STS-75 Tether Incident - Mystery solved! Breaking News!

reply to post by nablator

I selected this part where the two movement are at right angles to be able to measure parallax easily (see my yellow lines) over several frames while the UFO was moving horizontally.

Yes i understood that

But i asked this:

Could that not happen if you zoom (infinity) in on a bright light very far away and you have camera shakes?

As in we have two lights far away, one brighter than the other, and we have camera shakes, what happens?

So much for David Serada's nonsense. He's a fraud/kook/idiot, choose the appropriate denomination.

I dont know what his nonsense is since i haven't heard him talk about it

As it is then, we have two things speaking against eachother for them to be happenening, camera vs gravity.
One of them have to be right, both can not be right

Originally posted by Balez
As in we have two lights far away, one brighter than the other, and we have camera shakes, what happens?

You mean parallax could be caused by something (what?) other than a different distance to the camera? What's your theory?. I have no idea how this could be possible.

As it is then, we have two things speaking against eachother for them to be happenening, camera vs gravity.

Them? gravity? Sorry I don't understand.

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by Balez
As in we have two lights far away, one brighter than the other, and we have camera shakes, what happens?

You mean parallax could be caused by something (what?) other than a different distance to the camera? What's your theory?. I have no idea how this could be possible.

As it is then, we have two things speaking against eachother for them to be happenening, camera vs gravity.

Them? gravity? Sorry I don't understand.

Ok, as i have stated earlier, my knowledge in cameras are... close to none.

What i mean is, if you have a parallax in a video because of something.
Could it be caused by overflow of light in a object that is far away?
If the object is small but bright and gets something similar as to a halo making it look bigger, could this cause a parallax?

Here is what i wrote about the gravity and the shuttle:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by nablator


Thanks for your video analysis on the parallax issue. That really does put the kaibosh on the floaters being any great distance from the camera. They are, as they logically appear to be, out of focus floating particles.
Another issue which has been overlooked by Sereda is the orientation of the tether relative to the camera. His 3 mile wide UFOs is based on the assumption we are looking at right angles to the tether cable. By the time the tether had become stretched into a straight line due to gravitational/orbital effects, it would be orientated radially to the Earth. The image is probably extremely foreshortened, so the 'twelve miles' yardstick could be twelve kilometers or even twelve yards in length. There is no way I can see that anyone could calculate the apparent length of the tether without intimate knowledge of the position/orientation of the shuttle relative to the said object.

WG3

Originally posted by Balez
What i mean is, if you have a parallax in a video because of something.
Could it be caused by overflow of light in a object that is far away?
If the object is small but bright and gets something similar as to a halo making it look bigger, could this cause a parallax?

Oh yes, good point. During the shake, with motion blur, it could happen. There could also be a problem with the disk being smaller in the frames where it is near the top. However, in frames where there is no visible motion blur, and even taking the distance between the center of the disk and the tether, the parallax is still plainly visible in frames 1836, 1838, 1839, 1841. Hey, I skipped a frame there, that was not intentional. So I don't see how the parallax could be an optical illusion.

Then we would have something that must affect these particles from every direction, wether it be gravity, the sun or the shuttle.

Gravity is not an issue because a few tons of mass don't make particles orbit visibly around them - the gravitational force is far too weak to be noticed. If you mean the Earth's gravity, the difference would not be noticed unless the particles are very far way. Do you see the tether being swept away? No. So gravity is not the answer.

Also this force that affects these particles must be affecting the particles singulary.
If one particle is affected, the rest should show the same effect from this force.

We see only some particles change direction. I think these particles are more affected because:
- they are slower, so their speed increment is more visible,
- they are smaller, and therefore more accelerated by radiation pressure and aerodynamic breaking.

Originally posted by waveguide3
There is no way I can see that anyone could calculate the apparent length of the tether without intimate knowledge of the position/orientation of the shuttle relative to the said object.

I don't think that anyone could do it even, knowing the relative positions of the tether and the shuttle, because the tether recovered its previous shape, a coil, after breaking.

NASA has at least two videos of the moment the tether broke and we can see it returning to a spiral shape.

There are some of the objects that I can say...ok they' could be debris. Other objects, yes, I'll admit could be lens anomalies. However there are about a dozen other objects that are highly questionable. They move with different velocities on different trajectories, they flash. So to me, the jury is still out on this one.

reply to post by nablator

Gravity is not an issue because a few tons of mass don't make particles orbit visibly around them - the gravitational force is far too weak to be noticed. If you mean the Earth's gravity, the difference would not be noticed unless the particles are very far way. Do you see the tether being swept away? No. So gravity is not the answer.

I think you missunderstood me a bit...
If they are far away i doubt gravity has anyting to do with these particles movements.

However if they are close, their movement in my opinion is that it is not constant, and as i said the shuttle's mass is neglible.
They are going here and there... all over the screen....

There is no way, a force can change it's direction to push these particles like that even if they are close to the camera.
The effect would be over all, constant.

If what NASA claims, that these particles are from the shuttle, where did they come from?
A Sanitary ejection from the shuttle itself? I doubt that, since the shuttle is travelling, the particles were not travelling before they were ejected, they were a constant, just as the crew members are in the shuttle.
If i remember correctly when they eject something out of the shuttle, they use a bit of air as push, now when that happens the ejected mass get a momentum (they did not have that before ejection since the shuttle is a constant), and when they get momentum, they also get a trajectory.

These particles get ejected from the shuttle to go away from the shuttle.
If you count in the speed and such of the shuttle, these particles should be no wear near the shuttle itself.

As an example, lets use a ball, the shuttle is travelling at 18000mph.
You throw this ball straight out into space, now will this ball be affected by the speed of the shuttle? No.

Why?
Because when you throw it out from the shuttle, the only force behind it, is your force you use to catapult this ball away from you.
That is what will get it momentum to move away from you.

The same goes for the particles.

Lets say that these particles are moving with the shuttle as a constant.
And that they are affected by a force (remember, the shuttle is a constant with no gravitational pull or push whatsoever), they are moving here and there over the screen, that suggests that they are affected by several forces.
Four different forces (could be more than four as we have no view of depth): One being the sun radiation? What else? Yes, the pull from earth, that is two.

Hmm... well.. two? I'm tired so i could have missed something.

We see only some particles change direction. I think these particles are more affected because:

Well, actually all of the particles have changed their direction, since when they were ejected from the shuttle (if they were ejected from the shuttle), they should all travell for the most part, in the same direction.

This is what atleast my dilema is, they should have close to the same trajectory when released, with the same momentum still...
But obviously they dont for some reason.

If they are debris from the tether... well that is another story for another time.....

Oh gosh... i'll stop my ramblings now and go to bed

If the particles are ice they could evaporate in the sunlight. And they could have gas bubbles in them that heat up and burst, acting like a jet motor.

I searched for evaporation of ice in space. This is the only information I found.

If you subject water to a hard vacuum, it will boil until it loses enough heat to make the remaining liquid freeze solid. Vapor (gas) can continue to escape from the solid, at a rate that depends on the temperature. Vapor can also condense back onto the solid, at a rate that depends on both the temperature and pressure of the vapor.

Say for example somehow a certain volume of liquid water @ T = 77 °F and @ P = 1 atm were to be magically placed into space where T ~ 4 Kelvins and P = vacuum. The liquid all of the sudden will have no pressure surrounding it. With the sudden lack of pressure the volume of water would explosively boil off into water droplets. Shortly thereafter, the water droplets will freeze. Why would not the block of water just instantly freeze? In space, matter does not cool or heat the same as it does on the ground. The ability of space to transfer heat is limited. There is no CONDUCTIVE, or CONVECTIVE heat transfer (since these first two methods require physical contact w/ the cooler matter)...there is only
RADIATIVE heat transfer.

Originally posted by finnegan
I searched for evaporation of ice in space. This is the only information I found.

If you subject water to a hard vacuum, it will boil until it loses enough heat to make the remaining liquid freeze solid. Vapor (gas) can continue to escape from the solid, at a rate that depends on the temperature. Vapor can also condense back onto the solid, at a rate that depends on both the temperature and pressure of the vapor.

I believe that reference is incorrect. The evaporation/boiling of water by reducing the external pressure will never cool it enough to freeze it. The water will simply evaporate until it's all gone. To solidify cold water you must remove the latent heat of fusion in some way. It's not possible to do that by reducing the external pressure.
The evaporation of ice directly into water vapour is called Sublimation
Sublimation is a process that has been studied by NASA with regard to ice particles and is a recognised mechanism for imparting kinetic energy. I'm sure references are available for anyone interested.

WG3

Originally posted by finnegan
If the particles are ice they could evaporate in the sunlight. And they could have gas bubbles in them that heat up and burst, acting like a jet motor.

Yes. It is definitely not pure water. Ice fragments, evaporates, pushing the remaining matter in every direction, forming a cloud around the shuttle.

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by finnegan
If the particles are ice they could evaporate in the sunlight. And they could have gas bubbles in them that heat up and burst, acting like a jet motor.

Yes. It is definitely not pure water. Ice fragments, evaporates, pushing the remaining matter in every direction, forming a cloud around the shuttle.

That is a mystery to me...
That means that those particles have to go faster than the shuttle....

Originally posted by Balez

There is no way, a force can change it's direction to push these particles like that even if they are close to the camera.
The effect would be over all, constant.

Their speed is not evidence of any force. Their acceleration is an evidence of a force pushing them towards the bottom of the window. The force is not changing its direction AFAIK, always downward and nearly constant.

If what NASA claims, that these particles are from the shuttle, where did they come from?

Jettisoned dirty ice fragmenting, evaporating, pushing debris in every direction.

Four different forces (could be more than four as we have no view of depth): One being the sun radiation? What else? Yes, the pull from earth, that is two.

I thought we agreed gravity is not the answer... Radiation pressure is a certainty, so is atmospheric braking even at this altitude. I don't know about the electrostatic force, could the shuttle be electrostatically charged after the experiment, and the particles too, from the ionosphere?

reply to post by nablator

Their speed is not evidence of any force. Their acceleration is an evidence of a force pushing them towards the bottom of the window. The force is not changing its direction AFAIK, always downward and nearly constant.

No i said momentum, they got from being ejected away from the shuttle, what i did mention however is the speed of the shuttle.
The shuttle is being a constant for these debris before they are ejected.
Which means, they have no momentum of their own untill they get ejected from the shuttle, with a trajectory that is not the same as the shuttle.

Now if you really want those particles to be with the shuttle, there would have been a force pushing them back to the shuttle, the momentum the ice gets from the evaportation process will not be greater than the momentum they got from the ejection.
However they might get a spinning motion from that process.

I thought we agreed gravity is not the answer... Radiation pressure is a certainty, so is atmospheric braking even at this altitude. I don't know about the electrostatic force, could the shuttle be electrostatically charged after the experiment, and the particles too, from the ionosphere?

I never insisted on that being the case either, however you do if you place those particles on or near the shuttle.

Electrostatic charge? Well that depends if there were any metallic objects in the debris that was ejected, could it cause 'attraction' from the shuttle to these particles? Not if the particles are ice.

Now i highly doubt they would release objects into space, while doing an experiement.
Especially if it could interfere with it, or be a hazard.

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by nablator

 

Electrostatic charge? Well that depends if there were any metallic objects in the debris that was ejected, could it cause 'attraction' from the shuttle to these particles? Not if the particles are ice.

I think you may be confusing electrostatics with magnetism.
Ice is perfectly able to become electrostatically charged and thereby attain kinetic energy by an opposing or attracting charge. The randomness of their motion could well be due to a contribution from electrostatic charge.

WG3

very interesting thread . keep up the good work anyway my theory those jellyfish type things are ets but they are like birds and hang around in flocks
also they are the same things you see in videos from mexico when you see hundreds of them high in the sky.

just a theory

Originally posted by waveguide3

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by nablator

 

Electrostatic charge? Well that depends if there were any metallic objects in the debris that was ejected, could it cause 'attraction' from the shuttle to these particles? Not if the particles are ice.

I think you may be confusing electrostatics with magnetism.
Ice is perfectly able to become electrostatically charged and thereby attain kinetic energy by an opposing or attracting charge. The randomness of their motion could well be due to a contribution from electrostatic charge.

WG3

Ice flakes yes, not solid ice.
Solid ice have no conductive properties.

Originally posted by Balez
Ice flakes yes, not solid ice.
Solid ice have no conductive properties.

Exactly. That's one reason ice (flakes or solid lumps) can be electrostatically charged.
Electrostatic characteristics are typically exhibited by non-conductors. For example, plastics generate very high static charges but do not conduct electricity. That's why it's 'static'.

WG3

Originally posted by waveguide3

Originally posted by Balez
Ice flakes yes, not solid ice.
Solid ice have no conductive properties.

Exactly. That's one reason ice (flakes or solid lumps) can be electrostatically charged.
Electrostatic characteristics are typically exhibited by non-conductors. For example, plastics generate very high static charges but do not conduct electricity. That's why it's 'static'.

WG3

Well true in one way, electrostatic charge relies on one thing that solid ice* have not, air, here on eart all ice, flakes or lumps have air bubbles in them.
(*ice in space does not have air bubbles)
Completely solid ice do not have any air bubbles which removes the conductiveness from it.
But if you can find scientific research that tells me otherwise, i'll correct my self after that.