Hasselblads On The Moon

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I was wondering if anybody here could provide technical exemplars explaining how the Hasselblad cameras used on the Apollo missions (and the film they contained) were shielded against radiation on the lunar surface. I'd assume that such measures must have been implemented given the effect of radiation on emulsion-type film (just based on terrestrial effects I've seen), but have no way of knowing first-hand (the pertinent information seems absent from the interwebs). There is some sort of explanation to be found regards placing the film into shielded canisters to be hoisted into the lunar modules, but nothing I've found explaining modifications to the camera chassis.

I've read that the cameras were modified to mitigate static electricity, regulate internal temperature, etc. but have come up with zilch when it comes to anti-radiation measures. What gives? If in fact radiation on the lunar surface is a potential threat to homo sapiens (which NASA indicates), then it certainly isn't going to do a film camera or its innards any favors. (Or so one would think.) Come to think of it, if someone can provide the hard data showing radiation levels on the lunar surface, I might be able to work backwards from there.

What say you, ATS?




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Apparently, radiation on the Moon isn't that bad. And the Hasselblad cameras were very, very good.

answers.yahoo.com...

sterileeye.com...
edit on 26-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
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...


edit on 9/26/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
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).





posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
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...
edit on 26-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Much obliged, Wildspace. I'll give them a thorough looking-at.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
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...
edit on 26-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
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!



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
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.


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


jra

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
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.


Their weight on the Moon is irrelevant. Their mass is still 4lbs regardless if they are on the Moon or in 0G. And they left more than just the camera's behind for weight savings, but that's getting off the topic of this thread.

edit on 29-9-2012 by jra because: typo



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
This is the Hasselblad 500 EL Data Camera (specially made lunar surface Apollo camera)


Here they forgot the film magazine, inside the Apollo lunar module


edit on 30-9-2012 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
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.


Their weight on the Moon is irrelevant. Their mass is still 4lbs regardless if they are on the Moon or in 0G. And they left more than just the camera's behind for weight savings, but that's getting off the topic of this thread.

edit on 29-9-2012 by jra because: typo


The topic of the thread is Hasselblads On The Moon how can it be getting off topic?

Do you know the official NASA explanation for why the Hasselblads were left on the surface of the moon? Well?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
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.


jra

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The topic of the thread is Hasselblads On The Moon how can it be getting off topic?


I was starting to go off topic since I mentioned that they left more than just the camera's behind and I didn't want to go off on a tangent.


Do you know the official NASA explanation for why the Hasselblads were left on the surface of the moon? Well?


I said it was weight savings. You even mentioned it yourself in an earlier post...



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


So, when Ed Mitchell brought home a 16-mm Mauer DAC from the "moon", did the extra weight (mass!) of Ed Mitchell's camera smuggling put the A14 mission in danger?





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join