Interesting discussion about the 70mm film used by Nasa during the Apollo 11 Mission

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.
 
All that doesn`t matter because there are no 260F heat on the moon. Easy solution, right? :)



NickTrop said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
NickTrop said:
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.
Click to expand...
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_Reconnaissance_Orbiter

I'm trying really hard to be polite here. Frankly, Nick, I'm surprised.
 
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.
 
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/flashback-photographing-apollo-11

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.
Click to expand...
 
Kind of stunned at the direction this thread headed for a while. Hopefully it will move on from that sort of stuff! :confused:
 
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/missions/apollo/apollo_11/photography/

Minneapolus Star Tribune article:

http://www.startribune.com/july-20-1969-one-giant-leap/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.
 
The Primary Problem Was Operating The Cameras in A Vacuum

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.
 
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.
 
zuiko85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anyone remember ‘Salvage 1’ a fictional TV series about a scrap dealer visiting moon to recover artifacts ?
 
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.
 
NickTrop said:
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.
Click to expand...


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!
 
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

AP_6904011373.jpg


"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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom