Slashdot Mirror


Apollo 11 TV Tapes Go Missing

Richard W.M. Jones writes "On July 21st 1969, Honeysuckle Creek observatory brought us the first TV pictures of men on the moon. The original signals were recorded on high quality slow-scan TV (SSTV) tapes. What was released to the TV networks was reduced to lower quality commercial TV standards. Unfortunately John Sarkissian of Parkes Observatory Australia reports that 698 of the 700 boxes of original tapes have gone missing [warning: large PDF] from the U.S. National Archives. Even more worryingly, the last place on earth which can actually read these tapes is scheduled to close in October this year. The PDF contains interesting comparisons which show that if all you've seen are the TV pictures from the landing, you really haven't seen the first moon walk in its full glory."

15 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. Um.... by viper21 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I knew I forgot to return those rental tapes.

    I wonder if I can talk them out of the late fees again.

    1. Re:Um.... by Megane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember... Be kind - Rewind!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Um.... by Xymor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Holy crap, They were labeled "Moonwalk" so I thought they were the michael jackson video or something and I taped the world cup games over them. My bad guys. Can't you set up the studio in the desert and tape them again?

  2. How convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Incontrovertible proof that the moon landing was faked is convenently "lost" by the national archives while Bush II talks about going "back" to the moon.

  3. So.... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the actual 'raw' proof that men were walking on the moon is gone. How convenient.

    1. Re:So.... by ubergenius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then... They're going to be... nuts-ier... We're talking, squirrels will be running in front of their moving cars by the millions just to get a taset of this particular level of nut.

      --
      Student Manager - Take control of your education!
  4. Re:Does it really matter by WilliamSChips · · Score: 5, Funny
    On the other hand, how do you loose almost 700 boxes?
    I don't know, but it's probably nothing like losing them.
    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  5. In other news by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nearly 700 copies of "A Star Wars Holiday Special" appeared in the trash around LucasFilm that had been taped over some old media George had obtained from NASA years ago.

  6. Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edition by identity0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do not worry, dear consumers! The tapes have not gone "missing". The studio that made the original landing footage simply took it back to their labs to Digitally Re-Master it for the Special Limited Collector's Edition DVD, which will be out by Christmas. Since the original director (Kubrik) is gone, they will have directors George Lucas and Steven Spielberg collaborate on this wonderful new addition to the Disney(TM) Classics(TM) Collection(TM).

    New, never-before scenes will be inserted into the middle of the old, staid footage!
    Tom Hanks will replace Neil Armstrong through the magic of digital effects!
    Kristie Alley will be Buzz Aldrin, adding an exciting new romantic subplot to the mission!
    A lovable animal sidekick will have your kids squealing in delight!
    Gagarin shoots first!

    Master directors Spielberg and Lucas will also modernize the plot and imagery to give a fresh, "post-2001" look!
    The American flag, such an archaic-looking symbol (that didn't test well with audiences overseas), will be replaced with a pleasant, pastel blue UN flag. The ugly SUV 'lunar rover' will be digitally removed, and replaced with bicycles which the astronauts will pedal about the moon. The President will be updated to be a Texan oil millionaire conducting a needless war in Asia, who commander Michael Collins (played by academy award-winner Liam Neeson) will denounce for "having turned to the dark side". The "Cold War" sideplot will be updated to be a "Temporal War On Terror", which will feature terrorists from the future attempting to fly the Space Shuttle Columbia into the White House! Can our heroes stop them 'in time'?!

    This and other new changes will keep the franchise fresh and exciting to today's viewers, and like Star Trek: Enterprise, will boldly re-write history that no one but nerds cares about anyways!

    Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edititon: Coming Christmas 2006 - collect all 6 covers!

  7. PDF by antdude · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just go to http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tapes/Se arch_for_SSTV_Tapes.pdf :) The story had Coral Cache URL. =)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  8. Re:Does it really matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    COPY THEM ONTO SOME OTHER MEDIA

    That would be a violation of the DMCA.

    Even if you find the actual tapes, it doesn't prove ownership. At best, it suggests a possible license. But even a certificate of authenticity doesn't prove a license.

    Without proof of a license, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate those tapes, and levy a fine.

  9. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The world saw it happen on TV [...]
    Back in 1939, a large part of the eastern seaboard heard about a Martian Invasion on the radio. Turned out it wasn't true.

    There is lots of evidence that we landed on the moon (900 pounds of moonrocks being a good part of it). But to say, "I know we landed on the moon 'cause I saw it on my Tee Vee!" is ridiculous.

