Did NASA Film E.T.? (STS-106)

STS-106 was a shuttle mission for Atlantis traveling to the ISS. The launch date was September 8th, 2000 and its return landing date was September 19th, 2000. I'm sure Mr. Oberg could provide background information on the mission details. An ATS search for STS-106 brings up several posts about a star field, possibly photo manipulation by NASA? However, my interest in STS-106 is not the star field but the audio transmissions. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Additionally, supposedly filmed was a cigar-shaped object.

Cosmic Conspiracies were recently contacted by Satellite Consultant John Locker, concerning two pieces of interesting audio which he heard whilst listening to the STS106 Mission. STS106 was launched on 8th September, 2000 and was the 99th shuttle mission on a 12-day voyage spanning 4.9 milllion miles and 185 complete orbits of the Earth. The astronauts accomplished all of the mission's primary objectives, delivering more than 2.5 tons of supplies and equipment to the international space station and unloading another half-ton of gear from a Russian cargo ship.

During this mission two audio transmission were made...

In the first audio sequence we clearly hear Houston say 'Atlantis, Houston, you're go for ET photo and plus x', then Atlantis replies 'We got a second!'. What exactly were they refering to when talking about an ET photo, and were Atlantis refering to a second ET?. We are not quite sure what the term 'plus x' means, if anybody knows please let us know.

The second audio sequence says 'Gus, sounds like your picking up an echo!' Could this refer to another craft being picked up on radar? or does it mean that the audio was echoing? As reported elsewhere on this website, it is alledged that every Apollo mission were accompanied by UFOs, could this be the case here?

Since its original release, some explanations have been offered to explain the context of the audio; that nothing sinister or extraterrestrial was involved. John Locker's comments on the audio tapes...

First call re echo..could have related to "Shadow " craft...but comms via UHF , relayed during early ascent can have echo effect. Second call re "ET" refers to "External Tank" Take those two out of context and you have the makings of a major flap.

A rebuttal to Mr. Locker's comments...

After careful consideration of John's comments, we would have to ask the question why would NASA use a codename such as ET when they know that this would cause a major UFO flap with many people listening in to the live transmission worldwide. Why would they want to photograph the external tanks in the first place? The final interpretation we will leave up to yourselves.

Is anyone else familiar with these transmissions? In addition to the star fields and the audio transmissions, there was a possible cigar-shaped object that was photographed as well? Seems like STS-106 had an eventful trip! Anyone have any further details on what was photographed? According to the website, both events occurred irrespective to each other; the audio transmissions were recorded two days prior to the object being photographed.

I thought the web article was interesting enough to mention, as STS-106 appeared to keep ufologists busy in 2000. As an ATS search didn't turn up too much information, I'm sure it was a hoax or debunked with some pretty good explanations.

Cheers!

Wiki STS-106

Very interesting topic!

In my opinion, based on no knowledge of NASA jargon, is that the official explanation sounds pretty convincing. I am all for catching NASA talking about an UFO or ET, but the rebuttal to the official explanation does not bare any fruit....So it's harder to swallow.

After careful consideration of John's comments, we would have to ask the question why would NASA use a codename such as ET when they know that this would cause a major UFO flap with many people listening in to the live transmission worldwide. Why would they want to photograph the external tanks in the first place? The final interpretation we will leave up to yourselves.

All this does is cast doubt and "leaves it up to you" to decide what you believe. I guess that always bugs me about UFO/alien topics.

I have a hard time equating "ET" to External Tank, since any external tank related to the shuttle would have been jettisoned below orbit insertion. It has to mean something else.

Also, Plus-x makes sense:

KODAK PLUS-X Pan and PLUS-X Pan Professional Films are medium-speed (ISO 125 / 22°) panchromatic films that are good choices for general-purpose outdoor or studio photography. They feature extremely fine grain and excellent sharpness.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

...the official explanation sounds pretty convincing....

I share the same opinion Slayer. It doesn't surprise me that I did not find much on this topic, however, I expected to find more than I did, given all the potential anomalies with the mission (the audio, the object, & the star field).

reply to post by charlyv

I have a hard time equating "ET" to External Tank, since any external tank related to the shuttle would have been jettisoned below orbit insertion. It has to mean something else.

Incorrect. The external tank is jettisoned after main engine cutoff and is referred to as the ET.


Plus X refers a maneuver using RCS jets (those for the X control axis) to move away from the tank.

Originally posted by charlyv
I have a hard time equating "ET" to External Tank, since any external tank related to the shuttle would have been jettisoned below orbit insertion. It has to mean something else.

Hands down, you're the Will Rogers poster child of the week, embodying his timeless aphorism,

"It ain't what you don't know
what makes you look like a fool,
it's what you DO know,
what ain't so."

You get to wear the T-Shirt, but for one week only -- next week somebody
else is bound to earn it in your place.

The wasted sincere brainpower lost to productive application by basing its reasoning
on bad guesses and fundamental misunderstandings, is regretable.

That energy and brainpower is really needed.

The most lamentable part is that really strange stuff seen outside spaceships can be, and has been, of critical importance. Sometimes it involves indications of spacecraft malfunction that can threaten the mission, or the crewmembers' lives. Sometimes it reflects activities of other human-origin spacecraft, or atmospheric or astronomical phenomena inadequately recognized. And there's no reason, EVER, to think that it's never possible that it could be evidence of human contact with ETI.

But only if the signal is filtered out from the noise.

And here's where you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Please study real spaceflight more assiduously, and become familiar with the 'routine' of the
new unearthly realm of human activities. Then you can concentrate on the truly strange.

I've prepared my "99 FAQS about 'Space UFOs'" on my home page to try to fill in for the kinds of misunderstandings that mislead people who are rightfully fascinated by the potential discoveries of spaceflight. And want to help detect, recognize, and figure out all potential anomalies -- and there are some, I believe.

But sometimes people need to take a deep breath, and realize that learning MORE about a subject may be helpful, but often we have to start by UNlearning a lot of nonsense we mistakenly thought was true.

We all have to do it. I speak from experience.

Please try it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by charlyv

 

I have a hard time equating "ET" to External Tank, since any external tank related to the shuttle would have been jettisoned below orbit insertion. It has to mean something else.

Incorrect. The external tank is jettisoned after main engine cutoff and is referred to as the ET.

Plus X refers a maneuver using RCS jets (those for the X control axis) to move away from the tank.

edit on 6/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Very well, and the reference could be to the external tank, but this transmission is supposed to have taken place later on in the orbit. I would think the tank would be far behind: however the NASA explaination does cite that the tank is jettisoned prior to orbit..

the orbiter, with the main engines still burning, carries the external tank piggyback to NEAR orbital velocity, approximately 113 kilometers (70 miles) above the Earth. The now nearly empty tank separates and falls in a preplanned trajectory with the majority of it disintegrating in the atmosphere and the rest falling into the ocean.

reply to post by JimOberg


Kindly take that t-shirt and related diatribe and stuff it over yourself, spaceman.
Oh, I forgot, you are always correct, so your comments are self-justified.

reply to post by JimOberg

But sometimes people need to take a deep breath, and realize that learning MORE about a subject may be helpful, but often we have to start by UNlearning a lot of nonsense we mistakenly thought was true.

Just today I was warning my students of the dangers of making assumptions. When making this point I always make sure I draw it out on the blackboard...ASSume...lol

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by JimOberg

 

But sometimes people need to take a deep breath, and realize that learning MORE about a subject may be helpful, but often we have to start by UNlearning a lot of nonsense we mistakenly thought was true.

Just today I was warning my students of the dangers of making assumptions. When making this point I always make sure I draw it out on the blackboard...ASSume...lol

And some people make the excuse they are only use 50% assumptions.

These are called the half-assumers.

Originally posted by charlyv
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Kindly take that t-shirt and related diatribe and stuff it over yourself, spaceman.
Oh, I forgot, you are always correct, so your comments are self-justified.

Charly, the people who stroke your ego and tell you how smart you are for thinking differently from the old fogies, are not all your friends. And the people who slap you upside your face to get your attention, are not always your foes.

My comments are reality based and all subject to verification -- unlike youtube videos that were linked to, that apparently provide a false mission time of the ET reference [unless it was a few hours later when the crew was downlinking onboard video].

The space environment is unearthly. People who make unjustified assumptions about earthside analogies usually wind up misleading themselves.

Please look over the 99 FAQs and see if any of them strike you as untrue.

ET is External Tank, on shuttle missions.

It is dropped after main engine cutoff and the orbiter and the ET drift side-by-side for half an hour, slowly separating. The orbiter than fires its maneuvering engines to make the final boost into a stable orbit.

During that period the crew takes lots of photos of the ET looking for signs of insulation loss.

Frequently a queer-shaped ice doily a foot or two across, that formed in the interface between the ET feed line and the orbiter belly valve to the main engines, drifts by. It is frequently shown on youtube as a 'crytalline entity' UFO. Which I suppose, literally, it is.

+X refers to a posigrade [nose forward] along the orbiter long axis translation -- or movement.

After starting off by confessing you really knew very little about spaceflight but still felt justified in basing conclusions on guesses, what sort of applause did you expect to get?

