[meteorite-list] Weird pic...Apollo 14

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:51:00 -0600
Message-ID: <005a01c72b15$b5ebde30$a925e146_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi,

    Considerable information about the photographic
aspects of the Apollo missions can be found at:
http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

    The films were all supplied by Kodak on thin
substrates so that the maximum number of shots
could fit in each Hassy film magazine. The basic
handheld camera was the Hasselblad 500EL. Each
film magazine would typically yield 160 color or
200 B&W. "Kodak was asked by NASA to develop
thin new films with special emulsions... [Some] magazines
were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak
Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, [some]
with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, [some] with Kodak
Ektachrome SO-121, and [some] with super light-
sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film."

    Panatomic X, no longer made, was a single layer
emulsion with very fine grain, and could be developed
as a positive or negative image. Sadly, there are no
such (single-layer) films made any more, that I know
of. (It was my favorite.)

    The cameras were extensively modified to work in
vacuum and under lunar conditions:

    "When film is normally wound in a camera, static
electricity is generated on the film surface. This electricity
is dispersed by metal rims and rollers, which guide the
film, and by humidity in the surrounding air. In the
lunar surface camera, however, the film was guided
by the Reseau plate's [where the little crosshairs were
engraved] raised edges. As glass is a poor electrical
conductor, and with the absence of surrounding air,
the charge built up between the glass surface and the
film could become so great that sparks could occur
between the plate and the film. In order to conduct
the static electricity away and prevent sparking, the
side of the plate facing the film was coated with a
thin transparent conductive layer and silver deposited
on the edges of the conductive layer. The electrical
charge was then led to the metallic parts of the camera
body by contact springs."

    Worthy of note there is that static discharges
produce so-called "film defects," but not the kind
seen in the A14 67-9384 photo.

    The cameras also had lengthened and oversized
controls so you could manipulate them wearing big
fat gloves! The EL model had an electric motor that
advanced the film and cocked the shutter automatically,
so all you had to do in your big fat gloves was set
the f-stop, set the exposure, set the focus, and press
the shutter release. That's enough to keep you busy
on the Moon.

    Freezing will not harm film, as long as it is allowed
to gradually return to "normal" temperatures before it
is used. In fact, freezing will preserve film in perfect
condition for decades. Photographers fanatically
devoted to Kodachrome 25 froze cases of it when
it was discontinued and have been using it (or selling
it) ever since. (Kodachrome 64 was too red-sensitive
for them.)

    High temperatures are deadly to film's true color
reproduction, however, hence the reflective camera
bodies in those Hassy 500EL's. I don't see any sign
of heat degradation in any Apollo photos, so I guess
it worked. On the other hand, locking your car on a
summer day with the black camera laying on the dash
or in direct sunshine anywhere inside the car is a sure
invitation to vacation photos with purple mountains,
purple grass, purple road signs, purple people...

    "The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was
colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal
temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold
encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in
the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated
or replaced because conventional lubricants would
boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense
on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate,
and film."

    The mention of "special lubricants" brings up a
non-photographic point of some interest. A camera
is a lightweight box with two rollers in it and very
low levels of force being used. We are "working
on" returning to the Moon and building a base there.
Presumably, we will also do that on Mars, and later,
eventually, other places. We're not going to be able
to do very much "building" (or digging or mining
or much of anything) using nothing but the human
muscles of "astronauts."

    No, we're going to need heavy machinery and lots
of it. A survivable lunar base will need to be buried in the
lunar surface or covered with feet of lunar soil or both.
What sort of lubricants will be needed for a lunar
bulldozer? Or a Martain back-hoe? What will protect
axles, gears, drives, etc., under loads of tons of force
and yet work at minus 250 F? What seal materials
will function reliably for months or years on an exposed
outer airlock door that goes from minus 250 F. to
plus 250 F. every two weeks? Or even on a wheel
bearing?

    The sad truth is that nobody knows. We can't even
get heavy machinery to work reliably in the puny Antarctic
winter where it hardly ever dips below minus 100 F and
is never in a vacuum. So, who's working on vacuum-
indifferent, high-load machine lubricants of every type
and function, with a 500-600 degree working range?
Raise your hands... anybody? How about seals?
Gaskets? Anybody?

    Or do we expect them to magically appear when
we need them? (Bitch, bitch, bitch...)


Sterling K. Webb
-------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "E.P. Grondine" <epgrondine at yahoo.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Weird pic...Apollo 14


> Hi all -
>
> When dealing with the man did not walk on the Moon
> nuts
> (and for these folks man did not walk on the Moon
> because either
> 1) they did not see the reamins of another
> civilization there, or
> 2) NASA was hiding the real astronauts, who did see
> the remains, by staging fake landings....
>
> Ahem,as I was saying... When dealing with the man did
> not walk on the Moon nuts, I simply tell them that
> NASA lied to them about the flim used, and that it was
> really recon film which was loaded in the astronauts
> cameras.
>
> These folks usually readliy accept that NASA lied to
> them, and given the premise the consequence follows:
> man walked on the Moon.
>
> If questioned, I tell them to take a roll of
> kodachrome or ektachrome, put it in the referigerator,
> then put it in an oven, and see how it works. Then
> imagine doing it in a vacuum.
>
> If they're really stubborn, I ask them if they
> remember Kodak running any ads claiming that now you
> could buy the same film used on the Moon, like Tang.
> They don't, and end of arguement.
>
> good hunting,
> Ed
>
Received on Fri 29 Dec 2006 01:51:00 AM PST