    Considering the low resolution television images that came back, it would have been very easy to fake it.
  10. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TV may be low resolution, but there were several things you could see that still would have only been possible in an airless environment and a substantially lower gravity. Many of those scenes could not have been faked in a studio, even today, let alone in 1969. While one may try to argue that they were faked with photorealistic animation, that leaves the nasty problem of actually GETTING photorealistic animation.... in 1969. Oh... but that creates yet another conspiracy: that NASA and the government had more computing power available to them in 1969 than modern movie studios with huge render farms have today. And it just gets worse from there... one has to keep inventing more extravagant and obviously contrived excuses about why we can't possibly find any evidence for the truth while simultaneous suggesting that all the evidence that might contradict their theory is "obviously" planted which just goes to further "prove" the conspiracy. (insert rolling eyes expression here).

    It's about on par with a Jehovah's Witness trying to say that the geological evidence for an old planet was just put there by God to test our faith.

    Any attempt at a rational discussion with a conspiracy theorist quickly devolves into a flurry of conjecture and hypothesis with no logical foundation. Occam's Razor be damned.

  11. Re:The real moon conspiracy by stjobe · · Score: 5, Informative
    You need to visit this site. It answers a lot of your questions.

    Van Allen belts:

    The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
    Fuel issues:
    First, the assumption that a given mission must expend all the vehicle's fuel is highly naive. Every rocket is provided with slightly more fuel than its mission requires, as a safety margin. In any event, the rocket is not compelled to burn all of it. The Saturn V was a sophisticated flying machine that was able to shut off its engine when the desired velocity was obtained, regardless of remaining fuel.
    Craters and the like:
    By comparison, a fully-loaded Harrier jump jet produces 27,000 lbf thrust at liftoff -- ten times more than a lunar module. Yet you typically do not see a crater under a Harrier. This is because popular intuition dictates that a rocket engine of any size is automatically more powerful than a jet engine of any size. In fact, most jet engines are more powerful than the lunar module's rocket engines.
    Lunar Module takeoff film:
    Some conspiracists point out that the film of the lunar module ascending from the lunar surface to meet the command module doesn't show any visible exhaust products. That's because by the time it comes into view of the command module the engine has stopped firing. Just as a baseball thrown upward will continue to rise after it has left the propulsive effect of your hand, the lunar module continues to rise after its engine stops firing. Unlike space ships in the movies, real spacecraft don't have to fire their engines continuously in order to make headway.
    --
    "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  12. 1 box would be normal, but 700.... by purduephotog · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've toured the archives for work purposes and planning purposes for large digitization efforts. The speaker from the Smithsonian is absolutely right- just how the hell do you digitize that much crap? The numbers are staggering- pick any task and multiply it by the billions of feet of film and you've got serious timeframes- in the order (of some estimates I did) 30 to 50 years.

    But I find it odd that they could misplace all the boxes. The check-in/ check-out procedure used at the archives is fairly regimented- to screw something that large up requires a deliberate effort to delete or mis-file the boxes.

    To give you an idea, a box is received / dropped off at the archives. It has it's master database that says "This box is #####". The organization that drops it off maps a number assigned by the archive to that box, and said org maintains all the details of what is IN the box.

    The archives then move the box and it's paperwork to the specific row, shelf, and complex. I believe they are to make a total of 12 to 15 'pulls' per hour, which when we were wanding meant actively finding an item in about 2 minutes after you walk into a complex (this place is huge- each complex is a football field).

    The paperwork is then returned to central processing for annotation and entry into the DB.

    But to lose 700 CF (each box is 1 CF or so) requires serious effort- that implies that someone filed them all in either the wrong complex or completely off the wall location- and that NO ONE has tried to place another item on wherever they are currently sitting.

    Now, assume they've been actively 'pulled' for a number of years. Your standard pull & return places a piece of paper at the boxes location- it's a copy of the form showing who pulled it and when. The paper sits where the box originated- I saw some papers from the 70's which implied that the organization pulled the item yet is still paying around 30 cents / month for that space.

    A permanent withdrawl could have been done to 'stop the monthly fees', but that means the box wouldn't necessarily go back to the same spot. If all those boxes were moved around the entire archives it would be nearly impossible to locate- there's just not enough eyes to find them- and even then you can double stack boxes to boot so you'd never see them.

    So... either the boxes are there or someone checked them out. If they were checked out and the paperwork was lost.... you'll never find them. If they weren't checked out, you would need a miracle (and yes, they do have 'reward' sheets for lost boxes posted around the area) to find them. Maybe there's a cache of boxes somewhere... and then maybe not.