Sorry for the slow response, but I've been busy at work and haven't had a chance to post for a few days.

Is the object approaching from a distance? If so, there should be some evidence in the video. We should expect to see the object initially appear small, since it is a long way away from the camera. We should then see it grow larger and larger until it reaches it’s final distance. Something similar to this sequence:


But what do we actually see? I grabbed as many distinct frames as possible from the zoomed-in portion of the video here (link) and then adjusted brightness levels in Photoshop to enhance the visibility of the objects. Here’s the actual sequence from the object’s initial appearance to the point where it first crosses the Earth’s horizon:



There’s no obvious change in apparent size, but let’s take it one step farther. In the following sequence, I’ve drawn an oval around the object in the final frame to outline its size. I’ve then copied that exact same oval into each of the preceding frames and positioned it over the visible portion of the object. This makes it very clear that the object is not changing size during the sequence. Admittedly, the first frame in the sequence is pretty indistinct, but the brighter area appears to fill at least a significant portion of the oval.



The object DOES, however, noticeably grow in brightness as it moves toward the Earth’s horizon. As I’ve stated before, this is completely consistent with the behavior of a droplet of water refracting more and more of the bright Earth behind it.

WATER DROP ON GLASS AT DIFFERENT POSITIONS RELATIVE TO "HORIZON"


COMPARISON OF STS-51A OBJECT AND WATER DROPLET AT DIFFERENT POSITIONS FROM HORIZON


As for the object’s motion through the frame, I’ve already posted a video to show how camera motion can create large apparent motions in a water droplet stuck to a window (link). Because the droplet is very close to the lens, slight shifts of the camera cause the droplet to appear to move much more than the more distant background. If you watch my video, though, you can see that the background does move slightly in sync with the water droplet.

Now, take a look at the STS-51A video again. Here’s a link to a short clip that contains only this small video segment (link). Because this version is so short, it’s easy to watch over and over to get a feel for the motions. Watch as the UFO appears and moves downward and then to the right. Now take a look at the object in the lower right-hand corner of the screen. This is the end effector of the shuttle’s RMS arm. It’s effectively a fixed part of the background in this short clip, so any motion of this item is due to camera movement. Watch the clip again and notice how it, too, moves down and then to the right in sync with the UFO, but over a smaller distance, just like the background objects in my experiment video.

To make this really easy, here’s a quick three-frame animation of the clip showing the movement sequence:



THE MOTIONS OF THE OBJECT THROUGH THE FRAME ARE SYNCHRONIZED WITH KNOWN CAMERA MOVEMENTS. This is, again, perfectly consistent with the expected behavior of a droplet of water on the flight deck window being photographed by a hand-held camera.

The evidence, to me, is overwhelming. The most reasonable explanation for the object seen in the STS-51A video clip is just a droplet of liquid, probably water, on the flight deck window. There is no evidence to support a more exotic explanation in favor of this simple one. The same analysis can be performed on the STS-37 clip with the same result.

Skyeagle, you of course have the right to BELIEVE whatever you'd like about the objects in these two clips, but if you'd like to approach this from a scientific perspective, you really need to show some evidence to support your continued dismissal of my claim. I've given you a lot of material to work with here. If you don't agree with it, please SHOW me why.


P.S. to morrison 1976:
Thanks for the kind words! Hope the animation above helps to show you how the UFO movement syncs up with the camera movement.

You will note that the object is out of focus as it nears the shuttle, which is an indication the object is approaching the shuttle and not attached on the window and the object is not on the inside of the window either. I would like to add the following note.

Orbiter Purge, Vent and Drain System

"The purge, vent and drain system on the orbiter is designed to perform the following functions: provide unpressurized compartments with gas purge for thermal conditioning and prevent accumulation of hazardous gases, vent the unpressurized compartments during ascent and entry, drain trapped fluids (water and hydraulic fluid) and condition window cavities to maintain visibility."

"The window cavity conditioning system prevents moisture from entering into the windshields and the cavities of the overhead and payload-viewing windows. It also depressurizes and repressurizes these cavities during flight and supplies the purge conditioning to dry them during ground operations. The side hatch window is self-contained."

