Topic: Apollo 11 MCC-H films (Apollo Flight Journal)
Paul78zephyr Member
Posts: 678 From: Hudson, MA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 08-02-2016 10:03 AM
Why are the videos of the Mission Control Center during the Apollo 11 landing in little 30 to 60 second snippets? Why are there so many "camera breaks"?
Wasn't there continuous filming of the MCC during this historic mission?
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1488 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 08-02-2016 04:34 PM
Hand held film cameras hold less than 10 minutes of film.
Paul78zephyr Member
Posts: 678 From: Hudson, MA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 08-03-2016 09:36 PM
So wouldn't there be a bunch of 10 minute (or so) films that NASA took in the MCC during this historic mission? Where are they? Wouldn't they have thought about doing this for posterity?
The landing was filmed from inside the LM which used about 12-14 minutes of film. They didn't have that capability on earth?
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1488 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 08-04-2016 09:46 AM
There were basic limitations using film that applied back then. They took shots of scenes, just like the news. The cameramen were moving around to get the shots and would stop shooting during moves or during repetitious scenes to save film. It also took a lot of time to change film. The mentality was different then with film usage. It wasn't like today with basically unlimited image storage.
The LM was for engineering documentation and was fixed. MCC was for PR and needed to multiple shots of different people and views. There could be only a few camera men in the MCC at that time.
Also, remote cameras were not a common thing then either.
David C Member
Posts: 1039 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
posted 08-04-2016 11:46 AM
quote:Originally posted by Paul78zephyr: The landing was filmed from inside the LM which used about 12-14 minutes of film. They didn't have that capability on earth?
I believe the full landing film covers about 16 minutes and was filmed at 6 frames per second, which allowed the limited film to cover the long real time period. The static EVA filming from the LM window was done at 1 frame per second stretching the period out to over an hour. Those slower rates would not have been much use in MCC.
One Big Monkey Member
Posts: 171 From: West Yorkshire, UK Registered: Jul 2012
posted 08-04-2016 02:45 PM
The clips at the AFJ (if I have got things right) are actually from silent films and have had the audio dubbed on later by the AFJ.
You can find more of these by searching for 'Apollo 11 facts project'.
If you are filming things of interest to put together as a documentary later, you don't have long shots of the same thing - you need short clips you can cut between. That's what you see here.
wdw Member
Posts: 58 From: Scotland Registered: May 2007
posted 08-04-2016 05:19 PM
As the producer of the AFJ landing films, I can shed some light.
The magazines that were carried on Apollo 11 had a running time of typically about four minutes based on 24 frames per second. Since an Apollo lunar descent took about 12 minutes, Apollo 11 shot its descent at six frames per second. However, for the early part of the descent, they flew with their windows looking down at the lunar surface to allow Armstrong to time his trajectory.
For the later flights which spent the first nine minutes of the descent looking into space, they only needed to film the last three minutes. This covered the approach phase and the touchdown. They shot this at 12 frames per second. All the MCC footage was shot at 24 frames per second but they could carry larger magazines.
Paul78zephyr Member
Posts: 678 From: Hudson, MA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 08-05-2016 07:43 PM
David, thank you for your input. But my questions are more about filming in the MCC than in the LM. It would seem to me that for an agency that needed to think of everything to get men to the moon and back, someone would have thought about filming the historic event as it happened in the MCC here on Earth.
Clearly there are "little snippets" but where is the whole thing? NASA archives or where? I cannot believe it doesn't exist. I cannot believe the snippets are just what was recovered from some unofficial or unplanned or impromptu filming with a little brownie film camera or something.
wdw Member
Posts: 58 From: Scotland Registered: May 2007
posted 08-08-2016 08:51 AM
I think Jim Behling answered the initial question succinctly. I was addressing subsequent questions that assumed the landing films were 12-14 minutes.
I work in broadcasting and can remember the technology of the time. Film was expensive and magazines were short. The role of the MCC cameramen was not to record the whole of the event. As Jim says, they were there to get good shots on behalf of the media. They would set up a shot, make sure it's focused, then press the shoot button. Indeed, the sign of a good camera operator is one who doesn't present garbage to the picture editor. In any case, the real action was 400,000km away. It's a modern perspective that places more historical significance on the MCC.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1488 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 08-08-2016 09:32 AM
quote:Originally posted by Paul78zephyr: I cannot believe it doesn't exist.
Believe it, it doesn't exist (100% overage). That is the "whole"thing (a bunch of snippets). It was technically infeasible to document the whole event 100%. It would have taken many large cameras and many people to support those cameras. It would have been too much interference with the work at hand. The cameras that were used weren't like "brownies" but what was state of the art back then for handheld motion picture cameras.
100% film documentation was not done in the 1960s. Look at all the film of the crew preps for launch. It is not 100%. You won't find a film covering the whole rollout of the vehicle to the pad.
100% video documentation is just a camcorder/cell phone era mindset.
And the MCC activities were boring for the most of the time.
Paul78zephyr Member
Posts: 678 From: Hudson, MA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 08-14-2016 08:41 PM
David and Jim, I thank you for and appreciate your answers. I still feel that no one is getting a the core of my question which really concerns the historic portion of the landing covering a time of perhaps 15 to 20 minutes during the final phase from about PDI to landing (which is what I am calling "the whole thing"). Filming the key figures in the MCC for this amount of time during this historic event should have been well within the technical and logistical capabilities of the day.
By the way, I'm nearly 60 and don't have now, nor would I have had then, expectations of a "camcorder/cell phone era mindset." I think 20 minutes of filming of the MCC during perhaps NASA's pinnacle event for a long time to come would not have been not unreasonable.
schnappsicle Member
Posts: 396 From: Houston, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2012
posted 08-15-2016 07:25 AM
I know I didn't ask the question, but after reading it several times and reading the responses, I believe the question that was asked was answered quite well and in full detail by all who responded. If you feel like you're not getting your question answered, you might try rephrasing your question.
I for one am not concerned with getting the full monty in the control room. I appreciate the fact that someone had enough foresight to get Duke calling out the "Go for PDI" and "Go for landing" calls. I especially enjoy seeing his reaction when he tries to reply to Armstrong's "The Eagle has landed" comment.
The best answer I can give you is would you want someone with a large camera filming you while you drove to the store or to work? Granted it's not the same thing, but very close to it.
Yes, it was an historic event, but as others have pointed out far better than I could, the real story was happening 240,000 miles away. I think the biggest factor in keeping the MCC filming to a minimum was the fact that 3 lives were at stake. There was no room for even the slightest error on the part of anyone at Mission Control. The slightest distraction in Mission Control could have been fatal to the astronauts trying to land. Imagine what would have happened if Jack Garman or Steve Bales had looked up from their consoles for even a second during the landing. Had they not responded to the 1202 and 1201 alarms with speed and efficiency, we might still be trying to make the first manned lunar landing. Yes, they could have practiced with cameras during the simulations, and they probably did, but it's not the same as the real thing. If you don't believe me, just ask Charlie Duke.
To get the entire event filmed from beginning to end would have required rather large film cameras, which would have been hard not to notice by those trying to read data and make decisions that day. Smaller cameras would have been even worse because the camera operators would have had to change cameras so often. If I'm not mistaken, the cameras used did not record sound. The sound you hear (at least the sounds I hear) is coming from the air to ground audio and is synched to the film.
I for one would love to actually see and hear Gene Kranz's speech after the MCC doors were locked just prior to landing. But I'm happy with the little we do have. The camera operators seem to have captured all the right moments in all the right places.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1488 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 08-15-2016 08:27 AM
quote:Originally posted by Paul78zephyr: I think 20 minutes of filming of the MCC during perhaps NASA's pinnacle event for a long time to come would not have been not unreasonable.
Again, it wasn't "within the technical and logistical capabilities of the day" and it is "unreasonable."
David C Member
Posts: 1039 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
posted 08-15-2016 08:44 AM
quote:Originally posted by Paul78zephyr: I think 20 minutes of filming of the MCC during perhaps NASA's pinnacle event for a long time to come would not have been not unreasonable.
I'll just say one last thing on this which is about perspective not technology. NASA were filming their "pinnacle event", the descent and landing - from Buzz's window aboard the Eagle. A desire to see the entire thing in MCC — a room full of men sitting in front of rows of consoles (possibly a contender for "most boring sight of 1969" for most members of the public), is probably more of a specialist hindsight thing. Hard to see any engineering or news value in it, and the actual history was being made a quarter of a million miles away.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3160 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 08-15-2016 08:56 AM
Bearing in mind that NASA did not consider it necessary to include a requirement in the flight plan to document the first man on the Moon with Hasselblad images, it does not surprise me that the film coverage inside Mission Control during the landing was not more complete. Furthermore, as others have indicated, the last thing Kranz, Duke, Bales and others needed was a lens poking into their faces or peering over their shoulders throughout the intense period of the powered descent.
We know that the landing succeeded, and a full film record would be very welcome (along with close-up portrait-shots of Armstrong on the surface!) but if "Eagle" had crashed, the MCC team might all have gone to their graves wondering whether too much concentration on documenting the event caused just enough loss of concentration to "tip the balance" and contribute to a landing failure. Fortunately, this is something we don't need to agonize over.
One further point: it is a pity that the cameraman who was filming Charlie Duke as Eagle touched down did not keep filming to capture "The Eagle has landed" and "a bunch of guys about to turn blue" but perhaps he allowed himself a few moments to celebrate the achievement. Has anyone ever traced him to ask him?
Paul78zephyr Member
Posts: 678 From: Hudson, MA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 08-15-2016 08:41 PM
quote:Originally posted by Blackarrow: We know that the landing succeeded, and a full film record would be very welcome...
But we don't have it and that is a shame.
Apollo was a triumph of many efforts not just of those 240,000 miles away and I don't think guys like Kranz, Duke, etc. would have been distracted or phased one bit by a few cameras. They knew the whole world was watching them in every sense of the word anyways. Please don't make them out to be made of paper and crumple because there is a camera nearby filming for posterity.
NASA was and is in the posterity business. Kranz's reaction when they land on the moon is an important visual part of the story — to bad we don't have it. As is his trying to comfort others in the MCC after Challenger 17 years later — which we do have.
Jay Greene's and Dick Covey's on camera re-actions as Challenger disintegrated are part of that human story. Ellen Ochoa's and Leroy Cain's reactions as they struggle to comprehend that the Columbia is lost is part of the human story. Cain knew he was being filmed and yes you can see the stress in his face but anyone can see he is in control of the situation as a professional.
A story that human space flight can be hugely successful or tragically deadly needs to be seen. Triumph or tragedy the MCC is a major part of the human story of human spaceflight and should have a visual record.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3160 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 08-15-2016 08:50 PM
Perhaps Sy Liebergot could comment on whether the flight controllers would have welcomed full camera coverage in Mission Control of the Apollo 11 landing, or whether they would have preferred no distractions.
schnappsicle Member
Posts: 396 From: Houston, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2012
posted 08-16-2016 07:40 AM
I would love to hear his opinion, but I'm not sure it's relevant to this topic. Sy was only one controller. Even if he says he would have been okay with the cameras, who's to say what would have happened differently had the larger cameras been there?
All it would have taken was just one controller to look up for just a moment while the temperature in the oxygen tank quickly rose to catastrophic levels and caused a big bang, or an RCS thruster got stuck and put the LM in a spin. What matters here is the time lost between being distracted and finding that relevant piece of information on a bank of monitors could have been fatal to the astronauts in an emergency situation. Remember, Apollo 10 was less than a second away from sending the first men to the lunar surface after the descent stage separated. Things happen fast in space, much faster than they do here on earth.
I think instead of asking Sy, you might want to ask Gene Kranz why it wasn't done. He's the only person who can give you a full and complete explanation. All we can do is speculate and try put ourselves in their situation.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1488 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 08-16-2016 08:18 AM
quote:Originally posted by Paul78zephyr: NASA was and is in the posterity business. Kranz's reaction when they land on the moon is an important visual part of the story — to bad we don't have it. As is his trying to comfort others in the MCC after Challenger 17 years later — which we do have.
No, you are dead wrong and you can't compare Apollo to Shuttle era.
Again, to capture all the moments and personnel during Apollo would have required the large movie studio type cameras and many handhelds. These would be a huge interference with the operations. You want cameras on FD, Capcom, the trench, mission director, flight crew office chief, context room shots, etc? Where do you draw the line?
And, no they didn't know the "world" was watching because the few and smaller cameras were not intrusive.
Shuttle was able to use video documentation. Tapes lasted longer or they could use cables to send the video to a recorder room. Video cameras were smaller. And there still wasn't 100% continuous coverage.
Also, where is your complaint about Mercury coverage? First free man in space or orbit.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3160 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 08-16-2016 05:46 PM
quote:Originally posted by Jim Behling: ....you can't compare Apollo to Shuttle era.
Too right! Tragically, we all now inhabit a world of agonized hand-wringing and desperate fear of saying or doing anything which might offend someone somewhere, a world in which risk-taking is unacceptable and everyone in authority has to wear a silly high-visibility plastic jacket. Is it any wonder NASA hasn't returned to the Moon or reached Mars yet?
Buel Member
Posts: 653 From: UK Registered: Mar 2012
posted 08-18-2016 07:16 AM
I don't know if this is of any interest but I asked Apollo Public Affairs Officer Doug Ward for his opinion on this issue and he replied with this:
I am not sure what is meant by "full video coverage", but I suspect the discussion refers to the kind of coverage a TV documentary producer would generate. NASA provided extensive still photo and 16 mm film coverage of all high activity periods in MCC.
The 16 mm photography became part of an archive known as the NASA stock film library, which totaled more than 6 million feet of film at the time I retired in 1999. This library was, and I presume still is, a vital resource for film and video producers world-wide.
Real time video coverage is another matter. In my opinion there is no way NASA managers would even have considered allowing the distraction of an outside video crew on the floor of the MOCR during a mission. NASA Headquarters tightly controlled and limited the one unmanned network camera that was positioned by the Public Affairs console in the left rear corner of the MOCR. It was set to provide a wide angle view of the room and the view could be changed (at the request of the network pool) only by the contractor assistant to the public affairs mission commentator. Before we could change the camera view (usually to a view of the capcom or flight director) we had to secure the approval of the senior headquarters public affairs official at his position in the VIP viewing room behind the MOCR.
A major factor that hampered video and film documentation in the control room was the very low light levels maintained so flight controllers could see the front displays and their console video monitors. The light level in the trench was only about 3 foot candles — a real challenge for both film and video documentation.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1488 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 08-18-2016 07:53 AM
quote:Originally posted by Blackarrow: Tragically, we all now inhabit a world of agonized hand-wringing and desperate fear of saying or doing anything which might offend someone somewhere...
That has nothing to do with the matter. The two eras were referenced for comparison of advancement in video technology.
Furthermore, it has nothing to do with why NASA hasn't returned to the Moon or reached Mars. The simple answer for that is that the U.S. government has no real need to go to either.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3160 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 08-19-2016 07:40 AM
Lighten up. We basically agree on the issue which was raised (and which has, I think, been adequately discussed). I went off at a tangent (with tongue slightly in cheek) but I don't think the lack of a return to the Moon is as simply explained as "no real need to go." This a multi-faceted issue, with budget issues high up the list. But our depressingly risk-averse society (which exists on both sides of the Atlantic) is certainly an issue.
schnappsicle Member
Posts: 396 From: Houston, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2012
posted 08-23-2016 07:35 AM
After all this discussion, I saw a photo on the Farthest Reaches site that clearly shows a TV camera basically in the doorway of the MCC. Gerry Griffin is almost pointing at it with his finger. The camera is unmanned, probably sending the feed to another room or building. Those who see this as proof that they could have filmed inside the MCC during the Apollo 11 landing are forgetting one important point, this was taken during a non-critical phase of the mission.
What surprises me most about this photo is just how relatively small the camera is. I remember them being much larger back in the day. Perhaps I'm thinking of studio cameras and not the more portable remote TV cameras. Also, there is a cable attached to the camera. I can't imagine 5 or 6 such cameras in Mission Control during any phase of the mission, much less a critical launch or landing.
The cameras we have today are barely noticeable. I'm sure we'll get plenty of good video inside of Mission Control the next time we send people to the moon.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1488 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 08-23-2016 08:12 AM
quote:Originally posted by schnappsicle: What surprises me most about this photo is just how relatively small the camera is.
This was two years after the first landing. Electronic technology was changing at a fast rate at that time.
posted 08-02-2016 10:03 AM
advertisement