Previous news story    Next news story

In Photos: Olympic torch to make first-ever spacewalk

By dpreview staff on Nov 8, 2013 at 09:00 GMT
Olympic torch to make first-ever spacewalk
1 2 3 4 5 7

Olympic torch to make first-ever spacewalk

A Soyuz rocket launches from Russia's space facility in Baikonur, Kazakhstan. (Photo Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls)

Source: NASA

Comments

Total comments: 117
wingalls
By wingalls (5 months ago)

Thank you DPReview for sharing my work from the last soyuz launch.
Happy to try and answer questions if there are any for me.
Thank you again - Bill Ingalls

2 upvotes
yakkosmurf
By yakkosmurf (5 months ago)

First of all, Bill takes amazing photographs. I had the pleasure of watching him work for a week before a launch a few years ago. He's a great photographer, and a great individual. Interestingly enough, he shoots Canon and Nikon gear at the same time. Canon gear for the remotes, and Nikon for the handheld shots he does.

As for the torch launch, remember that NASA did the same thing with the Olympic torch for the Atlanta games that was launched on Space Shuttle Atlantis back in 1996. Only difference here, is that the cosmonauts had a spacewalk planned, and took the torch out into space for a few minutes among the other work they were doing outside anyway this weekend. Which is quite in family with the task of hitting a golf ball off of the ISS that the Russians did during a spacewalk in 2006.

Enjoy Bill's photos. He's doing a wonderful job of photo documenting things that are truly monumental in the history of our society.

3 upvotes
ThorstenMUC
By ThorstenMUC (5 months ago)

Am I the only one always reading this news wrong, when scanning over the news:
Olympus OM-D... Olympus Stylus... Olympus torch... wait WTF? ;-)

3 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

good one :)

0 upvotes
rexmalone
By rexmalone (5 months ago)

Yes, you are the only one.

0 upvotes
1drey
By 1drey (5 months ago)

Sochi, the capital of this Olympic games, is cleared off the street dogs: https://secure.avaaz.org/de/petition/Boykott_gegen_Olympische_Winterspiele_2014_in_Sotchi/?fbdm

0 upvotes
AndreyT
By AndreyT (5 months ago)

This is how primitive trolls work, folks. The same kind of scumbags were posting the very same picture of bloodied dogs before UEFA 2012 cup in Ukraine. And before that it was used for propaganda against Beijing Olympics in 2008. Now they are distributing it as a picture of Sochi.

This 1dey poster is rather well-known as a local liar and troll. But he's usually a bit more elaborate and less obvious than he is in this primitive post.

What are people like that hoping for, I wonder? How could one expect not to get caught concocting garbage like that?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
1drey
By 1drey (5 months ago)

The thief is usually crying lowder than the others "Catch the thief", dear AndreyT, get out and collect your 50 cents from your FSB curator for lame comment.
Information of the killing of the tramp dogs, cats a etc. in Sochi: http://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http://lenta.ru/news/2013/04/17/animal/&authuser=0

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (5 months ago)

So much of symbolics get attention and funds, and so much reality gets neglected and ignored, just so that some irresponsible people can have their conversation piece.
I like Olympics just as the next man, but I could think of many better ways to spend the cost of an extra ton of fuel.

3 upvotes
Dan Mir
By Dan Mir (5 months ago)

All NASA really is a photography agency with some really powerful telephoto lens out there.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

An utterly pointless waste of money. This is what separates us from the animals. It's beautiful.

4 upvotes
Iliah Borg
By Iliah Borg (5 months ago)

http://ria.ru/space/20131110/975771873.html

0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (5 months ago)

Putin will be on the next rocket (shirtless) to bring back the torch.

5 upvotes
Benarm
By Benarm (5 months ago)

Meanwhile Obama is smoking pot, and Bush is choking on a pretzel.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

And Toronto mayor Rob Ford is doing crack in a drunken stupor down at the Danforth.

2 upvotes
digiart
By digiart (5 months ago)

I don't get all the criticism for DPR publishing this story. They published PHOTOS documenting the launch of a rocket carrying astronauts and the Olympic torch. Isn't this site about photography after all?

Many DPR readers are into astrophotography and interested in space flight. I am, and I much prefer to see space pics then read endless posts about cellphones!

7 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (5 months ago)

I know right? It's even labeled as "Other news"

1 upvote
massimogori
By massimogori (5 months ago)

By the same token, digiart, they could just mirror here Sports Illustrated website, relax and stop being hassled by people like me for new posts about photography.

0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (5 months ago)

I guess they did away with the whole symbolism of the flame after it went out in the Kremlin.

2 upvotes
alegator
By alegator (5 months ago)

That first picture looks like a graveyard...I wouldn't enter a russian rocket, not even drunk.

4 upvotes
photogeek
By photogeek (5 months ago)

Why? Their safety record is second to none.

6 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

Like anyone's gonna let you in there anyway :)
The crews of Challenger and Columbia would probably choose this "graveyard" landscape over the ocean view they had. Thank god they finally shut that space coffin down.

5 upvotes
alegator
By alegator (5 months ago)

Safety record? Are you serious? Check all the rocket explosions in the 60's during the moon space race,you'll be amazed!.It was more fireworks than rocket launches!. Add to that all the planetary mission failures by the russians.
The Space Shuttle has one of the best safety records in the industry.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

Early failures in the 60's? Oh man, that's an eye opener! How stupid are Americans to even allow their astronauts to get near a Russian rocket? They obviously haven't seen the terrifying "graveyard". Even a drunk person wouldn't get in one of those things, what does that tell you? They must be on some serious drugs - that's the only explanation. Possibly LSD.
Overall the stereotypes are confirmed - everything Russian is junk and Americans are stupid.

6 upvotes
alegator
By alegator (5 months ago)

Well, believe it or not, the old Saturn V has the best safety record to date, and there has never been anything like the Saturn V. Even today its power and design remains unmatched.
The closest thing the Saturn V had to a contemporary was the Soviet N1, which launched four times and exploded each time, almost always because of failures in the complex system that managed the N1's 30 individual first-stage rocket motors. In contrast, the Saturn V has an unblemished string of successful launches, never suffering a problem or failure significant enough to trigger an abort.
Stereotypes are never good, but facts are facts.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
AndreyT
By AndreyT (5 months ago)

And where is your Saturn V now? The facts are that today out of six operational US launch vehicles two are built on Russian engines bought directly from Russia and one more is simply reproducing a Russian design.

The Russian leadership in space launch area has already achieved the "exponential gap" quality. Nobody can ever catch up, regardless of the effort spent. So, as everyone understands perfectly well, the real reason you claim you would not step into a Russian rocket is the ordinary propaganda-induced butthurt you experience after each successful Russian launch.

Meanwhile, the situation with rockets today is pretty much the same as the situation with helicopters: there's no such thing as non-Russian rocket anymore. All rockets are Russian in one way or another. Which makes your claims rather irrelevant.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 47 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

Stating the facts is fine as long as they have something to do with the current discussion. Unfortunately this is where you have failed. Tune your vacuum tube radio, grandpa, and realize that it's not 1969 any more.

2 upvotes
alegator
By alegator (5 months ago)

You must be dreaming or drinking too much cheap Vodka. The USA does not need russian rocket engines. The SpaceX Falcon 9 is available and has been recently upgraded for improved performance (and has already been awarded contracts for launches by the US military). It has launched both the reusable "Dragon" spacecraft to the International Space Station as well as several commercial payloads. Indeed, the new heavy-lift three-core "Falcon 9 Heavy" is scheduled for a test flight in 2014, and is capable of lifting notably more mass than the Atlas 5 could. There is also the Delta IV Heavy vehicle powered by the Rocketdyne RS-68 engines (768,000 lbs of thrust vacuum) rather than Russian-made RD-180 engines (933,400 lbs of vacuum thrust). Even without the Russian engines for the Atlas V, the U.S. can still get things into Earth orbit.
And what did the russians accomplish in space in the meantime? Sent men to the moon? Successfully explored ALL planets of the Solar System and beyond?

3 upvotes
yakkosmurf
By yakkosmurf (5 months ago)

The Soyuz is the safest and most reliable manned launch vehicle ever. The foreground of the first photo is pilings setup years ago for a new set of buildings that was never completed. Baikonur is full of such relics. Bill frequently uses those as foregrounds in his pictures when he's out there.

2 upvotes
AndreyT
By AndreyT (5 months ago)

@alegator: You shouldn't have followed that good old American tradition of displacing Vodka with more serious controlled substances, and we wouldn't have to educate you here now. (Not that I hold much hope that in your condition you are responsive to any kind of education.)

If USA didn't need Russian engines, USA wouldn't be buying them, would it? Easy question, huh? :)

Meanwhile, the USA dependence of Russia is not limited to absolute reliance on Russian engines. Your rant about imaginary future US engines is funny at best. Even if it proves not to be the typical American vaporware, still all rocket engines in the world are Russian. Just because someone in USA decided to make a local copy does not make it non-Russian.

In addition to that the current US space program is completely, utterly and critically dependent on the cargo capabilities of An-124 plane. No An-124 - no US space program.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
AndreyT
By AndreyT (5 months ago)

As for space accomplishments... all US accomplishments of late are just copycats of Soviet accomplishments from 40-50 years ago. What, you finally managed to launch a rover? I'm sure Lunokhods are having a good laugh about that. You are transferring pictures from another planet? Venera was transferring pictures and video in the 1970's already. You are trying to build a rocket engine that would rival RD-180? I wish you good luck with that attempt to reproduce another Russian achievement.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
1 upvote
alegator
By alegator (5 months ago)

I have presented you with the facts but you don't seem to want to learn. Instead, you reply with hilarious statements, to say the least.
The Space Shuttle Main Engine, which will be used on the SLS also, was developed with no input from Russia. As for the AN-124, United Launch Alliance does use it to transport Atlas V rockets from the factory to the launch site. But the Atlas V is not the entire U.S. space program. The Delta IV rockets are shipped by ship. The Falcon 9 is transported by truck. The SLS stages will be shipped by sea, as were the Space Shuttle external tanks, from the Michoud facility in Louisiana. So as far as that goes, you're just blowing smoke.

2 upvotes
alegator
By alegator (5 months ago)

With respect to the copycat accusations, that's a real example of the pot calling the kettle black. If the Curiosity Mars rover is just a copycat of the Lunokhods, considering its vastly larger size and capability (and considering Russia's failure so far to accomplish a Mars landing), then every Russian airplane can be considered a copy of the Wright Flyer! lol

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
alegator
By alegator (5 months ago)

Why the US buys russian rocket engines? Because they're cheap, and the Russians were just going to destroy them. The NK-33's were intended to be used on the N-1 Moon rocket, which turned into a fiasco. It was so embarrassing that not only was the program canceled, but the upgraded engines for the next version were ordered destroyed. They weren't, though. They were warehoused instead. And when political winds changed, it became a profitable thing to sell them.
You know, your posts are so ridiculous that I'm starting to think that you have irreversible brain damage from your successful Chernobyl nuclear plant. In the meantime please keep posting because I'm having a lot of fun! lol

2 upvotes
photogeek
By photogeek (5 months ago)

Since when did Lockheed Martin buy anything because it's cheap? The US buys Russian RD-180 rocket engines because they're the most efficient in the world, and they just work. Over the past decades, enormous money was spent on the Space Shuttle program at the expense of everything else. As a result, a lot of rocket engine expertise was lost. It's a shame because the US really was second to none in rocket engine design during the Apollo missions.

0 upvotes
alegator1
By alegator1 (5 months ago)

I have explained the reasons for us buying Russian rocket engines. They have a lot of thrust for only one engine, but they are not the most efficient as you claim. The thrust to weight ratio of the RD-180 is only 78.44 to 1, while the American made F-1 engine from the Saturn V had a better T/W ratio of 94.1 (and more thrust than the RD-180). Even the "little" Merlin 1D engine (made by SpaceX for their Falcon 9) has a thrust to weight ratio of 150 to 1, which is about the highest ever achieved.

2 upvotes
alegator1
By alegator1 (5 months ago)

Also let me remind you that that all liquid fuel rocket engines began their development with American Robert Goddard, with significant enhancement and up-sizing by the German V2 rocket team led by Werner Von Braun. Had the Russians never launched Sputnik 1, we probably wouldn't have had a space program until much much later, so we can sort of "thank" them for that at least. Otherwise, the engines for the Atlas A-D, Titan 1 and 2, Saturn I-V, Delta, and Falcon rockets were all basically US designed and built. If we can't get those "cheap" Russian engines, well, there are rockets other than the Atlas 5 and the Antares we can go with.

2 upvotes
alegator
By alegator (5 months ago)

What's the scientific value of carrying a torch to space?

4 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (5 months ago)

About $1M, offhand...

0 upvotes
Iliah Borg
By Iliah Borg (5 months ago)

Is it a stylized pole axe on the photo #2?

1 upvote
luxor2
By luxor2 (5 months ago)

Tailfin from 1969 Zorki sportsmodle

0 upvotes
Waimak Stud
By Waimak Stud (5 months ago)

Um... Priorities? A country that doesn't yet want people to have equal freedoms under the law wants to send an Olympic torch into space? That doesn't make you look great, it kinda just makes you look like d1cks.

2 upvotes
photogeek
By photogeek (5 months ago)

Umm, which country are you talking about? The US doesn't have "equal freedoms" either in most states. And Russian Space Agency is the only one that can take anything into space anytime it wants. The US doesn't have a launch vehicle.

5 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

Equal freedoms? Are you an American? Well then you must be a straight white male...

1 upvote
Waimak Stud
By Waimak Stud (5 months ago)

I'm not an American, and I would probably be saying the same thing if they were doing it too. It just seems a silly distraction. I do take back I the d1ck part, because that seems directed at the people of Russia, not the leadership, and I know they don't make these decisions. I'm sorry.I'm sure if the people of Russia had the choice, they would prefer more respect for women, a repeal of the law that stops people talking about homosexuality, less threatened freedom of speech etc rather than a moonwalking torch.

1 upvote
AndreyT
By AndreyT (5 months ago)

I don't think there is anything in the world that makes you look more like d1cks than being brainwashed by American propaganda to the point where people around you stop perceiving you as member of human species. With about 95% of US population falling into that category, I don't think anyone can meaningfully criticize Russians for doing something as innocent as taking an Olympic torch into space.

1 upvote
robjons
By robjons (5 months ago)

Russian equipment looks scary, but has done better safety-wise:
By space program, 18 NASA astronauts (4.1%) and four Russian cosmonauts (0.9% of all the people launched) died while in a spacecraft.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Iliah Borg
By Iliah Borg (5 months ago)

This one was terrible killing 72 people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe

0 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

robjons I'd have to argue that the percentage of dead people is not a good safety indicator. So far both the Shuttle and Soyuz had two fatal launches/landings each, both have been launched 100-something times, just because the Shuttle can take on more people doesn't mean it's somehow less safe. However the fact that all Soyuz fatalities occurred within the first ten launches and that the same may not be said about the Shuttle is of some significance.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (5 months ago)

Im sure NASA would have done the same if they had the capacity to take people into space.

3 upvotes
yakkosmurf
By yakkosmurf (5 months ago)

And NASA did in 1996 when they had the Shuttle flying and the Atlanta Olympics...

0 upvotes
BLongborough
By BLongborough (5 months ago)

Could you give us a few specs on the torch? Like its lens foal length and aperture, and its ISO range...?

5 upvotes
Slava123
By Slava123 (5 months ago)

it's a massive pinhole camera, can't you see?

0 upvotes
Artpt
By Artpt (5 months ago)

@ 1drey, I read your link and saw the Pussy Riot documentary....she is committed and they cannot kill her for fear of martyrdom...keep the posts coming with updates...there are many causes and few interested.

0 upvotes
1drey
By 1drey (5 months ago)

@Artpt - glad to hear a voice of human. Unfortunately they can do with this woman whatever they want. As they do it now with other people. Tortures and humiliation - usual practice of Russian police and penitentiary system.
Should I remind about absurd accusation of Arctic 30 crew in piracy? They are arrested over a month already - all crew, including doctor and cook. They arrested photographer who was not neither crew or Greenpeace group member.

0 upvotes
zzzorki7
By zzzorki7 (5 months ago)

Women of this type are called ... Do not tell me how?

1 upvote
n1b
By n1b (5 months ago)

@Artpt
> and they cannot kill her for fear of martyrdom

No one wants to kill her. Don't get so hyped over this exaggerated deal.

> keep the posts coming with updates...there are many causes and few interested.

Yeah, along with the posts about Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

@1drey
> glad to hear a voice of human

You mean that one who doesn't agree with your view on Pussy Riot is not human?

> Unfortunately they can do with this woman whatever they want. Tortures and humiliation - usual practice of Russian police and penitentiary system.

No, they can't. She's not in a CIA black site (where tortures and humiliation is a usual practice), she's just in a regular penal colony (where people just serves their sentences).

> Should I remind about absurd accusation of Arctic 30 crew in piracy?

If you would make an effort to examine anything on the theme, you wouldn't call it "absurd accusation", because they really acted like pirates.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
buratino
By buratino (5 months ago)

please keep posting about photography, not about Russian or American crimes. There are enough dedicated places for those.

0 upvotes
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (5 months ago)

Perhaps dpreview needs a statement of purpose to keep them on track. How long before we a reading about what camera Kim K. is using. Which would have more relevance then this article.

4 upvotes
Stitzer23
By Stitzer23 (5 months ago)

What are the chances this makes the weekly roundup?

0 upvotes
Johannes Zander
By Johannes Zander (5 months ago)

They could light it up on reentry into atmosphere...
That would be something!

3 upvotes
Richard Franiec
By Richard Franiec (5 months ago)

@Biowizard,
News has nothing to do with digital photography. Note, that it was posted in "Other News"

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (5 months ago)

Am I the only person wondering WTF this has to do with Digital Photography?

Brian

8 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (5 months ago)

yeah you should go out and comment on every NASA related article:

30 years after rollout, take a tour of Space Shuttle Discovery's flightdeck Oct 14, 2013

Cassini spacecraft takes spectacular pictures of Saturn (oh, and Earth) Jul 23, 2013

Curiosity rover takes high-resolution self-portrait on Mars
Nov 2, 2012

Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
Aug 8, 2012

1 upvote
BLongborough
By BLongborough (5 months ago)

No, you're not the only one. I also said WTF when I saw this.

2 upvotes
Mr Fartleberry
By Mr Fartleberry (5 months ago)

I'd rather you tell us how many Hasselblads there are aboard the ISS.

1 upvote
babalu
By babalu (5 months ago)

..or OUTSIDE it, circling free with debris in orbit? I think there was at leat one ...

0 upvotes
yakkosmurf
By yakkosmurf (5 months ago)

Correct answer is none. All still cameras aboard ISS are Nikons. A mix of D2X, D3, and now D4.

0 upvotes
1drey
By 1drey (5 months ago)

DPR, don't you want to bring on the front page a photograph of Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, a member of Pussy Riot group - she is missing somewhere in the guts of re-born Gulag, hiding from the relatives, her advocates and public. Against all laws - even damned Putin's laws!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10427025/Missing-Pussy-Riot-prisoner-Nadezhda-Tolokonnikova-being-taken-to-Siberia.html

Did DPR got money from Putin's PR agency?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
zzzorki7
By zzzorki7 (5 months ago)

Nepolzhivye here and there?

1 upvote
1drey
By 1drey (5 months ago)

Potzreoty goes nahui

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (5 months ago)

This probably wouldn't have helped but I've always thought they chose a less than ideal name for their group.

0 upvotes
zzzorki7
By zzzorki7 (5 months ago)

This intelligent replica!Bravo!

0 upvotes
n1b
By n1b (5 months ago)

1. No one re-birthed GULag. It's a lie.
2. No one "hides" her. She serves a sentence for the crime she executed. There are countless news about her and dozens of interviews with her.
3. There is no such thing as "Putin's law", but there is Russian Federation law.
4. It's not "against all laws". She violated the Russian law - article 213 of Russian Federation Penal Code: hooliganism motivated by religious hatred and with the view of fomenting of religious strife.

Did 1drey got totally brainwashed by Nahalniy?

2 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (5 months ago)

Wow, the space race is back on! :-/

1 upvote
Maciek_Leopolis
By Maciek_Leopolis (5 months ago)

@ Image #4

"Olympic torch to make first-ever spacewalk"
This photo should be turned 180º. Obviously - turned LEFT.

Congrats...

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

It's about the flame, not the torch. Idiots!

5 upvotes
n1b
By n1b (5 months ago)

Could you please specify - who the "idiots" are?

0 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (5 months ago)

Maybe they were looking at the finger...

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

@n1b Idiots are people who don't know s.h.i.t. but act like they do.

0 upvotes
n1b
By n1b (5 months ago)

Do you really think that Russian, Australian and American Olympic games organizers don't know that "It's about the flame, not the torch"?

It's not a magical ritual, which can't be muddled in a slightest detail.
It's just a symbolic act for the flame (and the flame's "container" naturally) to travel the country. Sym-bo-lic.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

apparently they don't and if they do they are still idiots for pulling a stunt like this.

0 upvotes
Maciek_Leopolis
By Maciek_Leopolis (5 months ago)

@Higuel/ "Absolutely no point in taking it unlit!"
Except for 'enlighting' that whole Putin's propaganda... :(

Unlit "olimpic flame" sent into space for h(uge) load of money - isn't it a beautiful image of that post-Soviet phenomenon?

2 upvotes
n1b
By n1b (5 months ago)

OMG
[facepalm]

And what about two previous Olympic flame space trips in 1996 and 2000? Are those "Putin's propaganda" too?

0 upvotes
1drey
By 1drey (5 months ago)

1 kilogram delivered to the ISS costs $20000.

1 upvote
Maciek_Leopolis
By Maciek_Leopolis (5 months ago)

@n1b/ Are those "Putin's propaganda" too?

Mais non!
It was the other's propaganda!
The problem is, that neither Atlanta nor Sydney olympic games hosts were not running Gulag system.

Enjoy the space walk!

0 upvotes
zzzorki7
By zzzorki7 (5 months ago)

GULAG?
American Holocaust: D. Stannard (Oxford Press, 1992) - "more than 100 million dead" Do not forget?

1 upvote
n1b
By n1b (5 months ago)

@Maciek_Leopolis
> The problem is, that neither Atlanta nor Sydney olympic games hosts were not running Gulag system.

GULag system ceased to exist in 1960. And FYI there are more prisoners in modern American penal system now then it ever was in GULag.

Atlanta Olympic games host exterminated millions of Indian people, and killed and enslaved millions of black African people. Not to mention countless acts of external aggression (Libya and Siria are the latest).

And regarding Sydney Olympic games host. Don't you even know how Australia was colonized? It's the only continent on Earth, that served as a giant prison. GULag is a child play in comparison to the "AUSTRALIALag".

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Maciek_Leopolis
By Maciek_Leopolis (5 months ago)

@n1b/GULag system ceased to exist

Your dreams are beautiful, and Greenpeace guys are supposed to be pirates, so 'dyadya' Putin loves all the mankind...

Nah zdarovye!
To your impressive dreams

@"there are more prisoners in modern American penal system now then it ever was in GULag."
- you really believe in what you write - ???
condolences

0 upvotes
n1b
By n1b (5 months ago)

> Your dreams are beautiful

What are you talking about? What does that had to do with the fact (!) that GULag system ceased to exist in 1960?

> Greenpeace guys are supposed to be pirates

If you act like a pirate, be sure that you'll be treated like a pirate.

> so 'dyadya' Putin loves all the mankind

Of course not, he is Dr.Evil who's only life goal is to exterminate The Freedom and The Good People.
It seems like you've been watching comics too much.

> Nah zdarovye!

Did you add the 'h' letter on purpose? You're trying to be rude, aren't you? That's nice, because you've ran out of arguments.

> you really believe in what you write

I don't need to believe in it, because I know that it's a fact.
Do you believe that the sky is blue or do you know it? It's the same with statistic values.

> condolences

Leave them to yourself, my dear "believer".

0 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (5 months ago)

The whole point of the torch is to carry THE flame! Absolutely no point in taking it unlit! With all this work and expense, the least they could do was devise some kind of safety transparent cover to encapsule it and have it working! Otherwise is simply pointless!

4 upvotes
n1b
By n1b (5 months ago)

> devise some kind of safety transparent cover to encapsule it and have it working

And where do you suppose to get oxygen for it to burn? Especially in the open space.

It's a symbolic flight of the Olympic torch, nothing more. [Symbolic] is the key word here.

0 upvotes
BadScience
By BadScience (5 months ago)

Obviously, the safety factor concerning the flame is not the only issue.

Even if the safety issue could be addressed, flames need oxygen. Oxygen is a a limited resource in a space ship and best used for breathing rather than burning.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
1 upvote
photogeek
By photogeek (5 months ago)

Oxygen can be supplied from the torch itself, same principle as with rocket engines. Those guys have been launching stuff into space for 65 years now. Do you think that maybe they have a modicum of competence?

0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (5 months ago)

...ever heard of an "inner" flame?

0 upvotes
BadScience
By BadScience (5 months ago)

Photogeek - oxygen takes up volume (obviously). The volume of air in a space craft is limited and is better spent on breathing than burning a fire.

Regarding competence - no I do not think that there is enough competence to have a burning flame inside a space ship. Which is why it is never ever done.

If the oxygen was contained in the torch itself (as you suggest); then what you have is a bomb: a flame atop a bomb, in a confined space. No engineer would even attempt such a thing, even on earth, without very tight control procedures including fire management and escape routes - none of which are possible in a space ship.

I work in confined space engineering and naked flames are without a special permit and very strict controls: trained fire control persons on site; fire brigade on standby, escape routes cleared and managed and several hours of cool down watch.

No, a modicum of competence is not needed to light a flame inside a space ship - you'd have to be insane!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
photogeek
By photogeek (5 months ago)

Why "inside" a spaceship. It can burn perfectly well outside. That's what engines do. It doesn't even need to burn for long. But even inside, if it doesn't burn too long, the flame would be perfectly fine. ISS is a big place, and they can haul all the oxygen necessary up there. It used to be that the atmosphere in spacecraft was pure oxygen, but once a few of our astronauts burned alive, that was changed to air (nitrogen + oxygen).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BadScience
By BadScience (5 months ago)

photogeek, your answer shows why engineers fly spaceships and not photogeeks! You show an utter lack of engineering knowledge. Or maybe you know much better than the experts? You could have explained to them how to do it?

ISS is NOT a big place. A spark or out of control flame would destroy the place in seconds.

1 upvote
massimogori
By massimogori (5 months ago)

It is interesting to know that NASA is now taking pictures for the Russians. Maybe they are available for some weddings, too.

Thanks for the interesting update, Dpreview!

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (5 months ago)

They still don't do weddings but will consider the occasional Bar Mitzvah if the food is good.

0 upvotes
yakkosmurf
By yakkosmurf (5 months ago)

NASA is not taking pictures for the Russians. A NASA photographer is on hand to photo document the space travels of an American being launched into space. Much like Japanese photographers were there due to a Japanese astronaut being on this mission. When the launch doesn't involve an American, no NASA photographer is present.

1 upvote
Lawrencew
By Lawrencew (5 months ago)

I am sure there is a relevance to DPReview in there somewhere I just haven't spotted it yet, or is every news story that includes a photograph now 'fair game' for DPR?
And why wasn't this shot on an iPhone?

14 upvotes
peterwr
By peterwr (5 months ago)

And this is on a photography news site because...?

10 upvotes
BigJ2013
By BigJ2013 (5 months ago)

My thoughts exactly. So why post Formula 1 results!

0 upvotes
1drey
By 1drey (5 months ago)

Because Ketchum got some money stolen from Russian people to get it on the front page of DPR.

Shame.

0 upvotes
JohnEwing
By JohnEwing (5 months ago)

Much ado about SFA.

1 upvote
Charlie boots
By Charlie boots (5 months ago)

We have millions starving on the planet. There is a huge typhoon hitting the phillipines which will devastate the lives of thousands and we spend millions sending the olympic torch to the space station and back instead of helping these people. What a farce and a shame on us all.

All so greedy corporate intersts can milk the consumer for even more.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
JohnEwing
By JohnEwing (5 months ago)

Pardon me, but the "we" that sent the daft article to the ISS did not include yours truly. If consulted, I could have told them where they could put their torch much more cheaply, albeit painfully.

2 upvotes
bossa
By bossa (5 months ago)

And with a healthy flame to boot ;-)

0 upvotes
M0P03
By M0P03 (5 months ago)

The sending the olympic torch to the space doesn't cost millions. It costs about $15000. $10000 per kg.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (5 months ago)

"all so greedy corporate intersts can milk the consumer for even more" - so you're relating the sending of the torch to mass hunger and a natural calamity? and that because they are doing this "we" aren't helping people at all?

3 upvotes
Benarm
By Benarm (5 months ago)

Beautiful!

2 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (5 months ago)

"The torch will remain unlit "
...There! I was wondering... :-D

2 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (5 months ago)

Hopefully somewhere in space there's an Zippo lighter...

3 upvotes
n1b
By n1b (5 months ago)

There's no need for the Zippo, because the flame will not be lit in space.

0 upvotes
1drey
By 1drey (5 months ago)

LOL
There should be a security agent with Zippo for sure (they are omnipresent) - http://youtu.be/nzwid7jeqiE

0 upvotes
DonInPgh
By DonInPgh (5 months ago)

The unlit torch is an analogy to what this site has become. The flame has gone out.

Posting this article is ridiculous and has nothing to do with digital photography. Can't we please give the site back to the original ownership and sent it back to Britain? Make it a good strong site about digital cameras, not a news aggregator with a heavy focus on cell phone?

Bring back dcresource.com too!

1 upvote
Total comments: 117