NASA STS-75 Tether "UFOs"? from the new guy. The American Roadwarrior

[08rubicon]

 Don't know just what 'trick' is used in the video..My personal camera is
attached to an astronomical telescope with focal length of 1900 mm. The
camera ccd size is 7 mm,that gives me 271 x magnification. Many times
the moon will pass behind my unit and a power line. When this
happens, the wire is not visable, though it is 60 feet distance.When the
moon crosses behind a light pole, the pole is not visable, but will
dim or interupt the light from the moon.If I focus on the pole, the moon
is not visable, focus on the moon, pole is not visable.. The video seems
very strange. All my images are taken as video, run through registax.
   Would like to post attachment, but that option is not available
       rubicon

[zorgon]

But what I am really after is the teather cable. I did find the outer wire was 25.4mm in diameter. 1 inch.  So we are talking about an object going behind or in front of a 1 inch item that is miles away. I am impressed. Did the hubble take that photo.

The reason the tether is so bright and 'wide' is the plasma glow around it.

You will notice in these images the tether one mile out and you will see the bokehs produced by the camera the hexagonal artifacts upper right corner. So with this camera the bokeh's produced are HEXAGONAL and all the same orientation

The tether deployed to one mile





Deployment...











Shortly after the breakreak









It is important to note that only about a mile of cable was released before the power developed so much to create an arc that fried and severed it.  In the next image you can see that most of it is straight and only the end is coiled...



The principle of a tether is basic electricity... you can wind a coils and spin a magnet in it OR you can drag a long copper wire through the earth's magnetic field at orbital speed of 17,500 MPH and get the same result. The problem was that NASA scientists underestimated the potential and didn't bother to add a 100.00 circuit breaker resulting in the loss of a $100 million satellite

Here is the base of the Tether Boom where it was attached to the shuttle bay. Looks more like a TESLA LAB





continued....

[zorgon]

The Aftermath....

In the case of the TSS-1R tether, its 20 km length produced a maximum of about 3500 V potential between its most positive and negative ends, since it wasn?t oriented perfectly perpendicular to the velocity vector and the Earth?s magnetic field. A satellite at its upper end collected electrons, and an electron gun at the lower end emitted electrons to complete the circuit. When the electron gun was not in operation, a large resistance prevented the Shuttle from being biased thousands of volts negative of its surrounding plasma. However, there remained a large voltage between the tether lower end and the Shuttle orbiter. This enormous bias eventually led to a continuous arc on the tether (see The Continuous Arc, section 4.2.3.1 below), which broke, freeing the satellite and ending the experiment. During the arc, the satellite collected over 1 Amp of electron current to keep the arc going. Probe theory (Cohen et al, 19870010625 N) is usually used to calculate the total current collected by a wire with distributed potentials. However, before the break, TSS-1R demonstrated that a satellite at a high positive potential could collect an anomalously large electron current. See Zhang, et al (20000110580), Stone and Raitt (19990084046 and 20000025437), and Stone, et al (19980202347)

Sustained arcs (continuous arcs) - These are the events that have been attributed with the destruction of on-orbit solar arrays. Generally, the process begins with a fast transient (a so-called trigger arc). Under some conditions, the transient develops into an arc that is fed directly by the entire array, effectively becoming a short-circuit. Such events invariably involve large quantities of energy and can be severely damaging to cells, interconnects or power traces.

When the structure or array capacitance electrically connected to the arc site is sufficiently large, the initial transient arcs themselves can be large enough to produce significant damage. In Figure 9, we see an anodized aluminum plate that has undergone repeated arcing in the laboratory with the ISS structure capacitance attached. Its thermal properties have been completely destroyed, along with most of the insulating surface layer of aluminum oxide.

The most famous sustained arc event of all led to the breakage of the TSS-1R electrodynamic tether, and the loss of the attached satellite. The image below shows the burned, frayed and broken tether end still attached to the Shuttle after the break. Incidentally, the tether continued arcing long after it and its satellite were drifting free, until finally it went into night conditions where the electron density was insufficient to sustain the arc. Noel Sargent (2002) has investigated whether the TSS-1R arc was seen to disrupt Shuttle communications. Although he has found no record of disturbed communications during the event, for most of the time the arc was shielded by metallic structures from the communications antennas, and when the tether broke, the arc was many meters from the receiving antennas. It remains to be seen whether sustained arcs produce radio noise severe enough to be a communications problem.

THIS is your "Free Energy" at work

here is the part where they were told by the inquiry that a circuit breaker would have prevented this



NASA on Plasma balls

[zorgon]

 
Michael Braukus
Headquarters, Washington, DC                    June 4, 1996
(Phone:  202/358-1979)

Jerry Berg
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL
(Phone:  205/544-0034)

Enzo Letico
ASI, Washington, DC
(Phone: 202/863-1298)

RELEASE:  96-112

{from NASA's FTP server... address redacted}

TETHERED SATELLITE INVESTIGATION REPORT IS RELEASED

    NASA and the Italian Space Agency (ASI) today released the report of the investigative board appointed to determine factors which resulted in the Feb. 25 tether break and loss of the Tethered Satellite during the STS-75 Space Shuttle mission.

    Findings of the board, included in a 358-page document, identified primary causes which accounted for the tether break during deployment of the Tethered Satellite.

    "The tether failed as a result of arcing and burning of the tether, leading to a tensile failure after a significant portion of the tether had burned away," the report concludes.  The arcing occurred because either external foreign object penetration (but not orbital debris or micrometeoroids) or a defect in the tether caused a breach in the layer of insulation surrounding the tether conductor.  The insulation breach provided a path for the current to jump, or arc, from the copper wire in the tether to a nearby electrical ground.

    The board found that the arcing burned away most of the tether material at that location, leading to separation of the tether from tensile or pulling force.  The break occurred when approximately 12.2 miles (19.7 km) of tether was unreeled, in a period when the tether was experiencing normal stresses of approximately 15 pounds (65 newtons).

    In addition to the two primary causes for the tether break, the board cited, as one contributing factor, that "the degree of vulnerability of the tether insulation to damage was not fully appreciated."  The board noted that the actual environment that the tether was exposed to in flight made it more vulnerable to damage than was expected.  And, it noted that the high voltages under which the system was operating could, over a period of time, have reduced the ability of the tether insulation to withstand electrical breakdown due to contamination found in the tether.

     "The tether itself was a remarkable engineering achievement," said Ken Szalai, who chaired the investigative board, "and produced some startling scientific discoveries." Scientific papers recently presented at an American Geophysical Union conference reported that currents generated by the tether were three times higher than theoretical models had predicted prior to the flight.

     "Constructing a tether that was strong, lightweight and electrically conducting took the project into technical and engineering areas where they had never been before," said Szalai. "Now, with 20/20 hindsight, they know where the system is vulnerable and can improve the design."

    The Tethered Satellite System is a joint NASA-ASI system that was flown aboard Space Shuttle Columbia in an experiment to better understand the electrically charged environment of Earth's ionosphere, and how tether systems behave in it.  ASI had the responsibility of providing the satellite, while NASA had the responsibility of the Deployer, which includes the tether, and the overall responsibility for payload integration and operations.  The provision of science investigations was
shared by ASI and NASA.

    The system was generating 3,500 volts DC and up to 0.5 amps of current during satellite deployment.  That high level of electrical energy resulted from the length of conducting tether extending from the Shuttle, coupled with the 17,500-mile-per-hour speed at which the Shuttle and tether were cutting through Earth's magnetic field lines.

    The board found sufficient evidence to identify two possible causes of the breach in the insulation -- foreign object damage, or a defect in the tether itself.  Debris and contamination found in the deployer mechanisms and in the tether itself could have been pushed into the insulation layer while the tether was still wound on its reel.  The investigation found evidence of damage to copper wire in the tether, and also established that normal forces on the tether while on the reel could push a single copper strand or foreign debris through the insulation.

    The arcing, which began in an intricate part of the Tethered Satellite System known as the lower tether control mechanism, sputtered intermittently for nine seconds as the moving tether passed through deployer mechanisms and then into the boom area of the tether system.  At the time, tether was continuing to play out at one meter per second, or slightly more than three feet per second.

    "This arcing produced significant burning of most of the tether material in the area of the arc," the board found.  The tether was designed to carry up to 15,000 volts DC and handle tensile forces of up to 400 pounds (1780 newtons). It used super-strong strands of Kevlar as a strength-providing member, wound around the copper and insulation.  However, postflight inspection of the tether end which remained aboard Columbia showed it to be charred.  The board concluded that after arcing had burned through most of the Kevlar, the few remaining strands were not enough to withstand forces being exerted by satellite deployment.

    Extensive, rigorous tests performed in support of the investigation established that undamaged tether would not arc, even when subjected to electrical potentials much higher than the 3500 volts experienced during the mission.

    The board was able to exonerate a number of factors which clearly did not cause the break.  These factors include the satellite, the science equipment hardware and operations, which were being conducted prior to the break, in addition to micrometeoroids or orbital debris impact, and electrical storm activity.

    The investigation panel made several detailed recommendations which it said should be followed for any future space missions involving electrodynamic tether systems such as that flown aboard Columbia.  These include more precautions to ensure any such tether systems in the future do not suffer from possible debris or contamination damage and specific attention during design to minimize the possibility of high-voltage arcing.

    The board offered, in the form of observations, its assessment that the STS-75 tether problem "is not indicative of any fundamental problem in using electrodynamic tethers."  it also noted that in spite of the break, a "significant amount" of scientific data was obtained from the Tethered Satellite operations during STS-75.

    The nine-member independent review panel was formed in consultation with ASI and appointed by NASA's Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Flight, Wilbur Trafton, shortly after the tether break.  The board was chaired by Ken Szalai, director of the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, and included representation from NASA and the ASI.


                          -end-


This was the first public press release  The later investigation was much more precise

[zorgon]

 
For Release: May 23, 1996

Douglas Isbell
Headquarters, Washington, DC
(Phone: 202/358-1547)

Jerry Berg
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone: 205/544-0034)

RELEASE: 96-43

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION
POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-75 mission last March.

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years, are incorrect and must be rewritten. This assessment follows analysis by a joint U.S.-Italian Tethered Satellite investigating team of the information gathered during the mission.

During STS-75, a tether system was being unreeled to nearly 13 miles above Columbia's payload bay. Just short of the full distance, its tether broke. Nevertheless, the science instruments on the satellite and Shuttle, which had been operating during the five hours of deployment

operations, sent a flood of readings that were received and recorded by scientists on the ground. "Even the quick-look made to date reveals that this data harvest is rich in content," said Dr. Nobie Stone, NASA TSS-1R mission scientist at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

"Perhaps the most significant finding," Stone said, "is that tether currents proved to be up to three times greater than existing theoretical models predicted prior to the mission. With the amount of power generated being directly proportional to the current, this bodes well for technological applications.

"Reversing the direction of current flow puts the system into an electric-motor mode," Stone explained. This harnessed energy could furnish thrust for reboosting a space station, satellite or Shuttle in a decaying orbit.

"Traditionally, the primary source of power for long-term space platforms has been solar arrays," Stone said. "Those cells can only produce power when exposed to sunlight during the two-thirds of each 90-minute orbit when a space station, for instance, is not on Earth's dark side. However, a tether system might provide a constant source of energy," he noted. "It is very efficient and might serve as an effective backup power system."

Other important revelations from the STS-75 mission include observations of the satellite's thrusters interacting with the ionosphere while moving rapidly in Earth orbit. Stone said that, when the thrusters were fired to adjust the satellite's spin rate, the neutral gas emitted became ionized.

The tethered satellite researchers noted that, at that point, "a sudden jump" took place in the level of current flow, while the satellite's potential (voltage) dropped several hundred volts. They traced this effect to the small amount of gas, released from the thrusters, becoming ionized in the vicinity of the satellite. A greater, more efficient current flow was observed. "The effect of neutral-gas ionization is not taken into consideration by existing theoretical models of current collection in the ionosphere," Stone said.

Also, for the first time ever, the high-voltage plasma sheath and wake of a high-voltage satellite moving rapidly in the ionosphere was measured. "This is virtually impossible to study in a laboratory and is difficult to model mathematically," Stone said.

Tethered Satellite System investigators have just begun to scrutinize the data from STS-75. They expect that it will reveal more answers to questions about the workings of the Earth's upper atmosphere, its physics and the electrodynamic applications of tethered systems in space.

[1Worldwatcher]

The system was generating 3,500 volts DC and up to 0.5 amps of current during satellite deployment.  That high level of electrical energy resulted from the length of conducting tether extending from the Shuttle, coupled with the 17,500-mile-per-hour speed at which the Shuttle and tether were cutting through Earth's magnetic field lines.

That is quite an accumulation of force and energy for sure. I knew it was due to arcing scenario, but never knew the magnitude with terminal velocity and arcing  information.

Puts a whole new perspective of 'Alternative Energy' for sure.. Ha ha ha

Too bad this research got botched by this incident, would have been fascinating to see these results and readings of such a DC device.

1WW

[zorgon]

US NAVY tether satellite...


This image is taken from Kirtland AFB Starfire optical range as the tether was glowing merrily away 



Deployed  20 June 1996 by the US Naval Research Laboratory.

Tether with shielding...


Credit: US Navy

The tether feed spool...


Credit: US Navy


For the inventors I have all the data that the NAVY allowed me to copy to our website Write me for the link

[American-Roadwarrior]

Ok Gang,
I see many people are really in to this.
But I have not seen even one person answer my request on the second page.
It's quite possible I am not needed here.
We'll see 

[Somamech]

Okay! Thank you for all the great replies so far! 

Many of the questions asked about the footage which are all very valid, each and every one deserving a specific answer.

However, I am going to ask each and every person asking questions and requesting answers to first please view and watch very closely the video below. It's important to watch the whole video all the way through without bailing out. The video is only 5:45 minutes long and once you have completed watching it I need you to explain to me how and why this video "does not" debunk and put to rest this Tether "UFO", "saucer" and/or "plasma entity" video.

The video will instruct you mid way through to open it up to full screen in order for you to look at "all" the objects within the field-of-view closely.

Once you have answered this video to my satisfaction I will begin to directly answer your individual questions and/or refer you to specific videos or information.

Thank you in advance for completing this request of mine! 

You going to bail out because we don't fit your hope ?

...Or fill your expectations regarding expertise regarding this topic regarding your knowledge ?

It's all as you make it really. 

[Somamech]

Ok Gang,
I see many people are really in to this.
But I have not seen even one person answer my request on the second page.
It's quite possible I am not needed here.
We'll see 

I want a ride on a UFO without memory wipe too, DO I get it ? Nope

It does not mean I want to become a NASA Hugger though due to the fact i don't have my request filled out

[The Matrix Traveller]

It reminds me of my now 93 yo grandma's experience whilst in bed with grandpa when he was still kicking about. 

They both saw a ball of white light zoom through their bedroom only later to to ask the neighbour's who lived next door what was going on in their next meeting (who wouldn't ask?) and the neighbor's said they saw the ball's of white light in their paddock. 

Ball Lighting doe's not explain that true story

I know of a case, some years ago now, at a now decommissioned RF Surveillance Station
I used to spend a lot of time at, where a large diam. (possibly 5 or so feet in diam.) "Plasma"
of some sort, passed right through the Transmission Room, without damaging any of the transmitters
or Building.

There were both "Receivers" and "Transmitters" at this Station.

The Station Staff, just watch in amazement, as it drifted just above the floor across the floor area,
and disappeared though an external wall without leaving any marks or damage.

[ArMaP]

It sure looks like that black and my red line are in front of that rather large Ice Critter.

Why? Because they look like they are partially covering it?

[ArMaP]

When your video first starts up they are at some 80 nautical miles apart, even further than I wrote before. So what we are seeing is the lens set at infinity which is focused past the tether.

The lens set at infinity doesn't mean that it's focused past the tether, it only means that everything that appears in front of the lens, closer than infinity and farther away than some distance specific for each lens, will be on focus.

[deuem]

The lens set at infinity doesn't mean that it's focused past the tether, it only means that everything that appears in front of the lens, closer than infinity and farther away than some distance specific for each lens, will be on focus.

When he focused the lens, the tetherr got larger? That would put the original focus past the teather. The focus cropped the shot hence making the tether larger.

All lenses have their own infinity focus range and come in from there. If it was focused on the inside and then moved out to focus the tether it would have gotten smaller.

All lenes have a focus range. Infinity is just a buzz word, not reality.

[deuem]

@ Road Warrior.

Once you have answered this video to my satisfaction

What do you think we have been doing. Yes, we all watched your video 100%. Members even went through hoops to get it to me. And yes I watched it 3 times, even stepped framed the entire video.

Answer to your satisfaction?  WoW, who are you? What is this, If we don't bow down to your views we are no good? Look at all of the posts here, Have you answered any, or even one of the members questions? You make us all watch some video you put together and then force us to agree?

The name of your video is

NASA STS-75 TETHER UFO SWARM DEBUNKED BY QUICK FOCUS ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS & CALCULATION

Maybe I missed it but where is there any "calculation", math, even 1 sum. I looked high and dry for this section of calculations. Where is it. I thought I would have to stay up all night and run numbers to see if you were right! I am sorry but I can't find even one!

I also posted a very long post on the focus part!. Is that not a responce to your demand for satisfacation? Did you even read it? Other members read it and chimed in on the focus. This is what your video was all about. NO?

What Focus Adjustment Analysis did you do?  All I see is the Astronaut changed the focus and you repeated it several times. Where is the intense Analysis of it. Where is the focal plane before and after. What lens did they use. What is the focal point, What, what, what? If you want to do this work and prove it, you have to step up many steps in your work. Pin point the problem so that even a PHD would agree with you. I see nothing in your video except the repeat of the focus work.

It is becoming clear to me after reading all of your YouTube posts that you are very set in your mind and the rest of humanity is BS if we don't see your view. You have posted the same message on videos many times. The minute the page scrolls and your post goes to the next page, you post the sam message again. This is what I call trolling for attension.

I am stepping way out of Deuem charater even responding to you but maybe you need it.Your approach sucks! This site has many briliant people that you could have learned from and your first move is a demand. Great job son!

Learn to work with people! Even if and I say "IF" you are 100% correct. Your appoach needs a lot of work..

If you want to put your name to something you have to do the work yourself. Not just copy it and add some text. Learn how to dig.

Silly Deuem, I thought I was in for a good debate on this...Back to sleep..

Deuem