How One Camera Changed NASA and How We Saw the World
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ต.ค. 2022
- brilliant.org/CuriousDroid Get 20% off with this link.
The photographs that came from the Apollo missions have become some of the most famous and influential ever taken but these were done with mostly just one make of camera that only came about due to one of the early Mercury astronauts taking a low price commercial camera on board a mission to photo what they saw. So this is the story of how Hasselblad, a small Swedish manufacturer became the pivotal player in showing the world what it was really like in space and on the moon and our place in space.
This video is sponsored by Brilliant : brilliant.org/CuriousDroid
Written, researched and presented by Paul Shillito
Images and footage : NASA, Hasselblad, Mike Thomas
And a big thanks go to all our Patreons :-)
Eριχθόνιος JL
Adriaan_von_Grobbe
Alipasha Sadri
Andrew Smith
Brian Kelly
Cameron Elliot
Carl Soderstrom
Charles Thacker
ChasingSol
Collin Copfer
Daniel Davenport
Dom Riccobene
erik ahrsjo
Etienne Dechamps
Florian Muller
George Bishop II
Glenn Dickinson
Henning Bitsch
inunotaisho
Jesse Postier
Jim Early
Jonathan Merage
Jonathan Travers
Ken Schwarz
L D
László Antal
Lorne Diebel
Mark Heslop
oldGhostbear
Paul Freed
Paul Shutler
pizza smuggler
Pu239
Samuel Finch
SHAMIR
stefan hufenbach
Steve Ehrmann
Steve J - LakeCountySpacePort
tesaft
Thales of Miletus
Tim Alberstein
Tomasz Leszczyński
Will Lowe
Music from the TH-cam library
Toccata in D minor by J S Bach - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
During a Gemini space walk in 1966, astronaut Mike Collins accidently let go of a hand-held Hasselblad camera and it floated out of reach. The joke at Hasselblad was that they had built the first Swedish satellite to orbit the Earth.
Haha, technically they did
it was a SWC which stands for Super Wide Camera...38mm Zeiss Biogon lens., you had to use a special view finder attached to the top of camera, but you could get a ground glass adapter and view directly through lens, as the lens was not a retro focus lens, the rear element was only doubt 20 mm from the film plane, so no reflex viewing could be done, it did accept all the film magazines, from 120, 220,and the whopper 70mm which could take 70 images or more, I used to get 80 form the cadets I loaded, they even had a 500 frame back in 70mm, NASA had Hasselblad build a 200 frame 70 mm back for Apollo that was darkroom loaded with Estar base film which was very thin so they could get that about of exposures.....grat equipment..........I used to own a Swc....hated to get rid of it, buy was no longer needing and needed the money.....I am crying thinking about it...., it was amazing, Paul who get up 35 miles from the Cape in the Heyday. of the early launches...
That is no joke, it is a fact. ;-)
@@ypaulbrown all space hasselblads were modified from the factory. The 38mm on the swc, the 60 on the 500 c and el.
Shame he lost the camera, the spacewalk sounded spectacular
Some years ago, the BBC showed a series called "A History of Art in Three Colours." In the episode about blue, the presenter said about the Earthrise image "Speaking as a historian of art, I think that the entire Apollo program was worth it for that picture."
Curious Droid, you're one of the best channels on TH-cam hands down
Lies still remains lies, even when well presented.
@@Crazytesseract Your conspiracy priests seem to have done a very professional job on you.
@@phildavenport4150 Yeah, the conspiritards are confused. They think they have the truth when in reallity they have been conned.
@@Crazytesseract Exactly - the sheeple are easily manipulated.
@@phildavenport4150 The manufacturers of the Hasselblad camera themselves said it would be impossible to take pictures of the Moon in those temperatures [both hot and cold to the extremes] because the film would be freeze dried during the night and melt during the day......plus have you ever thought of the relative sizes of the Earth vs the Moon....now think about that Earth rise picture.....just two little clues among hundreds of the fallacy of the Moon landings.
Jim McDivitt, who took those spectacular pics of his friend Ed White's Gemini IV space walk, died Oct. 13 at 93. RIP, Jim.
He probably did more than any other non-lunar mission astronaut to make the lunar landings successful.
Just to add for those who think its not like today's cameras.. the medium format is likely equivalent to 80 Megapixels plus. The 16mm data acquisition camera easily 2k. Film has only recently been equaled and even then not for specialist film types.
You want all the detail on earth film the grain they can create today is insane.
And this comparison assumes you're putting equivalent glass in front of your digital camera. If not, the difference could be even larger!
Yes and no. It depends a great deal on the emulsions used. Color slide film has dramatically better resolution than color print films, especially in the 1960s. And high speed color film didnt really exist, (super high speed color film has really only existed for less than a decade) and for a very long time (until the mid 00s) even 400 speed color film was abysmally grainy and had bad color rendition, which is why they used B&W film any time they werent in direct sunlight.
Also, the optics on the Ansco were pretty crappy... so even with the best color slide film, the images are a bit soft by todays oversharpened standards.
Wow, 80 megapixels equivalent! I had no idea.
I am still using a 60 mm x 70 mm film camera, because that is what I have, the lenses are superb, it was very expensive so I want to get my money's worth out of it, and a digital camera that can perform as well or better is way too expensive. I typically run a 25 ASA pancromatic black & white film through it, and the results have a strikingly beautiful long tonality.
But I use digital for the smaller pix.
@@barrybrevik9178 Very cool. Most people just have no idea of the wonderful quality we have had for over a century.
The amount of thought that must have gone into the photography...astounding
I had not heard of the photo of Armstrong from the back. I had always thought that the only photo of him was when he took a head on photo of Aldrin, and Armstrong appeared as a reflection in the face visor.
Fascinating video. All the little details like the lubricant and the static just shows how much went into these missions. I still remember watching the first landing on the television as an 8 year old boy.
Buzz was a jealous SOB... lol
When you were 8 years old. But even today you do not realise you were taken for a ride. It is impossible for a human being to land on the moon in their current human body. Please try to understand.
@@Crazytesseract Aww - bless your little cotton socks!
@@daveseddon5227 His tin foil cap's a bit tight...
@@davidb6576 how would we survive a collision 💥 with a shooting star ✨ type object traveling at 20 to 160 thousand miles per hour? Space is a extremely violent environment.
Excellent! As a young teen, I was fortunate that my father obtained prints of a half dozen of the best shots, and we had them framed and displayed in my bedroom for a number of years.
You had a great childhood
Were they commercially-available or was this some unique access situation?
@@Cre80s My father worked in the aerospace industry (often at Wright Patterson Field) so I assume he had a connection to someone...but I really don't know. As a young teen I wasn't as inquisitive as I should have been.
It’s always a treat when you see a video that explores a topic you have never seen before. Something completely fresh and original. And so well written and presented, too. Great work, Paul! Hope all is well.
Hmm..
As both an engineer and very amateur photographer, this video makes me so happy. Incredible to learn how these amazing images were captured.
I remember those cameras on their chests. In the wisdom of my late teens, I thought it was dumb, but it was a great example of NASAs engineering skill.
When I was young and started my first experiments with photography, I always wondered how the astronauts could set up their cameras like I did, cause I did so much work through the viewfinder. That was the time when "setting up" means "adjusting f-spot and exposure time the way that an indicator in the viewfinder matches a small needle there" 🙂
Then I got more practice with my camera and realized a) in several lighting situations, like outside on a bright day, I only need some common settings and it will work, with some rule-of-thumb like "sunny 16" helping b) I was practiced enough to set up the focus just by using the scales on the optics for common scenes and c) I knew where to point the camera at without even using the viewfinder. Yes, special situations still required careful set up, but the common "take snapshots from the playing kids outside" could be set up by me almost blindly 🙂(and I forgot point d: some mistakes could be fixed in post, like selecting, rotating and simple exposure corrections)
It's practice and knowing the lighting situations beforehand. And as uncommon as it might seem in the first place, but that's what the Apollo astronauts got when taking photos on the moon surface. Another example of extensive preparation beforehand.
Paul, you are a treasure. Nobody does that kind of deep dive on those subjects. Thanks mate!
Back when I was studying photography at university, the department had 3 500 C's and one El. We had to sign up for a waiting list to use the cameras. They were so expensive that most students couldn't afford their own.
Interesting that they engineered the EL to use 70mm film with perforations (sprockets) rather than the standard, smooth edged 120/220.
Another thing that's worth noting is that with Hasselblad lenses, each lens has its own leaf shutter and aperture built in. The camera body is actually pretty simple having only the reflex mirror, ground glass for the viewfinder, the viewfinder itself, and the gearing that drives the film back via the hand crank.
Aside from the camera body, each lens is it's own camera - which (aside from the superb optics) is why Hasselblad Zeiss lenses are so expensive.
For anyone wanting to see every single photo, a good site is ASU's "March to the Moon" site with extreme quality scans of every negative taken during Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. The images are just amazing, and freely downloadable in a number of sizes including the raw max resolution tiffs at 1+ GB each.
Oh, excellent. I've been using the Lunar Surface Journal, but those are low-res scans in comparison.
Thanks for that reference!
But film outgasses in a vacuum !
The camera on the U2 spy plane had to be in an enclosed pressurised container because at such low pressure at 70,000 feet the film would be damaged ,strange that on the moon in a vacuum the film worked perfectly.........
@@Mrleejunman I have a problem with the operations temperatures of any film 📽️ in that environment, it would melt and curl distort, then freeze and crack not be flexible, I don't know what the radiation levels are but film gets cloudy white out when exposed to to much. the vacuum is a good point with a working example of how it was overcome.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN we can't even simulate the vacuum of the moon or space , NASA's vaccum chamber can only get to 10 torr , in space or on the moon it's beyond 13 torr which is substantially larger than 10 torr.
