Kodak's Lunar Orbiter and Apollo Lunar Surface Close-up Camera

laser · Jul 9, 2019

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Mission a TV station talked to some of the Kodak people who worked on the Lunar equipment made by Kodak: Lunar Orbiter (5 flights 1966-67) and ALSCC (flew on Apollo 11 in 1969 and then 12, 13, and 14.

The reporter did a great job of briefly but accurately describing the projects. I thought APUGers would be interested becoming more familiar with the silver halide photographic applications.

For clarification: Lunar Orbiter used Kodak Aerial B&W Film and Kodak BiMat Material processed while in Lunar orbit, radio transmitted to Earth, then reconstructed by Kodak in Rochester.

ALSCC used Ektachrome Film Process E4 processed in Houston.
https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/u...e-sky/71-e3f586a0-e67d-45c9-9420-0d2e575eff7a

https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/u...e-sky/71-e3f586a0-e67d-45c9-9420-0d2e575eff7a

Bob Shanebrook (makingKODAKfilm)

BAC1967 · Jul 9, 2019

I want to know how they processed film in zero gravity!

silveror0 · Jul 10, 2019

BAC1967 said:
I want to know how they processed film in zero gravity!

Not zero gravity. It was in the moon's gravitational pull (~1/6 that of earth).

etn · Jul 10, 2019

BAC1967 said:
I want to know how they processed film in zero gravity!

In those day when digital sensors did not exist, spatial probes took pictures on film. The film was then pressed against a „processing film“ (for lack of a better word) containing the chemicals. After the process, one had a positive image, the other a negative in a similar way to a peel apart film. One side was scanned and transmitted to Earth.
It is amazing how good and how long it worked, for instance on long duration missions such as Voyager.

Anon Ymous · Jul 10, 2019

IIRC, the Voyager missions used Vidicon tubes for imaging, not film.

mshchem · Jul 10, 2019

silveror0 said:
Not zero gravity. It was in the moon's gravitational pull (~1/6 that of earth).

If it was in orbit it was in a micro gravity environment. Nothing was processed on the lunar surface. The Kodak 3D close up camera was left behind, film came back, same with the Hasselblad surface and internal LM cameras. The magazines were returned the blads tossed onto the moon. There wasn't room for error, limited amount of film. I know there was a 16mm camera in the LM that was taking 1 frame a second sequence photos of the landing.

Young people today don't realize we were blind to what was going on 99% of the time. Very fuzzy TV came through of the walk on the moon, a bit from the inside of the spacecraft. But there wasn't any cameras like today's SpaceX. Everything had to be retrieved from film cameras and developed.

It still is astounding to me that given the technological challenges we all were able to pull off the moon landings.

mshchem · Jul 10, 2019

mshchem said:
If it was in orbit it was in a micro gravity environment. Nothing was processed on the lunar surface. The Kodak 3D close up camera was left behind, film came back, same with the Hasselblad surface and internal LM cameras. The magazines were returned the blads tossed onto the moon. There wasn't room for error, limited amount of film. I know there was a 16mm camera in the LM that was taking 1 frame a second sequence photos of the landing.

Young people today don't realize we were blind to what was going on 99% of the time. Very fuzzy TV came through of the walk on the moon, a bit from the inside of the spacecraft. But there wasn't any cameras like today's SpaceX. Everything had to be retrieved from film cameras and developed.

It still is astounding to me that given the technological challenges we all were able to pull off the moon landings.

I should have said nothing was processed on the surface of the Apollo landings.

Europan · Jul 10, 2019

Still so many believers. Guess what the 15 kW Xenon arc lamp was developed for that the IMAX Corp. could use in 1969.

etn · Jul 10, 2019

Anon Ymous said:
IIRC, the Voyager missions used Vidicon tubes for imaging, not film.

I remember reading somewhere about the process I described, but it might indeed have been used on other probes and not Voyager - i‘ll research this to refresh my memory!

Anon Ymous · Jul 10, 2019

etn said:
I remember reading somewhere about the process I described, but it might indeed have been used on other probes and not Voyager - i‘ll research this to refresh my memory!

Indeed, it was, but I can't remember specific missions either.

BAC1967 · Jul 10, 2019

etn said:
In those day when digital sensors did not exist, spatial probes took pictures on film. The film was then pressed against a „processing film“ (for lack of a better word) containing the chemicals. After the process, one had a positive image, the other a negative in a similar way to a peel apart film. One side was scanned and transmitted to Earth.
It is amazing how good and how long it worked, for instance on long duration missions such as Voyager.

Ok, that makes sense, I had an image of chemical droplets floating around, developer and fixer everywhere, uneven development... I remember another article showing how they caught film canisters from spy satellites as they floated back to earth. They used two planes tethered together to snag the parachute before it hit the ocean.

mshchem · Jul 10, 2019

BAC1967 said:
Ok, that makes sense, I had an image of chemical droplets floating around, developer and fixer everywhere, uneven development... I remember another article showing how they caught film canisters from spy satellites as they floated back to earth. They used two planes tethered together to snag the parachute before it hit the ocean.

There were buildings in Rochester that were ultra top secret. Real CIA stuff. Not even PE could get into . Well if he could, he can't discuss

ic-racer · Jul 10, 2019

mshchem · Jul 10, 2019

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1UVtNJa0PfpYATZCL8J5Aa

Photo Engineer · Jul 10, 2019

Bimat used a monobath originated in Dick Henn's lab with the cooperation of Grant Haist and many many others. An example has been on display at the GEM entrance for many years. It shows how the film is laminated with a damp moving web that is the monobath and the image forms. Very reliable and remarkably high quality for that day and age. The final process was implemented in a lab in the basement of B-59 which later became my office and was shared with 2 others. However, during my time it was used for color paper.

PE

Kodachromeguy · Jul 11, 2019

What kind of scanner was part of the system? Was it early-vintage digital, or was it an analog system like a television camera of the era? Was the transmitted signal analogue? Did they try to scan every frame? Regardless, it is fascinating.

Kino · Jul 11, 2019

Kodachromeguy said:
What kind of scanner was part of the system? Was it early-vintage digital, or was it an analog system like a television camera of the era? Was the transmitted signal analogue? Did they try to scan every frame? Regardless, it is fascinating.

Probably a flying spot (CRT) scanner like the early Rank Cintel Transfer systems; but that's just a guess.

Photo Engineer · Jul 11, 2019

IIRC, it was an old fashioned CRT analog scanner.

PE

Theo Sulphate · Jul 11, 2019

The Ranger program started in 1961 with the goal of providing close-up views of the Moon in real-time as the spacecraft crashed onto the surface . The first six missions failed for various reasons and the very first close-up images were returned in 1964. These were television images. The last image was always incomplete because the spacecraft crashed during transmission.

The actual photos we saw back then were totally fascinating. You had to experience it to understand the feeling.

I don't think anything today captures those feelings of 1960's space exploration - not the Mars rovers nor any other probes we have today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_program

peter k. · Jul 11, 2019

Theo Sulphate said:
You had to experience it to understand the feeling.

Yes.. oh my yes.. it was awesome.

silveror0 · Jul 11, 2019

My involvement with the Lunar Orbiter was structural analysis of the spacecraft that the Kodak subsystem (outer shell + innards) was mounted on. Worked with Kodak's structural model of their package to ensure it survived the rigors of the launch environment (shocks & vibration). It was indeed a special moment to see the results of all that effort on TV in nearly real time as it approached the moon and started its orbit. I can recall the goosebumps, knowing that any part of all that complexity could fail at any time. Kodak had a hinged cover over both camera lenses, because there was no data available on the intensity of the micrometeoroid environment that might be encountered (guesswork mostly). Here's some internet pics of the spacecraft if anyone's interested.

Kodak's Lunar Orbiter and Apollo Lunar Surface Close-up Camera

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency