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

Originally posted by JimOberg
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.

this might interest you........

SOS

Great work Depthoffield, who ever you are! Jim Oberg & I can not hide. I have to take personal attacks as a result of my posts which would normally chase anyone away...but threads like yours are fun because you have done the hard work displayed. I appreciate that commitment.

That does not change my position on this "Tether Analysis". I believe that we are witnessing a true UFO event.

I believe that this STS-75 tethered satellite break provides conclusive evidence to actually disprove NASAs claim-& yours- that the phenomenon seen on video is ice, debris & meteors.

For me they remain UFOs.

Originally posted by mcrom901
"Finally, and most intriguing, the tether current and satellite potential remained virtually unchanged as the tether broke and separated from the Orbiter..."

You are still stubbornly misunderstanding the meaning of this phrase when you insist it applies to the video taken four days later, four days after the tether broke and separated. At that point, four days later, the shuttle was actually approaching the tether, overtaking it in the tether's higher, slower orbit. The shuttle then passed beneath the tether and drew away from it again.

reply to post by depthoffield
Easynow is correct when he says 'get more tape from NASA'. No less than Dr. Joseph A. Nuth, who was head of the Astrochemistry Branch during the STS-75 "incident", at NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center wrote about the "near-field" theory regarding objects seen on the NASA video I (we-our research group which included my friend & co-producer of "Evidence: A Case for NASA UFOs"... David Sereda) had sent him.

He E mailed us suggesting a simple way to avoid the mind numbing research of the kind that this thread gets into.

He suggests that NASA provide not only the video under discussion...which is what easynow wants...He wants NASA to turn over the video from ALL NASA cameras observing the "Tether sighting".

Dr. Nuth writes, "obtain...(from NASA)...more evidence of the original sighting...from additional shuttle camera tapes...to see if the same objects were seen on these. If these objects were large, then the same objects should appear on 2 or more cameras & these can be used to triangulate the distance from the shuttle to the object.

He continues..."If there are no objects that appear simultaneously on 2 or more cameras, then one must conclude that the objects seen are in the near-field of the individual camera".

There you go...a PHD says the same easynow...it is that simple!

Originally posted by mcrom901

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"

[]

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).
[]

Man, do you like to construct false contradictions in order to obfuscate your initial false suggestion?

You simply quoted a external source, (here is your post: www.abovetopsecret.com...) and clearly suggested that "no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress at that time" as a response to my afirmation linked to debris at the moment of tether filming (1 mars 1996).

And i showed to you that your quote is NOT related to day of tether filming (1 mars 1996), but a few days before, the day of tether break, especially 10 second prior and 90 second after the break. So, your suggestion was simply wrong. In 1 mars 1996 could be thrusters or gas or water or waste dumps, recontacts whatever.

Originally posted by mcrom901
i suppose you still did not understand as to what was mentioned therein....

[]

I answered to this.




[edit on 10/2/10 by depthoffield]

[edit on 10/2/10 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by JimOberg
You are still stubbornly misunderstanding the meaning of this phrase when you insist it applies to the video taken four days later, four days after the tether broke and separated. At that point, four days later, the shuttle was actually approaching the tether, overtaking it in the tether's higher, slower orbit. The shuttle then passed beneath the tether and drew away from it again.

то могли бы вы любезно перевести следующую Английский.......

Electrodynamic tethers convert mechanical energy into electrical energy in a classical demonstration of Faraday's law. The TSS-1R configuration was such that the satellite received a positive bias from the motional emf of the tether and collected electrons from the ionosphere. The resulting electrical current was conducted through the tether to the Orbiter where the circuit was closed back to the ionosphere (see Figure 1). There were four possible electrical configurations of the TSS: (1) open circuit with no current flow—which placed the full tether-generated emf across the open switch; (2) passive current closure—in which current was controlled by adding a load resistance in series with the tether and closure was through the collection of positive ions by conducting surfaces on the negatively charged Orbiter; (3) addition of the SETS experiment's FPEG (electron gun) to the above circuit to discharge the Orbiter; and (4) use of the ASI-provided Core electron gun—in which case tether current flowed directly to the gun cathode (the Orbiter was not part of the electrical circuit) and was emitted back in to the ionosphere.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...

