How did cameras track space launches?

Manxman_in_exile

Hope this is the right board and that it's not a stupid question!


Watching the TV programmes about the 50th anniversary of the moon landing, I've been reminded of a something that has always puzzled me.


Back in the 60s, how did they manage such rock-steady camera tracking of space launches? Some times you see near perfect tracking shots several minutes after blast off when the vehicle must be travelling at enormous speed and many miles away.


Was computer technology sufficiently sophisticated to allow this, or were they able to predict the trajectory so accurately that they could pre-program the camera tracking, or what?


(PS - I'm not a moon landing conspiracy theorist! I'm just curious how they got such good film sequences. Maybe it wasn't as difficult as I think...)

unforeseen

I don't know how NASA did it but in the late 60s we had missiles systems that could track supersonic aircraft smaller than a huge Saturn V using radar and provide guidance to a missile to hit it. No reason why that technology couldn't have been used to keep a camera pointed at the rocket.

wongataa

The cameras were mounted on very stable moveable mounts. The camera operators had such things as telescopes attached to the cameras so they could move the camera and keep the rockets in shot when they were far away.

Norman_Castle

They would be moving fast at a distance but travelling near vertically so remaining in the same area of sky. There would also be numerous cameras with some possibly failing to track properly. These are the ones you don't see.

googler

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Back in the 60s, how did they manage such rock-steady camera tracking of space launches?

By using rock-steady cameras, telescopes and mounts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlPfHV36G-g

Linton

Large rockets dont rise that quickly at take-off. According to https://www.mpoweruk.com/Apollo_Moon_Shot.htm Saturn took 11 seconds to clear the launch pad. From the same source: when it was 2 miles away it was travelling at 1500mph. That is the same angular tracking as a 30mph car 200 feet away. So hardly (sorry) rocket science.

Heedtheadvice

Yes lots of very good equipment with smooth moving mounts, sometimes fluid filled heads to reduce friction effects and damp our jerky movement.


But is a very valid question from someone who may not be professional in that field of work. Some things might appear to be difficult and are not as the angular rate of change is low and consistent in mainly one plane (direction). Others are taken for granted but are really quite difficult.


Consider trying to track a golf ball, a white object with a background that might be white clouds. Hit towards the camera (or away from) it mainly moves in one (vertical) angular direction but changes range rapidly too and thus is difficult to keep in focus (auto focussing/tracking not used in the early days!). Even more difficult when the ball is seen from the side as movement is then in all three planes, rapid angular changes, backgrounds very variable, ball very small......and wonder it could be done at all!!
Done however it was (prior to modern technological solutions being used) pioneered I understand by cameramen and engineers from BBC Scotland and now a common feature of golf coverage world wide!

Hurray for the skills of those involved!

Manxman_in_exile

Norman_Castle wrote: »

They would be moving fast at a distance but travelling near vertically so remaining in the same area of sky. There would also be numerous cameras with some possibly failing to track properly. These are the ones you don't see.

But how long were they travelling vertically? (The point being to go into orbit?).


I see from the link posted above by Linton that stage 1 separation came at two and a half minutes, when Apollo 11 was at an altitude of 45 miles and a lateral distance of 350 miles away (over the Atlantic), travelling at 6,500 mph. I may be mistaken (it was 50 years ago and may not have been Apollo 11!) but I would say that I remember seeing stage 1 separation at the time. A remarkable camera feat.

Manxman_in_exile

googler wrote: »

By using rock-steady cameras, telescopes and mounts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlPfHV36G-g

Wow! Thank you for that link - one of the most interesting things I've seen on youtube.


Fascinating to see that the KTM(?) system used to track the space shuttle also had manual tracking which could be detected by the operator's heartbeat if the joystick was gripped too tightly!


Towards the end of the clip they also refer to camera tracking by "chase planes" (which I seem to remember vaguely?) which - if I heard correctly - could track the shuttle over a trajectory of > 600k.


The filming of the space missions was an extraordinary feat of camera technology and engineering in its own right.


(Glad I wasn't a WWII German photographer at Peenemunde!)

Andy_L

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

But how long were they travelling vertically? (The point being to go into orbit?).


I see from the link posted above by Linton that stage 1 separation came at two and a half minutes, when Apollo 11 was at an altitude of 45 miles and a lateral distance of 350 miles away (over the Atlantic), travelling at 6,500 mph. I may be mistaken (it was 50 years ago and may not have been Apollo 11!) but I would say that I remember seeing stage 1 separation at the time. A remarkable camera feat.

Its moving very fast, but its also a very long way away. If my rough maths is correct (always questionable) that speed & distance is an angular change of about 1/4 deg per second. Counter-intuitively the challenge is moving the camera that slowly to track it

Manxman_in_exile

Andy_L wrote: »

Its moving very fast, but its also a very long way away. If my rough maths is correct (always questionable) that speed & distance is an angular change of about 1/4 deg per second. Counter-intuitively the challenge is moving the camera that slowly to track it

Quite. What I was trying to get at was the steadiness of the shots at such large magnifications and over such large distances. (Even with machine or remote controlled mounts).


The youtube clip is very informative and I think answers my question.


Thanks everybody.