SpudFiles

MrCrowley wrote:The solid rocket booster separation was f*cking awesome. I'm sort of glad it didn't separate from the external tank as I doubt it would have done anything but plummet straight to the earth, at least this way we can still dream it would have gone to plan.

I'm not sure about that, it rose up so beautifully, clearly they had done their homework.

The reliant didn't look too different from NASA's lifting body experiments, which went pretty well, I dare say it would have at least come to some sort of controlled crash landing.

Did you see the cut when the rocket hit the ground? I think they filmed some 1000lb bomb that was being tested at the military base that day (in the production notes for the episode) and inserted the explosion when the rocket hit the ground. Though, I don't think a 1000lb bomb makes a large fireball...

It does generate quite a bit of a fireball, but I'm sure the Reliant impact was just as impressive.

[youtube][/youtube]

Liquid burning rockets tend to blow up pretty impressively anyway though I'm not sure if this one had a warhead. Love the Werner Von Braun "I Aim For The Stars - but I keep hitting London" comment

I love James' (and the rocket guys) reaction, reminded me a bit of spudgunning.

The WIN! part, yes. But when you see their faces when it fails to separate, they are genuinely distressed. There was none of that Mythbusters who-cares-we-still-got-a-good-explosion-out-of-it attitude, and one cannot help but share that feeling.

Hmm, just found this:
[youtube][/youtube]

The only explanation is that they swapped to a different camera with a higher view over the crash site as the first camera has the rocket disappearing behind a mound, otherwise they filmed a bomb exploding.

I wouldn't put it past Top Gear to use a bomb explosion, apparently for this segment they filmed the Spitfire scene in England and had the German presenters look to the sky at the airfield in Belgium while the Top Gear presenters arrived shortly after in their Jags.

The WIN! part, yes. But when you see their faces when it fails to separate, they are genuinely distressed. There was none of that Mythbusters who-cares-we-still-got-a-good-explosion-out-of-it attitude, and one cannot help but share that feeling

Indeed, Hammond ruined the moment a bit as it seemed the Rocketeers were genuinely disappointed.

it's not fake, they changed the camera angle to get the best shot of explosions when they edited the video.

If so why does it cut directly to the explosion and not show the thing coming down. Yep, seems pretty fake now.

Indeed, Hammond ruined the moment a bit as it seemed the Rocketeers were genuinely disappointed.

Pretty much, his reaction was that of someone who hadn't put any actual work into it.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote: ...though I'm not sure if this one had a warhead.

Believe me, if it had one of me on there I think you would know

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:If so why does it cut directly to the explosion and not show the thing coming down. Yep, seems pretty fake now.

The only possible reason they would swap just before the explosion is if the second shot was stationary and didn't show the rocket coming down.

warhead052 wrote:Believe me, if it had one of me on there I think you would know

The only possible reason they would swap just before the explosion is if the second shot was stationary and didn't show the rocket coming down.

Plenty of space showing when the explosion begins at ground level, so the rocket would have been visible coming down.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote: Plenty of space showing when the explosion begins at ground level, so the rocket would have been visible coming down.

I meant a tilt shot of the rocket coming down, not a stationary one. While there is room for the rocket to be seen in that particular shot, it might not look so good swapping from a rapidly downward tilt shot of the rocket to a stationary one with half a second of rocket before it hits the ground. It would slow the action and cause a 'jump' in the viewing where you notice the cut more.

It's amazing how you can improve a cut shot so easily just by trimming the shot so the action happens just as you cut, instead of seeing the lead up. For example: if you cut when showing someone getting punched, it looks better if the cut to the new shot removes a tiny bit of footage of the start of the punch, it speeds up the action and gives a more seamless look with the viewer not even realising a portion of the action was removed.

Though I do doubt this is actually what Top Gear did as it would mean they had a camera looking in exactly the right position of the impact site. It'd be much more likely they just faked it.

Even if the crash itself couldn't be seen,that sort of explosion would still be highly visible.

It would make sense to show it from both angles if such footage was available. As you said, the point of impact was completely unpredicatble so the chances of having such a good shot of the explosion on such uneven terrain are slim indeed.

There i removed it

Uh jsefcik, I would of put some sort of warning in big letters before posting that.

Jsefcik, one day you're going to write a book about your life, and it will become a movie.

mobile chernobyl wrote:Jsefcik, one day you're going to write a book about your life, and it will become a movie.

I will pay for that movie.

warhead052 wrote:

mobile chernobyl wrote:Jsefcik, one day you're going to write a book about your life, and it will become a movie.

I will pay for that movie.

I'll wait for the DVD to land in the 2 for 5 dollar Walmart bin then watch...

I'd Netflix it... Yeah, it'd be good enough for Netflix

I'll illegally download it since the release date would be 3 months later in NZ than the US.