As suspected, ET refers to external tank; even ufologists predicted this. You have to giggle a little bit, knowing that NASA utilizes this abbreviation for external tanks, in spite of all the UFO Fallout they must have to deal with each time it gets recorded during transmissions. Moving forward, does anyone know if anything cigar-shaped was photographed during this mission?

reply to post by Phage


Silly question Phage...what happens to those boosters or external tanks once they get jettisoned from the shuttle? Do they return to earth? Do they burn up in the atmostphere? Is there any chance those boosters can strike something, maybe a satellite? I've always wondered...thanks!

reply to post by Cosmic911

The main tank is (was) jettisoned such any pieces remaining after reentry would fall into the Indian Ocean.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

The main tank is (was) jettisoned such any pieces remaining after reentry would fall into the Indian Ocean.

This was the flight plan for the early shuttle flights, and the Orbiter had to burn its maneuvering engines twice more -- once just after ET jettison and then again halfway around the Earth to circularize the orbit.

But as aiming got more precise with practice and engineers came to understand how much leftover fuel remained at main engine cutoff, they developed plans to burn the main engines a second or two longer, which threw the ET farther downrange before hitting the atmosphere south of Hawaii.

Paul Maley, one of the foremost [if not THE foremost] amateur spaceflight observers in the world, has posted photographs he's taken of the ET entry and breakup as viewed from Hawaii, on his home page.

The extra burn eliminated the need for the first orbiter engine burn [OMS-1], which is why the common capcom advisory soon after ET SEP is "OMS-1 not required". OMS-2 is still burned as planned. Several hundred extra pounds of payload performance is wrung out of this new profile.

reply to post by JimOberg


For the sake of playing nice on school grounds, I prefer this rebuttal. Cracks me up everytime!

reply to post by Cosmic911


That is halarious lol

I think I would go with the description of the tank, it just seems to fit. Easy to see how people would question it though.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by charlyv
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Kindly take that t-shirt and related diatribe and stuff it over yourself, spaceman.
Oh, I forgot, you are always correct, so your comments are self-justified.

Charly, the people who stroke your ego and tell you how smart you are for thinking differently from the old fogies, are not all your friends. And the people who slap you upside your face to get your attention, are not always your foes.

My comments are reality based and all subject to verification -- unlike youtube videos that were linked to, that apparently provide a false mission time of the ET reference [unless it was a few hours later when the crew was downlinking onboard video].

The space environment is unearthly. People who make unjustified assumptions about earthside analogies usually wind up misleading themselves.

Please look over the 99 FAQs and see if any of them strike you as untrue.

ET is External Tank, on shuttle missions.

It is dropped after main engine cutoff and the orbiter and the ET drift side-by-side for half an hour, slowly separating. The orbiter than fires its maneuvering engines to make the final boost into a stable orbit.

During that period the crew takes lots of photos of the ET looking for signs of insulation loss.

Frequently a queer-shaped ice doily a foot or two across, that formed in the interface between the ET feed line and the orbiter belly valve to the main engines, drifts by. It is frequently shown on youtube as a 'crytalline entity' UFO. Which I suppose, literally, it is.

+X refers to a posigrade [nose forward] along the orbiter long axis translation -- or movement.

After starting off by confessing you really knew very little about spaceflight but still felt justified in basing conclusions on guesses, what sort of applause did you expect to get?

edit on 26-6-2012 by JimOberg because: typo

That is not my problem, i do not mind being wrong about something, in fact I would make a bet the no one is right all the time in this forum. What bothers me is a childish diatribe about what I said that is rather belittling, especially from someone that has been on this forum for a while, and has contributed some rather interesting content. I have contributed some good stuff here as well, and do not appreciate someone coming back on me like that. That is all.

Originally posted by charlyv
That is not my problem, i do not mind being wrong about something, in fact I would make a bet the no one is right all the time in this forum. What bothers me is a childish diatribe about what I said that is rather belittling, especially from someone that has been on this forum for a while, and has contributed some rather interesting content. I have contributed some good stuff here as well, and do not appreciate someone coming back on me like that. That is all.

And I hope you will contribute again.

And I hope that awareness of the prospect of teasing and taunting for carelessness and overreaching will continue to enhance the quality of your contributions. It's done wonders for mine. No quarter for slip-ups or sloppiness, that's what I can count on here -- and why I come.

Seriously, the problem in coming to practical agreements -- over methods, if not over interpretations -- seems to me to be less one of ignorance [since there is an awesome reservoir of worldly experience among posters, and a willingness to share], but of 'false knowledge'. It's in the things we already believe -- and we all have collections of these -- to be true, that actually aren't, that get in the way of accepting new learning and new insights.

You happened to provide, by pure accident, a particularly sharply defined example of exactly that problem, so your posts were used as an example. Your posts, not YOU. You are a good example of the kind of enthusiasm and energy and imagine that are needed here -- and by your recent message, an example of the willingness to explain in detail why your opinions differ from others.

That willingness -- to EXPLAIN how one came to beliefs -- has been the brightest light of mutual comprehension that we can share here. After that, 'facts' and finally 'interpretations' can follow.

Thanks for taking part.