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-shuttle-di...-sts-51-ufo.php

NASA is one source of data from earth orbit. Then, there are other types of satellites. Of course, the question as to what all the other eyes in the sky see, that is anomalous, would serve to constrain the idea as to whether or not interesting ufo phenomena has occured, from that vantage.

I located a brief video on the NASA related material, from the viewpoint of some ufo researchers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1Zi8XDI16Y

*sigh* I've had enough of this banter to just sit idly by while sky finds excuse after unsupported, easily disprovable excuse. It appears to me he wants to believe so much, it doesnt matter if it isnt an alien craft, he'll come up with all sorts of stories to make it one.



Where is it out of focus, hmm? Point out which frame that Pericynthion cropped which has the drop out of focus.



Yet again you're either deliberately or undeliberately confusing the issue. That quote talks about water trapped in between windows, not on the inside of the compartment like Pericynthion is talking about!

It may very well be out of focus, but that would only be further evidence that the object is very close to the camera. The Earth is in focus in this video, and it's essentially at infinity with regard to camera focus, so any objects farther away than the Earth will also be focused. Dale Gardner and the Westar 6 satellite are in focus, and the shuttle RMS arm end effector is in focus. The RMS arm is only 50 feet long when stretched out and is mounted at the forward end of the payload bay. This means that the end effector can be a maximum of 50-60 feet from the camera. Therefore, everything in this video from about 50 feet to infinity is in focus. If the UFO object is out of focus, it must be closer to the camera than 50 feet.


I understand the purge and vent system, and it's not relevant to my claim. The orbiter crew module is actually a completely separate pressurized unit sitting inside the forward fuselage assembly. The crew module has it's own set of double-paned windows, and the forward fuselage has a separate set of outer windows. There's a gap between the two sets of window assemblies, and this is the area serviced by the purge and vent system. This area is depressurized as the shuttle climbs into orbit. See here for a diagram showing the forward fuselage and the crew module. The purge and vent system would have no effect on a water droplet on the inside of the innermost window (i.e. in the cabin with the crew).

Pericynthion,

Since the video is from the Payload Bay Cameras, then we can rule out your claim. In fact because of this incident NASA actually replaced the two video cameras, that according to NASA both "malfunctioned" at the same time.

NASA also stated in the IFA List that one "spot" from Camera D was "unknown pending failure investigation". Unfortunately the time of that incident is not given.

In any case, NASA is saying that the two Payload Bay Cameras A, and D were malfunctioning by seeing White/Black "spots", and at least one "Black spot" seen on camera D was unknown. The malfunction was attributed to something NASA refers to as "spotting" phenomena.

If the object is outside the shuttle, it is not a water droplet. When water is vented overboard, as one mission speciallst noted, it snows. In other words, water droplets do not form on the shuttle's windows.



You will note in the video I provided, the object is not a water droplet and note the distance from the shuttle and its maneuvers. Also, a similar object was observed in another video as a similar object crossed in view momentarily in one of the shuttle's window.

Pericynthion and Sky - this is an excellent dialog on both your parts! I mean this in all honesty - some great material and counter material being presented.

Jj -

I think this is a good discussion, with both of them putting some really good points across. We need more threads like this, and less people moaning about them!




Agree

I agree...You guys really know your stuff......

Hi lost_shaman,

The footage containing the "UFO" was most definitely NOT shot with a payload bay camera. It was shot from the flight deck with a hand-held camera. After seeing some more footage, I think it might have been a movie camera, but I'm not quite sure. It was definitely on the flight deck, though, and it was definitely hand-held. It's far too shaky to be anything else. Some additional footage from this mission can be found on the Spaceflight Now Plus service at spaceflightnow.com. This is a paid subscription service, however. Both raw footage and a segment of a post-flight press conference are available.

Here's a still photo of the EVA taken from the flight deck by the crew using a Hasselblad camera:

STS51A-39-34



And here's a frame grab from the film/video footage taken at the same moment. I've rotated the frame to orient the image like the Hasselblad photo:


As you can see, both photos were taken from the exact same location. The payload bay cameras would be looking at the scene from a different angle.

As further evidence, there is film/video footage of the crew on the flight deck watching the EVA in progress. This footage is intermixed with the EVA footage during the press conference. This proves there was a film/video camera in use on the flight deck during the EVA. Here's a frame grab from that video segment. The camera that shot this footage is very likely the same camera that filmed the EVA from the flight deck:


As a side note, it was very interesting to listen to the crew describing the rendezvous and capture of the Westar 6 satellite while watching the "UFO" dart across the screen. Nobody mentioned a single thing about it. It's too obvious to miss, so if this really was something extraordinary like an alien spacecraft, why didn't anyone comment on it? And if NASA was trying to hush this up, why show that clip at a PRESS CONFERENCE?

Sigh. I'm not the one who is claiming the object is outside the shuttle. You are. You just posted:


And I just pointed out to you that if the object is out of focus, it must be within 50 feet of the camera because everything beyond that point is seen to be IN focus. I believe the object in question is a water droplet INSIDE the cabin, only a few feet from the camera. If it's out of focus, as you claim, that fits perfectly with my hypothesis of a water droplet, but not well at all with your claim of an alien spacecraft.



And back to the beginning we go ...

(over their heads)

(stands aside while immovable and irresistable forces play out pointless battle of wits)

Actually, I want to point out the object is not a water droplet inside nor outside the space shuttle and that the object is an artificial entity.

Alignment of UFO

Note the position of the satellite vs. that of the object in the first and last photos. You will notice the alignment of the satellite remains the same yet the object changes its position toward the right. It means the camera remained relatively stable throughout the object’s maneuver to the right. The object moves but the satellite doesn't in the camera view. Also, the focus changes on the object, however, it does not on the satellite, which is yet another indication that object is not inside the space shuttle.




Note the object in these three photos. Notice anything peculiar? The photos were taken from different shuttle flights, STS-37 and STS-51.










This photo was taken from Earth. Note the similarity of this UFO with the object in the photos of space shuttle flights STS-37 and STS-51.




Mexican Airliner nearly collides with metallic spherical UFO

"As he recorded the scenery, the airliner's captan said: "Look, what's that over there?" pointing straight ahead. It was at that moment that he recorded ­ in the eleven o'clock position ­ a spherical, seemingly metallic object at an estimated distance of 200 meters. The time was 9:23 a.m."

http://www.rense.com/general75/mex.htm


Also, note the similarities of the maneuvering ability between this UFO and the objects in the videos on shuttle flights STS-37 and STS-51.

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/s30_001.mov


Data that goes along with that video.

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/traject.gif

http://www.roswellproof.com/Nellis_Ground_Topo.html

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/Altitude.gif

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/VELOCITY.gif

No, the satellite is NOT stationary in the field of view. You've conveniently chosen an image montage which crops out almost all of the foreground objects, but the apparent motion of the Westar satellite is still visible. Look at the position of the boom antenna on the top of the satellite. I've drawn a vertical line through the spot in the first frame where the antenna crosses the edge of the satellite body.



Note that in the last frame, this spot has shifted noticeably to the right, just like the "UFO." The fact that it doesn't move as far as the UFO is again perfectly consistent with my claim that the UFO is just a water droplet on the flight deck window. I've explained this over and over and have created a video which demonstrates this phenomenon. Please reread my previous posts.

If it's not clear from the line on the photo montage, take a look again at the full-frame animation I put together. The movement of the satellite and the shuttle RMS arm is quite obvious and synchronizes well with the movement of the "UFO."



As for the focus issue, I'll again refer you back to my previous post here. The closest known object to the camera is the shuttle's RMS arm end effector. It's no more than about 50 feet away, and it's in focus. The satellite, astronaut, and Earth are also in focus. Basic camera optics tells us that the Earth is far enough away to be considered essentially at infinity with regard to depth of field, so any objects more distant than the Earth will also be in focus. If, as you suggest, the UFO object is out of focus, it must be closer to the camera than 50 feet. This fits well with my claim of a water droplet inside the cabin a few feet from the camera, but not very well at all with your claim of an alien spacecraft.



I see similar-looking objects with similar behavior in both video clips and note that the STS-37 footage was also shot with a hand-held camera on the flight deck. My conclusions are the same for the STS-37 clip as for the STS-51A clip. The simplest, most reasonable explanation for both of these objects is a water droplet on the flight deck window through which the camera is shooting.




And this photo was also shot on Earth in Orlando, Florida, by me a couple of months ago.


Note the similarity in appearance. Is there a connection? Of course not. Let's stay focused on the STS-51A and STS-37 objects and not get distracted with unrelated sightings simply because things look similar.

Actually, the satellite remains in focus unlike the object in the photo. Since the satellite is in the foreground along with the object as opposed to the Earth in the background, that means the object is approaching the shuttle as would be expected from an object approaching the shuttle. Compare photos #1 and #4. The focus on the object changes but not on the satellite even though the satellite is in the foreground as well. In the other video, the object is not even in sight until later, which means the object wasn't there when filming began.



You will notice the movement of the object vs that of the satellite do not match. Draw a line from photo #1 and #4 on the object and compare the two along with the vertical position of the frame. Even the vertical postion do not match the camera's movement. For an example, the object is above the horizon of the Earth and eventually is level with the Earth's horizon. In photo #1, it is out of focus yet the satellite remains in focus because it's position is relatively static vs the dynamic movements of the object. You can't draw a straight line on the object from photo #1 thru #4 to make all four connections unlike the satellite in photos #1 thru #4 where you can draw a straight line and hit the satellite antenna targets in all four photos.



Focusing on the satellite remains the same when compared to the object and once again, as would be expected of an object approaching the shuttle. It is not likely that an astronaut would film through a water droplet and besides, uncontrolled water droplets within the space shuttle create their own hazards as well. Also, the Electro-conductive properties of the Inner Space Shuttle and Space Station windows, built by Corning, were created to keep any and all type of moisture from their surfaces, that includes fogging,condensation or any other type of moisture.

["The panes were coated by Optical Coating Lab Inc., Santa Rosa, Calif., with anti-reflection chemicals that block ultra-violet radiation from the sun. The coating also is electro-conductive to cut down on condensation."]

And, where you have one water droplet:



You can expect many water droplets as well:



And, it is not likely that astronauts on two different shuttle flights would create official video tapes through a water droplet contaminate on the shuttle's windows, they would simply wipe it off with a handkerchief or whatever is available. If I were video taping an important event and there were a drop of water on the window, I definitely would wipe the droplet off before I roll the camera and it is inconceivable to me that two astronauts would continue to film an important event with water droplets on the shuttle's window and I would place that high on the list against a single water droplet on the windows of both shuttles.

If you were the person behind this camera and the object was a water droplet on the window, wouldn't stop and remove the droplet before filming an official event for NASA? As you can see, the object remained there during filming on both the STS-37 and the STS-51 flights but you will also notice in one of the earlier videos the object is not even present during initial taping.

Now, let's take another look at a real water droplet on a window pane vs. the object in question in the video.

But, that object is not moving in respect to its surroundings, unlike the identical objects in the videos of STS-37 and STS-51. You will also note that it doesn't compare to the object shot from Earth, which is identical to the objects filmed from STS-37 and STS-51.

Is this a water droplet on a window?

nice pics..they are what the US called foo fighters during ww2....id give my opinion on them but ive been told it's not allowed; without a scientific explanation..I believe the photos speak for themselves...nice post.

Hey Pericynthion,

I guess that what we need now is documentation that tells us what camera was specifically used to take this specific video. That evidence IMO is really key to understanding what we are looking at here.

At any rate, NASA reports an 'unknown' videoed from Payload Bay camera D which could not have been a water droplet. Where is that video? And/or is that what we've been looking at?

Something I have a problem with is the fact that NASA replaced the Payload Bay Cameras in question because of a malfunction that caused them to see "spots" and the filming of an "unknown" "spot" by Payload Bay Camera D while on the same mission an alleged/hypothesised "water droplet" accidentally caused a "spot" on a hand-held camera.

That's a bit much right? And we are still left with an 'unknown' and a camera malfunction on two Payload Bay Cameras that we've not examined yet.

It has been revealed who is responsible for those UFOs.

NASA Special Report


Some monochrome cameras, as mentioned on another thread, are accused of recording UFOs. I have tried to explain why I think this is not so. As for replacing cameras, it would depend on how hardened they may have been, along with general age and wear. Shuttles have four payload cameras, cameras on the remote control arm, and perhaps others to monitor high angle shots.

Why don't those external, color cameras show daylight UFOs?

It's just a question...

Payload Bay Camera Video Clip

This makes no sense to me. The satellite is in focus. The Earth, hundreds of miles away, is in focus. Everything in between must also be in focus. Why would an approaching object be out of focus?




Please, please, please go back and look at my previous posts. I've explained this to you over and over again. Because the water droplet on the window is so much closer to the camera, it appears to move much more than the background objects. You can see this very clearly in the video I made. What you describe above is EXACTLY what you'd expect to see if the object is indeed a droplet of water.



For what it's worth, I decided after my first couple of posts that "condensation" was too specific a word to be using and have since generalized my description to "water droplet." There are a lot of potential sources for small droplets of water onboard a shuttle. Water can get loose while drinking or preparing a meal, droplets of urine can escape while the toilet is being used, etc. The crew tries to be careful, but stuff can get loose and it will drift around in the cabin air currents until it bumps into something or someone.



What you would do or what I would do is completely irrelevant here. We weren't there. Perhaps they did clean off the windows prior to the start of the EVA, but a droplet floated in and stuck later on. This was a 6 hour EVA, after all. Perhaps the crew was just too busy with other tasks to worry about cleaining the windows. Who knows. All I've tried to do here is show you that everything we see in the video can be explained by the simple presence of a droplet of water on the window. I don't make any claims about where it may have come from.

It's interesting to me that you find it inconceivable that a droplet of water may have ended up on a flight deck window, but have no trouble at all accepting the scenario that an alien spacecraft darted into close formation with a shuttle in the middle of an EVA, in full view of the crew, without ANY REACTION WHATSOEVER from that crew or mission control. Why is that? I'd honestly like to know. And why did nobody comment on the object when it was shown as part of the mission highlight film during a post-flight presentation?



Now this, skyeagle, is just plain intellectual dishonesty. I really expect better from you. You know very well that I've provided much better comparison photos and video of water droplets under more similar lighting conditions, but you've refused time and time again to acknowledge them. I'm growing very frustrated with this. Here are the images you should be using for a comparison:




And with that, I think I've completed the presentation of my case. I've spent an enormous amount of time answering questions and refuting the most nit-picky of objections to my outlandish notion that a small droplet of water may have ended up on a window during a couple shuttle missions. I've enjoyed doing this, but now I'm ready to hear from the other side.

Would anyone care to provide some evidence here to show me just why these objects are more likely to be some sort of spacecraft than another, more mundane explanation?

I have no idea what the object behind the plane is. The aircraft itself is a Kawasaki Ki-48 “Lily” bomber operated by Japan during World War II. (FYI, the web site from which you linked the photo has misidentified the plane).

The black object could be anything from a drop of ink on the print to a mile-wide spacecraft hovering in the distance. There’s just not much data to work with here.

Well, I'll put it simply. The idea that the government is covering things up is as clear as the idea that UFOs are flying in our skies. Very clear. However, this does not mean they're covering up "ET". Could simply be anti-gravity aircraft.

Here's my opinion:
Anyone claiming it's ET, needs a reality check.
Anyone claiming it's definitley not ET, needs a reality check.
Anyone ignoring the obvious coverups from the government, needs a reality check.

That's just my $00.02. I personally accept that there are UFOs, and the government is acting very fishy when it comes to this subject. However, how am I suppose to know what they're covering up?! They're doing a damn good job.(Well, not of pretending they're not covering things up)

There are tons of videos that show objects similar to this moving around. So it's very possible it IS a UFO, however it could also be something as simple as an ink drop as you said. Just that the other videos make the "UFO" theory more plausible.

Hi lost_shaman,

I'd be curious to find out what type of camera was being used on the flight deck, but it doesn't really affect any potential analysis. If the object in question was actually a water droplet on the window, it wouldn't matter what type of camera was filming it. The appearance is all due to simple optics and depth of field, not the specifics of film or video tape. The same thing applies if the UFO was an actual object in space. I did a fair bit of digging on the web and in NTRS to see if I could locate a camera manifest, but wasn't able to find any references.

I'm not too concerned about the payload bay cameras on STS-51A either, since the point-of-view of the incident video makes it clear that the recording camera was on the flight deck. I'm always curious to see more data, though, so if you've got a report title and number for the post-flight camera maintenance, please pass it along. I'd like to track down a copy. I haven't been able to find any online reference to camera malfunctions on this mission.

Are you implying that NASA may have been trying to cover up the sighting? If so, why release the video of the encounter as part of a post-flight press conference? Why not use one of the payload bay camera views instead? At least one color payload bay camera was operating during this portion of the EVA and it had a much different view angle. Here's a screen capture:



This shot was definitely taken from a payload bay camera. The video shows the characteristic color banding caused by the spinning color wheel in the old-style -506 and -508 cameras. As you can see, the camera has much more of a side view of the Westar 6 satellite. This screen capture was made at just about the same time as the object appears in the flight deck camera view, but it shows nothing out of the ordinary. That is, except for a free-flying astronaut about to stick a pole up the backside of a disabled communications satellite. Ahh, the good old days of shuttle operations ...

Actually, such spherical UFOs were reported as following aircraft by aircrews on both sides of World War II. The Axis thought they were ours and we thought they were theirs. After the war, it was found the spherical objects were neither ours nor theirs.


http://www.project1947.com/articles/arwwr.htm

Approaching from a distance, it would be out of focus. The satellite remains in focus but the object does not. Also, where is the object in the above photo now? Apparently, where it is now is not where it will be.



I want to repost the water droplet on the window again to make another point. If you were the camera person video taping an important event for NASA and there's a water droplet on the inside of the window, would you continue to video tape the satellite and not wipe away a simple water droplet off the window? Would two astronauts on different shuttle flights ignore a simple water droplet on the inside of the shuttle's window and continue filming past a contaminate or could it be expected of them to wipe away the droplet before filming? What would people think if our astronauts didn't have the common sense to wipe away a simple water droplet before filming?

If you have a home camera and there's a water droplet on the lense, would you wipe away the droplet or continue to snap away regardless? What you are implying with your water droplet theory is that astronauts on two different shuttle flights who are video taping had done just that. Wouldn't you think the folks at NASA would question the state of mind of astronauts who would video tape past a simple water droplet at arms length?

Let's say the following image of a real water droplet on the window is a window of the space shuttle, so let's take it up 180 miles into space. Now, let's say there is a satellite on the other side of this window pane and you are tasked by NASA to film sequences for a satellite launch in the shuttle's bay. You notice the water droplet on the inside of the window before shooting. The questions at this point are:

A. Are you going to wipe off this simple water droplet from inside the shuttle's window before filming an historical event for the world?

B. Leave the water droplet and film the event regardless and let the water droplet become a part of history?





C. Can we expect intelligent and highly-trained astronauts to video tape through a single water droplet without wiping it off the window pane knowing that their video tapes will be examined countless times by professionals and the public alike?

NASA has realized the seriousness of uncontrolled moisture within the space shuttle compartments. For an example:







How difficult is it to wipe a simple water droplet from a window pane? If the astronauts had to time to prepare the video camera for shooting then surely they would have had ample time to take a towel and wipe a simple droplet off the window.



There have been communications released where astronauts reported UFOs in the vincinity of their spacecraft and astronauts and cosmonauts have gone on the record that they've experienced UFOs near their spacecraft but at this point, we can leave ET back home. What I want to do is to show the object is anything but a water droplet.



With that, would you take a few seconds to wipe a water droplet off the window or would you ignore the droplet and continue filming past the droplet regardless and let it go down into history for the next thousand years or more?



Actually, I want to leave ET out at this point and imply that the object isn't a water droplet.

At the beginning of the STS-37 video, where is the object and where did it come from?

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-shuttle-di...-sts-51-ufo.php

So, you’re arguing that this can’t be a water droplet because the crew would not have allowed one to be on the window? That’s pure speculation, and you’re putting an awful lot of importance on the quality of the photography. The purpose of this mission wasn’t to photograph the satellites, it was to recover them. Two of the crew (Joe Allen & Dave Gardner) are outside the shuttle on EVA. One of them is free-flying away from the orbiter using an MMU backpack to attempt to dock with and recover a disabled satellite. This is a relatively risky EVA filled with a lot of unknowns. The commander and pilot (Fred Hauck & Dave Walker) on the flight deck are responsible for keeping everyone safe and for operating the orbiter. If Dale gets in trouble with the MMU, they’re going to have to quickly maneuver Discovery to go and get him before he drifts away. Anna Fisher is working the RMS arm and is getting ready to grab the satellite once Dale attaches a fixture to it.

