This is Why the Apollo 11 Moonwalkers Look Ghostly

By Amy Shira Teitel | September 7, 2017 12:02 pm
Ghostly Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon. NASA.

Ghostly Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon. NASA.

A close look at the Apollo 11 EVA footage shows ghostly astronauts, which of course has launched speculation that the footage is faked. If NASA could get to the Moon, why couldn’t it capture good video?! The footage wasn’t faked. The poor quality and ghostly look is an artifact from the odd way NASA had to convert the lunar footage to a format that could be broadcast. To understand this, we have to unpack how exactly TVs worked in the mid 20th century. 

In the United States at least, the cathode ray tube technology that yielded television in the 1950s remained pretty much unchanged from the 1950s until the 2000s. The black and white TVs gave way to colour without too much change, but then flat screen LED technology took over and our living rooms became less cluttered. But for the moment we’re interested in black and white cathode ray tube televisions, and it all starts with the camera, so let’s start there.

Inside an analogue video camera, the image or scene being filmed is focussed through a lens onto a photosensitive plate. That plate is scanned by an electron beam. Two coiled wires around the camera tube deflect the beam so it scans in lines, left to right, top to bottom, covering the whole plate. It does this 30 times every second, which, incidentally, is where we get the standard frame rate of 30 frames a second. As it scans, information is encoded on that electron beam. The brighter the point on a frame the higher the point on the wave.

The signal — that beam — is then sent to a monitor. The monitor has its own electron beam, which is changed by the voltage according to information from the camera. The voltage is increased when the wave is higher, corresponding to a brighter point. That electron beam is pushed to the front of the monitor to strike a screen coated with phosphor. Every electron strike yields a point of visible light, and the higher the voltage the brighter the point. The beam scans the monitor’s screen the same way it did the image on the plate in the camera, line by line 30 frames each second, leaving behind points of light mirroring the original filmed scene. Our brains put those dots together to form an image.

There are other signals encoded in the beam that help create the video. Synchronizing signals tell the beam when to transmit no light at the end of a line, when to go back up to the top of the screen, and to make sure that the lines are aligned properly to avoid a wavy image.

But there’s another element to the video image, a slight complication born of the technological limits of the era. The image we see on a screen is the glow of an electron hitting the phosphor on the faceplate. Each point glows then fades. If the electron beam scanned the screen top to bottom, the image at the top would be faded by the time the image was shown on the bottom. The solution was to break up each frame. A standard broadcast frame has 525 lines, so each frame is broken into two fields with 262.5 lines each, which also means the 30 frames a second becomes 60 fields a second when you’re interlacing the image. The beam fills in all the odd numbered lines first and then returns to the top to fill in the even numbered lines. It’s a process called interlacing — two fields of video are put together to create one frame. Another electrical pulse in the beam ensures the two fields are properly interlaced with one field coming in a half line after the other, and it all happens so fast our brains just see a clean image.

As we know from the name — cathode ray tube — this technology relied on tubes. It was the tube inside the monitor that generated the electron beam inside a vacuum vessel, hot wires providing the electron beam, and coiled wires deflecting the beam so it could scan the plate or screen. It was a hot, heavy system that drew a lot of power. And none of those are things you want to have when you’re working on the Moon. So NASA used a simpler camera for Apollo 11’s moonwalk.

For simplicity’s sake, Apollo 11 used black and white cameras, which had the added benefit of using less bandwidth when the signal was sent from the Moon to the Earth. The camera had one imaging tube that scanned at just 10 frames a second with 320 lines per frame. There was no interlacing. The bandwidth of was also low, 0.4 MHz vs. 5MHz for what was then standard broadcast. Adding to the low quality video, the vidicon type of imaging tube caused a lag, adding a bit of a smeariness to the image.

Bandwidth and smeared image aside, the 10 frames per second, 320 lines, and no interlacing was a wholly incompatible type if image that couldn’t be seen on pretty much any TV system in the world when it came back from the Moon. Before it could be broadcast it had to be converted by systems installed at certain ground stations, generating the right kind of broadcast signal.

This was a two-stage process. First, another vidicon camera was set up facing a TV screen showing the lunar footage. This camera recorded the video at a rate of 60 fields per second but only when there was a full image on the screen. This meant that the converted image video had a full image every tenth of a second. Only one out of every six fields contained an image. So the next step was replacing the missing five fields. To do this, the good frame was recorded onto a magnetic disk then replayed five times. This yielded the necessary 60 fields per second for the 262.5 lines, the same as 30 frames per second of the full frame of 525 lines. The signal was ready for broadcast around the world via radio dishes, the same way TV was always broadcast at the time. The repetition of frames, however, give the footage that super low quality, ghostly look.

Even if it’s not great, we’re lucky to have had a live broadcast of Apollo 11’s landing at all. The mission was about politics and technology, not about television. Wally Schirra somewhat infamously resisted live TV broadcasts from Apollo 7, arguing that it would interfere with the primary goal of the mission in supporting the eventual landing on the Moon. But when Apollo 8 broadcast a live image of Earth from the Moon around Christmas in 1968, audiences were glued to their televisions and NASA realized that sharing the landing live with the world would not only have an impact on everyone, it would impact how the world remembered the program. The original plan to send Apollo 11 with only a 16mm movie camera without enough film to record the whole moonwalk was scrapped in favour of this somewhat awkward system for bringing live images from the Moon to the world.

Curious how we got that first shot of Armstrong walking down the LM ladder if no one was on the surface? I’ve got a video about that right here:

Source: How Apollo Flew to the Moon by David Woods; Basic TV Technology: Digital and Analog by Robert L. Hartwig;

  • Uncle Al

    Each Apollo mission left behind a fused silica corner cube retroreflector array. The Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation shoots 10-picosecond laser pulses locked to a cesium atomic clock that make a 2.5 second round trip, measuring Earth-to-moon distance to within ~1 millimeter. arXiv:1706.09550, /1707.00204

    Apollo repeatedly walked the moon. The Nordtvedt effect does not occur.

  • jonathanpulliam

    The author of this article is full of it. They look that way ’cause that’s the look Kubrick was going for.

    NASA claims to have lost the original tapes, which this crappy article neglects to mention were recorded, ostensibly, in Australia, where the receiving antennae were located to pick up the Apollo 11’s lunar transmissions .

    The original feed was supposedly not as grainy as the televised crapola, but we’ll never know as NASA lost the original 2″ format master video tapes.

    NASA’s “excuses” and debunked explanations are a laugh riot. Too bad the author of this tripe wasn’t in on the joke.

    • Jakejd

      Assuming, as I must, that you believe the lunar landing was faked, please explain:

      Apollo 12
      Apollo 14
      Apollo 15
      Apollo 16
      Apollo 17

      • Pascal Xavier

        If Apollo 11 was faked, why wouldn’t the further missions also be?

        • Jakejd

          Because that flies in the face of the absolutely massive amount of evidence available from those missions–much of which is still visible on the surface of the moon? Not to mention the “cast of thousands” who worked on those missions, including 15 additional astronauts who walked on the moon, most of whom are still alive, some of whom were civilians at the time, and none of whom has ever recanted and claimed their mission was faked.

          Not to mention a damn lunar rover, for cryin’ out loud.

          Postulate A: That Apollos 12-17 could not have been faked suggests very strongly that 11 was not faked.

          Postulate B: Even if Apollo 11 was faked, 12-17 were not. So does it matter?

  • wumpus the hunted

    [repeated away from the Youtube comments]
    Sorry, Amy. Apollo 11 was certainly real, but your “cut away TV” was clearly fake [this is in the video, not shown in the article]. NOBODY was building TVs in 1969 with chips. Sony might have had a few TVs made out of discrete transistors, but in general TVs mean vacuum tubes (not just for the CRT, but for general amplification and circuitry).

    Your actual descriptions were spot on, of course. One minor quibble was your note that TVs had “5MHz” bandwidth: while this is true, the “upper half” was strictly used for color, and the Apollo camera was obviously black and white, so the resolution issue was not quite the ratio you implied (and luckily for you it was black and white, explaining old fashioned color TV would take twice the time as this one recording).

    • Small_Businessman

      Actually, no, the “upper half” was not used for color. Both color and B&W signals use similar bandwidths.Color is added to the signal by varying the phase of the B&W signal. This does not change the bandwidth significantly – which is why B&W TVs can still receive color signals (which, BTW, is why this method was chosen).

    • Pascal Xavier

      I don’t believe that Apollo 11 is real.
      There are too many anomalies.

      • 31007 – TANSTAAFL

        That’s OK. I don’t believe that you’re real.

  • Joe Brouillard

    The only video that bothered me was when they separated from the landing module and blasted off towards rendezvous. What transmitted that to earth?

    • Pascal Xavier
    • Patriot American

      We didn’t see the separations from the ascent and descent stages until Apollo 15.That was the first to have a lunar rover with a TV camera on it. After their last moonwalk they parked the vehicle in a good position for Houston, which controlled the camera, were we able to see the separation and liftoff. On 15 their was a mechanical problem with the camera, so we only saw the liftoff. On 16 and 17 they were able to follow the ascent stage as it went up.

  • Pascal Xavier

    I don’t buy this explanation.
    The broadcast of Apollo shows many problems which discredit it.
    Detailed explanations in this link:

  • Pascal Xavier

    If Apollo 11 was real, explain all these anomalies in the descent of Apollo 11, Amy:


Vintage Space

Vintage Space is all about digging into the minutia of the space age. Rather than retelling glossy stories of astronauts, Vintage Space peels back that veneer to look at the real stories -- the innovations that failed, the unrealized technologies, and the human elements that are less publicity-friendly so often remain buried. Gaining a clear picture of spaceflight's past ultimately helps us understand our present position in space and have a more realistic expectation of what the future might bring.

See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar