Can anyone identify this rocket?

[Tim51]

Hi all

I was just wondering if anyone can identify this rocket featured in the photo accompanying this recent report:

<<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/10/sirte-libya-forces-capture-university-isis-islamic-state>>

Thanks

 

[adrian]

Hi all

I was just wondering if anyone can identify this rocket featured in the photo accompanying this recent report:

<<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/10/sirte-libya-forces-capture-university-isis-islamic-state>>

Thanks

It looks similar to an SA-3 "Goa" SAM, but lacks the small fins on the nose which would steer it. That makes it an interesting scale model variant, partly because it would be more stable without the nose fins, and partly because that's four less fins you need to build!

 

[Tim51]

It looks similar to an SA-3 "Goa" SAM, but lacks the small fins on the nose which would steer it. That makes it an interesting scale model variant, partly because it would be more stable without the nose fins, and partly because that's four less fins you need to build!

Thanks! Yes, I was also thinking it would make a great candidate for a scale build.

 

[rharshberger]

Hi all

I was just wondering if anyone can identify this rocket featured in the photo accompanying this recent report:



Thanks

First of all I belive the photo is actually a photoshopped image. However the missle is a S-125 Pechora ( NATO codename SA-3 Goa). The Goa even with the small forward sustainer fins can be a excellent flier, I built a low power sport scale version. The caption of the photo is probably incorrect as well since the Goa is a Anti-Aircraft missle, but when does the media ever tell the whole truth. As stated earlier the canards are missing from the sustainer, which were probably removed in the photo editing process.

 

[Tim51]

First of all I belive the photo is actually a photoshopped image. However the missle is a S-125 Pechora ( NATO codename SA-3 Goa). The Goa even with the small forward sustainer fins can be a excellent flier, I built a low power sport scale version. The caption of the photo is probably incorrect as well since the Goa is a Anti-Aircraft missle, but when does the media ever tell the whole truth. As stated earlier the canards are missing from the sustainer, which were probably removed in the photo editing process.

Thanks for the input. Yes the more I look at the photo the more I suspect you're right that it's been 'shopped: 1) Since Adrian kindly pointed me in the right direction by identifying it, I've done a bit of searching around the Pechora/Goa and so far haven't found single image of a variant without the nose canards.(2) Apart from the rocket being uncharacteristically sharp and unblurred considering its depicted moving at speed, there's also a strange wobble in the sustainer profile just before and after the white band. There also appears to be differing degrees of granularity in the picture between the rocket and the background (3) The diameter of the SA3 is 37.5cm, which is out of proportion in relation to the figures in the picture.

Anyway, all that aside, if you have any pictures of the sport scale version you built, would love to see 'em!

 

[rharshberger]

Thanks for the input. Yes the more I look at the photo the more I suspect you're right that it's been 'shopped: 1) Since Adrian kindly pointed me in the right direction by identifying it, I've done a bit of searching around the Pechora/Goa and so far haven't found single image of a variant without the nose canards.(2) Apart from the rocket being uncharacteristically sharp and unblurred considering its depicted moving at speed, there's also a strange wobble in the sustainer profile just before and after the white band. There also appears to be differing degrees of granularity in the picture between the rocket and the background (3) The diameter of the SA3 is 37.5cm, which is out of proportion in relation to the figures in the picture.

Anyway, all that aside, if you have any pictures of the sport scale version you built, would love to see 'em!

There is an entire thread devoted to its construction, flights and its issues. The sustainer was lost when I accidentally put an 18" chute instead of a 12" and it got carried away by thermals. The nose on my version required exactly 1 oz of nose weight.
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?70827-SA-3-Goa-Semi-Scale-2-Stage-with-Cluster-Booster

Its one of my favorite designs along with the Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules family of missles.

 

[manixFan]

First of all I belive the photo is actually a photoshopped image...

Thanks for the input. Yes the more I look at the photo the more I suspect you're right that it's been 'shopped: ...

It is a real launch. It is being used as a ground to ground missile as the caption states which is probably why the canards be missing. Here's a link to an article in which two images of the launch are shown:

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/08/the-fight-against-isis-in-libya/495143/

The image linked to by the OP is at the top but if you scroll down to the bottom of the article and you'll see another picture of the launch. No way is that Photoshopped. The source is Reuters which has extremely high standards for vetting sources. Not only that but that would be a very difficult image to fake. The issues you think you saw with the image are the result of the lens, distance, and effects of the way the chip captures images.

Here is an image (very low quality) that shows a launch with either very small or no canards.

https://baodatviet.vn/quoc-phong/bi...n-lua-dang-bao-ve-viet-nam-3273196/#slideshow


Tony

 

[rharshberger]

It is a real launch. It is being used as a ground to ground missile as the caption states which is probably why the canards be missing. Here's a link to an article in which two images of the launch are shown:

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/08/the-fight-against-isis-in-libya/495143/

The image linked to by the OP is at the top but if you scroll down to the bottom of the article and you'll see another picture of the launch. No way is that Photoshopped. The source is Reuters which has extremely high standards for vetting sources. Not only that but that would be a very difficult image to fake. The issues you think you saw with the image are the result of the lens, distance, and effects of the way the chip captures images.

Here is an image (very low quality) that shows a launch with either very small or no canards.

https://baodatviet.vn/quoc-phong/bi...n-lua-dang-bao-ve-viet-nam-3273196/#slideshow


Tony

The missle in the second link is a S-75 aka SA-2 Guideline, most Vietnam era pilots are intimately familiar withe SA-2.

I disagree on the authenticity of the first photo ( in the OPs original post) for two reasons. #1 no one is protecting their ears, those missles are extremely loud, #2 everyone on one both sides of the road is looking in the same direction and its not at the missle. As for the quality of Reuters, they are a media orgnization like any other and of the same quality as all the rest.

 

[manixFan]

The missle in the second link is a S-75 aka SA-2 Guideline, most Vietnam era pilots are intimately familiar withe SA-2.

I disagree on the authenticity of the first photo ( in the OPs original post) for two reasons. #1 no one is protecting their ears, those missles are extremely loud, #2 everyone on one both sides of the road is looking in the same direction and its not at the missle. As for the quality of Reuters, they are a media orgnization like any other and of the same quality as all the rest.

I've been teaching Photoshop for over 20 years and have worked with many media organizations. You may know your missiles but I know Photoshop and image retouching as well as video special effects. After looking at the photos there is no evidence common to retouching. More importantly there is no reason for anyone to fabricate that image, especially a Reuters source.

Here are other images of that launch:

https://www.voanews.com/a/libyan-islamists-increase-condemnationof-us-airstrikes/3451370.html

https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Hot-off-the-Arab-press-463862

You now have to argue that someone went to a lot of trouble to fabricate 4 different views of the same launch for a highly respected news organization. Or that just one of those four images is fake. What would be the purpose of such a fabrication? Why would someone take the time and energy to do that?

You make it clear that you don't think much of news organizations. I can tell you from having worked with many news photographers over the years the number one thing they have to protect is their integrity as to the source of the image. If the source was ISIS that would be suspect.

Think what you want but those are real images.


Tony

 

[Tim51]

There is an entire thread devoted to its construction, flights and its issues. The sustainer was lost when I accidentally put an 18" chute instead of a 12" and it got carried away by thermals. The nose on my version required exactly 1 oz of nose weight.
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?70827-SA-3-Goa-Semi-Scale-2-Stage-with-Cluster-Booster

Thanks that was clearly a great build. Particularly like the way you built the squat interstage reducer.

Its one of my favorite designs along with the Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules family of missles.

My own candidates for future builds from that era of US missiles are the Typhon (if I could come up with a way of making a faux ramjet sustainer!) and a test vehicle called 'Squirt' which was flown during the development of the Sprint ABM. There are great images of both on the White Sands Museum website.

 

[TopRamen]

I've been teaching Photoshop for over 20 years and have worked with many media organizations. You may know your missiles but I know Photoshop and image retouching as well as video special effects. After looking at the photos there is no evidence common to retouching. More importantly there is no reason for anyone to fabricate that image, especially a Reuters source.

Here are other images of that launch:

https://www.voanews.com/a/libyan-islamists-increase-condemnationof-us-airstrikes/3451370.html

https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Hot-off-the-Arab-press-463862

You now have to argue that someone went to a lot of trouble to fabricate 4 different views of the same launch for a highly respected news organization. Or that just one of those four images is fake. What would be the purpose of such a fabrication? Why would someone take the time and energy to do that?

You make it clear that you don't think much of news organizations. I can tell you from having worked with many news photographers over the years the number one thing they have to protect is their integrity as to the source of the image. If the source was ISIS that would be suspect.

Think what you want but those are real images.


Tony

For me too, there is no such thing as a "Highly Respected News Organization".
When I was in Iraq, after about 8-9 months we got a TV and feed of TV News in our TOC. There were entirely made up stories on the News about things happening that were just made up stories, and we all thought it quite odd. After that I decided that the news must be a bunch oof B.S. regardless of whether it was about a war zone.



As far as the Missile, build it WITH the canards, but just hinge them so they may move about, the hinge point near the forward most point of the root edge, and they will be fine. I have two SA-3 builds in progress right now, with even the rear fins on hinges that allow them to be stored in the pre-launch condition. My lathe is complete, so I can now make the actual booster and sustainer sections from foam using a template made from a technical drawing.
That said, all rocket work is stalled at the moment due to DIY home repairs.:eyeroll:

 

[Tim51]

Thanks for posting the other images, which IMO do support your argument that this is just one incredible image that seems unlikely but is true. The broader view shot in the Atlantic Magazine explains why some of the onlookers are looking away from the missile itself – ie they’re looking at the launch truck, whilst the first image in the Atlantic does show the same slight bulge or 'wavy' profile on the sustainer that worried me.

You now have to argue that someone went to a lot of trouble to fabricate 4 different views of the same launch for a highly respected news organization. Or that just one of those four images is fake. What would be the purpose of such a fabrication? Why would someone take the time and energy to do that?

Well... setting aside this particular image, there is, as I'm sure you're aware, intense pressure / competition on photographers to come up with defining images of any news story, but particularly conflict. In this case, the newspaper website I found the image on is a respected British paper with a firm policy on altered images. But things do slip through the net, however respected any particular net is. A good example I can recall is an image from the early stages of the 2003 Iraq War, where a British soldier was shown standing amidst a group of refugees gesturing to a man carrying a child to take cover/ remain seated. The image was widely circulated, and used by respected agencies and publications. However, it subsequently emerged that the photographer (whose name I forget) had composited two separate images of the scene from a sequence in order to 'tell the story' in a single image, even though he hadn't actually captured that interaction between the Tommy and the Iraqi civilian. So I suppose my point would be that in a world of incredible images, one should remain skeptical about imagery, whilst avoiding falling down the rabbit hole of ‘moonlandings were faked’ type conspiracy theory nonsense of course.

Anyway, this is getting off topic! Thanks for sharing your Photoshop expertise and posting.

 

[woferry]

Thanks for posting the other images, which IMO do support your argument that this is just one incredible image that seems unlikely but is true. The broader view shot in the Atlantic Magazine explains why some of the onlookers are looking away from the missile itself – ie they’re looking at the launch truck

Heh. I've always had a thing for trucks, but my two main thoughts looking at the uncropped picture is 1) "wow, nice flame", and 2) I'd love to show up at Black Rock with that launch-pad.

 

[Tim51]

I'd love to show up at Black Rock with that launch-pad.

:lol: Definitely - carrying a rack of Polecat-style 15" builds no doubt!

 

[MaxQ]

Fake photo or not, definitely a Level Three.

 

[woferry]

Fake photo or not, definitely a Level Three.

Seems like a bit of weathercocking off the pad, though, should have double-checked their Cp/Cg after loading that motor (or perhaps ditch those upper fins?). Somebody must be thinking "Damn, I'm going to have a loooong walk to recover that one." At least there's a few pickups that seem to be available for recovery, though that picture may as well be a Toyota ad also.