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

So that stuff all arount the theter are particles ejected fom the shuttle , ice mixed with metal?
Are you serious?
Did you see how many of them have the same form , if these are debris why have they always the same shape?
Have you a vague idea about the distance of some of these objects (expecially those with "tail") from the spaceshuttle and the theter?
Can you estimate the speed of these?Some of the obiects go really fast , much much more then the shuttle , have these ice particles some sorts of atomic propulsion attached to their back?
Maybe yes , this could be the new flush used in the recent space programs.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Jabbah]

reply to post by Balez


All objects can have static electricity, the fact that the electricity is contained because it is surrounded by an insulating medium is what makes it static.

A metal object can have a static charge in the same way a plastic pen can have a static charge, the only difference being that the metal object will discharge all its static electricity when it finds a way of doing it while an insulating object will only discharge that static electricity present on the spot from where it discharges.

Here is an example of a metal object with static electricity discharging it.

Originally posted by Jabbah
Did you see how many of them have the same form , if these are debris why have they always the same shape?

They have the same form because they are extremely out of focus.

Have you a vague idea about the distance of some of these objects (expecially those with "tail") from the spaceshuttle and the theter?

I don't think he (or is it she?) has, or anybody else. Someone from NASA, maybe.

Can you estimate the speed of these?Some of the obiects go really fast , much much more then the shuttle , have these ice particles some sorts of atomic propulsion attached to their back?

Really fast? Much faster than the shuttle? Only if you consider them to be very far away (without any way of proving it) can you attribute to them high speeds. If they are near the shuttle then they are moving at almost the same speed and that is why they look like they move slowly.

Originally posted by Jabbah
Did you see how many of them have the same form , if these are debris why have they always the same shape?

This is what the OP explained. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am. But I take it as though many of these particles, could be very close to lense and out of focus, reflected light through the lense which could have refracted it and shine directly on the cameras sensor without being subjected to all the internal processes which make the image appear accurately. So they could be just mostly light reflections the camera picks up instead of the actual shape of the objects. Some of the light was blocked by keys in the shaft which caused the notches to appear. I don't know, I don't do photography, just took a stab at it.

Originally posted by ArMaP
They have the same form because they are extremely out of focus.

Out of focus??
Yes , maybe a little, but you can clearly see that all of these objects (those "near" the theter) have a "hole " in the center and a "notch" along the side , so must have every piece of debris an hole in the center and a notch alonge the side?

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Jabbah]

reply to post by ArMaP

All objects can have static electricity, the fact that the electricity is contained because it is surrounded by an insulating medium is what makes it static.

I never denied that
However for ice, being able to get statically charged is dependent on one thing, and that is the air bubbles located in the ice, which is why the scientists that experiement with these things prefer ice flakes instead of big blocks of ice, ice flakes has more air bubbles.
Plastics can discharge static electricity yes, dont forget to factor in the surface of the plastic itself, which is the counduit for this discharge, with particles on that surface, however, this 'static' will never go inside the fabric of the plastic, it will stay on the surface.

Here you have to know the difference between ice and plastic, or whatever other medium you wish to use.
A static discharge from plastic can be done with using friction, and when you do this the surface of the plastic get charged up.
However that is not the case with ice, if ice is going to get statically charged it needs airbubbles in the ice, and that is where the charge will go and travell between these bubbles.

If you have no air bubbles in the ice, you will not be able to charge, or discharge anything.

And this is why scientists rather use ice flakes instead of blocks of ice in experiements, first, lots of flakes will cool objects more evenly than blocks will.
And also, flakes have more air bubbles than blocks have.
And at certain temperatures the static works the best.
Usually very cold termperatures.

reply to post by Jabbah

So that stuff all arount the theter are particles ejected fom the shuttle , ice mixed with metal?

Well some are serious about that... But they are also ignoring the physics in this.

Did you see how many of them have the same form , if these are debris why have they always the same shape?

I think that is something with the camera trying to focus on an object in space (tether) with other objects which have a brighter light source then the tether, and that they are moving.
The camera used for this mission is a bit special, since it also picks up spectrums that are not visible to the eye.

Have you a vague idea about the distance of some of these objects (expecially those with "tail") from the spaceshuttle and the theter?

No i dont, but i believe that some of those objects can be a couple of km behind the tether.
The size however is a bit hard to get a aproximation on....

Can you estimate the speed of these?Some of the obiects go really fast , much much more then the shuttle , have these ice particles some sorts of atomic propulsion attached to their back?

