Was my UFO sighting this space station waste removal test?

[meta_gr8ful]

I live in Medellin, Colombia. On the evening of July 5th I had an unusual UFO sighting.

It was a crystal clear night, rare because I live in the mountains just outside Medellin and rain clouds like to hug the mountains. Since it was such a clear night, I was outside stargazing.

I was looking southeast (about 149 degrees) and saw two quick shooting stars. Almost immediately afterwards I saw what I can only describe as an asteroid floating southeasterly.

It looked exactly like an asteroid. I could see where impacts had formed craters and other similar damage. The object was rotating slowly in the vertical plane. As it rotated, I could see shadows change as the biggest crater rotated further into the light.

I've been trying to identify what I saw ever since and have two hypothesis. The first is unverifiable... someone inflated a garbage bag that looked like this and let it go.

But my second hypothesis might be verifiable by you guys.

A few days prior on July 2nd, a company called Nanoracks who makes the Bishop Airlock system for the Space Station initiated a test of their new waste removal system.

On July 6th, they announced the test was a sucess. Space.com did a write up of the story which you can read here:

https://www.space.com/trash-bag-jettisoned-space-station-nanoracks

Interestinlgly, the article points out that the company didn't disclose when the waste ballon was expected to reenter the atmosphere. But the July 6th pr release stating the test was successful *might* indicate that reentry happened on the prior day, which would match with my sighting.

I should point out that the test included 172 pounds of waste and the capacity of the balloon is 600 pounds.

This weight discrepancy makes me think that there is a decent chance the bag/ballon would have entered the atmosphere with a weight and angle that didn't allow it to burn up.

I reached out to the company several times, but got no response.

If my hypothesis is correct and this test was my UFO sighting, part of me wonders if the company doesn't want it disclosed that their test wasn't as successful as they reported given that the ballon is supposed to burn up.

This is a bit of conspiratorial thinking, but might explain why they wouldn't/didn't disclose to the Space.com reporter when the object would reenter and perhaps why my numerous inquiries have gone unanswered. Of course, this is total speculation on my part and shouldn't be given much weight.

Either way, I'm wondering if any of you guys can help me put this mystery to bed.

I can provide more details, but I didn't video it. But when I saw the videos of the actual test launch, I was immediately struck by how similar their ballon is to what I saw.

Exactly the same proportions. Only difference is what I saw had craters and pot marks, exactly what one might expect from something that survived reentry. There are videos on the Space.com article, but some are CGI prior to the test.

Here is a video of the actual release:


Source: https://youtu.be/A-LY8ZZJ0nM



Source: https://youtu.be/pyldo8pngV8


Here is the companies official statement about the test. Note they stress that the bag is supposed to burn up on reentry but never say that it actually did.

https://nanoracks.com/nanoracks-bishop-airlock-enables-responsible-waste-disposal/

Thoughts?

 

[Mick West]

Given that the bags are only 1.5m across, that seems impossible. It's not a balloon, it's a compactly filled bag.

Source: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1543603726690263041

I live in Medellin, Colombia. On the evening of July 5th I had an unusual UFO sighting.

Far more likely would be one of your local balloons, just one of an unusual design.

 

[flarkey]

I live in Medellin, Colombia. On the evening of July 5th I had an unusual UFO sighting.

Yep. Kinda says it all really. Can we ever take a UFO sighting from Medellin seriosuly?

 

[jarlrmai]

Yep. Kinda says it all really. Can we ever take a UFO sighting from Medellin seriosuly?

The huge custom balloon capital of the world seemingly

 

[meta_gr8ful]

My visual acuity's better - from several thousand miles away, I can see a troll.

Yep. Kinda says it all really. Can we ever take a UFO sighting from Medellin seriosuly?

The huge custom balloon capital of the world seemingly

I am the first to debunk the balloons (they call the globes here). I see them all the time (three this weekend). I live overlooking a valley and the wind takes them through the valley we overlook frequently.

This object didn't behave like the hundred other balloons I've seen.

Firstly, the lift mechanism for these balloons is usually fire at the bottom of the globe (usually made of paper). This means that the ballon can rotate in the horizontal plane, but not the vertical plane. So if it was a balloon, it wasn't the typically used lift mechanism. So if it was a balloon, it had to have been helium.

Secondly, I live at 7K feet elevation. The mountain directly across from me peaks around 9K feet. It was a crystal clear night which always makes judging distances difficult. But as the object moved away from me, a wispy cloud was moving toward me. That cloud passed well over the peak of the mountain, though I wouldn't want to make a guess as to how high above the mountain it was. Enough that it clearly wasn't hugging the top peak of that range. The object passed over that cloud and that is what obscured my ability to see it for longer. So the object was at least as high or higher than that cloud, so it would have been at least 9K fett, but likely over 10K feet. Not impossible for one of these globes, but that also means it was moving the opposite direction that the clouds were moving. For sure wind can move in different directions at different heights, but these were polar opposite directions.

Thirdly, I would think that a helium balloon like this blowing in the wind would exhibit more hurky-jerky sporadic movements. This rotated slowly but at what appeared to be a consistent speed/direction and (again) rotated in the vertical plane. It wasn't jerking around the way a helium balloon in the wind typically would.

Finally, the people who make these balloons are generally trying to make something that looks like a UFO. Our son is in a college group who does these balloons. It isn't a big community, especially when you're talking about the hoaxers. He's asked around and hasn't heard of anything like this. Also, the hoaxers are usually quick to post videos of their hoax to get that YouTube money. So far, I've not seen a single video so why go through all that effort to make a very odd looking balloon but never capitalize on that work?

None of this means it isn't a balloon or hoax. Certainly could be as I said in my initial report.

I guess all I want to know is if there is any possible method to determine when and if the Nanoracks test balloon reentered the atmosphere and where that reentry path might have been visible.

Given that the bags are only 1.5m across, that seems impossible. It's not a balloon, it's a compactly filled bag.

Source: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1543603726690263041



Far more likely would be one of your local balloons, just one of an unusual design.

I understand that the size makes it unlikely that this is what I saw. But after months of looking for something similar and finding nothing, the second I saw the video of this release I had to say that it looked eerily similar to what I saw, just more banged and burnt up. Shape and proportions were very similar.

Lots of space junk lands on earth. If it's lightweight enough, lots of it floats down and gets found intact on the ground or in trees. Perhaps this is one of those very odd instances where the weight and angle of reentry allowed this bag of shit to float down and I just happened to witness it.

And the balloons/globes I do see aren't usually bigger than 1.5 M and I certainly see them in the sky, so I guess you're meaning it couldn't be the Nanoracks bag just after reentry or it wouldn't be visible at that size. But if the bag floated down and was being carried by the wind, it might certainly be just as visible as the balloons/globes at similar elevation.

Anyway, it's the only hypothesis I have that has any chance of being proven or disproven. So is there a way to find out if and when this would have reentered the atmosphere and/or path it would have taken if it did indeed survive reentry?

 

[Mendel]

Secondly, I live at 7K feet elevation. [...] So the object was at least as high or higher than that cloud, so it would have been at least 9K fett, but likely over 10K feet.

This means the object was over 3000 ft (1 km) away from you. With 1.5m diameter, it would've been 1/3 the (apparent) size of the moon at that distance. Where would the illumination come from? Was the wispy cloud illuminated?

I'm sorry I can't help you with the re-entry path.

 

[meta_gr8ful]

This means the object was over 3000 ft (1 km) away from you. With 1.5m diameter, it would've been 1/3 the (apparent) size of the moon at that distance. Where would the illumination come from? Was the wispy cloud illuminated?

I'm sorry I can't help you with the re-entry path.

It seemed to be illuminated by the moonlight. I say that because the top thing that stood out most about what I was seeing was the largest crater and how the shadow from the light hitting the edges of the crater was changing as the object slowly rotated.

At the time, I wasn't seeing the moon so I was curious where the light source could be because the globes are typically lit from within while this was clearly reflecting light.

The moon was behind me and hidden from view by my house where i was sitting. So afterwards I hopped up and realized it was above and a bit behind my house.

Might have also been lit by the sun, but I cannot say for sure since it was after 10pm and I'm not sure on elevation of the object given how clear the skies were at the time.

My perception at the time was the object was about the size of an old conversion van, but could have obviously been smaller. It was fatter in the back and a little more barrow at what I judges as the front end. It was also misshapen in places and looked more like a rock with an uneven surface than something man-made.

The Nanoracks "bag" obviously looks man-made. But note the uneven surface and then imagine something that has been charred up and dinged (big and small) with one crater that took up maybe 10% of the visible surface area with other smaller craters (for lack of a better word).

It looked like a chunk of the moon or your stereotypical asteroid. Mostly grey with some white and darker areas.

I think I will look to see if I can find any pics of balloons or other similar objects that have survived reentry to see if they are similar. Hadn't thought about that.

So is there no way to track "space junk" like this?

 

[Mendel]

If "we" present ourselves like this, then we dont have to wonder why most people immediately raise their guard the second they smell metabunk.

if you are concerned about presentation, why do you then repeat the post that has already received a moderator sanction? 3 days ago? how do you even quote it, are you able to edit @meta_gr8ful 's post to copy it?

 

[Domzh]

if you are concerned about presentation, why do you then repeat the post that has already received a moderator sanction? 3 days ago? how do you even quote it, are you able to edit @meta_gr8ful 's post to copy it?

i wasnt aware it had been deleted.
i copy pasted the quotes from OPs responding post

 

[Hevach]

So is there no way to track "space junk" like this?

Not perfectly, however there are sources. Having the tweet with the NORAD and COSPAR IDs helps, as there's currently three other ISS DEB objects being tracked:

https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=52952

The bag is still in orbit. It's decayed substantially but hasn't fallen yet. Last reported periapsis is 354.6 km, apoapsis 368.4 km, well below the ISS, which is 420.3 by 429.1. This site is not updated in real time, but it's most recent data entry is only a few hours old. Based on that altitude it's doomed but not exactly impending - later this month or December would be my guess.

Actually deorbiting in only four days would require a propulsive deorbit, which would likely target the Pacific graveyard, but this like many cargo pallets was released for a passive decay. However, this has decayed much faster than the three pallets currently in orbit, as those usually take 2-4 years to come down. This system would be an improvement on those while still allowing items that can't be brought inside and packed in a Cygnus for disposal.

Also, as for actually landing, there's specific conditions required for that, and you actually want large masses, not small. The majority of space debris that lands is from lower stages that only go suborbital, some is from upper stages that don't enter fully stable orbits (like a Chinese Long March 5b second stage currently being tracked), and what's left is generally the strongest components of large satellites (pressurized propellant tanks, for example), small objects are the most efficiently destroyed.

Here, the test requirements for the disposal bag was that it was made entirely of demiseable materials, and would burn up rapidly enough that demiseable materials packed into it would also have time to burn up. If any part of it survives to the ground, it won't be the bag but something inside it.


Last note: Regarding the 1998 launch date in the tracking data for the bag: Because it is debris from the ISS, wasn't released on a different craft like Progress or Cygnus, and was never operating on its own internal power, it inherits the launch date of the source craft, even if it was sent up much later. Also inherits the Baikonur launch site and CIS ownership because, while neither one is accurate for the object itself (or for that matter, most of the ISS as a whole), those fields are also locked in from the first launch, which was the Zarya module. Nobody calls up NASA to get precise details on every bit of debris the ISS jettisons.

 

[meta_gr8ful]

Not perfectly, however there are sources. Having the tweet with the NORAD and COSPAR IDs helps, as there's currently three other ISS DEB objects being tracked:

https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=52952

The bag is still in orbit. It's decayed substantially but hasn't fallen yet. Last reported periapsis is 354.6 km, apoapsis 368.4 km, well below the ISS, which is 420.3 by 429.1. This site is not updated in real time, but it's most recent data entry is only a few hours old. Based on that altitude it's doomed but not exactly impending - later this month or December would be my guess.

Actually deorbiting in only four days would require a propulsive deorbit, which would likely target the Pacific graveyard, but this like many cargo pallets was released for a passive decay. However, this has decayed much faster than the three pallets currently in orbit, as those usually take 2-4 years to come down. This system would be an improvement on those while still allowing items that can't be brought inside and packed in a Cygnus for disposal.

Also, as for actually landing, there's specific conditions required for that, and you actually want large masses, not small. The majority of space debris that lands is from lower stages that only go suborbital, some is from upper stages that don't enter fully stable orbits (like a Chinese Long March 5b second stage currently being tracked), and what's left is generally the strongest components of large satellites (pressurized propellant tanks, for example), small objects are the most efficiently destroyed.

Here, the test requirements for the disposal bag was that it was made entirely of demiseable materials, and would burn up rapidly enough that demiseable materials packed into it would also have time to burn up. If any part of it survives to the ground, it won't be the bag but something inside it.


Last note: Regarding the 1998 launch date in the tracking data for the bag: Because it is debris from the ISS, wasn't released on a different craft like Progress or Cygnus, and was never operating on its own internal power, it inherits the launch date of the source craft, even if it was sent up much later. Also inherits the Baikonur launch site and CIS ownership because, while neither one is accurate for the object itself (or for that matter, most of the ISS as a whole), those fields are also locked in from the first launch, which was the Zarya module. Nobody calls up NASA to get precise details on every bit of debris the ISS jettisons.

Ok, so I can rule this test out. I didn't realize they would take this long to de-orbit.

But I guess that means I would need to look at what other space debris might have re-entered around this time. I'm guessing that is next to impossible to find out if you don't work for NASA or another agency tracking this stuff.

Guess I will never know.

 

[Hevach]

But I guess that means I would need to look at what other space debris might have re-entered around this time. I'm guessing that is next to impossible to find out if you don't work for NASA or another agency tracking this stuff.

Again, source aren't perfect, but a lot of people scrape the available data and nothing in orbit is classified in the sense that it's existence is a secret (tons of stuff has secret purposes of course but the NROL doesn't want somebody trying to put a comsat where their signals intelligence sat is parked in GSO).

I was able to find a log of all NORAD tracking IDs that were discontinued for reentry destruction. I advanced it to the page for July.

https://aerospace.org/reentries?fie...ct=tiles&reentry_timezone_selector=UTC&page=3

There were a number of reentries that month, mostly Starlink satellites, but also the Crew Dragon 1 trunk module, upper stages from several rockets. None anywhere near the 5th, though.

Space junk tracking isn't perfect - tons of random bits and bobs up there (a whole orbital belt is abandoned because the Air Force tested orbital radar chaff in it and none of that is individually tracked, and another is avoided because it contains a melted down Soviet nuclear reactor which is tracked but generated a lot of loose and probably radioactive bits that aren't - the early days of spaceflight were WILD), but anything with a snowball's chance of making a visible fireball generally has NORAD and COSPAR tracking IDs.

 

[meta_gr8ful]

Again, source aren't perfect, but a lot of people scrape the available data and nothing in orbit is classified in the sense that it's existence is a secret (tons of stuff has secret purposes of course but the NROL doesn't want somebody trying to put a comsat where their signals intelligence sat is parked in GSO).

I was able to find a log of all NORAD tracking IDs that were discontinued for reentry destruction. I advanced it to the page for July.

https://aerospace.org/reentries?fie...ct=tiles&reentry_timezone_selector=UTC&page=3

There were a number of reentries that month, mostly Starlink satellites, but also the Crew Dragon 1 trunk module, upper stages from several rockets. None anywhere near the 5th, though.

Space junk tracking isn't perfect - tons of random bits and bobs up there (a whole orbital belt is abandoned because the Air Force tested orbital radar chaff in it and none of that is individually tracked, and another is avoided because it contains a melted down Soviet nuclear reactor which is tracked but generated a lot of loose and probably radioactive bits that aren't - the early days of spaceflight were WILD), but anything with a snowball's chance of making a visible fireball generally has NORAD and COSPAR tracking IDs.

Appreciate the effort!!!

I guess I'm back to some kinda purposeful hoax or some kind of misidentification. Bummer.

It's kinda hard for me to accept purposeful hoax. If someone were making a hoax balloon, this one would have been very difficult to pull off since it was not uniform in shape and had "dents" and such for lack of a better term. It would have been expensive to manufacture.

I'd think if it were a hoax, there would have been many videos posted by the hoaxers in the weeks afterwards to cash in or just get attention. Nothing was ever posted though.

Oh well, guess I'll never identify it.