5

I was enjoying the Trailer to the YouTube site Kinematic, and I noticed that the satellite or model shown in the beginning looks different than how I remember the original Sputnik - specifically the location and direction of the antennas. While the satellite is shown, the narration begins:

"Sixty years ago, the Russians beat us into space. We didn't deny Sputnik was up there. We didn't argue about the science..."

Is this a representation of a Sputnik? If not, what is it supposed to be?

"Bonus points" Where is this clip from - is it old "found" footage, perhaps from some 1960's documentary?

enter image description here

above: GIF reconstructed from screen shots from the Kinematic Trailer.

uhoh
  • 148,791
  • 53
  • 476
  • 1,473
  • It looks like cheap CGI to me. – Organic Marble Jan 07 '17 at 16:43
  • 2
    @OrganicMarble If so, they've gone to some trouble to give the surface of the satellite a distinct pattern and texture, have realistic insulators/feedthroughs for the antennas, lighting and shadows that could come from a 100W light bulb or flood light (shadows show the source of light is extended), and added what appear to be defects in the "film" (scratches, etc.) and variable rotation rate or camera speeds. It looks more like a model built with some care, and then filmed with a 1960's era 8mm home movie camera, or some nice work trying to recreate all of those effects with CGI. – uhoh Jan 07 '17 at 16:55
  • 1
    @OrganicMarble cheap CGI might look more like this: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wLNpz.png – uhoh Jan 07 '17 at 17:15
  • What would have taken grainy film footage of Sputnik tumbling in darkness? – Russell Borogove Jan 07 '17 at 18:38
  • 2
    @RussellBorogove Aw come on, I'm sure it's a model or mock-up, but I think it is old footage, not recent CGI. Anyway my main question is - is this (or was this) supposed to represent some incarnation of a Sputnik satellite? – uhoh Jan 07 '17 at 19:54
  • 2
    Wow! I found another satellite with the co-planar antennas! Well, it's not CGI, and it's from 1958. Look at 01:59 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3uysut I received this link here. – uhoh Jan 07 '17 at 20:29
  • @SF. OK I see (er... saw) what you mean about the word Sputnik, thanks! – uhoh Feb 16 '17 at 05:09
  • Looks more like Vanguard 1 – Ezra Bailey Feb 17 '17 at 23:06
  • @SarahBailey Could you consider expanding that into an answer? – uhoh Feb 18 '17 at 01:39
  • @SarahBailey last call - would you like to post an answer with a photo? I'm going to do it myself if nobody else does! – uhoh Apr 20 '17 at 19:51
  • 1
    @uhoh Thanks! But I don't think could provide reasonable enough information for anything more than a comment. It seems more like a vague resemblance anyways if the Wikipedia image is accurate: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Vanguard_1_composite.jpg – Ezra Bailey Apr 21 '17 at 18:30

2 Answers2

2

I am going to venture that what is shown is a model of a Vanguard Project satellite such as Vanguard-2. Roughly 50cm sphere with four antennas protruding in a plane spaced at 90 degrees. The similarity was also pointed out by Sarah Bailey in this comment.

Vanguard was a popular image in the West and there were several models of it available, and there are even some now.

For example see all the cool images in the Scale Model News page for September 8, 2015 Space Technology from Six Decades Ago - 1:5 Scale Hawk Project Vanguard Satellite:

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

The GIF image in the question for comparison:

enter image description here

uhoh
  • 148,791
  • 53
  • 476
  • 1,473
  • @SarahBailey based on your comment and some more research, I've ventured this as a best guess. – uhoh Oct 06 '17 at 16:00
  • I don't think I'm up for the model, but I did find NASA SP-4202 used for less than $5. – Organic Marble Oct 06 '17 at 16:48
  • 1
    @OrganicMarble $5, wow! Great price, does it include shipping? I wonder if the shipping is done by site-to-site reusable rocket perhaps? I noticed a few 50cm spheres on top of the cabinets here: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/explorer-xvii-satellite and this guy seems to have many more as well: http://greg.org/archive/2010/03/23/shiny_space_balls_yes_please_ill_take_two_no_four.html – uhoh Oct 06 '17 at 16:59
  • Yeah, from abebooks, in hardback no less. – Organic Marble Oct 06 '17 at 17:05
  • 1
    Some more Vanguard goodies: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4202.pdf 44MB PDF. Oh! Is this what you mean? – uhoh Oct 06 '17 at 17:07
  • 1
    Yes, I downloaded the pdf, and included a page from it in my other answer, but the hardback looked well worth $5. – Organic Marble Oct 06 '17 at 17:24
  • 1
    @OrganicMarble There is something about physical books that make them so much easier and gratifying to browse and read. Bits of history. Go for it! – uhoh Oct 07 '17 at 01:01
-3

Sputnik is just the Russian word used to describe all satellites. Below is a photo of a model of the 1958 sputnik in the cosmonautics museum in Moscow which is a different configuration than the video shown.

SPUTNIK

John Mackin
  • 43
  • 2
  • Yes, but the question is asking about the source and authenticity of the footage included. – Nathan Tuggy Feb 15 '17 at 20:09
  • I wonder what comes after "First of all..." did you have some additional points you wanted to make? So far this isn't really an answer, or even a helpful comment. Please try to improve this answer. It may be very helpful to take the stackexchange tour first. – uhoh Feb 16 '17 at 00:13
  • @uhoh: as long as it's a satellite, it's a sputnik. Still, it might be, say, a sea mine or something cobbled together from movie props for the intro. – SF. Feb 16 '17 at 04:29