That is also very difficult, we dont know exactly how far away these things are.
Perhaps that was what NASA was doing!
They were experiementing with atomic propulsion on ice particles! The tether was just a way to draw attention from the real experiement!

Originally posted by Balez
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.

Electrostatic characteristics are intrinsic to the material involved. The presence or absence of air is quite irrelevant. Static charge is caused by the migration of electrons withing the material. This results either from frictional movement by rubbing contact with another medium or through the effect of another body bearing a static charge placed in close proximity. Generally speaking, non-conductors can be charged by friction e.g. plastics, hair, glass, etc. Conductors like metals are not charged by friction because their electrons are very free flowing and do not polarise through friction. However, metals can become charged by induction due to the presence of a statically charged body in close proximity (see Faraday's Ice Pail Experiment as a famous example which demonstrates the process). This induced charge dissipates when the charged body moves away. Electrostatically charges particles either attract or repel each other depending on their polarisation. Materials which had electrons removed (by friction) are positively charged. The material gaining these electrons becomes negatively charged. All this is basic physics which applies to the space environment just as it applies on Earth.

WG3

reply to post by waveguide3

Electrostatic characteristics are intrinsic to the material involved. The presence or absence of air is quite irrelevant.

In any material than ice Yes.

Static charge is caused by the migration of electrons withing the material.

Agreed.
However a static charge needs interaction with the material in question.
In ice that happens when the static interacts with the bubbles of air in the ice, the electron need something to 'stick to' and that is the air bubbles.

Ice and car batteries on that is quite similar, now electricity and static electricity is not the same and does not interact on the same principle.

But you can compare a car battery and solid ice like this (without air bubbles)
The distilled water in the battery is used with the membranes in the battery to store the energy in the battery.
The distilled water can be compared as the air bubbles in the ice.
Remove the distilled water from the battery, what happens?
The same thing happens with the ice if you remove the air bubbles.

There will be no interaction between the membranes in the battery, there will be no way to store the energy in the battery during charging.

(see Faraday's Ice Pail Experiment as a famous example which demonstrates the process).

I wonder what ice he used....
Oh no, it was standard ice, with air bubbles in it!
I wonder... Would he have gotten the same results if he used solid ice without air bubbles....
Perhaps it would be bit difficult to find the ice, or to create it....
But i would love to see those results if he would try and use the same principle on ice without air bubbles...

And we could also go into explain the difference with water and ice, how water is conductive, while ice is not and such....
And then expanding that to the difference with ice and ice without air bubbles.
Anyways that is OT though...

Hi, I don't post often so sorry for whatever has been discussed. I have observed the NASA footage and am particularly interested in converging lines of evidence. There are numerous things to consider.

1. A poster claimed it's not possible to estimate size. Actually it is possible. Let y be the axis from the observer to the tether. The angle in the xz plane makes no difference to size, the angle in the y-axis does. The ratio of width of tether to length is sufficient to determine the length of space spanned by what is seen, and certain pictures allow good estimates of this ratio. The size can be estimated given the ratio of the width to length of the tether. This point is actually made, in effect, in the question and statement in the footage: "how wide ... seems wider than expect" (this results from angle in y axis i.e. because titling away).

2. The key question asked is: "we can see a lot of star-like things ... a lot of things swimming in the foreground ... can you describe what you're seeing? Answer: well the long line is uh, uh the tether, um and err there's a little ah bit of debris that, uh, kind of flies with us and uh it's illuminated by the sun at such low angles.

Ther are many many problems:

a) the spots are all spherical and wherever the edges are contrasted, they are clean edges. This is not compatible with debris or cosmic dust in far or near field (both can have complex shapes of all kinds) b) the spots move in many different relative directions, which is incompatible with debris emanating from a given region in space and there is far far too much for it to be normal background (space is not so cluttered, remember debris can anihilate satelites) c) the spots move in smooth paths yet not straight lines, some curve continuously, turn, or zig-zag, (relative to fixed tether so not camera) d) the spots have different relative velocities, which is incompatible with them being debris from a common source e) big enough debris would all be sucked into the earth's gravitational pull f) spots do not move eratically as they would if in gas (i.e. not outside of the craft) f) spots with luminance (as recorded by the viewing instrument) greater than the tether are clearly obscured when the edges of both objects are clear, meaning that in those cases the objecs must pass behind the tether e) the very large discs are nearly perfect circles with dark centers and should be easily identifiable if a known kind of debris (there are also several with exactly the same features) f) the edges of the TETHER remain clear when large discs pass (incompatible with out of focus anything passing in near field and compatible with object passing behind in very far fields g) with zoom in or out, the distance of spots from tether remains "constant" and ratios of sizes of spots to size of teather is similar for many spots (I can state more precisely), both utterly incompatible with spots being dust or debris in near field, h) no spots change from bright and large to dark and smaller rapidly as they would in near field i) velocity of some spots changes dramatically and laterally (see below url at 3 mins 14 secs approx from bottom left across), without decreasing luminance j) motion of debris cannot be explained by gravitational pull

video.aol.com...

