1929 Zeiss Ikon to be used on board current shuttle to service Hubble telescope

Bob Michaels

Bob Michaels

nobody special
Local time
10:42 PM
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
4,590
Location
Apopka FL (USA)
View My Gallery
What a fantastic thing to do .... John Grunsfield is amazing and I was intrigued by his comment that he feels truly at home when he is in space and would actually like to live there in the future!

I'd love to be there when that film comes out of the developing tank! 🙂
 
If you took it from the inside of the shuttle into space, the vacuum of space would cause the bellows to blow up like a balloon and burst because of the air inside the camera. Unless you equalized the pressure😱
 
I have one of these! I would love to try it out but have no clue on how to get film for it.
 
This is really a cool report. An antique Zeiss Ikon camera to used inside the space shuttle! Long live film photography.
 
This is a cool story but it costs $10,000 per pound to launch anything into orbit. I am not sure this is the best use of our taxes when there are lighter and more functional cameras available today compared to 80 years ago.
 
Eric T said:
This is a cool story but it costs $10,000 per pound to launch anything into orbit. I am not sure this is the best use of our taxes when there are lighter and more functional cameras available today compared to 80 years ago.
Click to expand...
Wow. By that math we shouldn't take any camera up. Once they get there, they're all weightless though. 😀
 
Trius said:
Wow. By that math we shouldn't take any camera up. Once they get there, they're all weightless though. 😀
Click to expand...


Trust a bean counter to spoil our fun Earl ... 🙄

See, sometimes logic and common sense are just wrong! 😛
 
We should only launch border-line anorexic midgets based on that theory.

Of course, a true cost-benefit analysis would lead to 10x more remotely piloted spacecraft and the only human space travel would be those private vanity trips that Billionaires arrange.
 
Eric T said:
This is a cool story but it costs $10,000 per pound to launch anything into orbit. I am not sure this is the best use of our taxes when there are lighter and more functional cameras available today compared to 80 years ago.
Click to expand...


Relative to the total cost it's nothing.

Considering that such missions are conducted by humans and not robots then the human angle is very important not only for the sake of the equilibrium of the humans but also in humanising the mission itself for the sake of the tax-payer. Henry Ford may have convinced many of us to accept the 'life' of a pseudo robot but anyone with any sense will resist such moves except in the case of starvation.

Let him take his camera.
 
Pressure won't build up in those cameras or lenses. They're far from airtight! They'll quickly equalize themselves.

There are plenty of anorexic 4 ft. 8 inch chicks weighing under 80 pounds that could become astronauts. The space suits would be smaller and cheaper, they'd require less food and water for the voyages, etc. If all this was of such major concern why did they choose Hasselblads instead of Olympus Pen's for the first moon landing?
 
Keith said:
What a fantastic thing to do .... John Grunsfield is amazing and I was intrigued by his comment that he feels truly at home when he is in space and would actually like to live there in the future!
Click to expand...

Keith: I have always been an unabashed space and astronaut fan, always living very close to Kennedy Space Flight Center. I was there when Gus Grissom became the 2nd man in space in summer 1961. Those guys were old school test pilots, real hot dogs. Back then every astronaut got a new Corvette when they arrived at Cape Canaveral and they made good use of them.

Long ago, a daughter, then a student at Gemini Elementary school said to me "Dad, that astronaut John Young who always comes to school and tells us to study hard......Dad, I just figured out he is famous!"

Funny, yesterday I was photographing and interviewing one of the last local orange grove owners around. He told me that he had been in the citrus business for over 35 years, ever since he got laid off at Kennedy Space Center when the Apollo Lunar Landing program ended.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Keith: I have always been an unabashed space and astronaut fan, always living very close to Kennedy Space Flight Center. I was there when Gus Grissom became the 2nd man in space in summer 1961. Those guys were old school test pilots, real hot dogs. Back then every astronaut got a new Corvette when they arrived at Cape Canaveral and they made good use of them.
Click to expand...


Gus Grissom? Wasn't it Alan Shepherd in '61 (sub-orbital) and John Glenn in '62 (orbital)?
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
I think the Sun's rays would be more of an issue... 250F in the sunlight or so would make short work of a black-bodied camera. And the extreme cold on the other side, the freezing of lubricants, etc.

In any event, hey, this is cool. Kudos to him and I hope he gets some cool shots.
Click to expand...


Couldn't you just keep it under your jacket until you're ready to shoot? :angel:
 
ChrisN said:
Gus Grissom? Wasn't it Alan Shepherd in '61 (sub-orbital) and John Glenn in '62 (orbital)?
Click to expand...
Here they are:

1. Alan Shepard - 5 May 1961 - first manned US spaceflight (suborbital)

2 . Gus Grissom - 21 July 1961 - second flight (suborbital)

3. John Glenn - 20 February 1962 - first US astronaut in orbit

Then there were two more Mercury flights in 1962, and a final one in May 1963.

Jarle
 
I think John Grunsfeld said that he would be taking pictures from inside the shuttle.
 
Jarle Aasland said:
Here they are:

1. Alan Shepard - 5 May 1961 - first manned US spaceflight (suborbital)

2 . Gus Grissom - 21 July 1961 - second flight (suborbital)

3. John Glenn - 20 February 1962 - first US astronaut in orbit

Then there were two more Mercury flights in 1962, and a final one in May 1963.

Jarle
Click to expand...

Eventually the race was won by the USSR:

Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin, on 12 April 1961, he became the first human in outer space and the first to orbit the earth. Don't know if he used a Zorki or Kiev or even a FED for making photos.

There is an official memorial presented by USA astronauts:

 
Last edited:
If you're in the U.S. (and even if you aren't), Freestyle carries a variety of sheet film.

9x12 was a very common format during the time of the plate camera, and so all you need are some film holders, as someone else pointed out.
 
ZeissFan said:
If you're in the U.S. (and even if you aren't), Freestyle carries a variety of sheet film.

9x12 was a very common format during the time of the plate camera, and so all you need are some film holders, as someone else pointed out.
Click to expand...

I don't want to hijack this thread but thanks for the link. Looks like the only 9x12 film they have is:
Fotokemika Efke PL 100 M iso 100
9x12 cm/50 sheets ($30)

The camera came with one single sheet holder and one pack sheet holder, which I assume is now useless? There is still some exposed film in the pack holder. Probably gone bad but I should try to get it developed. That's another thing - I don't have any way of developing these sheets.🙁
 
I think the bellows might de-hydrate pretty quickly in a vacuum. And even though the camera isn't made to be air tight, there could be trouble with how the air inside the camera gets out; again, I'd think the bellows might tear as the result.
And, I'm not sure the gloves the astronauts wear would let them use the camera rather than just hold on to it.
Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom