dubious.

Definitely some intelligence behind the maneuvering of that object.

reply to post by JimOberg

Re your expectation that a thruster that's out of the camera's field of view should make a flash across the sky, you DO realize this image was made in the vacuum of space where there's no medium to be lit up by any flash, right?

Reaction engines can be characterized by their thermal properties....

Since all reaction engines use a form of mass to provide the reaction, there will be mass expelled from the reaction engine.

Furthermore, since the vernier thrusters on the Space Transport Shuttle use Chemical Rockets to achieve their thrust, the spectrum of light coming from the Chemical + Oxygen reaction would necessarily be visible EVEN IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE.

Point of Fact, The provided Video.

Thusly, Your point is, in fact, Incorrect.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Because the object is pushed towards the station, not away from it. There is nothing on the right of the object that could push it. That's why.

What station? If you can't even get the vehicle right, much less provide the activity context, lighting conditions, and -- by the way -- the comments of the on-scene witnesses, how can you make any defense of this item as evidence for anything extraordinary?

Re your expectation that a thruster that's out of the camera's field of view should make a flash across the sky, you DO realize this image was made in the vacuum of space where there's no medium to be lit up by any flash, right? If you keep applying earthside thinking to unearthly scenes, you will continue to misinterpret them and sink deeper into error.

Once and awhile, hot plume flow -- especially when the burn is starting or stopping and the propellant mixture is slightly off so there's an unburned residue -- the flare can be seen because you are seeing the actual super-heated material as it flows past the camera at 10,000 ft/sec. But as those who have actually watched hundreds, if not thousands of hours of such videos know and testify, that's very rare. Usually the drifting dandruff just turns.

Also, you can't define, as you seem to think you can, the direction of the movement along the camera's line of sight. Without knowledge of range, you can't tell the difference between something moving toward or away from you. If you imagine you CAN, your imagination is deceiving you, and your intellect is allowing that to happen.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning in detail so we can diagnose your reality-lapses, and help you correct them to better interpret these types of videos.

Lol. What's this then?


I stopped reading after that remark. If you wanna discuss this civilly, then by all means do so. Otherwise, quit getting butt-hurt by speculations. That's all.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


You may wish to do some more research into the actual propellants used on the Shuttle:

Furthermore, since the vernier thrusters on the Space Transport Shuttle use Chemical Rockets to achieve their thrust, the spectrum of light coming from the Chemical + Oxygen reaction would necessarily be visible EVEN IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE.

Because, you wrote "oxygen" up there. We'll come back to that in a moment. I don't profess to know as much as Jim Oberg regarding all the details of the Shuttle, but I am able to do my own research and study from what's available online. Rather than "guessing" or assuming.

In the video from YouTube, you have to realize that the instance of visual indications of any thruster firing are dependent on the lighting conditions at the time. Even tiny, microscopic particles can be illuminated by the Sun, and become very evident against a dark background, such as space.

But, those same particles would be "washed out" visually in other angles and lighting conditions.

Now....the propellats used on the Shuttle for the verniers are hypergolic.

The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4)

Yes, oxygen is a component in the compound there.

Hydrazine is a clear, nitrogen/hydrogen compound with a "fishy" smell. It is similar to ammonia. Nitrogen tetroxide is a reddish fluid. It has a pungent, sweetish smell. Both fluids are highly toxic, and are handled under the most stringent safety conditions. .....

.....The Space Shuttle orbiter uses hypergols in its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem (OMS) for orbital insertion, major orbital maneuvers and deorbit. The Reaction Control System (RCS) uses hypergols for attitude control.

Source


Here is another source, a huge "wall of text" to wade through, but should be very, very informative as a result:

REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM

The above section is contained here, in the NSTS 1988 News Reference Manual

Wow thats very interesting! thanks for showing ! who knows what it is really, I hope it is "out of this world!"

maybe then the governments will accept ET's and Other energy sources, but then again it cant see that happening any time soon with any Major interaction.

Originally posted by heineken

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by heineken
reply to post by Arken

 

where is the 90 deg turn?

At 0:35 sec turn. change direction and speed.


Maybe not 90 deg, 75...72... 38... deg?

the fact is that...removing the 90 DEG TURN!!! and the FAKE TRANSMISSION CUT all we are left with is some debris in space reflecting sun light

Maybe, maybe not. the fact is, we just don't know what it is, everyone's opinion is pure speculation. No one on here can give a true answer on what it really is. It could be aliens, it could be an ice crystal, but no one can say "this is for sure what it is" either way, if you keep an open mind to all opinions it sure makes you think.