Space cameras - 35mm

frank · Oct 3, 2014

Everyone knows about Hasselblad cameras that flew into space and some that were left on the moon.

What 35mm cameras were also chosen for space? Which brands and models?

Les Sarile · Oct 3, 2014

Here are a couple of resources -> Nikon cameras and NASA cameras & Nikon F3 NASA: Space Nikon

frank · Oct 3, 2014

Did any other (35mm) brands besides Nikon make it to space?

georg16nik · Oct 3, 2014

Kiev 6 Space Camera - http://ussrphoto.com/wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=17&ParentID=1&ContentID=121&Item=Kiev+6+Space+Camera

Leningrad - Space version - http://ussrphoto.com/wiki/default.a...&ContentID=143&Item=Leningrad+-+Space+version

and few more I don't see online reference for them, only in books.

AgX · Oct 3, 2014

-) Practica EE2

Dead Link Removed

-) Ansco

-) Contarex

Xmas · Oct 3, 2014

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shepard

had a small 35mm rangefinder on his initial flight.
Think a Minolta but my memory from then patchwork.

laser · Oct 3, 2014

Kodak designed and built the "APOLLO LUNAR SURFACE CLOSE-UP CAMERA". It was a stereo camera with electronic flash. It used 35mm Ektachrome MS Film in a special metal magazine.

My first full-time job at Kodak was working on this. I graduated from RIT in March 1969 and started work immediately. In July the camera was carried to the Moon, used, film removed and the camera left on the Lunar Surface. I made sure that I handled each of the cameras delivered to NASA in order to make sure I handled the ones that were going to be left on the Lunar Surface. I was just a "kid" at the time.

Bob Shanebrook
www.makingKODAKfilm.com

Old-N-Feeble · Oct 3, 2014

laser said:
Kodak designed and built the "APOLLO LUNAR SURFACE CLOSE-UP CAMERA". It was a stereo camera with electronic flash. It used 35mm Ektachrome MS Film in a special metal magazine.

View attachment 95481

My first full-time job at Kodak was working on this. I graduated from RIT in March 1969 and started work immediately. In July the camera was carried to the Moon, used, film removed and the camera left on the Lunar Surface. I made sure that I handled each of the cameras delivered to NASA in order to make sure I handled the ones that were going to be left on the Lunar Surface. I was just a "kid" at the time.

Bob Shanebrook
www.makingKODAKfilm.com

That's pretty darned kewl. I hope you left a few very clear fingerprints somewhere inside the cameras so your fingerprints are on the moon.

frank · Oct 3, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
That's pretty darned kewl.

Beat me to it. Just about to say he same.

ZenziFriend · Oct 5, 2014

ESA Spacelab Mission D1 1985

Linhof Aerotechnika
HaBla 500 EL/ m
F3
OM-1

Paul Howell · Oct 5, 2014

I have picture in the photographic encyclopedia from the 60s with John Glen and Ansco 35mm motor that NASA modified to be used with the gloves on his space suite.

Photo Engineer · Oct 5, 2014

Here is Red (chief NASA camera repairman) and myself with one of the cameras being evaluated for the Glenn launch. Grissom's capsule is behind me in the white room (where I went later), and the next two capsules are unassigned. (This is a 4x5 Polaroid. I washed the negative at a water cooler while Gus Grissom stood by and watched)

So, there were dozens of cameras, 35mm and 120 that were made, tested and discarded. Only one fit the criteria and that one left behind many interesting stories.

PE

Old-N-Feeble · Oct 5, 2014

PE... That is so effing kewl!!

AgX · Oct 5, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
So, there were dozens of cameras, 35mm and 120 that were made, tested and discarded. Only one fit the criteria and that one left behind many interesting stories.

What were those criteria (aside of ergonomics)?

Photo Engineer · Oct 5, 2014

Weight, capacity of film, ease of use (I guess this is partly ergonomics), does it break down easily?

