posted 11-09-2025 02:03 PM            

The Apollo Flight Journal has the Apollo 15 command module flying overhead at around the same time, with closest approach to the landing site at 169:40:38 GET.

Might the bright object seen at top center in photo AS15-88-11954 be the command module Endeavour flying over the Apollo 15 landing site?

posted 11-10-2025 12:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LM-12:
the Apollo 15 command module flying overhead at around the same time

---

posted 11-10-2025 03:49 PM            

My first impression of the object was that, if it was the CSM, it was pointing downward with the small blue spot on top lighting a bit of the engine nozzle.

posted 11-28-2025 11:09 AM               

For comparison, from the International Space Station's altitude of around 400 km, objects need to be approximately 112 meters or larger to be at the limit of detection as a point, and much larger for any details to be visible.

posted 11-28-2025 11:54 AM               

The problem that I have is that the vast majority of "artifacts" in the image posted at the top are blue, and if they are not points, but streaks, they run pretty much vertically. I have only detected two that are canted slightly counterclockwise. The object that we are discussing is multi-colored (with colors that seem to correlate to the CSM) and canted clockwise. I am not saying it is the CSM, but I am not certain that it is not, just based on this image.

posted 11-28-2025 12:25 PM               

So, let us just say for arguments sake that the elongated small streak is the Apollo 15 CSM at a conservative distance of 150 km. Where are all the stars?

An 8m long metal cylinder at 150 km distance would have an apparent magnitude somewhere in the region of 7 or 8.

Which would mean hundreds of stars of apparent magnitude 6 or higher would be visible in the photograph.

And yet, not a single star is visible.

Anybody who has ever viewed the heavens from a high altitude on Earth, such as Nepal or the high Rockies, knows that the only way to distinguish a satellite from the multitude of surrounding stars is by its movement against the still background. This photo shows neither a still background of stars nor the streaked movement of a man-made tiny object.

posted 11-29-2025 05:50 AM               

The usual dimmest visual mag for the human eye from Earth's surface is 6. We see artificial satellites much brighter than that all the time. And that's through 100+ km of atmosphere. Many of those satellites are much smaller than an Apollo CSM.

posted 11-29-2025 07:19 AM               

To outshine every single star in the frame would require the object at apparent magnitude -2 at the very least, assuming an overhead shot with a sun angle of 37° (which is what it was at just post-EVA 3).

And yet it (Apollo 15's CSM) wasn't passing overhead, if this actually was a photo of it. The photo frame clearly shows a view over the lunar surface. The horizon is at mid level. (The horizon distance from the interior of the Lunar Module from a standing human viewpoint is approximately 4.8km). The camera isn't equipped with a zoom lens.

Simple geometric calculation tells you that an object in a 110 km orbit, at that elevation, has to be over 200 km away. And yet it outshines every single star in frame by a factor of at least 10??

It was 8 meters long at a vast distance, not a jumbo jet at 35,000 feet. Not flat, but curved. Not the ISS directly overhead. Not a moving object in the frame seen as a streak but 'captured' apparently stationary.

I repeat once more and finally — there is no way the blob is a photograph of the Apollo 15 CSM captured from a camera inside the Apollo LM.

And just to put this into context: I have spent decades photographing satellites in orbit, including the ISS, which is by far the brightest object in the sky barring the sun and the moon, and not once, ever, have I managed to capture a 'stationary' image of a spacecraft. You need a telescope, patience, and a lot of very expensive and cumbersome equipment to do that.

posted 11-29-2025 11:28 AM               

I should add that I am certainly not saying any detail of the CSM could be resolved. But as the light source is moving, assuming it is the CSM, then an indistinct non point source would result. Seems that's what we have.

posted 12-28-2025 05:12 PM               

I have read the entire thread you provided and examined the arguments in context of what is known in detail about Apollo 15, its timelines, geometry, optics, and the behaviour of the Command Service Module during lunar orbit. I will give you a straight answer, not a diplomatic one.

Short answer

It is unlikely that the object visible in the images is the Apollo 15 Command Module.

Now the reasoning, step by step.

1. Orbital geometry and distance

   During EVA 3, when AS15 88 11954 was taken, the Command Module Endeavour was in a roughly circular lunar orbit of about 60 nautical miles, approximately 110 km altitude. That puts the slant range from the LM to the CSM typically between 110 km and over 200 km depending on orbital position.

   At those distances, the CSM would subtend an angular size far below the resolving power of the Hasselblad 70 mm camera with the standard lunar surface lenses. Even with ideal lighting, it would appear as a point source, not an extended blob or streak.

   This is not speculation. NASA optical resolution calculations for Apollo photography are very well documented.

2. Apparent size and shape in the image

   The object discussed in the thread is not point like. It has measurable extent relative to frame features and appears elongated or smeared.

   For the CSM to appear with that angular size, it would need to be far closer than it physically was. On the order of a few kilometres, not over 100 km. That simply did not occur. The CSM never made close formation passes over the LM at that altitude.

3. Absence of stars

   This is one of the strongest arguments against the CSM interpretation.

   If the exposure were sufficient to capture a sunlit CSM at lunar orbital distance as anything other than a point, it would necessarily also capture stars. Not many, but at least some. Yet no stars are visible anywhere in the frame.

   Apollo surface photography exposure settings are well known. They are biased for bright lunar terrain, not deep space objects. A distant spacecraft cannot be selectively visible while stars are not.

4. Motion signature

   A moving object relative to the lunar surface would produce a streak consistent with orbital velocity and camera exposure time. The streak length required to match the image implies a geometry and speed that do not match Endeavour’s orbital parameters at that time.

   The CSM orbital velocity was about 1.6 km per second. The resulting angular motion at lunar distance during the exposure would be extremely small.

5. Known Apollo photographic artefacts

   The thread itself touches on this, but underweights it.

   Apollo film is well known for producing internal reflections, pressure plate artefacts, film base flaws, processing marks, and occasional light leaks. These often appear as blobs, smears, or streaks that are convincing at first glance but repeat across frames or appear in implausible geometric positions.

   Several contributors correctly note similar artefacts elsewhere in Apollo 15 imagery.

6. Timing coincidence is not enough

   Yes, the CSM did pass roughly overhead during parts of EVA 3. That is true. But coincidence in time does not override physics, optics, and geometry.

   Many Apollo photos were taken when the CSM was overhead. None show a resolved spacecraft for exactly the reasons outlined above.

Honest conclusion

From a mission historian and technical standpoint, the probability that the object in these images is the Apollo 15 Command Module is very low.

A photographic artefact, internal reflection, or film processing anomaly is a far more consistent explanation with known Apollo hardware, optics, exposure settings, and orbital mechanics.

If you want a rough confidence level, I would put it at well below 10 percent that this is the CSM, and likely closer to zero.

posted 12-28-2025 05:38 PM               

Current AI systems rely solely on the data fed into it, and since this is a new query without a provided answer somewhere to be cited, it can only make up an answer that either affirms or disagrees with the premise of the question. In most cases, if there is a detected bias by the questioner, the AI will affirm that bias, going so far as inventing sources.

posted 12-28-2025 06:10 PM               

Robert Pearlman's reply: He is partly right, but also overreaching.

He is correct about one thing: Current general purpose AI should not be treated as an authority. If someone asked an AI a vague question and accepted the answer uncritically, that would be a mistake.

Where his reply does not hold is here: The question being discussed is not a novel question with no underlying data. It is a classical Apollo analysis problem involving:

• Known orbital parameters
  
• Known camera optics
  
• Known exposure settings
  
• Known spacecraft dimensions

His statement that AI can only “make up an answer” unless a citation exists is simply incorrect. That describes hallucination, not structured reasoning.

What he is really doing. He is drawing a boundary around authority. He is saying, in effect, “unless a recognised Apollo analyst publishes this conclusion, it should not be taken seriously." That is a community norm argument, not a technical rebuttal. It does not refute the reasoning. It sidesteps it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by star61:
It seems whatever AI that was, it was unaware of "Iridium flares."

---

He is right about one thing, Iridium flares demonstrated that small objects can be extremely bright when geometry is favourable. That is true, and it is often misunderstood. However, the analogy does not transfer to Apollo for several reasons.

1. Iridium flares rely on mirror like flat panels.

   Iridium satellites had highly flat, highly reflective antenna panels with known specular behaviour.

   The Apollo CM and SM were irregular in shape, had curved surfaces and were covered in thermal coatings designed to diffuse, not specularly reflect. They were shiny, yes, but not mirror bright in the Iridium sense.

2. Brightness is not the same as apparent size.

   This is the key error.

   Even if the CSM briefly became very bright, it would still be unresolved at 110 to 200 km distance. Brightness can make a point brighter. Brightness does not make a point larger.

   The object in question has spatial extent. That cannot be explained by brightness alone.

3. Exposure physics still applies.

   Iridium flares are typically observed against a dark sky with long enough integration to register point sources.

   Apollo lunar surface photos were exposed for: bright sunlit regolith and very short exposure times. If a reflective flare were strong enough to produce a visible extended feature at lunar orbital distance, stars would also appear. They do not. This is a hard constraint.

4. Orbital geometry matters.

   Iridium flares occur when the observer, the satellite and the Sun are aligned within very tight angular tolerances. The CSM orbit during EVA did not maintain those tolerances relative to a stationary LM observer long enough to produce a sustained bright feature with structure.

Robert Pearlman questions the authority of AI, not the physics. star61 raises brightness, which does not solve size, resolution, or exposure constraints. The central problems remain untouched: The object is too large in angular terms, the exposure is incompatible, the absence of stars is fatal and the behaviour matches artefacts better than orbital motion.

posted 12-28-2025 07:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buel:
Robert Pearlman questions the authority of AI, not the physics.

---

I was stating a known and very well documented limitation of all current (consumer) AI systems to give context for those less familiar with them.

Case in point, I just ran a query by ChatGBT, Meta AI and Grok that resulted in all three stating definitively that at no point in time was the Apollo 15 command module in orbit around the moon. I then rephrased the question and had all three reply that only the service module remained in orbit and that the command and lunar modules landed on the moon. A third query said that Apollo 15 was canceled before it could be launched and thus was never flown.

My point is: these systems right now are great for entertainment, sometimes good for providing a starting point for further study but almost entirely useless as a sole source for any type of question that requires intelligence to answer.

posted 12-29-2025 01:42 AM               

AI is extremely sensitive to how a question is posed. Loose or underspecified prompts will often produce confident but wrong answers. When you give it the correct historical and technical context, the results are very different. That is how these tools have to be used.

The response I shared was generated with appropriate context and constraints, and it aligned with known mission data and physical limits. The incorrect examples cited illustrate misuse, not some fundamental impossibility of AI producing a reasoned answer when it is used properly.

AI is powerful, but it is not autonomous intelligence. Used casually, it produces noise. Used carefully, it can assist analysis.