posted 03-17-2006 08:31 PM               

Most can easily be dispelled by simply explaining how photographic material was treated upon returning to Earth, if not the general requirements for exposing film (especially in the cases of the "flown" 8x10s).

And of course, there are authentic examples that are offered periodically, mostly originating from Richard Underwood, NASA's Chief of Photography, who saved and clipped small pieces of flown leader film.

But can anyone more familiar with the topic share how (if at all) these eight transparencies can be flown and/or legal to own? Or is this a case of the provenance-providing inscription being misunderstood?

I have asked the seller to provide a scan of the mentioned newspaper article that provides more information, but in the meantime does anyone have any insights?

(The seller also has a piece of "flown" Apollo 11 16mm film that looks closer to the real deal, but again I am left questioning why or how the original exposed reel would be sliced apart [unlike the LB7 film strips, which were ruined by the ocean waters, every frame from Apollo 11 would be considered precious and a national treasure, correct? But maybe I am wrong...].)

Let me add that I do not mean to cast unwarranted doubts about this film should it be real, but rather learn how and why such examples are in private hands in an effort to adjust my (and everyone's) knowledge base about such things.

posted 03-17-2006 11:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Havekotte:
To my understanding, everything film-related belonged to NASA's photographic division, correct?

---

Based on what I have read, the original flown negatives were used to make a duplicate set and were then put into permanent cold storage at Johnson Space Center. Furthermore, the duplicate negatives were then moved into a vault also at JSC where they have not left since (both Al Reinart and Michael Light described working in the vault while producing their respective "For All Mankind" and "Full Moon" projects).

posted 03-17-2006 11:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go4Launch:
Isn't the problem here that the actual celluloid film used on the moon would have produced negative images once exposed, and that these are positives?

---

posted 03-18-2006 12:35 AM               

Flown film from Mercury flights was not treated with much respect. Remember, NASA didn't regard photography as a valuable resource, until Gemini. For example, film from John Glenn's flight is in poor condition. It's badly scratched and one frame is nearly torn in half. It's my opinion that the quality of the 70mm film used by Wally Schira on MA-8 probably got their attention. With the time between programs NASA's opinion changed and so did the way they handled flown film.

During Gemini, the flown film was duplicated and additional copies and prints were made from the duplicated film and not the flown film. Flown film was put into a cold vault after processing. During Gemini, some the duplicated film was hand numbered with what I believe was India Ink. The numbers correspond to the numbers in NASA's two books on Gemini photography. The duplicated 70mm color film is also not the same "type" of film as the flown film. Duplicating film has different characteristics.

As the duplicated film aged the flown film was taken from the vault, duplicated and returned. In the late 90's NASA transferred all Mercury and Gemini flown film to the National Archives where it sits in a cold vault. All of the flown 70mm color film from Gemini had been spliced to two reels containing 500 or 1000 feet of film (I don't recall which) when it was transferred to the Archives. There are no splices on the film reels other than those that were used to attach each roll of film. Anyone claiming to have flown Gemini film (other than that of Richard Underwood) should be considered as bogus. Flown Gemini film was just never "cut-up".

I have no doubt that the procedures used during Gemini would not have changed much during Apollo. Personally, I would not believe anyone claiming to have flown frames of film other than that which would be considered "leader". That does not mean that duplicated frames should not be purchased or have no or very low value as a space collectable.

The film in the auction now on ebay is not first generation flown film in my opinion. First and formost, I don't believe NASA would under any circumstances "cut up" individual frames of flown film. There are several things that stand out about the ebay "flown" film. The most obvious is the numbers on each frame. When you see this type of film being sold as flown you have to question it. Consider that when a 70mm magazine was loaded you obviously could not see the film frame numbers. Yet these frames and many others at auction always have the frame numbers perfectly centered. To do that mission after mission, magazine after magazine would be an impossible task. I believe the frame numbers were added during the duplicating process as 70mm film does not normally come from Kodak with frame numbers. Another tip off with regard to frame numbers, is there would be no way for Kodak to number film that is sold in 100" lengths and longer and was designed to be cut into a number of smaller lengths to fit the 70mm magazines. Flown film was special ordered from Kodak, and not off the shelf film, and carries the letters "SO" as part of the film code number.

posted 03-18-2006 06:06 AM               

As an aside, quite a number of years ago, Final Frontier magazine was selling individual frames of Apollo film, purportedly flown. When challenged, they admitted that "they thought these were probably first-generation copies" (they used to show up on occasion on the old Superior auctions).

posted 03-18-2006 06:15 AM               

The 70 mm catalogue lists four of the frames in order as 11596, 11597, 11598, and 11599.

posted 03-19-2006 01:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mensax:
So, are we to assume that if the Apollo 15 film is a copy, then the Apollo 11 is also?

---

Reinking's postcard reveals he was certainly in as good a position as anyone else to receive an Apollo 11 sample of the "leader" unused film.

The newspaper article (which I received yesterday) reveals little more detail about the film itself but does document that Reinking gifted these pieces to his good friend, for whom he twice served as Best Man.

posted 03-19-2006 10:57 PM               

I thought that the two frames of 70mm film, in the other auction with the LEM & Rover, looked familiar. I found the same two frames of film in my collection. So much for being flown. Mine are identical to those in the auction.