NASA UFO STS-120 External Fuel Tank

PROPHESY>>>

Originally posted by jainatorres
The debunker's have their own laws of physics completely seperate to the rest of creation. In their world ice crystals turn under their own power and shoot off in different directions *shrugs*

PROPHESY FULFILLED>>>

Originally posted by die_another_day
I think the ice is falling at a slower rate than the fuel tank.

And this I truly don't understand...

If it's the ice i suppose i could be opaque and large enough to create a shuttle.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by angst18
Also, this could very very easily be a structural mooring instrument, as someone else suggested.

Well that would be easy... NASA has all the parts online Please show me 'a structural mooring instrument' that resembles this object, and explain why it would be discarded if it is indeed 'a structural mooring instrument'

I actually have a physics test on just this thing tomorrow.

Good luck on that physics test... your going to need it

[edit on 1-11-2007 by zorgon]

reply to post by angst18


this is what we need find then

altitude/ time at which this fuel tank is jettisoned ,
+
time that this incident take place= the speed+altitude of fuel tank+object when they are spotted.

this info shouldnt be so hard to find out.

by onus i meant the burden of proof is on those claiming it is ice.


[edit on 1-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

[edit on 1-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

Originally posted by zorgon

I actually have a physics test on just this thing tomorrow.

Good luck on that physics test... your going to need it



Awesome, my first personal attack on ATS by Zorgon, and for absolutely no foundational reason what-so-ever.

Are you trying to infer that my success in my major is in jeopardy due to a question regarding why NASA would allow a mooring device to eject from the shuttle at the same time as ( or slightly after) the used-up fuel tank? Seriously?

I would think that would be kind of obvious. Why not attack my shadow/altitude argument. That'd be waaay more interesting.

I'm sorry, buddy, but I'm a firm believer in learning how everything works before judging how it looks. Which is probably why I don't have more of those dumb point things.
If I'm not intellectually ready to argue a point, I'm not going to contribute nonsense.




[edit on 1-11-2007 by angst18]

Originally posted by wierdalienshiznit
reply to post by angst18

 

this is what we need find then

altitude/ time at which this fuel tank is jettisoned ,
+
time that this incident take place= the speed+altitude of fuel tank+object when they are spotted.

this info shouldnt be so hard to find out.

by onus i meant the burden of proof is on those claiming it is ice.


[edit on 1-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

[edit on 1-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

Right, yeah, don't think it's ice, I think that that window of possibility is pretty small.

I think that it would be important to find the following:

the time the tank separated, what is commonly also ejected from the shuttle during said ejection, the velocity (including the position vector) of the shuttle at the time of ejection, and most importantly, the altitude!
It would also be important to find out how long after said ejection the movement of the tank and the other thing were filmed, and that altitude as well.
Embarrassingly enough, I'll admit that I'm not sure whether they allow the empty tank to fall to earth, but if you assume that they do, than this video was most likely taken after entry into atmosphere.

reply to post by angst18


I hope I'm not making you repeat yourself, but why not ice? It certainly has a crystallinish structure that one would expect for ice, and I actually half-agree with zorgon on the following point: does NASA even make stuff that looks like that?

Until now, I've never seen a video of the external fuel tank falling back
to Earth. It's impressive footage. Aside from the obvious un-identified
object(s) in the vids, my other big (?) is what keeps parts of this large
tank from crashing into populated areas? On the STS115 vid, you can
clearly see that it's decending over land..not ocean. And when they do
come down over the ocean, what about ships being struck by debris.
Have pieces of the ET ever been known to make it back to the Earth's
surface??

If that crystal-like structure were ice, it would have to be very
large to be seen from a distance like that. IMO, if it were closer to the
camera, there wouldn't be any focus or capturing of it for more than
a millisecond, like viewing a distance tree through binoculars and a
bird flys past. Would just be a brief blur in the eye piece. This thing
reminds me of the "Crystaline Entity" that was featured on a couple of
the Star-Trek Next Generation episodes. Coincidence? hmmm..
-CWM

[edit on 1-11-2007 by carewemust]

reply to post by carewemust


I think they can calculate where the tank's going to land and the U.S. Navy and/or Coast Guard enforces a "do not sail into" zone to prevent the tank from crashing into anything. Or does it just break up in reentry? Regardless, I'm not aware of any liability resultant from tank reentry.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by angst18

 

I hope I'm not making you repeat yourself, but why not ice? It certainly has a crystallinish structure that one would expect for ice, and I actually half-agree with zorgon on the following point: does NASA even make stuff that looks like that?

Oh, well, because if it were ice, we'd have to assume either it's far enough above the atmosphere to be in "cold space" or far enough after re-entry into earth's atmosphere to have cooled down and re-frozen (cause entering the atmosphere creates a lot of friction and would probably burn up any liquid anyway).

The fact that people can see shadows of the objects in question on the top of the cloud cover while the objects themselves are clear in the video frame would mean that the objects are probably already well w/in the atmosphere and falling.

If the tank and the other object were ejected from the shuttle before it reaches escape velocity (which is totally possible), than the video would be of them falling w/in the earth's atmosphere, which then brings in all kinds of environmental forces that would absolutely account for any discrepancies in velocity, acceleration and trajectory.

Originally posted by angst18

Originally posted by wierdalienshiznit
reply to post by angst18

 

this is what we need find then

altitude/ time at which this fuel tank is jettisoned ,
+
time that this incident take place= the speed+altitude of fuel tank+object when they are spotted.

this info shouldnt be so hard to find out.

by onus i meant the burden of proof is on those claiming it is ice.


[edit on 1-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

[edit on 1-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

Right, yeah, don't think it's ice, I think that that window of possibility is pretty small.

I think that it would be important to find the following:

the time the tank separated, what is commonly also ejected from the shuttle during said ejection, the velocity (including the position vector) of the shuttle at the time of ejection, and most importantly, the altitude!
It would also be important to find out how long after said ejection the movement of the tank and the other thing were filmed, and that altitude as well.
Embarrassingly enough, I'll admit that I'm not sure whether they allow the empty tank to fall to earth, but if you assume that they do, than this video was most likely taken after entry into atmosphere.

with this information we could ascertain for sure whether the object is an unrelated entity or an aspect of the jettison procedure.

so get on it people!

reply to post by uberarcanist


I just read a few websites about the External Tank. They all say that it
usually burns up completely during re-entry, but as a safety measure,
the launch trajectory is designed to keep it out of shipping lanes.
It's made of materials that can withstand tremendous pressures internally
and externally, but also desentigrates in high heat. Amazing. I wonder
why leaving the atmosphere under high thrust doesn't generate extreme
heat, but coming back with nothing but gravity tugging at an object does?

At first, it really did look like the Crystaline Entity casted a shadow on the clouds. The light source location would seem right for it. However, at no time did I ever see a shadow of the fuel tank. How could one cast a shadow and not the other? So I'm still on the fence on what I think I saw there.

Whatever it is, if it was in the general neighborhood of the tank, it's pretty big. That's how I'm leaning, because I don't see any other way for the tank and the object to both be in focus in the same frame. That's just a matter of optics.

Who knows. Need more info.

Originally posted by carewemust
reply to post by uberarcanist

 

I just read a few websites about the External Tank. They all say that it
usually burns up completely during re-entry, but as a safety measure,
the launch trajectory is designed to keep it out of shipping lanes.
It's made of materials that can withstand tremendous pressures internally
and externally, but also desentigrates in high heat. Amazing.

I wonder
why leaving the atmosphere under high thrust doesn't generate extreme
heat, but coming back with nothing but gravity tugging at an object does?

Well, first off, the friction comes from gravity pulling the tank through countless atmospheric particles. Each interaction transfers a portion of the tank's mechanical energy into heat.
I think that the reason why the effect disintegrates the empty tank is because going up the tank is
a) a part of the tank-shuttle system, where a whole side of the tank is protected by the shuttle.
b ) there is fuel filling the tank which is pushing against the insides of the tank, increasing the effect of the normal force that is the edges of the container and pushing out against external forces.
c) Another possibility is that the bottom, thruster section of the tank drops out also during ejection, allowing the re-entry friction forces to work both inside and outside of the tank, burning it from both sides and destroying it utterly.

This is pure speculation, however, and I may be totally wrong, but it seems possible.

reply to post by angst18


Your explaination makes perfect sense to me. It's obvious that you know
a lot about the mechanics of the shuttle. Don't be so modest! Thanks
for enlightening yours truly on how the ETank works. I had no idea. -cwm

Originally posted by D_Hoffman
At first, it really did look like the Crystaline Entity casted a shadow on the clouds. The light source location would seem right for it. However, at no time did I ever see a shadow of the fuel tank. How could one cast a shadow and not the other? So I'm still on the fence on what I think I saw there.

Whatever it is, if it was in the general neighborhood of the tank, it's pretty big. That's how I'm leaning, because I don't see any other way for the tank and the object to both be in focus in the same frame. That's just a matter of optics.

Who knows. Need more info.

remember this is an official nasa video. look at the altitude in which the shadow is being cast upon a cloud,THAT CLOUD SHOULDNT BE THERE.

its to high in the atmosphere,clouds just dont dig it there.

this raises the chilling hypothetical possibility,ARE UFOS HIDING IN CLOUDS

This should help
www.vivoscuola.it...

[edit on 2-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

[edit on 2-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

reply to post by wierdalienshiznit


As far as any argument as to altitude goes we must bear in mind that we haven't yet resolved many questions as to perspective and scale.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by wierdalienshiznit

 

As far as any argument as to altitude goes we must bear in mind that we haven't yet resolved many questions as to perspective and scale.

watch the video from beginning to end and tell try me its not high in the atmosphere.

Okay, so my suspicions were correct, the fuel tank is, in fact, jettisoned as the shuttle-tank system reaches escape velocity (which is before escape is achieved), and the tank does fall until it burns up (or most of it does).

This means that the video is of the tank and the object falling down, probably in a kind of spiral-type-quasi-orbit motion around the earth to increase it's exposure to the friction forces (by the way, that's my d) from my previous post )

So if we can define a co-ordinate system at every point (or at least at the main points) of the video, we can see if the "strange" object accelerates in a dimension that it shouldn't at any time during the fall.

I posit that this would be very difficult to do, seeing as how the perspective of view point isn't obvious. We'd have to define position vectors for the camera, tank and object and impose those on a single coordinate system.
We could then take the integrals for their velocities and accelerations.
Only then could we be sure that the oddly shaped object was under acceleration other than that possible by benign, external forces.
What I'm saying basically, is that it would take a lot to prove that the non-tank object is operating under it's own acceleration. It isn't readily obvious from just looking at it and it would be hard to discern in a rigorous manner.

That said, I don't consider myself a "debunker"; that video from Tallahassee convinced me absolutely as to the reality of UFOs. I just can't see that this is one.

Going to bed now. Someone smack me if I'm off here, I've been studying with a Halloween hang-over all day and evening.


[edit on 2-11-2007 by angst18]

Originally posted by uberarcanist
and I actually half-agree with zorgon on the following point: does NASA even make stuff that looks like that?

As to the altitude... it has to still be high as there is no sign of the booster heating up or burning up yet. Same with the 'ice' Its clearly still sharply defined.. no signs of melting

reply to post by zorgon


I suppose you'll start using me as an appeal to credibility. Also, thanks for your insight on altitude, though I still think your mostly way to far out there in the other areas.