Astrovision question

[MarkB.]

Doctor,

Inspired by the Omega build elsewhere in the forum and recalling the Cineroc I couldn't afford when I was 12, I blew my 40% coupon at Hobby Lobby on an AstroVision set. What's the lowdown? Have any of the "Serious Rocketeers" tried these or have I branded myself a hopeless tyro/embarassment to this forum by buying it?

Does anybody make a body tube (its a little bigger than the BT-55s I have laying around) in this size so I could build an Omega Jr. for an old-school two stage video?

Did Estes make it this funky size so we can't use a home-brew booster?

How about gutting this very flimsy looking cone and installing the camera elsewhere?

[MarkB.]

O.K.

I figured out that the tube is BT-13/BT-56 for my Omega/Cineroc homage. But I'd still like to know about all the rest.

[barone]

Doctor,

Inspired by the Omega build elsewhere in the forum and recalling the Cineroc I couldn't afford when I was 12, I blew my 40% coupon at Hobby Lobby on an AstroVision set. What's the lowdown? Have any of the "Serious Rocketeers" tried these or have I branded myself a hopeless tyro/embarassment to this forum by buying it?

Does anybody make a body tube (its a little bigger than the BT-55s I have laying around) in this size so I could build an Omega Jr. for an old-school two stage video?

Did Estes make it this funky size so we can't use a home-brew booster?

How about gutting this very flimsy looking cone and installing the camera elsewhere?
Well, I hate to say you wasted your money......the good news is you used the 40% coupon. If you are running Vista, DON"T LOAD THE SOFTWARE! It's not capatable with Vista. When I asked Estes about it, they replied (It's not capatable with Vista". Nothing about patches or anything. It's like "sorry pal". I use mine as a rocket holder for a boost glider. The length of capture time is so short, by the time you get back from the pad after turning it on, you better hope you don't get a hold or a slow launch or your picture is going to be of it just sitting on the pad. On the other hand, it isn't a bad looking rocket but kinda expensive for just that kinda rocket.

Do a serch of the forum for Aiptek and you'll get an idea of where a lot of folks here are taking the rocket camera approach.

Oh, did I mention? This rocket isn't worth the money?

[Rocket Doctor]

Doctor,

Inspired by the Omega build elsewhere in the forum and recalling the Cineroc I couldn't afford when I was 12, I blew my 40% coupon at Hobby Lobby on an AstroVision set. What's the lowdown? Have any of the "Serious Rocketeers" tried these or have I branded myself a hopeless tyro/embarassment to this forum by buying it?

Does anybody make a body tube (its a little bigger than the BT-55s I have laying around) in this size so I could build an Omega Jr. for an old-school two stage video?

Did Estes make it this funky size so we can't use a home-brew booster?

How about gutting this very flimsy looking cone and installing the camera elsewhere?

Give me the Cineroc anyday. And, it was Mike Dorffler who designed this one as well from what I understand.
Mike is very good at electronics and cameras, it took alittle time to get it into the marketplace though.

Like Don suggested, there are other cameras that can be used in place of this one.

And, the BT-56 was left over from centuri, so, that both companies couldn't use each otheres nose cones etc.

And, practically all of the RTF's are using the BT-56 tubes. Just a pain when you are designing and building a rocket since the dimensions are so close.

[CPMcGraw]

Does anybody make a body tube (its a little bigger than the BT-55s I have laying around) in this size so I could build an Omega Jr. for an old-school two stage video?Have any of the "Serious Rocketeers" tried these?...

Mark,

Just adding some commentary here. It's sad to see this product fail so miserably when it could have been standing alongside its earlier cousins in historical importance. It would have been so easy, too: It only had to work...

The tubing is available from SEMROC, in various lengths up to 18", and is known as ST-13. It was originally a dimensional component used by Centuri Engineering, and SEMROC has chosen to provide us with those same sizes today. They also have plenty of balsa nose cones and other goodies in Series 13 to make your life easier...

I used a clone of the Estes Cyclone design to fly this camera, and the results were equally disappointing. It flew better, because the clone booster was lighter and its fins more correctly aligned than the stock booster's fins. But the camera, sad to say, was just as crappy. Even the snapshot mode could not produce a single, clear image out of three taken each flight.

[dwmzmm]

But the camera, sad to say, was just as crappy. Even the snapshot mode could not produce a single, clear image out of three taken each flight.

So, are you saying you'll get your money's worth sticking with the Astrocam? I agree with
the Rocket Doctor's views on the original Cineroc. I had two during my long rocketry career.
Nothing (in my opinion) still compares to them to this day....

[Rocket Doctor]

So, are you saying you'll get your money's worth sticking with the Astrocam? I agree with
the Rocket Doctor's views on the original Cineroc. I had two during my long rocketry career.
Nothing (in my opinion) still compares to them to this day....

Dave
Yes, the Cineroc was a great camera with the Omega combination, and, you could also compare the Camroc and Delta combination as being better than the Astrocam.

It seems that the "old technology" is and has been much better than the current. The same is true for kits, compare what was 45 - 50 years ago to now.

I would like to see a rebirth to the hobby on it's 50th Anniveersary, cookie cutter designs just won't fly (pun intended)

The problem with the Astrovision is that it was PUSHED into the marketplace way before it was ready.
RD

[dwmzmm]

Dave
Yes, the Cineroc was a great camera with the Omega combination, and, you could also compare the Camroc and Delta combination as being better than the Astrocam.

It seems that the "old technology" is and has been much better than the current. The same is true for kits, compare what was 45 - 50 years ago to now.

I would like to see a rebirth to the hobby on it's 50th Anniveersary, cookie cutter designs just won't fly (pun intended)

The problem with the Astrovision is that it was PUSHED into the marketplace way before it was ready.
RD


The one "factor" I was told (over the years) of the Cineroc's demise or being dropped from
the Estes lineup was the maker of the electric motor used in the camera had ended and there were "no alternatives." Rocket Doctor, is that true or just an excuse? When my first
Cineroc crashed (on the Omega, no less -- staging failure), it happened long after the
Cineroc was apparently no more. After writing to Estes (Mary Roberts) of the incident and
how it happened (this was in 1981 or 1982, if I remember correctly), I get a brand new
Cineroc and engines (but no Omega) in the mail. (Sadly, that second Cineroc also crashed
after an ignition failure in June 2004. I have details of that flight elsewhere in this website
forum).....

[Rocket Doctor]

The one "factor" I was told (over the years) of the Cineroc's demise or being dropped from
the Estes lineup was the maker of the electric motor used in the camera had ended and there were "no alternatives." Rocket Doctor, is that true or just an excuse? When my first
Cineroc crashed (on the Omega, no less -- staging failure), it happened long after the
Cineroc was apparently no more. After writing to Estes (Mary Roberts) of the incident and
how it happened (this was in 1981 or 1982, if I remember correctly), I get a brand new
Cineroc and engines (but no Omega) in the mail. (Sadly, that second Cineroc also crashed
after an ignition failure in June 2004. I have details of that flight elsewhere in this website
forum).....

I don't know the official reason why the Cineroc was discontinued, but, I would think that there would be a electric motor manufacturer somewhere that could have made the electric motors.

In my opinion, I think that the availability of 8mm film and processing was a problem. It's like today, trying to get 110 film delevoped and also 35mm film processed. Practically everything has gone digital and there are pleanty of in home printer to process your own digital images, so, why run to the corner drug store or mass merhcndiser for processing.

I will try to find out what the reason was for the Cineroc demise. Like I mentioned the 110 film, I think at one point the Astrocam will go the way of the Cineroc and the Camroc. In the Camroc , you had the round film discs and to have them developed was a chore. I guess you can say technology took over, but, was it in our bvest interest?

If I find something out, I will post it.

[CPMcGraw]

So, are you saying you'll get your money's worth sticking with the Astrocam? I agree with
the Rocket Doctor's views on the original Cineroc. I had two during my long rocketry career.
Nothing (in my opinion) still compares to them to this day....

I think almost any camera, digital or otherwise, takes a better picture than the AV. It's not that the idea was bad; with a faster frame rate and more memory, it might have been useful. Rocket Doctor hit the nail on the head - it was rushed. It clearly was not thoroughly tested before being manufactured, or afterward.

The Aiptek camera takes far better pictures, from the ones posted on this forum. And if you get their refurbished cameras, you can get two of them for the price of one AstroVision (even with the HL 40% discount).

I'm starting to look at the new Hobby-Lobby SkyCamOne2 (http://www.hobby-lobby.com/video-camera.htm)package, which records images and videos to a standard SD memory card. The demos on their website look (at least) as good as the BoosterVision videos. With the right booster package, this could be the 'next' Cineroc.

[sandman]

My wife got me an Astrovision for Christmas. She says she used the 40% off coupon so it was only $30.

Still...what a P.O.S. :mad:

[barone]

My wife got me an Astrovision for Christmas. She says she used the 40% off coupon so it was only $30.

Still...what a P.O.S. :mad:
DITTO! Can't even use it with Vista OS.......

[sandman]

DITTO! Can't even use it with Vista OS.......

I've boxed it all back up nice and neat just like I got it and it's going back to Hobby Lobby.

Now here is the question...

If I bring it back and get, say an E Interceptor which retails for the identical $49.95, do I need another 40% off coupon??? :o

[mperdue]

This is probably already in another thread but I'll repeat it here anyway...

I built my own rocket camera for a LAUNCH Magazine article.

View a reduced resolution video (http://launchmagonline.com/blogs/hobby-rocketry/100-mdwb-october2008)

Mario

[Royatl]

I will try to find out what the reason was for the Cineroc demise. Like I mentioned the 110 film, I think at one point the Astrocam will go the way of the Cineroc and the Camroc. In the Camroc , you had the round film discs and to have them developed was a chore. I guess you can say technology took over, but, was it in our bvest interest?

If I find something out, I will post it.

Super 8mm Ektachrome 160 and processing was available for a couple of decades after the Cineroc went away. Now that I finally have my hands on a Cineroc, I can say that I can't believe the electric motor was all that special.

I'm thinking it must've been customer service complications, sales not up to Damon's requirements or a combination of both.

[snaquin]

Doctor,

Inspired by the Omega build elsewhere in the forum and recalling the Cineroc I couldn't afford when I was 12, I blew my 40% coupon at Hobby Lobby on an AstroVision set. What's the lowdown? Have any of the "Serious Rocketeers" tried these or have I branded myself a hopeless tyro/embarassment to this forum by buying it?

Does anybody make a body tube (its a little bigger than the BT-55s I have laying around) in this size so I could build an Omega Jr. for an old-school two stage video?

Did Estes make it this funky size so we can't use a home-brew booster?

How about gutting this very flimsy looking cone and installing the camera elsewhere?

I never could get a good picture out of mine with the AstroVision rocket provided with the camera. Discouraged because of this, I scrapped an almost completed BARCLONE 24mm AstroVision Booster that Craig and I discussed here:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=28339&postcount=8

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=28716&postcount=22

I dislike mine so much I'll send you the Booster I was building and the AstroVision camera and software. I'll just have to dig it out since it was packed away when I moved.

.

[Royatl]

Doctor,

Inspired by the Omega build elsewhere in the forum and recalling the Cineroc I couldn't afford when I was 12, I blew my 40% coupon at Hobby Lobby on an AstroVision set. What's the lowdown? Have any of the "Serious Rocketeers" tried these or have I branded myself a hopeless tyro/embarassment to this forum by buying it?

Does anybody make a body tube (its a little bigger than the BT-55s I have laying around) in this size so I could build an Omega Jr. for an old-school two stage video?

Did Estes make it this funky size so we can't use a home-brew booster?

How about gutting this very flimsy looking cone and installing the camera elsewhere?

As you've noted later, Estes makes most of their RTF and "walmart" models with the ST-13 as opposed to the BT-55. I think Mike Dorffler designed the Astrocam/Snapshot (way back in 1979) as well as the Astrovision, so you'll have to ask him why he chose that tube, but I suppose it already had a plastic fin can for it (which was used in the Challenger II D-powered carrier rocket).

And the tube is available from a number of sources, including Estes, Semroc, and Sunward.

[sandman]

This is probably already in another thread but I'll repeat it here anyway...

I built my own rocket camera for a LAUNCH Magazine article.

View a reduced resolution video (http://launchmagonline.com/blogs/hobby-rocketry/100-mdwb-october2008)

Mario

Mario,

I may do something similar but with the BoostertVision camera.

For my BoosterVision I use a cheap (Like $89.00 new!) TV with a 12V cord and built in VCR. Works real good too as long as I keep the reciever aimed at the rocket/nose cone.

The thing I like about the BoosterVision is the sound of the rocket on boost. :D

[tbzep]

Mario,

I may do something similar but with the BoostertVision camera.

For my BoosterVision I use a cheap (Like $89.00 new!) TV with a 12V cord and built in VCR. Works real good too as long as I keep the reciever aimed at the rocket/nose cone.

The thing I like about the BoosterVision is the sound of the rocket on boost. :D

I used a little TV transmitter cam in mine. I still haven't rebuilt it after the vectored thrust incident, but I did get around to rebuilding the Omega sustainer. :rolleyes:

[mperdue]

I used a little TV transmitter cam in mine. I still haven't rebuilt it after the vectored thrust incident, but I did get around to rebuilding the Omega sustainer. :rolleyes:
I thought about going with a transmitter but I decided to go for HD video instead.

Mario

[tbzep]

I thought about going with a transmitter but I decided to go for HD video instead.

Mario

I'd love to do HD video, but I wanted a 1:1 scale model. I was able to build it light enough to fly low flights on a single C11-3 in small places and stage D12 to D12 just like the original Omega Cineroc in larger fields.

[dwmzmm]

Super 8mm Ektachrome 160 and processing was available for a couple of decades after the Cineroc went away. Now that I finally have my hands on a Cineroc, I can say that I can't believe the electric motor was all that special.

I'm thinking it must've been customer service complications, sales not up to Damon's requirements or a combination of both.

Maybe the Rocket Doctor can chime in should he see this, but the story most of us got
back in "those days" was the Japanese manufacturer of those electric motors had went
out of business (or something to that effect) and Estes/Damon quit marketing the Cineroc
when they did -- guess the supply would be depleted sooner or later.

BTW, we have several outstanding model rocketeers (and Cineroc experts) who can still load
Super 8 mm Ektachrome film in those flight cartridges (and develop them, too). My most
recent successful Cineroc flight was June 5, 2004; got a good half minute of footage at JSC.
The next flight the following weekend ended in a spectacular prang, ruining the Cineroc
payload in the process. I collected enough pieces & components of the crashed Cineroc that
I hope to rebuild a "new" one someday (maybe in 2009!). Below a few pics of that last
successful flight and the prang :( .

[luke strawwalker]

Super 8mm Ektachrome 160 and processing was available for a couple of decades after the Cineroc went away. Now that I finally have my hands on a Cineroc, I can say that I can't believe the electric motor was all that special.

I'm thinking it must've been customer service complications, sales not up to Damon's requirements or a combination of both.

I agree with your observation... probably more a customer service issue than anything else. IIRC, the "film packs" for the Cineroc were only available from Estes (unless you "rolled your own" and the developing had to be done by Estes since the Cineroc used a non-standard film length which local processors couldn't handle (again, unless you developed your own). Same thing was true of the circular negatives for the Camroc. The film and holders were made by Estes (read they were hand cut and made by Gleda Estes in the early days) and the exposures had to be sent back to Estes for development, since nobody local could handle the round negatives, and the Tri-X film was kinda 'out there' too for a lot of local film developers. Of course, again, if you were willing to 'roll your own' you could cut the film and load it in the holders and develop your own, if you were dedicated enough.

What I always wanted to see was an 'Astrocam' type rocket in a 35mm format. The larger negative in conjunction with a high-ISO speed film and high shutter speed could have returned some pretty slick photos, especially from a "D" or higher powered bird, and if such a design were MOTORIZED for multiple exposures, that would have been the cat's pajamas...

I guess digitals have made that idea completely obsolete, but there are still some things that film can do better than digitals... At least the digital revolution has made it all easier...

From what I read of the Astrovision specs I wasn't impressed at all-- the earlier Estes Oracle seemed a better camera. Is the Oracle still available?? Perhaps if the AV were retooled to 1) actually have enough onboard memory to be useful, IE enough for say 60 seconds of video (at least) or say 12 pics in photo mode, 2) standardized to run on Vista (much as I hate it, it AIN'T going anywhere so vendors better make the best of it and do the reworks to make thier products compatible) and/or 3) set up to use simple interchangeable media like SD cards, USB, etc. for more compatibility and interchangeability.

I think if they'd do that they'd have a good product... until then, as others said, not worth the money... JMHO! OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

As you've noted later, Estes makes most of their RTF and "walmart" models with the ST-13 as opposed to the BT-55. I think Mike Dorffler designed the Astrocam/Snapshot (way back in 1979) as well as the Astrovision, so you'll have to ask him why he chose that tube, but I suppose it already had a plastic fin can for it (which was used in the Challenger II D-powered carrier rocket).

And the tube is available from a number of sources, including Estes, Semroc, and Sunward.

Actually not Estes... I've checked their catalogs and parts suppliers, various vendors and their suppliers, and even called Estes themselves... they don't offer it as a seperate part...

Semroc, Sunward, and Totally Tubular, and various discount vendors thereof generally popular on these forums, have or can get them. Not Estes... (at least not for me)

Hope this helps! OL JR :)

[Royatl]

Actually not Estes... I've checked their catalogs and parts suppliers, various vendors and their suppliers, and even called Estes themselves... they don't offer it as a seperate part...



They did, and not that long ago; but you're right, I haven't seen it available in the stores for awhile. Possibly the only use they have for it now is with the color- or foil-coated versions.

[Royatl]

The film and holders were made by Estes (read they were hand cut and made by Gleda Estes in the early days) and the exposures had to be sent back to Estes for development, since nobody local could handle the round negatives, and the Tri-X film was kinda 'out there' too for a lot of local film developers.

Tri-X? Really? That was like the standard news film at the time the Camroc was around. It had been in production for over ten years so just about any lab should've been able to handle it, notwithstanding the physical difficulties of dealing with a round negative. D-76 was what I used in '69 or '70 (the avatar picture was taken with a Diana plastic camera!), but HC-110 or Rodinal was what the pro labs usually used. Heck, even Dektol (used to develop paper prints) could be used with a little degradation in quality and higher contrast.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Diana_camera.jpg/250px-Diana_camera.jpg

[luke strawwalker]

Tri-X? Really? That was like the standard news film at the time the Camroc was around. It had been in production for over ten years so just about any lab should've been able to handle it, notwithstanding the physical difficulties of dealing with a round negative. D-76 was what I used in '69 or '70 (the avatar picture was taken with a Diana plastic camera!), but HC-110 or Rodinal was what the pro labs usually used. Heck, even Dektol (used to develop paper prints) could be used with a little degradation in quality and higher contrast.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Diana_camera.jpg/250px-Diana_camera.jpg

Well, I remember reading that somewhere... probably the "Handbook of Model Rocketry" by Stine... I remember reading that the film had to be 'pushed' to like 1600 ISO or something... I'm sorta of a camera amateur-- more interested in the shooting side than the developing side.

Still it was a really neat design that took some OUTSTANDING (if B/W) photos, from the level of detail I've seen in them... :) Too bad we don't have anything comparable today... (and perhaps a bit more 'user friendly' :) ) OL JR :)

[tbzep]

Well, I remember reading that somewhere... probably the "Handbook of Model Rocketry" by Stine... I remember reading that the film had to be 'pushed' to like 1600 ISO or something...


That just means you leave the film in the developer longer. It would be no more difficult than developing at regular 400 ISO. When I was in college, I was often recruited by one of the school newspaper guys to shoot bands that he was writing about as they played live. The club didn't like flash photography for whatever reason, so I pushed all my film to 1600. It makes things extra grainy and contrasty with the dark room and low stage lighting, but it got the job done. In that regard, we did have to do more work at the enlarger dodging and burning, but film developing was no different other than time.