Cool Proton launch pictures.

There's launching into a low overcast; and then there's this:
http://spaceflightnow.com/proton/exp...tonliftoff.jpg
http://spaceflightnow.com/proton/exp...rotoncloud.jpg
I think this would be outside spec for a Shuttle.
I would be interesting to see what effect the Proton's motor exhaust had
on the cloud.

Pat

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:27:41 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

There's launching into a low overcast; and then there's this:
http://spaceflightnow.com/proton/exp...tonliftoff.jpg
http://spaceflightnow.com/proton/exp...rotoncloud.jpg
I think this would be outside spec for a Shuttle.
I would be interesting to see what effect the Proton's motor exhaust had
on the cloud.

Pat


Why is it the good photos are always at dinky resolution?

Scott Ferrin wrote:


Why is it the good photos are always at dinky resolution?


In this case they are stills from a video...with luck, maybe someone got
some actual photos of the launch.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

I would be interesting to see what effect the Proton's motor exhaust had
on the cloud.

Pat


I've seen rising air from bonfires become whirl winds. Does that ever
happen with the air heated by a rocket?

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Hop David wrote:


I've seen rising air from bonfires become whirl winds. Does that ever
happen with the air heated by a rocket?

What you would expect here is a terrific downwash of air due to the
supersonic exhaust of the motors sucking all the air in the vicinity
downwards as they pass through it; combined with a clearing of the air
as the heat of the motor exhausts raise it to well above dew point- the
thing should literally tunnel out a clear area though the clouds as it
ascends.

Pat

Very cool photos! Thanks for posting the links.

In article ,
says...
There's launching into a low overcast; and then there's this:
http://www.graflex.org/articles/expe...d/apollo1.html

I found that photo while doing some research on a long extinct camera.
It was old-tech in 1910, but it was (according to the web site) used to
photograph the first Saturn V as it punched through the clouds.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
In article ,
says...

There's launching into a low overcast; and then there's this:

http://www.graflex.org/articles/expe...d/apollo1.html

I found that photo while doing some research on a long extinct camera.
It was old-tech in 1910, but it was (according to the web site) used to
photograph the first Saturn V as it punched through the clouds.


The Graflex is a perfectly good camera - in fact, with skill and a
decent lens, it will make technically superior pictures to any 35 MM or
digital camera. I wouldn't want to try to shoot a basketball game with
it, but anything that's quasi-static is just fine.

Brett

In article ,
says...
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
In article ,
says...
There's launching into a low overcast; and then there's this:
http://www.graflex.org/articles/expe...d/apollo1.html

I found that photo while doing some research on a long extinct camera.
It was old-tech in 1910, [...]
The Graflex is a perfectly good camera - in fact, with skill and a
decent lens, it will make technically superior pictures to any 35 MM or
digital camera.

I just bought my very first digicam today. How did you know? :-)


I didn't mention why I was researching the long extinct camera. It just
happens that the largest camera I use is a Crown Graphic. As you say, it
isn't a quick camera, but it does create my technically best negatives.

"Graphic" is a (non-SLR) camera made by the Graphic company (under
several different corporate names, from "Folmer and Schwing of New
York" through "Kodak" to "Singer". The same Singer famous for the sewing
machines and (horrors, nearly on-topic) the classic Link simulators used
to train airplane pilots and the prototypes of the simulators used to
train astronauts.) "Graflex" is an SLR made by Graphic. Long before the
small SLRs, Graflex was synonymous with SLR.

At the risk of once again being almost on-topic, a long-standing debate
in the camera history forums is "what was the first modern SLR?" (The
adjective "modern" is required to exclude the Graflex.) Depending on
your biases, the answer is either the German Exacta/Exakta, or a USSR
camera called, wait for it, the Sputnik.


I wouldn't want to try to shoot a basketball game with
it, but anything that's quasi-static is just fine.

FWIW: one of the first cameras that could happily cope with basketball
(or football or baseball or ...) games was the Speed Graphic. It was the
first camera with a big negative and a 1 msec shutter speed that could
freeze the motion of a ball or player.

There is static and there is is static. If you are covering a basketball
game, you know that there will be some good photographs when the players
score, so you set up one Speed Graphic at the home team's basket and
another at the visitor's basket. With some skill, you can get a good
picture of each point scored. Add a third camera for anything that
happens between the goals, and you've got the entire game covered.


Philosophically similar to my Crown Graphic is the PadCam. This is a
camera designed for the specific purpose of photographing the Shuttle
during its first few hundred feet of flight. It is a hermetically sealed
box -- Florida is notorious for both high humidity and thunderstorms.
The box has a microphone that detects the sound of the closing of a LOX
vent, which triggers a sequencer. The sequencer opens the box for just
long enough to take a picture of the Shuttle as it leaves the pad, and
then slams the box shut to protect the camera from the rocket exhaust.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins