How modified were the moon cameras, if at all? How did they photograph eg their boot in a spacesuit and helmet, pumped up to 5psi above ambient, looking down, in a helmet, into the viewfinder of an (off-the-shelf?) Hasselblad 500. The camera being rigidly attached to the chest pack on a bracket?

Attached Thumbnails

 

They didn't have viewfinders and the cameras could be detached from the chest bracket if needed. The Hasselblads were also given silver finish for thermal control and as I understand some of the adjusting knobs were modified to easen handling with bulky gloves.

Pressure in the spacesuits was more like 3.7 or 3.8 psi.

I'm not the best qualified to discuss the what modifications were made to the cameras, although I know some modification made to make the camera easier to use for the astronauts.

Regarding the boot photo, the astronauts could remove the cameras could be removed from the chest mounting brackets, thus pointing them toward the ground was not a problem. Furthermore, the cameras did not have viewfinders. It is not as hard as you might think to point a camera just by eyeballing it, and besides, the astronauts had a lot of practice and got pretty good at it.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

I can attest to that. I took a bunch of picture of myself in my Halloween costume last night using a timer, and with only a few seconds to prepare myself I was able to get almost perfectly framed picture from the other side of the camera just be looking at how the lense was pointing.

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

The US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville has one of the modified Hasselblads on display. Looking closely at a recent snapshot, this one is a Hasselblad SWC (Super Wide C), whose 35mm lens gives such a wide field of view that a viewfinder can be dispensed with. The placard says that the mirror and reflex viewfinder were removed to avoid possible thermal breakage (and I'm not sure, offhand, that such a wide-angle lens would leave room behind its rearmost element for the mirror - JayUtah?). The top of the body has a logo saying "Cine Mechanics, Los Angeles, Calif.", which could be the company doing the modifications. In use on the lunar surface, the SWC had a pistol grip with a squeeze trigger attached to the shutter release, so it could be simply pointed and clicked with one hand. This body is mostly black, it being stated that chrome was removed to reduce glare (since they did have to see shutter/aperture settings and exposure counter).

How modified were the moon cameras, if at all?

Quite significantly.

The lens and hood were custom-built, eventually becoming the commercial Zeiss Biogon wide-angle lens. The lens rings had paddles attached to assist in rotation. The focus ring had detents for zone focusing.

The shutter release button was greatly enlarged and articulated in some cases with the custom pistol grip trigger release.

The leatherette cover was deleted and substituted with a thermal coating similar to the classic Thermos bottle coating.

The viewfinder was deleted.

The standard Hasselblad reseau plate was given a very thin coating of metal in order to reduce static discharge.

The darkslide-shutter interlock was deleted. The darkslide for each magazine was fitted with a large ring to facilitate removal; the darkslide was discarded. The magazine walls were thickened to provide thermal and radiation protection.

The camera being rigidly attached to the chest pack on a bracket?

The camera could be removed easily from the suit attachment, which was by no means a "rigid" connection.

The front panel of the remote-control unit (RCU) contained a set of vertical rails that received a bayonet on the rear of the custom pistol-grip bracket attached to the bottom of the camera body. To attach the camera, the astronaut simply slid the bracket down into the rails. It was held in place by gravity and friction. To remove it, the astronaut lifted up on the pistol grip and the camera slid free with little resistance.

The RCU itself is not rigidly attached to the suit front. The top rear edge of the RCU features a hook at the left and right corners that articulates with the height-adjustment buckles of the PLSS/OPS straps. The straps met at a loop in the middle of the chest. Because of the loose nature of the hooks, the RCU could rotate upward freely, and could be swung side to side in a limited range of motion.

I have personally held and inspected the Apollo 12 training Hasselblad lunar surface camera and operated its controls. It is non-functional for photography, however. I have used a Hasselblad MK/70 -- the modern successor to the 500/EL -- from which the viewfinder was removed, and which was fitted with the standard reseau plate and a 60mm lens. I had no problem framing shots under those circumstances with no practice.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

We're not at liberty to discuss this due to your lack of security clearance.

__________________
My son is my universe.

I'm not sure, offhand, that such a wide-angle lens would leave room behind its rearmost element for the mirror - JayUtah?

Sorry, I can't answer that question with any degree of confidence either way.

I'm skeptical of the notion that "thermal breakage" was a valid concern for deleting the reflex mechanism. I think it was deleted simply because it was useless to an astronaut and would have added weight and increased complexity. Probably just more mechanism to jam.

The top of the body has a logo saying "Cine Mechanics, Los Angeles, Calif.", which could be the company doing the modifications.

Cine Mechanics built the longroll magazines, which they modified for Apollo use. Hasselblad themselves modified the bodies.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Are these the sort of tan-colored things with the three vertical white dots in this hi-res scan?


(edited to fix link)

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Yes, that's it. The camera mount is a prominent feature of the front panel of the RCU.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/image08.jpg

Here's a good photo both of the RCU camera mount and the RCU attachment to the suit.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

This photo is proof there was a local source of light behind "Aldrin". The way his shadow is longer can only be attributed to a local light. My cousin's girlfriend's lesbian lover (not that there is anything wrong with that) knows someone who has a camera so I must be considered an expert on the subject. `;]

(I love that shot)

__________________
"If they put me on a postage stamp tell them to use the young Bender"
--Bender

There was no viewfinder on any of the lunar surface Hasselblads because it would have been useless with the helmets on, though I believe there may have been a sighting device on the 500mm lens which the astronauts could hold in front of their helmets.

Buzz Aldrin simply photographed the lunar soil and his boot by removing the camera from the RCU bracket and holding it by the pistol grip with the lens pointing down toward his foot or the lunar soil. He can be partially seen doing this in the Spacecraft Films' Apollo 11 DVD set -- partially because he is on the extreme left of the view from the 16mm camera and only foot, leg, arm, camera and part of his body are visible. The times that follow are those on the DVD.

16mm Camera
1:05:03 GET 110:25:41 McCandless: Columbia, this is Houston. Over. (No answer; Long Pause)
1:05:12 Part of Buzz can be seen in the small view (angle 3), adding to the shadow of the LM at left centre.
1:05:26 McCandless: Columbia, this is Houston. Over. (No answer; Long Pause)
1:05:27 Buzz emerges from the LM's shadow.
1:05:51 Buzz is photographing undisturbed lunar soil. He is on the extreme left of the screen and can barely be seen in the full-screen version, angle 2, but more of him can be seen in the smaller multiple-screen version, angle 3. He has disconnected the camera from the RCU bracket and holds it by the grip, away from his body with the lens pointing down.
1:06:01 Buzz disappears offscreen.
1:06:17 McCandless: Columbia, this is Houston. Over.
1:06:24 GET 110:27:03 Collins: Houston, Columbia in (Omni) Delta.
1:06:26 GET 110:27:05 McCandless: Roger. You should have VHF AOS with the LM right about now. VHF LOS will be about (110 hours) 40 minutes 15 seconds. Over.
1:06:51 Buzz is photographing the soil, his footprint and his boot. Visibility and the way he holds the camera are the same as at 1:05:51.
1:07:35 End of soil, footprint and boot photography.
1:07:44 GET 110:28:22 Aldrin: As I look around the area, the contrast, in general, is... comes about completely by virtue of the shadows. Almost (garbled) looking down-Sun at zero-phase very light-colored gray, light gray color (garbled) a halo around my own shadow, around the shadow of my helmet.
Later:
1:09:17 Buzz walks over the area where he photographed his footprint and boot.

There is a little more information about this here:
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1129869021

I had a Lunar Hasselhoff once.

oh, not the curse of the Hoffmail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Runs!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

here:
http://blog.alexgalmeanu.com/?p=104

and

more here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...1/photography/

__________________

-work in progress--

Of course in many ways the Hasselblad wasn't the ideal camera to use on the Moon. Although they are medium format SLRs, without a reflex viewfinder it's little more than an elaborate point and shoot box camera. They would have done better with a TLR such as a specially converted Rolliflex or Mamiayaflex since the reflex optics on a TLR are separate from the film gate and film chamber, it would have been easy to insulate the film chamber and still provide a half decent reflex viewfinder. TLRs are also a better shape. Saying that I don't suppose one could look down in a space suit, but I still think a TLR would have been a much better and more versatile option than what was effectively nothing more than an elaborate box camera.

I should also point out that shooting with the 60mm Biogon lens on the Hasselblad was fairly easy in terms of composition since a 60mm lens on a 2-1/4" format camera basically is equivalent to a 28mm wide angle lens on a 35mm camera, assuming that the 35mm camera's 24mm x 36mm frame was cropped to a 24mm square frame.

__________________
Check out my web page of my own processed versions of Apollo mission photos: Apollo ISD Photos

sabianq,

It is not any camera, it is a Hasselblad… not any Hasselblad it is “Hasselblad Data Camera” especially designed to fit strict NASA specifications for Moon landing conditions....

I have always hankered after one of those Hasselblad jobs!
As a child. As an adult, I still (salivate) think of these beauties. Who wouldn't?
I reckon I am not alone in feeeling this. There are many of us.

Hasselblad made a few 'special editions' of these...budget / bank busting prices.
Out of my reach

GoneToPlaid...nice work...welcome to BAUT.

__________________
clear skies

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. CARL SAGAN

Mak: Pass the pepperoni please.
Fazor: "Hail, Bautainia! We pledge our hearts to thee! Science and woo, some babbling too, and astron-oh-meee!"
slang: And it made ash out of yew and tree.

Not comfortably...which is one of the reasons why having a viewfinder is pointless.

For an "elaborate box camera", the Hasselblad got the "job" done, and rather spectacularly at that. Keeping in mind the conditions under which it was used, I'd like to know just how a TLR would have been "better"?

JayUtah has actually worked with the "Moon Hasselblad", so I know he'll have much more to say about this.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

As for it being a 'box camera' it can be fitted with several idfferent reflex viewers with various light meters.
Why go to the extra complication and fuss of a seperate focus lens?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Welcome to BAUT, artberry.

The TLR that was probably best suited for the Apollo missions was the Mamiya C33, introduced in 1965. It had interchangeable lenses and automatic parallax compensation, but it was limited to 120 and 220 film. A 70mm film magazine on a TLR would make it look like a Hasselblad with more glass on the front than it should. And I do not know if a film power winder for this type of camera is feasible.

Those easy, quick change bulk film backs were an important reason for using a Blad as well.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►