The Demonstration

[morrison1976]

What is your opinion on the sts80 footage over africa?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...p;search=Search

[JimOberg]

What is your opinion on the sts80 footage over africa?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...p;search=Search

Thanks, hadn't seen that one.

It's a sunrise scene, you see the bright terminator moving into the FOV at the end, and the dots dimming out as the camera's auto gain control backs off to keep from being overloaded by bright sunlit clouds coming into view. At the beginning of the scene, AGC is set way up for minimim light level, with clouds -- presumably moonlit -- moving below, stars in the background, and the dots in the FOV.

Presuming the dots are sunlit shuttle-derived debris, that's what they'd look like. Bright, sunlit, some moving out of the shuttle's shadow, their bright centers blanked-out by the vidicon tube's overbright-protect logic, making them look like donuts (you can see the same effect when a starfield is imaged -- the stars look like donuts).

This is a fairly typical sunrise scene. The source of the dots would depend on what activities were going on recently aboard.

If there's any clue as to which orbit, what date and time it was, I can check for trajectory data and confirm moonlit surface. Also can check for water dumps or other activities known to shed dandruff.

And you're puzzled by what aspect of the scene?

[morrison1976]

The circular objects appear from behind the craft, and gradually get smaller as they move away from the craft, until they all seem to light up in forrmation, with the one in the middle lighting up last. I find this very strange indeed.

[JimOberg]

The circular objects appear from behind the craft, and gradually get smaller as they move away from the craft, until they all seem to light up in forrmation, with the one in the middle lighting up last. I find this very strange indeed.

It sure can look "strange", nodoubtaboutit. But is that unusual for space videos, with the very different lighting conditions than we are used to earthside?

Elsewhere I asked folks if they were comfortable with the notion of dots suddenly appearing on these videos, because 'space junk' coming off shuttles drifts outwards, starting within the shuttle's shadow and then popping into sunlight, and suddenly becoming visible.

There are specific conditions when this can happen -- coming into sunrise from behind the Earth, camera viewing backwards to the dark earth, and dots in the scene. That specific set of conditions are exactly the ones in the infamous STS-48, STS-80, and STS-75 'UFO videos', and by golly, these are the exact same lighting conditions in the one you linked to.

I don't think it is coincidence. I think it's cause-and-effect for a prosaic visual space effect. How can I prove that to you?

The precise commonality of these specific illumination conditions is never disclosed on the UFO documentaries you've seen -- it's why people who want to believe these are anomalous phenomena do their best to NOT know what kinds of lighting conditions and geometries exist for the scenes. It might be too suggestive of common factors and a common 'solution;. Can't have that. Better not to tell our marks, ur, I mean, our target audience, these producers/researchers may be thinking...

[skyeagle409]

It sure can look "strange", nodoubtaboutit. But is that unusual for space videos, with the very different lighting conditions than we are used to earthside?

This person in this video is saying what I have said just recently in regards to FOD. It seems that either NASA doesn't have a viable FOD program as does the Air Force, or, those objects are not FOD at all, including ice formations.

Edited September 23, 2007 by skyeagle409

[JimOberg]

This person in this video is saying what I have said just recently in regards to FOD. It seems that either NASA doesn't have a viable FOD program as does the Air Force, or, those objects are not FOD at all, including ice formations.

Just how does the AF program on FOD (by which I presume you mean vigorous patrols of runways) apply to space shuttle flights? Sorry, I just don't get it.

And please, no more misrepresentations of one photo from one case, as a trick to question the prosaic explanation of an entirely different encounter. Bad form.

[skyeagle409]

Just how does the AF program on FOD (by which I presume you mean vigorous patrols of runways) apply to space shuttle flights? Sorry, I just don't get it.

The Air Force has a very good FOD program that is not limited to FOD on the tarmacs, taxiways, and runways. Every section of an Air Force aircraft, inside and outside, are placed under the Air Force's FOD program. All tool kits are tightly monitored and controlled to reduce lost tools that is considered FOD if lost on an aircraft. If a mechanic loses a small wrench on an aircraft, a report is immediately initiated and that aircraft will be grounded. An extensive such is made on that aircraft until the tool is found, and if not, the report will be noted in the reports, which will pass through many hands before it is filed.

It seems to me that if all of that stuff, as you say, is FOD floating out of the shuttle's cargo bay, then NASA either doesn't have a FOD program or it needs to train new inspectors and provide the current inspectors with new looking glasses, because FOD in space is unacceptable and can result in the loss of a spacecraft, and NASA knows it. A single nut or bolt in space can also kill an astronaut and NASA knows that as well.

Edited September 24, 2007 by skyeagle409

[JimOberg]

The Air Force has a very good FOD program that is not limited to FOD on the tarmacs, taxiways, and runways. Every section of an Air Force aircraft, inside and outside, are placed under the Air Force's FOD program. All tool kits are tightly monitored and controlled to reduce lost tools that is considered FOD if lost on an aircraft. If a mechanic loses a small wrench on an aircraft, a report is immediately initiated and that aircraft will be grounded. An extensive such is made on that aircraft until the tool is found, and if not, the report will be noted in the reports, which will pass through many hands before it is filed.

It seems to me that if all of that stuff, as you say, is FOD floating out of the shuttle's cargo bay, then NASA either doesn't have a FOD program or it needs to train new inspectors and provide the current inspectors with new looking glasses, because FOD in space is unacceptable and can result in the loss of a spacecraft, and NASA knows it. A single nut or bolt in space can also kill an astronaut and NASA knows that as well.

Thanks for the explanation. Now, where do I ever say all this stuff is FOD?

Some astronauts have reported that some of the stuff they see is coming out of the payload bay -- and I know it happens occasionally. But it's not the main source of the 'dandruff'.

The vast majority of the 'stuff' is ice from the thrusters and main engines and flash evaporators and water dump ports. There are over a hundred valves which fluids can leak out of. And fluids do, regularly and harmlessly, creating these familiar dancing dots.

The only possible relevance of FOD is the stringent NASA effort to retain all construction material, double-tether all tools on EVA, and contain pyrobolt and guillotine debris -- which seems to be pretty effective.

To repeat, I never said that the stuff was FOD floating out of the payload bay.

[skyeagle409]

Thanks for the explanation. Now, where do I ever say all this stuff is FOD?

Some astronauts have reported that some of the stuff they see is coming out of the payload bay -- and I know it happens occasionally. But it's not the main source of the 'dandruff'.

The vast majority of the 'stuff' is ice from the thrusters and main engines and flash evaporators and water dump ports. There are over a hundred valves which fluids can leak out of. And fluids do, regularly and harmlessly, creating these familiar dancing dots.

The only possible relevance of FOD is the stringent NASA effort to retain all construction material, double-tether all tools on EVA, and contain pyrobolt and guillotine debris -- which seems to be pretty effective.

To repeat, I never said that the stuff was FOD floating out of the payload bay.

If that stuff floating out of the shuttle's bay is not part of the spacecraft, then it is considered FOD. And, FOD can be anything that presents a danger to aircraft, spacecraft and crew.

Some of the stuff that NORAD has been tracking, are gloves and cameras.

Edited September 24, 2007 by skyeagle409

[JimOberg]

If that stuff floating out of the shuttle's bay is not part of the spacecraft, then it is considered FOD. And, FOD can be anything that presents a danger to aircraft, spacecraft and crew.

Some of the stuff that NORAD has been tracking, are gloves and cameras.

I'm not following you. How does that help understand the shuttle videos?

I was trying to explain some issues about how knowing the illumination context is critical to understanding what is seen in the videos. Does anybody have any issues with my explanation of how the shuttle casts a shadow in which departing objects are dark and don't appear on camera until they drift far enough away to become sunlit? The sudden appearance of some of these dots is a feature of the videos that has clearly impressed a lot of viewers, but I am suggesting they are misinterpreting that appearance to mean popping out of a space warp or coming out of the atmosphere in the background.

[skyeagle409]

I'm not following you. How does that help understand the shuttle videos?

I am betting that NASA does have a viable FOD program in-place, and working before any shuttle is launched into space. In other words, some of those objects are not FOD from the space shuttle at all.

[JimOberg]

I am betting that NASA does have a viable FOD program in-place, and working before any shuttle is launched into space. In other words, some of those objects are not FOD from the space shuttle at all.

If the vast majority of the observed objects are effluent from valves, frozen water and propellant, as observers both on board and in Mission Control believe, how on Earth or in space would ANY 'FOD' program prevent that? I really don't see the logic to your claim -- except that you are concentrating on 'deductions from convenient assumptions' that seem to provide you with preferred conclusions irrespective of observational and documented evidence.

I still think the key conceptual barrier for wider public understanding of what the videos actually show is the problem people have with issues such as illumination, and three dimensions. I've tried to explain how I see those factors -- the shuttle's shadow cast into space, and particles moving out of it into sunlight, for example -- and my questioning you on how you can claim you are seeing an object make a 90 degree turn when you don't know the component into the depth of the field of view. You have not responded to either of these issues. Do you not believe my theoretical description of how they would affect any observed motion of any object near the shuttle?

[skyeagle409]

If the vast majority of the observed objects are effluent from valves, frozen water and propellant, as observers both on board and in Mission Control believe, how on Earth or in space would ANY 'FOD' program prevent that?

It wouldn't and, what I am also saying is that the objects in question are neither FOD nor ice.

[JimOberg]

It wouldn't and, what I am also saying is that the objects in question are neither FOD nor ice.

Well, we know you keep saying that, but you never provide any proof that your super-certainty is anything but a personal opinion.

I still think the key conceptual barrier for wider public understanding of what the videos actually show is the problem people have with issues such as illumination, and three dimensions. I've tried to explain how I see those factors -- the shuttle's shadow cast into space, and particles moving out of it into sunlight, for example -- and my questioning you on how you can claim you are seeing an object make a 90 degree turn when you don't know the component into the depth of the field of view. You have not responded to either of these issues. Do you not believe my theoretical description of how they would affect any observed motion of any object near the shuttle?

[skyeagle409]

Well, we know you keep saying that, but you never provide any proof that your super-certainty is anything but a personal opinion.

I am not convinced that some of those objects are FOD nor ice. You can stand along the approach path of LAX at night and create the same kind of observations you see in the NASA videos using a video camera as you film aircraft in holding patterns and on final approach to LAX with their landing lights on.

[JimOberg]

I am not convinced that some of those objects are FOD nor ice.

That is clear. What would convince you they are ice?

I still think the key conceptual barrier for your understanding of what the videos actually show is the problem you seem to have with issues such as illumination, and three dimensions. I've tried to explain how I see those factors -- the shuttle's shadow cast into space, and particles moving out of it into sunlight, for example -- and my questioning you on how you can claim you are seeing an object make a 90 degree turn when you don't know the component into the depth of the field of view. You have not responded to either of these issues. Do you not believe my theoretical description of how they would affect any observed motion of any object near the shuttle?