EC-135N still images?
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
http://www.clavius.org/techsvpogo.html
I noted the F1 backflow at the Saturn V at top of the page. Its the most
impressive image of this phenomen I ever saw. Saturn V F1 had this effect
more than any other rocket I got told. But in most tracking camera films
its not very clear whether the flame thouches the rockets or its only a
trick of the viewing perspective. Here its very clear. At first I thought
I never saw this image before. But after I checked its origine:
http://apollomissionphotos.com/index_ap11_vintage_liftoff.html
NASA No. 107-KSC-69PC-413
16 July 1969
The Apollo 11 Saturn V space vehicle climbs toward orbit after lift-off
from Pad 39A at 9:32 a.m. EDT. In 2 1/2 minutes of powered flight, the
S-IC booster lifts the vehicle to an altitude of about 39 miles some 55
miles downrange. This photo was taken with a 70mm telescopic camera mounted
in an Air Force EC-135N plane.
I realized that its a blow up of a still from an airborn tracking film.
A 70 mm camera is not too impressive but this films from the EC-135N plane
are about the best we have from Apollo inflight. Unfortunately none of the
EC-135N films is on the Spacecrafts films DVD about the Saturn V
("The Mighty Saturns", Part II).
I found two more impressive stills from the same film:
S69-39957
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075241.jpg
The conus cloud at seperation is probably the Mach cone. It gets visible
as the solid retro rockets of the first stage blow smoke in it from
behind.
S69-39958
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/s69_39958.html
S69-39958 (16 JULY 1969) --- A 70mm Airborne Lightweight Optical Tracking
System (ALOTS) camera, mounted in a pod on a cargo door of a U.S. Air
Force EC-135N aircraft, photographed this event in the early moments of
the Apollo 11 launch. The mated Apollo spacecraft and Saturn V second
(S-II) and third (S-IVB) stages pull away from the expended first (S-1C)
stage. Separation occurred at an altitude of about 38 miles, some 55
miles downrange from Cape Kennedy. The aircraft's pod is 20 feet long
and 5 feet in diameter....
In the 2.4 MB pic it looks like we see the fireing J-2s from the side and
the smoke of the ignition support solids deflected by the unvisible J-2
exhaust bell. Are the two bright dots atop the F1s just sun reflections?
Seems http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/ only had this two from the EC-135N.
Are somewhere more stills or a DVD with the films?
## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##
Pat Flannery
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de wrote:
>
>I found two more impressive stills from the same film:
>
>
I want to know what's going on around 600 feet behind the rocket in this
one:
http://apollomissionphotos.com/107ksc69pc413.jpg
Shockwave of some sort?
Pat
OM
wrote:
>I want to know what's going on around 600 feet behind the rocket in this
>one:
...It's the black soul of Proxmire, sent back by
God/Yahweh/Roddenberry in a temporal loop to perpetually burn in the
exhaust of what he retardedly tried to prevent in an attempt to
bolster his own sick political agenda. The fun part is that Mondale
will be joining him soon enough.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Henry Spencer
<SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de> wrote:
>http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/s69_39958.html
Nice picture! Note that the S-IC is blackened by soot from being
enveloped in its own exhaust plume earlier. (Many rockets exhibit such
backflow at high altitudes, but it's a lot more *conspicuous* with the
Saturn V for some reason.)
>In the 2.4 MB pic it looks like we see the fireing J-2s from the side and
>the smoke of the ignition support solids deflected by the unvisible J-2
>exhaust bell.
Could be that, or could perhaps be a shock effect where the J-2 plume
meets the surrounding airflow.
>Are the two bright dots atop the F1s just sun reflections?
They look too bright. I think they're residual plumes from the S-IC
retrorockets (which were located in the engine fairings, not up top on the
upper skirt).
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Henry Spencer
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>I want to know what's going on around 600 feet behind the rocket in this
>one:
>http://apollomissionphotos.com/107ksc69pc413.jpg
>Shockwave of some sort?
Shock reflection of some sort, I think, but don't ask me to sketch the
complete shock pattern. :-) The Saturn V was notorious for complex
exhaust plumes.
I wondered if it might be some kind of reflection within the camera -- a
lower-quality copy of the main image -- but I don't *think* that's the
case.
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
>
> I want to know what's going on around 600 feet behind the rocket in this
> one:
> http://apollomissionphotos.com/107ksc69pc413.jpg
> Shockwave of some sort?
>
> Pat
Its here:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-000628.html
I vote for diamonds too. But I see two other possibilities. In the F1 the
exhaust of the turbo engine is feed to the inside on the wall of the nozle
bell. There is a famous slow motion shoot of an Apollo launch were one F1
fills the whole film image, At first we see this dark brown exhaust at the
nozle exit and then below comes the bright one from the F1 combustion
chamber. By the external expansion at altitude this dark exhaust may be
first affected and covers a larger part of the bright one. Then what we
see would not be a shock heating but a surface mix of different exhausts.
Another way for the bright/dark coloration could be flame surface reaction.
The F1 burns kerosene in fuel rich mix. The oxygen of the atmosphere could
burn up remaining fuel on the surface of the exhaust. The small bright
"upward finger" to the right on the upper flame cone could be such an
afterburn effect.
I see a single diamond pattern about 4 stage diameters below the F1s.
Maybe the F1 center engine exhaust has no way to overexpand at the same
lenght up because its surrounded by the other ones and therefore keept
on higher pressure for some time until it happens too on larger scale.
Unfortunately there is no stereo pair of the exhaust flame to determine
its shape. Shockwave pattern could create a destinct shape wich could
help an explanation. Here we are at a typical problem of Apollo archaeology.
I bet there are old guys around aware of some reports and able to describe
every pice of the picture. But in a few years detail history may up to
those writers with the most sweet writing and highest budget for promotion.
There should be an NASA office exclusively for public technical questions
on historic missions. But this billion dollar elephant was even unable or
unwilling to counter the technical issues raised by the Moon hoaxers.
JimO and others had to do it on their own budget. What a shame!
Pat Flannery
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de wrote:
>
>There should be an NASA office exclusively for public technical questions
>on historic missions. But this billion dollar elephant was even unable or
>unwilling to counter the technical issues raised by the Moon hoaxers.
>JimO and others had to do it on their own budget. What a shame!
>
>
If you've been lurking around here for a while, you might remember the
time someone from NASA posted with questions about the performance of
the Mercury and Apollo LES, as he couldn't find any data on them in
NASA's library, and they were trying to get data for designing a new
system.
Someone who had worked at NASA (was it Mary Shaffer?) pointed out that
this appalling situation was not uncommon; the data was there no doubt,
but the cataloging and data storage system was such a complete mess that
it was hard to find anything. One gets images of huge piles of boxes
stuffed with documents stacked to the ceiling in a warehouse somewhere.
Pat
snidely
Rusty wrote:
> Pat Flannery wrote:
[...]
> > Someone who had worked at NASA (was it Mary Shaffer?) pointed out that
> > this appalling situation was not uncommon; the data was there no doubt,
> > but the cataloging and data storage system was such a complete mess that
> > it was hard to find anything. One gets images of huge piles of boxes
> > stuffed with documents stacked to the ceiling in a warehouse somewhere.
> >
> 70's mainframe computers that no longer exist.
And the problem is worsening...AIUI, many of the tapes are decomposing
on the reels, so there isn't even much hope of transferring it to newer
media.
/dps
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
> >http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/s69_39958.h
> >tml
> Nice picture! Note that the S-IC is blackened by soot from being
> enveloped in its own exhaust plume earlier. (Many rockets exhibit such
> backflow at high altitudes, but it's a lot more *conspicuous* with the
> Saturn V for some reason.)
>
> >In the 2.4 MB pic it looks like we see the fireing J-2s from the side and
> >the smoke of the ignition support solids deflected by the unvisible J-2
> >exhaust bell.
>
> Could be that, or could perhaps be a shock effect where the J-2 plume
> meets the surrounding airflow.
>
The widening of the white lines is less typical for shock interaction here.
I checked the location of the interstage solids with the (incomplete)
painting sheme of Apollo 11. The GPN-2000-000628 image and its b&w sister
are mirrored. S69-39958 and the thread initial KSC-69PC-413 are ok. All
seemed to be from the same EC-135N film. Three interstage solids are about
the position we see the white lines. One line is in the middle towards the
1st stage and no longer visible as it goes over it. The two inflight cameras
of Apollo 4 got each two of the red/orange solids exhaust in the view too.
About the time of S69-39958 the solids were just off.
> >Are the two bright dots atop the F1s just sun reflections?
>
> They look too bright. I think they're residual plumes from the S-IC
> retrorockets (which were located in the engine fairings, not up top on the
> upper skirt).
Thats it! The Apollo 4 inflight cameras show each one bright dot at about
the fairings location of the solids. In S69-39958 the empty stage is slightly
tilted. Perhaps it created a lee wind space at its base where the smoke
plume could stay. I would like to see the frames were the solids are firing.
I saw one film from behind and it was a big disk of fire. The EC-135N
viewpoint from the side with its better resolution should be even more
impressive!
Btw, when I searched for "EC-135N" images I came about this ancient replica
monument from Apollo times. Think I got that some here are hot for such
stuff:
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Rev1/301-400/Rev312_AMtech_729202/rev312.htm
http://www.amtechmodels.com/product_view.cfm?Item=ec135
with link to poor mans "ALOTS pod". Hell 70 mm, even the smaller U2 ten
years before had better optics onboard!
Kevin Willoughby
> In article <11rnmqv...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
> >I want to know what's going on around 600 feet behind the rocket in this
> >one:
> >http://apollomissionphotos.com/107ksc69pc413.jpg
> >Shockwave of some sort?
> I wondered if it might be some kind of reflection within the camera -- a
> lower-quality copy of the main image -- but I don't *think* that's the
> case.
I've never seen lens flare that looked like that. Internal reflections
are typically dominated by the iris within the lens. These are typically
5-9 bladed designs, so internal flare can be recognised by the
polygonical shape.
I can't rule out some kind of atmospheric thing. Mirages can often have
a split-image. I've never seen two images separated by that amount, but
I'm willing to belive the S-V can define its own atmospheric conditions
worse than a desert. But then I'd expect the second image's plume to be
the same as the first, and here it looks more conical.
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@acm.org.invalid
In this country, we produce more students with university degrees
in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen