Footage of Soyuz Launch Puts Hollywood Directors to Shame

Saturday, November 24, 2018

In a video that looks like something a special effects shop would produce, ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst has captured one of the most remarkable views of a rocket launch we've ever seen.

Posted by J_Tremain at 12:32 PM | 29 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Bull S**T -

Fake as fake can be.... why?

1) Atmosphere is way too thick... At 200 miles, many ISS vids show the Atmosphere as very thin (Photographically) Only the Tropo, Meso and Stratisphere can be photographed - The Ionosphere is way to thin to show up on photos.

2) You can see stars... The Earth is very bright even at night - you need to set the camera at a full f22 stop to keep it from over exposing. If you want to see the stars then the Earth will show up as an over exposed white disk.

3) Compare that to this... www.youtube.com ...

Do you SEE any stars? Do you SEE any atmosphere?

Seems like ESA is picking up bad habits from NASA ...trying to pass off CGI as reality...

...and while there is no intelligent life in Space there sure is a lot of Bull.

#1 | Posted by Pegasus at 2018-11-25 11:55 AM | Reply

From what I understood, the footage is composed of a series of HDR pictures.

This really is how the eye would see it.

#2 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-25 12:38 PM | Reply

This really is how the eye would see it.

-------

Forgot to add.... where is the smoke "contrail" from the launch? There is supposed to be a plum of smoke below the white moving dot right until the lower Stratosphere... so where is it?

Hell, the Progress is too far (200 miles downrange) to even see the booster separation and the kick motor start...unless the ice crystals are the size of cars coming off the booster...

It's all CGI faked... and not very well I might add...

#3 | Posted by Pegasus at 2018-11-25 02:11 PM | Reply

Why would it put Hollywood directors to shame?

What are weird thought.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-11-25 02:26 PM | Reply

Right.

The video isn't from NASA so it must be fake! Only Americans can take pretty pictures! Nobody else is allowed!

Do you see why some people might have a problem with that typical American attitude?

#5 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-25 02:37 PM | Reply

There is supposed to be a plum of smoke below the white moving dot right until the lower Stratosphere... so where is it?

Liquid rocket fuel doesn't leave "a plum of smoke" like the solid rockets the Stoopid Shuttle used. And the flame is the same color as the one seen on the ESA video.

www.youtube.com

#6 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-25 03:06 PM | Reply

It looks great, but Space-x about a few months ago was better.

#7 | Posted by bat4255 at 2018-11-25 05:46 PM | Reply

Liquid rocket fuel doesn't leave "a plum of smoke" like the solid rockets the Stoopid Shuttle used.

Serious question: Is that true? I don't know. What are the reactants in liquid rocket fuels?
I thought they were hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide.

2N2H4 + N2O4 ---> 3N2 + 4H2O

Since water is a product of this reaction why would no contrail form?

#8 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2018-11-25 07:58 PM | Reply

Since water is a product of this reaction why would no contrail form?

Depends whether or not you want to quibble about "water vapor" vs. "smoke".

#9 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-11-25 08:25 PM | Reply

10: OK sure, but I'm actually curious. I'll eventually do my own research on this, but what are the reactions (actual, balanced chemical reactions please) that occurred in Space Shuttle rocketry vs. Russian Soyuz rocketry and why would one give a smoke and/or water vapor trail, when the other wouldn't as JTremain seemed to imply?

#10 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2018-11-25 08:57 PM | Reply

why would one give a smoke and/or water vapor trail, when the other wouldn't

I fly amateur high power rockets and while the solid fuel motors have the same basic propellant (ammonium perchlorate) they have a vast collection of "effects", depending your preference. Different flame colours, different "smoke" characteristics. In a real launch they would want as much power as possible without the theatrics.

------- basic premise is that anything from China or Russia is better than anything America and Pakistan was the firstest and bestest at all of it.

#11 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-11-25 09:15 PM | Reply

12:thanks. I'm curious from a chemistry perspective.

I did find-- Space Shuttle SRB reaction: Ammonium perchlorate + Aluminum powder:

10Al + 6NH4ClO4 ---> 4Al2O3 + 2AlCl3 + 12H2O + 3N2 (chlorine.americanchemistry.com).

In Russian rocketry it seems to be UDMH + N2O4, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine + dinitrogen tetroxide spaceflight101.com (CH3)2N-NH2 + N2O4.
Which would still give water as a byproduct as well as a carbon species (CO2?).

#12 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2018-11-25 09:38 PM | Reply

I'm curious from a chemistry perspective.

Aluminum and water is a powerful combination if you can make it react.

Common in propellants and low velocity explosives like ANFO.

#13 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-11-25 09:51 PM | Reply

thanks. I'm curious from a chemistry perspective.

Dude... why are you asking a Canadian?

Hell will freeze over before Canada understand even the basics about missiles. LOL

anything from China or Russia is better than anything America

America has to ask Russia to take it to space these days. LOL

So yes, I'm afraid, the USA has trashed itself. Elon Musk is our best hope right now.

Now then....

Different nations use different fuels and different engines. But generally, solid fuel is smoky and great for missiles that are used as weapons. It is simple and reliable and starts up instantly.

However for space rockets, liquid fuels are better, safer and give higher thrust. They also pollute less.

As REDIAL said that Pakistan is the best, I am only doing this for him....

Pakistan solid fuel missile:

www.youtube.com

Pakistan liquid fuel missile:

www.youtube.com

You can clearly see which one produces all that smoke and which one is... relatively... clean.

#14 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-25 11:51 PM | Reply

but Space-x about a few months ago was better.

Yes. The synchronized landing video was really great. Like straight out of sci-fi.

America's space future lies with private space people.... not bloody NASA.

#15 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-25 11:55 PM | Reply

screenshotscdn.firefoxusercontent.com

See pic...

Liquid fuel on left. Solid fuel on right.

Flame but not much of a smoke trail. The other... huge smoke trail.

#16 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-26 01:49 AM | Reply

Yup. Just as I suspected.

Another Tokyo ------ thread.

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-26 11:16 AM | Reply

I will give you medal.

#18 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-26 11:30 AM | Reply

It's all CGI - no smoke or contrail - NONE - not even a trace...

If it's not CGI... why are all the stars the same color?

..and why don't they "twinkle" when they are viewed through the atmosphere?

..and why isn't the booster "smoke" distorted (flatten) as it approaches the disk horizon (atmospheric optics like the sun or moon)?

..and Heck, the color should have changed to a slight orange tint as it approached the horizon....(again, like the Sun and Moon)

ESA, you should demand your money back from these European contractors you used and switch to the Hollywood Special effects bunch that NASA uses.

PISS POOR - even by European standards... but the music was pretty good.

#19 | Posted by Pegasus at 2018-11-26 11:32 AM | Reply

I am not weighing in on this being real or not - though it looks odd. I am weighing in on the stars. There's no scintillation because there is no atmosphere.

#20 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-26 11:36 AM | Reply

and why don't they "twinkle" when they are viewed through the atmosphere?

Allah give me strength....

Dude... the "video" is made up of a series of HDR pictures taken in succession.

If you don't know what I am talking about, use the HDR mode on your phone camera... or get an app that takes HDR pictures... and take a few pictures of the clouds, the sky and stuff.

See what happens. Compare it to normal pics.

#21 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-26 11:50 AM | Reply

It's a time lapse video. Not normal video cam kind of video.

#22 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-26 11:50 AM | Reply

You are one of those guys who believe Kubrik faked the moon landings, yes? LOL

Because you are picking at one little thing after another, just like those moon landing guys.

#23 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-26 11:53 AM | Reply

Doesn't matter WRT scintillation. There is none because there is no atmosphere. Even time-lapse shows scintillation when done from the ground shooting upward.

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-26 11:53 AM | Reply

I am willing to bet HDR won't.

I am like 90% sure.

#25 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-26 12:32 PM | Reply

Anyway... I don't think I can change his mind. Not my job.

#26 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-11-26 12:38 PM | Reply

HDR yep got it.... guess the series of pics didn't show a single star dimming... not one.... what are the chances with dozens going by and not one....

Because you are picking at one little thing after another, just like those moon landing guys.

Yep I only do it because I think ESA can spring for good stuff. I mean what they are pushing out is something any pimply kid with a PC can do...

AS for the moon landings... I am still trying to get my head around the daily body count numbers of VietCong killed in battle.

Because... ya know, the government would never lie about something like dat..

Ok gotta... Mars landing in 7 minutes.... will it make it or turn into a Billion Dollar ball of scrap metal....???

#27 | Posted by Pegasus at 2018-11-26 02:33 PM | Reply

It landed OK !!! -

Now your gonna see some CGI that will put the ESA to shame! LOL

#28 | Posted by Pegasus at 2018-11-26 04:51 PM | Reply

Forgot to add.... where is the smoke "contrail" from the launch?

For a portion of the very beginning there looks to be an exhaust plume visible for a few seconds.

Liquid rocket fuel doesn't leave "a plum of smoke" like the solid rockets the Stoopid Shuttle used.

Soyuz uses RG1 (Russian version of RP1) and LOX. It absolutely has a "plume of smoke".

www.youtube.com

At about 1:30.

Does this BS you spew fool the other goat herders?

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-26 07:34 PM | Reply