chris_williams19 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 <p>I ran across <a href="http://phys.org/news/2014-01-sole-camera-nasa-moon-missions.html">this article</a> from Phys.org and thought the classic camera enthusiasts here would find interesting, though I suspect the camera might be a bit price prohibitive.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I have my doubts about its authenticity of the camera. For starters the cameras all belong to NASA and while they do sell surplus gear the modified Hasselblads used on the Apollo missions wouldn't be considered surplus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Murphy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 <p>As I recall, it was reported in the news at the time that one of the Hasselblads was left on the surface of the moon.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 That's the one they're selling. Unfortunately you have to pick it up yourself. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Andy,<br>Not just one of them, but <i>all</i> of them were left on the surface of the moon (bar one, apparently. If we are to believe that this is one that actually went up there and came back, and not just one of the very many cameras that never flew, were used for training on earth instead. Could be.)<br>Ballast, they didn't need. They could get new ones back on earth. They rather brought back bits of the moon (and rightly so. You couldn't get that down here).<br>The ones left on the moon are free to anyone who wants to go there and pick them up. Hasselblad offered free film magazines (they were not left on the moon) to anyone who presented such a camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 <p>Not all of them were left behind apparently. From NASA's site:<br> "The lunar crews even left behind <strong>most</strong> of their cameras"</p> <p>http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/f_leftovers.html<br> So I suppose its possible. Apollo 15 set records for the payload capacity of the lunar modules, so maybe they had a little more leeway for weight and brought it back just to do it. Or maybe, the lunar dust, which often jammed the cameras, caused the film back to become seized up and they had to bring it back to save the pictures. NASA being who they are, I'm sure even solitary piece of equipment was itemized and serial numbers recorded so its probably easy to determine the history of the camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 <p>I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling too. One would think that any "returned from space" cameras, especially ones been to the moon, would be in a museum?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwbob Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 <p>Show it to Rick Harris of PAWN STARS. He'll tell you for sure. Bob Rene</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_leonard3 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 <p>We are not convinced that 1. it is the real deal, and 2. if it is the real deal, it has not been purloined somewhere along the way.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harveysteeves Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 <p>you would have had cameras being used in the lunar orbiter which would also have been used on the return back to earth so yes, there would be Hasselblads that had been to the moon. And probably different ones on each trip.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Lunar surface cameras and cameras used in the space craft were not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>If I were thinking of slapping down a pile of cash on this I would want a bit more proof that this was the genuine article than the <em>small plate inside with the number 38</em> on it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>It's just a news article. An actual bidder spending that kind of money would be going off a lot more evidence that a short paragraph talking about a plate. I went to the website. They list serial numbers and Nasa Parts numbers for the lens, magazine and body. With a little work you could verify that stuff. Who knows how NASA let it get out of their hands. Not everything they use is locked up in a vault somewhere and these cameras became obsolete pretty quickly so it's not as if they were guarded technological secrets. Not to take away from uniqueness of the situation, but it's Apollo 15 and it's not like Buzz Armstrong used it. I don't think too many people have even heard of Erwin. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Or of Buzz Armstrong. ;-)<br>But you're right. It could indeed be the 'real thing'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_platt1 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>Chris</p> <p>I think you can be fairly sure its a fake, probably one of the training cameras, everyone was/is desperate for a piece of moon landing hstory. If a camera had really come back it would be in the Smithsonian not in the hands of an Italian collector. It will probably still go for a high price though as everyone would dearly love it to be a real moon camera.<br> For ne there are three things that suggest a fake<br> 1) The official mission report, of which I have a copy of makes no mention of any problems with the camera and it undoubtably would have as they would have left samples behind if they had to bring the camera back on board.<br> Every single gram (or in their case ounce) of weight was critical and it wasn't just difficult to carry too much, they could die!! as too much weight would mean that they didn't have enough fuel which meant that they didn't get home. So basically they wouldn't bring a camera back with them, rocks were more important.<br> 2) Thinking through what would have happened to such a camera would strongly suggest it was a fake. It would have been recorded as coming back as if you follow the idea that it did because it jammed then someone would have been assigned to both un-jam it and advise on modifcations to ensure it never happened again all of which would have been recorded in the mission reports and subsequent reports. the camera would not then have just been disposed of as NASA's own history department would have wanted it.<br> 3) Astronauts and equipment were kept in quaratine due to the risk from infection from the lunar dust. therefore anything that came back had to be cleaned and logged and so again it would have been recorded.<br> However the likely scenerio as others have mentioned is that it was one of the training cameras which were exactly the same as the ones that went to the moon in every detail including the reference numbers on the negatives form the cameras.<br> Still a very nice thing to have just not quite a unique as the seller hopes </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>I agree that this is most likely a fake or at best a training camera if that. But there been some stories recently about astronauts trying to auction off items that they considered personal keepsakes that NASA laid claim to saying they were actually government property. One was a flight checklist, another was a 16mm movie camera. <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-13/apollo-moonwalkers-sell-right-stuff-in-1-million-space-auction">http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-13/apollo-moonwalkers-sell-right-stuff-in-1-million-space-auction</a> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonsignore_ezio Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>But then again, we are not talking ebay here. Westlicht has a reputation (and their global position, which means €€€$$$YYYY) to protect. It seems hard to believe that they would risk ruining their business by auctioning an extraordinary item such as this one, unless they are exceedingly confident that it indeed is the real thing. Back in May 2012, they sold a Leica 0 prototype for €2.16 million.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Murphy Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>Considering the possibilities, so far most comments have focused on NASA and it's organization and training, but what about Hasselblad itself which manufactured and supplied the cameras? I worked at Cape Kennedy for a summer in the 1960s and there were many contractors making the moon trip happen. After President Kennedy set the historic goal to go to the moon, America leapfrogged past Soviet space efforts largely by bringing together many companies providing us with more effective options to achieve success than a command economy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p><strong>"Westlicht has a reputation (and their global position, which means €€€$$$YYYY) to protect"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>I agree. It would take a lot of nerve and complete bad business sense to portray a knockoff or training camera as the real deal, knowing full well that NASA has the real one in their possession. Plenty of artifacts and "souvenirs" were kept by astronauts and sold, donated or auctioned off over the years including checklists, parts of spacesuits etc. A recent bill signed into law allows just that:<br /> http://www.space.com/17787-nasa-astronauts-space-artifacts-souvenirs-law.html</p> <p>The article further states that:</p> <p><strong>The question behind the legislation, if astronauts hold the rights to expendable space equipment — including their checklists, personal hygiene kits, and items that, had they been left aboard the Apollo lunar module would have been crashed into the moon</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>That suggests that even though something was deemed "disposable" and destined to be left behind, some astronauts clearly made exceptions to the rule. A Data Acquisition Camera (different beast) was also saved destruction on the moon by Astronaut Edgar Mitchell. <strong>"In Mitchell's case, the government sought the return of the data acquisition camera (DAC) that he saved from being destroyed on the moon."</strong> Clearly a camera was considered "expendable" considering the fate of most of them. Whether this camera falls into that category or was brought back for other reasons is unknown. I don't know that items brought back by Astronauts which were supposed to be left behind were noted as to the reason for doing so (jammed, broken, just felt having a keepsake etc.) This bill was signed because NASA all of a sudden decided to make a stink about the auctioning off of Apollo artifacts. Being that they aren't happy about it, I'm sure they would be the first ones to call bluff on this item being fake. So far they haven't. I have no idea about the history of this camera, but I do think it would be pretty easy to verify with serial numbers and determine it's authenticity. I wouldn't be too quick to cry foul without doing so.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donnie_strickland Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <blockquote> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 31, 2014; 02:01 a.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Lunar surface cameras and cameras used in the space craft were not the same.</p> </blockquote> <p>Generally true, Q.G., but not on this mission. From the <a href="http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/SUPPORT_DATA/ap15_data_notes.pdf">Apollo 15 Lunar Photography </a>report (page 8),</p> <p>"The astronauts brought back (unscheduled) the 500-mm-lens Hasselblad Data Camera from the lunar surface and took some photographs from the Command Module."</p> <p>The camera, which was used by Jim Irwin on the lunar surface, was brought back because the film had stopped advancing, although the electric motor drive still worked. The crew brought it back to have it looked at on Earth, and to save the photographs in the magazine, which they didn't want to try and remove as they did with the other Hasselblads. (They didn't have as much lunar surface material as they had anticipated, so the weight of the camera was not a factor.) They tried it again on the way back to Earth and it worked, so they used it without additional problems. Postmission examination revealed the setscrews were slipping on the motor shaft. (See <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/ap15mr.pdf">here</a>, page 231.)</p> <p>I'm just wondering how this camera could really be auctioned, since NASA has historically refused to sell any of this stuff.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 The report mentions a HEC in the space craft, three HDCs used on the surface, Donnie. Lunar surface cameras and cameras used in space craft were not the same. Also on this mission.<br>The hypothesis that the camera being auctioned might be a lunar orbiter camera is easily disproved by those cameras being HECs (cameras not prepared to be subjected to the conditions outside), while the surface cameras are rather different HDCs <br>But yes, they apparently brought back one of the lunar surface cameras (and even used it in the command module - which probably disproves the jam-theory. See also page 10), so the one auctioned by Westlicht could well be the real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I've read the mision report and they did reproduce the fault on earth, so it was definitely not a ploy of one of the astronauts to bring himself back a souvenir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonsignore_ezio Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 <p>Contrary to my previous message, it would appear that Westlicht's claims are at least dubious - to use an euphemism.<br> <a href="http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-013114a-apollo-moon-camera-auction.html">http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-013114a-apollo-moon-camera-auction.html</a><br> The camera is obviously the same as already sold in 2012 by RR Auction (in addition to the serial numbers, the scratches and paint losses do match one by one). However its has a different magazine (or the same magazine with the writings obliterated) and a different lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 I saw numerous Hasselblad space cameras at the Smithsonian air and space museum in DC. I would be shocked they would let this camera go to the public. The 500-mm is not a camera. Here is the Westlicht info on this camera. I thought they were pretty reputable. The actual price of a flown camera, and on the mokn no less, would be worth multi millions at auction. http://www.westlicht-auction.com/ index.php?id=3&L=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn McCreery Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 <p>As a late follow-up to this thread, the camera sold at auction for 650,000 Euros according to DPReview.com,<br> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/03/24/camera-from-nasa-s-moon-missions-sold-at-auction<br> Rather too much, I think, considering it's suspect provenance.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now