The three crew on the flight deck are busy with their own responsibilities and have two good friends outside the shuttle performing a risky EVA. Filming the EVA is at best a third priority behind flight safety and retrieval of the satellites. Is it such a stretch to accept the possibility that they might not be overly concerned about keeping the windows spotless? Keep in mind that this is a 6 hour EVA. Even if they cleaned off the windows at the start of the EVA, stuff could have easily drifted in later on. All it takes for my theory to a plausible explanation is one small droplet of water.

That said, I’ll give you some additional evidence. I don’t know how I missed this before, but the entire post-flight press conference is available online for free download (link).

From the crew comments, it’s now clear to me that the camera used on the flight deck was a movie camera, not a video camera. The segment containing the unknown object begins at 10:55. Watch this entire portion and note how the object slides into view from off the top of the screen at full size and does not dart in from a distance. You can even see another smudge on the window. Also note the amazing lack of comment from the crew or the audience as the object drifts through the scene.

And if you think the windows must be spotless, pay close attention to the external views from the flight deck. Those windows are anything but clean. Here are a few screen captures showing various smudges, spots, scratches, and possibly even another water droplet or two:

09:19 Droplet


09:25 Droplet


09:29 Spots and Reflections


10:56 Smudge


13:48 Fiber or Scratch


13:56 Scratch and Spots


Watch these things and notice how they appear to dance around on the screen as the camera moves. Also notice how the background doesn’t appear to move nearly as much.

Actually, I never believe for an instant the object was that of a water droplet and for several reasons.



I wanted to make a point that if there were a drop of water on the camera lense or even the window, I wouldn't go ahead with a photo session without wiping off the droplet. Kind of like taking pictures with a piece of tape stuck to the camera lense and it is inconceiable that anyone would take photos with such contamination in place, however, the objects in both videos are not droplets of water and for the reasons already noted.



Yes, because water contamination is serious business aboard the shuttle and where there is one drop of water, there could very well be many others as well,, which would indicate a failure in the shuttle's environmental system.



Are these objects considered smudges and water droplets on the shuttle's window?

http://www.artgomperz.com/videoclips/sts80.mpeg

where would the water come from if it doesnt rain in space?....If you didnt know the shuttle cant get wet. so any water would be a priority...

This argument is silly. Like Pericynthion has pointed out, the camera men were much more worried about the successfulness of their crew member's task, not an insignificant water droplet. Also, the video was shown in the press conference and they didn't mention the water drop as any danger either.

The water droplet was on the inside of the craft.

Hey Pericynthion,

Here from the SSVEO IFA List.

Title:Payload Bay Television Cameras A and D Have Spots In Field Of View. (GFE)

Summary:DISCUSSION: At about 315:15:16 G.m.t., both payload bay camera A and D were observed to have a white spot near the center of the picture. In addition, camera D had a dark spot near the center of the picture. None of the spots were very large and thus did not effect television operations. Postflight, the crew reported that both cameras were difficult to focus. The focusing problem could not be duplicated during post-mission ground testing by the camera vendor at KSC. Mission video tapes were reviewed with no focus abnormalities being observed. The white spots are ion spots which occur when the SIT (silicon intensified target) tube is inactive for long periods of time. During manufacture, a coating is applied internally to the tube to trap the residual gas after evacuation. When the SIT tube is inactive, this gas escapes and creates an ion cloud which is visible upon subsequent camera use. The gas can be baked out with about one week ofcontinuous SIT tube operation. The black spot on camera D has not been reproduced during post-mission ground testing. Both cameras will be operated, monitored, and amore detailed investigation will follow, if unexplainable conditions occur. Both cameras (A and D) have been replaced with cameras that do not have ion spots.

CONCLUSION: The white spots on cameras A and D were caused by ion spots that occur because of SIT tube inactivity. The cause of the black spot on camera D is unknown pending failure investigation.

CORRECTIVE_ACTION: Cameras A and D have been removed and replaced with cameras that have no white or black spots. Both cameras are being operated and monitored as the first phase in the failure investigation. The results of this activity will be tracked via FIAR JSC EE-0595F.

EFFECTS_ON_SUBSEQUENT_MISSIONS: None pending the resolution of FIAR JSC EE-0595F. FIAR ANALYSIS: The anomaly is reported to be "ion spotting" of the TV cameras (A and D in this case) and is not an uncommon occurrance. A description of the "spotting" phenomena and the proposed corrective action is contained inthe NASA failure reporting system under FIAR EE-0595. [not included in original problem report]

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/columbia/anomaly/STS51A.pdf

how do you know this?

Considering the window properties, not very likely condensation was responsible, especially when two space shuttles were involved. Also:


Space Shuttle Windows

"The two middle panes serve as the primary and secondary pressure windows, ensuring that the laboratory module stays pressurized. Each of the panes is 31.75 cm (1-1/4 in) thick. The innermost pane is a "scratch" pane a little less than a 12.7 cm (half-inch thick). Its primary purpose is to prevent condensation from forming on the pressure panes. The scratch pane has a special anti-scratch coating that stands up to accidental nicks or bumps from any camera lenses that might be mounted to observe Earth. When not in use, the window is protected by the kick pane on the inside, and by an external cover on the outside. The external cover can be rotated in or out of position from within the cabin by an astronaut using a hand crank."

Moisture on the camera lense?!

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowell/Nellis/Part3/fig2.JPG

I agree any moisture would be considered high priority...this is getting silly, who came up with the water drop theory...skys got something here. you can debate him all night but he's right...

I actually thought about the suggestion that we write either NASA or even the astronauts in question, but then realized:

A. IF they told us it was water drops:
..................... this would, by some, be denounced as 'mis-information'.
B. IF they told us it wasn't - that they were not sure what it was:
..................... this would be seen as more than what it was and seen as yet 'vague' because they cannot talk about "it".
C. IF they told us it was an alien UFO:
..................... it would be believed and accepted w/open hands.

So I guess the challenge is - that for most - C: is the only answer that will be accepted, by most of the "believers". A. & B. simply would not be acceptable - even it it was the truth.

So Sky and Pericynthion, I have to say - you guys did an EXCELLENT CLASS ONE job on this dialog!
I think now it would be best if we move on?? For I fear that if we take this any further it will ensue trouble and get this thread locked, like what happened to mine, "Why so quick to believe?" did.
So maybe it's time to let people draw their own conclussions to this focal point?? I don't think much more can actually be said, without going over the same material and wind up in a 'flame war'?
Personally, not that this means much - but I thought you both did a super excellent job in presenting your sides on this. I really honestly mean it. WELL PLAYED!!

Jj -

Thank you, Jj! I appreciate the nice compliments and agree with you completely. I've presented my theory and have shown a bunch of evidence to support it. Not much more I can do here that would be productive, so I'll be moving on to another topic now. I'll leave it up to the readers to try some of my simple experiments for themselves, do a bit of research, and draw their own conclusions.

Regards,

Pericynthion

Thank you!

I, for one, pay homage to Pericynthion's incredible knowledge in this subject area.

What part were you not watching?

They both did an excellent job...nice thread all!!!

*sigh* Sky... he's not saying its moisture in between the windows, for the last time. And a droplet of water floating around on the inside isnt of that much importance.

I know, and that is why I noted not only the electro-conductive properties of the shuttle's windows, but of its environmental systems as well. As one inhabitant of the Mir once noted:

Great care must be taken to ensure no water droplet is released into the environment, a water droplet striking a surface in space can result in an explosion of smaller water droplets.

Thank you! I enjoyed the discussion with him and I guess you are right, it is time to move on.

Thanks! Even though we disagreed, I am glad he took the time to do some work on his own. To me, that was refreshing.

Thanks for a great time, but I agree with others, it is time to move on.

Sky

Eureka! I think I've worked it out!

The O'hare UFO-



is nothing more than a giant... water droplet!



ahh they look the same to me..