Spectacular Photo - Camera Damaged in Process.

Here is the video of the failed launch.

www.break.com...

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.

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.

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.

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]