NASA-UAP-D007, Skylab Technical Crew Debriefing 1973

59
⬇ Download HD (294.6 KB)
SHARE Reddit X Facebook HN Email
Agency
NASA
Category
nasa
Type
PDF
Event Date
1973
Released
2026-05-08
Size
294.6 KB
Original Filename
nasa-uap-d7-skylab-technical-crew-debriefing-1973.pdf

Launched on May 14, 1973, Skylab was the United States’ first laboratory in space. From 1973 to 1974, the station was visited by three crews. This document contains excerpts from all three crews to visit the station. In the first excerpt taken from Skylab 1/2 [first crew] Technical Debriefing from June 30, 1973, highlights crew observations of light flashes. The second excerpt taken from Skylab 1/3 Technical Crew Debriefing from October 4, 1973, highlights two observations—a satellite in similar orbit and another object with a “reddish hue to it.” The final excerpt taken from the Skylab 1/4 Technical Crew Debriefing from February 22, 1974, highlights an observation of flashing lights outside Skylab. • Skylab 2 crew observation: o Page 23-20. [Science Pilot for Skylab 2, Joesph Kerwin] “We saw light flashes. I think all of us saw them. I saw them most often when I was in the sack at night with my eyes closed but awake naturally. They tended to wax and wane in frequency.” • Skylab 3 crew observations: o Page 7-4. [Science Pilot for Skylab 3, Owen Garriott] “We saw that satellite about a week before splashdown. That was one of the most unusual things that we saw and I guess Jack [Lousma] noticed it looking out the window. This bright reddish object was out there and we tracked it for about 5 or 10 minutes. It was obviously a satellite in a very similar orbit to our own.” o Page 20-1. [Science Pilot for Skylab 3, Owen Garriott] “Jack [Lousma] first noticed this rather large red star out the wardroom window. Upon close examination, it was much brighter than Jupiter or any of the other planets. It had a reddish hue to it, even though it was well above the horizon.” • Skylab 4 crew observation o Page 7-8. [Commander for Skylab 4, Gerald P. Carr] “One other area of unusual events that we reported on the dump tapes was that on occasion we saw some lights flashing outside with very a definite motion relative to ours. We presumed that they were other pieces of Skylab, or possibly other satellites.”

The summary above is sourced from the released file metadata as published to war.gov. The analysis sections below are original to this tracker.

Text of the document

Machine-extracted from the PDF war.gov published (its text layer or OCR), so expect errors, especially in names, numbers and handwriting; the PDF is the authoritative copy. Lines that did not extract as readable text are left out. Showing about 989 words from pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of 11.

PAGE 1

CREW DEBRIEFING PREPARED BY TRAINING OFFICE CREW TRAINING AND SIMULATION DIVISION NOTICE: This document may be exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S. C. 552). Requests for its release to persons outside the U. S. Government should be handled under the provisions of NASA Policy Directive 1382 .2. Natwnal Aeronautics and Space Administration LYNDON B. JOHNSON SPACE CENTER Houston, Texas

PAGE 2

KERWIN Unusual or Unexpected Visual Phenomenon. We saw light flashes. I think all of us saw them. I saw them most often when I was in the sack at night with my eyes closed but awake naturally. They tended to wax and wane in frequency. Someone asked me if that was in conjunction with the South Atlantic anomaly. It may have been. I didn't have the pad with me at that time and I don't know. They were numerous at times - two or three per CONRAD Some of them to me were a spot or sunbursts. Some were streaks. The streaks, in my case, were less frequent than the bursts. Most of them were in my peripheral visual field. Very few in the central visual fieJ.d. I don't know why. Q,UERY You could isolate them to one eye, couldn't you? KERWIN No, I couldn't. WEITZ I would say mine were primarily in the left eye for some :::oNRAD You have to concentrate but you can determine they are in one :IBRWIN I did not. That was foolish of me but I didn't try. I'm sure they are in one eye.

PAGE 3

CONRAD Sometimes I'd be lying there with my eyes half closed, and I'd see a fire sensor wink. KERWIN And you'd have to be careful that you weren't confusing that with the fire flash. Once you've seen a few of each, there is question of which is which. They're not an hallucination. KERWIN We didn't feel it was operationally necessary for anybody to know about it right now. WEITZ I had a couple that I thought were cosmic particles. I saw an entrance streak and an exit streak. CONRAD Yes, I did too. WEITZ Where, bing-bing, it seemed like it was one side of the eyeball, and then the other side. CONRAD One night I remember that there was a long shot then it was blank then there was a long shot in rapid succession, of course, but very definitely in and out - or across the eye. KERWIN Medical Kits and IMSS. As far as adequate quantity of medica­ tion and supplies, I would guess we used about 0.01 percent of the available medication. I think this is something for me to sit down with the doctors and talk about. There is plenty of medicine up there for the Skylab missons. There is

PAGE 4

CREW DEBRIEFING PREPARED BY TRAINING OFFICE CREW TRAINING AND SIMULATION DIVISION NOTICE: This document may be exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U. S.C. 552). Requests for its release to persons outside the U.S. Government shou Id be handled under the provisions of NASA Policy Directive 1382 .2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration LYNDON B. JOHNSON SPACE CENTER

PAGE 5

BEAN I did too. The sack would move over in the corner. LOUSMA Things we saw out the window. GARRIOTT For example, we saw that satellite about a week before splash­ down. That was one of the most unusual things that we saw and I guess Jack noticed it looking out the window. This bright reddish object was out there and we tracked it for about 5 or 10 minutes. It was obviously a satellite in a very similar orbit to our own. It was rotating and had a period of almost exactly 10 seconds because you could see the bright­ ness vary with that period. We followed it until sunset and it went out of sunlight just about 5 to 7 seconds after we did. It held its position nearly the same, in the wardroom window for that 10-minute interval although we could see it drift in relative positions slightly, maybe 10 to - 20 degrees during the course of that 10-minute interval. It was reddish in color even when we were well above the horizon. As we approached sunset, it turned more reddish, presumably because . of the sunlight change. What satellite it was and how it happened to end up in such a similar orbit, no one ever explained to us. And I would like to hear a few words from someone about that satellite.

PAGE 6

BEAN You bet. We never saw it again. You'd think we would have seen it the next night or it would cycle by another time. Maybe it did and we weren't looking out the window. LOUSMA You might point out that it never did take the shape of an object but it was always brighter than any other star or planet in the night sky. It was much brighter. BEAN We tried monitors and everything on it but we could never make it into anything other than a bright light. LOUSMA In doing T002, I had on other occasions, at least once or twice, seen other satellites although they appeared as star points of light. BEAN Let's talk about caution/warnings at night and in the daytime. I noticed at first when we did have caution/warnings in the daytime we all whistled up there real quick to see what was happening. Then as the mission wore on, we tended to just let whoever was closest take a look. Without the TACS on, there isn't a lot that can go on exc~pt rapid DELTA-P which sounds different than any of the other caution/warnings, particularly just a caution. I recommend to Jerry and his crew, and I'm sure that this recommendation will be hard to live by, that caution/warnings don't appear to be anything you have to hurry and resolve or stop doing your tasks to race up to the panel

Where this file fits in the PURSUE archive

This file is one of NASA's 40 files in the Trump PURSUE disclosure. Within the NASA agency block it ranks #24 of 40 by Anomalousness Index. Across the entire 450-file archive it ranks #177 of 450.

That places it in the lower-scoring band of the archive (177 of 450 by score), typical of investigative-record style files where the report is paper-based rather than instrumented.

For the broader cluster context, this file is part of Skylab's Three Crews and the Lights They Couldn't Explain - the three Skylab crew technical debriefings (1973-74) describing cosmic-ray retinal flashes, tumbling debris, and an unidentified object. The cluster page walks through all 1 member files with regional grouping, sensor breakdown, and standout analysis.

Anomalousness Index: 59/100

Evidentiary weight that this encounter remains unexplained after conventional analysis. Not a probability of extraterrestrial origin - that number is not honestly computable from the released files and this tracker refuses to publish it.

🤖 AI-ASSISTED SCORING · methodology

The six rubric components break down for this file as follows. Each component has a weighted contribution to the final score; the per-component explanation below describes what this file's particular value on that component means in the rubric's framework.

sensor quality (eyewitness only) 30 × 0.25 = 7.5

Reported by a witness with no instrumented record. The lowest tier in the rubric's sensor axis. Eyewitness perception in field conditions, even when the witness is highly credentialed, scores below capture by any instrumented modality. This report reached the federal record through NASA.

witness credibility (astronaut) 95 × 0.2 = 19.0

Astronaut witness on the official federal record - the highest tier in the rubric's witness-credibility axis. It applies to NASA crew debriefings, mission transcripts, and astronaut interviews across the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Witness credibility is only one of six components; the astronaut-witness files that also rank high on the sensor and disposition axes are the eight tied for the archive's top score of 72 - the Gemini 7 Borman audio, the Gordon Cooper interview, and the Apollo 14, 16, and 17 crew debriefings.

corroboration (single witness instrument) 60 × 0.2 = 12.0

Single-witness or single-instrument capture. This is the corroboration tier for the overwhelming majority of the PURSUE archive on the released metadata - the rubric records the honest limit of the underlying record rather than inferring multi-witness corroboration that the released summaries do not establish. A small number of files with an independent second witness or instrument score on the multi-witness/multi-instrument tier above this one.

kinematic anomaly (no kinematic data) 30 × 0.15 = 4.5

No kinematic measurements - speed, acceleration, vector - are published in the released file with sufficient precision to score on the kinematic axis. The rubric does not infer kinematic anomaly from narrative observer estimates. Every file in the archive carries this value, which is itself an observation about the disclosure: kinematic-grade telemetry was not part of what was released.

mundane explanation available (weak mundane candidate) 70 × 0.1 = 7.0

A conventional candidate explanation has been considered but is not dispositive. Every file in the archive scores this way - reflecting that the underlying release metadata systematically caveats strong determinations in either direction. The released summaries warn against reading them as conclusive analytical judgments, and the rubric respects that.

official disposition (open after review) 90 × 0.1 = 9.0

Released as open after formal review by the originating agency. The file passed through a review process and was published in that posture - a stronger disposition signal than 'unresolved with no review,' because review has occurred and the open status is the agency's published conclusion.

Bottom line on the score: the Anomalousness Index of 59/100 reflects evidentiary weight that this specific file's encounter remains structurally unexplained by the rubric's six axes - it is not a claim that the underlying event involved anything non-conventional, and it is not comparable across rubrics that use different weights. For the full per-axis weights and the rubric JSON, see /methodology.

Related files in NASA

Other PURSUE files in the same category, ranked by Anomalousness Index.

NASA · VIDEO SCORE 72

NASA-UAP-D003A, Gemini 7 Audio Excerpt, 1965

NASA · VIDEO SCORE 72

NASA-UAP-D023, Interview Excerpt with Astronaut Gordon Cooper, 1962

NASA · IMAGE SCORE 65

NASA-UAP-D030, STS-80 Unidentified Object Image 1, 1996

NASA · IMAGE SCORE 65

NASA-UAP-D031, STS-80 Unidentified Object Image 2, 1996

NASA · IMAGE SCORE 65

NASA-UAP-D032, STS-80 Unidentified Object Image 3, 1996

NASA · PDF SCORE 59

NASA-UAP-D003, Gemini 7 Transcript, 1965

BROWSE ALL 450 FILES →

Verification

SHA-256:

61f7e6594e7ab6959503214c73a2a591dc231a14ba92df8e36d0bb0a0fbd6691

This hash is the SHA-256 of the file body war.gov served on the verification date above. War.gov has re-processed some file bodies since first release (re-compression + OCR, no content removed - see /changes); we re-verify and record the change rather than silently serve a stale hash. How to check this yourself →

Source: https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/nasa-uap-d7-skylab-technical-crew-debriefing-1973.pdf

📡 Subscribe via RSS 🔔 Watch on GitHub