Over the years, I’ve seen a good bit of discussion having to do with various strange objects that appear frequently in NASA footage. Recently, one such video was able to stir up a good bit of discussion on a number of different websites, including a brief post I did at the UFO Magazine Blog, regarding footage of the Space Shuttle Endeavor docking with the International Space Station. In the background, a multitude of small white “objects”—some merely drifting along, others travelling at tremendous speeds—are visible. Yesterday at the Examiner website, former NASA spokesperson Patricia Phillips in her piece “UFO monitors shuttle at space station–debunked?” discussed the possibility that these objects were “space junk”, that is, manmade debris drifting around outside Earth’s atmosphere, rather than UFOs and their curious occupants observing our space operations. Below is an excerpt from Phillips’ article:
Here’s my personal opinion: the blinking lights are simply space debris. Space debris has turned near space into basically an orbiting junkyard. Space station crews have had to maneuver the orbiting outpost to avoid debris collison.
Space Shuttle Endeavour and the STS-126 crew, now enroute home, had to delay their journey for several hours in order to avoid the possibility of a collision with some space debris. NASA tracks space junk, and a critical part of mission planning and safety is to keep vehicles out of danger.
From the start of the shuttle program through apprxomiately the end of 2007, workers have had to replace at least 80 windows on space shuttles. The Hubble Space Telescope has been hit, too.
Unfortunately, the amount of space debris is, according to some, a growing problem. The Kessler Syndrome, as described by NASA consultant Donald J. Kessler, posits that space debris in Low Earth Orbit is so high in quantity already that objects in orbit are frequently struck by existing debris. This, of course, results in even more debris, and thus a greater risk of further impacts for future space operations. Some have theorized that, in decades to come, the constantly growing amount of debris in orbit “could eventually render space exploration, and even the use of satellites, too prone to loss to be feasible for many generations.”
Quite the contrary, some Ufologists even claim that the space debris theories are actually impossible. Since the velocity that objects would sometimes be capable of travelling in the vacuum (minus the restraints caused by air and gravity) would actually produce small, but nonetheless deadly “bullets” of metallic waste capable of damaging satellites, shuttles, or presumably even people during space walks, some claim that if indeed space junk were floating around in Low Earth Orbit as NASA says, that it would already be too dangerous to risk space flight and other operations. Ah, the lovely conspiracy theorists.
Of course, a recent “hazard analysis” conducted for the NASA space shuttle Atlantis concluded that its greatest risk was indeed from space debris, describing a “1-in-185 chance of catastrophic impact.” NASA describes that a typical space shuttle mission to the International Space Station would involve a 1-in-300 risk, since at the altitude where the ISS orbits (200 nm) there is less existing debris than, for instance, 300 nm altitudes, closer to where the Hubble Space Telescope rests in its present orbit.
In the past, in spite of the low odds, there have been official “Space Shuttle collision avoidance maneuvers.” The first occurred during STS-48 in September 1991, where a seven-second reaction control system burn maneuver was performed in order to prevent collision with debris from the Cosmos satellite 955. Also, in 2006 wreckage from a Russian spy satellite “passed dangerously close” to a Latin American Airbus carrying 270 passengers during reentry over the Pacific. Still, a far worse uncontrolled reentry occurred in July 1979, America’s abandoned, 78-ton space station Skylab came down earlier than initially planned, creating a storm of debris peppered across the Australian outback that might have rivaled how Mac Braswell’s farm appeared “the day after Roswell”.
So in all likelihood, the majority of the “UFOs” witnessed are probably just what we’ve discussed; but that can’t account for all of them. Keep in mind that many NASA astronauts, including Buzz Alrin, Gordon Cooper and Story Musgrave have publicly discussed seeing UFOs during NASA operations. Dr. Edgar Mitchell also has become known for drumming up controversy surrounding his belief in UFOs, and in a series of cryptic remarks Neil Armstrong famously described to students at a speech he gave at the White House, there may be “breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.” One can only imagine what exactly he may have been referencing, but the fact remains that many among the former NASA personnel to have performed activity in space not only recount having witnessed foreign craft themselves, but also claim that what they’ve witnessed, in many instances, could not have been space debris.
But getting back to the heart of the matter, does that mean that objects appearing in so many of these NASA videos are also UFOs? I think not, frankly… and if at any time anything purporting to show extraterrestrial intelligence were so clumsily released to the public in one such piece of footage, I think we can rest assured knowing that it wouldn’t have ever happened again (and again… and again… ad infinitum), and in virtually every piece of video footage documenting orbital maneuvers in Low Earth Orbit released by NASA.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Oh ok. So now we have the answer to all those mysterious objects that not even NASA can explain. You have now confirmed that these objects are “debris” and we can all be thankful to you for claryfying the matter. I find it strange that you document your opinion in this article with not one iota of evidence to back up your rather hopeful sounding claim. To me Sir, you are no different to the scientists who refuse to publicly study the matter of UFO’s, alien civilisation visitation or any other anomolous subject for that matter but expect people like myself to believe your take on it. You are no better than the individuals who are your opposite, the believers in the subject. Them, like yourself are steadfast in their opinions and will not be budged from them. I dont criticise anyone from either realm due to the fact that we simply do not know the full facts. Yes I believe there are strange manifestations in our skies and beyond. No I do not know what these are. Until unquestionable proof of these subjects is brought before the citizens of the world for our full perusal your opinion Sir, to me, will rank in objectivity alongside those that deny that there is something is going on but prefer not to investigate these matters openly and without hesitation.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Hi J,
Thanks for your insights. Please keep in mind, however, that I’m not trying to provide any single, conclusive “answer” to the NASA UFO mystery, as evidenced by the title “Could “Space Junk” Account for some NASA UFOs”. Some, not all… and I think that’s pretty clearly stated.
Also, (and at risk of being redundant here) to quote myself from the second-to-last paragraph, “Keep in mind that many NASA astronauts, including Buzz Alrin and Gordon Cooper, have both publicly discussed seeing UFOs during NASA operations. Dr. Edgar Mitchell also has become known for drumming up controversy surrounding his belief in UFOs, and in a series of cryptic remarks Neil Armstrong famously described to students at a speech he gave at the White House, there may be “breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.” One can only imagine what exactly he may have been referencing, but the fact remains that many among the former NASA personnel to have performed activity in space not only recount having witnessed foreign craft themselves, but also claim that what they’ve witnessed, in many instances, could not have been space debris.”
I feel strongly that UFOs, whatever they may be, are a valid and real phenomenon. However, I’ve noticed that folks always seem to get angriest with me when I suggest anything otherwise! Nonetheless, I’m glad you weighed in on the matter, and I value your insights. My writing, or opinions, are only as effective as the thoughtful conversation I can arouse in folks like yourself; for that I thank you!
-Micah
December 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Hi Micah,
First could I state that if my comment sounded “angry” I apologise to you. This what not my intention. It is not often I comment on such articles and to be honest this was my first ever reply to an article regarding the subject (UFO/Anomolous objects/strange phenomena). As you are aware this is a subject that people (or am I in the minority?) tend to keep their beliefs/thoughts about to them selfs. Call me paranoid but I dont like posting my thoughts on the internet for the world to see incase the police state and any other secret organisation have knowledge of my personal thoughts. (Hows that for conspiray theory for you). The point I was trying to make in response to your article was that objectivity without personal experience is dangerous. I get the impression you like me have strong thoughts on a multitude of subjects from this one to the next. Your article, if you read between the lines appears that ALL anomolous objects could be debris. That to me is ignorant and lazy. We have all seen the videos produced by Nasa missions in the past that are difficult to explain as mere debris. I think you may know the ones I refer to. Your article, the way you have proposed appears to claim that all this evidence can be explained as debris. This is something I would disagree with you about. That is a dangerous concept and plays into the hands of the majority that does not wish for open discussion on even the possibility that this phenomena could be real. I ask you this Micah, why are the public not allowed full access to all Nasa records? Is Nasa not a PUBLIC agency? Who exactly are they serving? I could ask a million more questions about Nasa and other agencies but then i would come across as a conspiracy theorist. Incidentally, what exactly is wrong with conspiracy theorism? You seem to sound derulsatory about them when you say, and I quote ” Ah, the lovely conspiracy theorists”. To be honest Micah your article could, to me have been written by a Nasa employee. It reeks of bias. I know you quote Armstrong as a counterweight in your article but yet you diminish the opinion of their experiences and statement but put the argumentative weight of your article behind a Nasa spokesperson. This person is a irrelavent. Their thoughts are irrelevant. They speak for an agency whose astronauts and their experiences trump whatever she has to say. But yet you put more value on this ladys comments above the experiences and testimony of people who have actually been in the environment you discuss. Lastly Micah, I respect your thoughts. I value your opinion. I would suggest you continue so that the debate rages on. This is a subject of great importance as you know and qwe should all debate it like adults with respect for everyones opinion. I fear though this “space debris” one may be an area that we may differ on. Even though a vast majority of these objects could be debris and probably are, the volume of other evidence surely you would agree makes the article mute in point.
Your friend
JT