Apollo 16 Lunar Rover footage

Well you show me the evidence of Kodak Ektachrome being able to surve these temperatures in a vacuum over 6 days plus. reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

a reply to: Bella1

You're the one claiming it didn't work, how about you come up with some evidence for that? There are many thousands of photographs and many hours of 16mm footage taken with Kodak film containing verifiable lunar surface details, so I'm interested to see what evidence you have that the film didn't work.

When was it in a vacuum for 6 days? The vast majority of the time it was inside a pressurised vessel, it was exposed to vacuum for a few hours at best. Likewise the silver coloured cameras with film inside were not exposed to the sun long enough to achieve the maximum temperatures you quote.

Meanwhile the Lunar Orbiter and Zond probes both used film in lunar orbit with minimal radiation and thermal shielding, both produced superb results.

Film works in a vacuum. Kodak produced one that was designed for the job. Unless you have evidence that they didn't...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

And your evidence for any of this is...?

Evidence is duh, this is stuff anyone would know.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

And your evidence for any of this is...?

Evidence is duh, this is stuff anyone would know.

Doesn't cut it, because the stuff you seem to just "know" looks to have appeared inside your head by magic. I see no supporting evidence for it, no links, references, just "stuff anyone would know".

I know different. You need to explain to me why what you know is more correct.

The fact is that the film used was developed fromhigh altitude spy photography, and used a thinner emulsion base than normal film specifically to protect it against vacuum. Kodak film was used in the Lunar Orbiter probes. The Soviet Zond probes also used film. Gemine EVAs used film in vacuum conditions, as did the Earth orbital missions of Apollo.

Have some links to explore:

www.svengrahn.pp.se...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

www.youtube.com...

www.kodak.com...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

core.ac.uk...

ascmag.com...

emulsive.org...

Apollo cameras, for anyone insterested: www.ninfinger.org...

a reply to: wildespace

FASCINATING footage! Thank-you for posting it to ATS.

It's amazing they went through all the trouble of taking a dune-buggy all the way to the Moon, just to joy-ride around for a few minutes. Was anything LEARNED?

a reply to: carewemust

Well we definitely learned that riding a moon buggy around on the moon is an absolutely FUN experience!

I mean, I still get the giggles from watching them bounce around in the lower gravitational environment on foot.

Skipping like schoolboys!

a reply to: carewemust

A lot. The purpose of the rover was to extend the range of exploration way beyond what could be reached on foot and carry more stuff with them - including samples. They were out for several hours at a time.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

As an aside the CIA flew camera equipped balloon over Eastern Europe and Soviet Union , "PROJECT GENETRIX"

Premise was to release high altitude balloon over "denied territory" . The balloons were equipped with cameras to photograph the territory they drifted over.

The project as one can surmise was a failure, with the few balloons recovered failing to show anything of interest

Many of the balloons crashed in soviet territory and were recovered, The Soviets salvaged the film from the crashed balloons and found it superior to anything they had.

They spliced together segments from the crashed balloons and used the film on their lunar probes. Lunik 3 which filmed the dark side of th moon in 1959 used salvaged film ...

Well thanks for your effort with the NASA links, but I will not! be reading any of them. The day I start to believe NASA... lol.

I will use my common sense on how the world and space ticks.

I don't run on lies and fantasy.

I am entitled to my opinion as are you, but it does not mean that you are correct. Learn to use your own brain.



a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

a reply to: Bella1

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The reason I can present you with the information I have is because I used my brain. I have "done my research", which is how I know I'm correct. You are clearly unwilling to use your brain, which is why you are actually running on lies and fantasy..

Enjoy your ignorance if it makes you happy.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You cannot convince people that are uneducated in space sciences and do not understand NASA's incredible achievements,
so why bother? You are just letting them push your buttons because all they really enjoy is controversy with people more intelligent than they are.

Ignoring them is the only thing that pisses them off.

a reply to: charlyv

Oh I know, but hey 'Deny Ignorance' and all that. However letting things that are patently not true to go unchallenged allows people who maybe don't have an understanding of a subject to be persuaded that a lie is true or a that a falsehood is fact.

I check out a few Facebook groups on the subject and the absolute garbage those people come out with every single day that could be refuted with just a few seconds worth of thought or actual fact checking is unbelievable. More unbelievable is the completely unjustified sense of moral superiority they have bestowed upon themselves while they parade their stupidity in public. The kind of superiority that tells others that they are believing lies and fantasy despite only relying on 'common sense' for their opinions and not bothering to read information they're given that might actually inform them.

So yeah, I get your point, but people need telling that their common sense isn't always as good as they think it is, and if they're going to try and tell me I'm wrong they need to back it up with something other than "nuh-uh", "looks kinda funny" and "blah blah NASA boo bad guys".

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Bella1

16mm Ektachrome.

You should research the recommended handling of 16mm Ektachrome. Via the Kodak reference guide it is a plastic core that cannot withstand the temperatures involved:

www.kodak.com...

a reply to: Bella1
a reply to: Elvicious1

I see that the matter of heat on the Moon has come up again. I wrote the following a dozen years ago to help people understand the issue:


Let's talk about the "temperature on the moon". That phrase has led to a lot of confusion. You have no doubt heard that the temperature on the Moon varies from -250F up to 250F. I live in Texas, and in the summertime, the temperature gets up over 100F, so standing on the Moon must be like standing in an oven, right?

No.

If, on a hot summer day here in Texas, I walk out on the sidewalk barefoot, it's hot enough to cause pain. If I step onto the asphalt street, I will blister my feet. Why? 100F is less than two degrees above normal body temperature. The solid pavement is hotter than the transparent air because it absorbs more radiant energy from the sunlight. The light-colored concrete sidewalk may heat-up to 120-140F. The darker asphalt may get up to 180F or more.

When we ask, "what is the temperature outside?" we are asking about the ambient temperature of the air. On the Moon, there is no air, so when we ask about the temperature there, we are asking about the temperature of a specific object on the surface; a patch of dirt, a rock, a camera or an astronaut's spacesuit (and specifying whether it is the side facing towards or away from the Sun). Note that this varies: In my above example, the sidewalk was ~130F, but the asphalt was 180+ F. When a textbook says that it gets up to 250F on the Moon, it is referring to the surface of a black, solid object with its face perpendicular to the Sun at local noon.

The actual lunar surface is not black: It's about the same shade as asphalt (not the fresh-laid black stuff, but rather the dark/medium grey color it fades to after a few years). It heats up to roughly 200F. Mind you, the Moon is the same average distance from the Sun as the Earth. All things being equal, lunar regolith and asphalt should reach the same temperature. However, the asphalt is cooled somewhat because the air in contact with the pavement conducts away some of the heat (we can see it doing this: it causes the shimmering effect when we look across a hot parking lot). Also, daylight only last ~12 hours on Earth, but it's 14 days from sunrise to sunset on the Moon.

I said before that the pavement here in Texas can get up to ~180F. However, on a summer day I can go outside and walk on it barefoot with no discomfort. How? It's simple: I do it at 8:00am, before it gets anywhere near that hot. The Apollo astronauts did the same thing: They landed when the rising sun was only ~10 degrees above the horizon and the surface temperature was ~30F. When they left three days later (on the longest missions), the sun was still only half-way up the sky, and the surface temperature was a bit over 100F (yes, NASA did have the technology to make insulated shoes in the 1960s ).

(Allow me to state the blindingly obvious: The surface starts out cold because it has spent all night radiating its heat into space. As someone else already pointed out, when a surface is in the sun, it absorbs light based on its reflectivity (more reflective absorbs less energy) and its angle to the sun (a perpendicular angle to the light absorbs more than an oblique angle). When the same surface is shaded from the sun, it radiates heat as efficiently as it absorbs it - a black surface radiates faster than a light one.)

For astronauts, heat management is a crucial issue that requires careful engineering, whether they are on the Moon or in Earth orbit - Remember, they are at the same average distance from the Sun. In fact, the Earth is more reflective than the Moon, so astronauts & spacecraft in Earth orbit get more reflected energy than those on the Moon (even though the surface is much further away, there's a lot more area doing the reflecting). For spacecraft & spacesuits (which can be thought of as mini-spacecraft), the engineering solution is basically the same: Keep as much of the outside heat out and control the heat that's being generated on the inside to maintain comfortable levels.

Outside heat from direct & reflected sunlight is kept out by using a reflective outer layer, backed up by layers of insulation. When you look at the flimsy-looking outer covers of the Lunar Module, you're only seeing the reflective skin that covers the actual structural members and pressure vessels beneath. Interestingly, Middle Eastern nomads developed the same principle centuries ago: Those volumous white robes they wear serve the same function, and work better than shorts and a t-shirt to keep them cool in the desert.

Inside, heat is generated by electronics and by the astronauts themselves. On full-size spacecraft, most of the heat comes from electronics, and any excess goes to shielded radiators on the hull (on Apollo 13, when they lost power, they shut down the electronics and therefore their main heat source, which is why it got so cold). Men doing geology on the Moon, and building the International Space Station in orbit are basically doing heavy work for hours in an airtight rubber suit. Beneath the rubber, they wear something like long underwear that has a whole network of tubes. They pump water through the tubes to something called a porous-plate sublimator, which carries the heat away to space.

The smaller pieces of equipment on the Moon, such as cameras and experiment packages mainly relied on reflective outer casings. In these cases, keeping the dark lunar dust off of them was a major concern. On the EVA videos, you can hear some exasperation from the astronauts after the umpteenth request from Houston to dust-off the TV camera because it's overheating. Of course, the astronauts and the still cameras they carried were almost constantly turning this way and that, so individual surfaces spent as much time facing away from the Sun as towards it.

Hopefully this helps clear things up.

a reply to: Elvicious1

The plastic core in the middle of the film? The bit inside the silver reflective camera that didn't get that hot? Where does it give the temperature and when during the lunar mission did it reach that temperature? Where does it say that a plastic core was used in the Apollo films?

Edited to add: this page has the only image I could find of the internal structure of an apollo film magazine:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

The film core there does look to be non-metallic, but exactly what material it is and its thermal properties isn't clear. It's also inside a silver reflective case. Again, the theoretical maximum temperatures often cited are for objects in continual sunlight for 2 weeks. Things don't instantly get that hot.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Elvicious1

The plastic core in the middle of the film? The bit inside the silver reflective camera that didn't get that hot? Where does it give the temperature and when during the lunar mission did it reach that temperature? Where does it say that a plastic core was used in the Apollo films?



Edited to add: this page has the only image I could find of the internal structure of an apollo film magazine:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

The film core there does look to be non-metallic, but exactly what material it is and its thermal properties isn't clear. It's also inside a silver reflective case. Again, the theoretical maximum temperatures often cited are for objects in continual sunlight for 2 weeks. Things don't instantly get that hot.

In the specifications from Kodak for the film used. The link is to a PDF download of the manual for all of Kodak's film.

originally posted by: Saint Exupery
a reply to: Bella1
a reply to: Elvicious1

I see that the matter of heat on the Moon has come up again. I wrote the following a dozen years ago to help people understand the issue:


Let's talk about the "temperature on the moon". That phrase has led to a lot of confusion. You have no doubt heard that the temperature on the Moon varies from -250F up to 250F. I live in Texas, and in the summertime, the temperature gets up over 100F, so standing on the Moon must be like standing in an oven, right?

No.

If, on a hot summer day here in Texas, I walk out on the sidewalk barefoot, it's hot enough to cause pain. If I step onto the asphalt street, I will blister my feet. Why? 100F is less than two degrees above normal body temperature. The solid pavement is hotter than the transparent air because it absorbs more radiant energy from the sunlight. The light-colored concrete sidewalk may heat-up to 120-140F. The darker asphalt may get up to 180F or more.

When we ask, "what is the temperature outside?" we are asking about the ambient temperature of the air. On the Moon, there is no air, so when we ask about the temperature there, we are asking about the temperature of a specific object on the surface; a patch of dirt, a rock, a camera or an astronaut's spacesuit (and specifying whether it is the side facing towards or away from the Sun). Note that this varies: In my above example, the sidewalk was ~130F, but the asphalt was 180+ F. When a textbook says that it gets up to 250F on the Moon, it is referring to the surface of a black, solid object with its face perpendicular to the Sun at local noon.

The actual lunar surface is not black: It's about the same shade as asphalt (not the fresh-laid black stuff, but rather the dark/medium grey color it fades to after a few years). It heats up to roughly 200F. Mind you, the Moon is the same average distance from the Sun as the Earth. All things being equal, lunar regolith and asphalt should reach the same temperature. However, the asphalt is cooled somewhat because the air in contact with the pavement conducts away some of the heat (we can see it doing this: it causes the shimmering effect when we look across a hot parking lot). Also, daylight only last ~12 hours on Earth, but it's 14 days from sunrise to sunset on the Moon.

I said before that the pavement here in Texas can get up to ~180F. However, on a summer day I can go outside and walk on it barefoot with no discomfort. How? It's simple: I do it at 8:00am, before it gets anywhere near that hot. The Apollo astronauts did the same thing: They landed when the rising sun was only ~10 degrees above the horizon and the surface temperature was ~30F. When they left three days later (on the longest missions), the sun was still only half-way up the sky, and the surface temperature was a bit over 100F (yes, NASA did have the technology to make insulated shoes in the 1960s

).

(Allow me to state the blindingly obvious: The surface starts out cold because it has spent all night radiating its heat into space. As someone else already pointed out, when a surface is in the sun, it absorbs light based on its reflectivity (more reflective absorbs less energy) and its angle to the sun (a perpendicular angle to the light absorbs more than an oblique angle). When the same surface is shaded from the sun, it radiates heat as efficiently as it absorbs it - a black surface radiates faster than a light one.)

For astronauts, heat management is a crucial issue that requires careful engineering, whether they are on the Moon or in Earth orbit - Remember, they are at the same average distance from the Sun. In fact, the Earth is more reflective than the Moon, so astronauts & spacecraft in Earth orbit get more reflected energy than those on the Moon (even though the surface is much further away, there's a lot more area doing the reflecting). For spacecraft & spacesuits (which can be thought of as mini-spacecraft), the engineering solution is basically the same: Keep as much of the outside heat out and control the heat that's being generated on the inside to maintain comfortable levels.

Outside heat from direct & reflected sunlight is kept out by using a reflective outer layer, backed up by layers of insulation. When you look at the flimsy-looking outer covers of the Lunar Module, you're only seeing the reflective skin that covers the actual structural members and pressure vessels beneath. Interestingly, Middle Eastern nomads developed the same principle centuries ago: Those volumous white robes they wear serve the same function, and work better than shorts and a t-shirt to keep them cool in the desert.

Inside, heat is generated by electronics and by the astronauts themselves. On full-size spacecraft, most of the heat comes from electronics, and any excess goes to shielded radiators on the hull (on Apollo 13, when they lost power, they shut down the electronics and therefore their main heat source, which is why it got so cold). Men doing geology on the Moon, and building the International Space Station in orbit are basically doing heavy work for hours in an airtight rubber suit. Beneath the rubber, they wear something like long underwear that has a whole network of tubes. They pump water through the tubes to something called a porous-plate sublimator, which carries the heat away to space.

The smaller pieces of equipment on the Moon, such as cameras and experiment packages mainly relied on reflective outer casings. In these cases, keeping the dark lunar dust off of them was a major concern. On the EVA videos, you can hear some exasperation from the astronauts after the umpteenth request from Houston to dust-off the TV camera because it's overheating. Of course, the astronauts and the still cameras they carried were almost constantly turning this way and that, so individual surfaces spent as much time facing away from the Sun as towards it.

Hopefully this helps clear things up.

Thank you for taking the time to explain, rather than troll.

If that was someone’s ufo footage everyone would say “fake as hell”.

a reply to: Elvicious1

Maybe you could help by pointing to the specifics.

Then you could answer my questions about whether film protected inside a silver reflective container got to a temperature that would be a problem. The fact that the film, specifically developed for the missions and inside cameras designed for the missions, recorded details not known about at the time but confirmed by multiple probes since suggests that the film worked just fine.

Questioning veracity does not imply impropriety.

Asking you to back up your argument isn't trolling.