Film Photography On The Moon?

Originally posted by Phage


1) There are various types of Solar & cosmic radiation. They would have differing effects on film and they have differring abilities in penetrating different materials. Can you explain which types would be of concern and what effects you would expect them to have on photographic film.

Well first you have cosmic rays. They can penetrate just about anything and you would expect to see little dots on the film were the collision occurred. Then you have a flow of electrons and protons coming from the sun wich would show up as a "fog" effect seen on the film. Then there are x rays coming from solar flares. Then you have gamma radiations coming from distant super novi and the collision of these high energy protons and electrons colliding with particles on the moons surface. Effects of gama rays on film not quite sure. But considering all of this how did they shield the astronauts and film from all of this because every single one of these is a concern to me if Im going outside the protection of LEO.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

How large are the particles which compose cosmic rays? Would the impact of such particles produce a visible trace? Would cosmic rays (which are high energy particles) affect the photoreactive materials (of film) which are by design sensitive mostly to electromagnetic radiation at the frequencies of visible light?

Cosmic rays are generally composed of particles of higher atomic weights and energy than solar protons and electrons so any effects of solar particles would be the same or less. Would those effects be visible on photographic film?

X-rays of what energy levels (frequencies) does the Sun emit? What would be the required frequencies of x-rays be in order to penetrate both the metallic body of the cameras and the film magazines? What x-ray flux levels (of sufficient energies) were experienced by the astronauts on the lunar surface? Were there any significant solar flares during any of the EVAs?

Yes, good question about gamma radiation. Does it affect photographic film? And if so, were flux levels sufficient to produce visible effects?

Originally posted by Illustronic
Hasselblad
Apollo 11 Hasselblad
Photography of Apollo
Photography techniques

To get you started, also look up Westinghouse main page, they are quite proud of having TV cameras on the moon, and have a direct link to their cameras in space (I though I saved).

Also what sort of radiation on the moon do you think sun glasses and white reflective paint can't deflect is?

The biggest problem (mostly early in the moon landings was) static electricity from rolling the film, created a lot of 'electrical looking lightning charges) on the film. Heat, and cold were not factors if that is what you are thinking, there is no air to carry ambient heat on the moon, and it wasn't cold either, not in a lunar morning.

the first link states nothing about shielding of the thin film..

3rd~upon using the basic word search on Firefox (Ctrl F) brings up zero hits on 2 word searches.. 'radiation' and 'shielding'

Originally posted by Aeolus1970
I do not know, and this is why I asked in the first place. How was it possible to take photographs on the moon without radiation shielding for the photographic equipment?

What makes you think the equipment needed radiation shielding? You state it needed it, why do you think that?

That is the crux of the matter...to me.

how about you tell us why you think it needed radiation shielding in the first place....

PM the white papers regards radiation levels on the lunar surface, types of radiation to be found on the lunar surface, steps taken to protect crew and vessels from radiation on the lunar surface, and any-many-sundry white papers that illustrate how the cameras and their film were protected from the potential for radiation.

you must have them, as you state the camera equipment needed radiation shielding.... why do you think it needed it?

for if you are accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about,

how about telling us why you think the equipment needed radiation shielding?

Since there is so much disagreement about the radiation effects on the cameras, work it another way.
There is no other way to get hundreds of pounds of moon rocks without going to the moon, so it appears that the cameras did not require any radiation shielding.

Originally posted by Aeolus1970
reply to post by BagBing

 

All due respect, if I want to be patronized, I'll talk to someone in government. Thank you just the same.

What did I say that was patronising?

Here's a document specifically on The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film, however one might determine this is not applicable to Apollo mission photography since it is Space Shuttle centric. It also sites the issues of concern with radiation on film is largely just exposures. Of interest may be studies sited in the bibliography such as:

Corney, G. M. “The Effect of Gamma-ray Exposure on Camera Films,” Photographic Science
and Engineering, Volume 4, Number 5, September-October 1960.

Boller, B. K. “Sensitometric Effects of Million-volt X-rays on Selected Kodak Films,”
Photographic Science and Engineering, Volume 8, Number 4, July-August 1964.

Weinstein, R., Boltax A., and Giovanni L. Nuclear Engineering Fundamentals, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Huff, K. E. and Clear, H. M. Unpublished work “Effects of Proton Exposure on Several Kodak
Black and White Films”, New York: Research Laboratories Eastman Kodak Company,
August 1968.

Hertz, R. H. The Photographic Action of Ionizing Radiation, London: Wiley-Interscience, 1969.