Homemade vacuum chambers only get to a fraction of what NASA's can ,there are plenty of videos of people experimenting with photographic film in homemade vacuum chambers and it completely destroyed the film.
Also the pressure inside the space capsule compared to the 13 torr vacuum outside would be greater than the bottom of the Mariana trench ! No way that flimsy moon Lander is strong enough to cope with that .
The capsules that went down the Mariana trench had small round windows a couple of inches wide and over a foot thick and they still cracked ! Compare the windows of the lem and moon Lander to the submersibles that went down the Mariana trench ,you will laugh .
As a kid, I had a huge print of "Earthrise" covering one whole wall of my bedroom. It was incredible.
it was missing all other planets and stars.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN And? Dynamic range is a thing.
@@u1zha the planets are vary Bright, I would expect them to show through if cought in frame.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN Try going outside on a clear starry evening and taking a photo of your brightly lit house from a low angle so you have the starry sky in the background, let us know how many stars you can find in the photo.
@@ats-3693 I'm saying a planet out side the atmosphere should be seen if it was in the frame.
one of the best cameras ever made. built like a tank, as precise as a swiss watch, and really fun to use!
...and yet it was mounted on the chest so the Astronots could not adjust the focus and framing and yet took perfect pictures 😆
@@blaze1148 And uncooled lol
@@blaze1148 i used to be a photographer.. and i had this camera .. (501 CM) .... i know they practiced with a chest rig on earth ... if you do practice enough.. you can shoot "blind" -- the focus adjustment is easy on that camera... because of "bracket focusing" -- so yes.. they shot a lot of pictures... but the 5-10 you see everywhere a few frames chosen out of thousands that were not "perfect" or out of frame..
got anymore space is fake conspiracies?
@@blaze1148 “perfect” to you, literally awful quality to any professional photographer.
My thanks to all the moon landing hoax believers commenting here. Your harmless lunacy * provides some welcome comic relief in these troubled times. It also reminds us mentally normal people that we could be a lot worse off.
* pun intended
Hoax folks make the best jokes, take the longest tokes, and blow the most smoke.
get your Boowstass 😁
NASA had to produce that cold war propaganda to end the nuke race, grow up. Tzar Bomba 100 k yield on a USSR heavy lifter would end Washington DC. we did EVERYTHING to cripple that power and won. watch the first interview they wanted to go to the moon, looks like they are at a funeral ☹️, they faked it for there country at that time. we will get there when we have shielding as powerful as the Earth's atmosphere.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN Your argument is unconvincing, given the facts at hand.
@@casanovafrankenstein4193 it will all come out some day, when you see a ship with plasma shielding, and water radiation shielding then we might be on our way out in to space. untill then it's a no go to hostile environment
I watched the First Moon Landing blurry video as a teen, and I've watched many documentaries. And still, STILL, half a century later, I still get choked up by things like this.
Excellent.... I once saw an advert for Hasselblad Cameras in a high end photography magazine ... it read would you like a Hasselblad for free ? .... Well just go to the moon and pick one up ! CLASSIC !
I once heard that Hasselblad offered a reward of one million dollars if you returned one of their cameras from the Moon! 😀
My dad was a professional photographer in the 70s and 80s and he almost always used medium format film and cameras (Mamiya RB67 6x7 cm & C330 6x6 cm). A few years ago he scanned all of his negatives and slides, he had to remain somewhat conservative with his scanning resolution but the detail captured in the scans is incredible.
So glad that NASA sent these Hasselblad cameras on the moon missions.
Yet more amazing work Paul. Bravo.
Absolutely fascinating story.
Hasselblad will love you for this!
They'd love it more if they hadn't discontinued the 500C a few years ago. Film is still a big art medium and that was the best medium format camera on the market.
They do sell a version of their medium format digital cameras in "classic" trim as a "Moon Landing commemorative edition"... and it runs at around $10k. Not exactly the kind of thing that TH-cam clout will buy you. Hassy doesnt need any help at all.
Nothing better than Monday Night Curious Droid! Paul’s videos are so good that I give it a “thumbs up” right after hitting the play button. One of the best channels on TH-cam!
Thank you for this. It was fascinating. I loved the text on screen of what the astronauts where saying to each other in the lead up to the earth rise photo capture
Excellent! As a camera buff for many decades, I found this video fascinating. I’ve never held a Hasselblad on my hands, but certainly knew them be reputation. Thank you for this high quality, informative video.
Used one *once* years ago at college - beautifully designed and built - unlike their 'lesser' 6x6 counterparts, they didn't 'jump' when the mirror flipped up to take an image - you could feel the centre of gravity change but that was about it !
My Hasselblad 500c/m kit is the pride and joy of my collection...
Brilliant! As a kid in the 60s the only way to get past the stoicism of engineers, astronauts (and journalists) of the day, it was these photos from the Mercury - Gemini - Apollo missions that would show up in my Dad's weekly Time magazines from the US. Totally inspirational in the day!
(James Burke too: Sitting up as a 15 year old at 4.00am, July'69 watching his commentary while taking photos of the TV. I still have the negs...)
Yes indeed and so do I. Great times. We never saw their like again.
We didn't have a TV, but luckily our neighbours did - and let us sit in their living room (in our pyjamas!) and watch history being made. Hard to believe now, but I was actually not happy watching it, as I had always dreamed of being the first man on the moon. As a travel sick Brit, I knew there was no chance of this ever happening, of course, but it was still Armstrong stealing 'my' moment!
They all knew it wasn't possible and were unhappy being forced to go along with it.
Lovely memories. I too was allowed to stay up to watch the landing but...being only 5 yrs old at the time, I fell asleep at the critical moment!
@@MattyEngland
Please fool STFU, you not having the education to comprehend the science behind a moon landing does not equal the endeavour being faked.
You really needed to actually watch the video as you maybe would have learned something that would inform your belief system.
Please explain the existence of negatives from the Hasselblad's mentioned in this video, that clearly could only be taken the moon. Since analysed by Nvidia optical techs and confirmed to be genuine!!!
Take your lying bullshit somewhere else dick head!!!!!
Hasselblad made that model up util just a few years ago, and sadly they discontinued it. A friend of mine has one and it's a really sweet camera.
It’s been discontinued but they still do repairs and maintenance, which is why the 500 series is still expensive today. You can also buy from Hasselblad a digital back (CFV II) that replaces the film magazine, transforming the film camera into a digital 50mpx one, and it creates amazing shots.
Static can be an issue on earthbound film as well, but more for the discharge causing spots rather than lighting everything on fire. It's really only an issue with high film speeds in cold weather. Motion film (eg Kodak Vision3) has a backing to reduce that risk (and others)
The cosmonauts used the Kiev medium format cameras (one style a big SLR, the other a Hasselblad copy) and on Mir, in an emergency, one got used as a hammer, and did the job quite well. iirc it was the Hassy copy, and still worked as well after (though they are known to have issues, and are not the same quality of Hasselblad)
I guess they didnt come from the same factory as the other ones, because Kiev cameras are notoriously unreliable
@@swisswildpicsswp3095 see, nothing really changed (^_~)
@@swisswildpicsswp3095 Also, I have one of the SLR ones. It worked for values of work.
It was fun to play with.
@@jpkalishek4586 I wanted one also, but I think I will just save enough money for a Pentax 6x7
@@swisswildpicsswp3095 when I was really into photography, I was also near broke, so no way could I afford a Pentacon or Pentax 6x7. On the other end of roll-film, I've an uncle who has an Auto 110 Pentax, the 110 Instamatic film mini SLR.
Absolutely top notch video, thanks! I often have TH-cam playing while I do other stuff, but found this one so interesting, I just sat and watched it without my usual distractions! :)
That was well done - well researched and presented. Thanks for the effort.
I know this is a long shot but I know you're into synthesizers and would love to see you do a deep dive into the history of the Moog and Buchla synthesizers.
I put a big poster of the Earthrise image on my wall when I was 13.
Today I'm an Astrophysicist and amateur photographer. These early space images were instrumental in forming what I have done with my life.
Without these images I'm not sure I'd have been so interested in space travel and space in general. They're captivating to look at, to think about what humans were doing as they took the images. A record of the greatest achievement in the history of our species.
A great pity they are fake.
@@blaze1148 More likely you're a fake.
@@phildavenport4150 Well then the Moon Landings must of been real 😆
@@phildavenport4150 He's right, it was not one image, it's at least two 'photoshopped'. Maybe do a little research before assuming your go to 'trustworthy' media is telling you the truth...
@@doug8515 Do some research yourself. While you're at it, discover the difference between "photoshopped" and "composite".
I could say a lot, it condenses to two words :- Absolutely fascinating.
Both informative and entertaining Paul. Good job 👏
The Cosmosphere Air and Space museum in Hutchinson KS has many of the actual flown hassleblad cameras from the Apollo program, along side the actual Apollo 13 capsule recovered from the ocean and multiple other pieces of flown hardware. One of the most impressive collections of space hardware anywhere in the world, a highly recommended visit.
But film outgasses in a vacuum !
The camera on the U2 spy plane had to be in an enclosed pressurised container because at such low pressure at 70,000 feet the film would be damaged ,strange that on the moon in a vacuum the film worked perfectly.........
👍
@@Mrleejunman Kodak made modified film for the lunar excursions.
Great video! Can't wait for the "why are there no stars?!?" comments :-)
Would love to have my own Hasselblad, but the cameras and especially the lenses are still ridiculously expensive...
You can get a Russian or Chinese medium format camera and get the wonderful quality of that big negative fairly cheaply. The Russian lenses can be excellent.
@@martinda7446 Yes, Ii know you can get e.g. a Kiev 88 or something like that, but it is always a crapshoot concerning the quality and just not the same as a real Hasselblad. I have a Pentax 645N, so I am good on medium format for now, but a Hasselblad is still on my wish list, just for the "moon camera" coolness.
Good luck. Their digital cameras cost as much as a lunar mission and film Hassys on the used market have retained value, even the ones notorious for mechanical failures. Mamiya SLRs is the way to go if you want a reliable medium format rig on a reasonable budget.
@@patreekotime4578 True, but one can still dream :-) as for now, I am happy with my Pentax and my Chinese Rolleiflex knockoff (and the Yashica MAT-124G which works whenever it feels like it)
As always, entertaining, informative, well researched and Brilliantly presented, continually looking forward to your videos, lovely work.
Thanks for this terrific look at this important subject!
Quality content! Loved those slides showing which window was about to see the earth. What program was used for that? Looks like Orbiter, but I could be wrong.
That was, IIRC, a NASA video produced for the 50th anniversary of the mission in 2018.
Fascinating stuff. Not often I sit riveted to a video like I did with this one. Many thanks, Paul.
Love the detail in your narratives.
The same thing happened to Edmund Hillary on the summit of Mt. Everest. He had forgotten to teach Tenzing Norgay how to use the camera, so there are only pictures of Norgay on the summit.
Were these two together on the summit? If so, Hillary could've set the camera and handed it to the other person to press the button. What am I missing about this story?
@@jasondashney Nothing, except they were cold and exhausted, and they only spent 15 minutes up there. Hillary spent most of that time taking pictures of the surroundings, partly to prove there was nothing higher than they were. It's also possible there could have been a language barrier. At any rate, Hillary himself said it.
Hello Curious Droid, Hope you all the best .✌✌
stunningly detailed and interesting video Paul!
Wonderful video, Paul! so much detail!
Whomever the next person to step upon the Moons surface is, I hope they bring one of these cameras along with their standard equipment. A camera that's been on the Moon twice in two different missions, in two different centuries.
They use Nikons on the ISS. There doesn't seem to be any info on handheld cameras for Artemis, but the automated cameras being used on the capsule are called Redwire. Sounds a little much like HAL9000 for my liking :)
And they should also be wearing an Omega Speedmaster watch, too, just like the one Buzz is wearing in these photos.
Hassy does make medium format digital cameras, but they may be outside of NASAs budget.
The problem is most of the cameras were discarded on the moon. They brought back the film cartridges but not the cameras.
@@allangibson8494 if they could land in the exact same spot I wonder if they could pick up the old cameras and start using them.
Excellent video, with so many details I haven’t seen or heard before, and I thought I’ve seen a lot. The amount of footage and intricate details from these missions that haven’t really made it to general public never cease to amaze me. Whenever I learn something new, I can’t help but shake my head at all those conspiracy theories trying to deny moon landing was real. With so many people working on so many details of the missions, the sheer amount of fabrication required to make it all believable would have been unfathomable. Literally harder than landing on the moon itself.
You need to remember that factual evidence to the contrary will never have the slightest impact on conspiritards who want to believe the shit that drives them. Try the flat Earth folk - no amount of evidence has the slightest effect on their weird, received beliefs.
Glad too see ya still kicking !!!!
Really nice. Always a nice couple of minutes your videos.
There is a flickr album with pretty much all the Apollo (high-res!) photos: www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
Let's be real: NASA missions today *STILL* give very little focus to the multimedia. Which is gobmacking, given this context. The most heavily-viewed NASA content on TH-cam are the two Mars landing sequences, both of which are video sequences. They can do it if they want to: Buffer the videos and upload them over time. But it's never a focus, and we mostly get still images. The Huygens Probe gave us circa 1988 jpegs and a post-landing image that's lower detail than the Soviets' Venus photos. The video capabilities of the *first drone sent to another planet* were a literal afterthought and essentially RealMedia quality. Watch the multimedia capabilities of the Europa probe be similarly unexciting.
I am sure that within NASA, people and teams literally SCREAM for more volume, weight, power and data budgets for cameras during the development of any probe. I guess that in many cases, it simply cannot be justified to delete a scientific instrument to make room for a better (or extra) camera, and its associated systems.
We have to hope that as the price of a kg launched to space keeps dropping, it'll be easier to include more cameras and other stuff that the public loves on future probes.
I believe Perseverance landing had way more footage than what was strictly necessary for science purposes and these were actual videos transferred from the rover after it landed. But the thing is, data transfer capacity of Deep Space Network has its limits and there is whole lot of probes and missions that want to use it. Any capacity allocated for pure PR data transfers is equal to loss of scientific data of the same volume that can't be transferred. They always need to strike a balance between the two.
@@SolarWebsite There was an episode in the From the Earth to the Moon series which focused on the media component of the Space Race equation. One character in that episode summed it up best, and I'll paraphrase: "It's the American public who are footing the bill for these ventures-perhaps an appropriate portion of the budget ought to be spent on something that's meaningful to *them.* " And this was specifically in reference to taking films, high quality photos and even live TV during the moon missions. We got the absolute best they could manage during the Apollo era. We have *not* gotten the best since then. Justification? Inspiration. You don't inspire with accidental technological trickle-down decades after the fact, but you *can* inspire with in-your-face multimedia, as the popularity of the Mars landing videos underscores.
