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

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon's quite right about the arcing object he sighted. In one viewing of the version he posted, I noticed four objects traveling in arcing trajectories, 2 of them with over 90 degree changes in direction (one obscured by zooming in and out).

I also noticed two objects that decelerate, and one that accelerates. One of the decelerating objects also arced.

Also, a very basic an obvious observation: these objects are all moving at differing velocities--some are streaking past so fast that they leave light trails behind them, others plod extremely slowly. All are in motion in any number of trajectories, and many change those trajectories as we watch.

Point being, I observed all this in one (fresh) viewing. I could watch this video several dozen times and tally the lot of them and do screen shots and timings, but anyone with observant eyes can surely find several anomalies of their own, as I did in one instance.

And now the inevitable question: How do ice crystals or dust, refracted through the camera's lens to become these halos, manage to exhibit so many changes in direction and velocity, apparently at random?

Position of Notches depends on Position of Disc in Field of View

Here's an interesting property of the UFOs seen in the tether video. In all cases, the number and position of the notches depends on where in the camera's field of view the objects are located.

Imagine the screen is divided in half horizontally. All objects observed in the lower half exhibit two notches (at their 1 & 11 o'clock positions approximately).
All objects located in the upper half only have one notch. The position of this single notch depends on whether the object is to the left, middle or right section of the upper screen. Those to the left have a notch at the 1 o'clock position. This moves to 7 o'clock near the middle of the screen and to 6 o'clock on the right of the screen.

It will be observed that the notch in any particular object varies as it moves through the field, but only in accordance with the above 'rules'. Objects located at the boundary between the two halves of the screen exhibit the intermediate form, with a notch at both 1 o'clock & 6 o'clock. A good example is the change in position from 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock when the object seen at 9m55s moves from the left of the field. It morphs to the next form in the list. Objects at either extreme edge of field also exhibit barralling due to lens distortion. They change from circles into lozenge shapes.

The only logical explanation is that the notches are created within the camera optics. Similar notches have been recorded when a tv camera is mis-focussed on a point light source.

Source Video

Can anyone offer an alternative explanation?

WG3

reply to post by waveguide3


Nope, i can't....
As the camera tech isn't exactly my thing...
But i was wondering, what if, the camera is focusing on a bright object far away, but can not get the object focused, and the brightness is owerflowing?

Me and cameras....

reply to post by Balez


Balez and ArMaP, even with a language barrier, you both take the time to actually check out people's arguments. You both learn when you come across something new to you, and you both inform others (with sourcing) when you are aware of something they do not know.

I think we might need a 'praise' button on the bottom of posts also

I'll have to agree about leaving the 'does space ice harbor static electricity' argument to those who know more

But wouldn't it be nice if NASA would just test it for us outside the ISS and put it up on Youtube? It would be nice to know for sure, and it seems like a simple enough experiment.

______________________________________________________

Zorgon, thank you so much for doing what I haven't had time to do!

Just like I felt it was important to point out that ArMaP did a remarkable job earlier of summarizing to date the factors of this footage that are presently 'explainable' it is equally important to summarize and detail the questions we still have about the 'flight paths' of the objects in this footage. Very well done.

To be honest, there are other places in the footage that I see anamolies also, but these were some of the big ones, and it's great to see the extended footage appear here in the thread too.

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


Yes they could, as what they did with a water bubble and an alka seltzer!

It was very interesting

Here is a possibility for the objects, not necessarily dust particle, but particulates illuminated in front of the camera by the sun.
dust halo

Dust particles floating in the air when taking flash photos with a digital camera may be captured in pictures. Often referred to as dust halos, the particles are randomly spaced throughout an image. There may be just a couple of spots, or the problem can be so bad that you hardly see the picture.

The light from the flash catches the dust and bounces back into the lens.

Here is a picture of what I think are dust particles which are presumed to be ghosts. If you look closely you can see the same kind of texture, although without the notches and hole in the center.
pic

Some information.

From this page at the American Society for Nondestructive Testing:

The composition of the tether was as follows: a central core of Nomex, a served group of ten #34 AWG copper strands, extruded fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) insulation, Kevlar braid, and an outer Nomex braid. The overall diameter of the tether was 2.4 mm (0.095 in.).

This page has some photos and a short Quicktime movie of the tether seen from the Earth.

This PDF file is the "Tethered Satellite System (TSS) Dynamics Assessments and Analysis, TSS-1R Post Flight Data Evaluation", too technical to my taste, but for those that know what it all means it may have interesting data.

This PDF is "TSS-1R Mission Failure Investigation Board" report.

In it it says:

The nominal load on the tether, 65 N (15 lb.), finally separated the tether at the burn location, while it was within the deployer boom.

So we know the load on the tether at the momment of separation.

It also has a diagram of the structure of the tether.



This page has some data and calculations for the re-entry of the tether and satellite, it may be usefull, I don't know.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks ArMap

Some of those materials are polymers i guess, could explain a debris field, but it does not explain how they got close to the shuttle though.

Interesting thanks for the find
a S

Originally posted by finnegan
Here is a possibility for the objects, not necessarily dust particle, but particulates illuminated in front of the camera by the sun.
dust halo

Dust particles floating in the air when taking flash photos with a digital camera may be captured in pictures. Often referred to as dust halos, the particles are randomly spaced throughout an image. There may be just a couple of spots, or the problem can be so bad that you hardly see the picture.

The light from the flash catches the dust and bounces back into the lens.

Here is a picture of what I think are dust particles which are presumed to be ghosts. If you look closely you can see the same kind of texture, although without the notches and hole in the center.
pic

Well i guess that depends on where this dust is, inside the space shuttle, or outside?
If it is inside, there could be some dust, but i think that is not it though, it looks as it is further away from the camera than that, and that they are travelling a distance instead of just going infront of the lens.
Also if it was dust, i believe we would not see them as going behind the tether, but more they would overlap the tether.

If it was dust or any other particle, a particle to me is less than 1cm (not that there is any size specifics on a particle) in size, i believe they would be difficult to see even with the camera nasa used.

I have no clue as to what we are seeing, but i have a few guesses as to what it could be, and why these objects are doing what they are doing.

I think it all has to do with with the tether, and the debris from the tether, i think much of the materials used in the tether are based on polymers, which is highly sensitive to static charges.

If you look at the tether you see that it's width is showing up as much more than what it really is, the explanation there is probably that the tether is charged statically.

The debris from the tether could also be charged due to the closeness to the highly charged tether.
Electrostatic charged materials can repulse and attract other object, depending on the polarization of the object.

Why do they show up as they do?
It is the same thing with the tether, it also look alot bigger than what it really is, the same happens to the debris.

What about the 'notches'?
Well i think that have something to do with the polarization of the debris and depending on what materials are floating around alongside the tether.

I can not prove this, it is only one of my theories.

Originally posted by Balez
Also if it was dust, i believe we would not see them as going behind the tether, but more they would overlap the tether.

Have you tried putting something small in front of your eye? Why is it so difficult to believe that close, small, out of focus objects are transparent, when you can verify this fact yourself with or without a camera? It's been demonstred by Armap in the other STS-75 thread BTW. A very bright object like the tether will be visible right through the disk, not even slightly obscured, because the particle is much smaller than the disk.

If it was dust or any other particle, a particle to me is less than 1cm (not that there is any size specifics on a particle) in size, i believe they would be difficult to see even with the camera nasa used.

Why are you so fixated in your denial? This is so obviously wrong. The size of the disk has nothing to do with the size of the debris. Even if the debris are smaller the 0.1 mm they will be visible as big disks because of 1. very bright sunlight, much brighter than what we get on the ground, 2. possible light amplification - visible in the typical electronic noise in the center when the camera is zoomed out.

If you look at the tether you see that it's width is showing up as much more than what it really is, the explanation there is probably that the tether is charged statically.

You think static charges are visible? No they aren't. Look at clouds during a rainstorm if you want proof.

What about the 'notches'?
Well i think that have something to do with the polarization of the debris and depending on what materials are floating around alongside the tether.

I can not prove this, it is only one of my theories.

You don't have a theory that explains why the notches migrate depending on their position in the FOV as waveguide3 brilliantly pointed out. Star for you WV3!

reply to post by waveguide3


I'll second your observation regarding the notches, as I'd posted the same observation on p. 4 of the thread. Oh well.

reply to post by nablator

Have you tried putting something small in front of your eye? Why is it so difficult to believe that close, small, out of focus objects are transparent, when you can verify this fact yourself with or without a camera? It's been demonstred by Armap in the other STS-75 thread BTW. A very bright object like the tether will be visible right through the disk, not even slightly obscured, because the particle is much smaller than the disk.

I'm not denying anything, as i said it is one of my theories.
And that theory is based on some of the physical laws we have, not on unknown optics we do not know anything about, check the tethers glow as an example, if we have dustparticles infront of the camera and close to it.

The tethers thickness is less than 1cm, what size does the tether show on these vides?
Does it show it as being less than 1 cm?
And most of the floating objects we do see on these videos, how big are they? Would the camera pic something up that in all probability in size (if they are close the camera) less than 0,005mm to show up in the size they are in?
The distance to tether was if remember correct around 12000 nautical miles.

You think static charges are visible? No they aren't. Look at clouds during a rainstorm if you want proof.

Prove to me that the camera that NASA used on this mission is not capable of that.
Then we can start talking about having some tangible to go on, and not some imaginary optics.

You don't have a theory that explains why the notches migrate depending on their position in the FOV as waveguide3 brilliantly pointed out. Star for you WV3!

Yes i did, and you would have seen it if you read the entire post from start to begining.
Not that it was complete though, was in a bit of hurry when i typed this out.

What about the 'notches'?
Well i think that have something to do with the polarization of the debris and depending on what materials are floating around alongside the tether.

And with this i mean....
Depending on the polarization of the objects floating around the tether we could have migrating static changes which changes the polarization of the objects and there by also changing the placement of the notch.
Which means that the 'notch' part that is visible is without a static charge.

The attraction and repulsory forces in the static charge is also what makes the floaters travelling the way they do, which is also dependant on what polarization the tether had.
Which could mean, that one object we see go out the screen then can actually be drawn back.

As i said, it was only a theory...

I agree with your analysis Balez, we don't have enough information, also I have not seen particulates in pictures with concentric ripples in them as I have seen in some sts75 videos.

And also think we need to find more information on the camera used. If it's in the thread, I missed it so I need pointed to it. But NASA probably assembled the camera themselves so there would be multiple parts to identify.

Sereda gave his interpretation of the camera as:
camera sees "near uv photons" and is sensitive to "visible and near uv", near uv is "too high in energy to see with naked eye"

Originally posted by Balez

 

I'm not denying anything, as i said it is one of my theories.
And that theory is based on some of the physical laws we have, not on unknown optics we do not know anything about, check the tethers glow as an example, if we have dustparticles infront of the camera and close to it.

You are denying the simple explanation, trying to obfuscate the issue. There is nothing mysterious about the "glow" and floaters. How many people have posted videos and images of disks, even with notches, made filming small out of focus lights at night? Do you always ignore evidence? I don't understand people who insist on looking for incredible theories when a simple one explains everything. I mean, there will always be unprovable theories about the floaters. Maybe they are wormholes opened by E. T. from another galaxy, or ghosts of the deads during their transit to John Lear's Big Soul Machine on the Moon.

And most of the floating objects we do see on these videos, how big are they? Would the camera pic something up that in all probability in size (if they are close the camera) less than 0,005mm to show up in the size they are in?

I said 0.005 m, not mm. So yes, the real size is irrelevant. The brightness of the disk OTOH is related to the real size and albedo of the particles, and most of all the intensity of sunlight they receive, and the amount of light amplification, if any. It's not just a theory, it has been demonstrated many times. Try it yourself with a camera. It's exacly the same phenomenon as the "orbs" on photographs taken with a flash in summer when the air is loaded with small vegetal debris.

Prove to me that the camera that NASA used on this mission is not capable of that.

Prove a negative, sure... It is reasonable to assume no camera can see light that does not exist. Static charges do not emit any light. In lightning, for example, electrons are moving, they are no longer static.

Depending on the polarization of the objects floating around the tether we could have migrating static changes which changes the polarization of the objects and there by also changing the placement of the notch.

I don't understand why the static charges, polarized or not would be visible. If you think some sort of plasma surrounds objects in space, you have a lot more explaining to do.

The attraction and repulsory forces in the static charge is also what makes the floaters travelling the way they do, which is also dependant on what polarization the tether had.

That may be true, but I don't believe the floaters are anywhere near the tether. I think they are a few meters away from the camera, or less. Remember the parallax? Oh yes you have an alternate theory about parallax too...

As i said, it was only a theory...

Any examples, supporting evidence? I would like to grasp your concepts of false parallax, glowing polarized static charges, and your theory about water and ice not being able of hold a static charge. Do you deny that static charges are involved in lightning? Are clouds not water and ice?

A question: do you have an alternate theory about everything? Is there anything about mainstream physics that you agree on? I mean, if we have no common ground, there is no point discussing anything.

reply to post by ArMaP


This was an excellent post ArMaP. You've done some amazing research here. If we can find out this much information about the camera, I think we're well on our way to being able to write some equations with real values that describe the situations we're seeing in the footage.

Nablator, I understand your frustration, but Balez does have a point. Without the camera data, we really don't know what the footage is showing. I actually have seen electricity give off light, with the naked eye in fact. It's called a corona discharge, and it usually is an indicator of eletricity leaking from a capacitor. For a quick example, you can check out Tim Ventura's work at AmericanAntigravity.com

I'm not saying I'm vouching for his experiments, I just know off the top of my head that you can see an electrical discharge there that resembles a 'glow' of light. It does happen. Also, Balez's argument regarding the conductiveness of ice was only that, he himself admitted to leave it those who knew more, agreeing with ArMaP and myself that the factor could not be determined without an experiment in space. Maybe it could, but we all agreed to let the point be.

I'm just saying this to point out that yes Balez does concede a point when he learns something knew, and he does incorporate all the data into his theories, as best as he can.

I understand your frustration, but I just want you to know that this particular ATS member isn't trying to be argumentative, he's trying to understand. I for one thank you for your explanation of certain things I myself have been unclear on. I appreciate your being patient enough to explain clearly advanced concepts in simple wording. Please don't let frustration get the better of you, with all of us coming from different sides, there is always bound to be confusion, and there are language barriers involved here also.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I've really enjoyed reading the back and forth between both of you, and the points made from both sides. I'd hate to see this turn into one of those threads where two intelligent people develop a dislike based on mis-understanding.



-WFA

I think (I don't have the time now to see it) that most (or all) the objects that we see changing direction are those that come from the bottom of the screen to the top.

If that is the case then it could be because they are begin attracted by something (gravity or electrical charge, for example) that is "bellow" the screen".

If what causes this behaviour is an electrical charge then it may be because of the thrusters from the shuttle, if they use them with some frequency (which I don't know), because one of the things the tether experiment proved was that when there was a discharge of gas from the satellite's thrusters, the gas was instantly ionised.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Nablator, I understand your frustration, but Balez does have a point. Without the camera data, we really don't know what the footage is showing. I actually have seen electricity give off light, with the naked eye in fact. It's called a corona discharge, and it usually is an indicator of eletricity leaking from a capacitor.

I don't have a problem with a discharge being visible of course.

About the camera data, does it really matter? Any camera will show the same phenomena with small out of focus particles if light is strong enough. Before looking for more explanations, why not shoot down the simple theory first? I will gladly admit I was wrong if someone provides evidence that no residue was sent out of the shuttle or of any force inconsistent with radiation pressure.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I've really enjoyed reading the back and forth between both of you, and the points made from both sides. I'd hate to see this turn into one of those threads where two intelligent people develop a dislike based on mis-understanding.

I am sorry, I'm becoming increasingly short tempered when I read the same arguments about the floaters passing behind the tether for the hundredth time. It all seems so obvious to me. Maybe NASA feels the same way.

Thank you for your patience, and don't take me wrong, You, Armap and Balez (and other posters) have all my respect for your research on the subject.

Originally posted by Balez
The tethers thickness is less than 1cm, what size does the tether show on these vides?
Does it show it as being less than 1 cm?

So you are all convinced that a 1 cm wide wire would show up on any regular camera from so many nautical miles away? (about 86 nautical miles at the time of the film footage)


What you are seeing around the tether and why it is so wide is the plasma sheath it created... This was a special camera designed to photograph the tether's 'effects'

The tether generated 3500 V at over 1 amp before it created a continuous arc that severed it... and the arcing continued AFTER it broke away...

The UFO's are "Critters" coming in for a feeding...

CCD Camera Range



A range from 200 to 1200 nm means that the CCD camera can see the near ultraviolet spectrum (400 to 200 nm), the visible spectrum (380 to 750 nm), and most of the near infrared (750 to 1400 nm).

STS-75 Camera

"Using a hand-held camera system with image intensifiers and special filters, the TOP investigation will provide visual data that may allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether dynamics and optical effects generated by the Tethered Satellite System [TSS-1R or in other words, the STS-75 mission]. In particular, this experiment will examine the high-voltage plasma sheath surrounding the satellite.

In place of the image-intensified conventional photographic experiment package that has flown on nine previous Shuttle missions, a charge-coupled device (CCD) electronic system will be used instead of film. This new system combines the image intensifier [infra-red and visible spectrum] and the charge-coupled device in the same package. The advantage of charge-coupled devices over film is that they allow real-time observation of the image, unlike film, which has to be processed after the mission. The system also provides higher resolution in low-light situations than do conventional video cameras.

The imaging system will operate in four configurations: filtered, interferometric, spectrographic, and filtered with telephoto lens. The basic system consists of a 55-mm F/1.2 or 135-mm F/2.0 lens attached to the charge-coupled device equipment. Various slide-mounted filters, an air-spaced Fabry Perot interferometer, and spectrographic equipment will be attached to the equipment so that the crew can perform various observations.

In one mode of operation, the current developed in the Tethered Satellite System is closed by using electron accelerators to return electrons to the plasma surrounding the orbiter. The interaction between these electron beams and the plasma is not well understood. Scientists expect to gain a better understanding of this process and how it affects both the spacecraft and the plasma by using the charge-coupled device to make visual, spectrographic, and interferometric measurements. Thruster gasses also may play a critical role in Tethered Satellite System operations. By observing optical emissions during the buildup of the system-induced electromotive force (emf) and during gas discharges, scientists can better understand the interaction between a charged spacecraft and the plasma environment and will increase their knowledge of how the current system closes at the poles of the voltage source.

The heart of the TOP instrument is a hand-held low-light video camera with special filters whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and the interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere. The TOP has many advantages over similar photographic recordings made on previous flights because it allows real-time observations of the images seen by the orbiter crew."

www.nasas-unknowns.com...

Originally posted by ArMaP
That video, in my opinion, should be discussed in a different thread (and it probably was), because if they are different things, ....

But if they are NOT different things then indea they ARE relevant in this thread...

I have a closeup of one of the thunderstorm objects that pulses the same way as that big one in the tether film I showed... and it too has the same look...

Here is the other video I gave the wrong link for

STS 80 Formation over Africa... you can see a large one cross the screen almost invisible then it too brightens



Again this footage is shot with the INFRARED camera... a point everyone seems to overlook

As to the OP Title...
'STS-75 Tether Incident - Mystery solved! Breaking News"

Isn't misleading, disinfo, sensationalist titles like this against the T&C

tss-1
here is the system tss-1 used
the setup used one of 2 lenses 55mm f/1.2 or 135mm
it used various filters, a Fabry Perot interferometer, and spectrograph

google book
The ccd camera was operated on sts-46 and sts-75
a 25mm diameter s-20 photo-cathode intensifier tube set on focal plane of camera was fiberoptically coupled to an interline transfer ccd

Large document
This contains info on both Tss-1's but also contains interesting info on NASA's energy coillection

When the electron gun was not in operation, a large resistance prevented the Shuttle from being biased thousands of volts negative of its surrounding plasma. However, there remained a large voltage between the tether lower end and the Shuttle orbiter. This enormous bias eventually led to a continuous arc on the tether

At a voltage of 3500 V, the TSS-1R tether leaked gas into its deployer control reel enclosures and the elevated neutral pressure led to Paschen discharge