I did not have anything to do with the choice. I was part of a unit that subcontracted this with NASA making the choice and our group just looking in at the ongoing work and paying the bills. But I did work with Red and get to hold the camera that he was working on. He also gave me some discarded pieces to examine, with reasons for rejection. I forget them all, but I still have the pieces.

PE

frank · Oct 6, 2014

Were you ticked off when they chose those unreliable Hasselblads?

RalphLambrecht · Oct 6, 2014

AgX said:
-) Practica EE2

Dead Link Removed

-) Ansco

-) Contarex

Interesting;I had one of these Practicas in 1972.It didn't survive a month in my hands(the shutter stopped working after about 500 actuation)maybe just bad luck but, I went to Nikon FMs after that and never looked back;the lens wasn't all that bad though.

AgX · Oct 6, 2014

500 actuations would be enough anyway, film was expensive those days...

To be serious again:
a Pentacon Six was used in space too.

benjiboy · Oct 6, 2014

In the days when I sold cameras for a living my staff (because customers seemed to bring back as faulty almost every one we sold them) used to call them " Crapticas "

Photo Engineer · Oct 6, 2014

I didn't care what camera they used.

Photo Engineer · Oct 6, 2014

APUGuser19 said:
I'm going to take a guess here before PE answers the question posed in post #16. I contend that the Hasselblads were chosen for the Apollo landings for reason of largest possible negative coupled with most exposures per load. Actually, the Hasselblad is a very good camera. As one who seems to unwittingly have become self-specialized in working on them, they do have points of engineering that cause question, but there are other areas that are brilliantly simplistic. But for short bursts of time between examinations/adjustments, they are as dependable an an anvil. For the Apollo missions, they only had to work perfectly for 10 days or so at the time. And to be sure, there was no comparable camera in existence on this planet at the time for use on the flight mission.

All good comments.

PE

Old-N-Feeble · Oct 6, 2014

So I guess ten days use is why NASA treated them as disposable cameras... leaving them on the moon. Hey, I just had a thought. I wonder what one of those cameras would be worth if brought back by some future mission, if there ever is one, keeping all the moon dust on it.

M Carter · Oct 6, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
So I guess ten days use is why NASA treated them as disposable cameras... leaving them on the moon. Hey, I just had a thought. I wonder what one of those cameras would be worth if brought back by some future mission, if there ever is one and keeping all the moon dust on it.

There has been some action on treaties to protect the lunar landing sites - I recall china or russia or someone planning an unmanned landing in the last few years, and the US raising a stink about nothing being close to the Apollo sites. If something was ever retrieved from a landing site, it would probably be considered "stolen".

Besides the manned landing sites, you have the various unmanned probes, and - what I'd love to have a look at - several sites where Apollo SIVB 3rd stages were intentionally crashed into the moon to trigger seismic sensors left by earlier manned missions. The Japanese probe that photographed the Apollo sites also photographed a 3rd stage site - from that altitude it just looked like a bright crater though. Wonder how may parts survived?

Off topic but geeky as hell for Apollo nerds... the Apollo 12 SIVB's amazing journey since 1972.

thuggins · Oct 8, 2014

I've seen pictures of one of the OM models outfitted with a pistol grip for use on NASA missions.

Les Sarile · Oct 8, 2014

thuggins said:
I've seen pictures of one of the OM models outfitted with a pistol grip for use on NASA missions.

OM4 used in the space shuttle http://www.zuiko.com/index_040.htm

Space cameras - 35mm

frank

Les Sarile

frank

georg16nik

AgX

Xmas

laser

Advertiser

Old-N-Feeble

frank

ZenziFriend

Paul Howell

Photo Engineer

Attachments

Old-N-Feeble

AgX

Photo Engineer

frank

RalphLambrecht

AgX

benjiboy

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Old-N-Feeble

M Carter

thuggins

Les Sarile

Space cameras - 35mm

Advertiser

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency