Why were the surface moon landing videos so poor?

In 1969, even a lightweight portable TV camera weighed 150 lbs and used 400 watts, and that was not acceptable for use in space. For Apollo, Westinghouse and RCA developed a series of ever improving miniature cameras. The first, used up through Apollo 11, weighed less than 8 lbs and drew only 6. read more

The surface videos were so poor because it was determined that lower quality video would be easier to broadcast live. No one had ever broadcast live from the Moon, so keeping it as simple as possible was deemed the best solution for ensuring signal could make back to Earth. Later lunar videos were of better quality and in color. read more

The hottest the moon's surface gets is about 250 degrees C and in craters where no light has hit for many many years it can get to around -260 degrees C. The part of the moon that is not facing the sun at the moment can get down to -245 degrees C. read more

On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So it’s fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions. read more

So the answer is: NASA was unable to telecast live video from the first moon landing. But since they were also unable to land there in the first place, I don’t think that mattered much in the general scheme of things. read more

One compelling argument for the moon landing hoax is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the moon, so stars are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through the filter of Earth’s atmosphere. read more