Apollo stage cameras use film??

[palioxis1248]

From what I've seen of Apollo footage, the launch sequence footage (staging, release of interstage adapters) seems to be recorded on film. My question is, since these stages were either pulverised by the Atlantic Ocean, incinerated by the atmosphere or left drifting in space, how the heck did NASA recover the film rolls? Or did they use film at all??

[lajoswinkler]

Why would they be pulverized or incinerated? They just fell down and were retrieved. They obviously had a beacon.

[VirtualCLD]

Are you sure they weren't broadcast to NASA receivers and then recorded onto film? They couldn't have sent it electronically using a traditional analog wireless video (such as analog NTSC TV or maybe slowscan if it was still images).

[palioxis1248]

I dunno, computer stuff isn't exactly my thing. So is that^ what they did?

Also, how do you record something on film w/o a camera? (sorry if this is a really stupid question)

[palioxis1248]

Why would they be pulverized or incinerated? They just fell down and were retrieved. They obviously had a beacon.

1st stage smashed into the ocean at ~Mach 1. Not survivable, methinks.

2nd stage probably burned up in the atmosphere, since it was going 6.8kps at engine burnout. Whatever pieces survived probably didn't have parachutes, and impacted the ground/sea at ~Mach 1.

3rd stage was generally intentionally crashed into the Moon to obtain seismometer readings.

So yeah. None of the stages really gently splashed down. You must have been thinking of the SRBs from the Shuttle.

[Z-Man]

While I don't know the answer, early spy satellites predating Apollo used film for their images and that was returned with small reentry capsules with an appropriately dimensioned heat shield and parachute. I'd imagine a similar setup was used here.

[Moar Boosters]

The cameras were stored in pods which separated and came down independently.

In the final seconds of this video you can see the camera coming off.

Here are the specs for the unit.

http://agentdc.uah.edu/homepages/dcfiles/UAHDC/satIBinfphoinssyssec2_110707095304.pdf

[Jenteb07]

Maybe this provides the answer:

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/001228.html

[Dkmdlb]

The camera capsules were jettisoned and fell back to earth with parachutes where they were retrieved. I can get a link for this later today.

[Nibb31]

The camera pods detached from the stages and parachuted down. They had a beacon that allowed them to be located and retrieved in the ocean.

In those days, video transmission quality was insufficient for this sort of application and it was routine business for the navy to go out and pick up film capsules from spy satellites.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Nibb31

[mrfox]

Documentaries often use footage of a Saturn V launch, and one of the most used pieces shows the interstage between the first and second stages falling away. This footage is usually mistakenly attributed to the Apollo 11 mission, when it was actually filmed on the flights of Apollo 4 and Apollo 6.[13] A compilation of original NASA footage shows the jettisoning of the first stage (S-IC) and the interstage, filmed from the bottom of the second stage (S-II), both from Apollo 4.[14] This is followed by footage of the separation of an S-IVB second stage from the first stage of a Saturn IB. The glow seen on the jettisoned stages is due to the hot, invisible hydrogen-oxygen flames of the J-2 engines used by the S-II and S-IVB.[13] The footage also shows the more conspicuous plumes of the solid ullage motors as they pull the stages apart before the main engines are fired.

The cameras ran at four-times normal speed to show the events in slow motion.[14] The camera capsules were jettisoned soon after the first stage separation and though at about 200,000 feet (61*km) in altitude, were well below orbital velocity.[13] They then reentered the atmosphere and parachuted to the ocean where they floated waiting for recovery. Both S-II cameras from Apollo 4 were recovered so that there is footage from both sides of the vehicle.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_4#Saturn_V_cameras

[Nibb31]

Note that these films weren't just for PR. The staging events between the S-IC and the S-II were pretty complex and it was essential that everything worked fine.

For example, if the interstage had stayed attached to the S-II, the mass penalty would have prevented the rocket from reaching orbit and the mission would be lost.

[rdfox]

Yeah, just about every one of those slow-motion cameras that were (and still are!) used to pick out details of rocket launches and flights aren't there for PR value; they're there to record important processes for engineering analysis after the flight. The engineers can pick a *lot* of valuable information on how the systems performed from those films, which is why, for example, the Mobile Launchers and LC39 launch pads themselves were just *covered* in high-speed 16mm and 35mm motion picture cameras that started at about T-9 seconds, when the ignition command was sent to the booster, and filming the entire ignition and launch sequence, including a rarely-seen but truly awe-inspiring shot *up the throat of the Saturn V's engines* from *inside* the flame trench. (Shuttle didn't have that angle because the SSMEs were above the top level of the Mobile Launch Platform and thus could have their startup behavior recorded from the sides, but with the Saturn V's engines sticking down below the platform top, the only place to film their startup behavior was from below.) The S-II didn't just carry staging cameras for the S-IC jettison on SA-501 and SA-502 (Apollo 4 and 6), it also carried staging cameras for S-II jettison on those flights, looking *up* to show how well it separated from the S-IVB. Since the S-IVB did the "heavy lifting" in terms of getting the spacecraft up to orbital velocity (the S-IC was basically for initial loft, to get out of the atmosphere, and the S-II was more for the gravity turn and starting to push apogee around the planet), the S-II Jettison staging cameras didn't need any sort of retrofire engine to deorbit, though their thermal protection system had to be much more robust than that on the S-IC Jettison cameras due to the higher speed and altitude when they were ejected.

(For the record, the pad- and Mobile Launcher-mounted cameras were, to survive the environment they were going to be in, mounted in heavily shock-, blast-, and vibration-insulated boxes, with the pad- and deck-mounted cameras buried inside the structure for further protection, while the tower-mounted ones were well back, ideally on the tower itself rather than a swingarm, and used the then-brand new technology of fiber optics to transmit light from the half-inch thick quartz lenses to the actual camera.)

[palioxis1248]

Thank you good sirs (and ma'ams, don't kill me!)! Wish there was a way to give you all rep at one go!