NASA officials 'baffled' after space cameras catch UFO following ISS(express.co.uk)
express.co.uk
NASA officials 'baffled' after space cameras catch UFO following ISS
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1245959/NASA-official-space-cameras-UFO-ISS-alien-latest-news
10 comments
that is a pretty good explanation, especially since nasa having all necessary data could actually confirm it. I don't understand why it looks like its shooting "up" at the end of the video but it would explain why the cameras were tracking it.
edit: it isn't going up, with better footage its obviously just heating up from reentry
edit: it isn't going up, with better footage its obviously just heating up from reentry
We should replace the clickbait title. At no point did NASA say they were baffled but instead that was purely some ufo-enthusiast's interpretation of why they might have zoomed in.
Stress on the U. Given the extreme unlikeliness of alien visitation, either it's a classified vehicle or a hoax intended to drum up public interest in space exploration and more funding for it.
BTW, is there an international equivalent of "air" traffic control for LEO or for space around ISS?
BTW, is there an international equivalent of "air" traffic control for LEO or for space around ISS?
Yes, NORAD keeps track of every object above a certain size in orbit. Their data is essential to keeping spacecraft from hitting each other.
Keep in mind that "following ISS" just means "in orbit near it". Given how many satellites are out there these days (and how easy it's become to put one up), plus recent efforts like the "space force", it's not at all shocking to see a satellite that's "unidentified" to civilians.
Orbital speed is defined by sqrt(G*M/r). If this 'following' the ISS and at a lower altitude, it will slowly travel away from it because by definition its orbital speed is slower. Let's assume it's the Cygnus as pointed out by another comment, and explain out a possible scenario.
If the two are roughly in line vertically with one another, then a viewer on the ISS will be looking down at it and will see the clouds and Earth below it. However, as the object travels away from the ISS due to differing orbital speeds, it will appear to move 'up' relative to the Earth. Tracing a ray path between the two objects, it will go from being a line from the ISS, through the object and into the earth, to a line that at its extreme will be from the ISS, through the object, and then over the horizon of the atmosphere. Draw this system on some paper and you'll see what I mean.
From a fixed vantage point on the ISS, that will make the object look like it 'travels up' when in reality it is just traveling away from the ISS due to a slower orbital speed. If the camera remains facing downwards, it will naturally track out of the top of the camera frame. Project that onto the uniform blackness of space and you'll have no visual reference point to see it travel back down as it disappears away from view.
The green burst could also be explained by a retro-firing of the capsule to slow it down to re-enter orbit (or shift its orbit closer to earth, as is what happens if you slow down). This would appear as if it is firing 'down' in the camera view, when in reality it's firing tangentially to its orbital position, which as a vector would pass underneath the ISS. Alternatively, it could just be visual artifacting from either compression, light reflection or any other number of explanations.
If the two are roughly in line vertically with one another, then a viewer on the ISS will be looking down at it and will see the clouds and Earth below it. However, as the object travels away from the ISS due to differing orbital speeds, it will appear to move 'up' relative to the Earth. Tracing a ray path between the two objects, it will go from being a line from the ISS, through the object and into the earth, to a line that at its extreme will be from the ISS, through the object, and then over the horizon of the atmosphere. Draw this system on some paper and you'll see what I mean.
From a fixed vantage point on the ISS, that will make the object look like it 'travels up' when in reality it is just traveling away from the ISS due to a slower orbital speed. If the camera remains facing downwards, it will naturally track out of the top of the camera frame. Project that onto the uniform blackness of space and you'll have no visual reference point to see it travel back down as it disappears away from view.
The green burst could also be explained by a retro-firing of the capsule to slow it down to re-enter orbit (or shift its orbit closer to earth, as is what happens if you slow down). This would appear as if it is firing 'down' in the camera view, when in reality it's firing tangentially to its orbital position, which as a vector would pass underneath the ISS. Alternatively, it could just be visual artifacting from either compression, light reflection or any other number of explanations.
Perhaps it was the Air Force's X-37B ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 )or something from the Black Star Program ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_(spacecraft) .
A possible stretch, Black Knight Satellite ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_satellite_conspir... )
A possible stretch, Black Knight Satellite ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_satellite_conspir... )
This thing shares some similarities with the navy tic tac ufo. The main interesting thing is that it seems to change orbit by going up?
I agree the source is terrible and we should get some original footage. Also Orbital mechanics are weird for the uninitiated. It might look like it goes up but that must not necessarily be true. It might look like its changing orbit but that must also not necessarily be true.
X37B might also be a good guess since that should roughly be able to reach that orbit and move in orbit. It's hard to tell the shape and color from those videos and the end looks zoomed in. Does anyone know of the unaltered original footage?
I agree the source is terrible and we should get some original footage. Also Orbital mechanics are weird for the uninitiated. It might look like it goes up but that must not necessarily be true. It might look like its changing orbit but that must also not necessarily be true.
X37B might also be a good guess since that should roughly be able to reach that orbit and move in orbit. It's hard to tell the shape and color from those videos and the end looks zoomed in. Does anyone know of the unaltered original footage?
Original footage: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/125816356
I haven't checked it completely but the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmbBJS89J_0 seems to be an unaltered extract from it (if you can stand all the UFO and conspiracy stuff in that Youtube channel).
I haven't checked it completely but the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmbBJS89J_0 seems to be an unaltered extract from it (if you can stand all the UFO and conspiracy stuff in that Youtube channel).
thank you that is much more useful. There are parts of it where it very much looks like the cygnus ng-12 especially against cloud cover. I don't think its moving upwards at all, its just moving away and slowly reentering while the camera changes.
Sadly, this seems to be utterly ordinary (well as ordinary as a space station streaming live video of a resupply to earth can be) but showing nothing beyond known engineering.
Sadly, this seems to be utterly ordinary (well as ordinary as a space station streaming live video of a resupply to earth can be) but showing nothing beyond known engineering.
It looks like it’s clearly in orbit for 99% of the video. Then at the end it... appears... to “shoot upwards with a jet of green light.” Is it really shooting upwards, or could that be an illusion from when an orbiting object crosses the horizon?
Or a video glitch? Those green trails remind me of x265 glitches when streaming on an extremely low bandwidth network.
Baffled is such a UK tabloid term. Tabloids have always optimised their headlines for attention, as all newspapers. Clickbait from another time.
express.co.uk is a very low quality source of information we should aspire to seek better sources for HN.
On HN, we go by article quality, not site quality. Most major media sites are penalized on HN, but even the bad ones also produce the occasionally interesting article.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
If it's a high quality article then it's highly reasonable to assume it's also reported on high quality sites.
I'd rather see low quality sites banned and miss the very infrequent quality article rather than give them a false stamp of legitimacy by having articles appear here.
I'd rather see low quality sites banned and miss the very infrequent quality article rather than give them a false stamp of legitimacy by having articles appear here.
You'd be surprised (I was), but that's not always the case.
Maybe site quality should be a factor - I tried to watch the video and waited roughly a minute before it failed to load. I thought it was an adblocker thing, so disabled it.
On page reload, it was adpocalypse, two pop-under windows, one video playing on the side, and the video still struggling to load with my macbook fans kicking in. The entire site was essentially a giant ad that I never got to see the video and re-enabled adblock.
I'm unsure how sites like this are allowed to exist, or how people even tolerate it.
On page reload, it was adpocalypse, two pop-under windows, one video playing on the side, and the video still struggling to load with my macbook fans kicking in. The entire site was essentially a giant ad that I never got to see the video and re-enabled adblock.
I'm unsure how sites like this are allowed to exist, or how people even tolerate it.
The Express got the video from Scott Waring's Youtube channel ET Data Base. There are a few informative comments in the noise there, and they point to Cygnus 11 instead of Cygnus 12 but I don't think that's right: AFAICS Cygnus 11 re-entered in december.