Why the Apollo footage was so poor?

[holtzman]

I am not a believer that Apollo landings were fake, but there are some questions that won't leave me in peace...
To me personally, the visual information is the best proof. The stills from Moon are OK but those are just stills. The available video stuff lacks detail which could prove for sure those landings did happen... I mean the poorest quality TV and poor cine films footage. Can anybody here on Forum help me understand why better TV quality was not available for such a special event? Why the original signal could not be converted to any existing tv format - the only available picture was from NASA projection tv screen as far as I know? Leave alone contrast, the resolution was poor, artefacts were present, etc. Why the bandwidth was so narrow?
Why was not possible to tape the video on board of Apollo for better quality and a redundant source of information? Compact commercial VCRs were out there already in 1970. For such an occasion, it was possible to miniaturise a VCR even better.
Another question - why the original tapes were lost and how was it possible technically? I mean, there was more than one tape recorder which registrated the signals from Moon. How ALL the quality stuff vent away for 40 years to be found somewhere in Australia, leaving us with some copies shot from the projection TV?!

[Steve Anderson]

Hi Holtzman,

I'm not going to get into a debate regarding whether man went to the Moon in July 1969 or not, nor am I going to get involved in the investigation as to why perhaps the most valuable historic record of the 20th Century was lost.

But if you want data as to the TV system used, including the Moon-Earth link, I have over 100MB for you! Wading through this lot you realize the compromises that had to be traded off in the mid to late 60s when this stuff was developed. Add to that the fact that it takes at least a year to get the equipment flight certified.

Attached is a rather large pdf which covers the TV link from start to finish, not in great detail, but enough to get an understanding of what they were up against. I'm not defending the poor quality results, agreed they could have done far better. Your idea of having a VCR of some sort on board is a new one to me...and so obvious!

Remember that IC's had previously not been approved for such a mission-critical role like the AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer), this 'chip' was a dual-input NOR gate (from memory-excuse the pun), I'll do some digging around on this. Apart from interfaces (display drivers etc.) the whole thing was built out of these NOR gates, flip-flop, registers, ALU etc...all credit to those guys at MIT.

If you have an interest in this (I do) you'll possibly already have the attached file and some of the others I have.

Steve A.

Attached: Apollo TV 1.pdf

P.S. I'll leave the file up until the end of the year, then I'll delete it to save server space. If anyone misses it and would like it, zap me an e-mail (not a PM).

File deleted by SA, 30/12/2010

[Klaas Robers]

In 1969 no VCR's existed yet. Video tape recording existed, one inch wide tape, but was heavy (20 - 30 kg) and delicate equipment. Even a black and white TV camera was rather bulky, CCD-sensors came 10 to 15 years later, and consumed quite some energy. For the colour a frame sequential system was used and the definition was low because bandwidth availabel for the transmission was low.

The system was also completely off standard and standard conversion as we do today was almost impossible. The best way was to televise the special purpose screen with a TV camera. As Steve explained digital electronics and IC's were just emerging and very low density.

And then: The flight to the moon was not set up to make TV pictures for the open net. This was only for internal (NASA) use. However I think some footage of film was shot as well. That still should be existing. And photographs of the famous Hasselblatt cameras.

I have witnessed the first foot on the moon in black and white, in the middle of the night, while I was recruited for military service and in my first few weeks. It was amazing although the live picture quality was very poor. The military staff had the good thoughts that we should be able to see this "one of" event live.

[holtzman]

Thanks Steve! I didn't know it was SO complex... It's interesting even not always understandable.

[dominicbeesley]

Weight is THE major consideration for anything to do with space and for the moon landing is even more important as the lander had to take off again. So a video recorder would have been a big no-no and film would have to be small format.

Remember the lander is made out of spit and tin foil to keep it light...Not what you really want with all that radiation and bits of debris zipping about at very high speeds....They very nearly ran out of fuel on that first landing and that would meant rather more than having to walk to the nearest petrol station!

For the live pictures the long distances and unavailability of mains meant they had to keep the power and hence bandwidth right down.

Losing the video has kept many a conspiracy theorist in business though!

Dom

[Dave Moll]

Thanks, Steve, for that document. That's my bedtime reading for tonight sorted!

They very nearly ran out of fuel on that first landing and that would meant rather more than having to walk to the nearest petrol station!

Indeed, I would not have wanted to be Michael Collins returning home alone, having left the remains of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface. Mind you, having to walk to the nearest petrol station would have been no better, given that it would have been a quarter of a million miles away with a whole lot of nothing in between.

[Steve Anderson]

In 1969 no VCR's existed yet. Video tape recording existed, one inch wide tape, but was heavy (20 - 30 kg) and delicate equipment..

Weight is THE major consideration for anything to do with space and for the moon landing is even more important as the lander had to take off again. So a video recorder would have been a big no-no and film would have to be small format.

Gents,, you're all correct of course. When one is banging out one of these postings ones mind tends to forget small(?) details like size, weight, power consumption and whether the technology was available...rather minor matters!

Some 15 years later in the mid-80s I was working for a broadcast equipment manufacturer, VTRs (not VCRs) were typified by the Sony 1" C-format BVH2000 series machines which also required a 6RU TBC (Ampex too had similar products), or the 1" M-format machines (Bosch and a few Japanese manufacturers)....the TBC wouldn't nave been required though if the function was record only...e.g. Apollo.

These machines could record the entire NTSC/PAL signal with no colour-under like VHS/Betamax, the full 4.5/5.5MHz bandwidth. For Apollo these machines could have been 'dumbed-down' to 500kHz banwidth and no colour, but anyway it still would have been a no-go in the mid-late 60s.

I'm surprised at the level of interest in this, so here's more data on the camera as used on Apollo 11....

The first is a rather 'dry' document which details the specifications the surface camera had to meet and includes the format of the video signal (Apollo Camera 1.pdf). If you can't sleep, try it! However it does include enough data such that you could build a replica just to see what could been achieved. You'd probably have to substitute a Vidicon for the SEC tube and more modern chips for the ICs used in those days. Or some form of electronic Test Signal Generator (TSG).

The second is a much more readable item possibly designed for corporate digestion (Apollo Camera 2.pdf). It goes into the operation of the lunar camera at block-level, with some pretty pictures too.

Regarding the poor quality pictures, another factor to consider is this...the 320line/10fps signal was converted to 525/30fps...then for Europe converted to 625/25fps...then if you were in the UK at the time and watching on 405 (I was) then converted to 405/25fps!! Eeekkk!

This is a monochrome camera, later versions used a colour-wheel very similar to the CBS colour sequential system. I'll post those in a few days if anyone's interested.

So, is this 'narrow band'? It is only one tenth of the normal bandwidth required, very similar to the German/French 180-line system of the 30s.

Steve A.

Attached: Apollo Camera 1.pdf, Apollo Camera 2.pdf

P.S. Again, I'll leave these files up until the end of the year, then I'll delete them to save server space. If anyone misses any and would like a copy, zap me an e-mail (not a PM).

Files deleted by SA, 30/12/2010

[Dave Moll]

So, is this 'narrow band'?

More what has been dubbed elsewhere on this forum as "medium bandwidth". So probably appropriate to leave it where it is in the "off topic" section of the forum.

[Lowtone]

On the second ( ? ) flight to the moon, they wanted to put the colour camera outside the spaceship. But they jab it to the sun, and the camera was "destroyed"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtBMAMO11e8&feature=related

I imagine everyone on earth waiting for the pictures... and nothing happends

[holtzman]

Now I understand why the astronauts look semi-transparent ghosts in these pictures - it's all about phosphor...
It's rather sad no better quality images are available. And regarding the video tapes - some striking facts from Apollo TV 1 pdf! "The stations were instructed to reuse the tapes, as the result no tapes are known to exist today" Isn't it wrong, to record relatively LOW bandwidth ORIGINAL signal on outdated equipment and DELETE the tapes? While the converted signal of lower quality and value was recorded on state-of-the-art helical scan machine with the bandwidth X10! I'm sure that Ampex VTR could be modified to record Apollo tv format thus preserving good quality for the "Mankind". And it was not impossible at all to design something more compact, recording on cassettes, for the flight!

Some facts:
2 decades later, Fisher-Price released Pixelvision toy with 90x120 lines b/w picture at 15 fps. It recorded lineary on audio cassette !
All video and photographic equipment (except the films)was thrown away on the Moon, so anyway its weight was not the liftoff from Moon issue. They had to save weight because only small portion of Lunar Module came back to rendezvous with Apollo. But at landing on Moon, the vehicle weight was several tons.

[Steve Anderson]

More what has been dubbed elsewhere on this forum as "medium bandwidth".

Dave, I tend to agree. Given the bandwidth required of 500kHz in this instance, that's 25 times greater than the 'usual' 20kHz or less audio bandwidth that NBTV generally fits into. So other early 'standards' like 120/180/240 lines at a reasonable frame rate could also be called MDTV or MBTV. This would also include the Apollo 11 320/10 system.

When I get the time (which I really don't have right now) I intend to have a play around with some of these standards, perhaps all four and others too.

Attached are the last two documents that are specific to Apollo 11 and it's camera and what happened to the tapes. Most of the other documents I have are either very 'dry' consisting of performance reports or cover other cameras used throughout the Apollo program...there was quite a variation in those carried aboard.

Both the attached are related to Earth-bound equipment and the data tapes.

Apollo_11_Tapes_Report.pdf is Nasa's final report probably published in 2008 or 2009...unusually the document isn't dated...unless I've missed it, I downloaded it from somewhere in May this year. This is obviously designed for public consumption with its 'pretty' layout, not the usual dry Nasa internal paper.

Apollo_11_TV_Comparisons.pdf shows the difference between the quality of the pictures received at the Earth stations and those the public saw.

Steve A.

P.S. Again these files....blah blah blah...

Files deleted by SA, 30/12/2010

[Steve Anderson]

Here's two more documents I missed in trawling the 'Apollo TV' folder...

SMPTE_79_7_1970.pdf contains more technical information on the standards converter from 320/10 to 525/30.

Search_for_SSTV_Tapes.pdf is an earlier version regarding the search for the Apollo 11 tapes, published in May 2006.

Steve A.

P.S. These files...etc...and for now that's probably enough!!

Files deleted by SA, 30/12/2010

[AncientBrit]

Fascinating material Steve, well mined,

Cheers,

Graham

[Klaas Robers]

It look s as if I see quite some differences in picture quality due to brightness en contrast settings, but also due to differences in the gamma correction settings. And we see the loss of quality because of the standards conversion. How simple it is done nowadays, so difficult this was in those days. There was no question about using a digital memory that could contain one whole TV frame. Far too large. I remember from 1970 that we had TTL Random Access Memory chips of 64 bits in one IC. How large that is. And that became available at the same time Apollo 11 was on the moon.

The problem of recording the original video signal is that such a recording remains playable as long as the (only) non standard recorder remains operative. And still then, a recording on a video tape fades away in about 10 years due to demagnetisation. The only picture carrier that survives time better is film, and even that.....

And be honest, can you still play a grammophone record? Can you still play back a bakelite 78 rpm record with the correct play-back correction and an N-type (green dot) stylus? So fast technology changes ans so fast we throw away the old and further useless equipment. This is the way history fades away.

[dominicbeesley]

It look s as if I see quite some differences in picture quality due to brightness en contrast settings, but also due to differences in the gamma correction settings. And we see the loss of quality because of the standards conversion. How simple it is done nowadays, so difficult this was in those days. There was no question about using a digital memory that could contain one whole TV frame. Far too large. I remember from 1970 that we had TTL Random Access Memory chips of 64 bits in one IC. How large that is. And that became available at the same time Apollo 11 was on the moon.

...not quite the BBC had already got quite far with this. They had an analogue framestore already that converted from 625 to 405 electronically. This used a huge number of transistors...more info here: http://vintage-radio.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59998

The BBC, especially for the moon pictures also made an electronic 525 to 625 line converter this got the pictures from America via Goonhilly Down and passed them on to BBC, ITV and the rest of the EBU countries.

A real shame they didn't get them direct from Australia in 320/10 and convert electronically direct to 625. Maybe then we'd have some better pictures recorded, though the BBC were also pretty good at wiping tapes...

Some info here:
http://www.tvhistory.btinternet.co.uk/h ... v_cov.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_te ... _history-0

I'd be interested if anyone else comes up with more information about the 525 to 625 line converter

... And be honest, can you still play a grammophone record? Can you still play back a bakelite 78 rpm record with the correct play-back correction and an N-type (green dot) stylus? So fast technology changes ans so fast we throw away the old and further useless equipment. This is the way history fades away.

Not that I'm a Luddite, but....well sadly yes I can....I do need to stock up on styluses though!

Dom