I did not say much about the discs being obscured by tether because this has been said so many times elsewhere. It is one of a very large number of features of the data.

I'd appreciate comments on any of the above, but would ask that people keep in mind any hypothesis needs to be consistent with all of the data relevant to that hypothesis.

As far as I am concerned, treating this as any other scientific data, the spots are ufos. Nothing else explains all of the data. I remain open to an extraordinary alternative. In the mean time, this footage is utterly compelling and genuinely extraordinary.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by 987931]

Originally posted by 987931
1. A poster claimed it's not possible to estimate size. Actually it is possible. Let y be the axis from the observer to the tether. The angle in the xz plane makes no difference to size, the angle in the y-axis does. The ratio of width of tether to length is sufficient to determine the length of space spanned by what is seen, and certain pictures allow good estimates of this ratio. The size can be estimated given the ratio of the width to length of the tether. This point is actually made, in effect, in the question and statement in the footage: "how wide ... seems wider than expect" (this results from angle in y axis i.e. because titling away).

Exactly what I'm having trouble with in this case. Although to be fair to some of the posters in this thread, the width of these objects might not be as it appears, due to abberations in the cameras ability to resolve.

Still, I feel the width and distance values must be achievable, and I thank you for describing in Math what I was attempting to explain using language alone.

The data on these variables (x,y,z, etc.) surely exists. In fact, in concluding that these objects were 'debris' (the official NASA answer to the STS-75 footage to date) surely the people analyzing the footage needed these values to come to their initial conclusions.

I guess I'm still hung up on the fact that these values have not been reported to the public, and it's extremely fishy, because the public paid for the acquisition of the data, and the analysis of the data. Why can't we see the raw data?

I have a problem taking NASA's word on it, I'm sorry, but if their theory is correct they should have no problem showing us the data. People here are plenty smart enough to use the data to independently confirm their hypothesis, if correct. It seems (from the outside) that the only reason for ommitting these values is to keep independent duplication of the research from being possible. I could well be wrong, but I can't think of a better explanation for why we can't get answers to these questions.

Perhaps a FOIA Request is in order?

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

Exactly what I'm having trouble with in this case. Although to be fair to some of the posters in this thread, the width of these objects might not be as it appears, due to abberations in the cameras ability to resolve.

Agreed, the camera in this is an unknown and so is it's properties.

The data on these variables (x,y,z, etc.) surely exists. In fact, in concluding that these objects were 'debris' (the official NASA answer to the STS-75 footage to date) surely the people analyzing the footage needed these values to come to their initial conclusions.

I think the x,y,z factors are a bit tricky though, if these things are behind the tether, we can only compare them with the tether itself.
What we dont know however, is how far away from the tether they are.
If we would have had three points to compare to, like now we only have two points to compare to, the tether itself and the shuttle, if we would have had one more point behind the tether it would have been easier, but as it is now, the x,y,z is too difficult to do and to get any actual size estimation.

I have a problem taking NASA's word on it, I'm sorry, but if their theory is correct they should have no problem showing us the data. People here are plenty smart enough to use the data to independently confirm their hypothesis, if correct. It seems (from the outside) that the only reason for ommitting these values is to keep independent duplication of the research from being possible. I could well be wrong, but I can't think of a better explanation for why we can't get answers to these questions.

Then we are two with that problem!
My problem is the physics in this, what NASA suggest is, well atleast what i think, impossible.

And i agree with you totally, perhaps FOIA could get us something, or it might have been hidden to well even for that.
Anyways i can't use FOIA since i live in Sweden....

As usuall a big S for your post WFA!

Originally posted by Balez

I wonder what ice he used....
Oh no, it was standard ice, with air bubbles in it!
I wonder... Would he have gotten the same results if he used solid ice without air bubbles....
Perhaps it would be bit difficult to find the ice, or to create it....
But i would love to see those results if he would try and use the same principle on ice without air bubbles...

If you were at all familar with the experiment you wouldn't have made these comments. The famous Faraday Ice Pail Experiment didn't involve ice, it's completely irrelevant. It used an ice bucket simply to demonstrate electrostatic charge induction of a metal object. See The Faraday Ice Pail Experiment for future reference.

WG3

Originally posted by 987931
The ratio of width of tether to length is sufficient to determine the length of space spanned by what is seen, and certain pictures allow good estimates of this ratio. The size can be estimated given the ratio of the width to length of the tether. This point is actually made, in effect, in the question and statement in the footage: "how wide ... seems wider than expect" (this results from angle in y axis i.e. because titling away).

The tether cable was 2mm (1/10") in diameter. Even Mr Sereda acknowledges that, but he accounts for its optical enlargement by invoking some mystical fluorescence phenomenon which only the camera can see. Had the tether fluoresced, I think NASA would have referred to it. The camera used was a visible light tv camera with image intensification. The UV sensitivity is a complete red herring. The camera was producing a grossly abberated image of the highly sunlit cable. It was after all, visible from Earth. Had they used a modern CCD camera it would have looked entirely different and the myth wouldn't have evolved.
How does the actual tether width of 2mm enable anyone to calculate the true diameter of the floaters? How can Mr Serada say the tether length, as observed, is twelve miles when he doesn't know its orientation to the viewer? It only equates to twelve miles when viewed at right angles to the cable. The tether became orientated radially to the Earth due to gravity and orbital forces on a non-rigid body. The camera is arguably seeing it forshortened. I think this investigation is simply going over old ground.

WG3

reply to post by waveguide3


So the faraday experiment was..... just a useless reference to make a point to what? The irrelavence to what i was saying about it?
Did i ever claim that materials could not get statically charged?

And quite frankly, no i have not read or seen anything about his experiements.
But as we were discussing ice.. i thought his experiement would have anything to do with ice......
Still i dont see the point in this reference, to what we were discussing, since well, it only proves what already have been proven.

What i claimed however was that solid ice, devoid of air bubbles will not be statically charged.

Metal can be charged in that way, plastics can, hair and alot of other things.


[edit on 28-3-2008 by Balez]

3 miles or 2 miles , i don't know , but these objects are clearly big , and stating that are debris ejected from spaceshuttle is like to commit suicide.
You destroy your credibility at the beginning.
Stunningly some people believe in that crappy mind-blowing theory.
I don't know what to say , these explanations make me astonished , almost like this video.

Balez

I suggest you brush up (but you care, to avoid static charges ) your knowledge about electricity, I think that you have some misconceptions that should be ironed out.

Originally posted by 987931
1. A poster claimed it's not possible to estimate size. Actually it is possible. Let y be the axis from the observer to the tether. The angle in the xz plane makes no difference to size, the angle in the y-axis does.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the angle between the tether and the xz plane (that I suppose would be the plane that we can approximate to the window from which this is being filmed) does not affect the perceived length of the tether?

The ratio of width of tether to length is sufficient to determine the length of space spanned by what is seen, and certain pictures allow good estimates of this ratio. The size can be estimated given the ratio of the width to length of the tether. This point is actually made, in effect, in the question and statement in the footage: "how wide ... seems wider than expect" (this results from angle in y axis i.e. because titling away).

Actually, that cannot be used to try to know the tether length because we are not seeing the stretched tether as it was while deployed and working. After the tether broke it returned to its previous shape (coiled inside the dispenser), and that is visible in this video.



I don't know if the tether re-extended itself after that, but I doubt it, I don't think that there was any force that would re-stretch the tether.

b) the spots move in many different relative directions, which is incompatible with debris emanating from a given region in space and there is far far too much for it to be normal background (space is not so cluttered, remember debris can anihilate satelites)

This is the only real mistery to me, the reason why do those objects move like they do.

f) spots with luminance (as recorded by the viewing instrument) greater than the tether are clearly obscured when the edges of both objects are clear, meaning that in those cases the objecs must pass behind the tether

Not really, as you can see in this photo.


The bottom part of the red circle may look like it is casting a shadow over the string, when in fact it was more or less one meter closer to the camera.

(I know, this is not as good as it should be, but I only have two hands and had to hold the string, the camera and the PDA that was responsible for the red light )

That is also the reason why the tether looks like it is casting a shadow on something that isn't there in this frame from the video for which you posted the link.

f) the edges of the TETHER remain clear when large discs pass (incompatible with out of focus anything passing in near field and compatible with object passing behind in very far fields

The edges of the tether are not really the edges of the tether if the tether was not extended, right? Also, the edges of an out of focus object are not the real edges either, they are only apparent edges.

g) with zoom in or out, the distance of spots from tether remains "constant" and ratios of sizes of spots to size of teather is similar for many spots (I can state more precisely), both utterly incompatible with spots being dust or debris in near field

The zoom reduces the apparent distance (it "compresses" the depth of field).

reply to post by ArMaP


Excellent post ArMaP! Thank you for summarizing the answers we've arrived at in this thread, there were many questions at the beginning that we have been able to answer, and I think it's important every now and again to recap the solutions to those problems.

Also thank you for posting that video clip of the tether coiling. Glad that piece of data was actually included here, since many people at ATS don't follow links sometimes.

I also am still mystified by the way the objects move, and I don't think we've been able to properly explain it yet. That applies even to debris, if that's what we're looking at.

I only have 1 question and 1 comment. First the question:
What did you mean that Balez should brush up on electricity? I'm just not sure I follow what you were saying. Were you talking about the ice not being conductive without air bubbles? Because I'm pretty sure that's a fact. See this entry in the Chambers Encyclopedia:
books.google.com... 46UghLzf5XUvyKLzrHW6Ka0&hl=en

Specifically this part:
"Air-free ice produced no electrification..." - From the source, on the referenced page.

I'm not trying to be mean, I highly respect your work, but I just wanted to make sure that you knew that. Balez has that correctly. In space we would expect ice particles to freeze without air bubbles, right? Especially particles?

On to my comment. You stated this,
"I don't know if the tether re-extended itself after that, but I doubt it, I don't think that there was any force that would re-stretch the tether. " -ArMaP

I have a guess, but I may be wrong. Did not the Earth's gravity, and the relative proximity of the Tether in orbit stretch the tether back out again?
I'm honestly confused about the physics involved in the uncoiling, especially if the object was made out of a metal that was designed to recoil if it's shape is broken. This kind of brings us back to where's the data from NASA on the Tether...

Also, if we can get location data on where the shuttle and tether are relative to the Earth, we can use the Earth as our 3rd point of reference and solve our distance formulas.

Anyway, just a few thoughts and a question...
It's always nice to see you participating in a thread I'm interested in. You really have a great mind!

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by ArMaP

 

What did you mean that Balez should brush up on electricity?

The problem is that he was not talking about the conductivity of ice, he was talking (if I understood it right) about the reaction to static electricity, and an object that is not a conductor can have an electrical charge, so an ice particle, with or without air bubbles, can have an electrical charge.

See this entry in the Chambers Encyclopedia:
books.google.com... 46UghLzf5XUvyKLzrHW6Ka0&hl=en

Specifically this part:
"Air-free ice produced no electrification..." - From the source, on the referenced page.

I don't know if I am doing something wrong, but I can not see anything about that by following your link, what am I missing?

In space we would expect ice particles to freeze without air bubbles, right? Especially particles?

It depends on the origin of the ice. If the ice is the result of accumulated moisture from the air that remained on some parts of the shuttle then I suppose it would have a high percentage of air in it.

Did not the Earth's gravity, and the relative proximity of the Tether in orbit stretch the tether back out again?

I don't think so, for the tether to stretch it must have two forces applied to each end, one pointing in one direction and the other in the opposite direction.

While the tether was deployed it had two forces applied, one making it move away from the shuttle and the mechanical resistance of the tether keeping it attached to the shuttle.

I'm honestly confused about the physics involved in the uncoiling, especially if the object was made out of a metal that was designed to recoil if it's shape is broken. This kind of brings us back to where's the data from NASA on the Tether...

The tether was not just metal, it had a more complicated structure to have good electrical capabilities, mechanical resistance and isolated on the outside (and apparently this isolation was what failed on the experiment).

Also, if we can get location data on where the shuttle and tether are relative to the Earth, we can use the Earth as our 3rd point of reference and solve our distance formulas.

I am still looking for it, I do not have enough free time during the week.

It's always nice to see you participating in a thread I'm interested in. You really have a great mind!

Thanks!

PS: I may be wrong about the ice, I never hear or read about any experiment about static electricity on ice with and without air bubbles, but what I know about electricity tells me that ice should behave as any other thing, conductive or otherwise, all things can be affected by static electricity.