Tethered Satellite System (TSS) "science of opportunity," during Columbia's final approach to within 46 nautical miles of the satellite, included firing the electron accelerators in Columbia's cargo bay. The electron guns' effects on the charged particles, electrical waves and magnetic fields around the satellite were detected by the Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects, Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics and Magnetic Field Experiment for TSS Mission's instruments mounted on the satellite. All three instrument teams reported receiving good quality data from the satellite, data which are now being analyzed by the experiment investigators.

Columbia's astronauts had a clear view of the Tethered Satellite as the two spacecraft passed within about 46 nautical miles overnight. The closest approach occurred at 11:17 central time last night (approximately 7/08:59 MET), and was captured on videotape as the satellite and its 12-mile tether came into view.

Meanwhile, flight controllers monitored the Tethered Satellite through ground stations as its batteries drained, but not before holding in for last night's fly-by.

science.ksc.nasa.gov...


and what does your understanding say in regards to these phrases....



ссылаясь на....... met 7/0853 - 7/0923

NASAs own Dr. Joe Nuth also wrote to our STS-75 research "team", that if we did want to get complicated ....

"...As an exercise, I'd suggest that you count the number of objects between the earth & the shuttle. (assume an altitude of 300 miles & that the top of the atmosphere is 100 miles) Use this to calculate a "space" density" for these objects. Multiply this "space density" by the mass of the objects to figure the influx of material to the surface of the Earth, or use this density to figure out the time for the shuttle or an average satellite to be struck by one of these objects. Not only is the mass flux much to high to ignore, but no satellite has a chance of surviving days, let alone years ..."

...but as I posted earlier, he says go the simple route to solve the near-field theory that is this threads premise... & get NASA to give up their video from all the cameras observing the tether!

NEXT consider what Dr. Louis A. Frank... of the University of IOWA physics Dept., & the man who discovered "small comets" while working with a NASA satellite, has to say about the STS-75 NASA video... & note that NASA held a press conference to announce their backing of Dr. Franks discovery. ( google him...check out his Web site to see his NASA images)

Dr Frank wrote...
"I have received your video....I find the contents...fascinating."

"There are several objects which may be (my) "small comets" in the video...other phenomena being recorded...are not easily explained."

"Several of us have examined the video many times"

HELLO! No near-field objects considered & Dr. Frank & his team are 'fascinated'...examining it several times...& seeing the NASA backed "small comets"...more PHDs weigh in Depthoffield...& they are NASAs superstars!

Dr. Frank may not think they are alien spacecraft (!)...maybe only "small comets"...
But not near-field objects!

SO we have a mystery that has held up for over a decade...

& this 'bit' of additional research only repeats Jim Obergs long ago debunked 'ice in the near-field' theory!

I am just quietly smiling to myself, as I no longer have the luxury of disbelief.

reply to post by secretnasaman

Interesting you should bring Nuth up. He agrees with Oberg.

Stubbs is waiting for NASA to weigh in on the STS-75 footage; the video wasn't made public until March. He discounts ice crystals and other forms of near-foreground "shuttle dandruff.''

"These objects, particularly the spheres, are clearly going behind the tether,'' he insists. "And the tether is what, 70, 80 miles away? I've heard the argument that, well, surely if things that big could be seen from that far away, they should be visible here on Earth as well. But how can we know what an unknown phenomenon in space looks like from our perspective here on the ground?''

But that's exactly what you could expect to see, argues Dr. Joseph Nuth, head of the Astrochemistry Branch Lab for Extraterrestrial Physics at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

"If you've got mile-wide flying saucers -- which they'd probably have to be, to be seen at that distance from the shuttle -- and six or eight of 'em at least, according to (Stubbs' interpretation), I can't imagine somebody on the ground not seeing it,'' said Nuth, who watched the "Smoking Gun'' video.

Furthermore, Nuth said space isn't a pristine environment.

"When you're in a vacuum, things just de-gas and pop out,'' he said. "All the stuff comes out of little cracks and it does it the entire time it's up there, because the shuttle basically carries an atmosphere with it. Personally, I think Oberg's explanation is perfectly reasonable.''

farshores.org...

• Story originally published in • Florida Today | By Billy Cox - June 2 2000

[edit on 2/10/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by secretnasaman
reply to post by depthoffield

 

Easynow is correct when he says 'get more tape from NASA'. No less than Dr. Joseph A. Nuth, who was head of the Astrochemistry Branch during the STS-75 "incident", at NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center wrote about the "near-field" theory regarding objects seen on the NASA video I (we-our research group which included my friend & co-producer of "Evidence: A Case for NASA UFOs"... David Sereda) had sent him.

He E mailed us suggesting a simple way to avoid the mind numbing research of the kind that this thread gets into.

He suggests that NASA provide not only the video under discussion...which is what easynow wants...He wants NASA to turn over the video from ALL NASA cameras observing the "Tether sighting".

Dr. Nuth writes, "obtain...(from NASA)...more evidence of the original sighting...from additional shuttle camera tapes...to see if the same objects were seen on these. If these objects were large, then the same objects should appear on 2 or more cameras & these can be used to triangulate the distance from the shuttle to the object.

He continues..."If there are no objects that appear simultaneously on 2 or more cameras, then one must conclude that the objects seen are in the near-field of the individual camera".

There you go...a PHD says the same easynow...it is that simple!

Sereda and Stubbs find that the "easy" way is to carefully AVOID real experts on the subjects they claim to be investigating, and locate a kind, open minded expert in some OTHER field who tries to be helpful with suggestions for subjects he was never trained in.

Not being a space shuttle operations expert, Nuth (like every other PhD or other worker at NASA Goddard, which doesn't do ANY work with human space flight except maintain the radio links) makes a suggestion about 'other shuttle cameras'. What he doesn't know (since he was never trained to be an expert in that topic) is that shuttle external cameras are selected and if desired dual multiplexed [two cameras sharing one scene, each providing half] by a control panel inside the shuttle, that one scene is viewed on internal monitors, and then either taped on board or downlinked live (or both). The signals from other non-selected external cameras are neither observed, recorded, nor downlinked -- designers never saw a purpose for such a bandwidth-intensive 'overkill'.

Some science cameras have their own separate recorders, and can be assigned to the downlink channel too.

Nuth remains amused by the energetic creativity with which Sereda misinterpreted and misrepresented the technical advice he was trying to give. Anybody can contact Nuth to verify this. This is pretty standard for space experts that Sereda 'quotes' with 'supportive evidence' -- when checked, they sigh and patiently point out that Sereda didn't seem to understand what they were trying to tell.

Far safer to provided quotes from 'secret NASA sources' and don't tell their names -- then the quoter can never be embarrassed by somebody attempted verification of such a quote, and discovering it to be false.

Originally posted by mcrom901
and what does your understanding say in regards to these phrases....

I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Great work Depthoffield, who ever you are!
[]
I appreciate that commitment.

Thank you.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
That does not change my position on this "Tether Analysis". I believe that we are witnessing a true UFO event.

Well, this is unfortunately. Because some of the representative UFO's simply obeys the laws of bokeh, therefore positioning them exactly where they are: close to the shuttle!

Originally posted by secretnasaman
I believe that this STS-75 tethered satellite break provides conclusive evidence to actually disprove NASAs claim-& yours- that the phenomenon seen on video is ice, debris & meteors. For me they remain UFOs.

Believing doesn't defend you to be in mistake. You should trully ask some experts (opticians, photo profesionals) about the bokeh explanation. This could be the sign to your "open minded" approach to the subject. But i have my doubts you will do this. You WANT those to be UFOs. This is evident in all your activity, at least of that i am aware.

Sorry secretnasaman you DONT need all the tapes when the stars are in focus these objects are not so, they MUST be before the front focus point of the lens depth of field range NO IF'S NO BUT'S it's that simple.
We see these disc like objects come into focus during the video and the background objects the stars go out of focus.
That CONFIRM'S what has been said re this for ages by anyone on here who has any real interest in photography.

I mean we are posting against people who

1) Still keep on asking why no stars on Moon pics.
2) Why when in the shadow of the lander on the Moon we could see the
Astronaut.
3) Why the shadows on the moon are sometimes not parallel.

etc etc

They seem to be incapable of understanding ANY principles of photography even when provided with the required links to LEARN

These object are NOT miles from the shuttle or near the tether they just act dumb because if they admit their wrong it shoots down in flames lots of theories they have.
They say we are closed minded its them THEY ignore actual facts if it upsets their weird little world.
They depend on fuzzy out of focus pictures and videos its just unfortunate for them these fuzzy out of focus objects prove them WRONG.

reply to post by depthoffield


Absolutely fantastic work there! It's some of the best analysis I have seen here on ATS.

It's ALL man made.

Case closed on the STS-75? I don't think there is anything left of interest anymore.

We UFO enthusiasts might as well pack our bags and go home now and better learn some damn science and maths and the laws of Bokeh!

Great job depthoffield! Can you help me pack my bags now?

P.S. I should also add that your analysis adds some flesh to the following:




[edit on 10-2-2010 by Jinni]

Originally posted by secretnasaman
reply to post by depthoffield

 

Easynow is correct when he says 'get more tape from NASA'.

Well, i agree, We need originals, or every other related data.
But this doesn't means that what we already have (your youtubized copies) is useless and not good for anything. In fact, we managed to find the real camera which took the videos, the NASA camera C, stopping the speculations about the special TOP camera, invisible objects etc. Tell that to Sereda! We managed to time mark the whole eveniment, down to second. This was in perfect relation to the STS-75 scene list, which describe the scene, inclusive with the "debris" description. We managed to identify the star map, and therefore we could separate the stars from the objects, and saw clearly the differential defocus phenomenon made at one moment, which allowed us to estimate the distance to some of the representative objects, i'm sure you read it, at least fugitive.
So, we need originals. I'm happy, in the mean time, with any new or better material that the ones we have, like your original best recordings for example..which Armap many times asked from you.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
No less than Dr. Joseph A. Nuth, who was head of the Astrochemistry Branch during the STS-75 "incident", at NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center wrote about the "near-field" theory regarding objects seen on the NASA video I (we-our research group which included my friend & co-producer of "Evidence: A Case for NASA UFOs"... David Sereda) had sent him.

He E mailed us suggesting a simple way to avoid the mind numbing research of the kind that this thread gets into.

He suggests that NASA provide not only the video under discussion...which is what easynow wants...He wants NASA to turn over the video from ALL NASA cameras observing the "Tether sighting".

Dr. Nuth writes, "obtain...(from NASA)...more evidence of the original sighting...from additional shuttle camera tapes...to see if the same objects were seen on these. If these objects were large, then the same objects should appear on 2 or more cameras & these can be used to triangulate the distance from the shuttle to the object.

He continues..."If there are no objects that appear simultaneously on 2 or more cameras, then one must conclude that the objects seen are in the near-field of the individual camera".

There you go...a PHD says the same easynow...it is that simple!

You can see in your own filmings, in fact better in my time marked version, that even camera D participated to the filming a few times, but unfortunately there were only severe glare. I doubt there are some other videos from other cameras....i guess that even TOP camera was not used at this 1 Mars rendez-vous, because it was according to reports, just a moment of science of opportunity, between some other important experiments made inside the shuttle (growing cristals etc).

Indeed, having videos from multiple vantage points, could help us to triangulate or confirm/infirm some of tghe objects. I wait some of this videos, if they exist. But, as i showed, the bokeh laws are another method from calculating the distance to the objects...why ignore it? Have you any reason? unless, it is inconvenient?

Let's understand more the sts-75 movie..where the objects are filmed, their motion and brightness etcetera.

I worked on the time marked version of the video, this one:




What i've done, was to split the movie in small parts, trying to obtain parts having about 10 seconds, temporal one after the other, and with image being stable (not zooming, not panning).
These individual parts, i stacked each one into single frames, in order to isolate the static stars relative to the moving objects. Having stars, and the star map, it was easier to overlay the frames onto the starmap in corect orientation.


The purpose was to make a history of camera framing...and with this, to understand the trajectory of the tether and the objects, in the portion of space where the whole action happens.


I've managed to do this from the beginning of the movie, even before the tether or objects are seen in the frame (5:29:30 GMT), and until the image get worse, not seeing the stars anymore (~5:34:25 GMT) and not having the marks to do this. But i covered most of the important parts of the filmimg.


As you will see, there are frames when camera is at full maximum zoom, moments where the coresponding overlayed frame appears small in the star map (logically covering a small zone!), and there are frames when camera is unzoomed, moments where the coresponding overlayed frame appears big in the star map.


I also put a "ruler", a 10 degree segment, in order to understand the scale of the image. Also, to even better make an idea, 20 degrees is about like this: you are holding your arm totally outstreched in front of your head, and with your palm also outstreched and with fingers maximum separated..and the distance between your thumb and the little finger is making ~ 20 degree in this arangement.
Therefore, the skymap you will see below, is covering a relatively big area of the sky, more than 40 degree, and you can make a comparison if you are using the proposed measurement method, looking in the sky and understanding the spread of the phenomenon.



Now, here is how the framing occured (every frame has it's temporal mark) during the filming (small resolution/file version):



and here is the same animation, but bigger resolution/file version: files.abovetopsecret.com...




Next, abolutely the same animation, but with all the tether positions marked yellow, on the skymap (small resolution/file version):



and here is the same animation, but bigger resolution/file version: files.abovetopsecret.com...


As you can see, in the first minutes, before ~5:30:30 mark, before the sun rising on orbit and before they managed to find the tether on frame, they filmed "blindly" just a bit above to the actual position where the tether was, they know aproximately where the tether should be (centaur Constelation), acording to calculating models used by them when estimating tether orbit, but their predicting model was in error (NASA reports from those days said about this in the reports, i don't have the links at hand now).





Next animation, is the same, but now i let all the frames to stay on sky-chart, and finnally i overlayed all the objects trajectories (red lines) (small resolution/file version):



and here is the same animation, but bigger resolution/file version: files.abovetopsecret.com...



Now we can understand better the angular extent of the phenomenon on the sky, relative to the framing done by NASA- camera...



Next image, is just the trajectories of the particles, and the tether positions on the sky-map (small resolution/file version):



and here is the same image, but bigger resolution/file version: files.abovetopsecret.com...




Now...

What reason we have to believe that those objects are following or move near the tether? What is the relation, if any, between the particles trajectories or directions, and the movement of the tether in orbit?

I see a bunch of inanimate objects, covering a big angular patch on the sky (maybe 100 x 100 kilometers!! at the distance where the tether was, and this only relative to just what we only are able to see INSIDE the frame!!, or in fact just a smaller cloud tens or maybe hundreds of metters following or even clouding the shuttle) going into or outside the frame, after the sun rised and made them visible due reflected light..just like closer small debris could do very well (including curved trajectories, see one of my previous posts)..



Also, it matches what the astronaut described at 5:32:55 GMT:

"there is a bit of debris flying with us, illuminated by the sun"

What's the link, relation, between the "idiot objects", and the tether?



I see none, except that the debris and the tether are in the same frame. Why the tether is in the frame? Because that was the purpose of the camera operators. Why the "idiot" objects are also in the frame? Because, if debris, they fill the closer space, spoiling the optical environment (see the NASA study reffered in my next post), and don't giving a damn about tether or some NASA camera wanting to film it. Judging the trajectories of the objects, which clearly goes outside the boundary of what NASA camera managed to frame, we understand how big must be the volume of space where these objects move, if we want to blindly think at them as being big alien ships (2..3 miles Sereda estimate) or critters or whatever big and 100 miles distant "misterious" objects .. on the other hand, a cloud of debris particles, near and following the shuttle, as a product of its' activities, is something normal in orbit, and, while filling the frame, it does not necessary fill very big volumes of space, is just something more or less locale to the shuttle



___________
note: in this post are some GIF animations, a little bigger files, which can take some time to load in your browser (or load partially). Please refresh your browser if animations are not complete


..next post...








[edit on 10/2/10 by depthoffield]

..continued:


Now, related to objects visibility:


Having the star map, we can make relative brightness estimates between stars and objects.

For example, two cases:



and






the third example is from a bit later, when increased glare forced the gain of the camera to be lowered, thus making it less sensible to the light:




...in this situation, the tether is less visible, but the stars are not visible anymore....yet, some objects are still visible, simply because they are enough bright, brighter than those stars, and even brighter than the tether itself.





As you can see in those three above examples, many of the objects are even brighter than the following stars which also appear in image:

Menkent (HIP 68933)- magnitude 2.05
ŋ Cen (HIP 71352) - magnitude 2.30




now, maybe these two above stars you don't know them, but they are brighther than the stars making the well known Pleiades star cluster or the stars making Ursa Minor (Little Deeper) constellation...and are aprox. similar like the Polaris star (magnitude 1.95)..which we all know they are easy visible with the naked eye from the ground, even in medium light-polluted cities.




On the other hand, the nasa camera C which took these images, is a black/white low light visible spectrum camera.

Now the question:

If those objects, are big alien ships, or critters, or whatever misterious UFOs...very distant, near the tether, about 100 miles away from the camera...and they are seen brighter than some stars which we know their brightness... that makes them easy visible from great distances in the hundred of miles domain...and visible ONLY AFTER they were lit by the sun (suggesting reflectivity or sunlight light producing)...

how is posible that no one else on the ground (maybe a couple of hundreds miles distant or something) saw these objects in orbit, not only one following or near the tether, but only seeing or recording the tether itself and only the tether?
..maybe because the simple answer, is that there were no big objects near or following the tether?

How about some common little (milimeter or centimeter) and closer debris particles (meters or tens of meters away) in proximity of the shuttle, which, when lit by the sun, could spoil the optical environment, and can be seen even brighter like the stars, city lights on the ground

as this NASA study: ntrs.nasa.gov...

..says on page 1 (pdf):

Sunlit particulates appear brighter than stars, entire cities, and even lightning strokes.

As one may see, all that we see, movement, trajectories, brightness, properties, regarding these objects, fits very well with what debris near the shuttle can do. Nothing misterious from this part alone.
But, more, we have bokeh phenomenon, as posted before, which even allowed us to determine the distance to some representative objects: meters or tens of meters away.

Debris near the shuttle? All the data agreed with this, and none disagree with this.



___________
note: in this post are some GIF animations, a little bigger files, which can take some time to load in your browser (or load partially). Please refresh your browser if animations are not complete




[edit on 10/2/10 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield
And i showed to you that your quote is NOT related to day of tether filming (1 mars 1996), but a few days before, the day of tether break, especially 10 second prior and 90 second after the break. So, your suggestion was simply wrong. In 1 mars 1996 could be thrusters or gas or water or waste dumps, recontacts whatever.

you're wrong..... check my response to oberg..... about the electron gun....



ntrs.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by depthoffield
I answered to this.

sorry.... but your methodology is void of any logic....

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

[edit on 10/2/10 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.

maybe it has something to do with 508.......

The Law: Section 508

In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act and strengthened provisions covering access to information in the Federal sector. As amended, section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires access to the Federal government's electronic and information technology. The law covers all types of electronic and information technology in the Federal sector and is not limited to assistive technologies used by people with disabilities. It applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use such technology. Federal agencies must ensure that this technology is accessible to employees and the public to the extent it does not pose an "undue burden." The law directs the Access Board to develop access standards for this technology that will become part of the Federal procurement regulations.

The scope of section 508 is limited to the Federal sector. It does not apply to the private sector, nor does it generally impose requirements on the recipients of Federal funds with the exception of activities carried out in a State under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended pursuant to section 4(d)(6)(G) of that act.

www.nasa.gov...

and what happens next..... if it will be confirmed to have actually occurred around the mentioned MET D07/11:45

in the meantime.... i find it strange nothing was mentioned about these 'debris' in the actual technical reports.......



ntrs.nasa.gov...



[edit on 10/2/10 by mcrom901]

reply to post by JimOberg


good news for you........



ntrs.nasa.gov...




[edit on 10/2/10 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by depthoffield
horizontal_senzor_size = 2 x focal_length x tan (fov_horizontal/2)
or
horizontal_senzor_size = 2 x 108 x tan (6.6/2) = 12.45 mm

Hi depthoffield,

Excellent work my friend !

Ther is only one small problem with the calculation of the distance of object E. Sensor size as given by camera manufacturer in the "inch" system is NOT the size of the diagonal of the sensor. It is approximately 1.5 times the length of the diagonal of the sensor.

See :
en.wikipedia.org...

The typical sensor width is 5.76 mm on a 1/2.5" sensor, not 12.5 mm.

The size of the bokeh disk is 21*5.76/320 = 0.378 mm

As before, N=1.6, f = 108 mm
With the camera focused at infinity, the distance is therefore :
f²/(Nc) = 19.3 m

I don't think this is going to convincing the Sereda cultists, they don't want to know.