Crawford, G. W. Mean Ionization Potential for Monte Carlo Penetration of Charged Particles in
Matter, Dallas, Texas: Southern Methodist University, 1969.

and later studies

Apparently, the vacuum of space and temperatures were larger concerns in camera development.

From our first space journey on Oct. 3,1962, Hasselblad cameras have played an integral part in the Space program, capturing the images that help us to understand our world and its surroundings. There are a range of special modifications and improvements required to meet the stringent demands of space travel.

Maybe send a specific inquiry directly to Hasselblad about space radiation effects on their cameras.

Originally posted by 46ACE
Secondly:Airport x-rays don't "wipe it"! They CAN add "fogging"( thereby lowering the contrast) to higher asa/iso ( i.e.more light sensitive)"films.(which can be compensated for in processing and printing.)

My understanding is, the answer to the OP's question was in this 4th reply.

You don't see this warning at the airports any more, but back when film cameras were common and X-ray machines used higher energies, the warning signs talked about the dangers of fogging "high speed" or "sensitive" films, intended for photography in low light conditions. The airport X-ray machine makers claimed normal film was perfectly fine going though the airport X-ray machines.

I believe that herein lies the answer to the moon film question. Photographic conditions on the moon were such that high speed film was not required, in fact just the opposite. The moon was pretty bright. So highly sensitive film, the type which was susceptible to radiation fogging, was not used.

I really think it's that simple.

I've inquired to Hasselblad about their camera modifications during the Apollo missions and to Kodak for their special film used for the Hasselblad camera for the Apollo lunar landings. will post replies as I receive them.

Rant follows:

I've got to ad this rather involved point:

It applies to the beginning of this thread AND half a dozen threads here; at any particular time you care to look:
I don't give 30seconds credit to any youtube videos where some common"'schmoe"downloads a picture into photoshop or paintshop pro; throws on the "emboss" or any other"filter and discovers "bigfoot"/e.t./cities on the moon.

because:

You are NOT seeing the actual "scene"; you are seeing a representation of it modified by the limitations of the camera/lens and film/processing printing "SYSTEM".

(in a court room a photographer will be asked to testify under oath: "the image is a true and accurate representation of the scene as I saw it" A photograph is not evidence on its face value; until A human witness validates it with testimony).


The entire apparatus is a "system". Lenses don't transmit and focus all colors (frequencies)of light equally.(I.E.infrared has a different focus point marked on older(non auto- focus) lenses). Not all light sources have a complete spectrum.

Rarely is a "system" "calibrated" from on end of the process to the other: I.,E.Taking an image of a recreate-able target; with a standard full spectrum light source; at a known exposure, and ASA.
Process and print the film; compare the results with the original scene and adjust the process until it is measurably a"perfect representation".

That was the "film" portion . NOW we are in the digital age:

Take your calibrated, controlled, perfectly handled and processed transparency or negative (forget a paper print; its one more generation of variables farther from the original scene) and you run it through a:
"Digital SCANNER" which has its own fluctuating power supply/electronics/(dirty?) lenses and an image sensor which interpolates analog colors and brightness and turns it into numbers (digital data): rounding up here;down there/ truncating over there...saving to a"file"
That "file" is put on a server somewhere;

"Joe Schmoe" from Edison N.J.downloads his "moon walking /hidden bigfoot" NASA image. from the internet server. ( digital transfer is pretty solid with error checking; its one of the reasons we all went "digital"you are getting as close as you can to the (original scanner"interpretation").

To his Sams' club hp pavillion desktop, with uncalibrated LCD monitor; his desktop decides how to interpret that file data and turn it into light and dark and color.

He further "processes" the pixel data to "release/discover" extra data that If the camera/film/combination didn't capture in the beginning of the process Isn't part of the original scene.

But any noise/dirt/.jpg compression artifacts included into the "system"( remember: its a huge system of equipment between the scene and Joes mom's basement in the "dirty Jers"..Errors can be introduced at any stage.

Schmoe(and his brother in law "Hoaglund": produce a 3hour "press release" on the coast to coast A.m.: "Alien Robot head discovered on Mars!!!!!!!!!"

and posts his "discovery" on you tube as "proof!" :

That's ALL barring: outright attention grabbing fraud and fakery by someone who wants to sell: dvd's,or crystals or;"memberships". Or just wants their 5 minutes of minor C to C A.M.airtime fame...

what it "is": is altered digital video "art".and a whale of a story
Not an"analysis" of nasa photos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. :flame

Analogy Added: To put it simply: Think about this; the next time you want to open a book to a "picture of a dark jungle"; and shine a flash light from your pocket on the page to see the monkeys sleeping in the trees!"The "hidden" information from the original scene is just NOT THERE in the book image.