reply to post by wildespace
I looked at the Apollo 8 image gallery and see that they used the 3400 on approach to the moon, and the 2485 when leaving. I believe they standardised
on the 2485 afterwards. The images don't look much different, but I think the 3400 was sensitive to IR and the 2485 to UV, and the 2485 was super UV
sensitised for use in the FUVC device on A16, I'd have to double check that claim though.
I did have a look at the Apollo 8 Crew transcript, and to be honest, these guys sounded like a joke. Disorganised to say the least, swapping film
cartridges and lenses and exposures without keeping a decent track of what was used for which shot, so I wouldn't put a lot of faith in determining
lighting conditions from the images. Also film development is just as important as the exposure.
The transcript is worth a read, pretty long and dull for the most part, but there are some gems in there. For one, it seems the G&N computer was the
only reason they got to orbit the Moon. They were lost most of the time, didn't even know which way they were pointed and couldn't even find the Sun
and Earth half the time. The power optics for the G&N computer was obviously using a Vidicon type device, they talked about sparks coming out of it
till it warmed up, and how they could see millions of stars, after a urine dump. The Vidicon uses high voltage, and sees ice crystals just as well as
stars. The G&N computer was a 3 axis inertial system and kept track of where they were and all they had to do was zero the adjustments and find that
the stars they used for reference were smack dab in the middle of the crosshairs of the scope. They never did any navigation, only confirmed what the
computer told them really. The sextant was all but useless.
The transcript had also been altered in at least one place, when they were approaching the Moon. The video of that approach has one of them speaking
and saying the Moon was a "dark, uninviting place", in the transcript the word dark is left out. There is no transcript from the trans lunar cruise,
I bet that would have been priceless listening to those clowns arguing.
A video which I provided:
The location of the camera does not allow them to look into deep space, and even though the Earth is not in frame, it is still pointing sideways
through the ionosphere. There are no windows or portholes they can look out into deep space, and no video cameras pointing out there either.
And from Voyager, 7 million miles away, we have a picture of both the Earth and moon (I only included this because it's one of my favorite pictures,
the picture is enhanced):
They have moved or hidden the originals for that shot, as the originals showed just about all black, with a couple of gray, barely visible smudges
that were the Earth and Moon. Long exposures no doubt, but no stars visible.
The other images are taken with instruments that you need to do research on to find out what they were detecting, and they use spectrography, mainly
in the UV, some in IR, but I bet if you were out there, your eyes would see nothing, pitch black. They have never used a regular camera, because it
would see nothing. NASA is very good at hiding the truth, they've had lots of practice. It is up to the individual of course to decide if they
believe it all, or any of it, but for my money it is all a big con job. All I want is a simple video taken on an EVA (because there are no back
windows) looking out to deep space of a big bright moon, and moonlight lighting up the whole space station. No, you've never seen moonlight up there