Livestream simulated footage continues to be a joke with all space agencies, private and government alike. They really should be using KSP for it - it's not hard to wire up with external telemetry, and with couple graphics mods, it looks way better than whatever expensive commercial professional grade simulator rendering they're using (which I suspect is part of a package that may be really, really great at simulations - and is intentionally not great at visuals of this kind, as it doesn't show anything that isn't directly representing some measurement).
Honestly, they should consider outsourcing that bit.
Bonus: Try to match the speed of the tilt with the speed of the rocket in the frame.
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology-computing/item/2742-...
/s but not really
And NASA probably does have great video of it available, it’s just the live broadcast that missed it.
This was 8 years ago and is one of the greatest stuff I've seen in space launches. The footage is so epic that it even got replicated in SciFi series! ... https://youtu.be/wbSwFU6tY1c?t=1313
This was 9 years ago, first droneship landing - https://youtu.be/7pUAydjne5M?t=1642
And this is 18 years ago, their first Falcon1 launch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bET0mRnqxQM
More live video from the ascent than we got on Artemis2 for sure...
The F1 launch doesn't follow the craft and freezes as it launches. No telemetry, fancy overlays, practiced presenters, etc.
The first droneship landing and first FH flight are both long into SpaceX's evolution of how they do these videos. Today's are even slicker.
Practice has made these improve dramatically, and today's SpaceX demos blow each of your examples out of the water. That's what doing a live cast every few weeks gets you.
The feeling it evoked in me was that a multi billion dollar PR program could surely afford to spend a little bit of money on reliable camera tracking, telemetry overlays, visualisations that run at more than 0.1 FPS, etc.
Absolutely bizarre.
I'm not saying it's an easy engineering problem, but at least for LEO, the recording side is a solved problems (we all carry more than good enough hardware in our pockets), and the major challenge would be about keeping the lense/viewport clear throughout the ascent, and dealing with vibrations.
--
[0] - It already happened many times. The step shift of how black holes are portrayed after Interstellar folks did the math is the most obvious one to notice; more subtly recent productions seem to also take into account the asymmetry of the brightness, after the telescope photo of a black hole reached public awareness. But even earlier, there's e.g. been a change of how planets are shown - you see much less of the geographical atlas spheres with clear continent lines, and much more of low-angle, close-up shots that look suspiciously similar to the footage from the International Space Station.
no? why you think it would ? We know how it looks like already
For real?
I was rolling my eyes hard at:
GC systems go?
GC systems go for all for humanity!
It’s cool. But let’s not act like going around the moon is the most historic thing ever… since we’ve already done it plenty, right?
Perhaps I enjoy competence over narrative nonsense? Maybe pessimism has been highly undersold this generation and too many people are willing to buy into any basic narrative of emotion nudging they’re shown?
Again… IT IS COOL… but remind WHY on all the theatrics if you would. We put more than a dozen men on the moon, right? Why is fly once around it 60 years later that big of a deal?
It’s OK to say “They were trying to be fun and inspiring but yes it came off a little cheesy because they’re nerds.”
What SpaceX does goes in quarterly reports.
Go look what the livestream was like for the Mars Curiosity rover, it was fantastic, and that was on a mission taking place 8 minutes away. Their simulation was mostly Demo data for some parts of the mission, but included such things as what part of the control program it was in! It was even a good rendering. I screenshotted it for a desktop background.
But the camera quality is so low and I don't get it.
It seems like the entire industry has just ignored the lessons of old: "Get someone who does this for a living". They should have connections and partnerships with movie companies who actually know how to run cameras. That shouldn't be expensive nowadays, as that knowledge seems to be cheap enough for Youtube creators.