Related Links:
Aerial Camera Museum [12/2003]
NASA Shuttle Photography Site (recommended settings table at night..)
Hasselblad and NASA

The best discussion I have seen of photographing the NASA space shuttle missions was an article in Shutterbug. The author's key suggestion was to get a letter or other document from your local home town newspaper on their letterhead. The letter would provide you with the chance to photograph the space shuttle launches and related activities as a press photographer, presumably in exchange for the use of your photos in a local newspaper issue with related story.

Thanks to having such contacts, the Semi-professional photographer not only got extended access to the launching, but also presumably got to tax deduct the expenses of his trip against his photographic business income!

The key value of such official press group coverage was the chance to not only photograph the launch from an optimal press site, but also to get taken around by NASA's public relations department to various shuttle related events. Key among these activities was the chance to photograph the astronauts at various press conferences prior to their trip.

I don't recommend this approach if you are truly an amateur photographer without the local press contacts and equipment and knowledge to come back with high quality photographs for your local press outlet. But it is a much better approach than trying to shoot the shuttle with your superlens (in my case, a 2400mm f/9+ fast telescope the shape of a small barrel).

The postings below may help suggest some of the issues you will face if you elect to catch one of our nation's shuttle launches. Good luck!

From: mccary@erols.com (Joe McCary)
Newsgroups: eug.arts.photography,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Photographing Shuttle Launch
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999

"Russell Smithers" russell@smithers-nasa.freeserve.co.uk wrote:

|Hi,
|
|    I want to take some photos of a shuttle launch, but I have questions,
|    there is no info on the NASA site, and I got no reply to my email to
|NASA.
|
|    Has anyone taken pictures of a Shuttle Launch?
|

I have shot 3 shuttel launches, all just for fun. THE major problem is access to get close enough to shoot. Assuming you do not have press credentials the next best alternative is to contact your Congesssman and ask them to get you a VIP admission (its good for the car for the day of the launch only). It gets you as close as they allow "normal" people (assumes press is not normal). Get there as early as they let viewers onto the cape. Last time I did this you were many miles away and adjacent to a body of water. The best spots go fast so go early and take a blanket to claim your turff. One extra note, the last time I was there there were alligators (small ones) in the irrigation ditches so keep kids and pets under a watchful eye or they may ends up as lunch! Speaking of food, etc. , there is NO concessions at this place so be sure to take food and water and some diversions for the kids.

The shuttle launch pad is WAY off. You will need the longest lens you can get. I used a 400mm lens and even with that the shuttle was small in the center. Next, remember to overexpose slightly if the launch is a day time launch and over expose big time if it is a night launch. The Solid Rocket Boosters are brighter than the sun and will give you dark images. If the weather is clear you should be able to shoot up to the point the solids break away.

For me the most impressive part of the launch was the sound. Since you are so far away you will hear nothing for about 30 seconds and then you will feel the sound as much as you hear it. Your entire body vibrates. It is a very sensual thing to experience. By all means take you kids, it is a worth while trip.

So to sumerize:

1. get a VIP pass from your congressman

2. go early (enter when they open) take food and water

3. get as close top the water as possible (adjecent otherwise someone will try to move in front of you)

4 enjoy the sensual feelings.

From: Bruce William Johnson brucewj@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: eug.arts.photography,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Photographing Shuttle Launch
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999

Hello Russell,

Actually NASA does have the information on their site for photographing Shuttle launches, it just isn't easy to find. The URL is listed below. I hope this helps.

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1997/76-97.htm

Bruce W. Johnson

From: Geoff Hutton gdhutton@us.oracle.com
Newsgroups: eug.arts.photography,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Photographing Shuttle Launch
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999

> Congesssman and ask them to get you a VIP admission (its good for the
> car for the day of the launch only).  It gets you as close as they
> allow "normal" people (assumes press is not normal).

This sounds like a car pass for the causeway. Try for a VIP pass to the Banana Creek VIP site. That puts you closer to pad 39-B than the press. It's a little further to 39-A, but not much. Plus, they have concessions, and the Saturn V museum is right next door.

> The shuttle launch pad is WAY off.  You will need the longest lens you
> can get.  I used a 400mm lens and even with that the shuttle was small
> in the center.  Next, remember to overexpose slightly if the launch is
> a day time launch and over expose big time if it is a night launch.
> The Solid Rocket Boosters are brighter than the sun and will give you
> dark images.  If the weather is clear you should be able to shoot up
> to the point the solids break away.

I took some decent shots of STS-93 (a night launch) from Banana Creek, using a 200mm lens, ISO 200 film, exposed at f/5.6 for 1/250 sec. The pictures were a bit overexposed, so I probably could have used ISO 100 film at the same settings for finer grain. I'm not sure what I'd use for a day launch, but I'd like to try ISO 25 or 50 slide film, so I could really enlarge the end result.

> For me the most impressive part of the launch was the sound.  Since
> you are so far away you will hear nothing for about 30 seconds and
> then you will feel the sound as much as you hear it.  Your entire body
> vibrates.  It is a very sensual thing to experience.

I agree. You don't want to miss *anything* due to fooling with the camera, and you certainly don't want to watch it through the eyepiece. Set up a tripod with a cable release and use a motor drive. I set everything up ahead of time, and framed the launch pad low in the shot. When the SRBs ignited, I mashed down the shutter and just held it until I knew the shuttle was out of my frame. Other than that I ignored my camera, and just enjoyed the moment.

"

From: "Dave B" davepe@tampabay.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Photographing Shuttle Launch
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999

>     Actually NASA does have the information on their site for photographing
> Shuttle launches, it just isn't easy to find.  The URL is listed  below.  I
> hope this helps.
>
> http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1997/76-97.htm

I found that the distance from the launch site has a big effect on exposure for streak shots (night). I shot the shuttle path from the Banana Creek observation area last July. I used a 17mm lens for my 35mm camera (extreme wide angle) with about a 5 minute exposure at f/22. FWIW, the frame was extremely exposed, with only a slight streak well above the horizon showing the path. I used 100 ASA film (E100VS). If anyone has the opportunity to try again (I was about 3.4 miles from the pad) I would recommend using 25 ASA film with the addition of a neutral density filter (blocking 2 stops of light) for a four stop reduction to what I used.

From the Banana River Launch Viewing site, which is about twice the 
distance, I'd use 25 ASA film with the F/22 aperture.  The distance should
make the neutral density filter unnecessary.  My original exposure might be
about right from Titusville.




Regarding telephoto shots, I'd recommend bracketing your exposure and using
400 ASA print film.  I used 400 ASA slide film and got some good shots from
all taken.  The underexposed shots were good for the booster flames, and the
overexposed shots showed the landscape lit well (again at night).  I'd use
print film due the wider exposure latitude.


Dave B. 





From: "Dale Martin" kg5u@hal-pc.org

Newsgroups:
eug.arts.photography,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc,sci.space.shuttle

Subject: Re: Photographing Shuttle Launch

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999


Russell,



Many thousands have taken pictures of shuttle launches.


Here's my suggestion:



Forget the camera, tripod, lenses, fiddling with pointing, tracking,
focus, zoom, f-stop, speed, and all that time-consuming, distracting
stuff.



Just enjoy the launch visually, acoustically (sound) and physically
(soundwaves).



Then, go buy pictures that were professonally shot.



I've been to two launches.  The first, STS-1, I took pictures.  The
second, I didn't.  I recall and picutre in my mind the second launch
much better than the first.  



regards,

--

Dale Martin

kg5u@hal-pc.org

http://www.hal-pc.org/~kg5u



[Ed. note: Related Photo Interest?]

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999

From: DavidG6028@aol.com

To: hasselblad@kelvin.net

Subject: Re: Supposed NASA Hasselblad 1000f on eBay....



...

There are several good sources for information on the space Hasselblads. One
very good source is the Nordin "Compendium". It has an entire chapter on the
space cameras. Another excellent source is Hasselblad themselves. Over the
years they have published a number of articles in their factory magazine
(there was a recent one on the 203FE which was modified for space). From time
to time Hasselblad has also provided booklets on a number of subjects (nature
photography, portraits, etc), including their role in the space program. I
have a number of these going back to the 60's. At one time they even offered
16 x 20 mounted photos from Apollo. If you are ever in Houston, the last time
I visited Johnson Space Center they had a display of the space 
Hasselblads in one of the buildings.



As a side note: most of the early space Hasselblads, and ALL of the Lunar
surface cameras had their mirrors removed. I still can't see how they focused
and framed as well as they did. (and, yes, they really did leave all of the
cameras on the Lunar surface; only brought back the film magazines)



David Gerhardt  




Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999

From: "Alan" ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm

Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Night Exposure?


Trying to remember everything from the last one...



Tripod, locked tight in horizontal movement and looser for a vertical
assent.  If the Shuttle starts to go horizontal, run like an SOB.  Hand or
electronic release, fast film, long lens, wide open to gain speed,
infinity as you will be five miles away, and for some reason the night
launches seem louder than the day launches, probably has to do with other
sounds not prevalent at night...this is the biggest Roman
candle....spectacular..... 


Actually they pump a million watts of light on it while its on the stand,
about as bright as a Vegas hotel, just meter it, open another stop, get
the static shots. First photo opp. 


When they light the fuse at about minus 8 on the count, its about
six-eight seconds till it starts to move. As the onboard liquid fuel
rockets build to thrust, shoot off a couple then stop.  Second photo-opp.  
The smoke will billow real fast and cloud the view, just hold a second or
two before you let her rip. Here's why, the solid fuel guys on either side
of the large fuel tank kick up even more clouds and that's the show, Third
photo-opp.  If your motor drive is capable of five shots per second,
you'll be out of film before you know it and have thirty six shots of
bright white smoke, save some for when it clears the gantry...after it
does clear the gantry all you have is just shots of plume. Fourth
photo-opp. The bad part is you have water on all the sides you have access
to shooting from and reflections are incredible and can either make your
shot or kill it.  That's the fun of it...If you have auto bracket use
it....the movement is slow at liftoff and you only need one good one.....



There are several things in your favor, they will scrub if the weather is
inclement, or overly cloudy with overcast 8-9/10ths ceilings, broken
conditions usually are acceptable. High winds or some asshole violating
airspace like at the last launch.



This is the one time I trusted my instincts and my Gossen lunar pro on my
Nikons, I used F3's I still back an F5 and a 100 with a Minolta 4 meter.
Old habits are hard to change. And then sit and wait till you get the
photos back. Let the lab people know you have extreme contrast shots....



that's it partner , all I can remember....  





Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999

From: "Dave B" davepe@tampabay.rr.com

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm

Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Night Exposure?


PHILHONEY philhoney@aol.com wrote


> I am planning to photo a night launch next week... any suggestions on exposure
> settings for this tricky light situation...




NASA says:



http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1997/76-97.htm



However, the best information I've seen is at:



http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~stanj/Travel/STS-93/exposure.html



See you there!



Dave B.





Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999
 From: peterarm@my-deja.com
 Newsgroups:
eug.arts.photography,rec.photo.equipment.35mm

Subject: Re: Photographing Shuttle Launch


  Geoff Hutton gdhutton@us.oracle.com wrote:


>> For me the most impressive part of the launch was the sound.  Since
>> you are so far away you will hear nothing for about 30 seconds and
>> then you will feel the sound as much as you hear it. Your entire body
>> vibrates.  It is a very sensual thing to experience.
>
> I agree.  You don't want to miss *anything* due to fooling with the
> camera, and you certainly don't want to watch it through the eyepiece.
> Set up a tripod with a cable release and use a motor drive.  I set
> everything up ahead of time, and framed the launch pad low in the
> shot.  When the SRBs ignited, I mashed down the shutter and just held
> it until I knew the shuttle was out of my frame.  Other than that I
> ignored my camera, and just enjoyed the moment.




That is the best advice.  But for the "definitive" source on
photographing shuttle launches, go to



http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~stanj/Travel/STS-93/index.html



and click on Shuttle launch photography advice.  And if you want to
experience the impressive, crackling roar of the shuttle again after
you're home, go to



http://www.ghg.net/pss/cd.html



This web site details a compact disc consisting of very high
quality digital recordings of shuttle launches and landings, made
on-site at KSC. You'll think Launch Complex 39 is right there in
your living room.



-Peter




From Hasselblad Mailing List:

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 

From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net

Subject: Re: Hasselblad in Space



At 08:13 PM 6/30/2000 EDT, BobR38@aol.com wrote:


>For those who might be interested, I've got a colorful book, "OUT OF THIS
>WORLD: American Space Photography" which has pictures of John Glenn's
ANSCO,
>the first camera in space as well as the modified 500C and explains how
it
>was modified.




I recall that Yuri Gagarin had a Praktisix along with him, didn't he?


Marc



From Hasselblad Mailing List:

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 

From: BobR38@aol.com

Subject: Re: Hasselblad in Space



Jim,



Scott Carpenter's Mercury 7 mission used a ROBOT Recorder hand-held 35mm
camera which was selected because of a large aperture (f/0.95) that would
be effective in low-light situations. In earlier Mercury capsules,
automatic 70mm Maurer cameras were programmed to take time-lapse
sequences. As far as film used, for these early missions, it states that
standard Kodak negative film was used, both B&W; and COLOR. 


Bob R.




From Hasselblad Mailing List:

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000

From: BobR38@aol.com

Subject: Re: Hasselblad in Space



During the GEMINI program later, they used thin polyester KODAK films so
that a very large number of photographs could be taken with one Hasselblad
Film Magazine. 


Eventually, up to two hundred exposures of 70mm film were crammed into one
specially built magazine for the Hasselblad. Also, infrared film was used
in many scientific shots destined for analysis back in NASA's
laboratories. 


Incidentally, from Apollo 9 forward, the Hasselblad EL's were then used.



Bob R.




From Nikon Mailing List:

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000

From: Todd Phillips todd@clearlake.ibm.com

Subject: Re: [NIKON] Space Shuttle Launch - Suggestions?



Mark wrote:


> I have been invited to attend a space shuttle launch later this year
> from the VIP area for friends and family of the astronauts.  Given this
> special opportunity I am actually planning in advance - a rarity for
> me!  Any suggestions on photographing the launch?  I have never been to
> a launch and would suspect it is bright and although I will be as close
> as they allow, believe it is still rather far away.  I believe it will
> be a daytime launch - but that could change as the date approaches.  My
> equipment includes:
>
> N90s, N70, Nikon 20 f2.8, Nikon 24 f2.8, Nikon 85 f1.8, Nikon 24-120
> f3.5-5.6, Nikon ED80-200 f2.8 all AF
>
> Not sure if they allow tripods in the VIP area but I will bring one if
> allowed.
>
> Any ideas on film, lens choice, filters and if a longer lens would be
> better?  If so, I can rent or borrow - but what would be best or is
> 80-200 sufficient?  I typically shoot a lot of velvia - would this be a
> good choice in this case?




I viewed a shuttle launch several years ago and I found my 28-200 to be
insufficient--and we were some ways in front of the Launch Control
building (we were NASA employees).  The shuttle was still several miles
away and, at 200mm, it only covered about 1/5 of the vertical frame.
300 would probably be better.  Some sort of 200-400 zoom would be better
than that (maybe 80-200 + 2x TC).



You only have a few seconds of time before it disappears once ignition
occurs, so you don't want to worry about changing lenses.  Definitely
pre-compose your shots.  Turn off auto-focus (you don't have time to
wait for it to hunt--I missed some pictures that way with my N6006).
Take some test shots.



You should probably also take some filters to cut through the haze,
since your subject is so far away.  A polarizer is probably the best
bet.  It was bright when I was there.  I had green bushes in the
foreground of my shots.  I'm not sure Velvia would be the film I'd
take.  Probably something with more latitude and speed, since the
conditions are unpredictable, and you lose stops with the polarizer and
teleconverters. (FWIW, I used print film and the exposures were great).



A tripod probably isn't necessary if you can handhold you lens.



I would probably bring the following if I had it:  Nikon 80-200mm f2.8,
Nikon 300mm f4 (or f2.8--even better), 1.4x TC, 2x TC, a polarizers, and
maybe a 20mm or 24mm to get the crown scene around you.



- --Todd



------------------------------



Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000

From: Christian Ritter c.ritter@wanadoo.nl

Subject: Re: [NIKON] Space Shuttle Launch - Suggestions?



Mark,



unfortunately I cannot help you with lens choice etc. If you live in
Florida I suggest to visit the Kennedy Space Center before and best even
another earlier launch. The center is a great place anyway and always
worth a visit. You might also want to review some launch videos or launch
pics, postcards etc. in the media. Any public library should have some
books about it. That way you can develop some feeling beforehand and the
knowledge might also help in enjoying the moment even more. 


Good luck and enjoy it! I must admit that I am a bit jealous.





From Nikon Mailing List;

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000

From: "Sirius" sirius@gtn.on.ca

Subject: Re: [NIKON] Space Shuttle Launch - Suggestions?



I would suggest that you contact the public affairs office at Cape
Canaveral. There's a very good chance they'll have information for
photographers wanting to shoot space shuttle launches.



In 1991, I had an assignment from a French aviation magazine to
photograph every aircraft in the US Air Force Museum (in both colour
and b&w;). I'd been there before and knew they artificial lighting was
quite a mixture, so I contacted the PAffO and they replied with
detailed information about the types of bulbs in each building and
their aggregate colour temperature. With that information, I was able
to purchase the filters I needed and I got quite good results despite
the lighting. Without the assistance of the PAffO, I'm sure I'd have
had real problems on that assignment.



Jeff Rankin-Lowe





From Nikon Mailing List:

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000

From: David Peters peters_david@yahoo.com

Subject: [NIKON] Space shuttle launch



Jeff Rankin-Lowe wrote:


> I would suggest that you contact the public affairs office at Cape
> Canaveral. There's a very good chance they'll have information for
> photographers wanting to shoot space shuttle launches.




Jeff is correct.  My father shot some wonderful photos from the VIP area
last year.  His settings were those recommended by NASA.  I am not sure
where he got the values, but I can ask him if you cannot find a source at
NASA. 


I got less than stellar results earlier this year (on KSC grounds, but
not in the VIP area).  It was a launch a few minutes before dawn and
using spot metering I ended up with an underexposed background on the
first few shots, almost black, rather than the light of dawn.  As the
shuttle banked east over the water the shots improved considerably.
The dawn light reflected off of the vapor trails to form pink and
orange colors.  Quite nice.



You will want something longer than 200 though for any close shots.  I
concur with the previous poster that a 200-400 zoom would be ideal.
You don't want all of your shots too close though, because the
reflection off of the water is interesting.  Remember the exhaust plume
is considerably larger than the shuttle itself.



Yes, they will let you use a tripod in the VIP area.  Go early so you
can stake out your chosen spot in front; they usually open it up a few
hours before the launch.  There are bleacher-like seats with a grassy
area in front where you can set up.  Go all the way up against the rope
so no one will get in front of you (except for alligators).



Hope this helps.  Have fun.



David




From Hasselblad Mailing List:

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000

From: Austin Franklin austin@darkroom.com

Subject: SWC on moon missions?



Check this out:



http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=406238280



From what I read in "The Hasselblad Compendium", an SWC went in space on
Gemini 10 (not a Moon mission)...and was lost ;-), and on the first Apollo
flight (again, not a Moon mission).  Hasselblad did make 10 SWC to be used
as an alternative to the EL on the Moon, but they weren't....so from what
I can tell, no SWCs were ever on the Moon... 


Anyone have information to the contrary?





From Hasselblad Mailing List:

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000

From: Evan J Dong evanjoe685@juno.com

Subject: Re: SWC on moon missions?



Austin,



If you check Hasselblad USA Website, I believe that information on
Hasselblad equipment in the Space Program are listed there with the
recent flight by John Glenn. Check it out and I believe that you will
find some of the answers you are seeking.



Evan




From Hasselblad Mailing List:

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000

From: Ian Goodrick goodrick@appleonline.net

Subject: Re: SWC on moon missions?



....


In the book 'Hasselblad' published by Gullers International ab. There is a
list of cameras used up until the Apollo-Soyus mission.



From this list the first SWC flight was Gemini 9. the only Apollo flight
was
Apollo 9. None of the moon landing flights carried a SWC.



This is the only source I have in print so can not cross reference the
figures.



--

Ian Goodrick



goodrick@appleonline.net




FRom Hasselblad mailing list:

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000

From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com

Subject: Re: SWC on moon missions?



you wrote:


> From the official Apollo 12 & 13 mission reports--No SWC Hasselblad were on
>board.  This report can be gotten from NASA.




See http://hasselblad.se/the_company/space_camera.html &


http://hasselblad.se/the_company/space_moon.html



regards,



Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video




[Ed. note: Mr. Bob Shell is editor of Shutterbug, a noted photoworkshop
instructor and former expert repairman as well as a nationally known
glamour photographer etc...]

From Contax Mailing List:

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000

From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com

Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Need advice - Special exposure situation



No, I don't specialize in space shuttle photography.



The main thing is that the VIP viewing area is several miles from the
launch pad, so a LONG lens is a necessity.  The really good photos are
always taken from a special area nearer the pad, but you can only set
up automated cameras there and they must be self triggering.  The pros
use a combination light and sound sensor to trigger these cameras.



I don't know if they allow tripods in the VIP viewing area.  Your friend
should find out, and if they do he needs to plan on a 1000 mm lens
if he wants the shuttle to be more than a tiny little dot in the
photos.



Bob 


...




From Contax Mailing List:

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000

From: "John L Lovell" johnllovell@earthlink.net

Subject: Fw: [CONTAX] [OT] Hasselblad stereo photos on moon



Lovell wrote: Then there's the dual Hasselblad stereo rig used on the
moon- all those famous shots, even the footprint, are stereo pairs.
Appropriately (I guess), the moon pairs necessarily have an interocular
wider than human (a little more than the width of a ELM (?) as I recall
from pics of the rig), giving the effective stereo view of a being scaled
up from a human. Fitting for the "giant" steps! 


Bob Shell wrote:



Are you sure?  I don't think so.  In all of the moon pics where you see
one of the astronauts you see a single, chest-mounted Hasselblad. 


Bob


I'm sure. In the 1980's I curated several group shows of stereo
photography, including one at the Boston Museum of Science. I obtained
dupes of stereo pairs taken on the moon directly from NASA, and pics of
the dual Hasselblad rig used to take the stereos, which consisted of two
cameras side by side on a bracket. I fear I exaggerated in stating that
all the famous moon shots were stereos- NASA listed about a dozen
available, and I distinctly remember the footprint and either the flag or
flag with astronaut, and the landing module (cq?) among them- I got all
they listed for the show. Of course most of the pics taken on the moon
were from the single Hasselblad. 


JL




[Ed. note: now, for something different ;-) ]

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000

From: nasa luna@solar.milky

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc

Subject: Re: Lunar Mission, films, cameras - Info required



Were you inspired by the following report? I am not sure about the
authenticity of Milne's claims but it sure is food for thought for
photographers! 


----Cover Story ----



Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks
David Milne 


The greater lunar lie



In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video
footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the
mind of Ralph Rene. "How can the flag be fluttering," the 47 year old
American kept asking himself, "when there's no wind on the atmosphere free
Moon?" 


That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the
self- taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo
Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing
sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had
never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake. 


It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But
Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA
Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order -and
is a compelling read. The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri
Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race.
At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the
ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he
secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars. And so, says Rene
(and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with
him), the great Moon hoax was born. 


Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to
have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently
exploded halfway - being the only casualties. But with the exception of
the known rocks,which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the
photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever
landed. And Rene believes they're fake. 


For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to
watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol threw rocks and
dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA
provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film "man's
greatest achievement" from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy,
says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it. By contrast, the
still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts
took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply
focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene points out,
that's not all: 


  - The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts
achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing. 


  - There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful
cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.



  - They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in
pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their
fingers.



Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures
are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on
these pages, but the basic points are as follows: 


  - The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources
and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the
Moon was the sun. 


  - The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly
lit, even when everything around is in shadow. 


  - Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both
were shot at the same time.



  - The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick
advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed
it repeatedly. 


David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle
blowers", who were keen for the truth to one day get out.



If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word
that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, why would anyone fake
pictures of an event that actually happened? 


The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation
that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard
astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the
Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. 


But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And,
during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than
1,485 such flares. 


John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least
two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which
took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA,
"about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil". 


How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were
protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such
protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction
of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever
contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to
the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried," says
Rene. 


Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon)  
was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of
Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of
their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing.
"The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the
co-pilot," says Rene. 


Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin -
"the second man on the Moon" - was asked at a banquet what it felt like to
step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the
room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this."It
strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says
Rene. 


Aldrin may also fear for his life. Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who
baited the Apollo programme, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the
landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule
(in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty:
"if there is ever a serious accident in the space programme, it's likely
to be me." 


Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and
his two co- pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their
capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.  


Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even chemistry students
in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. 


In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launchpad a
total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were
incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this
is a spectacular accident rate. "One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't
NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of
these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking for."
NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say
that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. 


But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200
guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a
landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to
what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this
film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really
can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then
invited his audience to "come to your own decision about whether or not
man actually did walk on the Moon".



A sudden attack of honesty? You bet,
says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were
the lift offs. The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case
the rocket exploded. "It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left
with three astronauts who ought to be dead," he claims, adding that they
came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance
wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who
whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later. And now NASA is
planning another giant step - project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned
mission to Mars. 


"Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics,"
says Rene chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This
time round will have no way of determining the truth." 


Space oddities - Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the
Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him
about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air
flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air. 


  - A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off
the Moon. Who did the filming? 


  - One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about
to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying
on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then
who took the shot? 


  - The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football.
The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were
seen freely bending their joints. 


  - The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America
make a signal on the move that could be seen from earth? The PR would have
been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.



Text from pictures in the article Only two men walked on the Moon during
the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no
camera. Who took the shot? 


The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in
the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower
right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is
the flag fluttering? How can the flag be brightly lit when its side on to
the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars? The Lander
weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in
the dust. 


The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to
slow descent to the moon's surface. Yet it has left no traces of blasting
on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the
booster looks like it's never been fired. 


--





Date: 17 Oct 2000 

From: mr645@aol.com (Mr 645)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc

Subject: Re: Lunar Mission, films, cameras - Info required




Try this 


http://www.hasselblad.se/the_company/space_camera.html

http://www.jonlayephotography.com 




From Hasselblad Mailing List:

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000

From: Ragnar Hansen raghans@powertech.no

Subject: NASA and Hassy



On the news from Hasselblad is a report that NASA used a 203S on the
latest trip with the shuttle.



It also says that they used 70mm film. Does anyone knows which film(s)?



Ragnar Hansen





From Nikon Mailing List:

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000

From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com

Subject: [NIKON] Re: Insurance for my Nikon



you wrote:


>Hmm ... I thought Hasselblad had cornered the outer-space photography
>market ...




Nikon House in NYC used to display modified FTN bodies that'd been used in
space by NASA. Oversized controls and special matte finish.


- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com





From Hasselblad Mailing List:

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000

From: Robert Welch robertwelch@earthlink.net

Subject: 100/3.5 vs 120/4 at close-focus



I have some old Hasselblad liturature which talks about the 100/3.5
comared to the 80/2.8...the 100/3.5 was designed for long distance
work with very low distortion perspective. I'm guessing it was
designed as an out growth of the cameras they made for NASA in the
late 60's since that's when it was introduced. In the brochure I have
they talk about how the resolution on the 100/3.5 is better at
distances over 10 feet or so, and how it remains sharp even wide
open. However, they say that in close focus it's no better than the
80/2.8...with that in mind I'm sure the 120mm macro will be a much
better choice for closeup photography. I'm guessing that at infinity
the 100/3.5 might be better.



My 2 cents,



Robert Welch





rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

From: rosedco@aol.com (Rosedco)

Date: Thu Apr 19 13:24:59 CDT 2001

[1] Hasselblad from Space



Superior Galleries in Beverly Hills is holding their annual Auction of all
types of Space Related Material - one Lot consists of a Hasselblad 500
EL/M Camera that was used onboard MIR from 1993 to 1999 Estimated Value as
a collector's item $10000-15000 (what? no Kiev 88 on MIR ??) 




From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net

Subject: Re: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space
Station and the Russians



Andrei.Calciu@hn.va.nec.com wrote:


>I wonder, how would a camera fare in space, without any protection? I  guess
>that all the lubricants would either freeze solid or maybe they will
>dissipate in space. And what about the film?




NASA has been using cameras in spacewalks for a third of a century,
beginning with the Contarices flown on the Gemini flights and progressing
to the Hasselblads used on the Lunar flights.  I am not certain about
their current gear, though they were experimenting with a Kodak/Nikon
digital camera a decade or more back. 


The SPS space effort used Pentacon Six cameras.  I am not certain what the
Russians use today.



Sadly, this is probably an off-topic discussion, as I cannot recall a
single Rolleiflex product flown into space.



Titov, the tourist, incientally, is a former NASA engineer who left the
Agency to found his own company and to make his millions.  A lot of the
resistance NASA has shown to this flight has been simple sour grapes by
those who lacked the courage and brains to do what he has done.  I guess
the Powers-That-Be just don't want him meandering about the offices and
upsetting the help by showing them what they could do, if they had some
gumption.



Marc



msmall@roanoke.infi.net 





From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: Andrei.Calciu@hn.va.nec.com

Subject: Re: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space
Station and the Russians



Marc,



do you have any information about the preparatory steps the cameras had to
go through in order to become space-walk qualified? I know from reading
about the lunar rovers that no rubber based products can survive outer
space, therefore, I guess any gaskets or O-rings made of rubber would
necessarily fail on a camera. It would be interesting to know about what
changes have to be implemented.



NASA currently uses Rolleiflex 6008i for shuttle (and soon space-station)
pictures. Do you think that the extensive electronics make the camera
unsuitable for space-walks? After all, they can power the camera from the
suits (to avoid NiCd battery instant death in space) and most electronic
components run better at lower temperatures.



Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)




From Rollei Mailing List:

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: "John M. Niemann" jniemann@ivy.tec.in.us

Subject: Re: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The InternationalSpace
Station and the Russians



> If one is interested in Astronaunt Photography of Earth, there is a  display
> reord that ideicated the film and camera used along with the Images.  Other
> information inclides file name, file size, width height resolution,
> annotations, purposes and any other comments.




You might check it out at




http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov



There are lots of photos taken with the Hasselblad, and Linhoff.
Haven't come across any taken with the Rollei.



John




From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: bigler@ens2m.fr

Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei cameras in space



>From Marc J.S.
> ....I cannot recall a single Rolleiflex product flown into space.




There has very probably been at least a few R-600x in the Space
Shuttle, see a thread I started about photographic credits in a nice
book entitled "Orbit" as I mentioned last year.




http://digistar.com/rollei/2000-07/0084.html



but may be none of those Rollei cameras has been exposed to the harsh
space environment like the Hasselblads.



--

Emmanuel BIGLER

bigler@ens2m.fr





From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: bigler@ens2m.fr

Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei cameras in space, other RUG reference



I'm re-posting this interesting RUG post by Bob salomon, HP Marketing,
dated 28-Oct-1998, a good summary of R-600X cameras in the space
Shuttle missions.



--

Emmanuel BIGLER

bigler@ens2m.fr



-----------------------------------------------



Date: 14-May-1998

From: "Bob Salomon" bobsalomon@mindspring.com



No modifications were necessary or made for the NASA 6008 cameras for
the shuttle other than for NASA to put neoprene rings over the front
of each Rollei lens and Heliopan filter to protect the quartz windows
in the Shuttle from possible scratching by contact with the ;lens or
filter.



OTOH there were considerable modifications necessary on the Linhof
cameras on the Shuttle. We had to change the wiring, the vacuum pump
the paint, etc.


------------------



   Date: 28-Oct-1998

   From: "Bob Salomon" ir004021@mindspring.com

   Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V2 #6



If you look at Rollei brochures you will see space shots in them.
That is because in 1989 I sold several 6008 cameras to NASA for use on the
Shuttle program and the cameras flew many times, with no modifications and
without stripping the cameras down.



Most of the Rollei space photos were taken on STS 41 which flew in 1990
and were taken by Col. Robert Cabana. 


They used the 6008 with the 70mm back and a 90 degree finder. They find
that using a 45 degree finder causes dizziness in space due to the
location of the photo window (high above eye level in the back of the crew
compartment. And the looking down to look straight out bothered the
astronauts. 


This mission also resulted in the first MF flash shot ever taken in space.
This was because the 6008 had a hot shoe so their Nikon flash would mount
and fire on it. The Hasselblad EL cameras they used had no way of mounting
the flash with a hot shoe.



>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Space Rollei
>
>>  Could a Rolleiflex (or even a SL66) be adapted to be used on the
>>space program?
>>
>>  I believe that a TLR construction with its waist level finder could
>>be a nice feature for a camera fixed on the chest. But what about the
>>rest of the camera (lens, shutter, film transport system, etc.)?
>
>Well, if you read the discussion about the Space Hassys, you'll see that
>the actual cameras used were stripped of most of the viewing system. It's
>hard to use a viewfinder other than a field frame due to glare in space
>and there are many other subtle difficulties.
>
>Certainly a TLR could be used but the stripped down SLRs were more like
>box cameras with a good Zeiss lens on them, smaller and lighter.






From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net

Subject: RE: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space Station and the Russians



Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:


>Actually it was John Glenn from inside his Mercury Friendship 7 capsule  that
>first photographed a view of outer space with a Minolta Hi-Matic camera.
>Afterward NASA engaged Hasselblad to develop a modified Hasselblad 500C  with
>80mm Planar lens that went up to space in the Mercury Sigma 7 capsule  with
>Walter M. Schirra in October that same year.  Not sure about the Contax
>cameras.




Pete (he says gently, so not to startle him out of his sleep)



We were speaking of cameras in a vacuum, not those inside a space capsule.
And no Contax cameras have yet been taken aloft, to my relatively certain
knowledge -- the first cameras used by NASA in a vacuum were Contarex
cameras used on the GEMINI space-walks.



Marc



msmall@roanoke.infi.net





From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com

Subject: RE: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space Station and the Russians



> Afterward NASA engaged Hasselblad to develop a modified
> Hasselblad 500C with
> 80mm Planar lens that went up to space in the Mercury Sigma 7
> capsule with
> Walter M. Schirra in October that same year.




This is not at all accurate.  Schirra, him self, went down to the local
Houston camera store, and bought a plain old off the shelf 500C...NASA had
nothing to do with the selection of camera, or purchase of it. 


The camera had the leather stripped, and was then painted black to
minimize reflections.  That's it for "modifications".  It certainly wasn't
'developed', nor was it modified by Hasselblad. 


Again, NASA had nothing to do with this camera selection or purchase.  It
was only after NASA saw the quality of the images from the Hasselblad that
NASA took interest in Hasselblads.





From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@avaya.com

Subject: [Rollei] Walter Schirra and the story



For those interested, from a 1997 interview with Schirra.....



In the aftermath of John Glenn's 1962 orbital flight aboard Friendship 7,
the bad news slowly trickled down to the other Mercury astronauts. Though
the five-hour mission was a rousing Right Stuff success, there'd been a
major glitch. Armed with an inferior 35mm camera on his trailblazing
jaunt, Glenn had taken many photos of the earth that were out of focus and
useless to NASA's high command.



"Once I heard all the talk about how bad those shots were, my only thought
was I couldn't screw up the same way," recalls Walter Schirra, who
followed Glenn into space aboard Mercury 8 [Schirra flew Sigma 7, the
entire program was called the Mercury Program] for six orbits. "Back then
I was just the Average Joe, filling up family albums that wouldn't quit.
Yet once I got ready to go into space, I knew I had to buy a new camera. I
couldn't rely on this boxy, 1940s 35mm Voightlander that my father had
given to me." 


So began Schirra's journey into the often bewildering realm of highly
advertised brand names, esoteric equipment and competing "revolutionary,
high-tech" sales claims. He likes to laugh about his flying solo during
his early buying expedition. "Forget NASA's giving me any money. I had to
pay for that camera myself." Yet Schirra, suddenly the celebrity in 1962,
eventually found valuable help. 


"Knowing nothing about sophisticated cameras, I talked to experts, a few
Life [magazine] photographers who were assigned to take pictures of all
the astronauts," says Schirra, 74, who now does most of his photography
from a fishing boat off the Southern California coast. 


"I told them I wanted to take really detailed photos of the earth's
surface, and they immediately told me to buy a Hasselblad. They were the
admirals of photography, and I was the ensign, so I didn't question their
orders. I bought a Hasselblad in Houston for $400, played with it on field
trips to the Grand Canyon, and made a few modifications." [such as? ask
schirra] "Best of all, though, I later sold the camera to a collector for
$14,000." 




From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: Dale L Dickerson therevdd@juno.com

Subject: Re: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space
Station and the Russians




Cameras and space programs seems to be showing up alot today. Here is a
part of posting from




http://forums.delphi.com/kievreport/messages?msg=2049.43



"Russians have used the Pentacon sixTL and Pentacon Super, then Kiev 6C,
Zenith 80, Kiev 88, and the Kiev 90 sytems in their space program.



NASA has used Hasselblad, Rolleiflex 6008 amd Minolta (once) systems. The
Rolleiflex 6008 was evaluated as the equipment that has functioned in
space picture taking, as most consitant tool, when it comes to picture
quality.



The results of pictures taken with Rolleiflex (Zeiss lenses) were SIXTY
PERCENT more consistant, than the pictures taken with Hasselblads. For
this reason, Arsenal decided to create Kiev 90 system with AUTO exposure,
to accomodate the amateur photographic level of their Cosmonouts."



Has anyone on this list an information on the claim of the 6008 being
most consistant?



Dale




From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com

Subject: Re: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space
Station and the Russians



> From: Dale L Dickerson therevdd@juno.com
> Reply-To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International   Space
> Station and the Russians
>
> "Russians have used the Pentacon sixTL and Pentacon Super, then Kiev 6C,
> Zenith 80, Kiev 88, and the Kiev 90 sytems in their space program.




Yes, but only because it was all they could get.  They used Russian
watches, too.  Once the wall came down the switched to Hasselblads
(usually personal property of the Cosmonaut who used it) and Nikons and
Swiss watches. 


> NASA has used Hasselblad, Rolleiflex 6008 amd Minolta (once) systems.  The
> Rolleiflex 6008 was evaluated as the equipment that has functioned in  space
> picture taking, as most consitant tool, when it comes to picture  quality.





They've used a very wide range of cameras, not just these few.



> The results of pictures taken with Rolleiflex (Zeiss lenses) were SIXTY
> PERCENT more consitant, than the pictures taken with Hasselblads. For  this
> reason, Arsenal decided to create Kiev 90 system with AUTO exposure, to
> accomodate the amateour photographic level of their Cosmonouts."




Pure BS.  The Kiev 90 predates the Rollei 6008.  I've only ever seen one
Kiev 90 that was functioning.  I've seen many that were not.  I don't
think its development had anything to do with the Russian space program.



> Has anyone on this list an information on the claim of the 6008 being  most
> consitant?




Shutter speeds on the 6008 are more consistent than those in Hasselblad
500 series when you switch lenses.  The shutters in the Rollei lenses are
timed by the body electronically.  The shutters in the Hasselblad lenses
are timed mechanically and vary a lot from lens to lens. 


Bob





From Rollei Mailing List:

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001

From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com

Subject: RE: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space Station and the Russians



> The results of pictures taken with Rolleiflex (Zeiss lenses)
> were SIXTY PERCENT more consitant, than the pictures taken with
> Hasselblads.




Here is what the original poster of this statement said in response to my
request for information:



"I have picked up that info some 10 years ago from the News Release
published by Rollei Fototechnic GmbH in Braunchweig." 


"BTW, that statement is NOT a reflection on the manual Hasselblad
equipment so much, as a reference to the amateour photographic abilities
of men who were experts in other fields than picture taking. And came back
to Earth with much better exposed images, because of the Rolleiflex's
bulit-in AUTO exposure." 


So, it appears the claim was 1) originally made (in some form) by Rollei,
and 2) was a reflection on the Rollei being used in automatic mode, as a
'point-and-shoot'... 


He said he'll get me the exact article, if he can find it.






From Rollei Mailing List:

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001

From: shino@ubspainewebber.com

Subject: Re: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space
Station and the Russians



i was reading the hasselblad compendium and they had a nice
section of information about the NASA hasselblads.  i think
almost all of them had the viewing system--mirrors, groundclass, etc
removed, so i imagine it was hard to frame your photo.
they were non-metered and mechanical.

in my opinion, those flyboys took some really amazing photographs
with this equipment.  i was convinced as a kid in the 60's, reading
LIFE, that these hasselblads were the best cameras in the universe.



here's an interesting site on apollo photographic equipment,
but i'll bet there's many more:




http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo_Photography.html



this other site has a photo of the "minolta space meter", the 1 degree
spotmeter used on apollo 11.




http://www.nasm.edu/galleries/attm/nojs/a11.om.ap.1.html



-rei


...




FRom Rollei Mailing List:

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001

From: "R. Creason" rcreason@zianet.com

Subject: Re: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space
Station and the Russians



----- Original Message -----

From: shino@ubspainewebber.com
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001

Subject: Re: [Rollei] NASA, Millionaire Genuises, The International Space
Station and the Russians



.......


> here's an interesting site on apollo photographic equipment,
> but i'll bet there's many more:
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo_Photography.html
>
> this other site has a photo of the "minolta space meter", the 1 degree
> spotmeter used on apollo 11.
>
> http://www.nasm.edu/galleries/attm/nojs/a11.om.ap.1.html
>
> -rei




These are very interesting sites.  The mention of the stereo camera
brought back some memories for me.  I did an environmental test on the
stereo camera used on Apollo 11 and other flights after that.  I did these
tests at White Sands Test Facility in southern NM in July 1969. 


I think I still have my set of the photos made by our photo lab as part of
the test report I wrote.  I will try to find them if anyone is interested
in seeing them (I could scan them, they are 8 X 10).  I think I have some
of the photos of the camera mounted in the test fixture as well before it
was placed in the test chamber.  I haven't seen them since I moved here in
1984, but I am sure I still have my old files.  Of course I would not post
them to the list. They show the camera in the collapsed configuration as
well as extended as is shown on the second site above.  The camera was
made by Kodak for NASA. 


It was a rather unique design to take stereo pix of the lunar surface just
a few inches from the surface.  It used 35mm film and was designed to be
operated by one hand by a single control handle without the operator
having to bend over.  Also, after the return of Apollo 11, they sent me a
set of 8 X 10 enlargements of the photos taken that were quite remarkable
(not stereo pairs, just prints of one of each image pair).  The images
shown on the above site are too small to see much detail.  They wouldn't
let me keep those prints. 




From Nikon Mailing List;

 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001

   From: Oliver Reddaway oliver@research.canon.com.au

Subject: Re: Nikons in space ?



Hi,



The NASA Nikons were covered in some detail in an issue of the NHS
Magazine, a few years ago. I've seen and handled the F3 cameras at Peter
Lownds' shop/museum in Rotterdam last year. If anyone is in Europe and can
get to Rotterdam Peter's museum is well worth a visit, I doubt that there
is anywhere else where you can see so many rare Nikons all at the same
time......... Peter is a lovely guy with a very ribald sense of humor and
visiting him is great fun, he also has a very thorough knowledge of Nikons
from the rangefinder Model I to the F5..... 


The cameras that were left behind on the moon were the special Hassleblad
500EMs these cameras had special glass pressure plates to ensure maximum
film flatness, and used 70mm film, with a specially thin filmbase. The
problem was that the weight that could be lifted off the moon's surface by
the lunar lander in the Apollo missions was very limited, the thing itself
looks like it's made out of AluFoil, there's on in the Space Museum in
Huntsville, Alabama. So anything that could be replaced was left behind,
they just brought the filmbacks home. 


Best Regards,



Oliver.


Oliver Reddaway 




From Nikon MF Mailing List;

 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001
   From: Jan Andersson wallhofs@wineasy.se

Subject: Re: Nikons in space ?



you wrote:


>Oliver wrote:
>[snip] ..I've seen and handled the F3 cameras at Peter Lownds'  shop/museum
> > in Rotterdam last year. If anyone is in Europe and can get to  Rotterdam
>Peter's
> > museum is well worth a visit, I doubt that there is anywhere else  where
>you can
> > see so many rare Nikons all at the same time




Hi Laika, there's an artikel, with pictures:



A collector's life dream, a private Nikon museum in Rotterdam
By Rudolf Hillebrand 8/25/98  (Nikon Historical Society)



http://www.nikonhs.org/news/news.cgi?recno=2



regards/Jan




From Nikon MF Mailing List;

 Date: Wed, 30 May 2001

   From: "Ricky Bond" ratwithwings@goconnect.net

Subject: Re: Nikons in space ?



I dont know if this photo of the NASA spec. FTn is what your looking for,
but:




http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/special/nasanikon.htm





From Nikon MF Mailing List;

  Date: Wed, 30 May 2001

   From: "Ricky Bond" ratwithwings@goconnect.net

Subject: Re: Nikons in Space?



Also from MIR website:


http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/special/specialnikon.htm


(right down the bottom)



"F4 NASA model



Material extracted from Nikon, Nikon Vol 5, 1992 Two F4s models - one
underwith minimal conversion for use in Electronic Still Camera (ESC)
system(In monochrome view and enhanced in space using a modified laptop
computer and transmit to earth thru digital downlink system) to digitise
images taken and transmit back to earth in mere seconds. Another F4s using
conventional 35mm film, modified slightly for operation in weightlessness
environment. A few accessories for the F4s: several AF Nikkors, MF-23
Multi Control Back and SB-24 Speedlight. Providing intervalometer
operation, auto exposure braketing, time exposures and focus priority.  
-leofoo-" 




From hasselblad mailing list;

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001

From: BLADHASS@aol.com

Subject: Re: Crappy straps and other things from Hasselblad



bradleya@ms54.hinet.net writes:



> In my arrogant opinion, Hasselblad is incapable of making a decent strap  for
> their cameras.




Do you remember the first camera satellite in space? It was Super Wide C
and one of the astronauts lost the camera, becuase the strap broke.
Hasselblad issued a statement claiming they did not make the strap!!! Only
the camera. 


Peter Peterson






               

               

               

               

               

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hartblei?
From: "radiojohn" yeahsure@nospam.invalid>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 


 > If you're looking for an inexpensive entry into medium format, then get
 > a Kiev 60. Much less complex, no lens fitting issues, same picture
 > quality. As to the need for exchangeable backs, just think how many
 > rolls of film you could simply wind through in mid-roll for the
 > difference in price. If you must shoot colour and b/w alongside each
 > other, then buy a second body. They usually go for something like 100
 > dollars.
 >
 > More on the subject at the URL given below.
 >
 > Ralf
 >
 > --

Extremely sound advice. I saw some footage of the Cosmonuats onboard MIR (or
some earlier effort) and even THEY were using the Kiev 60 over the the more
complex models.  Does that tell you something?

John



From: rosedco@aol.com (Rosedco)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 20 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: Photo equipment used in Russian space project

Superior Galleries held an auction of space material in May - One Lot was a
Hasselblad 500  EL/M that was used on MIR from 1993 to 1999 - the value of this
camera was estimated at$ 10000 to 15000


Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 
From: "George S. Pearl" alps007@mindspring.com>
Subject: Widelux in SPACE!
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

Hello Mark and others,

    I forgot to tell you that the Widelux camera was used in our US Space
Program by NASA. The camera was actually taken on space missions for
shooting pans of the vast area up there. I bet you didn't know that about
this horrible little clunky camera? I never found them to be bad at all, but
it depends on how anything is used and handled as to the results and long
term usage one may derive from that equipment. It was what it was and
nothing more. The people who want to make something more of it than it was
ever meant to be have a problem...not the camera. If you want a truly clunky
weird camera...try a Spinshot for a while :-)
My best,
George S. Pearl,QPP
Atlanta Panorama



----- Original Message -----
From: SegalPan@aol.com>
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 
Subject: Re: Widelux: The Rise and Fall (?)


> Actually, the widelux did break new ground!
> Because of its size and ease of use, it quickly became
> the most popular panoramic camera - similar to how the
> Cirkut became the PAN camera of choice for thousands
> in the early quarter of the century.
>
> The widelux predated all modern pan cameras of the day,
> even the Linhof 6x17, by many years, and although it has
> lost to competition the past 25 years, it clearly deserves recognition,
regardless of its mechanical weaknesses.
>
> Mark Segal
>


From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: film DOfocus etc. Re: Poor Mans Leica ?
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 

Neat.

This is aluded to in the book "The Hunt for Red October".

Skunk Works did a lot of camera work as a contractor sending the work out to optics
companies in the US.  I saw a very neat (not to mention large!) U-2 camera at the US
War Museaum in Duxford (UK).  The mass of film is so high, that to preserve weight
and balance of the aircraft, it had split film running in opposite directions so
that the weight on oposing takeup reels would balance the coaxial "give" spool loss
of film.

Cheers, Thanks for the link.
Alan

Gordon Moat wrote:

>
> Speaking of film flatness, any comments about the Contax vacuum back? And have
> you ever seen this:
>
> http://www.cameraquest.com/nfspy.htm>
>
> Ciao!


From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Photo equipment used in Russian space project
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 

Q.G. de Bakker qnu@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:9vbaeo$5mu$1@reader1.tiscali.nl...
> Does anyone know what photo equipment (all formats) was used in the
> Sovjet/Russian space project?
> Is/are there (a) site(s) on the web about this?

Not much data is easily accessible, but here is what I've gleaned form the
web  and books (no mention of Kievs yet...)

Now, there *were* Kievs aboard many a space flight.  I remember reading a
story about a group (?) of Soviet cosmonauts visiting the Arsenal factory
and handing back to the group of "overjoyed representatives of the heroic
communist workers" a camera that had been in space.

No matter how funny it sounds now, Gagarin apparently didn't carry a camera
http://www.gfsnet.org/msweb/sixties/yurigagrinapril1961.htm

Herman Titov used a "Konvas" movie camera on Vostok 2
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/lvs/vos8k72k.htm

Valeryi Bykovski used only B&W; film during his 5 days in space on Vostok 5
in an unnamed camera (Smiena..?)

The crew of Soyuz T-3 (27 November- 10 December 1980) used a Beaulieu 16 mm
movie camera.

The crews of Soyuz T-8 (20-22 April 1983); T-11 (3-11 April 1984) and TM-10
(1 August-10 December 1990) used a Konica C35AF2 (35mm camera.)   The same
camera was also used for 131 day during a stay on Mir in 1990.  It was used
on all these missions by cosmonaut Gennady Strekalov
http://www.neosoft.com/Russia_House/sale/284-331.html


Apparently In 1988 Jean Loup Chretien (a Canadian) took his Minox GT camera
on the Soviet space station Soyuz TM-7 and took the first Minox pictures in
space.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002DuR


Take a look here
http://www.itsrussian.com/catalog/space.htm
and see a "Handheld Camera - Salyut.  Large bulky low-tech camera." ????

And so forth...

Good shooting!
Michael


From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Space camera

Yesterday while looking for something else in the latest McKeown I
happened to see the section on Leningrad.

He has a photo and description of a Leningrad space camera, with
special big controls for cosmonaut use and designed to be held
upside down.  He values this camera at $ 2,500 and up.

Has anyone here seen one of these?  It looks really unusual.  I'm
kind of surprised that no one in the Russian cottage industry has
turned out fakes of this camera, at least so far as I've seen.

Bob


[Ed. note: thanks to Dave for passing on this tip and info!]
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 
From: Ez2cDave@aol.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: SHUTTERBUG ARTICLE / Semi-Professionals & NASA Passes ???

Thanks, Bob !

I had 'Causeway" passes for STS-110 Atlantis, which finally went last Monday!
Unfortunately, we were 7 miles away! I was shooting through an MTO 1100 - f /
10.5 , 1084mm Russian Maksutov Mirror Lens and the pictures would have been
exceptional, save for the error of not locking in the settings manually !
This, unfortunately, allowed the camera's meter (Canon EOS Elan IIe) to
CORRECTLY expose for the FLAMES ! This turned the bright daytime launch into
an instant night launch, TERRIBLY UNDEREXPOSED ! Oh, well ! Live & learn!

On the "up" side, I have a VERY GOOD possibility of getting VIP passes in the
NEAR future, which would allow me into the "Banana Creek" VIP Viewing Area,
LOCATED 3.2 miles from the pad !

As an interesting note, the Maksutov -Design penetrated the haze more
efficiently than the 1250mm Celestron C-5, f / 10 Schmidt - Cassegrain I also
had with me! Immediately after the Liftoff Sequence, I switched to the
Soligor 500mm - 800mm (f / 8 - 12) and chased the Shuttle handheld, right up
until SRB separation! This lens is surprisingly sharp and hand-holds easily !

Thanks for your help !

Dave Fitch
Port St. Lucie, FL 34953
USA


[Ed. note: thanks to Dave Fitch for providing these URLs on shuttle launches and photography!]
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 
From: Ez2cDave@aol.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Shuttle Pass & Photo Techniques Webpage List ! ! !

Bob,

Here's the list of websites I promised you !

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001HY7

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001F8E

http://home.attbi.com/~bobby1406/credentialsofphotographer.html

http://www.pacificnet.net/~sonia/sts/95-LIFT.JPG

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/guide.txt

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~stanj/Travel/STS-93/exposure.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~kd6nrp/vafbphoto.htm

http://www.spaceportusa.net/launch/

http://www.store.yahoo.com/kennedyspacecenter/lttandmaxac.html#110

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/

http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/photo_acc/photo_acc



http://www.moonmovie.com

A "Disturbing & Compelling" Website ! Promotes theory of "Phony" Moon
Landings ! "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon !"



NTSB Crash Investigation Website ! VERY INTERESTING !

http://www.amsky.com/~wingz/crash/ntsb.html


I hope these websites are helpful and interesting to everyone ! ENJOY !

David Fitch
Port St. Lucie, FL 34953
USA


[Ed. note: thanks again to Dave for sharing these further tips - see you there!]
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 
From: Ez2cDave@aol.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle Pass & Photo Techniques Webpage List ! ! !

Bob,

Excellent ! Hope to see you this Summer at the Cape! Just look for the LARGE
Bogen Tripod / Nikon F2AS , MD-2 / MB-1 , MF-3 , with a LONG "Third Party
Lens" on it & that will, most likely, be me !

Also, one update ! Officially, Kennedy Space Center is NOT issuing "Car
Passes" or "VIP Passes" (unless your are REALLY invited by Astronauts, NASA
Director, or a U.S. Congressman), until further notice ! Just one more thing
we have to endure, following Sept, 11 ! What a Shame !

One final note, if viewers are restricted to the "CAUSEWAY SITE", the best
view is of launches from pad 39-A ! ! ! It is approximately 1.5 miles closer
than 39-B & the entire pad is visible, whereas 39-B is HALF OBSCURED by
foliage ! ! !  When I was there, I noticed that everyone rushes forward to
get as close as possible ......... This, in my opinion, is totally
unnecessary !

I chose to remain on the ROADWAY, approximately 150 feet BEHIND the barriers !

WHY ???

SEVERAL REASONS:

(1) The Roadway is actually ELEVATED above the "closer" area 150 feet away!
No one standing at the barrier obscures your shot! The closer you get to the
barrier by the water, the LOWER you go !

(2) Equipment Safety! People & their children are distracted by the event and
do not look where they're going!

(3) At a distance of  5.5 (39-A) to 7 (39-B) miles, a difference of 150 feet
is INCONSEQUENTIAL by percentage ! ! ! Give me a better ANGLE of VIEW,
ANYTIME !!!

(4) There are 10,000 people, or so, at the Causeway Site, while only 4 or 5
  "SERIOUS" photographers chose the roadway! In fact, I had talked to
several of them about our respective equipment and told them of my
intentions, as to shooting location.....After due consideration and
discussion, a concensus of opinion was reached in light of the logical
advantages !

(5) TEMENDOUS FREEDOM TO CHOOSE "YOUR" SHOOTING LOCATION ! ! !

Bob, you have a GREAT Forum ! May it continue for many, MANY years to come!

PS - As always, feel free to share any of our correspondence on the website !
We all benefit from shared experiences and information !

Thank You!

Dave Fitch
PSL, FL  USA


[Ed. note: thanks to Q.G. de Bakker for sharing these shuttle related photo tips...]
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: 1 May 2001 (fwd)

Robert Monaghan wrote:
> not sure if you get this or have access to BJP, but the article on zeiss
> superachromats looks interesting as a followup to your kind note - bobm
>
> the marketshare stats on cameras is also interesting ;-) grins bobm

Thank you. No, i did not have access to BJP. I do now ;-)
I couldn't find the article on the Superachromats though. 8(


I stumbled upon your "NASA Space Shuttle Photography" page on your excellent
mega-site a couple of days ago.

It reminded me of an article in "Hasselblad", no. 78, March 1984. In it Time
Magazine photographer Michael Morse Taylor explains his way of photographing
the launch of a space shuttle flight (STS 5?). Do you know this article?
If not, and if you like, i can send you the unabridged (but still short)
version of this article. It deals with camera sites (including plan), camera
protection (including construction details of housing and mounting used),
camera triggering mechanism, and camera set up.

Regards.



From: baalke@zagami.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology,rec.photo.misc
Subject: International Space Station Astronauts Set New Standard For Earth
Photography
Date: 3 May 2002


Kyle Herring
Headquarters, Washington                May 3, 2002
(Phone: 202/358-4504)

Catherine E. Watson
Johnson Space Center, Houston
(Phone: 281/483-5111)

RELEASE: 02-80

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION ASTRONAUTS
SET NEW STANDARD FOR EARTH PHOTOGRAPHY

     Astronaut photography of the Earth from the
International Space Station has achieved spatial resolutions
of less than six meters, an analysis of more than 13,000
images has shown. This means scientists can use photographs
taken from the space station to study changes that are
occurring in very small features on the Earth's surface.

The results of this study are discussed in an article in the
April 23 edition of the American Geophysical Union journal
Eos Transactions.

"The sharpness of the photographs taken by the station
astronauts surprised both them and the scientists on the
ground," said Dr. Julie Robinson, lead author of the paper
and a Lockheed Martin scientist in the Earth Sciences and
Image Analysis Laboratory at NASA's Johnson Space Center in
Houston. "It has really changed our view of how much detail
humans can photograph from orbit."

The first three resident space station crews took 13,442
images of the Earth using digital still cameras, 35-mm
cameras, 70-mm cameras and a variety of lenses. Crewmembers
were able to produce higher-resolution photographs with the
high-magnification lenses by learning to compensate for the
relative motion of the Earth below while pointing cameras
through a specially built window in the station's Destiny
Laboratory.

"Astronauts now consciously track the ground when
photographing the Earth," said Dr. Cynthia Evans, co-author
of the paper and the manager of the Earth Sciences and Image
Analysis Laboratory for Lockheed Martin Space Operations.
"Their digital cameras provide instant feedback, allowing
crewmembers to refine their tracking and focus techniques.
Because each crew has demonstrated this capability, we can
reliably plan for scientific studies that require more
detailed imagery that might not otherwise be available to
Earth Science researchers."

"Since the birth of the space program, astronaut photographs
of the Earth have engaged the public," Robinson said.
"Scientists also use these photographs as valuable records of
the state of the Earth. With new digital technologies, and
high-resolution capabilities, astronauts on the International
Space Station continue to acquire Earth imagery that has
scientific relevance."

A searchable database containing more than 30 years of
astronaut photography is available on the Web at:

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop

                          -end-



From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: "Fox, Bruce" bruce.fox@lmco.com
Subject: RE: [Cameramakers] military aerial surveillance camera

Hi Folks,

 From the book "Lockeed's Skunk Works, the First Fifty Years",
the workhorse camera for the U-2 at that time was the "B"
camera.  It had a 36" folded-optics lens and was the highest
resolution device in the world at the time.  It looks to
me from the illustration to be one that used the 14" wide
film.

 These were very special beasties and have been superceded
by even more specialize devices, as we now have a larger
U-2 in operation.

 Regards,

Fox sends.

-----Original Message-----
From: Murray [mailto:murray@uptowngallery.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] military aerial surveillance camera

Does anyone know what plane detected the Bay of Pigs missiles? ...U-2 maybe?

If so, any idea what camera was in it? KS-87?



From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: "Fox, Bruce" bruce.fox@lmco.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] more info on "B" camera

Hi again,

 The "B" camera had a large format, 18" x 18"
and a 36" focal length.  The lens was an exotic
diffraction-limited.  It used a 9 1/2" thin base
film in the form of 2 6500' rolls to make up the
two halves of the 18" frame.  This combination
could cover a million square miles at a ground
resolution of one foot.  The aperture was fixed
at f/8.

  Regards,
Fox sends.



From camera makers mailing list:
From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] military aerial surveillance camera
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 

That would have been the famous Hycon B.  I suspected that but didn't know
til now. As far as I know it was made specially for the U-2 and no other
plane.

Gene


Subject: Re: fast lenses, warning: zeiss-philes don't read Re: Rollei or Hassy
From: Bob bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 

 Robert Monaghan at rmonagha@smu.edu wrote 

> unless you were Erickson shooting the space shuttle

He used the 6006 with the 250 Sonnar for most of his work.

>From 1986 until he died he didn't use the 1000 or a 500. Possibly an
occasional 350mm and the 2x converter was a possibility.

And, in case you are curious, we had lunch together the afternoon before his
final heart attack while he was driving to Newark Airport for a Shuttle
takeoff. He had even called for credentials for the shot from our office 
that day.

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com  


Subject: Re: query was Re: Rollei or Hassy
From: Bob bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 

Robert Monaghan at rmonagha@smu.edu
...
> if you do have an interest, you should check out Mr. Erickson's book, as
> he has some nifty photos he has taken of shuttle launches in there, and
> the book is generally interesting for its overview of med fmt too ;-)
...
>
> I attended a lecture on campus few years ago with astronaut Storey
> Musgrove (sp?) in which he showed some of his MF photos taken on various
> shuttle missions. Really amazing stuff. Last year we had another astronaut
> who used videos of shuttle and space station stuff; far inferior image
> quality of course, rather disappointing and without the impact of med fmt
> slides IMHO despite being in same theatre. So much for film vs. digital
> ;-)
>
> grins bobm

Try talking to Marcia Ivins or Bob Cabana and they can tell you about the
6008 on the Shuttle and its various trials and tribulations (mostly with
70mm) but Cabana took the first medium format flash shot of the interior
during a mission on STS 41. That was a 6008 shot.

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com


Nikon MF Mailing list:
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 
From: "ez2cdave" Ez2cDave@aol.com
Subject: SPACE SHUTTLE-RELATED PHOTOGRAPHY WEBSITES ! ! !

TO ALL,

ENJOY THE FOLLOWING WEBSITES !

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001HY7

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001F8E

http://home.attbi.com/~bobby1406/credentialsofphotographer.html

http://www.pacificnet.net/~sonia/sts/95-LIFT.JPG

http://www.pacificnet.net/~sonia/sts/95-LIFT.JPG

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/guide.txt

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~stanj/Travel/STS-93/exposure.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~kd6nrp/vafbphoto.htm

http://home.attbi.com/~bobby1406/nasaphotogallery.html

http://www.geocities.com/ovcolumbia/SeePhotoLaunch.html

http://www.geocities.com/ovcolumbia/Photos.html

THERE ARE MANY MORE, BUT THESE ARE THE "BEST" I'VE FOUND !

http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html

I hope you enjoy them !

Dave F.

Port St. Lucie, FL
USA


From: Andrew Yee ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: USAF celebrates pioneers of space frontier (Forwarded)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002

Air Force Space Command News Service

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 09,~2002

Story ID 02-203

AF celebrates pioneers of space frontier
By 2nd Lt. Jennifer Casey, Air Force Space Command Public Affairs

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. -- Every frontier has pioneers, and
the final frontier is no exception.

Men who forged new ground for Air Force space and missile programs
will gather here for a formal ceremony Aug. 29.

James S. Coolbaugh and Dr. James G. Baker are the 2002 Air Force
Space and Missile honorees and will be inducted into the Air Force
Space and Missile Pioneers Hall of Fame.

Last year's award winners, retired Lt. Gen. Forrest McCartney and
retired Cols. Lee Battle and Frank "Buzz" Buzard will also be
honored. The 2001 ceremony and induction were cancelled due to
the events of Sept. 11.

"The impact of their work over the years proves that these men are
not just contributors to space, but true pioneers in the field,"
said Dr. Skip Bradley, Air Force Space Command historian. "This
award honors those who couldn't be recognized at the time of their
achievements because security and political situations did not
permit it."

Coolbaugh and Baker primarily earned their honors in the sensitive
area of photoreconnaissance. Their work was instrumental in the
development of space surveillance systems.

Coolbaugh's career began after completing the Air Force's Guided
Missile Course at the University of Michigan and accepting an
assignment to the Wright Air Development Center in September 1952.
Later that year he became the first manager of the then un-funded
photoreconnaissance satellite program recommended for development
by the Air Force. He continued to push for studies and
development of the program until it was officially endorsed by
the Air Force and named the Advanced Reconnaissance System in
1954.

Coolbaugh moved to the Western Development Division in Inglewood,
Calif., in early 1956. His work involved selecting the Army's
Camp Cooke (later renamed Vandenberg AFB) as the location for west
coast space and missile launch operations.

In late 1959, Coolbaugh worked on a reconfiguration of the Thor
to increase its payload lifting capacity. The result -- the Thrust
Augmented Thor -- later evolved into the Delta II.

Baker began his work in photoreconnaissance programs in late 1940.
After receiving a doctorate in astronomy and astrophysics in 1942,
he assisted the work of the Army Air Corps Photographic Laboratory
at Wright Field where he designed lenses for aerial cameras used
in photoreconnaissance and mapping.

By the mid-1950s, optical systems designed by Baker appeared
in almost all of the cameras installed in American
photoreconnaissance aircraft. He designed much of the camera
systems and the lenses used in the Air Force SR-71 Blackbird.

Baker developed numerous major optical systems including the
Baker-Nunn satellite-tracking camera. The Baker-Nunn camera
became the cornerstone of the Air Force's early satellite tracking
and space surveillance networks and has provided tracking data for
the Air Force for more than three decades.


This year marks the 20th anniversary celebration of AFSPC and the
5th annual presentation of the Space and Missile Pioneer Award.
This year's inductees bring the total number of Hall of Fame
members to 26.

The Air Force Space and Missile Pioneers Award Program began in
1989 with the National Space Club in Washington, D.C., inducting
10 members. Four of those original Space and Missile Pioneers --
James Plummer, former Under Secretary of the Air Force, retired
General Bernard A. Schriever, retired Brig. Gen. William King and
Col. Frederic Oder -- will be on hand for this year's ceremony.

For more information about the Air Force Space and Missile Pioneer
program, visit the link on the AFSPC/HO website at
     http://www.spacecom.af.mil/hqafspc/history/pioneers.htm

--
Andrew Yee
ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 
From: Jerry Lehrer jerryleh@postoffice.pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re:OT 35mm Hulcher

Mike

Yeah, I worked with one at Cape Canaveral in 1958.  It had an enormous
Schmidt-Cassegraine mirror telephoto lens and it ate up 35mm film by
the mile for each launch.  It was not an amateur's camera, to put it mildly!

Jerry

QWhoZeiss@aol.com wrote:

> Has anyone any experience with a 35mm Model 112 Hulcher.  I just got one in
> almost new conduction.  It has a Nikon mount, and looks like fun.



From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 
From: Henry Pawlowski h.pawlowski@sympatico.ca
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad Lore ? The Ultimate Collectable ??

I thought this was interesting ? Any truth to his :

> One of the highlights in Hasselblad history was its role in the US space
> program. The camera used by Neil Armstrong was a Hasselblad 500EL/70 (a model
> 500 with a motor drive and a 70 mm film back). Due to weight restrictions only
> the film returned to earth with the astronauts. There are 13 Hasselblads
> available free for the next person who visits the moon.

From: http://www.clickondavid.com/500cm.html

Regards

Henry


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Lore ? The Ultimate Collectable ??

Henry Pawlowski wrote:

> I thought this was interesting ? Any truth to his :
>
> > One of the highlights in Hasselblad history was its role in the US space
> > program. The camera used by Neil Armstrong was a Hasselblad 500EL/70 (a model
> > 500 with a motor drive and a 70 mm film back). Due to weight restrictions only
> > the film returned to earth with the astronauts. There are 13 Hasselblads
> > available free for the next person who visits the moon.

Excerpt from a press release:

"By the "shore" of the Ocean of Storms, by the Sea of Tranquility, near the
massive Fra Mauro crater and on Hadley Rille lie a total of eight
Hasselblads with their Carl Zeiss lenses.

Some camera buffs would take a trip to the moon just to get one (or two). If
you can't make it as far as the moon, you can look for the SuperWide C that
may still be orbiting the earth"

Yes. it is true (But for the number mentioned? The press release mentioned
eight. It was issued in december 1972, the same month the last Lunar
exploration flight, Apollo 17, was launched, and that crew would leave
another two behind).

Who is going to stop you should you decide to pick up those cameras plus
lenses when you happen to pass by there, walking the dog on a Sunday's
afternoon? ;-)

The SuperWide C dropped by Mike Collins still had a film back attached. The
cameras left on the moon don't (the film was returned to earth inside the
backs). So the cameras and lenses by themselves will be no good. But maybe
Hasselblad AB will provide some for free, just so your efforts to retrieve
the cameras were not in vain?

By the way, the SuperWide C changed into a "falling star" long ago
(1969-ish). Maybe someone made a wish on it?



From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 
From: Jenny Morgan jennybimmer@macconnect.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Lore ? The Ultimate Collectable ??

I heard this back in 1970. Also heard a confirmation of it during an
interview with a NASA guy on PBS. Even the ones from Apollo 13 are out
there somewhere as they needed to balance weight for their reentry.

I wanna go to da moon... Someone call Ralph Crandon.

-Jenny Morgan

Bob Boggio wrote:
> I don't have direct verification of this, but I heard the same thing from a
> friend in the military 15 years ago.  He was also a medium format fan,
> although he used Bronicas.
>
> Bob


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen tjols@online.no
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Lore ? The Ultimate Collectable ??

Henry,

This is indeed true.  Hasselblad had an add in major European photo
magazines back in the 70' saying it was only two ways of getting a
Hasselblad; pick one of the 13 or so lying on the moon, - or buy one in
the shop.

Tom of Oslo
...



Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 
From: Bill bsotiras@arcom.com.au
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Hasselblad Lore ? The Ultimate Collectable ??

I wish I could take photo like those guys did, just point and shoot. :)

There was a book by U Afalter 1993.
Hasselblad Kameras and Objective  which states there were 30 HDC camera
built and 11 are on the moon surface. And that one film magazine  was
accidentally left behind (with full load exposed ) on the moon surface. From
one of the later Apollo missions.(16-17)



Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 
From: "Dr. Robert Young" rcyoung@aliconsultants.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] re:Hasselblad Lore ? The Ultimate Collectable ??

The story is true. In graduate school, I worked with a group who was
analyzing many of the Apollo moon rocks. The reason the Hasselblads were
left is not so much their "weight" for the return trip, but what their
weight in "rocks" equated to. The moon rocks cost (on average...summing up
all the Apollo costs) many hundreds of millions of  dollars (USD   from the
1960/70s) per pound to return to earth (each Apollo landing only returned
1-2 hundred pounds or so or rock).. They tossed anything that wasn't nailed
down , including a golf club one of the sneaked aboard as I recall
:-)  Since they were left in the sealed cases used to transport them there
to begin with ( which made today's Pelican or Halliburtons look wimpy),
they may actually be in good shape even today.



Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 
From: "Dr. Robert Young" rcyoung@aliconsultants.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: AW: [HUG] Hasselblad Lore ? The Ultimate Collectable ??

 >The Hasselblads will show radioactivity from cosmogenic nuclides that form
 >as a result of the exposure with high energy particles from galactic and
 >cosmic solar rays. Bombardment with micrometeorites will affect the cosmetic
 >condition, at least when viewed under a microscope.


I think there were left behind with their transport containers. That would
protect them physically and shield them from high energy particles which
could not penetrate the case. Either way, hi energy photon/proton reactions
have such a small cross section  that you'd get more exposure flyng into
Denver than you would ever get in a lifetime of wearing the Hassy around
your neck.



Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 
From: David Gerhardt davidgerhardt@mindspring.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Lore ? The Ultimate Collectable ??

"Frank Filippone" red735i@earthlink.net wrote:

> 70mm......no batteries is those cameras.......they were all hand cranked, as
> far as I know.....
>
> Frank Filippone
> red735i@earthlink.net

Nope; they were all EL's (on the Lunar surface). I watched several of them
being packed into the Command Modules.

(several other versions were/are being used in LEO (low earth orbit); see
Nordin's book; pages 120-127)
--
David Gerhardt
davidgerhardt@mindspring.com



Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Lore ? The Ultimate Collectable ??

Frank Filippone wrote:
> The use of batteries, and with it, the use of motors, on board, was a pretty
> high risk ( oxygen, burnable insulation, etc... )   So while I may be wrong
> about the cameras used outside the spacecraft, the cameras used inside the
> flight equipment were at least, in the beginning, all DIY advance... no
> batteries...
>
>From all Apollo flights, only the first (successful) manned flight, Apollo 7,
>did not have motor driven HECs (Hasselblad Electric [!] Camera) on board.

They were used on board.

NASA had (and still has) books with requirements and safety specs that had
to be followed to the letter to attain "flight qualification". If and when
this was done, there was no reason not to use an electrical motor (don't
forget that the NASA spacecraft were jam packed with electrical devices and
switches anyway).


From: Skywise into@oblivion.nothing.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Q: Resolution of the Hubble Telescope?
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002


"Dr. Pastor" wrote:
>
> Please let me know the resolution of the Hubble Telescope
> on the surface of the Moon and on the surface of the Earth.
> Many thanks.
...


According to the Space Telescope Science Institute's webpage,
HST has a resolution of 0.1 arc-second.

One of it's earlier instruments, the Faint Object Camera had
a mode which gave a resolution of 0.0072 arc-seconds.

HST's current orbit averages about 576km high.

If I did my calculations correctly that results in a ground
resolution of about 20 mm or about 0.8 inches.

The moon's minimum distance from earth is about 356,410 km.

Once again, if I did my math correctly, that results in a
resolution at the moon of about 12.44 meters or about
40.8 feet.

Anyone care to check my results?

However, I think these answers, if correct, would be
theoretical at best. In reality the answers are probably much
coarser.

Besides, Hubble is not permitted to point at or near the
Sun, Earth, or Moon because they are too bright for the
detectors.

Brian

S*k*y*w*i*s*e
http://home.earthlink.net/~skywise711/  Laser & Optics links galore!!!



Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 
From: Christopher Williams leicachris@worldnet.att.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Full Moon - NASA & Hasselblad

The book, "Full Moon" has been re-released and now contains more Lunar
images from the Apollo missions. NASA had some 32,000 images from the
missions. Some of these images were taken directly from the original neg and
drummed scanned for this book.

Almost all the color and B&W; images are from a Hasselblad loaded with 70mm
film.

Amazing work, since they were not even photographers, officially.

Chris Williams
New Orleans



Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 
From: Manu Schnetzler marsu@earthling.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Full Moon - NASA & Hasselblad

I agree. I got the original book a few years back for my Dad, the photos
are just gorgeous. I also saw a few at a photo show in San Francisco and
in the underground tunnel of Houston, very impressive in big.

Talking about photos and astronomy, tonight is the Leonids meteor shower
which is supposed to be quite impressive. I'm spending the night out
with a bunch of film and a few good cameras!

Manu



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Full Moon - NASA & Hasselblad

 James Michael Lennon wrote:
>Chris, Sometimes photography really is as simple as "f8 and be there." Jim
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Williams" leicachris@worldnet.att.net
>.....Amazing work, since they were not even photographers, officially.


I think the moon exposures were locked in. Something like "sunny-32". All
they did was point and shoot. And with 70mm backs... a lot of frames
without changing backs. And a lot of backs makes for a l-o-t of images.

The latest NASA Hasselblad is a 203S (s = space) which uses FE lenses and
auto exposure. NASA just ordered a bunch of 350/4 FE lenses for use in
photographing a smaller area of the earth than previously possible without
the 350.

Jim



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Full moon; NASA buying lots of FE f/4 350 mm lenses; and Zeiss'
keeping stumm about this particular lens.

Hello all,

Why does NASA prefer the FE f/4 350 mm Tele-Tessar over either of the two
Superachromats CFE 350 mm and/or superfast f/2.8 300 mm TPP?

And has anyone heard anything about whether or not the FE f/4 350 mm lens is
about to be discontinued? Someone at Photo.net noticed it wasn't listed on
Zeiss' website anymore (only FE lenses there are 50, 110 and 300 mm).

So were they all bought by NASA?



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Full moon; NASA buying lots of FE f/4 350 mm lenses; and
Zeiss' keeping stumm about this particular lens.

The article I read said that they needed the speed and would always be
shooting wide open.

Jim



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Full moon; NASA buying lots of FE f/4 350 mm lenses; and
Zeiss' keeping stumm about this particular lens.

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>Jim Brick wrote:
>
> > The article I read said that they needed the speed and would always be
> > shooting wide open.
>
>I read that too. The TPP is one full stop faster.

But three times more expensive, twice the size around, and twice the weight.

Jim



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Full Moon - NASA & Hasselblad

James Michael Lennon wrote:
>Chris, Sometimes photography really is as simple as "f8 and be there." Jim
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Williams" leicachris@worldnet.att.net
>
>.....Amazing work, since they were not even photographers, officially.


I think the moon exposures were locked in. Something like "sunny-32". All
they did was point and shoot. And with 70mm backs... a lot of frames
without changing backs. And a lot of backs makes for a l-o-t of images.

The latest NASA Hasselblad is a 203S (s = space) which uses FE lenses and
auto exposure. NASA just ordered a bunch of 350/4 FE lenses for use in
photographing a smaller area of the earth than previously possible without
the 350.

Jim



Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Full moon; NASA buying lots of FE f/4 350 mm lenses; and
Zeiss' keeping stumm about this particular lens.

Jim Brick wrote:

> But three times more expensive,

Expensive? Seems to be high on NASA's list of prerequisites. ;-)

> twice the size around,  and twice the weight.

True (well, almost).

But i sometimes doubt that even is a consideration. I often wondered why, if
every gram taken up into orbit counts, they bothered with bringing along
winders for their 203s (and all other photographic equipment), and before,
why they wanted to have ELs for in-craft photography. I'm sure the
astronauts are capable of rotating a handle a full 360 degrees without
floating off. Must be convenience; not having to move the camera from the
window between shots. So, carrying extra weight and bulk for increased
convenience?

Makes me wonder. Could it be that they feel that extra bit (in image
quality) the TPP brings is not something they need, i.e. that the
Tele-Tessar is more than good enough already?




Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Full moon; NASA buying lots of FE f/4 350 mm lenses; and
Zeiss' keeping stumm about this particular lens.

Q.G. writes:

> Expensive? Seems to be high on NASA's list
> of prerequisites. ;-)

300 mm is 50 mm shorter than 350 mm

> I often wondered why, if every gram taken
> up into orbit counts, they bothered with
> bringing along winders for their 203s (and
> all other photographic equipment), and before,
> why they wanted to have ELs for in-craft
> photography.  I'm sure the astronauts are
> capable of rotating a handle a full 360
> degrees without floating off.

Have you ever tried doing that in a spacesuit?

The winders are needed because it is so difficult to manipulate camera
controls in zero gravity and with spacesuits; additionally, some cameras are
intended for use inside "spacesuits" of their own, which makes manual
winding problematic.

> So, carrying extra weight and bulk for increased
> convenience?

No, carrying extra weight and bulk in order to get any shots at all.

> Makes me wonder.

You could always write to them with your concerns.  Perhaps they haven't had
the time or budget to think things through as far as you have.

> Could it be that they feel that extra bit (in image
> quality) the TPP brings is not something they need,
> i.e. that the Tele-Tessar is more than good enough
> already?

Since all the images are taken handheld, just about any Hasselblad-Zeiss
lens would be good enough.


From: baalke@zagami.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Media Accreditation For Space Shuttle Mission
Date: 19 Dec 2002

Robert Mirelson
Headquarters, Washington            Dec. 19, 2002
(Phone: 202/358-1600)

Bill Johnson/Bruce Buckingham
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
(Phone: 321/867-2468)

Eileen M. Hawley 
Johnson Space Center, Houston
(Phone: 281/483-5111)

NOTE TO EDITORS: N02-83

MEDIA ACCREDITATION FOR SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION

     Foreign news media, or representatives of
internationally based news organizations, planning to cover
the Space Shuttle (STS-107) mission at either the Kennedy
Space Center (KSC) in Florida or the Johnson Space Center
(JSC) in Houston, must submit a formal request for
accreditation no later than Monday, January 6, 2003.

Media planning to visit KSC and then travel to JSC must
submit a formal accreditation request to KSC by the deadline.
In addition, media must also send a request to JSC requesting
access and advising that a formal accreditation request has
been submitted to KSC. Foreign media planning to cover the
mission only from JSC must submit a formal accreditation
request prior to the deadline to JSC.

Accreditation letters must be on the official news media
letterhead of the requesting organization. Foreign media
representatives must provide the following information in the
request letter: their full name; date and place of birth;
citizenship; social security number (if applicable); date of
visit; purpose of visit; job position or title; employer's
name and address; passport number; passport country of issue;
passport expiration date; Green card or visa number; type of
visa; and visa expiration date.

Requests may be faxed to KSC/Accreditation Officer at:
321/867-2692; JSC/ Kacy Kossum at: 321/483-2000; and a copy 
should also be sent to NASA Headquarters/ Debbie Rahn at:
202/358-4329.

Both KSC and JSC offer temporary workspace for accredited
news media, subject to advance arrangements. Requests for
workspace and/or telephone support at KSC should be made
through the Accreditation Officer at: 321/867-2468, and at
JSC, Ms. Kossum at: 281/483-5111.

Access to NASA centers is permitted only during advertised
business hours.


-end- 


From: Karl Frisch karl@gis.nmt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Secret Photos from space
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 

Marv Soloff wrote:
>
> If it is not still classified, see if you can get some information on
> the Eastman Kodak built "Keyhole" surveillance satellites. Very scary
> capabilities.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marv

Not to pick nits but:

The Corona (KH-1 through KH-4B), Argon (KH-5), Lanyard (KH-6),
Gambit(KH-7 and KH-8), Hexagon(KH-9)film return vehicles, as well as the
Kennan(KH-11), and Crystal(KH-11) were built by the Lazy "L"(LMSC now
LMH). KH-1 through KH-9 as well as J-1 and J-6 were Itek designed camera
systems using Kodak film.

The scariest part of these systems is how frequently they fell out of
the sky. KH-1 through KH-6 had average life spans of 19 days. The
average lifespan of a Hexagon KH-9 Big Bird was only 138 days.

I don't think anyone has seen a KH-12/KH-11B Improved Crystal deorbit.

Just as a side note: The KH-10 Dorian MOL, "never few" and was scrapped
in 1969.


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: Andrew Koenig ark@research.att.com
Subject: Re: Secret Photos from space
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 

fbearl> I was talking with a gentleman today and the subject of
fbearl> satellite photography came up. He said that he knew someone
fbearl> who had seen photos of flowers on the side of a road resolving
fbearl> the stamen and pistil (I am winging this without a spell
fbearl> checker or dictionary) taken from a satellite 125 miles high.

I'm skeptical. Here's a back-of-envelope computation to explain why.

125 miles is about 200 km. Let's assume that this photo can resolve
details of size 1 cm. I think it would have to do better than that,
but it make the arithmetic convenient. 1 cm to 200 km is a ratio of
20 million.

An arc second is 1/3600 of a degree, which in turn is a ratio of
about 1:60. 3600*60 is 216000. 20 million/216000 is 92, or
about 100. So resolving your 1 cm detail requires the ability
to resolve about 1/100 arc second.

Why is this computation relevant? Because the laws of physics limit
the resolving power of a lens of given size. An extremely well made
3-inch lens can resolve about 1 arc second in the best possible
conditions, a 6-inch lens can resolve 1/2 arc second, and so on.

So to resolve 1/100 arc second would require a lens 300 inches in
diameter, or 25 feet. I am skeptical about the existence of spy
satellites with lenses 25 feet in diameter. I don't think that even
the Hubble Space Telescope is that big.

Of course, I might have goofed in the arithmetic somehwere. If I
did, I'm sure someone will let me know :-)
--
Andrew Koenig, ark@research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark


From: gblank_@bellatlantic.net (Gregory Blank)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Secret Photos from space
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 
john@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
>"fbearl" fbearl@cox.net wrote:
>
> > I was talking with a gentleman today and the subject of satellite
> > photography came up. He said that he knew someone who had seen photos of
> > flowers on the side of a road resolving the stamen and pistil (I am winging
> > this without a spell checker or dictionary) taken from a satellite 125 miles
> > high.
>
> The gentleman is a liar, dreamer. Total fantasy.

Actually PhotoTechniques ran an article a while back about the satellite
imaging capacity. According to that article several years ago they can read
a cars license tag from space and accurately globally position the car within
3 feet. The sample images of the Washington Monument and surrounding area
were rather impressive.

I'll have to dig that issue up if I can find it but the Focal length I
seem to remember
being rather impressive, but it is digital.

--
website{ members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank }
Gregory W. Blank Photography


From: "Jacques van Oene" j.vanoene@chello.nl
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: JSC requirements for journalist accreditation announced
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 

April 29, 2003

John Ira Petty
Johnson Space Center, TX
(281) 483-5111

Report #J03-31

JSC REQUIREMENTS FOR JOURNALIST ACCREDITATION ANNOUNCED

Journalists wishing to cover events at Johnson Space Center are reminded of
standard badging requirements.

Journalists who are U.S. citizens should fax on their organization's
letterhead a request for accreditation at least a day in advance of their
planned visit to the JSC public affairs office, (281) 483-2000. They will
be required to show a photo ID when they pick up their badges.

Foreign national media representatives, including those who are permanent
resident aliens, must submit requests for accreditation two weeks in
advance. Foreign nationals, including media members who are permanent
resident aliens, must submit their full name; date of birth; place of birth;
citizenship; sex, passport country of issue, number, and expiration date;
visa number and expiration date; alien registration number and expiration
date; employer and employer's location, and Social Security number if
applicable. Photo ID is required at the JSC gate.

For more information, please contact the JSC newsroom at (281) 483-5111.

- -end-
----
Jacques :-)
Editor: www.spacepatches.info



From: thomandpam@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 

Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote:
> rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote:
>
>> Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks!
>>
>> But who is using so much 70mm film? Military users? Imax theatres and
>> other 70mm projectors? The big users locally are a few wedding types ;-)
>>
>> Are these figures worldwide, or just the USA for kodak? (source?) I am
>> assuming this is square feet of film, not linear feet?
>>
>> If only 4% of kodak's film production is still films for amateur and pro
>> photographer use, including I assume color print, slides, B&W;, specialty
>> films, then film is a MUCH more endangered species than I thought! ;-(
>>
>> thanks for sharing this info!
>>
>> regards bobm
>
>Probably one of the largest customers for 70mm film - NASA for shuttle
>photography with their Hasselblads and 6008 camera systems.
>
>They had us approach Rollei for the Space Station to have them design a
>special camera using 70mm film. Rollei declined to do so at their own
>expense, NASA would not share the R&D; and Hasselblad was chosen as some
>Astronauts had actually cut their fingers in space while trying to
>insert the darkslide on the Rollei 70mm backs. They did not have that
>problem with the Hasselblad backs.

The Russians had no problems with their 120 roll Kievs in space it
seems.

THOM



From: Gregory Blank gblank@despamit.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003
...
Even though the Government uses digital for certain applications like
imaging from the Hubble telescope, I spoke to a guy from the Goddard
space center a while back and he stated that alot of the most important
imagery is transfered to C41 negative material for later reference.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank


From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 

...
Probably one of the largest customers for 70mm film - NASA for shuttle
photography with their Hasselblads and 6008 camera systems.

They had us approach Rollei for the Space Station to have them design a
special camera using 70mm film. Rollei declined to do so at their own
expense, NASA would not share the R&D; and Hasselblad was chosen as some
Astronauts had actually cut their fingers in space while trying to
insert the darkslide on the Rollei 70mm backs. They did not have that
problem with the Hasselblad backs.


From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003

> 4,000 frame per second Hi-Cam, ... whatever that is

That's "Hycam", made by Redlake. Usually 16mm,
sometimes 35mm. Up to 11,000 fps, 44,000 fps at
1/4 frame. 100 feet of film gone in well under
a half second.

The last few feet of film are shredded into chips
and dust as the end of the film flaps around while
the takeup spool deaccellerates. Pronounced burning
smell when used at full bore speeds ...

A favorite for taking family snaps of aerial A & H
bomb blasts, test ICBM launches ....

No longer made, replaced by digital, don't you know.

http://www.redlake.com/

Hycams are still in use for motion analysis etc.

They come up on ebay from time to time, go for a
few hundred USD.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.


From: "nathantw" nathantwnospam@removesbcglobal.net 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: Mamiya 6 vs Hasselblad 
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003

"Mark A" ma@switchboard.net wrote... 
> just the reproductions as in a book). When the Hassy was chosen in the early 
> to mid 1960's, there were not many other options for 120 format. 
When NASA chose the Hassy in the early 1960's it was because they saw what 
John Glenn had gotten with an off the shelf (literally) camera he bought at 
the store. However, throughout the years camera technology moved on and 
other manufacturers caught up with Hasselblad's quality. NASA has tried many 
other cameras on the shuttle and for some strange reason they're still using 
Hasselblads to this day. Either NASA's film scanners are calibrated to 
compensate for the out-of-focus areas caused by the film flatness "problem" 
or perhaps there aren't any film flatness problems and it's just a myth. 
From my real world experience I've yet to run into a problem where there was 
a film flatness problem. If there is it's so minute that I can't even see it 
through a microscope. 
Here's the camera NASA is using: 
Hasselblad 203S - Hasselblad's new space camera 
2000-10-28 On the 11th of October, NASA sent the space shuttle Discovery 
into space. The main aim of the space mission was to transport modules to 
the permanent 'space station', which will be the base for other journeys to 
more distant parts of the solar system. As usual the astronauts used 
Hasselblad camera equipment for the photographic documentation. On the 
Colombia flight the Hasselblad 203S was used for the first time. 
This new space camera is a focal-plane shutter camera based on the standard 
203FE version. It is equipped with a special version of the Winder CW. The 
film magazines use 70 mm perforated film and are equipped with electronic 
data storage, enabling the recording of time and picture number for each 
exposure. Since the computers onboard have full control over the position of 
the shuttle it is fairly easy to identify over which spot on the earth the 
picture was taken. Naturally the cameras have been modified to cope with the 
vacuum conditions outside the spacecraft and therefore there are special 
requirements regarding material, lubricants and reliability. Also the 
electronics have been modified to meet NASA's special demands for handling 
and function. In addition, the lenses have been reconstructed for use in the 
harsh conditions in space. The focusing and aperture rings are equipped with 
large tabs to facilitate handling. 
Product data: 
Camera: Space camera Hasselblad 203S with focal-plane shutter for exposure 
times up to 1/2000 s. Advanced electronics that can be programmed for e.g. 
automatic exposure with aperture priority, automatic bracketing and flash 
synchronisation. 

Lenses: Zeiss Distagon FE 2.8/50 mm, Planar FE 2/110 mm, Tele-Tessar FE 
4/250 mm and Tele-Tessar FE 4/350 mm. 

Film magazine: for 70 mm perforated film with data recording. 


From: Chuck Lasseter [lasseter@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Mon 1/19/2004 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: [HUG] Question

All,

I am getting married in March in Las Vegas and it wouldn't hurt to know a
good camera shop in the area in case I need some film or something else for
the Hassy. Anyone know of a good shop?

Second, general thoughts on flying with film since I will be packing film
down and back. And last, we will be honeymooning in and around Vegas, the
Grand Canyon, and Death Valley, any especially recommended photo ops I am
not aware of?

On a different note I visited the Space exhibit here in Seattle. In it is
one of the NASA modified Hasselblads and some other components that were on
some of the Apollo missions.

