Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Interesting discussion about the 70mm film used by Nasa during the Apollo 11 Mission
Old 07-17-2019   #1
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,606
Interesting discussion about the 70mm film used by Nasa during the Apollo 11 Mission

It's a podcast on our Australian public fee to air radio service ... I heard it this morning and found it very interesting. Nasa has a lot of archival footage shot on this film apparently.

podcast
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #2
Peter Jennings
Registered User
 
Peter Jennings's Avatar
 
Peter Jennings is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seoul
Posts: 588
You must check out the documentary that came out this year, Apollo 11. It's amazing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #3
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Jennings View Post
You must check out the documentary that came out this year, Apollo 11. It's amazing.

I saw the trailer today ... it looks brilliant!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #4
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 487
Peter, do you have a link to the documentary by any chance?


Simon
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #5
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,648
I caught the Apollo 11 documentary Tuesday night at a local cinema. I was enthralled. The 70mm footage, (such as the opening sequence with the assembled stages being transported from the assembly building to pad 39A), feature image quality that even presented digitally at our local cinema, was superb. If you have the slightest interest in the subject it can't be missed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #6
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 75
Posts: 3,767
Seeing any of the NASA 70mm films at the five story tall IMAX 3D theater at the Kennedy Space Flight Visitor Information Center brings the experience to a totally new level. The visual impact cannot be appreciated until actually experienced.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #7
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Oh -- you mean that special film that didn't melt under 260 degree Fahrenheit daytime temps on the moon and the Hasselblad that operated under the same temps they alleged to take pictures with with almost no modifications to the off the shelf design?

Apollo 11 Launch: July 16, 1969
Eyes Wide Shut US Release: July 16, 1999*

(*Production slow-rolled by Kubrick for a year to coincide with Apollo 11 anniversary. Died suddenly before film was released. Film title changed from Russian novel "Dream Story" to EWS -- a phrase that means not to acknowledge the obvious. )

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #8
raydm6
Registered User
 
raydm6's Avatar
 
raydm6 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Central Massachusetts (USA)
Posts: 500
70mm Hasselblad Image Catalog

Apollo 11

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/a...mm/mission/?11


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
flickriver
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #9
dourbalistar
Registered User
 
dourbalistar's Avatar
 
dourbalistar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Oh -- you mean that special film that didn't melt under 260 degree Fahrenheit daytime temps on the moon and the Hasselblad that operated under the same temps they alleged to take pictures with with almost no modifications to the off the shelf design?
Almost no modifications? The Hasselblads were heavily modified, including:

Quote:
By the time of Apollo, Hasselblad and NASA were working hand-in-hand to produce the 500EL, suited for long-duration flight and the vagaries of the lunar environment. The manufacturer built a high-capacity film holder, while Eastman Kodak invented a thinner film emulsion — a combination that resulted in getting hundreds of shots out of a single magazine.

For the 500EL "Lunar Surface Data Camera," a motorized film advance was added, as was something called a Réseau plate — a piece of glass placed near the film plane that imprinted cross marks on the negatives. The crosses can be seen on many of the moon photos. They allowed for correcting film distortion and helped in judging sizes and distances of objects, "because on the moon, there's no recognizable landmarks — there's no telephone poles or houses in the distance," says Rise.

The shutter button and other controls were made larger for ease of operation wearing the thick protective gloves of the moon suit, and astronauts were given suggested exposure settings for a variety of scenarios. Among other modifications, a special lubricant was produced that could withstand the huge temperature swings of the lunar surface.

Like the earliest Hasselblad carried on the final Mercury flights, the Data Camera lacked a conventional viewfinder. Instead, astronauts went through training on Earth to learn how to aim the camera by feel from chest-level, where it was attached to the spacesuit.
__________________
I like my lenses sharp as a tank and built like a tack.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #10
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by dourbalistar View Post
Almost no modifications? The Hasselblads were heavily modified, including:
So, let's see. Bigger controls so they could operate the camera with their gloves. And something that prints a +, and a magazine so they didn't have to change rolls.

Minor mods, I say.

But what I want to know is the formula for that "special lubricant"(tm) that enabled the camera to withstand sustained 260 F heat and remain operational. That must have been some helluva "special lubricant"! I wonder what Kodak developed to keep that film from turning to goo?

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #11
dourbalistar
Registered User
 
dourbalistar's Avatar
 
dourbalistar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
So, let's see. Bigger controls so they could operate the camera with their gloves. And something that prints a +, and a magazine so they didn't have to change rolls.

Minor mods, I say.

But what I want to know is the formula for that "special lubricant"(tm) that enabled the camera to withstand sustained 260 F heat and remain operational. That must have been some helluva "special lubricant"! I wonder what Kodak developed to keep that film from turning to goo?
Is that a roundabout way of implying that the lunar landings were a hoax?
__________________
I like my lenses sharp as a tank and built like a tack.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #12
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by dourbalistar View Post
Is that a roundabout way of implying that the lunar landings were a hoax?
What camera operates in 260 F heat? Oh. Forgot. They used a "special lubricant". Try this. Take some roll film, preheat your oven to 260 F and leave it in there for several hours. Then get back to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #13
dourbalistar
Registered User
 
dourbalistar's Avatar
 
dourbalistar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
What camera operates in 260 F heat? Oh. Forgot. They used a "special lubricant". Try this. Take some roll film, preheat your oven to 260 F and leave it in there for several hours. Then get back to me.
Sure, I'll try it. First, let me borrow some tin foil from your hat.
__________________
I like my lenses sharp as a tank and built like a tack.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #14
FrozenInTime
Registered User
 
FrozenInTime's Avatar
 
FrozenInTime is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,756
The body of the camera may be at 260F, but in a vacuum heat is only passed by conduction and IR radiation, so film isolated on sprockets is okay.
__________________
It's the weird colour scheme that freaks me. Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls, which are labeled in black on a black background, a small black light lights up black to let you know you've done it.
  Reply With Quote

Interesting discussion about the 70mm film used by Nasa during the Apollo 11 Mission
Old 07-18-2019   #15
raydm6
Registered User
 
raydm6's Avatar
 
raydm6 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Central Massachusetts (USA)
Posts: 500
Interesting discussion about the 70mm film used by Nasa during the Apollo 11 Mission

Interesting reading of use of film from American Spy Balloons in 1950's.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/...tory.html#Film

It's plausible the film used on the Apollo Missions and customized 'Blads were functional. I'm curious however if they were worn at all times on the suits or used intermittently and placed back in the LEM so they weren't out in the "elements" for prolonged periods unnecessarily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
flickriver
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #16
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 915
I got curious about how the film (there's no reason a mechanical camera would suffer except lubricants, which can simply be taken out) would survive heat. Simply answer, the cameras were shielded in addition to, as noted above, not being exposed for too long. There's not much of an atmosphere, so most heat transfer would be radiation - so something like material form the tin foil hat would indeed have been very effective.

[Journal Contributor Markus Mehring, from a 13 December 2000 e-mail message - "The second Hasselblad was not a lunar surface camera. It had a black exterior, designed to suppress stray reflections, and not the silver protective cover added to the EVA cameras for thermal protection. The second Apollo 11 LM camera was for intravehicular use only and, had it been necessary to use it during the EVA, the photographic record of Apollo 11 would have been seriously compromised."
["Because the IVA camera was heat-sensitive, it could only be used in shadow. If the astronaut carrying it wanted to use it outside the LM shadow, he would have to be sure to keep his own shadow on the camera - an awkward situation - and could not have taken either up-Sun or cross-Sun photos. The fact that the IVA camera had no reseau plate would have meant that photogrammetry would not have been possible at all and that there would have been no means of checking the negatives for physical distortion during processing or storage."]
["The Apollo Hasselblads were very durable - as a result of the flight-rating process - but I don't think that the black exterior of the IVA camera would have withstood prolonged, direct exposure to sunlight in a vacuum. The IVA camera would have been of only marginal use as an EVA back-up. Considering this, I think it was an extremely risky decision to fly just one EVA Hasselblad. We know that one of the Apollo 12 EVA cameras became unusable during the second EVA and, to a lesser extent, camera problems were also experienced on Apollos 15 and 17. Therefore, hindsight suggests that the decision to fly only one EVA camera meant that there was actually a non-negligible chance of having only partial documentation of the first lunar EVA."]

from: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/H.../a11.step.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #17
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
What camera operates in 260 F heat? Oh. Forgot. They used a "special lubricant". Try this. Take some roll film, preheat your oven to 260 F and leave it in there for several hours. Then get back to me.
I guess you bought a Huff spirit box. Or maybe the DEADWAVE ITC Spirit Communication App!!!

Retinax got it all in before me. There is no reason to assume the camera or film would experience those temperatures.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #18
Peter Jennings
Registered User
 
Peter Jennings's Avatar
 
Peter Jennings is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seoul
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Twin View Post
Peter, do you have a link to the documentary by any chance?
The film actually came out earlier this year. It's being re-released now to commemorate the landing. It's available on iTunes (where I obtained it from) or any other digital download store. I haven't seen it in a theater yet, but hope to.

@Nick, I can't tell if you're serious or not. Sarcasm can be hard to detect on the internet. If you are serious, please take it somewhere else. This is not the place for crazy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #19
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 915
It becomes clearer when you think about why the moon has these more extreme surface temps compared to earth. The power input from the sun is similar enough. But objects in full sun on the moon can't give off much heat to surrounding air, so they warm up hotter than on earth. If one can prevent them form warming up in the first place, by making them reflective, the energy that goes in will be low and they'll take long to heat up. On the page I linked above, they also talk about how the gloves of the space suits didn't have cooling - the hands in them were enough to pipe the heat away to a level that was uncomfortable, but harmless. I'd wager that even naked skin would have a while before it gets harmed by the heat. There simply is no hot air there to scald it. It would warm up in the sun, much like on earth, and at first most heat would disperse into the body.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #20
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 53
Posts: 7,304
260F is the moon surface temperature when irradiated by sun light. Above the moon surface is an almost perfect vacuum and we have to consider if a vacuum can have a heat capacity. In other words, can a vacuum have an energy or a temperature? The only possibility for an ideal vacuum to have energy is radiation. The solution of that problem was one of the biggest problems in physics in the end of the 19th century because classical laws of physics concluded that the total energy becomes infinitive. The final solution was given by Max Planck.



Back to your question, as mentioned above there are no 260F in the lunar "atmosphere" and any object there will only become as hot as it is able to absorb radiation energy from the sun light.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
What camera operates in 260 F heat? Oh. Forgot. They used a "special lubricant". Try this. Take some roll film, preheat your oven to 260 F and leave it in there for several hours. Then get back to me.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #21
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Aaaaaaaaaand the armchair physicists come out to play:

1. A camera can not operate in 260 F heat (even with "special lubricants").
2. Film will turn to goo in 260 F heat.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #22
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 53
Posts: 7,304
All that doesn`t matter because there are no 260F heat on the moon. Easy solution, right?



Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Aaaaaaaaaand the armchair physicists come out to play:

1. A camera can not operate in 260 F heat (even with "special lubricants").
2. Film will turn to goo in 260 F heat.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #23
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Aaaaaaaaaand the armchair physicists come out to play:

1. A camera can not operate in 260 F heat (even with "special lubricants").
2. Film will turn to goo in 260 F heat.

Ok, I see you have the better arguments.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #24
rulnacco
Registered User
 
rulnacco is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 139
You know, if the "moon hoaxers" knew anything at all about science, there probably wouldn't be anyone who thought the moon landings were a hoax.

I've found that the majority of them whom I've ever met--damn few honestly--and the Flat Earthers (lamentably too many on social media nowadays) seem to have somehow generally made poor grades in science in school. They all get very sensitive when you point this out, and loudly declaim that having no discernible ability in science qualifies them as experts on scientific matters.

This would also likely explain the current political situation in the US and UK.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #25
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Aaaaaaaaaand the armchair physicists come out to play:

1. A camera can not operate in 260 F heat (even with "special lubricants").
2. Film will turn to goo in 260 F heat.
No—that would be you.
Rather than proffering half-baked theories about why you think they were faked, examine the abundant evidence proving that the moon landings actually occurred. Yes, I know it's inconvenient for your position, but actual integrity dictates the existence of evidence can't be ignored. You could contemplate this to start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_...ssance_Orbiter

I'm trying really hard to be polite here. Frankly, Nick, I'm surprised.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #26
Peter Jennings
Registered User
 
Peter Jennings's Avatar
 
Peter Jennings is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seoul
Posts: 588
So here was the dilemma at NASA:

Spend billions of dollars on research devising a sound plan to land astronauts on the moon and on building and testing the rockets and the other vehicles, systems, and material that would actually get them there (while losing the lives of several men in the process) and then...

a. just pretend to do it.

or

b. actually do it.

I'd think that b would be the logical choice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #27
Peter Jennings
Registered User
 
Peter Jennings's Avatar
 
Peter Jennings is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seoul
Posts: 588
Oh, yes! And not just do it once, but actually do it (successfully) 5 additional times!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #28
dourbalistar
Registered User
 
dourbalistar's Avatar
 
dourbalistar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,399
Nick is free to believe (or not believe) whatever he likes. Since this thread is not about hoaxes, let's not engage him further on the matter, or at least not here on this thread. I think he's taken us off topic for long enough.

As for the rest of us who are interested in the original topic of the thread, I found this article fascinating. It contains a lot of detail, not only about the films used on the Apollo missions, but also how they were handled and processed once they returned. There's an entire section that details the decontamination procedure they undertook before processing the film:
https://ascmag.com/articles/flashbac...hing-apollo-11

Quote:
Films selected for use on the historic Apollo 11 mission were Kodak Ektachrome EF film SO-168 (ASA 160), in 16mm and 70mm; Kodak Ektachrome MS film SO-368 (ASA 64) in 16mm, 35mm and 70mm; and 70mm Kodak Panatomic-X recording film SO-164. All films used were fabricated on Kodak’s Estar thin base, which has a 2½-mil film thickness, as compared to the standard 5-to-7 mil thickness. This reduced thickness allows up to 33 percent more film to be carried on weight and bulk — critical space missions.
__________________
I like my lenses sharp as a tank and built like a tack.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2019   #29
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,606
Kind of stunned at the direction this thread headed for a while. Hopefully it will move on from that sort of stuff!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-19-2019   #30
dourbalistar
Registered User
 
dourbalistar's Avatar
 
dourbalistar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Kind of stunned at the direction this thread headed for a while. Hopefully it will move on from that sort of stuff!
Yes, back on topic! Earlier this week, one of NASA's flickr accounts posted some stitched panoramas, including this one using consecutive frames from the Apollo 11 mission.


Panorama view of Apollo 11 Lunar surface photos
by NASA Johnson, on Flickr

There's a whole album of panorama stitches, including photos from some of the other lunar missions.
__________________
I like my lenses sharp as a tank and built like a tack.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-19-2019   #31
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,538
From the Hasselblad web site:

https://www.hasselblad.com/history/hasselblad-in-space/

History from NASA:

https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

Another place that’s interesting:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missi...1/photography/

Minneapolus Star Tribune article:

http://www.startribune.com/july-20-1...eap/167433415/


At the time they landed I was working at a Target store in the electronics department and we had every T.V. tuned in. It drew a crowd of people! Even into the night. Back then, Target only had 5 stores and I worked at the second store, Knollwood in St. Louis Psrk, MN. The first store was a converted warehouse in Roseville Minnesota. As I was a youngster attending undergrad, all the people who worked there were pretty young. It was a fun time.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

The Primary Problem Was Operating The Cameras in A Vacuum
Old 07-20-2019   #32
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
The Primary Problem Was Operating The Cameras in A Vacuum

For those who would like to know some facts, here's a link.

For the record:
  • The EVA camera was a 500EL Data Camera with a Zeiss Biogon f/5.6 60mm and a Réseau plate.
  • The EVA 'Blad had a silver-colored coating as did the film magazines.
  • The EVA 'Blad was assembled either without lubricants or with low volatility lubricants in order to eliminate lens and film contamination by hydrocarbon out-gassing in the near vacuum environment. Temperature stability was never an engineering/design concern. There is no need to put your Hassleblad in an oven. But, you could try some experiments in a vacuum.
  • The EVA 'Blad was also modified to eliminate internal static electricity when the film was advanced. This is another problem caused by operating in a vacuum. During terrestrial use static charge is dissipated by the atmosphere and internal mechanical parts.
  • Kodak provided a special thin emulsion film. There was no effort to modify emulsions to accommodate temperature extremes.
  • About a dozen EVA 'Blads from all the missions were left on the lunar surface to reduce lift-off weight.
  • Neil Armstrong smuggled a 16mm EVA movie camera back to earth. It is now in the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. One of the EVA 'Blads is rumored to have returned to earth and stolen from NASA.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2019   #33
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,949
The blad bodies and lenses were not the only stuff left on the surface to save weight. Their backpacks were shoved out the hatch after the last EVA.
Samples of lunar material were much more valuable than anything that could be left behind.
I looked at a site that cataloged 18 thousand items that now rest on the moon. From 6 LM descent stages to crashed Saturn 3rd stages to a Apollo 1 shoulder patch to honor Grissom, White, and Chaffee.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2019   #34
FrozenInTime
Registered User
 
FrozenInTime's Avatar
 
FrozenInTime is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
The blad bodies and lenses were not the only stuff left on the surface to save weight. Their backpacks were shoved out the hatch after the last EVA.
Samples of lunar material were much more valuable than anything that could be left behind.
I looked at a site that cataloged 18 thousand items that now rest on the moon. From 6 LM descent stages to crashed Saturn 3rd stages to a Apollo 1 shoulder patch to honor Grissom, White, and Chaffee.
Anyone remember ‘Salvage 1’ a fictional TV series about a scrap dealer visiting moon to recover artifacts ?
__________________
It's the weird colour scheme that freaks me. Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls, which are labeled in black on a black background, a small black light lights up black to let you know you've done it.
  Reply With Quote

the facts...
Old 07-20-2019   #35
jvo
Registered User
 
jvo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
the facts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenInTime View Post
The body of the camera may be at 260F, but in a vacuum heat is only passed by conduction and IR radiation, so film isolated on sprockets is okay.



please don't disturb me with the facts!!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2019   #36
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,179
The missing footplate sensor probe on the LEM - there are only three, none on the footplate of the leg with the ladder - is something I never noticed till reading about it in the Armstrong biography. He proposed removing it: three is enough he told them. He didn’t want to trip over it after his first step onto the Moon. I’ve really enjoyed the many high resolution close up details of the LEM this week, and last night in TV movie footage from inside the LEM.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2019   #37
julio1fer
Registered User
 
julio1fer's Avatar
 
julio1fer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 475
Now I can understand why people would want to go back to the Moon, with all those Hassys left around.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2019   #38
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 6,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
So, let's see. Bigger controls so they could operate the camera with their gloves. And something that prints a +, and a magazine so they didn't have to change rolls.

Minor mods, I say.

And no mirror or viewfinder, and a specially designed 60mm Biogon. If someone performed those mods on my Hasselblad, I wouldn't consider them minor!
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2019   #39
raydm6
Registered User
 
raydm6's Avatar
 
raydm6 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Central Massachusetts (USA)
Posts: 500
More rigorous environmental/technical/operational considerations were applicable to the TV cameras obviously. Interesting reading:

Westinghouse Engineer (1968 pdf)
Apollo Television By Bill Wood (pdf), former Apollo MSFN station engineer (see page 42 'A comparison between a Hasselblad photograph and a TV image, both taken after the flag raising')
NASA Apollo Experience Report (pdf) - Television System



"This television camera is the one Apollo astronauts will take with them when they land on the moon, held by Stanley Lebar, program manager for Westinghouse Electric Corporation in April 1969. Built by Westinghouse for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the camera is capable of operating both in the vacuum of space and in the special atmosphere of the Apollo spacecraft. In addition, the imaging tube in the camera will make it possible to produce pictures in the darkness of the lunar night. The camera can withstand temperature extremes ranging from the 250 degrees Fahrenheit it will encounter during the lunar day to 300 degrees below zero at night." (AP Photo) AP file
__________________
flickriver
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2019   #40
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,949
In Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a underwater housing for a Hasselblad is used as a prop. The scene where they are standing in front of the monolith and being photographed.

The oddest things pop into my mind.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:53.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.