Just the worst camerawork/editing I think I've ever seen on a space launch! Total amateur hour.
Booster cam glitches out, launch pad camera doesn't pan up, rocket out of frame, wobbly, zoomed too close or too far, digital artifacts, several pointless cuts in the span of a few seconds, then they cut to the crowd right
at SRB sep.
Just the worst camerawork/editing I think I've ever seen on a space
launch! Total amateur hour.
Booster cam glitches out, launch pad camera doesn't pan up, rocket out
of frame, wobbly, zoomed too close or too far, digital artifacts,
several pointless cuts in the span of a few seconds, then they cut to
the crowd right at SRB sep.
The broadcast footage of STS-1 in 1981 was way better. Even Apollo 11
was way better..
'Integrity' is a terrible name for a ship but though the rocket will
never look as sci-fi cool as the Shuttle it's not entirely unattractive,
in kind of a chunky, orange sort of way.
Just the worst camerawork/editing I think I've ever seen on a space
launch! Total amateur hour.
Booster cam glitches out, launch pad camera doesn't pan up, rocket out
of frame, wobbly, zoomed too close or too far, digital artifacts,
several pointless cuts in the span of a few seconds, then they cut to
the crowd right at SRB sep.
The broadcast footage of STS-1 in 1981 was way better. Even Apollo 11
was way better..
'Integrity' is a terrible name for a ship but though the rocket will
never look as sci-fi cool as the Shuttle it's not entirely unattractive,
in kind of a chunky, orange sort of way.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 22:54:38 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
Just the worst camerawork/editing I think I've ever seen on a space >>launch! Total amateur hour.
Booster cam glitches out, launch pad camera doesn't pan up, rocket out
of frame, wobbly, zoomed too close or too far, digital artifacts,
several pointless cuts in the span of a few seconds, then they cut to
the crowd right at SRB sep.
The broadcast footage of STS-1 in 1981 was way better. Even Apollo 11
was way better..
'Integrity' is a terrible name for a ship but though the rocket will
never look as sci-fi cool as the Shuttle it's not entirely unattractive, >>in kind of a chunky, orange sort of way.
The mission is absurd. NASA is just a money-burning bureaucracy.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 22:54:38 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
Just the worst camerawork/editing I think I've ever seen on a space
launch! Total amateur hour.
Booster cam glitches out, launch pad camera doesn't pan up, rocket out
of frame, wobbly, zoomed too close or too far, digital artifacts,
several pointless cuts in the span of a few seconds, then they cut to
the crowd right at SRB sep.
The broadcast footage of STS-1 in 1981 was way better. Even Apollo 11
was way better..
'Integrity' is a terrible name for a ship but though the rocket will
never look as sci-fi cool as the Shuttle it's not entirely unattractive, >>> in kind of a chunky, orange sort of way.
The mission is absurd. NASA is just a money-burning bureaucracy.
Just wrote this to alt.politics.trump:
Future? President Trump to be first human on Mars
After noting he will be killed once he personally enlist to fight Iran, President trump orders NASA to carry his remains on the next Mars rover
and then bury it in a small golden coffin so as to be the first Human on Mars
Anyways
soon we will see the anti-graffiti drive,..
no more rockets, or maybe nuclear propulsion,
long ago NASA did experiments with that.
As to cameras, sure, when the moon landings happened I was in the TV head control room here relaying it to the people.
Nothing new...
Just stay cool and concentrated, no errors allowed..
All BW coming from the moon back then.
Indeed disruptions in digital networks can give huge artefacts.
OTOH I did see it start now on BBC and it looked impressive, big.
Humans are only at the beginning of space exploration, just a few thousand years from the stone-age..
Things evolve, exponentially in time?
Sorry. This mission is not absurd. Survivals which are not on Earth
are needed to avoid extinction.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
The mission is absurd. NASA is just a money-burning bureaucracy.
On 4/2/2026 8:12 AM, john larkin wrote:
The mission is absurd. NASA is just a money-burning bureaucracy.
Take it easy, that's my meal-ticket you're talking about.
Still it *was* a very successful launch and they are on their way. Not
sure that going to the moon with a manned mission is really worth it
apart from the opportunity to rub the deniers noses in it when they
bring back a couple of artefacts from an earlier Apollo mission.
ISTR Hasselblad offered a reward for bring back one of their cameras
from the lunar surface back in the day. I wonder what condition they
will be in after 50 years of hard UV and micrometeorites?
'Integrity' is a terrible name for a ship but though the rocket will
never look as sci-fi cool as the Shuttle it's not entirely
unattractive, in kind of a chunky, orange sort of way.
It looked red rusty to me like it had been part dipped in seawater and
left to rust, but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 11:34:33 -0700, Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> >wrote:
On 4/2/2026 8:12 AM, john larkin wrote:
The mission is absurd. NASA is just a money-burning bureaucracy.
Take it easy, that's my meal-ticket you're talking about.
NASA should do more aeronautics and more real science.
People are too expensive and too fragile to send to "explore space."
I do not know why at some seconds a TV station showed what looked to
me like a computer simulation of a green rocket (after showing a red
rocket launch!) flying almost horizontally across a TV set.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote: |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |"It looked to me like some wag had spliced in a bit of Thunderbirds..."| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
It did look like "Thunderbirds"! :)
However it is certainly not from (original) "Thunderbirds", but maybe
there is a new computer "Thunderbirds" (like "Noddy"; "Fireman Sam";
and "Red Dwarf").
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!
Just the worst camerawork/editing I think I've ever seen on a space
launch! Total amateur hour.
Booster cam glitches out, launch pad camera doesn't pan up, rocket out
of frame, wobbly, zoomed too close or too far, digital artifacts,
several pointless cuts in the span of a few seconds, then they cut to
the crowd right at SRB sep.
The broadcast footage of STS-1 in 1981 was way better. Even Apollo 11
was way better..
'Integrity' is a terrible name for a ship but though the rocket will
never look as sci-fi cool as the Shuttle it's not entirely unattractive,
in kind of a chunky, orange sort of way.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 22:54:38 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
Just the worst camerawork/editing I think I've ever seen on a space >>launch! Total amateur hour.
Booster cam glitches out, launch pad camera doesn't pan up, rocket out
of frame, wobbly, zoomed too close or too far, digital artifacts,
several pointless cuts in the span of a few seconds, then they cut to
the crowd right at SRB sep.
The broadcast footage of STS-1 in 1981 was way better. Even Apollo 11
was way better..
'Integrity' is a terrible name for a ship but though the rocket will
never look as sci-fi cool as the Shuttle it's not entirely unattractive, >>in kind of a chunky, orange sort of way.
https://lite.cnn.com/2026/04/04/science/artemis-2-toilet-malfunction
Robotic space probes don't have that problem.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 63 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 493001:38:42 |
| Calls: | 840 |
| Files: | 1,302 |
| D/L today: |
9 files (7,185K bytes) |
| Messages: | 267,829 |