How many Hasselblad's are on the Moon?

noacronym · Apr 17, 2013

Tom Richard said:
Just like to thank PE for the very interesting first hand information regarding the Hasselblads!

I read a story that one EDC went home again and that it was "confiscated" by NASA because it was government property. Is there any truth in this?
Sometimes when i read som story on the web about any of the new improved hot cameras beeing released i can´t help to peek at my EL/M sitting next to me and think "i´m sure it´s wonderful but THIS cameras cousine went to the moon...ha!".

Anyway, i find the Hasselblad history very interesting and even more so because the cameras are still making top notch proffesional work as we speak. I just got my 500C (US) back from service done in gothenburg last week. Changed lots of parts, costed an arm and a leg but hey, it´s 43 years old! Incredible!

I wonder what parts got changed.

Photo Engineer · Apr 17, 2013

There were just enough sent there to do the job.

And Tom, thanks for the kind comment. I try to add some personal experience even though it was before the MLLP (Manned Lunar Landing Program). I left shortly after the first Saturn launch. I was there through all of the Mercury project.

PE

Marc B. · Apr 17, 2013

...but I will also presume that the cameras meant for Apollo flights 18, 19, and 20 are still extant,
as those programs were cancelled due to budget cuts...

Or, they could have been re-lensed for use on/inside the three (3) Skylab missions,
and/or the Apollo-Soyuz mission. Speculation only!

Marc

Tom Richard · Apr 18, 2013

Sirius Glass said:
Why does it matter how many Hasselblads there are on the Moon, unless you are going to make the trip to pick them up.

From a photography point of view it does not matter but i would dare to assume that some photographers also has a passion for knowledge and history. I find the Hasselblad history very interesting and its certainly fairly unique. First hand experience from those who were a part of it to whatever extent is very valuable

AgX · Apr 18, 2013

With all this Hasselblad talk we should not forget that various types of cameras of various brands had been brought into space. (Though not left on the moon.)

lxdude · Apr 18, 2013

I hear that the North Koreans tried to send up a capsule with a pinhole camera... they didn't realize it would leak.

j.c.denton · Apr 20, 2013

FYI, from an exhibition in Germany that took place from 2009 till 2010 in Oberhausen. I've visited it twice during that time.

Christian

Marvin · Sep 4, 2013

Where is all the film from the missions stored?

Marvin · Aug 28, 2019

With all the Space talk we may go back to the Moon. I am sure Hasselblad would want one of those cameras for the Museum.https://www.hasselblad.com/press/press-releases/hasselblad-celebrates-50-years-on-the-moon/

John Galt · Aug 28, 2019

Photo Engineer said:
IDK, but there is at least one in orbit.

PE

PE, that one got away on a Gemini Earth Orbit mission if I recall . . . any more details?

Photo Engineer · Aug 28, 2019

Sirius Glass · Aug 28, 2019

Marvin said:
With all the Space talk we may go back to the Moon. I am sure Hasselblad would want one of those cameras for the Museum.https://www.hasselblad.com/press/press-releases/hasselblad-celebrates-50-years-on-the-moon/

I am not so sure, Hasselblad is not owned by the family now, but by a Japanese company which has no interest in 6x6 film cameras.

mike c · Aug 28, 2019

I wonder if Nasa is interested in Film any more?

mshchem · Aug 28, 2019

Let's see IRS allows about 50 cents a mile for a car on earth. You would have to really have a thing for 'blads, even if you were in the neighborhood. Probably need more than a CLA .

itsdoable · Aug 29, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
I am not so sure, Hasselblad is not owned by the family now, but by a Japanese company which has no interest in 6x6 film cameras.

.
Ventizz Capital is Swiss/German based, and DJI is Chinese. Neither have the passion that Victor had for photography, but at least imaging is a core product of DJI.

Kino · Sep 10, 2019

Eugen Mezei said:
What is the reason for bringing back the backs? I guess it would have not been a problem to train one astronaut to remove the film and bring it back only in the casette, without back.

The magazines were undoubtedly built with anti-radiation shielding. Removing the film would have totally fogged the film.

Sirius Glass · Sep 10, 2019

Eugen Mezei said:
What is the reason for bringing back the backs? I guess it would have not been a problem to train one astronaut to remove the film and bring it back only in the casette, without back.

Like exactly where would they put the 70mm film? In their pants pockets? Fly by a FotoMat? Since many very smart people worked on the project, would one think that they had more knowledge than an outsider fifty years later shooting from the hip pocket?

AgX · Sep 12, 2019

Kino said:
The magazines were undoubtedly built with anti-radiation shielding. Removing the film would have totally fogged the film.

-) You overestimate the radiation effect. The films were hours on the moon, compared to films tested for months in space stations.

-) I know of no hint at all to radiation shielding in any camera.

Kino · Sep 12, 2019

AgX said:
-) You overestimate the radiation effect. The films were hours on the moon, compared to films tested for months in space stations.

-) I know of no hint at all to radiation shielding in any camera.

Perhaps... But you have all missed the most salient point for why the film was not unloaded on the Moon.

The astronauts would have had to take off their helmets to lick the gummy paper tape on the rolls...

AgX · Sep 12, 2019

How sad, otherwise they could have tasted the moon...

https://bit.ly/2m6RTGz

foc · Sep 12, 2019

The BBC children's program, The Clangers

itsdoable · Sep 12, 2019

Eugen Mezei said:
What is the reason for bringing back the backs? I guess it would have not been a problem to train one astronaut to remove the film and bring it back only in the casette, without back.

The backs were the cassettes.

As far as I remeber, the film was a custom product from Kodak on an extra thin polyester base so they could pack more film in, with no cassettes.

AgX · Sep 12, 2019

Yes, for a magazine meant not to be reloaded during the mission the use of cassettes makes no sense, to the contrary, the lacking of cassettes yields a tiny bit more space within the magazine to be employed by film, especially as thin-base films were chosen to yield more exposures.

Photo Engineer · Sep 12, 2019

As I have said many times over, the film was on 2.5 mil estar or something of the sort, and not the normal 4 or 5 mil estar for 120 film.

As for the loading and unloading, when you figure how much work went into modifying the cameras so that the astronauts could use their gloves to work it, then you can imagine how hard it would be for them to load and unload a camera.

One astronaut did get a whiff of moon dust, and described the odor. It made him sick. This was described with video of the last mission.

PE

AgX · Sep 12, 2019

Photo Engineer said:
As I have said many times over, the film was on 2.5 mil estar or something of the sort, and not the normal 4 or 5 mil estar for 120 film.

I do not see any posting doubting this, but the contrary.

How many Hasselblad's are on the Moon?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency