« Lesser-Known Photographers | Main | At Turnberry: What's Wrong With This Picture? »

Saturday, 18 July 2009


I'm sure the "Hero" cameras are much cheaper than the one on the orbiter, as well as being smaller and lighter!

The gallery of surf shots is tremendously impressive, and they look very clean. If I did anything more interesting than sitting at my computer, this would be a serious risk!

You must have meant "from 500 KILOmeters up"... Nasa actually has a collection with all but one (Apollo XII is still elusive) of them captured quite clear:


The best of all (IMHO) is Apollo XIV...

Hammer & Swiss Army knife - did MacGyver build it?

Err, 500 metres is the size of that scale band on the photo. The final orbit of LRO will be about 31 miles which probably closer to the height at which the photo was taken.

Cool photo, though it looks to be from quite a bit higher than 500 meters. From a quick scan of the NASA site it appears that the LRO may be orbiting at an altitude of 50 KM (about 31 miles).

"You must have meant 'from 500 KILOmeters up'"

Whoops, the "500 Meters" on the picure is a scale bar, not a distance from the camera to the subject. My bad. Fixed now.


Great lunar shots. However, the shots are taken from an orbit of 50km, not 500m. It is planned that it will be there for a year.

Hi Mike,
Re video, you might want to check this out,it's pretty cool stills video and good commentary on how it was put together.I love this your site!!!

Sorry Mike forgot the link= robertbenson.com/blog

That putative landing module is about 10 by 35 pixels. Looks easy to p'shop to me and pretty close in structure to those rocks to it's left. Doesn't change my mind.

"Doesn't change my mind."

Er.... (Should I ask?) Doesn't change your mind about WHAT?


The hero is cute, but a kit for mounting one of those fancy new 720p-shooting, 24mm-lens-having pocket cams would be much more useful.


Great helmetcam. Not sure if it will be up for the job though!

Gee, I thought I did know what Apollo photos "really" looked like.

Ctein, I have the smaller sized Jonathon Cape of London version of Full Moon by Michael Light which I found at, of all places, a clearance bookstore at an outlet mall. It's a captivatingly presented collection of photos not commonly included in Apollo retrospectives.

It's important to note the Apollo astronauts received extensive training for all of their tasks including the use of their cameras. They were all highly educated in the fields of science and engineering so the mastery of their camera gear, lens stops, shutter speeds, etc. would have been assumed. Considering the context, their photographs would serve first as documentation of their work and secondly as art. And yet, art the photographs are.

"It's the tiny whitish speck in the middle of the picture casting the long, skinny, non-crater-like shadow."

...why does the shadow appear to be cast to the right, while all of the mountains and humps appear to cast a shadow to the left?

"...why does the shadow appear to be cast to the right, while all of the mountains and humps appear to cast a shadow to the left?"

I'll answer my own question, if you like. Are all those things that look like humps actually craters? I can persuade my brain of this, buy my eyes refuse to believe me...

Ctein, I thought the reason for the lousy Moon pictures was to hide the cables suspending the Earth model and other prop stands in the studio where the landings were faked.


Ctein: I can second that recommendation for Orbit; but thank you so much for the detailed explaination on the effort that was made to bring this book to the public.

I think I have first edition hardcover of Orbit when I was in high school as my parents bought it for me through a subscription to National Geographic (since I was still the age where a job description of "astronaut" was something you would tell people with a straight face).

Your post brought back a lot of fond memories ... and dreams unfulfilled.


Just noting that the basic HERO package you linked to does include the waterproof/shockproof housing. The mounting kits are bought separately, or as part of camera/mount bundles. All inexpensive.

Somewhat off-topic, but this photo is worth seeing


Taken by a friend of my son. He said he was taking a picture of the rainbow, and the lightning struck at that exact moment.

The featured comment talking about a master vault caught my attention. Maybe that was true on the Apollo 11 mission. I covered Apollos 14, 15, and 16. I think it was 16 where I wondered into a house on NASA property that was some sort of collection center for Hassleblad film from the lunar missions. The film in there at the time 16 was aloft must have been from 15 or earlier. There was no one there. It was lunch. I wondered around until on the second floor I found a roll of developed negatives. It had been in a large magazine on the camera so there were lots of shots. From frame one I realized I was holding, carefully, actual film that had been near the moon. It was all taken from lunar orbit, so maybe it was even earlier than 11, like 8 or something. Since it was the moon, the shots were pretty much all the same: crater negatives (black and white). But I examined one and then another until the film nearly reached the floor. A darkroom proficient amateur, I knew I couldn't let them touch, so I rolled them back up and left.

Why people insist on perpetuating this myth that we actually landed on the moon is beyond me. What's next, Mike, a story about claims by some fringe group of scientists that the earth is really round? :)

Too many cameras, not enough doggies, apparently.

Mike sorry about the late reply. My rather vaguely implied implication was that the image does not change my mind that 'we' went there ie 'we' did not and that 300+ pixels could be easily photoshopped to look like a manmade object.

Well forget it... it fell flat like the earth....

The comments to this entry are closed.