New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by Phage


well i guess you are trying to play around the fact of the matter that "tremendous emissions of secondary electrons" were observed and recorded.... which you seemed to deny initially.... however, when pointed out.... you are using the same presented sources + the much anticipated 'debunking' semantics....

I did not deny that it occurred. I asked for evidence that a visible effect was produced. When you say "observed" do you mean they saw something? Because that's not what the quote says.

The data suggested tremendous emissions of secondary electrons due to particle bombardment or solar ultraviolet or both. We had no reason to suppose that the RM400 coating would behave in this way before the TSS mission.

There was an effect which was observed in the lab when RM400 was exposed to high energy electrons. The coating itself luminesced but there was no plasma or electron "sheath".

During this testing, the coating was found to luminance, and a prolonged exposure of the coating to high-energy electrons caused the coating to darken.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 12/15/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


well, i wasn't wrong when i mentioned.... that you are playing around the fact... opting semantics.... when you observe something out of the ordinary... and then you have data suggesting whatever..... what does that mean.... when you switch on a bulb..... you see light right?

moreover if there is no plasma in the lab.... that doesn't mean its absent in space too....

furthermore in regards to the tether producing electricity after the break.....

Research results will be presented for tether electric potential experiments performed during the two missions of the Tethered Satellite System (TSS-1 in August 1992 and TSS-1R in February 1996). The Tether Current and Voltage Monitor (TCVM) was built to make accurate measurements of tether potential which are fundamental to the study of electrodynamic tethered satellite systems acting as long electric double probes. Numerical models of tether motional EMF were developed using Orbiter and satellite filtered trajectory estimates, magnetic field models, and magnetometer measurements. The model predictions of potential are subtracted from actual measurements to evaluate the accuracy of the TCVM measurement and their differences correlated to trajectory, instrument state, and other parameters. The voltage residuals produced from the International Geomagnetic Reference Field 1990 magnetic field model (IGRF90), the SETS Aspect Magnetometer (AMAG) data, and the Tether Magnetic Field Experiment magnetometer (TEMAG) data are compared. Generally, the residuals produced by the TEMAG data for TSS-1 are more consistent with vertical electric fields caused by diurnal neutral winds. Experimental results confirm that the TCVM accurately and directly measures tether potential not only to characterize tether system electrodynamics but also to measure natural electric fields.

Tether Potential Measurements and Models for TSS Electrodynamics

Meanwhile, science teams for the Tethered Satellite System demonstrated their own brand of telescience throughout the night, commanding and receiving data from their reactivated instruments on the satellite. The Marshall Space Flight Center's Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics (ROPE), the Italian Space Agency's Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects (RETE) and the Second University of Rome's Magnetic Field (TEMAG) experiments continue to collect what TSS Mission Scientist Dr. Nobie Stone called "very good data" about the satellite's interaction with its surrounding region of charged particles and magnetic fields. Scientists report that they can measure a sunlight-induced electrical charge on the satellite as it moves through the daylight and night portions of its orbit around the Earth. Later today, the satellite's ROPE and RETE instruments will measure the effects of electron gun firings from the Shuttle Electrodynamic Tether System (SETS) on the satellite and its environment.

science.ksc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 15/12/09 by mcrom901]

reply to post by mcrom901

Ok. You are just throwing stuff out without understanding any of it.

The first quote has nothing to do with what happened after the tether separated it is saying that the TVCM instrument works.

The second quote; the tether had an electric charge produced by sunlight. I see nothing about any electron flow, current, or visible effects.

reply to post by Phage


the first quote was mentioned to acquaint you to 'temag'......

and the rest of what you have mentioned does not hold any water.... its like trying to prove the negative....

edited to add..... you missed to address what was mentioned fully....

Scientists report that they can measure a sunlight-induced electrical charge on the satellite as it moves through the daylight and night portions of its orbit around the Earth.

i.e. NIGHT PORTIONS



[edit on 15/12/09 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by Phage

 

edited to add..... you missed to address what was mentioned fully....

Scientists report that they can measure a sunlight-induced electrical charge on the satellite as it moves through the daylight and night portions of its orbit around the Earth.

i.e. NIGHT PORTIONS

Seems like Phage DID address it:

Originally posted by Phage
The second quote; the tether had an electric charge produced by sunlight. I see nothing about any electron flow, current, or visible effects.

What else do you want to say about it? That electric charge doesn't vanish when the tether passes into darkness? OK it doesn't vanish in the night portions, though I imagine there's a gradual voltage decrease once the sun stops hitting it, since it's a sunlight induced effect.

But I'm still not getting your point. It's just an electric charge.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Phage
I did not deny that it occurred. I asked for evidence that a visible effect was produced. When you say "observed" do you mean they saw something? Because that's not what the quote says.

The data suggested tremendous emissions of secondary electrons due to particle bombardment or solar ultraviolet or both. We had no reason to suppose that the RM400 coating would behave in this way before the TSS mission.

maybe its suggestive.... because they cannot pin down the cause i.e. whether particle bombardment OR solar ultraviolet OR both?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
OK it doesn't vanish in the night portions, though I imagine there's a gradual voltage decrease once the sun stops hitting it, since it's a sunlight induced effect.

But I'm still not getting your point. It's just an electric charge.

does this clarify your misconceptions.......

Several persons have noticed that the tether has become dimmer with time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage

During this testing, the coating was found to luminance, and a prolonged exposure of the coating to high-energy electrons caused the coating to darken.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...

the full context makes it more comprehensible..... specially about the light being visible to the naked eye.....

Exposure of the TSS-1 thermal control coating, RM400, to high energy electrons causes the coating to luminesce and if maintained for long periods of time will cause the coating to darken. The luminescence of RM400 was found to be a function of electron energy with light first being visible to the naked eye at 300- to 400-V bias on the sphere. The intensity of the luminescence was measured with three different size grounding screens, which changed the current density to the sphere, with no perceptible change observed. The RM400 paint turned noticeably dark when exposed to 500- and 1,000-eV electrons at a fluence of 1018 electrons/cm2. At nominal mission electron fluences, there is minimal effect, additionally, the darkened surface is cleaned when exposed to AO. Depending on the AO and electron exposure, it is possible that the darkening caused by the electron exposure and the cleaning by the AO would not cause any noticeable change in any surface exposed to AO. Surfaces not exposed to AO will still be subjected to possible darkening caused by high electron fluences. Both AO and electron fluences at high energies should be reassessed for the TSS-1 reflight mission.

trs.nis.nasa.gov...



[edit on 15/12/09 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
OK it doesn't vanish in the night portions, though I imagine there's a gradual voltage decrease once the sun stops hitting it, since it's a sunlight induced effect.

But I'm still not getting your point. It's just an electric charge.

does this clarify your misconceptions.......

Several persons have noticed that the tether has become dimmer with time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What misconceptions?

a prolonged exposure of the coating to high-energy electrons caused the coating to darken.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...


If the coating is getting darker, I would expect the darker sheath to reflect less sunlight over time.

more data.....

A sharp transition was observed in the particle and field environment when the satellite potential exceeded + 5 volts. This seems to suggest an abrupt modification of the physical processes operating in the satellite’s near vicinity (Winningham et al., 1998). Below + 5 volts, mostly accelerated ionospheric thermal electrons were observed. However, when the satellite potential exceeded the + 5 volt level, a sudden on-set of suprathermal (~ 200 eV) electrons, plasma waves, magnetic perturbations, and turbulence in the satellite sheath were observed (Winningham et al., 1998; Iess et al., 1998; Mariani et al., 1998; and Wright et al., 1998). The suprathermal flux intensity grew rapidly with increasing satellite potential and quickly swamped the ionospheric thermals. Specifically, as shown in Figure 4, a 10 V increase in satellite potential resulted in four orders of magnitude increase in the suprathermal electron flux (Winningham et al. 1998). It now appears that the conducting thermal control coating of the satellite may be the source of a large photo and/or secondary electron flux. However, their suprathermal energy remains a mystery.

the tether break event.....

The tether break, in retrospect, has provided an intriguing and potentially valuable event in which large currents (in excess of one amp) at high satellite potentials (greater than 1 kV) began flowing approximately 10 s prior to the break and continued for about 90 s after separation (Gilchrist et al., 1998). At MET 3/05:11, during a day pass, the tether suddenly broke near the top of the deployer boom. The break resulted from a flaw in the insulation surrounding the tether’s conducting core. This allowed the ignition of a strong electrical discharge which melted the tether. At the time of the break, the satellite was deployed 19.7 km above the Orbiter and the motional emf generated by the tether was 3500 volts. The discharge, in effect, shorted the tether to the Orbiter's electrical ground. This minimized resistance in the system, drove the Orbiter to high negative potentials, and maximized both current flow in the tether (greater than one ampere) and the voltage imposed on the satellite (approximately 1 kV positive). Finally, and most intriguing, the tether current and satellite potential remained virtually unchanged as the tether broke and separated from the Orbiter. This event raises three fundamental questions: (1) How could currents greater than one ampere be collected by the satellite at the given voltages? (2) How were such large currents dissipated by the Orbiter prior to the break? and (3), How were these currents dissipated at the end of the broken tether after separation from the Orbiter?

AND THIS IS THE REAL KILLER.........

On the other hand, emission of electrons would require an extremely efficient secondary emitter or the presence of a high density gas cloud—such as would be created by thruster operations. However, according to the Orbiter data, no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress at that time. Unfortunately, the TSS data set may not be sufficient to resolve this question.

The above observations are also of critical importance because they would appear to define the plasma environments of large-scale structures in space.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 15/12/09 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by Phage

 

well i guess you are trying to play around the fact of the matter that "tremendous emissions of secondary electrons" were observed and recorded.... which you seemed to deny initially.... however, when pointed out.... you are using the same presented sources + the much anticipated 'debunking' semantics....

Hmm, when you provide a quote about emissions being 'observed', are you suggesting that the 'observation' was made in visible light, or in the more scientific usage as 'detected'? Are we arguing over misinterpretations of words?

reply to post by JimOberg


scroll up.....

The luminescence of RM400 was found to be a function of electron energy with light first being visible to the naked eye at 300- to 400-V bias on the sphere.

Originally posted by mcrom901
more data.....

AND THIS IS THE REAL KILLER.........

On the other hand, emission of electrons would require an extremely efficient secondary emitter or the presence of a high density gas cloud—such as would be created by thruster operations. However, according to the Orbiter data, no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress at that time. Unfortunately, the TSS data set may not be sufficient to resolve this question.

The above observations are also of critical importance because they would appear to define the plasma environments of large-scale structures in space.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean you think you have totally destroyed any theory to explain the 'debris' in the tether video as based on shuttle-released stuff of any kind? Is that the source of your high-amperage surge of joy?

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg

 

scroll up.....

The luminescence of RM400 was found to be a function of electron energy with light first being visible to the naked eye at 300- to 400-V bias on the sphere.

This 'sphere' is a test object in a lab, right? Not the tether in space?

Originally posted by JimOberg
This 'sphere' is a test object in a lab, right? Not the tether in space?

party on jim.......

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 15/12/09 by mcrom901]

reply to post by mcrom901

So what? If the tether displayed this effect in space, so what? If it was brighter, it would have caused more saturation of the vidicon tube.

What exactly are you getting at?

reply to post by Phage


loool... what am i getting at?

that you too join the party....

www.youtube.com...

It looks like O'Leary is trying to get NASA to publish his biography, apparently without success so far:


www.brianoleary.info...

A few thoughts on the nature of plasma in our planets plasma sphere.

When you think about it, a hydrogen atom is really just a proton. It has an atomic number of one, and a mass of 1.0008, and a charge of 1+, which means it typically has neither a electron or a neutron. It must simply be a proton in order for it have an atomic weight of approximately 1, and a positive charge of one, being that there is a positive charge of one associated with each proton. If the hydrogen atom had one electron, then its charge would be neutral.
Being that it is diatomic, it would be two protons. However this is not what we are taught. We are taught that diatomic hydrogen has two electrons. On the periodic table, Oxygen is 2- in charge, and hydrogen is one positive. Due to the Hydrogen positive charge and the oxygen negative charge, oxygen and hydrogen form water with such a strong bond. 2H2 + 1O2 -> 2H2O. However, if the diatomic hydrogen atom has two electrons, is should be charge neutral, not 2+.

The current belief is that the sun is composed of hydrogen, but
it seems that if this was the case, the solar wind would be composed almost exclusively of hydrogen ions, or more simply put, protons, but that is not the case.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The Solar Wind Spectrometer was deployed on Apollo 12 and 15. Although the solar wind contains ions of most chemical elements (including the noble gases measured by the Solar Wind Composition Experiment), over 95% of the particles in the solar wind are electrons and protons, in roughly equal numbers.

So there must be all these other elements in order for the sun to expel all of these elements. What I wonder is where do all the electrons come from? Why does the study state there are electrons and protons, unless they are not bonded together. Attempts to find answers to this on the web are very unproductive. It seems that most studies talk around this understanding.

You have all these electrons and protons striking our O3 Ozone, which is waiting eagerly interact with anything it contacts. Bonding occurs, new particles are scattered, and our plasma sphere is formed.

What would this plasma be mainly composed of? I would think oxygen and hydrogen, except that there would be far more hydrogen atoms than oxygen atoms.

Heat is defined as vibration, molecules moving around bouncing into each other. In space, there is little to no heat, so no vibration, few molecules bumping into each other. Studies have shown that water in space re-condenses. The molecules of water that come in contact with each other link together to from ice. Extremely low heat/vibration means that there is little to tear them apart, so the influence of the almost non-existence of pressure in a vacuum is nulled by the lack of heat, thus the molecules easily bond together.

Could the plasma structure in space consist of protons and electrons forming strands or proton-electron-proton-electron and on and on? Without pressure pushing the molecules into tighter spheres, they form long strands and sheaths which eventually form spherically, like ice molecules form circles, but very large spheres.

Just thoughts.