It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Film Photography On The Moon?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Down to brass tacks, how were we able to employ film cameras while engaing in photography on the moon? By which I mean, camera film is a very fragile medium, and an inadvertent trip through the wrong apparatus at any airport can wipe it...much less ambient radiation levels on the lunar surface.

Certainly they are ways of safeguarding such things from radiation, but everything I've read in the literature available makes no mention of such precautions being taken (at least on Apollo 11) to harden the chassis' against radiation;

www.eyescoffee.com...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink">history.nasa.gov...

I find it utterly perplexing that while they go to great lengths explaining how certain obstacles were overcome (static electricity, temperature modulation, lubricant maladies) there is absolutely no mention of compensating for the perils of radiation on a solar body with no atmosphere. While it would certainly be possible to protect the chassis with some sort of extension of the spacesuits these folks were wearing, it would not be possible to do the same with the lens and shutter. Hence my befuddlement.

No claims made to be an expert in the field on my part, this one goes back to common sense. Thus, any constructive and/or objective input on the part of other ATS'ers is greatly appreciated. Otherwise...flame away.

Cheers.




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Thats a really good question, I'm sure some of our resident experts will be along
to answer it for you.
s&f



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I'll take a stab in the dark here and say this is why everything related to space costs many many times what logic and common sense would tell us it should. All these little things like you mention here. We wouldn't necessarily think of them, but someone else sure had to.

Just my guess on how that worked. I mean we have the pictures...it did happen (I don't buy the Hollywood sound stage ideas)..so they solved it somehow. Good question though. Perhaps NASA has already answered that somewhere on the net. I've come across many NASA sponsored Q/A presentations online for school kids and such which fielded questions just like this.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The last comment is maybe what you're looking for...

answers.yahoo.com



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
First:It's not that"fragile"..

Secondly:Airport x-rays don't "wipe it"! They CAN add "fogging"( thereby lowering the contrast) to higher asa/iso ( i.e.more light sensitive)"films.(which can be compensated for in processing and printing.)

HASSELBLAD film magazines are removable. It would not surprise me if the cases they were stored in for the trip there and back contained some minimal shielding( but I don't know that they did.)

It's not a "good question" it is a"non issue"....
edit on 6-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BagBing
The last comment is maybe what you're looking for...

answers.yahoo.com



It is mentioned in the literature I posted that silver was used to regulate the temperature of the film canisters as they were hoisted back into the module. Having said that, I'm not sure how they could coat the lens in silver (or gold, or lead) and expect to take pictures, even being the "one heck of a camera" that they are. (And they really are.)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
First:It's not that"fragile"..

Secondly:Airport x-rays don't "wipe it"! They CAN add "fogging"( thereby lowering the contrast) to higher asa/iso ( i.e.more light sensitive)"films.(which can be compensated for in processing and printing.)

HASSELBLAD film magazines are removable. It would not surprise me if the cases they were stored in for the trip there and back contained some minimal shielding( but I don't know that they did.)

It's not a "good question" it is a"non issue"....
edit on 6-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Yes, I do not whether they used minimal shielding...and given that you do not know either, I do not think it fair for you to make the assessment of whether or not it is a "non issue". As an aside, nearly all film magazines that I know of are removable. That has no bearing...on anything, really. If radiation can make its way through the lens and shutter, then the film will likely be damaged, even if said film is encased in two inches of lead.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
What sort of radiation are you talking about? How much radiation do you think there is?
Do you think astronauts were any less sensitive to damage by radiation than film in metal canisters would be?
Have you researched any of this?


edit on 1/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Yes, yes I have researched this, as indicated in my post. Regarding modifications made to the Hasselblad chassis', there is nothing in any available literature that indicates how this was accomplished. Now, to answer you questions.
1. Solar & cosmic Radiation
2. Certainly a great deal more than would be found on the surface of the earth.
3. I've never known homo sapiens to become blurred by radiation, and besides, my query had nothing to do with how the astronauts were protected.
4. See above.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Hasselblad
Apollo 11 Hasselblad
Photography of Apollo
Photography techniques

To get you started, also look up Westinghouse main page, they are quite proud of having TV cameras on the moon, and have a direct link to their cameras in space (I though I saved).

Also what sort of radiation on the moon do you think sun glasses and white reflective paint can't deflect is?

The biggest problem (mostly early in the moon landings was) static electricity from rolling the film, created a lot of 'electrical looking lightning charges) on the film. Heat, and cold were not factors if that is what you are thinking, there is no air to carry ambient heat on the moon, and it wasn't cold either, not in a lunar morning.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeolus1970
 


Um, the gold you see on the outer visors on the astronaut helmets is real gold. My uncle blows real gold in glass, back in the 60's, its not a hard process. My cousin is continuing the art of glass blowing precious metals in glass art today. He's very good! No formal art training whosoever too.

I'd be happy to give you his website.
edit on 6-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeolus1970
reply to post by Phage
 



Yes, yes I have researched this, as indicated in my post. Regarding modifications made to the Hasselblad chassis', there is nothing in any available literature that indicates how this was accomplished. Now, to answer you questions.
1. Solar & cosmic Radiation
2. Certainly a great deal more than would be found on the surface of the earth.
3. I've never known homo sapiens to become blurred by radiation, and besides, my query had nothing to do with how the astronauts were protected.
4. See above.




1) There are various types of Solar & cosmic radiation. They would have differing effects on film and they have differring abilities in penetrating different materials. Can you explain which types would be of concern and what effects you would expect them to have on photographic film.

2) That is a vague answer and does not help explain why you would expect to see any effects on photographic film or what those effects would be.

3) Human beings are made very ill by intense radiation and long term exposure to lower levels can induce long term problems.

4) I see no evidence of research in your answers.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Hasselblad
Apollo 11 Hasselblad
Photography of Apollo
Photography techniques

To get you started, also look up Westinghouse main page, they are quite proud of having TV cameras on the moon, and have a direct link to their cameras in space (I though I saved).

Also what sort of radiation on the moon do you think sun glasses and white reflective paint can't deflect is?

The biggest problem (mostly early in the moon landings was) static electricity from rolling the film, created a lot of 'electrical looking lightning charges) on the film. Heat, and cold were not factors if that is what you are thinking, there is no air to carry ambient heat on the moon, and it wasn't cold either, not in a lunar morning.


Yes, thank you. You see, the thing is, I posted two of those links already...and neither one of them mention radiation, and how the cameras were modified to cope with it (as stated, I really have researched this). As a matter of fact, none of the four links mention any such solution.

Radiation on the moon? I refer you to his link, with special emphasis on the section named "Radiation"...

education.ksc.nasa.gov... mdspacegrant/LunarRegolithExcavatorCourse/Chapter5.htm#RadiationandSurvivability

As stated above, cosmic and solar radiation. Of which there should be a great deal more of on the lunar surface, given that there is no atmosphere.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeolus1970
 


The type of 'radiation' on the moon really only effects living cell tissue, why do you think rocks are orbiting the sun for some 4.5 billion years?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I do not know much about the moon landing....

Did they talk about protecting the film against ice cold temperatures?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Here are some sites that I stumbled across:

ENVIRONMENT - radiation and photographic film

www.clavius.org...

NON-FAKED MOON LANDINGS! (ASU discusses film and radiation among other Moon claims)

pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...


Apollo camera equipment - Hasselblad 70mm Camera ( more on the camera)

www.vgl.org...


Lunar orbital cameras in the Apollo era: ( the other Apollo cameras)

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 8ILlBILl8
 


There is no temperature in space, if you touch something in the sun with your bare hand it is hot, in the shade it is cold, there is no carrier air, the lunar lander had temperature control, as did the spacesuits. All the cameras needed was a solar reflective shell, (paint). In the stored magazine cases inside the lunar lander the film was housed in thick metal (lead alloy) cases. They left the cameras on the moon to save liftoff weight, along with all expendable items they landed with. Early moon landing like Apollo 11 only brought back less than 100 pounds of moon rocks/dust. Apollo 17 brought back the most (rock/dust), I believe under 200 pounds. In all 6 trips to the moon brought back less than 900 pounds of 'cargo'.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dcmb1409
 


Much obliged, that provides some of the traction I was looking for. Not all of it, but it is a start.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Aeolus1970
reply to post by Phage
 



Yes, yes I have researched this, as indicated in my post. Regarding modifications made to the Hasselblad chassis', there is nothing in any available literature that indicates how this was accomplished. Now, to answer you questions.
1. Solar & cosmic Radiation
2. Certainly a great deal more than would be found on the surface of the earth.
3. I've never known homo sapiens to become blurred by radiation, and besides, my query had nothing to do with how the astronauts were protected.
4. See above.




1) There are various types of Solar & cosmic radiation. They would have differing effects on film and they have differring abilities in penetrating different materials. Can you explain which types would be of concern and what effects you would expect them to have on photographic film.

2) That is a vague answer and does not help explain why you would expect to see any effects on photographic film or what those effects would be.

3) Human beings are made very ill by intense radiation and long term exposure to lower levels can induce long term problems.

4) I see no evidence of research in your answers.


You've provided no answers here, Phage, and...that's why I posted in the first place, to get answers. I think that's why most people post on ATS, for to 'deny ignorance', you have to have some understanding of the world around you. I'm a writer/graphic designer, and will be the first to admit that there is a lot of the scientific world is beyond my ken (at the moment); I don't lose any sleep over it, but I do wake up in the morning knowing that there is probably something else to be learned during the course of the day.

Having said that, I'm genuinely surprised that you of all people have not provided any information regards my query. And it is a query, not me hoping up-and-down hooting "Hoax, Hoax, Hoax!". I've no way of knowing one way or the other if it is a hoax, and really cannot formulate an opinion unless I have all the facts.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeolus1970

Having said that, I'm not sure how they could coat the lens in silver (or gold, or lead) and expect to take pictures


It means the metal lens barrel, not the glass lens elements. Although they could have a thin layer on the glass element - not sure it would do much good though.


edit on 6-1-2012 by BagBing because: body should read barrel



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join