|
From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:08:31 -0500 (EST) Archived: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:21:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Skylab 3 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:27:36 -0500 >Subject: Re: Skylab 3 >>From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:10:05 -0500 (GMT-05:00) >>Subject: Re: Skylab 3 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >>>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>>Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:53:10 -0500 >>>Subject: Skylab 3 >>>Comments welcome >>>http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SKYLAB3.html >>The Skylab images seem peculiar and a relatively long duration >>intersecting orbit with a satellite not very close to the Skylab >>inclination would be highly unlikely. >Thanks for your extensive comments. What you have discussed is >mostly related to the orbital mechanics and the question, could >there have been some manmade object in an orbit so close to that >of the Skylab as to be seen for up to ten minutes and which >would make an image with the angular size as large as in the >last photo (assuming a 300 mm lens) and which would disappear >from view about 5 sec after the Skylab went into shadow (an >event that led Garriott to conclude that the object was about 38 >km behind the Skylab) yet which would not be observed during any >other orbit or would not be detected by any of the radar >tracking stations? I have not gone through your photo analysis in detail. I can't refute your work if that is what you mean and haven't tried to. You mentioned the object in orbit and I tried to address as best I could. No large/giant objects were in the orbital elements for that inclination. >You have made only a brief comment on the most photographically >obvious aspect of the images obtained, namely that they are red. >(In one frame the light was bright red enough to overexpose the >film causing a yellowish center of the red "dot" image.) >According to Garriott this object was first seen (and >photographed?) as much as 10 minutes before Skylab went into >orbit, in other words, before Skylab and the object were in the >"thin" orbital region where atmospheric reddening fo the sun >could make a reflection look red (although I doubt that such a >reflection would be as clearly red as shown in the photos). >Therefore if it was "anywhere near" skylab 10 minutes before the >shadow its red could have come from only two possibilities: (a) >it was painted red and reflected only red light or (b) it was a >source of red light. >You have addressed this color issue briefly as follows: >>The number of Skylab debris items was about 23. There are three >>objects that re-enter in Sept 1973, so the orbital elements are >>likely useless. One of these re-enters on Sept 20, 1973, the day >>claimed for the odd photo. There is a possibility that this >>particular object is low enough in altitude to get heated up and >>glow red. Therefore, it could be self illuminated via heat >>radiation. This could not explain why the object got dark upon >>entering shadow unless there is fortuitous timing of the >>object's disintegration. Another possibility is that it is >>heating up and giving off gases/particles that catch the sun- >>light, increasing its effective size. Then fade out would match >>going in shadow. >>I do not have a feel for how long such heating up and glowing >>could occur (if even possible) but it would seem to take some >>time (~10 minutes) if the objects are made of metal (rather than >>how meteors generally rapidly burn up due to high angles they >>enter the atmosphere with usually). >It seems to me that one big problem with assuming that a the >object was a source of red light by virtue of being heated by >the atmosphere is that this "meteor" version of the hypothesis >does not explain how Skylab could have seen it for ten minutes >before Skylab crossed the shadow boundary. If it were seen as it >reentered, it would have been below the Skylab and there should >have been some evidence of an earth background unless it was >seen after both it and the Skylab had gone into the shadow so >that the background was the unilluminated earth as opposed to a >black background, which is consistent with the camera pointing >away from the earth. Also, the size plays a role in this. If it >were a meter sized object, for example it had to be within 1 >m/(.0029 rad) = 345 m of the Skylab as it glowed and that would >place the Skylab in a "crash and burn" orbit some 6(?) years >before it actually did Crash and Burn (where 0.0029 is the >angular separation between the furthest separated red "blob" >images of the fourth photo). Also, being that close to the >Skylab would mean that it would enter the shadow at essentially >the same time. The Earth background being missing is a good point I failed to consider. It seems to eliminate the re-entry glow idea, although I still have to think about it. >>Regarding the images before and after the UFO sequence, >>according to the Skylab mission photo guide they are not >>immediately before or after. The prior image #2137 is a blurred >>attempted photo for the Goddard Laser Experiment which was aimed >>at a Maryland region, considerably prior to the UFO photos. The >>subsequent image #2142 is of "Lake Erie, Ohio, Ontario, clouds", >>a much later time. I doubt the images actually are of the laser >>beam (although the laser _was_ tested at red wavelengths), >>mainly because I see no reason for the astronauts to mess up >>their observations so much and that only two photos of the laser >>beacon were officially taken during Skylab 2 on Sept 4, 1973, >>which does not correspond with when they reported photographing >>the odd object. One point of interest is that an interview of >>the crew regarding the laser experiment showed that they used >>the 300mm lens for it, so there seems to be a good likelihood >>they kept the lens on for the subsequent "UFO" pictures. >Strange that they would attempt to photograph the red laser >while the earth was in sunshine. The red beam would have a lot >of light to compete with. The photo you mention does not look >like a red filtered image which would likely be used if one were >to try to detect a red laser beam against a bright background. I >could imagine them trying the Goddard laser experiment when the >earth surface was dark. Then they wouldn't need a red filter. >But then there would also be no image of the surface such as we >see in 2137. All I know about this is the description of the scene in the photo index and the laser experiment. "Evaluation of SKYLAB Earth LASER Beacon Imagery" "Experiment Debrief" "Bean: The laser was the only thing that I saw during the mission that had a neon-light look to it... This actually radiated like a neon light that's on in the daytime outside. It has a brilliance to it." Query: The second set of photos that we blew up we found on the filmstrip, but they didn't come out; they were underexposed. If I looked at the records correctly, they were approximately an f/4.5 and the others were approximately a f/8. They were also blurry so there might have been some movement although the shutter speed was 1/500 of a second." Also, "On Skylab 3, Astronauts Bean and Lousma confirmed the beacon size and shape manifested in the Skylab 3 imagery. They described the beacon as both a neon tube lying in the plane of the earth and as a searchlight coming up through the atmosphere. Strangely, the photographs were taken by Scientist-Astronaut Garriott who did not verify the beacon size and shape, but described the beacon as only a dot." The second set were prior to the "UFO" set. I assume "neon" means red, but maybe not. >>Trash should be considered as a possible cause although it would >>be small in size. Skylab had a trash jettisoning device/port >>which was used frequently. Existing tracking data lists "debris" >>for Skylab which could be trash, but it seems unlikely since the >>trash bags would not have radar reflective material in/on them. >>There were also reports of items being jettisoned from the much >>larger scientific airlock which definitely were tracked. >Trash would have to be close - within hundreds of meters - if >the disappearance was a result of going into shadow. But in this >case there would be no 5 sec time lag, or even a 1 sec time lag. >An alternate hypothesis explored on the web site is that the >obejct was initially close and all four photos were taken at >that time and then it drifted away and became progressively >smaller and dimmer and then was about 38 km behind when it went >into shadow. But if this were trash, as presumed, why wouldn't >the astronauts have realized they were looking at something they >had recently ejected? Yes, this is true. >And why would it appear red? Don't know. Kind of rules it out unless wrapped in some odd bag material prior to jettison. ><snip> >>The size of the re-entering object is not clear. It was stated >>to be a camera, which sounds small. >>However, careful reading of the mission reports imply that there >>was more to the object than a camera. They apparently jettisoned >>on day 8 both a camera and its experiment out of the scientific >>airlock. One would have to view TV coverage of the event >>(reported to have been shown at the time) to know the size and >>whether these objects were connected. The airlock is relatively >>large. >Again, if this was trash and if it disappeared by going into >shadow then one has to explain >(a) the color >(b) the time lag of 5 or more seconds reported by Garriott who >counted out the seconds until the object disappeared. (Evidently >he had the impression that the object was following and not >leading the Skylab) I doubt the camera plus odd maybe attached hardware was close, but given the poor orbital elements for that one particular debris item, it is somewhat possible. That was the one I suggested may have been heated up during some early phase of reentry. Otherwise, unless it selectively reflected red, I can't explain it. Review of the TV footage of the jettison of the camera+ experiment might explain how it was wrapped. >>Examination of the photo guidebook for Skylab 2 shows the >>description for two photos to be "UFO" (SL2-102-893, SL2-102- >>897). I have never seen them but have heard that the existing >>copies are pretty dark and scratched so nothing may be viewable >>on them. >Amusing. >Don't know anything about them. I didn't mean to be amusing. It states it clearly in the photo index as UFO. That's pretty clear for us all to notice. I haven't seen anyone talk to the astronauts about this one, nor any mention in debriefs. Is it a satellite or trash jettison or what? Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast See: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp