STS 48 - Space Defense System? We need disclosure

Hey guys, I thought it was time to bring this video up again, since it's been awhile since I saw anything being released out of it.
On the one hand, we have some NASA people claiming it to be just ice particles, on the other hand we have the wildest theories of it being an earth defense system.

I made a new video about it for new people that haven't heard of it already or for the older generation, who want a refresh:



Some other interesting reading material about it:
Analysis of Mark J. Carlotto
Explanation from James Oberg - NASA Mission Control
Response to the analysis of James Oberg
STS-48: 15 years on


What are your thoughts?

a reply to: LifeTec

Your video has an error.

Please fix.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: LifeTec

Your video has an error.

Please fix.

Thanks man, small oversight! It's fixed now.

a reply to: LifeTec

I'd forgotten about this, thanks for reminding me!

It's definitely intriguing footage, for sure, and I'd agree that it looks to be some kind of weapon being deployed in response to 'their' presence,

I'm not saying that that's what it is, or that it's what I think it is, but I remain an open-minded sceptic, that's why most of us are here on ATS after all, speculation can be fun

S+F

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity
a reply to: LifeTec

I'd forgotten about this, thanks for reminding me!

It's definitely intriguing footage, for sure, and I'd agree that it looks to be some kind of weapon being deployed in response to 'their' presence,

I'm not saying that that's what it is, or that it's what I think it is, but I remain an open-minded sceptic, that's why most of us are here on ATS after all, speculation can be fun

S+F

Well, I'm not kidding that it really left an impact when I first saw it over 20 years ago. I mean, what are the changes for such a scenario to unfold, if it was just a rocket booster..

I can't speak for the NASA video, but the lasers shown in the still photo are not space weapons. As I recall they are lasers used to assist telescopes on focusing on a certain portion of the sky for astronomy purposes. Sort of like how a laser pointer would work, except on a much larger scale. If I recall correctly the lasers are used to help the telescopes ignore light pollution and other objects which might serve as distractions for the telescopes when they are trying to single out a distant object or area in space which may not be a source of light/energy itself.

As for the NASA video, it's interesting, but it could be a lot of things we're seeing.

ETA - I think what's more interesting about the video is not the objects moving and seemingly changing directions, but rather the apparent bursts vertically upward.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I can't speak for the NASA video, but the lasers shown in the still photo are not space weapons. As I recall they are lasers used to assist telescopes on focusing on a certain portion of the sky for astronomy purposes. Sort of like how a laser pointer would work, except on a much larger scale. If I recall correctly the lasers are used to help the telescopes ignore light pollution and other objects which might serve as distractions for the telescopes when they are trying to single out a distant object or area in space which may not be a source of light/energy itself.

As for the NASA video, it's interesting, but it could be a lot of things we're seeing.

Yeah I'm sorry for the confusion, I did not intend to say that those lasers where the actual weapon, I used them just as an example. But thanks for the clarification! Sounds very cool!

Great video.. that is the one that got me into the UFO stuff.

originally posted by: LifeTec
Well, I'm not kidding that it really left an impact when I first saw it over 20 years ago. I mean, what are the changes for such a scenario to unfold, if it was just a rocket booster..

Rocket booster?

What are you even talking about? Who said anything about a rocket booster?

This is what NASA said it shows and is exactly what it looks like to me, from the Jim Oberg source in the OP, page 6:

"The objects seen are Orbiter generated debris, illuminated by the sun...the flicker of light is the result of the firing of the attitude thrusters, on the Orbiter, and the abrupt motions of the particles result from the impact of gas jets from the thrusters."

People wonder why UFOlogy isn't taken seriously. Part of the reason I think is the lack of logic shown in people claiming what is seen is more than that. A Space Defense system? What? I don't even get the idea behind that thinking. Not that there aren't secret things going on in orbit, but I just don't see any conceivable evidence of them in this video and I see nothing wrong with NASA's explanation.

a reply to: LifeTec

Always worth revisiting.

I note that "Response to the analysis of James Oberg" by Mike Bara was written in 1997, BEFORE the detailed Purdue material I used in my debate with Stephen Greer.

Have at it!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the thrusters were fired the shuttle would move.

If the shuttle moved the camera angle would change.

Simply watching the video shows the camera and shuttle do not move.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the thrusters were fired the shuttle would move.

If the shuttle moved the camera angle would change.

Simply watching the video shows the camera and shuttle do not move.

So you didn't see page 21 of the OP link named "Explanation from James Oberg - NASA Mission Control", or you did see it but you didn't understand it? If the latter, what part don't you understand? How much movement do you expect to see? What's the smallest amount of movement you can detect and how would you detect that minimum amount, exactly?

a reply to: abe froman

Let's do the math. With some simplifying assumptions.

Vernier thruster has 20 lb-force 'push'

Shuttle mass 240,000 lb, use just the aft end, say 100,000 lbs

So G force of vernier thruster on aft end is 20/100000 = 2 x E-4 G = 6.4 E-3 ft/sec/sec

Thruster L5D fired for about 1-second per telemetry [that was the 'flash'].

Velocity induced on aft end by 1-sec firing: 6.4 x E-3 ft/sec

Distance travelled in two minutes [120 sec] = 8 inches MAX [if rotation was perpendicular to camera line-of-sight]

Line-of-sight was out over left wing, so tail thruster rotation was crosswise to line of sight and would have introduced frame rotation, not up-down motion.

Camera was approx. 30 ft from shuttle center of mass.

8 inch aft motion converts to about one degree in two minutes.

Frame movement rate == one half degree rotation, per minute.

Did that show up on the video?

Check my figures.

ADD -- measured induced angular rate from actual telemetry was 0.01 deg/sec, or 0.6 deg/minute -- right in the ballpark of the above derivation.

a reply to: JimOberg

Just to clarify, you won't necessarily see a rotation of 0.6° per minute after the thruster firing. If for example, the orbiter was rotating 0.6° per minute before the thruster firing, and the thruster invoked that amount of change in the rotation rate in a direction to cancel the previous rotation, the net result would be that the thruster firing stopped the previous rotation so you may get zero rotation after the thruster firing.

(Initial rotation rate)+(change in rotation rate from thruster firing)=(Final rotation rate)
0.6°/min - 0.6°/min = 0°/Min

So, you can't just look after the thruster firing to see if it induced rotation, you really need to compare before and after to see the difference if it's even possible to see such small changes on a camera with that resolution, which I doubt it is if you only compare a few seconds before to a few second after the thruster firing. If you compared longer time periods, a change in rotation may be apparent, but then you would also need to consider other thruster firings, beyond the range of the graph on page 21 of your Purdue report.

**sigh**

Everybody want's to be an astrophysicist.

How many people here worked for NASA? **raises hand** How many people worked on the Shuttle program? **raises hand**.

Here's the point; getting all analytical about something you see, whether you worked in the program or not, is pretty subjective and useless, UNLESS you were involved in the "actual" mission, and have first hand knowledge of the video being examined. You'd need to know where (exactly) it was taken from, for what reason, and why.

Did I work in orbital mechanics / physics? No, I worked on some important ground based systems. My hardhats have NASA stickers, missions and initiatives all over them. I'm not going to pass judgement on what this video is. I wasn't involved.

I've seen lot's of crazy stuff from the Shuttle missions. Most of the weird stuff we see now are just anomalies, as others have posited. "Space" is a hard place, and there are lots of things we see there which are not what we expect; not because they are unexpected, but rather because they aren't things people see every day.

I love it when someone quotes a mission manual page to edge their bet on knowledge. I can tell you I've seen enough NASA mission pages to gag 10,000 elephants; they're endless!

Yes, I'm rambling...but whether the craft rotated "0.06mm/sec" on and orbit at "232.679 miles" and an azimuth of "x.xxx.xxx" at "XX.XXZ" over the Eastern Pacific....honestly, is this really going to confirm or debunk a conversation here????

Sadly, I'm old, and I can't pee very high on the wall anymore. I can still pee, just not very high.

My .02

ETA - Sorry, just opining about actually working in the program. I didn't get involved until '51', and I was very involved in STS-51L...most people will know this as..."Challenger".

I've seen lot's of smart guys go down for political reasons. I've seen an investigation like none other ever conducted...and it continues to this day. No, I didn't work for Morton Thiokol, but we worked closely with them. January 28th, 1986 changed my life; it changed everyone's life.

I used to have the modern NASA logo on my hardhat(s), but now I have removed them. Only the "worm" logo remains.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
…...but whether the craft rotated "0.06mm/sec" on and orbit at "232.679 miles" and an azimuth of "x.xxx.xxx" at "XX.XXZ" over the Eastern Pacific....honestly, is this really going to confirm or debunk a conversation here????
….

It is a VERY common meme on UFO discussion boards that the absence of any apparent angular motion in the video is a disproof that a thruster fired to cause the objects to change direction. So begging your pardon, but a quantitative assessment of expected induced angular rates of the proposed 'solution' theory [jet L5D firing] seems a constructive approach to resolution of a specific fact-based point in dispute.

The other critical issue subject to analysis is the range to the dots. Knowledge of the solar illumination conditions and the location of the invisible shadow zone within the camera field-of-view can cast light [literally] on that issue as well. The shuttle had just risen into sunlight, it was pointing its camera 'down-sun', and close small objects were still in its shadow until they drifted far enough away to 'appear'. Bizarre and unearthly, to be sure -- alien, not necessarily.

BTW thanks for your service in the space program, and especially re 'Challenger'. I was in Houston for that, I knew all the crew.

a reply to: LifeTec

That is definitely a high energy plasma or railgun projectile that the object avoided - narrowly.

I wonder if the US reverse engineered these thing's or found the remains of similar elsewhere on the planet - or if it is just a re-evolution of an ancient AND obviously failed ancient technology that failed to defend a former advanced civilization perhaps one that was well ahead of us and whose ruins may litter our solar system today.


mysteriousuniverse.org...
coolinterestingstuff.com...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Think about that, a more advanced civilization may have failed to defend THERE earth and other worlds, did the aliens use beings that could masquerade as human to gain positions of power, did they deliberately leave a few survivors some in jungles (or were they more interested in taking the refined resources than finishing off the destitute survivors of there overwhelmingly successful attack - obviously they did not destroy the planet because they wanted those resources that were already refined for them) that though inbred eventually became the ancestors of the CroMagnon and some whom hid in caves and the remains of there destroyed world hiding while the enemy who or whatever they were picked clean the bones of there civilization for refined materials (perhaps even for a time using survivors as slaves) only in time to mutate into stocky short hunch backed neanderthal's doomed to die out as there cousins were destined to take over.

Or could this just be a case of rumor echoing reality and the US actually creating something similar to something that ancient people's believed already existed though they attribute there imaginary defense system to god's or aliens instead of there ancient ancestors.

a reply to: LABTECH767

All theories start out viable, the wilder the better. Then they get tested against observed facts.

How does your theory account for the measurable fact that the nearby dots became sunlit at the same time as the shuttle emerged from Earth's shadow?

How does your theory account for the measurable fact that the instant the objects changed direction, and the flash, occurred in precisely the 1.2 second interval when telemetry records show thruster L5D fired in response to the autopilot detecting the shuttle's drift to the edge of the allowable pointing deadband?

Give it your best shot, please.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Give it your best shot, please. Take your time.