answers.yahoo.com...
sterileeye.com...
edit on 26-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)
Hasselblads On The Moon, page 1
reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 10:51 AM by lokomotiv23
reply to post by wildespace
(Blinks.) Yes, I know Hasselblads are very, very good cameras, and I have seen the pertaining webpages...not one of which mention employing gold or silver to modify the cameras per the post in Yahoo! answers. I was/am looking for the NASA literature describing possible effects of radiation on the cameras and film, and how this might have been circumvented, modifications or otherwise.
And the radiation on the moon isn't bad. Okay. Again, I was/am looking for the data that indicates as much.
(Blinks.) Yes, I know Hasselblads are very, very good cameras, and I have seen the pertaining webpages...not one of which mention employing gold or silver to modify the cameras per the post in Yahoo! answers. I was/am looking for the NASA literature describing possible effects of radiation on the cameras and film, and how this might have been circumvented, modifications or otherwise.
And the radiation on the moon isn't bad. Okay. Again, I was/am looking for the data that indicates as much.
reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 12:31 PM by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by lokomotiv23
This isn't "exactly" what you asked for, but here is information that tells how much radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to:
Biomedical Results of Apollo - Radiation Protection and Instrumentation
Basically, being on the moon for a short time (such as the limited exposures of the Apollo astronauts) reduces to amount of radiation one expects to receive (obviously). However, the moon is potentially much more harmful to humans (and film, I suppose) under long-term exposure.
The Apollo astronauts greatest protection against radiation was not the shielding in their suits, but rather the time-limits of their exposure.
the long-term exposure lunar radiation issue is touched-upon in this pdf file:
www.nasa.gov...
This isn't "exactly" what you asked for, but here is information that tells how much radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to:
Biomedical Results of Apollo - Radiation Protection and Instrumentation
Basically, being on the moon for a short time (such as the limited exposures of the Apollo astronauts) reduces to amount of radiation one expects to receive (obviously). However, the moon is potentially much more harmful to humans (and film, I suppose) under long-term exposure.
The Apollo astronauts greatest protection against radiation was not the shielding in their suits, but rather the time-limits of their exposure.
the long-term exposure lunar radiation issue is touched-upon in this pdf file:
www.nasa.gov...
edit on 9/26/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 12:36 PM by Zaphod58
Not the moon, but one of the most amazing pictures I've seen yet out of a camera. Taken with a Hasselblad 4D camera (starting price is very obscene
but from this pic, well worth it).
reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 01:25 PM by wildespace
Googling nasa + radiation + "photographic film" gives a few NASA documents:
ston.jsc.nasa.gov...
ntrs.nasa.gov...
Feel free to explore more results of that search.
You can search NASA reports here: naca.larc.nasa.gov...
Related ATS thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
ston.jsc.nasa.gov...
ntrs.nasa.gov...
Feel free to explore more results of that search.
You can search NASA reports here: naca.larc.nasa.gov...
Related ATS thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 26-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 01:38 PM by lokomotiv23
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
That does help a bit, and will apply to what it is I'm trying to determine.
Much obliged.
That does help a bit, and will apply to what it is I'm trying to determine.
Much obliged.
reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 01:41 PM by lokomotiv23
reply to post by Zaphod58
That...is incredible. When I run across a couple hundred thousand in loose change, now I know what to spend it on.
(Laughs.) From what I hear tell, all Hasselblads are obscenely priced, no?
That...is incredible. When I run across a couple hundred thousand in loose change, now I know what to spend it on.
(Laughs.) From what I hear tell, all Hasselblads are obscenely priced, no?
reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 02:07 PM by Arbitrageur
reply to post by lokomotiv23
I haven't seen anybody mention this so I will, because you may be overlooking an important point.
It's the film that's sensitive to radiation, not the camera. I imagine Hasselblads would still work in very high radiation, much higher than on the moon, so I'm not sure they really needed any shielding for the camera itself.
Films came in different sensitivities, referred to as ASA number, now I think it's called ISO number. ASA100 was typical daylight film and not sensitive to radiation, while ASA400 film was for low light conditions and was sensitive to radiation...in fact airport scanners used to carry a warning that the X-ray scanners were safe for "normal film" presumably like ASA100, but they recommended not putting "high speed film" though the X-ray machines. They didn't specify the number but films as high as ASA1600 or even 3200 were available which could be very sensitive to radiation.
The surface of the moon was so bright that I'm sure low speed film was used, though I can't tell you the ASA number, but you might find that in your research. My guess is ASA 100 or less, and this suggests the daylight shots were probably made with ASA 80 film, which wouldn't be sensitive to radiation, so I'm not sure any modification to the Hasselblad was needed for ASA 80 film use on the moon, but I would guess not:
history.nasa.gov...
I haven't seen anybody mention this so I will, because you may be overlooking an important point.
It's the film that's sensitive to radiation, not the camera. I imagine Hasselblads would still work in very high radiation, much higher than on the moon, so I'm not sure they really needed any shielding for the camera itself.
Films came in different sensitivities, referred to as ASA number, now I think it's called ISO number. ASA100 was typical daylight film and not sensitive to radiation, while ASA400 film was for low light conditions and was sensitive to radiation...in fact airport scanners used to carry a warning that the X-ray scanners were safe for "normal film" presumably like ASA100, but they recommended not putting "high speed film" though the X-ray machines. They didn't specify the number but films as high as ASA1600 or even 3200 were available which could be very sensitive to radiation.
The surface of the moon was so bright that I'm sure low speed film was used, though I can't tell you the ASA number, but you might find that in your research. My guess is ASA 100 or less, and this suggests the daylight shots were probably made with ASA 80 film, which wouldn't be sensitive to radiation, so I'm not sure any modification to the Hasselblad was needed for ASA 80 film use on the moon, but I would guess not:
history.nasa.gov...
edit on 26-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
reply posted on 27-9-2012 @ 07:09 AM by wmd_2008
reply to post by lokomotiv23
Here is the Apollo 11 photo index pdf they sure went to a lot of trouble to record this information !!!
(for a hoax
)
Apollo 11 Photo Index
Here is a link to Kodak will types to cross reference with above film types recorded.
Kodak Film Index
For example page 6 of Apollo 11 film index Magazine N film type S0 368 this can be checked on the Kodak list for film type and details which you can then look for more info on but thats up to YOU!
Here is the Apollo 11 photo index pdf they sure went to a lot of trouble to record this information !!!
(for a hoax
) Apollo 11 Photo Index
Here is a link to Kodak will types to cross reference with above film types recorded.
Kodak Film Index
For example page 6 of Apollo 11 film index Magazine N film type S0 368 this can be checked on the Kodak list for film type and details which you can then look for more info on but thats up to YOU!
reply posted on 29-9-2012 @ 12:24 PM by SayonaraJupiter
12 specially designed Hasselblad cameras were taken by manned Apollo missions onto the lunar surface.
None of these cameras were returned from the lunar surface.
On the lunar surface the camera weight is less than 1 pound - but NASA ordered the astronauts to dumped the cameras out on the lunar surface due to weight considerations.
Apollo 14's Ed Mitchell brought one back from the "moon". When he tried to auction the DAC in 2011 to make some money, NASA went ballistic and there was a legal fight for the camera. NASA took hold possession of it.
But look at the turn of events which happened this week - a new law was passed so that Apollo era astronauts could keep and sell their precious (and very valuable) space mementos...
Lovell's checklist sold for a pretty penny (and it never touched the lunar surfaces). Can you imagine how the 16-mm DAC would have sold for?? Probably millions $$...
A single Hasselblad camera would also sell for millions $$ at auction... but... they were "too heavy" to bring back
None of these cameras were returned from the lunar surface.
The weight of the camera, with 80 mm lens and 2 batteries, without film magazine, is 4.04 pounds. Source history.nasa.gov...
On the lunar surface the camera weight is less than 1 pound - but NASA ordered the astronauts to dumped the cameras out on the lunar surface due to weight considerations.
The Mauer cameras weighed 2.8 pounds each, with a 140-foot film magazine attached. Source www.lpi.usra.edu...
Apollo 14's Ed Mitchell brought one back from the "moon". When he tried to auction the DAC in 2011 to make some money, NASA went ballistic and there was a legal fight for the camera. NASA took hold possession of it.
But look at the turn of events which happened this week - a new law was passed so that Apollo era astronauts could keep and sell their precious (and very valuable) space mementos...
Law says Apollo astronauts can keep, sell artifacts
NASA challenged the auction of this piece of space program history… (Handout, Heritage Auctions )
6:08 p.m. EST, September 27, 2012|By Mark K. Matthews, Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama ended a months-long fight over NASA relics this week when he signed into law a bill that confers full ownership of early NASA artifacts to the astronauts that took them as souvenirs.
The legislation follows a public -- and sometimes bitter -- battle between NASA and its astronaut corps over the sale of keepsakes from the agency's earliest days, most notably the nearly $390,000 auction of a systems checklist from the infamous Apollo 13 mission. Source articles.orlandosentinel.com...
Lovell's checklist sold for a pretty penny (and it never touched the lunar surfaces). Can you imagine how the 16-mm DAC would have sold for?? Probably millions $$...
A single Hasselblad camera would also sell for millions $$ at auction... but... they were "too heavy" to bring back
reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 04:18 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
He answered your question right there in the quote that you have in this post. Weight is irrelevant on the moon. Mass doesn't change. So a four pound camera that weighs 1 pound on the moon still has four pounds of mass.
He answered your question right there in the quote that you have in this post. Weight is irrelevant on the moon. Mass doesn't change. So a four pound camera that weighs 1 pound on the moon still has four pounds of mass.
Hubble\'s Hidden Treasures - Incredible views of the Universe
Posted 17 days ago with 40 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 40 member flags
Curiosity "ChemCam": 5 little holes and one strange object nearby...
Posted 15 days ago with 24 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 24 member flags
Curiosity sends back first high- resolution colour picture of Mars+First voice ever heard on Mars
Posted 14 days ago with 20 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 20 member flags
Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?
Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
4 Fireballs with Same Heading Spotted Over U.S. in last 24 Hours
General Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 30 flags
General Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 30 flags
Women don't like quiet males. (They prefer alpha males who are all bullies)
Relationships: 12 hours ago, 20 flags
Relationships: 12 hours ago, 20 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Women don't like quiet males. (They prefer alpha males who are all bullies)
Relationships: 12 hours ago, 193 replies
Relationships: 12 hours ago, 193 replies
4 Fireballs with Same Heading Spotted Over U.S. in last 24 Hours
General Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 30 replies
General Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 30 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.209 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.209 seconds
