Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems by jfb.

From that same paper:

The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced by the high
speed (above 400 ASA) flight original films. The color films, 7296 and 5030, exhibited an
increase in minimum density and a decrease in contrast. When seen in the final image,
shadows would appear grainy and ambiguous in the darker detail. Flatness in the tonal range
is the effect of the lowered contrast. The black and white films, 5454 and 5453, and color
negative film, 6028, displayed identical effects only to a lesser degree. Reversal film 5020 was
not significantly affected by the radiation. All color films exhibited a shift in color balance. The
color shifts, increases in base exposure and decreases in contrast, are functions of the film’s
representative speed. While 6028 was the least affected of the negative films, it should be
noted that reversal film 5020 showed the least apparent damage (because the effected part of
reversal film is beyond the useful density).

This is after roughly 130 hours of radiation exposure, with total exposures in the range of 313-361 mrad, or roughly 62 to 72 mrad per day.

In short, the film was fogged a bit. Not burned up, not melted, not damaged.

I’ve found a couple of papers online that give estimates for radiation dose equivalents on the lunar surface of between 225 to 259 mSv/yr on average. Unfortunately, converting between rads and sieverts is not straightforward, so I don’t know how the numbers from STS-48 would translate. But, I strongly doubt that the radiation environment on the Moon would be so severe as to significantly damage photographic film over the period of a few days.

More Comments on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems by jfb


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems

It’s not a C, it’s an O.

And it *looks* like some kind of inclusion (a pebble embedded in a slightly softer matrix rock). It looks like the surrounding matrix has eroded a bit, leaving a small channel around the …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems

The main reason we haven’t sent people back to the Moon is $$$$$$$$$$$$, even if we don’t take the pork-barrel nature of the American space program into account. Building and launching spacecraft capable of keeping people alive in deep …


More Comments by jfb


Who panned the camera?

His name was Ed Fendell, a controller in Houston in charge the remotely-controlled camera on the LRV.

Yes, he had to take the signal delay into account – he had to anticipate the liftoff and rate of ascent. …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

It doesn’t have to be pretty to work.

The foil acted as a thermal blanket, reflecting as much of the sunlight as possible to keep the base of the LM from overheating. The foil was only about 125 microns thick, …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

The blueprints *weren’t* destroyed; they’re on file at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Not that it matters; we couldn’t build the Saturn V today if we wanted to, because most of the technology it used is …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Proof

Did you know that many of the people involved in the moon landing died from a car crash?

Upwards of 90 people die *every day* in car crashes in the US; it’s not at all surprising that a lot people “involved …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems

It’s not a C, it’s an O.

And it *looks* like some kind of inclusion (a pebble embedded in a slightly softer matrix rock). It looks like the surrounding matrix has eroded a bit, leaving a small channel around the …