Talk:Apollo TV camera

lost text
The article needs some details on the camera used the camera used on Apollo 7, Apollo 11 LM, and perhaps other missions. I don't know enough about it, but it was black and white, 10 frames per second, Slow-Scan TV, low resolution. Bubba73 (talk), 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Scratch that - someone had deleted it. I added it back.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand your question... all the information is already on the article (camera models, specs and usage). Ricnun 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time, some of the text about the first camera had been taken out. I went back to an earlier version and recovered the lost text.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RCA got the contract for the TV camera after NASA cancelled the original TV contract with NAA in 1962 as it was deemed to be slowing the CSM development. As RCA was already a prime contracter it somewhat fell into their lap, although several other companies' proposals were also examined. Dstevenb (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apollo 12
Two things about Apollo 12:
 * 1) the article says that the TV worked for a "few moments".  I saw this live at the time, and I remember it being quite a few minutes, perhaps 10 to 30.  Does anyone know how long the TV worked before being fried?  (I don't have the DVD.)
 * 2) Sometime after the problem occurred, Mission Control told them to cut the cable and bring the camera back.  Years later I heard that perhaps the camera could have been salvaged, but of course that was too late after the cable was cut.  Does anyone have any info about that? Bubba73 (talk), 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the Lunar Surface Journal and by checking out Apollo 12's video section, I believe that the camera functioned for about 42 minutes 29 seconds before the tube fried.
 * I have not heard that claim before. Are you sure it was no referring to the Surveyor 3 camera?Andy120290 00:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is what I seem to remember - that they later thought that the Apollo 12 TV camera might have been salvaged if they had not cut the cable. But that is based on my memory, which has proven faulty from time to time.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After a bit more searching around, I have found that they did indeed returned their TV camera. It was cut from the cable at the beginnning of the second EVA. I have not found anything yet about it being salvageable, but even if it were, they probably did not know it at the time and/or there was probably nothing they could do about it. Andy120290 02:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - to see if they can get their money back on the thing! :-) Thanks, do you want to add the "42 minutes" to the article, or shall I? Bubba73 (talk), 02:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon observation of the video feed there are discernable images as Conrad approaches the camera. There was a wire that controlled the automatic level control which upon having the tube burned, activated on the false diagnosis that the scene was too bright. This then, darkened the video. The wire would have to have been cut in order to have the usable picture come through normally. I guess that had it have been possible, the engineers at the MSC television centre could have programmed a zoom into the usuable frame. The returned camera was tested and found to be functional, and the camera for A13 and A14 had a switch which could bypass the ALC circuitry should the tube be burned again. Dstevenb (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apollo 7
Wasn't the B&W Westinghouse camera used on Apollo 7 too? Bubba73 (talk), 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this ( http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat7.pdf ) document, the black & white camera flown on Apollo 7 was provided by RCA. Andy120290 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I fixed it. Bubba73 (talk), 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The black and white TV camera from RCA was used on Apollo 7 & 8, and there is internal-memo, photographic and video evidence of it being planned for AS-204 (Apollo 1). I recall reading somewhere that it was carried as a backup on one other later mission, but I will need to check that. Dstevenb (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the slow-scan B&Ws was carried as a backup later, but not used. I forgot if it was the RCA or Westinghouse, but it is in one of the external references.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Westinghouse lunar camera was carried on Apollo 14 as a backup (it was also packaged on Apollo 13). IIRC it was also a backup in case the GCTA camera failed. Dstevenb (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all of your useful information. Bubba73 (talk), 01:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed
The contributors Oleg1000, ан_пердат, et al. are confused about parameters of the Apollo TV cameras in situ, NTSC TV standard, signal bandwidths and the video processing at the Earth.

It appears they consider the Apollo TV camera, transmitter-receiver and post processing as a single unit or entity. This implication and the context thus contradicts NASA sources or credible researchers.

Meanwhile, the article should be rolled back to [|Revision as of 20:23, 30 April 2010], and then it will be inline with the comprehensive research on the subject from Dwight Steven-Boniecki: http://www.livetvfromthemoon.com/The_Cameras.html

Read also: http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/ and http://www.hawestv.com/moon_cam/moonctel.htm

-- Lunar Goblin 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)



Read more in the original NASA documents:

Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television Camera

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11TVManual.pdf

33-rd page "4 Hz to 500kHz"

34-th page "The 10 fps mode has 320 scan lines per frame while the slower mode has 1280 lines per frame"

34-th page "650 lines per picture width"

36-th page "A set of four interchangeable lenses" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg1000 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

'''Westinghouse Lunar Color Camera

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/WEC-ColorTV-Manual.pdf

18-th page "The iris limit are F/4 to F/44"

18-th page "The zoom range is from 25 to 150 mm (6 to 1 ratio)"

41-th page "in the standard field rate of 59.95 hertz"

61-th page "divides them by 525 to produce an output of 59.94Hz"

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Niemyer-Paper.pdf

4-th page "The bandpass of the camera is 4.5 megahertz"

4-th page "350 TV lines/vertical dimension"

4-th page "The system limiting horizontal resolution is set by the bandpass of the CM transmitter and is less then 2 megahertz"

6-th page "frequency of 59.94 hertz"

RCA J-Series Ground-Commanded Television Assembly (GCTA)

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/GCTA-Manual.pdf

18-th page "Zoom - Lens focal length can be controlled over a 12.5 mm to 75 mm range"

18-th page ''"Iris - Lens opening is controlled over a f/2.2 to f/22 range"

28-th page "resolution of 600 TV lines."

41-th page "The CTV camera scan format is in accordance with Figure 1-20, taken from secion 73 of the FCCS for Color Television Operation"

43-th page "Table 1-5 CTV Scan Rates and tolerances"

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/GCTA-Final-Report.pdf

7-th page "The Color Television Camera (CTV) uses basic monochrome techniques to produce high-quality, field-sequential color television at standard (NTSC) line and frame rates"

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat7.pdf

25-th page "The Apollo Slow Scan Lunar Camera was never used again after Apollo 11. However, the cameras were carried on Apollo 13, 14, 15 and 16"

27-th page "The Westinghouse color camera video signal ran out to nearly 3 MHz"

37-th page "5 MHz video bandwidth"

41-th page "All three Apollo J-series missions (15, 16 and 17) conducted CSM EVA's on the way back to Earth ... The Westinghouse field-sequential color camera was mounted"



Oleg1000 (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Oleg1000

As a moon hoax believer, you have not addressed any of your misconceptions; vague handwaving is not sufficient. The baseline of the article is Dwight Steven-Boniecki book who is an accepted expert in the field and moon hoax debunker. --Lunar Goblin 10:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)



Lunar Goblin uses only one source



Oleg1000 (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Oleg1000

^^

This assumption is wrong and irrelevant, simply because I have not introduced any changes to the stable version [|Revision as of 20:23, 30 April 2010] that you attempt to vandalize.

--Lunar Goblin 12:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
If you want to dispute the content, find the consensus with editors and Dwight Steven-Boniecki who is the content contributor of verified version. --Lunar Goblin 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunar Goblin (talk • contribs) See the June 2011 entry for my decision to remove the "Disputed" banner.
 * 1) warning
 * Oleg1000 et al. moon hoax believers - vandalism
 * 1) warning
 * Lunar Goblin systematically distorts real facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg1000 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This assumption is wrong and irrelevant, simply because I have not introduced any changes to the stable version [|Revision as of 20:23, 30 April 2010] that you attempt to vandalize.
 * block

November 2010
For additional verification of the Apollo TV camera specs, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers journal articles listed detail for the cameras. SMPTE is completely independant from NASA. It is an organisation for engineers within the film and television industry and is responsible for setting television standards:

"Television Camera System for the Command Module of the Apollo Spacecraft" SMPTE Feb 1965 Vol. 74 John Lowrance

"The Television Camera System Used in Apollo 7 and 8 Command Modules" SMPTE vol. 79 no. 1 Max H. Messner

"Apollo Television Cameras" vol. 79 Oct 1970 SMPTE Journal L.L. Niemeyer, jr and E.L. Svensson

"Apollo 15 and 16 Ground-Commanded Television Assembly vol 81 Dec 1972 SMPTE Bert M. Soltoff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstevenb (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

March 2011
Is it possible to remove the caption that states this wiki page is under dispute? Those who doubt the camera specs do not refer to any documents which backed their allegations. They have a clear misunderstanding of the specs of the TV cameras used on Apollo, and have mounted an internet campaign at various space (bad Astronomy / Universe Today, Pravda Discussion board, Apollohoax.net) websites to discredit Apollo. It is my strong opinion that their dispute is not based on any solid facts, but rather conjecture and misunderstanding on their part. Dstevenb (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
I have modified the specs on the Apollo 12 lunar surface camera as it was not a vidicon tube as previously described, but rather an SEC (Secondary Electron Conduction) tube. I also added the note that later TV cameras had burn-proof technology which would prevent further such accidents from rendering the TV camera useless. Dstevenb (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I have removed the disputed facts banner after 3 months from suggesting it be removed. There were no objections so it is gone. The facts were always correct here (excepting the minor vidicon/SEC mixup). Resolution, frame rate and color specs were always exactly as cited in NASA documentation and can be physically examined in returned flight models and test models (for example the ASTP camera at Tidbinbilla DSN Tracking Station). Dstevenb (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Video Signal Processing section very poorly explained, and has technical errors.
If you read the document cited, and understand the NTSC TV system, you will see that the explanation in this section is technically wrong, and not an accurate representation of the cited source in that section.

Here is the documented cited with citation 8 in that section: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat7.pdf

The section in wikipedia seems to ignore the fact that NTSC is 30 (actually 29.97) frames interlaced at 60 Hz, giving 60 actually 59.94) interlaced fields, not 30 interlaced fields.

These are important details for that section to make sense and be technically accurate.

The statement on the phosphor of the tv being a framebuffer is also wrong, while yes the TVs phosphor was a more persistent one to deal with the 10 progressive frames per second, the actual framebuffer component was done with the tape mentioned before along with delay circuitry to delay the frames longer to give the camera the chance to capture both fields.

All this is covered in the document cited in citation 8 of that section and linked above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeel co (talk • contribs) 07:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Similar wording in another article is discussed in the last section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_11_missing_tapes&oldid=785620400 I once considered simplifying and correcting both articles, but thought I might end up adding more errors and confusion.--63.226.236.137 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)