It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spectacular Photo - Camera Damaged in Process.

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Here is the video of the failed launch.

www.break.com...




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


You're right, an SLR has a removable lens and technically the camera "body" wasn't damaged.. I'd like to see a person use a camera with no lens though..

Great find OP, well worth the damage inflicted in my opinion. I wonder if it was just freelance or if someone paid him. Most photographers can't just throw away money like that.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by stander
 


Well, space bound rockets contain hundreds or even thousands of tons of hydrogen and oxygen. In the case of rockets like the N1 or Saturn 5, were one to explode, the blast would be roughly comparable in power to a small nuclear weapon. ~2kT (by virtue of actually having 2 kilotons of fuel and oxidizer on board.).

So even with a smaller rocket like this, it's probably best to stand well back.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 

The Russian booster wasn't filled with a H+O mixture -- Russian switched to this type of fuel later. But there was a highly toxic catalyst in the fuel they used, and so those working in the proximity of the launch pad who escaped the flames still inhaled the released gasses and some of them died in the hospital coz of that.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man


indeed, but would you not say the lens is part of the camera? could a camera work without its lens?



i don't see what your point is....


The lens can be replaced.

The point is that you altered the message of the article, including the article's title for some effect.

The article clearly states that the camera survived, but you claim that the camera did not survive.

That's the point. What was yours?





[edit on 2009/10/10 by GradyPhilpott]




top topics
 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join