New Analysis of the STS-75 Tether Incident -2010 (my research)

Great Job Depthoffield! Star and flag! Excellent analysis as usual.

I saw the exchange you had with Easynow about the original video, versus the youtube copy, and I can say this: If an object is in focus, the original might provide some more detail, but if the objects are out of focus (which is largely the case with the objects of interest you analyzed), a higher resolution video will not bring out of focus objects into focus. Therefore I can predict that where we see fuzzy, out of focus dots in this video, we will see fuzzy out of focus dots in the original. The star that's in focus might look a little sharper in the original but the star isn't really the object of interest.

So contrary to what easy now says, this is definitely not a waste of time due to the resolution of the video used (It could be a waste of time for other reasons like you might have already convinced the people that could be convinced in the other thread, but you might get some new readers here who haven't seen the other one so maybe it's still worthwhile to summarize all your findings like this).

I just had one question, as I too tried to estimate the distances of the objects, and one variable I didn't have any information on was the f-stop setting on the camera, all I knew was the available range of f-stops. I see you have some low values like 1.6 and 3.2 plugged into your DOF calculator, but the camera's aperture can go up to something like f-16, right? So how did you know what f-stop to use?

You're probably right that they were using the largest or nearly the largest of the available apertures, but I wasn't really sure about that so I used the worst case of the smallest aperture just to prove that even if that were the case (and I don't think it was) the objects were still less than a few hundred meters away, well in front of the tether. But I believe your estimate of a few tens of meters.


reply to post by JimOberg


Glad to see you found this thread Jim, I know you went through the trouble of requesting the execute package and said you'd share your analysis of it with us after you had a chance to review it, but the old thread got moved to the "no proof necessary" zone before you had a chance to do that. If you are so inclined I'd still be interested in your thoughts on that execute package relative to any possible source for the particles, now that you have a thread (where proof is allowed) to post it in.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

 

if not original, every other better copy.

you just don't get it do you ?

get the RAW NASA file or your wasting everyone's time !

cheers easynow

you should make an image out of those comments & use instead.... it would be ideal

just imagine.......

Originally posted by depthoffield
Next, what is the resolution of the NASA camera? Well, this is not clearly described, but this camera produce a TV signal.
While the resolution of the TV signal could be 768 x 576 (interlaced frames), what we have here, the youtube versions, are only 320 x 240 pixels.

So we see only a video like the NASA cameras had only 320 x 240 pixels resolution (but even more degraded in quality due to some youtube compression).

i'm dumbfounded how such assertions are not even considered as hypothetical.... but spewed as mere facts...

Originally posted by depthoffield
well, based on this copy of video we have, we managed to find some good findings:

- the camera used

hmmmmm.......... -506 or -508 ???

The -506 and -508 cameras have automatic light
control (ALC) circuitry to provide control of the
camera lens' iris and the camera's silicon target
high voltage supply. There are three ALC settings
for these cameras: peak, normal, and
average. To select an ALC mode, the crew will
use panel A7U ALC and Gamma pushbuttons
(PEAK, NORM, AVG). MCC/INCO can also
select ALC settings via uplink commands. The
ALC settings shift the camera's dynamic range
from white (peak), to neutral (normal), to black
(average).


The peak ALC setting is most sensitive to
incoming light; therefore, the iris will allow less
light to enter the lens than with an ALC setting
of normal. The average ALC setting will
command the iris to open more and increase the
voltage gain when compared to the ALC setting
of normal. When crews or MCC require direct
control of the iris, the iris switch on panel A7U
just above the ALC AVG PBI or an iris open/
close command by MCC can be used to disable
the ALC. This mode is called semi-manual. The
camera operator has total control of the iris but
does not control the vidicon gain since the auto
gain control (AGC) is still enabled.

www.shuttlepresskit.com...

and what role does that play in your calculations?

reply to post by mcrom901

The visibility of the tether from the surface is exactly what my external quote is talking about. The actual brightness of the tether was consistent with the calculated brightness, it was not brighter than it should have been.

But as before, even if the tether were self illuminated (there is no evidence that it was) it is irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever the source of illumination, saturation of the vidicon sensor causes the tether to appear "thick" as a result of its brightness.


[edit on 1/29/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


nops..... that does not make any sense..... how was the 'expected' brightness calculated in the first place? length-width ratio? then compared with what

due to the cylindrical nature of the tether, it had produced specular reflections.... which makes it practically impossible to analyze its relative brightness geometry....

moreover... the following quote is self contradicting......

So, the main speculation is that the electrical(?)
processes have made the surface darker.

simply speculated as such due to the very fact that the tether had been observed as getting dimmer with the passage of time.... most probably they could not have accounted for it in their 'calculations'.... and quite funnily seem to be seeing half the light here....

in fact the tether coating had become darker due to the tremendous emissions of secondary electrons via the plasma charge..... check my earlier post

and finally in regards to your claims about the vidicon.... as mentioned above.... the camera in question was equipped with an 'automatic light control' system..... which was controllable via the semi-manual interface.... its therefore impractical to presume that the observed tether was 'bloomed' all throughout.... in fact dof has shown a few instances where slight blooming is noticeable due to enabled auto gain control of the vidicon.....

reply to post by mcrom901

The length-width ratio is irrelevant.
www.satobs.org...

You'd better look up the definition of specular reflection. Specular reflection is what makes it easy to calculate the brightness accurately. The opposite, diffuse reflection, causes some problems. Both types are dependent on the character of the reflective surface far more than the shape of the object.

As it says, calculations were for the original/maximum brightness. Over time (months) the tether became dimmer due to the darkening of the surface. The darkening, as you point out, occurred as result of exposure to high energy electrons. High energy electrons are present in the ionosphere. The RM400 coating was found to emit electrons. But it was the incoming electrons which were found to darken the coating in the lab. I have found no information about the energy levels of the emitted electrons (just that the there were "tremendous emissions of secondary electrons", nothing about the energy level of those electrons) but I doubt they approached the level of free electrons in the ionosphere (not to mention things like cosmic rays).

It is not "impractical" to presume saturation of the vidicon sensor, it is reasonable. In the video, most of the field of view is space. The AGC averages the light level of the field of view so it would adjust for low light levels causing the saturation of of the tether.


[edit on 1/29/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by mcrom901

well it seems you forgot the actual diameter of the tether & the reasons why it was being observed in such a way......

here ya go again.....

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by mcrom901
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/953377b2ec24.jpg[/atsimg]

recoiling after breaking free.....

(click to open player in new window)

i.e. the observed diameter not being henceforth the 'virgin' 2.54 mm....

I am assuming that for the tether to be so visible, it must be coiled like a telephone cord and have more "width" than just the 2.5 mm thickness of the cord.

www.satobs.org...

Regarding thickness of the tether, as we see recorded on the videos....
Some of us say this great thickness is only majoritary a camera artifact, made by the vidicon NASA camera C, effect called oversaturation and bleeding the signal to adjacent pixels.
Mcrom901 says that we see more or less the real thickness, because the coiling of the tether like a cord phone, (making appearing much thick than the 2.5 mm wire), and some plasma generating light.

Let's see what if the coiling could generate the thickness we see:



We have the data for NASA camera C which took these "misterious UFO's with tether"




We have identified the part of the sky where the tether is seen: constelation Centaurus.


First, a brief identification when we see the tether in an unzoomed situation, naming some stars and using the stacking method to better isolate the stars between moving "ufo's", also overlaying the image onto a Stellarium chart:



Second, absolutely the same thing, but using another sky-chart software, an older one, Skymap, which have the advantage that we could make ANGLE MEASUREMENTS:




The reason i used also Stellarium chart, is because it is free, more complete, and any of you could use it. But it can't do angle measurements. That's why i also posted the Skymap-chart version, which i used for measurements.


From Skymap, I have the angle between two relevant stars:
HIP71860 and HIP71352

The angle is 5.2 degree.

We can make some other measurement and calculations based on this value, using it as a unit (ruler) for measurements, and marked by yellow segments.


First, the angle made by the length of the tether, is the same 5.2 degree, while the horizontal field of view is about 29.1 degree :




Second, the distance from the shuttle to the tether:


...we have some information from the audio conversations:



At 5:30:14 GMT the speaker says that the tether is 77 nautical miles away.
At 5:30:57 GMT the speaker says that the tether is 81 nautical miles away.
At 5:32:25 GMT the speaker says that the tether is long about 12 miles. (nautical or terestrial mile?....also I don't know from where he knows the length, from measurements (?) or simply knowing how much tether was deployed before breaking(?), we will see below how the calculus will fit)
At 5:32:40 GMT the speaker says that the tether is 99 nautical miles away.
At 5:32:54 GMT the unzoom is starting to occur.
At about 5:33 GMT, is the frame where i made the measurements using the yellow units of 5.2 degree.

1 nautical mile = 1.852 kilometers
1 terrestrial mile = 1.609 km


Therefore, we can estimate with enough precision that the tether in my frame with measurements, is about 100 nautical miles away, meaning 185 kilometer


We have the angle, we have the distance D.

We can calculate the tether length L (infact the projection to the line of sight):

L = 2 * D * tan (angle/2) = 16.8 km = 9 nautical miles = 10.44 terrestrial miles.

We don't know if tether is exactly perpendicular to the line of sight, therefore the L length calculated is minimum...in reality, if the tether is more or less tilted, the REAL length is greater. Therefore, the 16.8 value is a minimum (tether exactly perpendicular to the line of sight)

We know that the length of the wire was more than 19 km when broke:

TSS-1R mission
It was released in February 1996 from STS-75. Over 19 kilometers of the tether were deployed before the tether broke.

en.wikipedia.org...

At the time of the break, the satellite was deployed 19.7 km above the Orbiter

Now about recoiling...

If the initial length, after the break, was 19.7 km, and later, after 4 days, we have at least 16.8 km, we may have maximum a 15% theoretical reduction in length because of recoiling....like 1 meter of straight wire will become 85 cm, easier to imagine the amount of "recoiling"

BUT...

But, according to this source: www.tethers.com...

A stationary tether is one that connects two masses together and remains at constant length, except, of course, for deployment and retrieval. A stationary tether could drag a payload through the upper atmosphere of a planet and lower payloads to the surface of an asteroid. If the tether is conducting and is moving through electric or magnetic fields, then it can be used as a generator to provide electrical power, or as a motor to provide propulsion. If the tether and its masses are orbiting a massive body, then typically the system will be gravity gradient stabilized, with the tether pointed along the radius vector to the massive body. Thus, although the tether is stationary in the orbital reference frame, it is really rotating once per orbit in inertial space, and so is a slowly rotating bolo.

As you can see, when there are two masses on the ends of the tether, there is a net tession in the wire which stabilise the tehter. Of course, in our case, after the tether break, the mass/body which is closer to Earth, (which before the break was the shuttle), now is missing.
Not quite...
But, the tether itself has a mass per unit on length.
Assuming a density of the composition copper-kevlar-teflon of about 4000 kg/m3 (just for making an idea), the whole tether, 20 km, has about 400 kg.
Now if you think that the whole tether is composed from 4 quarters, every quarter have ~ 100 kilograms. Therefore, the first and last quarter could act very well as the two masses from the ends, providing net tension into the middle two quarters. We can even make an aproximate calculatiopn of the centrifugal force and gravitational force, to estimate a value of the net tension. Of course, this in very rough aproximation.

I think we have a good motif that the tether didn't recoiled, except the free end, where the net tension is too faint and can be exceeded by the coiling memory of the tether.
This is congruent to some observations:

TSS popped out of the shadow at 5:53 AM, local time and lit up like a neon sign. It was fully three degrees long with the TSS itself easily visible as a 3 to 3.5 mag point of light at the upper end of the bluish-gray tether. The tether was angled at a position angle (to local vertical) of about 220 degrees and at the lower (snapped-off) end was a noticable condensation of light. It was obviously coiled slightly at the free end.

www.satobs.org...


This also confirms the match between what we see and what we know from NASA regarding this tether, TSS-1R. (i mean, it is TSS-1R, not other tether -with different length presumably- as suggested by Zorgon/Easynow)





[edit on 29/1/10 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield
Second, absolutely the same thing, but using another sky-chart software, an older one, Skymap, which have the advantage that we could make ANGLE MEASUREMENTS:

did you understand what was mentioned here......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mcrom901
@4:25 mark in the below video.... the crew are being questioned about their observations..... particularly as to which side of the 'strand' the satellite is...

as you may notice..... there is no response.... absolute silence for about a minute.... followed by camera zooming..... until they break in with irrelevant distance observations..... its obvious that they are unable to precisely pinpoint the object in question......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9fbd06d3bd6.jpg[/atsimg]

The spherical satellite was 1.6 meters in diameter, with the upper hemisphere containing some of the scientific payload, and the lower hemisphere containing the support equipment. The satellite contained cold gas (nitrogen) thrusters used for deployment, retrieval, and attitude control. The 2.54 mm diameter conducting tether cowas constructed using Kevlar and Nomex with 10 strands of 34 AWG copper wire and a Teflon sheath.

NASA was reponsible for the TSS deployer and systems integration, and Italy for building the satellite. Five investigations from Italy and five from the USA were selected for the first mission. Because of a technical problem (a protruding bolt) the tether could only be released to about 840 feet. A reflight of the tether system (TSS-1R) happened in 1996.

The TSS-1R mission is a reflight of the Tethered Satellite TSS-1 that had been flown on the Space Shuttle mission STS-46 in July of 1992. A protruding bolt had prevented full release of the tether during the TSS-1 mission. The TSS mission equipment consists of the deployer system, the Italian-build satellite, the electrically conductive tether (22km total length) and 6 science instruments. The TSS-1 is to be deployed from a reel in the orbiter payload bay upward (away from Earth) to up to 20 Km (12.5 miles) above the Orbiter. The objectives of this mission are: (1) to verify engineering performance of the Tethered Satellite System (TSS); (2) to determine and to understand the electro-magnetic interaction between the tether/satellite/orbiter system and the ambient space plasma; (3) to investigate and to understand the dynamical forces acting upon a tethered satellite; (4) to demonstrate electrical power generation; and, (5) to develop the capability for future tether applications on the Shuttle and Space Station. The deploying system consists of a motor- driven tether storage reel and level wind system.

Five hours after deployment began on February 25, 1996, with 19.7 km (of 20.7 planned) of tether released, the tether cable suddenly snapped near the top of the deployment boom. The TSS satellite shot away into a higher orbit.

TSS instruments could be re-actived and produced science data for three days until battery power ran out.

nasascience.nasa.gov...

now... how is it... that the 2.54 mm tether was obfuscating the 1.6 meters satellite..... if there was a true 'out of focus' phenomenon being observed here.... how is it that the spherical end was not equally distorted....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83bf83e1d321.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by mcrom901
now... how is it... that the 2.54 mm tether was obfuscating the 1.6 meters satellite..... if there was a true 'out of focus' phenomenon being observed here.... how is it that the spherical end was not equally distorted....

So basically what you are asking is, why is it harder to see an object that's 1.6 meters long than an object that's 17,000 meters long?

I don't think that should be too hard to figure out.

Originally posted by depthoffield
Now about recoiling...

If the initial length, after the break, was 19.7 km, and later, after 4 days, we have at least 16.8 km, we may have maximum a 15% theoretical reduction in length because of recoiling....like 1 meter of straight wire will become 85 cm, easier to imagine the amount of "recoiling"

how about some real observations instead of your guesstimates........

TSS plus Tether observed from home tonite( Moonwatch site 8597,
or 34d 57m 42S, 138d 39m 01 sec E, ht 150m) at 10:17:34.5 sec UTC March 7 RA 5h 21.5min declination +33.3( Epoch 2000). 1 degree long,
lower end slighly ahead of upper. Satellite seen in binoculars
at upper end. Suggestion of a glint at lower end.
Tony Beresford

www.satobs.org...

TSS was sighted again on March 3 at 1015GMT from 150 km east of
Ayers Rock at a maximum elevation of 49 degrees. Four minutes of video were recorded beginning with bright twilight and ending near an almost full moon. The tether varied between 1.0 and 1.7 degrees in length which corresponds to an apparent maximum length of 14.4 km.

www.satobs.org...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mcrom901

 

The length-width ratio is irrelevant.

what i was referring to was the total reflecting surface area of the tether....

www.satobs.org...

lots of assumptions there.... and the approximate results are also nowhere near the "maximum brightness" levels of just some regular observations...

results of the calculations from your link.....

This would give the tether a visual magnitude of about 3.6

hmmmm............

On Feb. 29 I flew to Cairns on the norhteast coast and finally
observed the TSS on March 1 at 0928 GMT. The moon was waxing and high phase but the 76 degree elevation pass proved wonderful to see. The TSS satellite was seen at about magnitude +2.5, the tether around +2.5 to +3.

www.satobs.org...

It was easily visible to the naked eye and the satellite end was on top and in a vertical orientation. The satellite was about mag. 1.7 and the string about mag. 2.3

www.satobs.org...

I was not caught flat-footed this time and I am quite certain the TSS itself at 70 degrees culmination was mag 2.5. Much brighter than I expected. I also downgrade my 3 degree length estimate from yesterday to closer to 2.5 degrees

www.satobs.org...

You'd better look up the definition of specular reflection. Specular reflection is what makes it easy to calculate the brightness accurately. The opposite, diffuse reflection, causes some problems. Both types are dependent on the character of the reflective surface far more than the shape of the object.

it seems you misunderstood what i meant...... my emphasis was on the practicality of such an analysis not about theories......

Two conditions must be met;

a) the tether must be in the opposite azimuth to the Sun in the sky and

b) the angle of the observer below the "equator" of the tether must equal the
angle of the Sun above its "equator".

www.satobs.org...

As it says, calculations were for the original/maximum brightness. Over time (months) the tether became dimmer due to the darkening of the surface. The darkening, as you point out, occurred as result of exposure to high energy electrons. High energy electrons are present in the ionosphere. The RM400 coating was found to emit electrons. But it was the incoming electrons which were found to darken the coating in the lab. I have found no information about the energy levels of the emitted electrons (just that the there were "tremendous emissions of secondary electrons", nothing about the energy level of those electrons) but I doubt they approached the level of free electrons in the ionosphere (not to mention things like cosmic rays).

check here.......

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...

It is not "impractical" to presume saturation of the vidicon sensor, it is reasonable. In the video, most of the field of view is space. The AGC averages the light level of the field of view so it would adjust for low light levels causing the saturation of of the tether.

its the ALC which actually manages & controls this.... only when its switched to manual mode.... AGC gets to remain on automatic by default.... however the operator has the option to use the gamma correction circuits to control the gain.....

reply to post by mcrom901

My point was not the brightness which the author of that post came up with but that the length-width ratio of the tether was not relevant to it's brightness as you said it was. Yes, the author made quite a few assumptions and himself says:

I may not have all the numbers right, but here's a first cut which others can modify/correct as needed.

In fact, the estimate was fairly close considering the number of variables involved and the assumptions made. It should also be noted that observers' visual magnitude estimates would not necessarily be accurate.

Others have commented on the surprising brightness of the tether - one report placed it at about mag. +3, though brightness estimates of such an unusual (in effect one dimensional) object are hard to make.

www.satobs.org...

You are talking about an observed luminescence of the RM400 coating under laboratory conditions, in a spherical configuration. While there is no indication that the tether exhibited this phenomenon while in orbit there is also no mention of an illuminated plasma sheath surrounding the sphere during the experiment (as you continue to claim). The coating itself was luminescent.

The semi-manual mode of the CCTV camera allows the operator to adjust the iris, not the gain of the vidicon sensor but there is also a fully automatic mode. We don't know what mode the camera was in but that is not entirely relevant. Stars are effectively a point source of light yet in this video they appear as blobs. It is the nature of this sensor (and other types) to render a bright, effectively 0 or 1 dimensional, object "larger" than it appears to the naked eye, otherwise they would occupy only a single pixel in the case of a star or a line a single pixel wide in the case of the tether. There is always a certain amount of bleeding.

But you've gone into the same sidetrack again. Even if there was a glowing plasma sheath surrounding the tether, what is the significance? What does that have to do with all of the evidence which has been presented by DepthofField showing that the bokeh disks are produced by debris relatively close to the shuttle? How does that disallow that evidence?


[edit on 1/29/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I just had one question, as I too tried to estimate the distances of the objects, and one variable I didn't have any information on was the f-stop setting on the camera, all I knew was the available range of f-stops. I see you have some low values like 1.6 and 3.2 plugged into your DOF calculator, but the camera's aperture can go up to something like f-16, right? So how did you know what f-stop to use?

You're probably right that they were using the largest or nearly the largest of the available apertures, but I wasn't really sure about that so I used the worst case of the smallest aperture just to prove that even if that were the case (and I don't think it was) the objects were still less than a few hundred meters away, well in front of the tether. But I believe your estimate of a few tens of meters.

well, my calculus goes for the maximum iris (lower value = 1.6), a logically used settings in LOW LIGHT SITUATION when you want maximum light senzitivity.
In this situation, the hyperfocal focus distance for this lens results to be ~105 meters, and the focusing distance when maximum focusing maneuver (frame 15) to be about 21 meters. Also, one object for example object 9, should be at 11 meters.

If, somehow, they used a closed down iris, for some reason, let's say a value of N=8....

Then the same calculus, with this new value wil give this results, just because, logically, we have a wider depth of field = rules of optics:

Hyperfocal distance = 20.9 meters (instead 105)
Focus distance at frame 15 = 4,27 meters (instead 21)
Object 9 distance = 2.2 meters (instead 11)

So, do you see, smaller the iris opening, will means the objects are even closer to the shuttle.

[sarcastic mode]Closer i said? An even greater nightmare for those which want us to believe that optic rules are wrong. I will say that 9 to 30 meters is enough closer to make them "happy" [/sarcastic mode]

Here we can see the iris in action, at the same camera (but only with color lens assembly instead):

This is taken from STS-6, you remeber it i guess.
During the mission, astronauts are going outside on an EVA. The sequence is filmed, as astronauts themselves said, with the "AFT TV camera"
Here is the entire sequence narrated by the astronauts:





And here is just the slowed down sequence, showing how iris mechanism of the camera is closing down:




See the great interval of iris opening.

Also, the same notches, when fully opened. Damn coincidence.

reply to post by easynow


They All just look like " Ice Particles " In Space to me ................

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mcrom901

 

My point was not the brightness which the author of that post came up with but that the length-width ratio of the tether was not relevant to it's brightness as you said it was.

holy tethers.... what a twist....

your hasty generalizations are just too much....

fyki... the brightness calculation was indeed your point..... which i merely questioned by asking whether the length-width ratio (intended: product) could be a parameter.... thats it.....

Yes, the author made quite a few assumptions and himself says:

I may not have all the numbers right, but here's a first cut which others can modify/correct as needed.

In fact, the estimate was fairly close considering the number of variables involved and the assumptions made. It should also be noted that observers' visual magnitude estimates would not necessarily be accurate.

Others have commented on the surprising brightness of the tether - one report placed it at about mag. +3, though brightness estimates of such an unusual (in effect one dimensional) object are hard to make.

www.satobs.org...

seriously.... such unhealthy debating tactics could only 'appeal to ignorance'

You are talking about an observed luminescence of the RM400 coating under laboratory conditions, in a spherical configuration. While there is no indication that the tether exhibited this phenomenon while in orbit there is also no mention of an illuminated plasma sheath surrounding the sphere during the experiment (as you continue to claim). The coating itself was luminescent.

i never made any claims about a plasma sheath surrounding the sphere during the laboratory experiments..... thats utter nonsense.....

this is the actual data concerning the plasma sheath......

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.

Relatively energetic ions were observed flowing out of the satellite's sheath (Wright et al.,1998). The ram energy of ionospheric atomic oxygen ions is approximately 5 eV, so that the critical voltage for the transition discussed above is the level at which oxygen ions would be reflected or strongly deflected out of the sheath. It is suggested that the out-flowing ions, or possibly the expulsion of ions from the plasma sheath, may provide the free energy required to generate waves and drive the energization of the suprathermal electrons in the satellite’s environment (Iess et al., 1998; Winningham et al, 1998; Papadopoulos et al., 1998). The azimuthal variation of out-flowing ion flux and the correlation between its intensity and plasma noise in the satellite’s sheath are shown in Figure 5.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...

The semi-manual mode of the CCTV camera allows the operator to adjust the iris, not the gain of the vidicon sensor but there is also a fully automatic mode. We don't know what mode the camera was in but that is not entirely relevant. Stars are effectively a point source of light yet in this video they appear as blobs. It is the nature of this sensor (and other types) to render a bright, effectively 0 or 1 dimensional, object "larger" than it appears to the naked eye, otherwise they would occupy only a single pixel in the case of a star or a line a single pixel wide in the case of the tether. There is always a certain amount of bleeding.

of course it is relevant and as a matter of fact compulsory to know in what mode the cameras were......

The -506 and -508 cameras tend to bloom in the presence of bright objects. Changing the field-of-view can usually reduce the blooming without changing the camera's auto or manual operating modes. The IRIS switch provides manual control of the iris to the user. Use of this switch disables ALC. When using this switch, crews must not leave the payload bay cameras unattended.

CCTV camera operation is more of an art than a science when it comes to minimizing blooming without sacrificing contrast and clarity. However, please note the caution block, as the CCTV cameras (in particular the -506 and -508) are susceptible to damage by direct sunlight while in a manual mode.

www.shuttlepresskit.com...

But you've gone into the same sidetrack again. Even if there was a glowing plasma sheath surrounding the tether, what is the significance? What does that have to do with all of the evidence which has been presented by DepthofField showing that the bokeh disks are produced by debris relatively close to the shuttle? How does that disallow that evidence?

you're clutching at straws..... dof's evidence is simply equivalent to my claims that the following video is the definitive proof of ufos in the tether clip.....

sorry for not having time... i do what i can.

Originally posted by mcrom901
good morning........

Originally posted by mcrom901

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.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that time, when "no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress " is NOT the time when the movie was shot ( 1 Mars 1996 05:28 to 5:38 GMT ). In fact, the full quote, contains the temporal description, which is "PRIOR TO THE BREAK":

The ability of the Orbiter to dissipate the large tether current just prior to the break is surprising, in spite of its 600 volt negative bias. Collection of ionospheric atomic oxygen ions to neutralize the negative charge collected on the Orbiter is not feasible because of the low mobility of the relatively massive ions and the small area of the Orbiter’s conducting surfaces.
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.

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by depthoffield
well, based on this copy of video we have, we managed to find some good findings:

- the camera used

hmmmmm.......... -506 or -508 ???
[]

and what role does that play in your calculations?

it doesn't matter for bokeh calculations - distance to the objects-, or tether length calculations, because the lens assembly has the same characteristics:



And it doesn't matter because the bokeh dicsc are clear what they are (because their unmistakable characteristics... if you are still not sure, ask some proffessional or very good photographers)

Originally posted by mcrom901

did you understand what was mentioned here......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

yes, and is irelevant. Is just a quote related to another detailed discussion from amateur astronomers (www.satobs.org...) regarding the best estimation or methods of measurement or predicting the tether visibility (VISUAL MAGNITUDE, BRIGHTNESS) which you feel appropiate to mix it here. But this doesn't interfere with the bokeh or angle measurements, which are the subject of the calculations.

Originally posted by mcrom901
now... how is it... that the 2.54 mm tether was obfuscating the 1.6 meters satellite..... if there was a true 'out of focus' phenomenon being observed here.... how is it that the spherical end was not equally distorted....

This is a focusing maneuveur, containing focus and defocus of different elements in image:



Ask a photographer if you have problems in understanding this basic photographic phenomenon.

As for the 1.6 meter sattelite.... do you think this 1.6 meter sphere, at 100 miles away, is resolved as more than a single pixel in the NASA camera?

In fact we can make calculations:

tg (angle/2) = sattelite_diameter / (2 x distance)

therefore the angle made by the 1.6 meter sattelite, being 100 miles away (~180 km), is 0.00059 degree, or 2.1 arcseconds!

In the mean time, the NASA lens, when fully zoomed, have an angle of 6.6 degree full frame, covered by, maybe, 576 pixels in horizontal direction (in our youtube version, we only have 320 pixels), meaning that one pixel cover about:
6.6 / 576 = 0.0115 degree = 41 arcseconds. (or 74 arcseconds in youtube version)
So, you see, our sattelite's angular dimension is 20 times (or more)smaller than the angle which a single pixel covers. Therefore, the image of the sattelite, when in focus, is is recorded as just one pixel. And if the tether image is overexposed and with exagerated width, due to vidicon blooming and charging bleeding to adjacent pixels.. how do you want to see the sattelitte?

Originally posted by mcrom901
how about some real observations instead of your guesstimates........

TSS plus Tether observed from home tonite( Moonwatch site 8597,
or 34d 57m 42S, 138d 39m 01 sec E, ht 150m) at 10:17:34.5 sec UTC March 7 RA 5h 21.5min declination +33.3( Epoch 2000). 1 degree long,
lower end slighly ahead of upper. Satellite seen in binoculars
at upper end. Suggestion of a glint at lower end.
Tony Beresford

www.satobs.org...

TSS was sighted again on March 3 at 1015GMT from 150 km east of
Ayers Rock at a maximum elevation of 49 degrees. Four minutes of video were recorded beginning with bright twilight and ending near an almost full moon. The tether varied between 1.0 and 1.7 degrees in length which corresponds to an apparent maximum length of 14.4 km.

www.satobs.org...

This is hillarious, can you grasp it?

How you compare my measurement in one image, taken from one particular point in one direction having one particular perspective, from one particular distance (nasa camera, 100 miles away from tether) - which make one geometric arangement, and showing 5.2 degrees of the angular length of the tether,
with
other measurements, taken from different points, having different perspectives, from different distances, making other different geometric arangements, showing 1 to 1.7 degrees of the length of the tether?

How you compare this ?
It's like you are saying that your house having 40 degrees when you are next to it, is not the same house when you are 1 km away and seeing it as a 1 degree...


you should know that angle measurements depends from distance from where the observer see the object.








[edit on 6/2/10 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by depthoffield
wow, how fast you read this detailed analysis. 6 minutes. wow.
We all know your oficial opinion regarding the movement of that thread.
[edit on 26/1/10 by depthoffield]

i see NO REASON to read the same exact WEAK evidence you have already posted in my thread !


How Many Times Do You Expect All Of Us To Read The Same Thing Over And Over ??



you keep forgetting that until you have NASA's copy of the video EVERYTHING you posted is all just proclamations , guesses and conjecture based opinions and offers us NO REAL facts !

easier to just ignore that isn't it ?

and if you know my official opinion regarding the moving of that thread then why do you continue to have delusions of grandeur about it ?

[edit on 26-1-2010 by easynow]

You really are a thick one aren't you its not guess work its OPTICS.
You guys have some cheek when you claim plasma creatures massive spaceships .
You saw the videos the same ones used buy you guys to make YOUR claims.
Sorry mate its the properties of optics its a bit like gravity drop an object from a height in the USA it falls to the ground travel to Austrailia with that object drop it from a height it falls to the ground.
Told you IDIOTS many time re this subject ALL lenes have depth of field tables this along with OBVIOUS evidence pointed out on the videos & stills etc allows you to work out the relationship of an object and the camera distance.
Instead of sticking your fingers in your ears put on a snorkel and
I am sure you can think what to do...

reply to post by depthoffield


Sorry depthoffield but with a lot of them on here you are dealing with the HARD of learning, they make up their own little rules we have to stick to, THIS IS OPTICS its how they work, anyone on here with any knowledge of photography has said this from the the start they hate this kind of thing dont let them grind you you down great post.
They know they cant let this stand so they will be u2ing each other to gang up.
Anyone can check the facts of depth of field for lenese etc on the net all lens makers give them so lets see what BS they will come up with now!

I'm still getting the brush-off from my JSC PAO contact, and it
looks like i'm going to have to use the FOIA option.

I suspect the lack of interest to be based on simple contempt
for the subject matter and for the people who remain curious.

But I'm aware there are other potential interpretations of motives,
and frankly, I'm fed up with defending NASA against such suspicions.

Originally posted by depthoffield
that time, when "no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress " is NOT the time when the movie was shot ( 1 Mars 1996 05:28 to 5:38 GMT ). In fact, the full quote, contains the temporal description, which is "PRIOR TO THE BREAK":

The ability of the Orbiter to dissipate the large tether current just prior to the break is surprising, in spite of its 600 volt negative bias. Collection of ionospheric atomic oxygen ions to neutralize the negative charge collected on the Orbiter is not feasible because of the low mobility of the relatively massive ions and the small area of the Orbiter’s conducting surfaces.
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.

well.... it seems you did not pay enough attention to the full report....

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?

The ability of the broken end of the tether to dissipate such a large current has been shown to depend on the ionization of gas contained in the tether core (see Figure 7) and or the evaporation of tether material by the discharge to form an ionizable vapor (Gilchrist et al., 1998).

Originally posted by depthoffield
it doesn't matter for bokeh calculations - distance to the objects-, or tether length calculations, because the lens assembly has the same characteristics:

maybe subjectively to you......

Originally posted by depthoffield
yes, and is irelevant. Is just a quote related to another detailed discussion from amateur astronomers (www.satobs.org...) regarding the best estimation or methods of measurement or predicting the tether visibility (VISUAL MAGNITUDE, BRIGHTNESS) which you feel appropiate to mix it here. But this doesn't interfere with the bokeh or angle measurements, which are the subject of the calculations.

i suppose you still did not understand as to what was mentioned therein....

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by depthoffield

there is no easy way of getting around the problem of a star being effectively 0-dimensional and the tether 1-dimensional.... this is made most apparent by imagining what happens when you defocus the sky (2-dimensional).... it stays the same surface brightness..... the tether will thus still be intermediate between the 0-D and 2-D cases..... disappearing more gradually than a star as you defocus.......

catch-phrase: "dimensional"

Originally posted by depthoffield
How you compare my measurement in one image, taken from one particular point in one direction having one particular perspective, from one particular distance (nasa camera, 100 miles away from tether) - which make one geometric arangement, and showing 5.2 degrees of the angular length of the tether,
with
other measurements, taken from different points, having different perspectives, from different distances, making other different geometric arangements, showing 1 to 1.7 degrees of the length of the tether?

How you compare this ?

that was in regards to your imaginations not calculations......

Originally posted by depthoffield
If the initial length, after the break, was 19.7 km, and later, after 4 days, we have at least 16.8 km, we may have maximum a 15% theoretical reduction in length because of recoiling....like 1 meter of straight wire will become 85 cm, easier to imagine the amount of "recoiling"