Thanks,
Chuck


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 
From: Wayne Cornell zorki1c@yahoo.com
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Museum of Traumatized Photoappartus
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@beststuff.com

Ever seen the photo of the Nikon F motor drive that was mounted in a
supposedly fire-proof housing at the base of the Saturn V rocket used in the
Apollo Lunar Missions? The exhaust turned it into a big lump of melted
metal, olny vaguely resembling anything related to photography.


From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Richard Schiff [leicaman@msn.com] 
Sent: Sat 2/7/2004  
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: [HUG] RE: Moon camera


In 1973-77 I worked at Steward Observatory in Tucson. My office was in the
Lunar and Planatary lab. During that period many of the NASA Goddard
Hasselblad "FLIGHT" cameras would cycle through our department for use in
various experaments and most of them ended up where they remain today... On
the moon. AS you know the film backs were all the LEM brought back up. I
have often joked that I was one of a few that had their fingerprints on the
moon as I used many of those cameras. I sometimes regret being as honest as
I was... I would be something to have a "Flight" camera in my shelf...

Carl Klaussen is an old friend of mine. He was head of Hassi service from
the time Victor brought he comany to the USA until about 5 yeras ago when he
retired. Carl went through all Hassi flight equipment just prior to launch
with the astronauts on almost every manned mission that flew Hasselblads. 
He has a lot of great memories.

Cheers,

Rich


From: Taras R. Hnatyshyn [tarashnat@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Fri 2/6/2004  
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Moon camera


Ruben,

In the link below Part 5 contains some of the films used.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs.htm

Interesting discussion on lunar color:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollocolor.html


From the link below "The film used was ASA/ISO 160 Ektachrome reversal
emulsions on the Estar polyester base"
http://www.oregonl5.org/lbrt/l5a11pix.html


From the link below "Shutter speeds were typically 1/125 or 1/250 second.
F-stop settings varied from f/5.6 for up-sun photos to f/8 and f/11 for
cross-sun and down-sun photos.
http://www.clavius.org/photoqual.html


Some interesting points:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/moon/2.htm


Photo of a spotmeter used for Apollo.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/attm/nojs/a11.om.ap.1.html

Taras

Hasselblad wrote:
> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 
> From: RUBEN ruben@rhodos.dk
> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
> Subject: Re: [HUG] Moon camera

> Thanks rei - interesting yes - but unfortunatly not any info on film
> speed and apparture/shutter speed settings on the moon - was it very
> bright up there ? like 100 so/ F16 1/250 sec ore more like 800 iso
> F5.6/1/30 sec - were they able to calculate that before departure from
> earth - Ruben
>
> Rei Shinozuka wrote:
>
>> here's one site which may be of interest:
>>
>> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo_Photography.html
>>
>> -rei
>>
>>  RUBEN wrote:
>>> is it recorded somewere what film speed asa/iso film was used on/in
>>> the camera Armstrong and following astonauts used on the moon - and is it
>>> recorded what shutterspeed/apparture they used. I have been told that
>>> the were not able to read the film counter nor look through the
>>> viewfinder so I guess that the settings for shutter speed and
>>> apparture
>>> was set back on earth or what - just curious - not going up there in
>>> the near future - Ruben




From: Steve Kramer steve@seatraveler.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: "non photo equipment" tools for the photobag
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 

Andy Blanchard wrote:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
>
> Not, quite "gave" at $2.95 a pen (production costs?), but apart from
> that you are bang on. It's still a nice story though, and typical of
> the differing approaches between the cold war superpowers.

The 'Military' version of the Fisher Space Pen now costs $10. I've been
using them for years and find it to function better than any other pen
(Cross, Parker, Schaeffer, etc.) that I've tried. It writes on
photographs, plastic, over grease stains, under water... everywhere! In
fact, I'm now waiting for delivery of another order from them to give as
gifts!

Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com



From: "Eric BT" ehocking@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Re: Peleng 3.5/8 mm fisheye lens together with 10D- anyone?
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 

" Miro" miro01@hotmail.com wrote 
> There are several methods ..... so its limited by that also. I suspect the
> Pano shots we get from mars must be from a fisheye lens too.

Why speculate when you can get it from the horse's mouth?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_instru_pancam.html

No mention of focal lengths, but it is a true panoramic.

> You would think that someone spending 2 Billion dollars would be able to
> pick anything they wanted.

And it would appear that they have:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_surface_instru.html

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk



From: "ian green" weird_mailKILL2REPLY@pisem.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: NASA tests - can i really really trust 'em?
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_nasa.htm

not sure you didn't read it but a good smile worth a couple of days living
(retrieved from ru.photo)
--
ian green
Xeto : photo & graphic project
http://xeto.front.ru


From: "Dennis O'Connor" doconnor@chartermi.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 

The bad mirror figure was spotted by an amateur who toured the Perkins-Elmer
mirror facility at the time... He had with him a small flash light and used
his pocket knife for a knife edge... Standing at the focal point he did a
Foucault test and saw the turned down edge.. He thought about it and
decided he had to be wrong, after all this was a multi million dollar mirror
and he was just Joe Schmo... It wasn't until it all blew up in the news
that club members brought it up to him that he had told them about his test
during the car ride home... He wrote an article in the ATM magazine about
it... So a $2.95 pocket flashlight and a razor blade is all it takes for a
quick and dirty check...

Denny - who has ground one mirror, so now he is an 'expert'...

"brian" brianc1959@aol.com wrote
> Any amateur telescope maker could
> have spotted the error using testing equipment costing less than $20.



From: "Dennis O'Connor" doconnor@chartermi.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003

Certainly, there was all kinds of speculation at that time, including
that... But that was then and this is now - and a 0.2 second google will
bring the correct facts... Perkins-Elmer used a metal assembly to measure
the mirrors parabolic curve and one of the end caps on the measuring rod was
ground incorrectly, period - no tape, no gravity distortion (they did
calculate for that), no speculation...

Cheers ... Denny

"Thomas E. Witte" photoj@mindspring.com wrote  
> I seem to remember discussion about not
> taking into consideration either the Earth's gravitational influence
> on the mirror's mass while being ground, (causing it to relax and
> swell once in 0-G)


From: "Dennis O'Connor" doconnor@chartermi.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 

"Stephen H. Westin" westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu wrote 
> davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:
>
> {snip}
> Kodak, in fact. They are indecently proud of the fact.
>
> > already made
> > and available, and it could have replaced the bad mirror if anyone had
> > figured out it was bad before launch. But everyone trusted that nothing
> > can go wrong.

Well, they ought to be... Seems there is something about continuous
experience and corporate knowledge in optics/photography that goes back over
a hundred years that keeps a group from making dumb errors... And if it
weren't for cya politics they would have been awarded the contracts for all
space based optical systems, from then on... However, Perkins-Elmer was the
fair haired boy at that time with NASA/Pentagon/Congressional seniority
leaders - and the corporate culture at P-E did not allow subordinates to
point out errors if they wanted to keep their jobs... Notice that the
NASA/Pentagon/Congress industrial-military complex still has not used the
perfect mirror that Kodak built -saving face no matter what it costs - in a
second Hubble, even though the up front costs had already been spent and a
second scope could be launched for a fraction of the cost of the first...
Did you ever wonder why that expensive mirror just sits?

Look here for a capsule history:
http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/missions/sts-103/hubble/archive/900916.html


Denny


From: davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 

nospam@nospam.xxx (jjs) writes:

>The story, at least for a while, was that the mirror was incorrectly
>ground due to using a measuring rod that had a bit of protective tape over
>the end. That seems so screwed up I don't believe it.

I think it was a paint chip, not a piece of tape.

Why don't you believe it? The figure (optical shape) of the main mirror
was judged by passing light through a combination of the large mirror
and a small very carefully made optical system. This test system had
very accurately made optical elements, but the elements were spaced the
wrong distance apart because of the paint chip. This in turn meant that
the test system was made with a substantial optical problem, and the
Hubble main mirror was effectively shaped to cancel that error.

The real problem was not that the mirror got made wrong, but that they
didn't catch the error. They had a second less-sensitive test of mirror
shape, and it said that the mirror had a problem, but they chose to
ignore it and believe the supposedly more accurate test which told them
everything was all right. Then it would have made sense to assemble the
Hubble's primary and secondary mirror and see how they behaved as a
complete telescope, but that was not done to save money. There was
actually a second backup mirror made by a different company already made
and available, and it could have replaced the bad mirror if anyone had
figured out it was bad before launch. But everyone trusted that nothing
can go wrong.

Dave



From: Paul Repacholi prep@prep.synonet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How big is the resolution on a normal 35 mm negative?
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 

"Deathwalker" ian-lincoln@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
> So the big question is what res film scanner is required to acquire
> all the image info that there is. Some say 4000 some say 8000.

This was looked at a long time ago as part of preparing the Hubble
Guidestar Catalogue. The base material for this was the Palomar and
AAO all sky survey set. These where scanned to provide the data for
the star lists.

Before the scanns started, there was work done to see what standards
where needed. The answer was a minimum of 11,000 ppi with a cooled PIN
detector.

Remember that these are monochrome scans, not colour, and the astro
plates have grain like golfballs. They are also often exposed to a
base fog of D 3.5 or so, hence the PIN detector.

--
Paul Repacholi 


From nikon manual focus mailing list:
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 
From: "Charles F Seyferlich" cfscnw@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: apollo

> what makes it [ apollo version ] ? does it say apolo on the camera?
> thanks bobm
[ed. note: bob medina is bobm here ;-) ]

The Apollo F has F2 style plastic film advance & self timer levers.

The cameras usually are 73 & 74 production (although all cameras made in
these years don't have Apollo features).

My understanding is the name was given as a F of this style went on Apollo
space mission.

I have had several Apollo F's, including a "half" Apollo (it had plastic
film advance lever and metal self timer lever).

Here is one of several Apollos on eBay (advance lever not in plain view -
advance level shows plainly).
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=2989804463&category;=30035
#ebayphotohosting



From: "Norman Worth" nworth@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003

It may be actual resolution on the film. The claimed 1 foot ground
resolution works out to a bit more than 140 lines per millimeter at 80000
feet with an 18 inch lens. If you look at the claimed resolution for Kodak
Panatomic-X Aerecon film and combine it with the diffraction limited
resolution of an f/4 lens, you also get something just a little better than
140 lines per mm.

"jjs" nospam@nospam.xxx wrote...
> brianc1959@aol.com (brian) wrote:
> > [...]
> > I found this declassified CIA document online which talks about
> > various aspects of the SR71 reconnaissance plane, including the
> > cameras and optics: http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/successortou2.html
> > Evidently several interesting cameras were built for this project,
> > including: 1) A Perkin Elmer camera capable of resolving 140 lp/mm on
> > 6.6" film (2.2 gigapixels), and 2) A Hycon camera with a lens designed
> > by James Baker capable of resolving 100 lp/mm on 9.5" film (2.3
> > gigapixels).
>
> There is some question regarding the way they measured the resolution. Was
> it aerial resolution (I think it was) and was it possibly also factored
> through stereo imaging?



From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras
Date: 4 Dec 2003 

nospam@nospam.xxx (jjs) wrote...
> brianc1959@aol.com (brian) wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > I found this declassified CIA document online which talks about
> > various aspects of the SR71 reconnaissance plane, including the
> > cameras and optics: http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/successortou2.html
> > Evidently several interesting cameras were built for this project,
> > including: 1) A Perkin Elmer camera capable of resolving 140 lp/mm on
> > 6.6" film (2.2 gigapixels), and 2) A Hycon camera with a lens designed
> > by James Baker capable of resolving 100 lp/mm on 9.5" film (2.3
> > gigapixels).
>
> There is some question regarding the way they measured the resolution. Was
> it aerial resolution (I think it was) and was it possibly also factored
> through stereo imaging?

I'd love to know more, although information in this area is probably
pretty hard to get. In particular, I'd like to know whether the
resolution is maintained over the entire image plane. Because the
lenses are relatively fast and used wide-open I assume that the film
was held extremely flat via vacuum or some other means, and that the
film itself is capable of very high resolution. If all this is true,
then the aerial lens resolution *might* translate pretty well into
actual on-film resolution.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com



From: Andrew Resnick andy.resnick@grc.nasaDOTgov
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Lens design on Mars Rover Camers
Date: 6 Jan 2004 

For those interested,

www.mwoa.org/SPIE_paper.pdf

Is a paper providing the lens prescriptions for the 5 different Mars
Rover cameras.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph. D.
National Center for Microgravity Research
NASA Glenn Research Center



From: Jeff Taylor cloud83@cloud83.madasafish.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Space Station
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 

Motorcyclesaur ngbox.zerospam@btopenworld.com writes
>Hi Everyone,
>
>Has anyone been successful photographing it? If so, what equipment did you
>use?

Hi, do you mean photographing it's trail across the sky or getting a
close-up so you can see it's shape?

If the former, just set wide aperture and long shutter speed.
You can get sighting times from:

http://www.heavens-above.com/

If you want a close-up, you're really going to need a telescope.
The picture at the link below gives you an idea of it's apparent size
from earth (here seen against the sun)
I have seen a better photo which shows the main body and solar panels
really clearly, but can't remember where :-(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3000368.stm

Details of how to do it can be found at:

http://www.analemma.de/english/issphot.html

Good luck!
--
Jeff Taylor



End of Page