VG1991

[mcrom901]

came across these interesting details.....

Abstract: A 10-metre object on a heliocentric orbit, now catalogued as 1991 VG, made a close approach to the Earth in 1991 December, and was discovered a month before perigee with the Spacewatch telescope at Kitt Peak. Its very Earth-like orbit and observations of rapid brightness fluctuations argued for it being an artificial body rather than an asteroid. None of the handful of man-made rocket bodies left in heliocentric orbits during the space age have purely gravitational orbits returning to the Earth at that time. In addition, the small perigee distance observed might be interpreted as an indicator of a controlled rather than a random encounter with the Earth, and thus it might be argued that 1991 VG is a candidate as an alien probe observed in the vicinity of our planet.

http://wanderling.tripod.com/1991_vg.html

this 'thing' is actually in an exact orbit with the earth.....

details from NASA

interesting read......

Alien Artifacts In The Solar System?

data from the astronomical community.....

http://earn.dlr.de/nea/J91V00G.htm

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/05300/05387.html

comments from the astronomer who discovered the 'asteroid'.......

On November 8, I already

suggested to Brian Marsden that perhaps it might be a Saturn IVB stage,

but it was only a wild guess at trying to explain the Earth-like orbit.

The disconcerting thing is that an object in such an orbit would not last

very long - how could it be natural?

...

Marsden integrated the orbit backwards, hoping to improve

the predictions for an attempt to observe 1991 VG with radar by linking it

to a manmade spacecraft. He found that it had been in the vicinity of

Earth last in about 1973 or 1974, but only got within about 0.07AU. That

suggested the Helios A spacecraft booster, a Centaur upper stage.

Jonathan McDowell contacted General Dynamics and found out that that

booster was put back into a Geocentric orbit after dumping the Helios

Spacecraft.

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jul-1996/0149.html

related article......

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/Obs../0116//0000316.000.html

90% chance it's an "alien vessel".... "hundreds of alien vessels" in a specific t-orbit "presently" around the sun....

http://www.setv.org/online_mss/1991vg.pdf

then there is SG344 which is also thought to be an alien spacecraft.....

any thoughts?

[MID]

this 'thing' is actually in an exact orbit with the earth.....

any thoughts?

It is very obviously not in an "exact" orbit with the Earth. If it were, Earth wouldn't be catching up to it at a rate of around 17 million miles per orbit. What can be said is that it's in a similar orbit, a bit farther out than the Earth.

Otherwise, I don't think much more can be said about it until we can get some very detailed observations from a close encounter (close being somewhere in the vicinity of 5 million miles or so).

[gadfly21]

By golly what a fascinating object and subject,(like the old DSP fastwalker case skyeagle's discussed many times!), thanks for posting that mcrom901!

[mcrom901]

Otherwise, I don't think much more can be said about it until we can get some very detailed observations from a close encounter (close being somewhere in the vicinity of 5 million miles or so).

Earth MOID (Minimum Orbit Intersection Distance) = .00302821 AU

(1) P. A. L. Chapman-Rietschi, The Observatory,114, 174, 1994.

(2) A. V. Arkhipov, The Observatory,113, 306, 1993.

(3) R. A. Freitas, Jr., ]BIS, 36, 501, 1983.

(4) R. A. Freitas, Jr., Spaceflight, 26, 438, 1984.

(5) M.D. Papagiannis, QJRAS, 19, 277, 1978.

(6) D. G. Stephenson, QJRAS, 20, 422, 1979.

(7) M. J. Carlotto & M. C Stein, JBIS, 43, 209, 1990.

(8) R. A. Freitas, Jr., JBIS, 36, 490, 1983.

(9) R. A. Freitas, Jr., lcarus, 55, 337, 1983.

(10) E. J. Betinis, JBIS, 31, 217, 1978.

(11) F. J. Tipler, QJRAS, 21, 267, 1980.

(I2) F. J. Tiplcr, QJRAS, 22, 279, 198I.

(13) D. L. Rabinowitz et al., Nature, 363, 704, 1993.

(14) IAU Circ. 5387.

(I5) IAU Circ. 5388.

(16) IAU Circ. 5401.

(17) Minor Planet Circ. 20823.

(18) IAU Circ.5402.

(19) The Messenger (ESO), no. 66, 66, 1991.

(20) S. J. Ostro, personal communication.

(21) Minor Planet Cite. 20745.

(22). G. King-Hele et al., The RAE Table of Earth Satellites, .3rd Edn. (Macrnillan, London), 1987.

(23) Satellite Situation Report, NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, 33, no. 4, 1993.

(24) D. I. Steel, MNRAS, in press.

(25) C. F. Chyba, Nature, 363, 701, 1993.

(26) D. L. Rabinowitz, lcarus, 111, 364, 1994.

(27) J. V. Scotti, personal communication.

(28) N. L. Johnson & D. S. McKnight, Artificial Space Debris, (Orbit Book Co., Malabar. F!orida), 1987.

(29) S. H. Knowles, Orbital Debris: Technical Issues and Future Directions, NASA CP-10077. 1992, p. 235.

(30) D. Morrison (ed.), The Spaceguard Survey: Report of the NASA Near-Earth-Object Detection Workshop (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California), 1992.

any possibilities for hubble?

hmmmm..... SG344

A report seen by the Guardian notes that by sending astronauts on a three-month journey to the hurtling asteroid, scientists believe they would learn more about the psychological effects of long-term missions and the risks of working in deep space, and it would allow astronauts to test kits to convert subsurface ice into drinking water, breathable oxygen and even hydrogen to top up rocket fuel. All of which would be invaluable before embarking on a two-year expedition to Mars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/07/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration

[psyche101]

Hmm Interesting from the article

In February 1942, barely two months into World War II, in an event that became known as the Battle of Los Angeles, a giant airborne object of unknown origin overflew the Los Angeles basin causing an area wide panic and an entire blackout of southern California.

It was definitely identified as one large object was it?

[mcrom901]

It was definitely identified as one large object was it?

clouds.... smoke.... smog.... fog.... swamp gas.... mass hallucinations.... paranoia..... hysteria.....

[psyche101]

clouds.... smoke.... smog.... fog.... swamp gas.... mass hallucinations.... paranoia..... hysteria.....

That is a no is it?

[mcrom901]

That is a no is it?

maybe 'it' was hiding behind all those assumed factors....

i'm not sure what you mean by that question.....

are you suggesting that i'm a ruling authority over it...

i don't know.... i would need to double-check that with my higher-self....

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/1K8IH9LFqto/

Edited May 11, 2010 by mcrom901

[psyche101]

maybe 'it' was hiding behind all those assumed factors....

i'm not sure what you mean by that question.....

are you suggesting that i have a ruling authority over it...

i don't know.... i would need to double-check that with my higher-self....

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/1K8IH9LFqto/

I know what you mean. I am often forced to converse with the almighty to attain a conversation on an intellectually equal level.

No, not suggesting you are a ruling authority, LOL, that'd be interesting to say the least!! I just wondered if someone was claiming that that they had proof that the object in question was actually one solid object, or if that was merely more speculative piffle.

Edited May 11, 2010 by psyche101

[Hazzard]

I think that pareidolia (smoke/clouds in the searchlights looked like a saucer) and a dose of WW2 hysteria (Pearl Harbour was just hit) was to blame for the "Battle of LA".

[DONTEATUS]

It will be a movie the next thing you Know ! VG1991 the Musical !

With Tom Cruise,and Lady Gaga! Two Space cadets fall into Love before Falling into the Sun

on there Honeymoon!

[Robbo]

God I would pay real money for both those two to actually fall into the sun.

[MID]

any thoughts?

Likely one of the other roughly 50 inactive man-made objects in heliocentric orbit at this time...

[DONTEATUS]

I want a nearly inactive object !

But too Heliocentric If I gotta Fire up my Smoker again with That he-3 ! Im going to put Mash whiskey in Her this time!

[psyche101]

I think that pareidolia (smoke/clouds in the searchlights looked like a saucer) and a dose of WW2 hysteria (Pearl Harbour was just hit) was to blame for the "Battle of LA".

Agreed, the claim it was a single object was interesting, but as suspected, it was another unfounded claim.

I want a nearly inactive object !

But too Heliocentric If I gotta Fire up my Smoker again with That he-3 ! Im going to put Mash whiskey in Her this time!

I would love the be an inactive object for a bit. No way the kids will stand for that though.