SURFACE MOON PHOTOS/HOURS ON MOON

[truthseeker]

Hi folks,

Does anyone know the correct statistics for the number of photos taken on the moon in total over all missions, and the total number of hours the astrounauts were on the surface.

Many thanks

[Jason Thompson]

Well, I can tell you that the LM's were on the surface for a total of 300hrs (to the nearest hour) with 110hrs of EVA over all six landings. (This does not count the stand-up EVAs, which didn't involve walking on the surface)

[truthseeker]

Thanks for that jason.

I will try and find the number of photos taken on the surface by the astronauts.

What im going to do is divide the number of pictures taken by the amount of hours on the surface and see if the result seems logical/reasonable given the time/quality of pictures.

Thank you

[truthseeker]

Seems like someone beaten me to it, regarding the photos taken on the moon.

www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

How accurate his data is, I cant be sure.

[LunarOrbit]

If it comes from Aulis you can safely assume it isn't accurate... but who knows, maybe they got something right for a change.

[frenat]

That's Jack White's work. He makes it seem impossible that that many pictures were taken but neglects that some were part of a panorama and some were taken in immediate succession. He seems to think every picture would need to be painstakingly famed and setup like a pro photographer but that just isn't true. Many shots were just a quick point and shoot.

[mid]

truthseeker said:

Hi folks,

Does anyone know the correct statistics for the number of photos taken on the moon in total over all missions, and the total number of hours the astrounauts were on the surface.

Many thanks

Sure:

There were 6514 Hasselblad photos exposed on the lunar surface in a total of 80 hours 34 minutes EVA time by Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.


About 1 photograph every 45 seconds the men were out.

Unusually enough, the Aulis figures are fairly close to reality. However, this number of photos is no major accomplishment, nor is it anywhere near impossible to take that many photos in the time alloted.. It only takes a matter of seconds to shoot a picture, and photographic documentation was a major piece of the Apollo task on the surface.

An astronaut could take between 15-20 photographs in a minute if he really moved it (and sometimes they did...given the quality of some of the shots taken!).

The attempt to say there was no time to take so many photos is a pretty shallow attempt to substantiate the hoax...

Oddly enough, the 11 crew actually was the most intense with the pictures. Armstrong and Aldrin, with only one Hasselblad, averaged 136 photos an hour on their EVA. Apollo 17 averaged 102 per hour with two cameras, in second place. Apollo 14 was the sluggish group. Those fellows took 44 photos an hour on their EVAs...probably because they spent so much time being lost while lugging that cart around with them!

[Obviousman]

This is being picky, and won't alter the figures much, but when you talk total images and total EVA time, are you making allowances for images taken from inside the LM (SEVA, etc) in the totals?

[mid]

obviousman said:

This is being picky, and won't alter the figures much, but when you talk total images and total EVA time, are you making allowances for images taken from inside the LM (SEVA, etc) in the totals?

The photos taken on the surface that I listed include those taken inside the LM on the surface. I made no allowance for the photos taken inside the LM.

That probably should be done, in reality, since there were considerable photos taken out of the windows while on the surface during some of the missions, as well as some interior shots of the crews (as in post-EVA and such).

All in all, it would make the photos taken OUT ON THE SURFACE less than the figure given, but it would still be a pretty large number anyway. Probably wouldn't make a huge difference.

Since the 6514 figure seems to be easily attainable, less surface photos would make it more so...

[Count Zero]

Panoramas took a lot of pictures in a short amount of time. About two minutes into this video (which takes a little while to load), we see John Young (on the right) start taking a 360 pan (shown here). The TV moves off of him when he's about 3/4s done, but we can see that it takes less than a minute to shoot a dozen or so frames.

Also, remember that an integral part of documenting rock & soil samples involved photographing the object/area undisturbed from two different angles (down-sun and cross-sun, iirc), and then photographing the area again after the sample had been taken. Thus Jack's argument that the astronauts spent X amount of time collecting samples (and doing other stuff) and thus did not have time to take all those pictures is garbage. The photography was included in the time allotted to the sample process.

This subject was discussed several months ago here.

[truthseeker]

Thanks folks,

All seems very reasonable, especially now ive seen bad quality photos from the missions.

All i had seen before was the super quality pictures. And the quality/time given the amount taken did seem a bit much.

But now ive seen lots of bad shots, im satisfied.

Cheers

[Count Zero]

I don't know if anyone has pointed you this way, yet, but this site is a handy reference for most (if not all) of the photographs taken on Apollo missions. The scan quality isn't great, but it is easy to use and comprehensive.

[BertL]

countzero said:

I don't know if anyone has pointed you this way, yet, but this site is a handy reference for most (if not all) of the photographs taken on Apollo missions. The scan quality isn't great, but it is easy to use and comprehensive.

For better quality scans, I generally use this website.

[james]

bertls said:

countzero said:

I don't know if anyone has pointed you this way, yet, but this site is a handy reference for most (if not all) of the photographs taken on Apollo missions. The scan quality isn't great, but it is easy to use and comprehensive.

For better quality scans, I generally use this website.

I agree that the apollo archive site has better quality images, but the one countzero posted is good if you want to find a certain image quickly, because if gives you thumbnails. And it's also great that it lists all the magazines and how many shots per magazine.

I too checked Sibrel's ppm(photos per minute) thing. He did indeed take in account for the photos taken on the surface durring the actual EVA and excluded the ones from within the LM.

But, like the rest of you, I disagree with his conclusion that it would be impossible to take that many photos. Being a photographer myself, it's defiantely not impossible.

[PhantomWolf]

Jack's "Time study" is a major crock in that he deducts an arbatory time from the missions for doing various things, then divides the rest by the number of photos, then claims that the photos had to be taken every X minutes for the entire mission hoping you've forgotten he took all that time off. What he actually shows is that even if his figures were right (they aren't) the Astronuats would have had plenty of time to point and shoot. I think the worst was Apollo 11 in which his claims boil down to that they would have had to have taken 30 secs to take each photo (he incorrently claims they had to take a photo every 30 secs.) Well I don't know about you, but I could take a pretty good staged phot in 30 secs, probably several.

He also misses the fact that other than 11, the missions all had 2 cameras, and even on 11 one could be taking photos while the other did set up experiments.The other major thing is that in the J-Missions he removes time for "driving the rover" while the photos clearly show entire rolls taken while the rover was mobile.

It's interesting that he didn't bother just going to the ALSJ where they tell you when every photo was taken. (Well I guess not as he claims that was faked too.)