Here's my Amazon affiliate link to buy your own Saturn V Rocket: technicalitystudios.com/secretlink *CUT FOR TIME:* _On Project Gemini:_ After achieving the three goals of Project Mercury, NASA began Project Gemini, the goals of which were four-fold: *holding fingers* walk in space, change orbit, dock two spacecrafts together in orbit, and keep two astronauts alive and healthy in space for a decent amount of time. Getting rid of the leatherette covering and painting the camera black in hopes of reducing reflection were the only changes that needed to be made to the Hasselblads on Gemini missions. Photos of Ed White being the first American to conduct a spacewalk on June 3, 1965 filled up magazines and rallied Americans to support NASA. Moreover, they were also really great at showing the world (specifically, the Soviet Union) the progress America made in the space race. These photos also caught the attention of Victor Hasselblad himself, who, upon seeing them, reached out to NASA to develop a camera specifically for use in outer space. Thus began the 38-year-long partnership between NASA and Hasselblad, which I like to call Nasselblad. Get it? _On “No, I cannot make one like that, but I can make a better one.”_ Sources disagree as to if those are the exact words that he said; I found a source that quotes him with saying, “No, not one like that, but a better one.” My guess is that this is due to the variability in translation from Swedish to English, as well as the fact that this was said 75+ years ago. Nonetheless, the sentiment is still there. _On Launch Escape Systems:_ If Alan Shepard’s LES did accidentally trigger after launch for whatever reason (though this is very unlikely), since this was a suborbital flight, he would’ve been completely safe, but the mission would’ve been ruined. LES systems are generally (if not always) disabled upon entering orbit. Hey! Thanks for watching the video and reading this comment! If you enjoyed the video, it's super helpful to click the like button, and you should totally follow me on Instagram - instagram.com/alexunickel - while you're at it. See you on November 18th!
Is it weird to say I'm proud of you? Like you all this, imo, incredible work, yet you maintain your school work (hopefully) and manage to still be enthusiastic and humble. I mean, I don't even know you in real life, yet it brings me so much pride to see you succeed. Also, I thought that "what's in my bag?" skit was hilarious.
"I got a pretty good deal on mine; it was around $6.4 billion, which would be around $42 billion today, but I’m pretty sure it comes with free 2-day shipping" I really LOL'd when you said this. Love it.
Clicked his Hamilton video thinking it was like one of those watchmojo type channels, imagine my surprise when it was a kid teaching me Hamilton facts I didn't know despite being in college :'). Immediately clicked his channel cause even back then he was really good with talking and explaining history and I'm impressed. This guy needs way more views, he could totally be used as videos in a history class. You can count on me showing these videos to my class when I find a job after I graduate in like 3 more years :)
You were good from the beginning (or at least when Tom Scott mentioned you) but you've managed to get even better. But go on, keep evolving, don't stop there!
Greetings from Finland, sir.. wonderfull content you have in general, nice to see something actually civilizing in the social media these days, keep up the good work ^^
Katie Chambers guess you would have to join the patreon. I don’t want my jokes to feel over played. If I find myself on patreon soon I will copy it over.
Katie Chambers guess you would have to join the patreon. I don’t want my jokes to feel over played. If I find myself on patreon soon I will copy it over.
Katie Chambers guess you would have to join the patreon. I don’t want my jokes to feel over played. If I find myself on patreon soon I will copy it over.
Hasselblad didn't have to "work with Kodak" to make 70mm film. You made it sound like they adapted 35mm film to make 70mm. These two formats of film were already in general use at the time. They DID work with Kodak to make a thinner film base so that they could get more exposures in the 70mm "magazine," thereby reducing weight. I wish you had mentioned the two lenses that were selected for the mission: 60mm and 250mm. The Carl Zeiss lenses made for Hasselblad cameras were the main reason that the photos from the missions were so excellent.
Aww 😢 I didn’t get the pun ☹️-btw 1.4k views and no 👎. That means there are 1.4k genuinely good people out there and they all came together to watch this video! Hope in humanity restored💕
NebTheWeb film has an emulsion on the surface of the acetate substrate which accepts the image. This emulsion has water in it. Water boils away in a vacuum. The image would be affected and would be degraded. This has been demonstrated by Marcus Allen.
@@bobfreuden Lol, the film used and the cameras were all tested during Mercury, Gemini, and of course APOLLO. www.hasselblad.com/history/hasselblad-in-space/ You don't get over 15,000 photos from the film that has not been tested in space. Here are the 1800dpi film scans of ALL of the Apollo missions. www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157658601662068
Great video. One tiny criticism, the camera John Glen used was a Minolta. This is pronounced Min-ol-ta. Somehow you found an extra letter i in your pronunciation and that seems to have confused the remaining letters o,l,t and a, leading you to say Min-i-to-la. I know it's a tiny thing, but hearing it was quite jarring. I hate to be 'that guy' who points out trivial points, but that's Tom Scott's fault. If he hadn't picked your video for one of his vacation hosts thing, I wouldn't be watching this video. Keep up the good work.
nothing explained here about how a camera was already on the moon when the module landed..was filmed from behind a rock.ao how is that? just watched the "landing"
You wrote "how a camera was already on the moon when the module landed". Assuming that you are referring to the Apollo 11 Mission then I can assure you that the film of the landing was from a handheld camera pointing out a window. If you are referring to the filming of Armstrong 's first steps on the lunar surface then the camera was mounted on the Descent Stage of the Lunar Module and pointed it at the steps. This Westinghouse camera was stored for flight in the lunar module’s Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA), a compartment near the ladder that Armstrong climbed down to reach the Moon’s surface. To activate the camera, he pulled on a handle that in turn released the door to the MESA. It is quite easy to understand. Take care.
@@AllonKirtchik, I don't know much about that I just thought I overheard my father saying that once, and he's the photography nut in the family, I'm not... I actually just googled the F3 and the first link put the public release at 1980, so even later.
I love the enthusiasm, but there are some issues. At 0:36 you can see the viewfinder but the ones NASA used were modified: No viewfinder, no exposure meter. Apollo11 also took a number of scientific instruments to the moon, but kept forgetting to take the obvious piece that astronomers for centuries have been making and using: A telescope or 'Telephoto lens'. Neil and Buzz took a large number of pictures on the moon of footprints, dust, the LEM and of Buzz, but never once tried to take a single sharp picture of the earth. They also never thought to walk into the LEM shadow (despite being there a few times - see www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5886.jpg ) to attempt a picture of the Milky Way, which would have been the clearest picture ever that man would have of it. The images of the dust from Apollo 11 also have an oddity about them, not the fact the LEM shadow it almost as the horizon line or that the scene appears lit by a spot-lamp, or the fill-in backlight used on the previous photo (but missing on this one - note the darker backpack! www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5964.jpg), but the stones on the floor. For a stone to fall on the dust - soft enough to make footprints - it would have to make a small mark but there are none, the stones just magically sit on the surface with no sign of how they arrived. They are also free of dust so they must have arrived after the dust - so how did they end up there? They can only be explained by wind smoothing the dust away - but there is no wind on the moon.... but I know where there is a complete weather system that creates landscapes like that!
@Graham said _"They also never thought to walk into the LEM shadow (despite being there a few times - to attempt a picture of the Milky Way, which would have been the clearest picture ever that man would have of it."_ - You don't get it, do you. You cannot take photos of the stars during the day, even on the moon. The exposure times needed to capture stars of any kind are too long and you would need a tripod and exposure times lasting seconds for the light to register on the film. Since the cameras were strapped to their chests that would have been nearly impossible for them to do. Also, any light shining on the moon's surface would be blown out by the long exposure times rendering the photo useless. - _"For a stone to fall on the dust - soft enough to make footprints - it would have to make a small mark but there are none, the stones just magically sit on the surface with no sign of how they arrived. They can only be explained by wind smoothing the dust away - but there is no wind on the moon.."_ - That is quite an assumption on your part. You are right about one thing, Its the MOON, not earth. 1/6th gravity, and basically hasn't changed at all for millions if not billions of years. When the LM landed the rocket created an artificial wind, but since there is no drag or air resistance on the moon there was no billowing or dust floating about. It settles pretty far out and quickly. As they landed all of the dust blew out radially away from the LM and straight out to the sides for long distances (expanding gasses). All of the landing videos show this. Notice there is no dust rolling upon itself (billowing). th-cam.com/video/XvKg68DcTZA/w-d-xo.html - _"the fact the LEM shadow it almost at the horizon line or that the scene appears lit by a spot-lamp"_ - The LM isn't lit by any known spot lamp that exists. None are powerful enough to light up the terrain without the light intensity falling off considerably over distance. That doesn't happen. Also, multiple spotlights would cause multiple shadows images.app.goo.gl/Xrr7Ho5reKBh7FnSA on anything casting a shadow. That is never seen in ANY photograph taken on the surface of the moon. Also, what you are seeing (long shadows) is caused by the low angle of the Sun. ALL Apollo landing missions were specifically scheduled to land during what is called "Lunar Dawn" OR near the Moons shadow terminator line dependent on its PHASE at the time of landing. This was to prevent the lunar surface from getting too hot for the astronauts which is what would occur if they had landed during a Full Moon.
@@nebtheweb8885 You don't get it, do you. Your 'blah-blah' BS post is full of assumptions to support your belief. Those assumptions are false. No astronaut ever TRIED to photograph the stars. There's no evidence that it wouldn't work, because the experiment was never done. What type of space agency supplied astronauts with the wrong camera? A camera missing vital shutter speeds? Seriously? Over 7 missions? Look at what NASA show: Everything that could easily be faked. Look at what NASA hide: Everything that would be impossible to fake. That pattern is repeated in all their 'evidence' and there's a good reason for that, even if you are too dumb to see it.
Here's my Amazon affiliate link to buy your own Saturn V Rocket: technicalitystudios.com/secretlink
*CUT FOR TIME:*
_On Project Gemini:_
After achieving the three goals of Project Mercury, NASA began Project Gemini, the goals of which were four-fold: *holding fingers* walk in space, change orbit, dock two spacecrafts together in orbit, and keep two astronauts alive and healthy in space for a decent amount of time. Getting rid of the leatherette covering and painting the camera black in hopes of reducing reflection were the only changes that needed to be made to the Hasselblads on Gemini missions.
Photos of Ed White being the first American to conduct a spacewalk on June 3, 1965 filled up magazines and rallied Americans to support NASA. Moreover, they were also really great at showing the world (specifically, the Soviet Union) the progress America made in the space race.
These photos also caught the attention of Victor Hasselblad himself, who, upon seeing them, reached out to NASA to develop a camera specifically for use in outer space. Thus began the 38-year-long partnership between NASA and Hasselblad, which I like to call Nasselblad. Get it?
_On “No, I cannot make one like that, but I can make a better one.”_
Sources disagree as to if those are the exact words that he said; I found a source that quotes him with saying, “No, not one like that, but a better one.” My guess is that this is due to the variability in translation from Swedish to English, as well as the fact that this was said 75+ years ago. Nonetheless, the sentiment is still there.
_On Launch Escape Systems:_
If Alan Shepard’s LES did accidentally trigger after launch for whatever reason (though this is very unlikely), since this was a suborbital flight, he would’ve been completely safe, but the mission would’ve been ruined. LES systems are generally (if not always) disabled upon entering orbit.
Hey! Thanks for watching the video and reading this comment! If you enjoyed the video, it's super helpful to click the like button, and you should totally follow me on Instagram - instagram.com/alexunickel - while you're at it. See you on November 18th!
I heard the Saturn VI is going to be much better and will be released soon. Shall I wait for it or go for the V?
Ooooh...
Let's a go..
subscribbled
Is it weird to say I'm proud of you? Like you all this, imo, incredible work, yet you maintain your school work (hopefully) and manage to still be enthusiastic and humble. I mean, I don't even know you in real life, yet it brings me so much pride to see you succeed. Also, I thought that "what's in my bag?" skit was hilarious.
"I got a pretty good deal on mine; it was around $6.4 billion, which would be around $42 billion today, but I’m pretty sure it comes with free 2-day shipping"
I really LOL'd when you said this. Love it.
Clicked his Hamilton video thinking it was like one of those watchmojo type channels, imagine my surprise when it was a kid teaching me Hamilton facts I didn't know despite being in college :'). Immediately clicked his channel cause even back then he was really good with talking and explaining history and I'm impressed. This guy needs way more views, he could totally be used as videos in a history class. You can count on me showing these videos to my class when I find a job after I graduate in like 3 more years :)
My god you are absolutely phenomenal at making these videos! I hope you'll meet the audience that deserves to see you.
You were good from the beginning (or at least when Tom Scott mentioned you) but you've managed to get even better. But go on, keep evolving, don't stop there!
Greetings from Finland, sir..
wonderfull content you have in general, nice to see something actually civilizing in the social media these days,
keep up the good work ^^
When you are about to reuse the joke you used on patreon as you get a notification letting you know Technicality has seen the joke...
Kevin McKain but what’s the joke? 😂
Katie Chambers guess you would have to join the patreon. I don’t want my jokes to feel over played. If I find myself on patreon soon I will copy it over.
Katie Chambers guess you would have to join the patreon. I don’t want my jokes to feel over played. If I find myself on patreon soon I will copy it over.
Katie Chambers guess you would have to join the patreon. I don’t want my jokes to feel over played. If I find myself on patreon soon I will copy it over.
Hasselblad didn't have to "work with Kodak" to make 70mm film. You made it sound like they adapted 35mm film to make 70mm. These two formats of film were already in general use at the time. They DID work with Kodak to make a thinner film base so that they could get more exposures in the 70mm "magazine," thereby reducing weight. I wish you had mentioned the two lenses that were selected for the mission: 60mm and 250mm. The Carl Zeiss lenses made for Hasselblad cameras were the main reason that the photos from the missions were so excellent.
Great video! Love your stuff!
Long time no see. But seriously where do find this stuff
Yeah but think of all the pictures they also took on their smart phones.
I disagree with imaginary person off camera I thought that bit was hilarious 😂 and I want a Saturn now 😜
Aww 😢 I didn’t get the pun ☹️-btw 1.4k views and no 👎. That means there are 1.4k genuinely good people out there and they all came together to watch this video! Hope in humanity restored💕
His "Minitola" camera?? I think you meant to say, "Minolta"!
Thank you for sharing the big picture *wink wink* of how sharing cool science creates inspiration!
And they’re like 12 cameras on the moon from all the missions?
The "heaviest camera bag ever launched into space!".
Cool!!
Very interesting
Great video friend, talk to you soon! See you in six weeks I guess.
I beg to differ. That bit had me laughing.
Came from Tom Scott, this is amazing
How was the camera pressurized?
Why would the camera need to be pressurized?
NebTheWeb film has an emulsion on the surface of the acetate substrate which accepts the image. This emulsion has water in it. Water boils away in a vacuum. The image would be affected and would be degraded. This has been demonstrated by Marcus Allen.
@@bobfreuden Lol, the film used and the cameras were all tested during Mercury, Gemini, and of course APOLLO. www.hasselblad.com/history/hasselblad-in-space/
You don't get over 15,000 photos from the film that has not been tested in space. Here are the 1800dpi film scans of ALL of the Apollo missions. www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157658601662068
Minolta. I haven't seen one of those in forever.
Great video. One tiny criticism, the camera John Glen used was a Minolta. This is pronounced Min-ol-ta. Somehow you found an extra letter i in your pronunciation and that seems to have confused the remaining letters o,l,t and a, leading you to say Min-i-to-la.
I know it's a tiny thing, but hearing it was quite jarring. I hate to be 'that guy' who points out trivial points, but that's Tom Scott's fault. If he hadn't picked your video for one of his vacation hosts thing, I wouldn't be watching this video.
Keep up the good work.
You said the shuttle not the capsule.
12 Hasselblads in need of a CLA!
jesus christ youve come so far i saw u on brailes channel learning how to skateboard
If we use your affiliate links... will you promise to use the money to buy an iron for your backdrop? ;)
Your hair looks white by the reflection of the light in your gel
Yeah he should really change products. It’s “There’s something about Mary” level distracting, and its shiny!
Great video!! I can see from your shirt that you are not allergic to peanuts. Sorry. Cheers!!
Personally, I prefer Mamiyas to Hasselblads, but I haven’t been to the moon, so what do I know?
how much did you have to pay for that blad?
nothing explained here about how a camera was already on the moon when the module landed..was filmed from behind a rock.ao how is that? just watched the "landing"
You wrote "how a camera was already on the moon when the module landed". Assuming that you are referring to the Apollo 11 Mission then I can assure you that the film of the landing was from a handheld camera pointing out a window. If you are referring to the filming of Armstrong 's first steps on the lunar surface then the camera was mounted on the Descent Stage of the Lunar Module and pointed it at the steps. This Westinghouse camera was stored for flight in the lunar module’s Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA), a compartment near the ladder that Armstrong climbed down to reach the Moon’s surface. To activate the camera, he pulled on a handle that in turn released the door to the MESA. It is quite easy to understand. Take care.
Didn't a later Apollo mission take a Nikon F3 to the moon?
Mac Crazy I thought the F3 was released in 1977, so that wouldn’t make sense
@@AllonKirtchik, I don't know much about that I just thought I overheard my father saying that once, and he's the photography nut in the family, I'm not... I actually just googled the F3 and the first link put the public release at 1980, so even later.
I love the enthusiasm, but there are some issues.
At 0:36 you can see the viewfinder but the ones NASA used were modified: No viewfinder, no exposure meter.
Apollo11 also took a number of scientific instruments to the moon, but kept forgetting to take the obvious piece that astronomers for centuries have been making and using: A telescope or 'Telephoto lens'.
Neil and Buzz took a large number of pictures on the moon of footprints, dust, the LEM and of Buzz, but never once tried to take a single sharp picture of the earth. They also never thought to walk into the LEM shadow (despite being there a few times - see www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5886.jpg ) to attempt a picture of the Milky Way, which would have been the clearest picture ever that man would have of it.
The images of the dust from Apollo 11 also have an oddity about them, not the fact the LEM shadow it almost as the horizon line or that the scene appears lit by a spot-lamp, or the fill-in backlight used on the previous photo (but missing on this one - note the darker backpack! www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5964.jpg), but the stones on the floor.
For a stone to fall on the dust - soft enough to make footprints - it would have to make a small mark but there are none, the stones just magically sit on the surface with no sign of how they arrived. They are also free of dust so they must have arrived after the dust - so how did they end up there? They can only be explained by wind smoothing the dust away - but there is no wind on the moon.... but I know where there is a complete weather system that creates landscapes like that!
@Graham said _"They also never thought to walk into the LEM shadow (despite being there a few times - to attempt a picture of the Milky Way, which would have been the clearest picture ever that man would have of it."_
-
You don't get it, do you. You cannot take photos of the stars during the day, even on the moon. The exposure times needed to capture stars of any kind are too long and you would need a tripod and exposure times lasting seconds for the light to register on the film. Since the cameras were strapped to their chests that would have been nearly impossible for them to do. Also, any light shining on the moon's surface would be blown out by the long exposure times rendering the photo useless.
-
_"For a stone to fall on the dust - soft enough to make footprints - it would have to make a small mark but there are none, the stones just magically sit on the surface with no sign of how they arrived. They can only be explained by wind smoothing the dust away - but there is no wind on the moon.."_
-
That is quite an assumption on your part. You are right about one thing, Its the MOON, not earth. 1/6th gravity, and basically hasn't changed at all for millions if not billions of years. When the LM landed the rocket created an artificial wind, but since there is no drag or air resistance on the moon there was no billowing or dust floating about. It settles pretty far out and quickly. As they landed all of the dust blew out radially away from the LM and straight out to the sides for long distances (expanding gasses). All of the landing videos show this. Notice there is no dust rolling upon itself (billowing). th-cam.com/video/XvKg68DcTZA/w-d-xo.html
-
_"the fact the LEM shadow it almost at the horizon line or that the scene appears lit by a spot-lamp"_
-
The LM isn't lit by any known spot lamp that exists. None are powerful enough to light up the terrain without the light intensity falling off considerably over distance. That doesn't happen. Also, multiple spotlights would cause multiple shadows images.app.goo.gl/Xrr7Ho5reKBh7FnSA on anything casting a shadow. That is never seen in ANY photograph taken on the surface of the moon. Also, what you are seeing (long shadows) is caused by the low angle of the Sun. ALL Apollo landing missions were specifically scheduled to land during what is called "Lunar Dawn" OR near the Moons shadow terminator line dependent on its PHASE at the time of landing. This was to prevent the lunar surface from getting too hot for the astronauts which is what would occur if they had landed during a Full Moon.
@@nebtheweb8885 You don't get it, do you.
Your 'blah-blah' BS post is full of assumptions to support your belief.
Those assumptions are false.
No astronaut ever TRIED to photograph the stars. There's no evidence that it wouldn't work, because the experiment was never done.
What type of space agency supplied astronauts with the wrong camera? A camera missing vital shutter speeds? Seriously? Over 7 missions?
Look at what NASA show: Everything that could easily be faked.
Look at what NASA hide: Everything that would be impossible to fake.
That pattern is repeated in all their 'evidence' and there's a good reason for that, even if you are too dumb to see it.
We demand more puns.
And sure...back into the picture wasn’t your clever writing...
" incredible piece of technology " .... Repeated a million if not billion times over ... Massive yawn ...