Hasselblads On The Moon, page 2

Originally posted 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).

That is real ?

That looks like a video game trying to recreate realistic graphics ?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

A perfectly natural incident between an organisation and an individual. From the organisation's point of view, better be safe than sorry. It also pisses them off when the rules are broken.

reply to post by lokomotiv23

---

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.

As has been pointed out, it is the film, not the cameras, which would be sensitive to radiation. The body of the cameras were made of aluminum, which shielded the film from radiation. For most of the mission, the film was stored inside the spacecraft, which were also made of aluminum. Since the film was in space less than two weeks, the degradation was not as serious as might happen on a lengthy Shuttle or ISS mission. Any loss of contrast or detail could be fixed in the darkroom. (No,that's not cheating, it's basic photography.)

reply to post by LucidDreamer85

---

That is a real picture taken earlier this year of the last F-22 before it was delivered to the Air Force.

www.hasselbladusa.com...

That's the type of camera that was used. Starting price, depending on model is anywhere from $14,000 to $36,000 for the camera. They are in the 50-60 megapixel range.

Originally posted by wildespace
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)

yes.. the moon has a special atmosphere .. that keeps the radiation in space from destroying the film..

NOT~! the Moon HAS NO ATMOSPHERE !!!

reply to post by Komodo

---

yes.. the moon has a special atmosphere .. that keeps the radiation in space from destroying the film..

NOT~! the Moon HAS NO ATMOSPHERE !!!

Who said anything about an atmosphere?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

NASA Claim: NASA ordered the Apollo astronauts to leave all the lunar Hasselblads on the moon because of weight considerations.

Yet, Ed Mitchell, smuggled a 16-mm Mauer DAC from the "moon" and the weight consideration did not endanger the Apollo 14 mission. And when Mitchell tried to auction the camera NASA came swooping down with law suits and legal attacks.


Where do the Apollo believers stand on these facts?

Indifferent. The cameras were useless weight after they served their purpose. Here's the real question: Where do hoax believers stand on these facts? What dark secrets could the cameras possibly hold?

reply to post by DJW001

---

Sir/ma'am, you must see conspiracy theorists in every nook and cranny.

Where did I imply that 'they' were cheating? I simply asked for some pertinent information regards the Hasselblads on the moon (specifically how they might have been modified regards dealing with radiation on the lunar surface), and what said radiation levels might be. Nothing more, nothing less, and, there were a couple of fellow board members that were happy to oblige. Of course, I thanked them.

You seem very touchy

Originally posted by lokomotiv23
reply to post by Zaphod58

---

When I run across a couple hundred thousand in loose change, now I know what to spend it on.

...or 150 million. Quite the toy.

Sorry off topic.

reply to post by DJW001

---

Indifferent. The cameras were useless weight after they served their purpose. Here's the real question: Where do hoax believers stand on these facts? What dark secrets could the cameras possibly hold?

You say the lunar Hasselblads are useless weight; I say they should be considered missing evidence in a fraud investigation. Just like the telemetry tapes went missing. And the moon rock inventories never had adequate controls.

One Hasselblad unit weighs only 4 pounds and I say that your argument about weight is debunked by Ed Mitchell's smuggling of a 2 pound camera. Every Apollo crew could have returned with two Hasselblads with no added danger to the mission.

The lunar Hasselblads were very special cameras, equipped with very special lenses and took very special film stock; The film stocks required a very special development process that was supervised by only specially trained Kodak, CIA and NASA employees.

When NASA shows us "moon" images from the Apollo program we must first surrender our reason - we must forget about the cameras left on the moon, we must forget about the top secret negatives - we replace our reason with a believe in NASA that the reproduced images are proof of a claim.

Here is an example:
What if I travelled out into the woods, no man has ever stepped foot to these woods before me, and I take 24 real photographic images of a Sasquatch.... I get safely out of the forest but I left the camera behind in the woods! .... I put all my negatives in a locked vault that only I have access! .... and I only allowed the curious people to see my "special" prints. Would you believe in my Bigfoot pictures?

The Apollo photographic evidence cannot be scientifically validated because 1, all the cameras were left on the moon, and 2, all the negatives are locked down in a climate controlled vault because they are incredibly delicate and priceless.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
You say the lunar Hasselblads are useless weight; I say they should be considered missing evidence in a fraud investigation.

What knowledge could be gained from the camera's themselves?

Just like the telemetry tapes went missing.

I don't think the Apollo 11 telemetry is missing, just the higher quality video on the SSTV tapes is. I believe the telemetry was copied onto other storage formats.

One Hasselblad unit weighs only 4 pounds and I say that your argument about weight is debunked by Ed Mitchell's smuggling of a 2 pound camera. Every Apollo crew could have returned with two Hasselblads with no added danger to the mission.

At the time of the missions, NASA allowed astronauts to keep any mementos of any expendable equipment. He wasn't smuggling it. One 2lb camera won't make a huge difference, but don't forget that Apollo 14 took on an added 95lbs worth of Lunar samples. So you don't want to hang on to too much expendable equipment. Having to lug around less mass means you need to use less fuel to fly yourself back home. It just makes sense to shed as much of it as possible, but keeping an item here and there isn't a big risk.

When NASA shows us "moon" images from the Apollo program we must first surrender our reason

Why is that?

we must forget about the cameras left on the moon

Why do we need to forget about them?

we must forget about the top secret negatives

What top secret negatives?

we replace our reason with a believe in NASA that the reproduced images are proof of a claim.

The photos are just one small part of a large collection of evidence for the reality of the Apollo missions.

The Apollo photographic evidence cannot be scientifically validated because 1, all the cameras were left on the moon...

Except for the ones in the CSM, but I'm sure you knew that... I don't understand why one would need the original camera's to validate the photos though. Could you elaborate on that?

...and 2, all the negatives are locked down in a climate controlled vault because they are incredibly delicate and priceless.

Yes film in general is delicate. They do the exact same thing with movies and tv shows that were shot on film. However, from time to time, they are taken out and rescanned using the latest technology available.

Original Apollo Films Come Out of the Cold

Originally posted by lokomotiv23
reply to post by DJW001

---

Sir/ma'am, you must see conspiracy theorists in every nook and cranny.

Where did I imply that 'they' were cheating? I simply asked for some pertinent information regards the Hasselblads on the moon (specifically how they might have been modified regards dealing with radiation on the lunar surface), and what said radiation levels might be. Nothing more, nothing less, and, there were a couple of fellow board members that were happy to oblige. Of course, I thanked them.

You seem very touchy

No probably fed up dealing with the same BS in a constant cycle on here as a new group find some BS web site or thread claiming a hoax without bothering to do some research. We have a thread on here which ran to over 670 pages dealing with the same hoax claims over and over again.

Every so often on here a new thread will appear on here quite often with the now classic "why no stars.... and then working through all the other hoax claims.

What is so unbelievable to many of us on here is that many of the claims made about what you see or don't see happen here on Earth as well, that tends to show a lack of education on the subject or many people on here walk about and don't notice what actually goes on around about them.

Also many members who post on these threads are either keen amatuer photographers (30+ yrs for me) semi-pro or even pro photographers.

No stars photographic exposure, shadows in different directions from one light source caused by the terrain they fall on or sometime lens focal length etc etc etc.

As for the Hasselblad cameras lots of links all over the net or even from Hasselblad themselves

Hasselblad in Space

or

Hasselblad Space Cameras


A simple search, a look on some astrophotgraphy web sites and a basic understanding of physics/optics shows the hoax claims are indeed one very large crock of sh1t

reply to post by wmd_2008

---

...and as I stated earlier, some of the pages available (which you, incidentally, posted links to) provide nothing in the way of, you know, the "nuts-and-bolts" of how the Hasselblad cameras were set up to work on the lunar surface. As it turned out, there were members that were able to produce documentation that helped me along a bit in my endeavors...and they did so without casting aspersions, or otherwise conducting themselves in a dismissive manner.

If, as you have stated, there are board members that are weary of all the BS, then why linger here? Why not take their expertise to forums pertaining to Hasselblad cameras and/or lunar exploration where said expertise is matched by that of the other members? Given my experiences just in this thread, there is no need to go on the offensive by being defensive...a trait which in of itself is certain to cause suspicion in some quarters.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

You say the lunar Hasselblads are useless weight; I say they should be considered missing evidence in a fraud investigation. Just like the telemetry tapes went missing. And the moon rock inventories never had adequate controls.

You have yet to explain what information the empty camera housings might contain that would be pertinent to any investigation. Why not?

One Hasselblad unit weighs only 4 pounds and I say that your argument about weight is debunked by Ed Mitchell's smuggling of a 2 pound camera. Every Apollo crew could have returned with two Hasselblads with no added danger to the mission.

The astronauts' fecal matter was of more scientific importance. Seriously.

The lunar Hasselblads were very special cameras, equipped with very special lenses and took very special film stock; The film stocks required a very special development process that was supervised by only specially trained Kodak, CIA and NASA employees.

You mean they didn't just drop it off at the Fotomat?

When NASA shows us "moon" images from the Apollo program we must first surrender our reason - we must forget about the cameras left on the moon, we must forget about the top secret negatives - we replace our reason with a believe in NASA that the reproduced images are proof of a claim.

Why?

Here is an example:
What if I travelled out into the woods, no man has ever stepped foot to these woods before me, and I take 24 real photographic images of a Sasquatch.... I get safely out of the forest but I left the camera behind in the woods! .... I put all my negatives in a locked vault that only I have access! .... and I only allowed the curious people to see my "special" prints. Would you believe in my Bigfoot pictures?

That would depend, wouldn't it? I wouldn't waste any time looking for your camera, I would look for a rubber Sasquatch suit in your garage. Why are you obsessing about the camera? Is it because you can't find the rubber Sasquatch suit in NASA's garage?

The Apollo photographic evidence cannot be scientifically validated because 1, all the cameras were left on the moon, and 2, all the negatives are locked down in a climate controlled vault because they are incredibly delicate and priceless.

Neither of which has anything to do with their validity.

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

Why does this image look fake, I am not in any way saying it is, but that it looks like it was computer generated.

I am still somewhat skeptical about being skeptical about this all... but carry on

Skeptical cat is not amused.

reply to post by lokomotiv23

---

I just found this on Google:
www.thescienceforum.com...
www.clavius.org...

Relevant quotes:
"The radiation on the Moon was not high enough to damage (or even fog) film to any perceptible degree."
"Hasselblad claims they added additional protection to the film magazines."

Originally posted by lokomotiv23
reply to post by wmd_2008

---

...and as I stated earlier, some of the pages available (which you, incidentally, posted links to) provide nothing in the way of, you know, the "nuts-and-bolts" of how the Hasselblad cameras were set up to work on the lunar surface. As it turned out, there were members that were able to produce documentation that helped me along a bit in my endeavors...and they did so without casting aspersions, or otherwise conducting themselves in a dismissive manner.

If, as you have stated, there are board members that are weary of all the BS, then why linger here? Why not take their expertise to forums pertaining to Hasselblad cameras and/or lunar exploration where said expertise is matched by that of the other members? Given my experiences just in this thread, there is no need to go on the offensive by being defensive...a trait which in of itself is certain to cause suspicion in some quarters.

Here is an example quote from the site you say give NO info on the cameras?

Hasselblad SWC
With a Biogon 38mm lens, made its space debut on 3 June 1966, on a voyage in Gemini 9. The camera was largely standard: Only the lining had been removed and the viewfinder was specially designed. The camera was used on four voyages in 1966.

or this!

These differences include the removal of the TTL flash function, and the replacement of conventional lubricants, which would evaporate in a vacuum, with low friction materials. The leatherette covering is also removed and replaced by metal plates.

I take it you didn't really look that hard?

Why do we continue to post on this type of thread to stop the BS of the uneducated misleading others that's why!

reply to post by wmd_2008

---

Yes, I know...I've read this. Repeatedly. It says nothing about how the cameras were modified to deal with radiation. Friction, static electricity, loss of lubricant, etc...but nothing about radiation on the lunar surface. Fortunately, other ATS members have supplied me with information that was adequate to my needs, and I thanked them for this.

What are you selling here? Regards what I have stated (I, me, no one else), you've contributed nothing that assists my desire to research this matter. You have stated that others are weary of having to fend off claims that the moon landings were faked; well and good, but that is no concern of mine, as I have no horse in that race.

Originally posted by lokomotiv23
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).

Hiya OP,

I can probably dig up various books and things I've read over the years on the subject if you like, but don't have much time just now! I enjoy cameras and things, but it's not my main thing to do. Mostly I do post work.

Basic things I know:

The Hasselblad brand was actually being used in space since Project Mercury by NASA in space photography (1962 onwards from memory). The themosphere reaching temperatures of 1,500 °C (2,730 °F), and the various conditions of near space was used as a testing ground for photography for both Americans and Russians; NASA was actually making requests for modifications to Hasselblad prior to Apollo, which they were happy to provide for PR reason. A lot of persons skip this and end up looking in the wrong places for all the information. It wasn't an over night thing and Hassellblad actually incorporated and kept changes they made to the camera in cases making it look like they took a completely consumer camera into space.

They did have various processes to ensure the film was never properly exposed including keeping it in the film magazines: Link This protected the film from other forms of radiation. A solar flare might X-ray some film to death I imagine. The magazine is a major factor.

If you take a look at sources such as:

2008, Physical and biological dosimetry analysis from
International Space Station astronauts. Radiat. Res. pp170:127–138

1991, Radiation Protection for Human Missions to the Moon and Mars pp14

Radiation on the moon is allegedly not as dangerous as first perceived. It's often suggested you might need shelters to hide from solar flares, but otherwise it's not so bad. This seems to match similar Russian thoughts that exposure over vast time is an issue more than short term exposure. Some go as far to say that radiation counter measures wouldn't be needed on the moon's surface, and also state that once actually on the moon the dangers are actually less severe.

You might want to look more into how the film was during the flight to and from the moon. There are studies over longer periods than the moon landing though in space, and the film survived the encounter. I believe you will find that the moon landing photography wasn't perfect either. There will have been some minor variations in tone etc ... on these images.

Honestly, I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to do a proper experiment to test these things. Most sources from all countries seem to agree that space is more dangerous than the moon, and all of these countries have taken photos with film in space successfully over long periods of time. I guess you could also look up results of probes to the moon etc and how long they were in orbit / traveling for from other countries. Especially perhaps take a look pre-Apollo.

Can U2U me if you need sources, but honestly a lot of the time with this it's just a niche subject, and it takes a while to find bits and pieces. Is a bit like being interested in how heat effects door hinges or something I guess.

Hubble\'s Hidden Treasures - Incredible views of the Universe
  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

Mars curiosity Sol2 Anomalies
  Posted 11 days ago with 22 member flags

Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?
  Posted 0 days ago with 22 member flags

Mars: Fears Curiosity Will Contaminate Planet
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 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

Milky Way in detail.
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags

Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: