Proton HAS LAUNCHED!

[Ultimate Steve]

In the first video I can see five dots with one dimmer one. Later on in the video it all merges into one symmetrical dot without the dimness on one side. In the second video I can clearly see the six dots. Now, it may look like an engine failure, but I don't think it is.

The Proton uses an oxidizer rich cycle (I don't remember what for) and as a result it vents some of the Dinitrogen Tetroxide (the red stuff, I think). Above a certain temperature, N2O4 is red, but below a certain temperature it is clear. The disappearance of the red plume during the videos would be because it got to a certain altitude where the air is colder.

What I think happened:

Video 1: N2O4 plume obscures engine #6 making it look like it failed. Later on N2O4 becomes transparent, but only after the rocket is far away enough for the flame to be a blob. However it was a very symmetrical blob, and at that point we were seeing the rocket directly from the bottom. The symmetry of the blob would mean that all engines were functioning.

Video 2: the camera angle is as such that the N2O4 plume (which there is only one of) does not obscure engine #6. All engines appear to work properly.

Plus, Proton appears to fly straight through both videos, an engine failure would have meant somewhat crooked flight.

Plus, EchoStar is reporting that the sat is in orbit.

 

 

 

 

[Kryten]

Proton uses an ORSC engine, so it doesn't have a separate GG exhaust. The nitrogen tet plume is just some that was left in the pipes after fuelling was completed.

[RedKraken]

3 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

No. There was totally one engine down on one video and non on the other. Watch the engines as it ascends. It could not be more obvious that one engine is not running. Its not Spaceflight 101s fault every video of the Proton launch released today is a video of a different launch with all engines firing. I'll do some screen grabs later.

Proton could not complete this mission with a first stage engine failure. The delta-v budget would be wrecked, the lower twr would change the flight profile a lot, the payload would not have made LEO and a lot of very experienced rocket-watchers would be commenting on-line.

[Kryten]

Even in the darkest parts of the soviet period the russians never reported a complete failure as a success. They're hardly likely to start now, and with a US commercial payload.

[Motokid600]

I guess in the end the live video feed from last night was too low res to really tell, but.... I cant help but notice how there is definalty five lights on the bottom of this rocket. That asymmetric.   

Vs the much higher quality footage uploaded today. 

So.... I dont know fellas you sure about this? You sure Russia didnt pull the old switcharoo here?   

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Motokid600

[Starman4308]

37 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

I guess in the end the live video feed from last night was too low res to really tell, but.... I cant help but notice how there is definalty five lights on the bottom of this rocket. That asymmetric.    

Vs the much higher quality footage uploaded today.  

So.... I dont know fellas you sure about this? You sure Russia didnt pull the old switcharoo here?   

Pretty sure. The first image can easily be explained by low-quality imagery: the fact that the satellite has been confirmed as reaching its target orbit cannot be explained away, not with the published specs of the Proton launcher and its payload.

If you need to lie about what they lied about... it's time to stand back, think about what you're doing, and in the case of Russia, instead look at the things they very, very clearly lied about. There's no shortage of those; we don't need to make up something like this.

[Motokid600]

Fair enough. After watching it like 20 times I'm actually fairly confinement in saying that stream of N204 is blocking the engine bell.

[kerbiloid]

Echostar 21 conspirancy. Did Russians put the commsat on the orbit, or just emulate its work from ground with Morse code?!