I think the Mars perseverance rover has a 720p film cam but they only seem to use it at seven and half frames per second due to the very long time it takes to relay the data back to earth. As you said their focus is on getting the scientific data back. They do take extremely his res images but again they are mainly close up images of rocks as it is basically a geological mission looking for past microbial life.
I think they have put a few film cameras on the Orion capsule as the first one going to the moon will not have crew on board. Lets hope they use them as data transfer from moon orbit is not such an issue.
I agree 200%. If they continue to fail to excite the public, they'll get no missions at all. People need to see where their money is going. Too often, they seem to forget that fact. It's very surprising, to be honest.
Brilliant video as always Paul. Thankyou
Amazing video. Thank you for the information!
Great video. I may be biased given my extensive interest in film photography, but it is once again a well put together video as always.
Such an informative and enthralling video. Thank you very much. 😊
Absolutely fascinating video! Well done!
As a longtime user of Hasselblads I thought I knew all the stories - but didn’t realise there was a frame of Armstrong - I was always under the impression there was just 16mm film. Never heard of the story of the film tech.
For a while Hasselblad cameras manufacturing was a bit iffy and they were not as reliable - I was on a trade stand where someone was complaining - and the salesman said “but sir, they take our cameras to the moon” and the complainer said “yes, and they they swapped them for rocks”
How do you think they change the film on the surface of the moon? Anything about that story doesn’t make sense to you? Ever try changing that film while wearing latex gloves, let alone, welding gloves?
@@Unbreaded452 They didn't change film, they changed film magazines, which were redesigned to be handled by people wearing bulky gloves.
@@Unbreaded452 if you followed the story you will of read that each magazine on the camera held up to 200 exposures. Changing this, even with huge gloves is easy.
@@Unbreaded452 The whole camera was set up to ease the handling by the astronauts. Not only did they use film magazines to massively ease film changing or add a motor winder as shown in this video, they also enlarged the release button for easy handling and even limited the set up of the camera itself, the astronauts didn't have to hassle that much with focus or exposure, they only had a few presets to choose from (since the lighting situation was very much known beforehand, not like on earth where for example a cloud could suddenly darken the sunlight).
To think that they prepared for years for the mission but never got the idea "hey, let's try to take a photo in full suit to see if we can handle that" is pretty unbelievable by itself.
@@Unbreaded452 Apparently you either didn't watch the entire video or you have a problem understanding simple explanations.
7:26 that tells you a lot about the mindset of NASA at the time to never have reached out to Hasselblad prior to the flight.
Spectacular episode, as per usual. Thanks mate.
Great subject Paul. Many thanks for the video.
Just a guess here. The development of thin, polyester base photographic film might have gotten a boost from the Corona photographic reconnaissance satellite program.
But film outgasses in a vacuum !
The camera on the U2 spy plane had to be in an enclosed pressurised container because at such low pressure at 70,000 feet the film would be damaged ,strange that on the moon in a vacuum the film worked perfectly.........
@@Mrleejunman It’s odd that you say the U-2 cameras were pressurized. Photographs of a retired U-2 camera online certainly do not look like it is designed to withstand pressurization. In particular, the film reel covers appear to be relatively thin sheet metal with simple bent metal flanges at the separating line and only four snap catches each to hold them on. Four snap catches would certainly not provide enough holding power to keep those rather large covers sealed against significant pressure differential. What is your reference for saying that the U-2 cameras were pressurized? The cameras in the Corona spy satellites are known to have suffered a problem due to operation in vacuum. Without atmospheric moisture to help bleed off static electricity, they had static discharges that spoiled film. Paul mentions that the Apollo Hasselblads had features designed to mitigate that problem.
@@Mrleejunman What is your reference for the statement “film outgases in a vacuum”? Given its composition, it is entirely likely that photographic film does outgas a little water vapor, but water vapor, if it remains vapor and especially if it vents out of an apparatus such as a camera, is not likely to be very harmful. Here on Earth, nearly all cameras operate quite nicely in the presence of significant water vapor. To be problematic, the outgassing would either have to damage the film, or condense on sensitive camera components. What is your evidence that happens?
@@Mrleejunman Outgassing is not only a vacuum phenomenon. It happens routinely here on Earth at atmospheric pressure. Example: Automobile windows routinely build up a thin deposit of oily liquid, plasticizer that has outgassed from plastics in the car interior. I have cleaned that sort of outgassing deposit from my own car windows many times. During the heyday of photographic film, millions of square meters of film were used by millions of photographers, professional and amateur, in millions of cameras, around the world in the widest range of environments. Yet, film outgassing is not mentioned as a concern in film photography textbooks, magazines or online forums. Why? Why aren’t the insides of film cameras plagued with buildup of outgassing deposits from film? Why were movie and slide projectors not similarly befouled? What of film in storage either before or after processing? Why does no one mention deposits of outgassing residue in film storage containers? Film photography has become popular again among some professional and amateur photographers. Why don’t they mention needing to clean outgassing residue from old cameras and lenses they put back in service? There is reason to think you are overstating the problems that may arise from film outgassing.
look out, the flerfs are gonna start calling you a shill, lol
I totally enjoyed that Paul, great episode mate. Cheers Dave :-)
Fantastic video as always, thank you very much for it
Very interesting. I work with a couple guys who say the Moon landing was faked but I just tell them it was easier to land on the Moon than to fake it. The Saturn V rocket was real and it went into space. If you're already in space then you might as well go to the freakin' Moon while you're up there. :D
Near earth orbit was all they achieved, the rest was nonsense.
I don't believe anything about that moon landing. Look at that equipment in 1969... And there were tapes full of recordings, but they are "gone" / deleted. It was just all Cold War propaganda.
What we can never explain to those who weren't around at the time is how big this thing was. Night after night our TV schedules filled with the world's best experts explaining, in real time, what was happening, why it was happening and how it was happening. Men to whom their reputations were everything and not easily fooled. International involvement too, signals received not only by NASA but also by independent dishes around the world including Jodrell Bank. They've even got a doppler trace showing the Lunar Modules decent which matches exactly the telemetry received from the LEM itself. I don't waste my breath on the nay-sayers anymore. Their little theories have been debunked many times but they're happy to ignore the evidence. Those were great days and we've never seen their like again.
@@MattyEngland With the Russians (who, at the height of the Cold War are not *about* to just sit on any evidence of fakery...it would be Gary Powers all over again) and everybody else watching and monitoring (even the Jodrell Bank radiotelescope, which monitored the high-inclination Soviet manned craft, could not 'see' low inclination US missions that were not above its horizon, but they could darn well receive voice and telemetry from anything headed for the Moon)...sure.
@@MattyEngland That's the hardest bit. Why would they stop there? 🤣
In the new era of cluster-patch, superficial, flashy, AI driven content it is refreshing to get a deep, thorough, calm documentary I can trust. Thanks.
Excellent videos, keep up the good work!
so a Hasselblad camera still on the moon today..?
Several. Two per missions (or four?). Well, a dozen at least ;-)
Yes
Two Hasselblad cameras, one 16mm Maurer 16mm data acquisition camera (not the Apollo 11 one, which Armstrong secretly brought back), plus the two TV cameras on each mission (only Apollo 12 had only one, and Apollo 13 never landed). They had 35mm Nikons too, but not sure if they were brought (and discarded) on the LM. All of that was SUPPOSED to be left on the moon, but in principle every single one (except for the three GCTA's on Apollo 15-17) could conceivably have been brought back.
@@ArKritz84since apollo program end, no human back to the moon, all the equipment still there and no one touch, maybe still in same place, fascinating, not sure any modern technology is possible to spot the moon rover from earth ,if can do that, then moon landing very real, not fake or staged.
Apollo mission ,put human on the moon even today, the risk still extremely high, so easy to go wrong, thats crazy.
im not a space nerd, dont know whats next landing a human on other planet project is, hope no need wait too long to witness something big like apollo mission.
@@bukwok sadly, no observation from earth is possible, because of the distance to, and size of, the objects. There have been a couple of orbiters taking pictures, like the LRO, but because of their limited size the landers are not very clearly visible. Hopefully we won’t have to wait as long for the next crewed lunar landings, which will be facilitated by NASA’s Artemis program.
Oh dear....I hope there are no whacko nutters subscribed here :(
None, I 100% believe that freemasons played golf on the moon 53 years ago, and not only that, it was so easy that they decided to take a 4x4 for a drive too. 👍👍 Say hi to Santa and the tooth fairy for me 👍
@@MattyEngland
Educate yourself. Maybe start with EASEP, ALSEP, and LLR?
They are everywhere.
@@MattyEngland We are in In 1969… we are at the height of the cold war.
The Soviets, more than anyone else, are scrutinizing America's smallest military movements by sending spies to assess the progress of their space program. Beating the United States on this front is crucial for their ego. They follow the preparations, analyze the flight plan and hope nothing will work. Takeoff takes place. They follow the rocket and the entire planet admires this incredible acheivement and the Russians need to face this humiliating setback. The Russian scientific community, their imposing military machine and their thousands of secret agents are stunned. They lost the race. But no! Wait! They got fucked! Everything was filmed in the studio and the astronauts are all liars! Then the Soviet Union missed a golden opportunity to humiliate its opponents. Their spies have frankly missed their shot.
I lift my hat to the 12 astronauts who claim to have walked on the moon, to their 24 colleagues who say they stayed in lunar orbit and to the 400,000 people involved in the Apollo missions and every single of them. has shut their mouth for 50 years!
And I forgot ... all the filming crews of all these missions that have also all shut their mouth for 50 years!
Congratulations on the biggest conspiracy of humanity!
Educate yourself, take physics class, Maths class, astrophysics class. More challenging than youtube conspiracy videos but definitely worth it unless having the feeling of being right is more important to you than reality and truth.
Absolutely fantastic you are Paul!!!
As always fantastic vid mate !! 👍💯👌
Oh, no...
Now the 500's are going to be even *more* expensive.
Please don't buy one, folks, unless you're actually hoing to *use* it? A Hasselblad on a shelf is one of the saddest things a film photographer can ever witness.
🥺
This is interesting to me as in the 1980's i worked for a company that developed film and i remember being told that is i went on holiday and took photos, not to leave them in a bag/suitcase that went through an xray machine as this would over expose the latent images on the undeveloped film. If this is true then how did nasa stop the film in these camaras on these missions from being over exposed from x-ray's? I have heard that nasa developed a special paint to cover the cameras but while you mention some coatings for the cameras you dont mention anything about x-ray protection...................any chance you can explain please?
why would you expect x-rays?
@@Agarwaen plenty of xrays in space
@@MattyEngland and what is your source for this? who did the measurements you trust on this? what's the actual radiation flux in the x-ray band you're claiming?
@@Agarwaen The camera on the U2 spy plane had to be in an enclosed pressurised container because at such low pressure at 70,000 feet the film would be damaged ,strange that on the moon in a vacuum the film worked perfectly.........
Easy to look up what a vacuum does to photographic film and that the hasselblad cameras had no pressure seals .
The same thing they did to protect the crew, put them in a metal case...
That stops most of the radiation.
Fascinating & Informative ! Thank You.
Now that was seriously interesting. Even more than usual. Very nice informative video.
It amazes me how much more advanced our technical abilities were in 1969
They weren’t
I'm surprised some moon hoax people try to hide behind sarcasm.
The grannies who operated the sewing machines have long since passed away.
@@MattyEngland
Same for most of the others. A few left..
@@MattyEngland Passed. In the past.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Just check out the blast crater beneath the LEM's "rocket engine exhaust nozzle.
Q: What did the stars look like?
A: I don't recall
Van Allen radiation belt's anyone?
- Why would there be a blast crater from the comparatively tiny LM landing on the lunar surface in 1/6th gravity?
- Please stop quote-mining.
- Are you aware that all radiation isn’t like putting a gerbil into a microwave oven? Also, space has three dimensions, and the radiation around the earth is not called the Van Allen Domes.
So, you assume that the people, who allegedly went so far to accurately simulate a vacuum and people walking in 1/6 of earths gravity just forgot to dig a little under the moonlander? Sorry, but the "crater" argument runs on the same level as the alleged missing stars, fluttering flag or a rock with a big letter "C" on it, it wouldn't make any sense even IF it would all be fake (WHICH IT ISN'T!).
It only shows that for people like you, reality isn't real enough, how dare it doesn't look like what you imagine it to be.
@@ArKritz84
Because the dust on the moon was held down with only 1/6 G. How much wind would it take to disturb it? Do you know the velocity of gas required to hold up 6,000 lbs?
@@ArKritz84
3,800-6,500 miles per hour
Typical rocket engine exhaust velocity.
Take a close look at the moon's surface directly below the rocket engine exhaust nozzle
@@gonebamboo4116 I don’t understand what you mean by “hold up 6000 lbs”, nor how the number is relevant, or why you would use the term “wind”. I’d like a source for the DPS exhaust velocity, how much it was throttled when they shut it off, and which pictures you want me to look at.
It's amazing how much pre planning and thought went into just a camera. Great upload, thanks.
What a shame that there are braindeads polluting these vids who want us to believe that they "know" that Hasselblad said that their cameras would not work in space. It all serves to bolster their claim that Kubrick filmed the whole thing in a huge sound stage somewhere - site unknown, of course.
Loved it!. Thanks.
Looking well bud and I hope you stay well. Great film as usual
Another very interesting and original mini documentaries.
I always look forward to your videos 👍
This was fascinating. Thanks for sharing that piece of history with us
Very good video, thanks for digging up all this information! :)
What an awesome video, thank you!
Very educational and interesting. Thank You Very Much
As usual a very interesting video, well documented and narrated!
1st class Paul....thanks for sharing
Great topic. Thanks for the video
This may be your best video so far! AWESOME!
As always absolutely amazing content thanks
Great video mate!
Great technical information a good video.
Amazing what was achieved back then. Great vid, thanks.
Great Paul. Stay well.
Great content as always! 👍🏻
You almost sort of story tell. Explaining the circumstances and how the iconic image of, ‘earth rise’ came to be; It gave me goosebumps!
I really love Hubble images as well, and the success of the JWST is such a treat.
There seems, to me anyway; A certain more definable humanity and excitement when you can appreciate context in such critical circumstances.
You are a wonderful credit to our species. You deserve much love and continued heath.
Keep dreaming buddy if it makes you feel warm and cosy inside.
@@blaze1148 Yeah, much better to be consumed by fear about endless conspiracies, like you.
@@phildavenport4150 Who is fearful^^.....i'm just not easily duped like 99% of people here it seems.....naivety is nothing to be proud of my friend.
great video and subject!
the music you put on the vid - perfect, underlines the topic great