The Mystery of the 'Only Camera To Come Back From the Moon'

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Mystery of the 'Only Camera To Come Back From the Moon'

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @02:17PM from the camera-moon-colonization-project-flourishing dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes: "After a furious bidding war in Vienna on Saturday, a Japanese camera collector has bought a Hasselblad camera for $910,000 in a record-setting auction of what's been widely called the 'only camera to come back from the moon.' But contrary to claims repeated across the Internet on Monday, this isn't the only camera to come back from the moon. In fact, some think it may have never landed on the moon at all. And because of rules surrounding most NASA property, its sale may actually violate U.S. law. One thing we know: the 70mm Hasselblad 500 is one of fourteen cutting-edge cameras that astronauts used in orbit around the moon and on the lunar surface during the Apollo program. All of the images we have from those moon missions were taken by these machines, which were either mounted inside the command module that circled the moon or were attached to space suits at the chest. This particular camera was, reports the Verge, among many other sources, 'used on the moon during the Apollo 15 mission in 1971,' and 'is special in the fact that it's returned to Earth.' That's because astronauts were often instructed to jettison their cameras on the lunar surface in order to save precious kilograms during the return trip."

54 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not jettisoned by TheRealQuestor · 2014-03-25 14:30 · Score: 3, Funny

They weren't jettisoned because of weight, they weren't allowed off the moon my the race of glass tower building aliens. This one was sneeked off
1. Re:Not jettisoned by TheRealQuestor · 2014-03-25 14:31 · Score: 2
  
  damn forgot my /snark tag :(
2. Re:Not jettisoned by AK+Marc · 2014-03-25 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's implied.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
3. Re:Not jettisoned by FatdogHaiku · 2014-03-25 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's implied.
  Damn, I went and inferred it...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
4. Re:Not jettisoned by AK+Marc · 2014-03-26 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  The reader can only infer. The writer can only imply. So you did the right thing, don't feel bad.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Our first act on the moon by hessian · 2014-03-25 14:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's litter.

--
Futurist Traditionalism
1. Re:Our first act on the moon by nitehawk214 · 2014-03-25 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  You are worried about cameras?
  There are on the moon.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
2. Re:Our first act on the moon by nitehawk214 · 2014-03-25 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Failed link, that was supposed to be "There are bags of shit on the moon."
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
3. Re:Our first act on the moon by Teancum · 2014-03-25 14:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Considering that astronauts literally left their shit all over the place, litter like a slightly used camera is no big deal at all. Dumping radioactive waste on the Moon in the form of RTGs that are still pumping out energy even today should give extra brownie points. It should be pointed out that other countries have also dumped trash on the Moon, not to mention other worlds in the Solar System too.
4. Re:Our first act on the moon by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-03-25 17:46 · Score: 2
  
  I love the subtext of this comment - assuming without thinking that the same environmentalism that will save the Earth somehow has any application whatsoever on other planets - particularly those with zero habitability or possibility of ever becoming so. This is what political extremism does to your brain, people.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
5. Re:Our first act on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 17:52 · Score: 0
  
  You should go clean it up.
6. Re:Our first act on the moon by FatdogHaiku · 2014-03-25 19:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Let's litter.
  Hey, someone has to think of the future space archaeologists!
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
7. Re:Our first act on the moon by VortexCortex · 2014-03-25 22:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Let's litter.
  Hey, someone has to think of the future space archaeologists!
  "It seems our hive minds were not intelligently designed, but began on a distant moon emerging from strange complex life forms as fecal bacteria from their anus."
8. Re: Our first act on the moon by Chaneera · 2014-03-25 22:24 · Score: 0
  
  I would love witness (but not necessarily attend) the religion based on that story!
9. Re: Our first act on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know that I would want to witness it either.
  Imagine a co-worker inviting you to his kids musical/play at the church re-enacting their understanding of the creation.
  Maybe starring R. Kelly or something.
10. Re:Our first act on the moon by Teancum · 2014-03-26 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  This is what political extremism does to your brain, people.
  Funny thing is, I agree with you. All I was merely pointing out is that there is a whole bunch of stuff up in space already, and if you are so paranoid about some astronaut leaving some camera on the Moon as somehow destroying nature, there is much more that you could show too that would really send the environmentalist activists into a real panic mode.
  Too many people ignorantly watch science fiction films and TV shows thinking that is real science, yet think real activities on the surface of the Moon never happened because SciFi shows demonstrate that kind of thing never could have happened. Perhaps I should have simply replied with "*facepalm*".
11. Re:Our first act on the moon by bkmoore · 2014-03-26 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Let's litter.
  If someone dropped a vintage Hasselblad camera in my back yard and left, I wouldn't be one to complain.
_Only_ camera? by Nanoda · 2014-03-25 14:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

Sure. 'cept of course the one on Surveyor 3 that Apollo 12 brought back. The one that famously (but, I now see, apparently controversially) had viable bacteria in it after 2.5 years on the moon.
Cameras left behind ... by PPH · 2014-03-25 14:48 · Score: 2

... with film?
The selfies taken by the creatures from Apollo 18 should be entertaining. But nothing more unusual than what you'd find on /b/.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Cameras left behind ... by Handover+Phist · 2014-03-25 15:37 · Score: 2
  
  Nothing is more unusual than what you'd find on /b/.
2. Re:Cameras left behind ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing is more unusual than what you'd find on /d/.
  FTFY
  *shudder*
Salvage Opportunity... by jcr · 2014-03-25 15:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

So, if someone went to the moon and retrieved the entire Apollo 11 descent stage, I wonder what collectors would fork over for that, whole or in pieces?
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
1. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 15:30 · Score: 0
  
  Probably zip; the first stage engines were recovered from the ocean recently and they remained the property of NASA. I would assume the descent stage does too.
2. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by CodeBuster · 2014-03-25 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Any such attempt would be so expensive as to be practically impossible. However, even if it were done there would be no buyers. The Apollo artifacts left on the moon remain the property of NASA and by extension the US Government and no reputable collector, or at least none with the bankroll necessary to pay what the items would be worth if they were legitimately sold into private hands, deals in stolen property.
3. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  At this point I'd consider it abandoned property especially given modern interpretation of 'abandoned property'. See also emails stored in the cloud longer than 90 days.
4. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  Shows what you know. Do you know how many BILLIONS of dollars changes hands at illegal art and fossil sales? Do some research before you open your stupid fucking mouth next time. You made a very bad assumption, that very wealthy people put much stock in honesty. You are one gullible motherfucker.
5. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by Splab · 2014-03-25 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  Team America - World Police.
6. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by S.O.B. · 2014-03-25 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  F*CK YEAH!
  
  --
  Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
7. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by nospam007 · 2014-03-25 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  "The Apollo artifacts left on the moon remain the property of NASA and by extension the US Government "
  Or it could be considered an abandoned ship, so even without a letter of marque it could be considered a prize for the taker.
8. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by Jack+Griffin · 2014-03-25 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Expensive this year, and probably the next 20 or so, but sooner or later it will become viable, and the longer it takes the more valuable it becomes. And if you think there is no market for one of the greatest artifacts in human civilisation then you seem to have a very naive understanding of art collection.
9. Re: Salvage Opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 22:26 · Score: 0
  
  No, F*CK BETA
10. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by jythie · 2014-03-25 22:38 · Score: 2
  
  On the other hand, one thing art thieves have discovered over the years is that offloading known works of art is actually very difficult and it is not unusual to dump them after years of failed attempts to find a buyer. There is a big market for fairly unknown art/fossil sales, but the really big ticket material is VERY challenging to offload.
11. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-03-25 23:20 · Score: 2
  
  That's why proper art thieves always steal to order.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
12. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-03-26 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  "The Apollo artifacts left on the moon remain the property of NASA and by extension the US Government "
  Or it could be considered an abandoned ship, so even without a letter of marque it could be considered a prize for the taker.
  First of all, a prize applies to the capture of vessels from an enemy during conflict, so it would not be applicable here. As for salvage, state owned vessels are exempt from ,maritime salvage conventions unless the state relinquishes its claim; which the US clearly has not. That exemption is why Spain was able to recover coins salvaged from a vessel that sank several centuries ago.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
13. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by drinkypoo · 2014-03-26 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Or it could be considered an abandoned ship, so even without a letter of marque it could be considered a prize for the taker.
  We're whalers on the moon! Except, a spacecraft is not a seagoing vessel, and therefore it's not subject to maritime law. So WTF are you on about?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Expensive this year, and probably the next 20 or so, but sooner or later it will become viable, and the longer it takes the more valuable it becomes. And if you think there is no market for one of the greatest artifacts in human civilisation then you seem to have a very naive understanding of art collection.
  Except launching a huge piece of equipment off of the moon and bringing it down to Earth intact is not exactly something you can do without a whole bunch of people noticing. Any private entity that recovered it would be politely asked by NASA to return its property. Any such entity that declined to turn the recovered equipment over would be pursued through the courts until NASA got its toy back. (After which it would doubtless be placed in some US museum somewhere. The recovering party would probably be credited with a small line on a plaque somewhere and a two-hour National Geographic TV documentary special for their trouble.)
  The only way they could be recovered and then retained by the recovering organization is if it were carried out by a nation-state that was strongly resistant to US pressure, like Russia or China.
15. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by jcr · 2014-03-26 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  The Apollo artifacts left on the moon remain the property of NASA
  Decades after they were abandoned? I don't think so.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
16. Re:Salvage Opportunity... by CodeBuster · 2014-03-26 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  You're a moron if you think that selling stolen art is easy or especially lucrative. It's not. Most art theft is a crime of opportunity with very low fencing value compared to jewelry, gemstones, precious metals or wine. Indeed, art is usually stolen for personal reasons, not for resale. Rarely a piece(s) of art will be stolen by thieves hired to target specific works on behalf of clients who want them badly but are unable to buy them, either because they cannot afford them or they're just not for sale. However, even then the thieves are paid a pittance compared to the auction values of typical items. Thieves go where the money is and compared to other more lucrative forms of theft, art just isn't very attractive dollar for dollar. The real theft in art isn't in stealing originals anyway, but creating and passing off fakes to unsuspecting or unsophisticated buyers.
Re:The moon landing was a hoax! by VortexCortex · 2014-03-25 22:08 · Score: 4, Funny

If we didn't go to the moon, then how do you explain all the cheese?
Often? by ghmh · 2014-03-25 22:17 · Score: 1

The way they wrote that, it makes it seem like astronauts are up there jettisoning their camera gear every other day.
1. Re:Often? by Lumpy · 2014-03-26 02:17 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Actually yes, each camera had exactly 1 frame of film in it. you took a photo, pulled the back and threw the camera away. By the time we were ready for Apollow 18 they invented fitting more than 1 frame of film in a camera at NASA, this is why skylab was not riddled with discarded cameras.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Who gives a damn about US law? by YoungManKlaus · 2014-03-26 00:21 · Score: 0

Surely not people in a Non-US country doing business with people from another Non-US country.
Stop pushing your broken morale on us!
1. Re:Who gives a damn about US law? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  Surely not people in a Non-US country doing business with people from another Non-US country.
  Stop pushing your broken morale on us!
  I'm inclined to agree with you but in fairness, the camera -was- paid for by someone, namely tax payers. Why isn't it in a museum or something?
2. Re:Who gives a damn about US law? by micahraleigh · 2014-03-26 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  This camera really belonged to someone. As I recall certain people within NASA allowed this fellow (an astronaut, I think) to keep it. NASA also gives other things stickers, honorary coins, salaries, etc. to its employees, by the way, which tax payers have lost all claims on.
  
  Eventually the Obama administration confiscated it under its general policy of confiscating everything it can get away with (dinosaur bones, archeological relics from other countries, lots and lots of gold coins) because -unlike the Soviets of yore who allowed private citizens to actually own some non-land property- the Obama administration does not want individuals to have private property.
  
  The US government did nothing to maintain or keep track of this camera all those years. That was done by this guy. If another country has it in their hands, never, never give it back to the turkeys who stole it first. So, yeah, I agree with Klaus.
Funny Americans... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 00:26 · Score: 0

Funny how some of you Americans think that you own this planet, and all the other celestial bodies in the Universe. Which somehow gives you a right to claim property over land or things just because you say so, in perpetuity.
Big F-YOU to all of you from the rest of the World.
Even more curious than the moon thing... by seven+of+five · 2014-03-26 00:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Back then, they took pictures with plastic film coated with a thin layer of silver-based chemicals. No electronics at all. I kid you not.
1. Re:Even more curious than the moon thing... by Lumpy · 2014-03-26 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  BAH! nest thing you will tell us outlandish stories on how they did not have internet and could not post selfies or photos of what they were eating.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Any moon dust on or in it? by blackanvil · 2014-03-26 03:23 · Score: 1

If it actually made it to the moon's surface (which I see is contested), I wonder if any of the notoriously insidious moon-dust still clings to or made it inside of the device. It might be worth a thorough disassembly and cleaning to see.
NASA actually landed men on the moon? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 03:51 · Score: 0

My wife's a graphic design artist... that's not what I saw in all the 'footage' that was released.
Seen a nice little film called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"? Cute... was filmed in orbit when the astronauts were supposedly halfway to the moon. What are they doing in this little film? Faking video of the earth through a window in the capsule, making it look like it's tiny and they're waaaaay far away from the earth.
Tin cans placed in the Van Allen belt become mini-microwave ovens. They did back then (cooking monkeys) and if those boys has actually left orbit it would have cooked them too.
Have a GREAT DAY!
p.s. Saw a nice documentary pointing out the same optical fim flaws that are present in 2001 a space oddessy and the NASA footage as well. Exact same type of flaws in all footage... meaning the same type of stage/filming was used for both. Fun, eh? lol
1. Re:NASA actually landed men on the moon? by RandomUsername99 · 2014-03-26 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  Well *I* saw a documentary that said that these cameras were really Federal Reserve Bank mini chemtrails planes dispatched by the Illuminati filled with MMR vaccines designed to give the moon babies of the Area 51 aliens space autism... ...they ARE very socially awkward...
  Most people that were interested in tempting someone back to their place to play with butt toys would just try and woo them with a couple of strong drinks and some sweet talk, instead of the creepy abduction/space roofies crap that they seem to be fond of... but I don't think autism necessarily makes someone more likely to go down that path. Maybe space autism does.
Nonsense by mholve · 2014-03-26 05:55 · Score: 1

Like all Hasselblad V cameras, the rear features a detachable magazine, which in turns holds the film; either 120 or 70mm. An internal darkslide allows you to change magazines mid-roll if you wanted to (say if switching from color to black and white film or for changing to a slower/faster ISO film).
Mystery? by Chelloveck · 2014-03-26 06:12 · Score: 2

So... What's mysterious here? Legally controversial, maybe. And poorly documented, thus potentially fraudulent. But something billed as "The Mystery of the 'Only Camera To Come Back From The Moon'" ought to involve conspiracy or spies or something, not just an incomplete chain of custody.

--
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
ANUS by hessian · 2014-03-27 03:45 · Score: 1

"It seems our hive minds were not intelligently designed, but began on a distant moon emerging from strange complex life forms as fecal bacteria from their anus."
Which would lead them to:
http://www.anus.com/
And then they'd know all they need to know about humanity.

--
Futurist Traditionalism