Talk:STS-75

Comments and discussion - dust or UFOs
There is some bizare video footage from this mission that has become of great interest to the UFOologist community. The teather snapped and a bunch of large glowing pulsing disks began swarming around the broken off section. NASA has tried to pass it off as dust in front of the camera lens, but the disks can clearly be seen passing behind the teather (not dust particles between the teather and camera). Would it be appropriate to make some mention of this?

http://www.freewebs.com/nurmufo/tether.html

http://www.rense.com/nasaufo/nasaufo.htm 66.134.88.163 01:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why... thats an awfully big "dust bunny" Adreamsoul 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are so many discs in the footage. That's not space junk or dust bunnies. C7796E2C 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They're probably just ice crystals. First of all, they're not "swarming around" the tether, the crystals are just floating by. Not a single one changes direction, slows down, or speeds towards the tether. The video footage was taken with the sun behind the shuttle, so the tether and crystals are so bright that the whole sequence is completely overexposed. How it is possible for anyone to claim that "disks" are passing behind the tether is beyond me, as the tether and the crystals are mainly white blobs, so it is impossible to derive any sense of depth. Occam's razor, anyone? 82.10.157.146 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. The last poster is thoroughly mistaken. All videos I've seen, and I've seen a whole lot, _all_ show unidentifiable objects passing both clearly in front of and without a shadow of a doubt behind the tether _and_ several of wich are demonstrably changing course so much so and to such a degree that it is impossible for anyone to deny the fact without discrediting themselves totally. In fact there are dozens of clear videoes, verifiably exact copies of the originals that actually trace and plot the course of several in color and trace the course for ease of verifying. So this is all both easily verifiable since the tether is completely non-transparent, linear, not self-propelled, and all the distances are known, as is the source and strength of the light and the position and calibration of the camera. So, no, "User User:82.10.157.146" is not accurate to say the least, but completely and intolerably wrong. Nunamiut (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

sources and examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxIq2ptv1N8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqgpVe6UZXo black and white

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRo6Yx-oPKg in negative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdkxcOIJZzM in color with tracing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dxp4iPuhpA all/most trajectories traced

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunamiut (talk • contribs) 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

They are definately not ice particles as they demonstrate a uniformity in structure, they all have a centrally located hole or dark spot, and all posses a small indentation on the edge. Whether or not they are beings or ships is inconclusive, but also thinking of the nature of the experiment that NASA was conducting; large amounts of electrical energy where being generated, if anything is up the it would be very attracted to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.248.167 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is highly worth mentioning in the article. State the facts, let the reader decide if those are UFOs or not.190.164.109.232 (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support that those objects (see video above) are ice crystals, it is meerly speculative dismissal. I also believe that a section mentioning the unidentified flying objects should be included, they are after all, unidentified flying objects. We are all entitled to our own opinions. We also believe in freedom of speech, expression and information. NASA also don't help themselves by not showing their flights live anymore, which is a contributing factor to those who beleive they have something to hide. Znonamous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.244.29 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything about the footage is consistent with small drifting particles, illuminated by reflected sunlight, shot way out of focus. Furthermore, if the images really did represent giant space blobs, they would certainly have been seen by other spacecraft and even from the ground. James Oberg has refuted the UFO speculations in probably more detail than they deserve; see http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm (yes, I know it's Rense.com, but Oberg links the article himself from his own UFO page so it's safe to assume it's genuine.) 74.14.68.196 (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Was James Oberg's "refutation" peer reviewed by experts from the relevant disciplines? I think we'd all be more interested in seeing a PEER REVIEWED study that actually proves 74.14.68.196's attempt to trivialize the tether incident. I don't think Rense.com qualifies as a reputable authority. In fact, Rense frequently endorses articles written by Holocaust deniers like Henry Makow-- so again, not exactly a reputable source. Whether the article was written by James Oberg or Werner Von Braun, it would still need to go through the process of peer-review to "close the book" on this issue. Short of that, I believe this incident is still of interest to many people who are capable of drawing their own conclusions based on the facts we should be presenting to (instead of hiding from) them. 72.155.238.104 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, while he might make other contributions to NASA, James Oberg is not an engineer, so why is he being cited as an authority on this matter,? 72.155.238.104 (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Those critical analysis you linked to don't address the obvious velocity / direction changes demonstrated in the videos linked above. No one here has responded to that specifically. Anomalies like this are ripe for serious and scientific inquiry, and it's troubling that attention to that discussion is being discarded. This is interesting data that has seemed to lack rigorous discussion or analysis. Please don't discourage scientific inquiry. WhyDoTheyChangeDirection (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

More about the UFO section
I'm sure the dedicated WikiGnomes who edit this page are irritated and bored by the UFO crap and wish it would go away. But this page gets one or two orders of magnitude more pageviews than comparable pages, and I would guess that nearly all of the extra readers are drawn here by the "tether UFO" stuff. So, please leave the section in, even though it is admittedly silly to have to refute this stuff. TiC (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

More details about the tether please
How and why did it break? Were all scientific objectives met before it broke? What eventually happened to it? Did it fall back to earth? Where? When? -- &oelig; &trade; 03:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . I added some info regarding the cause of the breakage. Should anyone wish to incorporate it, more about the data gathered from the experiment, and the tether's eventual fate, can be found at
 * \\/// --Hillbillyholiday talk 13:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * \\/// --Hillbillyholiday talk 13:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Article now says why and how it broke. But where along its 19.7 km length ? How much was left attached to the satellite, and how much was reeled in by the shuttle ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

UFOs
Should anyone wish to restore the UFO speculations, I found a mainstream source.

\\/// --Hillbillyholiday talk 12:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Incredible UFO section removal
Again, with no explanation and fightning rationale viewpoint, an important piece of wisdom and evidence is cut from wiki. Thanks. Anybody can put it again? --95.127.172.146 (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Especially now that UFOs have been disclosed. Allanana79 (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikispiracy
Best ufo nasa file and zero words? Rotten science i would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.127.176.147 (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

UFO section removal
Hi Allanana79, 95.127.176.147, and others. I was the editor that removed the line

"Little did the people of STS-75 know that the broken tether attracted company."

from this page. I'm sorry and I hope I have not undermined your trust in Wikipedia. I have no evidence that the particles are not as you describe them. However, spacecraft have a habit of shedding particles and debris in orbit - just a brief search finds

- https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/32587/what-is-the-circular-item-that-fell-off-of-the-returning-booster-during-the-crs

- https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/29702/debris-breaking-away-from-electron-rocket

If you would like this section to be reinstated, you need to find sources that provide encyclopedic evidence that the observations during this mission are significantly different from these other cases, where a benign explanation is found (otherwise, we would need to add a section to every rocket launch with a piece of dust falling off it, every venting and thruster firing, and practically every ISS spacewalk, where large amounts of floating particles are often seen when work is ongoing).

It is not uncommon for ice flakes, debris, and other particles in space to accelerate and move in a chaotic and un-intuitive way. This can occur due to simple outgassing, in the same manner as a comet's tail when it is exposed to the sun's light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Jets). Particles are also accelerated from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%E2%80%93Robertson_effect, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky_effect, solar wind pressure, and notably from ram pressure against the exosphere; they will spin due to both propulsive outgassing and the YORP effect, and that spin will become chaotic due to the Dzhanibekov effect. One should not expect particles adrift in orbit to behave as they do on earth.

The particles would also have an enormous electrostatic charge due to the rupture of the conducting tether. Note the bizarre motions of charged particles (here, a water droplet) in space: https://imgur.com/vzokKQ9.

Moreover, contemporaneous descriptions of the mission and the later investigation seem to well-describe the sources of the particles seen, as side effects of the violent explosion of the tether, and do not express surprise or voice observations of especially unusual debris. In the 1997 failure report we see, for instance, "aluminum shavings, and unidentified non-metallic debris was found.".

Thank you; I appreciate your interest and dedication, and I hope you will continue to explore and appreciate the beauty and majesty of our universe.

'The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.' ~ Sagan

ArthurDent 42 121 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)