Interesting discussion about the 70mm film used by Nasa during the Apollo 11 Mission
- Thread starter Keith
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 51
- Views 5K
Peter Jennings
Well-known
You must check out the documentary that came out this year, Apollo 11. It's amazing.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
Peter, do you have a link to the documentary by any chance?
Simon
Simon
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.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
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.
NickTrop
Veteran
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. )
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. )
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
70mm Hasselblad Image Catalog
Apollo 11
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?11
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Apollo 11
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?11
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dourbalistar
Buy more film
NickTrop
Veteran
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?
dourbalistar
Buy more film
Is that a roundabout way of implying that the lunar landings were a hoax?
NickTrop
Veteran
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.
dourbalistar
Buy more film
FrozenInTime
Well-known
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.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
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/luna3/Luna3story.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
Interesting reading of use of film from American Spy Balloons in 1950's.
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/luna3/Luna3story.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
retinax
Well-known
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/History/alsj/a11/a11.step.html
[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/History/alsj/a11/a11.step.html
Freakscene
Obscure member
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
Peter Jennings
Well-known
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.
retinax
Well-known
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.
maddoc
... likes film again.
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.
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.
Similar threads
