Editor’s note – This is the final installment of a series of columns recounting Bud Simpson’s experiences while working on development of a camera lens for NASA’s Lunar Orbiter program. Parts one and two ran in the Sept. 17 and 24 issues.

With the quality of the lens settled and no one left to blame for its alleged poor performance except the theoretical limits of resolution, our end of the project was over. The government bought the lens and five more to install in the six Lunar Orbiters. Our end of the project was then pretty much completed. The six Lunar Orbiters fulfilled their missions with sterling performances and drew kudos from the world.

The hearts of the orbiters sent to the moon by NASA were the Eastman Kodak cameras with a semi-dry film processing design; the medium resolution wider angle lenses, which were 80mm f/2.8 lenses from a West German manufacturer (it was an off-the-shelf type of lens); and the custom-built high-resolution 610mm (24 inch focal length) f 5.6 lenses built by the company I worked for, Pacific Optical in Los Angeles, California.

I call the camera and its lenses the heart of the operation because no camera and no lenses meant it could never complete, or even start, its objective of photographically mapping the moon’s surface. Precision was imperative to find a suitable landing site for the astronauts to set down upon when the final mission was completed, i.e., landing a man on the moon and bringing him back in one piece.

To say the Lunar Orbiter mission was a success is an understatement. It was of historic importance. More than 95% of the moon’s surface, including the far side, was photographed and mapped. After being scanned by photomultipliers, the film strips were sent electronically back to earth and were assembled to form the completed mosaic of the moon’s surface.

Eventually, in later years, it was found that some of NASA’s existing systems, even though they were of lower resolution than Pacific Optical’s high-resolution 610mm f/5.6 lens, would have been adequate to complete the mission. As usual, government scientists built a bit (?) of overkill into the specifications to be certain. After all, you just never know, do you?

“Jonathan Winters” (I wish I could remember his real name) had been right after all. The scientists had been wrong. Even his test engineer, me, had been right. Well, I guess you can’t be wrong all the time.

I did feel a bit of pride when “my” lens took the photo that was described by magazines the world over as, “The photo of the century” and was shown to the world. Maybe some of you older folks can remember it. It was the view of the earth “rising” over the Moon’s horizon as the orbiter circled the moon. I look at it occasionally at times and think to myself, Wow! What a shot!

So, that is the bit-part that I played in the drama of sending the first men to the moon. Not a huge part, I admit, but you’ve gotta take your 15 minutes of fame whenever you can. I learned a lot about human nature and behavior during that experience. Importantly, I found that all scientists are not equal. That group of people is just like the rest of us of us. Some good, some even great, some not of much use at all.

It is the same in any group of fallible human beings. No single person has all the answers. No scientist can do an entire project such as this by themselves no matter how educated or smart they are. We live in an ever-changing universe full of ever-changing circumstances. It never sits still for even an instant. Learn that and remember it. Simple, isn’t it? Except to a politician, that is. They are still certain that the final solution to all ills is more money and regulation.

I look at the new project of going to the moon again and say, “Everything I, and ‘Jonathan Winters’ went through is still going on, I’ll bet. Only this time, There’s more money and more politicians involved.”

I have hard-earned doubts about believing everything a scientist says – such as, “The science is settled.” This is why, when I wonder whether I am listening to a true man of science or listening to a fool, being pretty certain that no science is ever settled, I’ll opt for the fool.

Your comment has been submitted.

There was a problem reporting this.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Would you like to receive our daily news? Signup today!

Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.

Check your email for details.

Invalid password or account does not exist

Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.

An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the e-mail address listed on your account.

Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.

A receipt was sent to your email.