|
Author
|
Topic: Lunar surface photograph of Apollo 15 CSM?
|
LM-12
Member Posts: 4247
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 11-09-2025 02:03 PM
  
The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has post EVA-3 photo AS15-88-11954 taken shortly after 169:37:47 GET and a long comm break. Dave Scott took a left window panorama. Then Jim Irwin took a right window panorama that included frame 11954, the last photo of his pan.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?  |
rasorenson
Member Posts: 132
From: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted 11-09-2025 05:25 PM
Someone has been doing some careful scanning! This is great! Thanks so much! A reminder there are many more surprises to come from Apollo. |
MartinAir
Member Posts: 486
From:
Registered: Oct 2020
|
posted 11-10-2025 02:40 AM
An artifact, like in this photo? |
LM-12
Member Posts: 4247
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
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
What would the altitude of the command module have been during the flyover? |
Dietrich
Member Posts: 91
From:
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 11-10-2025 03:15 PM
Judging from the above mentioned DAC film from the CSM flying over the landing site at the same time, obviously, the CSM should be pointed downwards to the moon's surface. However, the bright object in the sky of the surface photo looks rather like a CSM pointing upwards, without engine nozzle, but with a very large high-gain antenna. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 4247
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 11-10-2025 03:49 PM
I also think the CSM would have been pointing in a downward direction during the flyover. I just don't know what the altitude would have been.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. If the object is just an artifact or flaw in the photo, it is quite a coincidence that a flaw that looks somewhat like the CSM would show up in that photo at about the same location as the real CSM would have been. |
space1
Member Posts: 968
From: Danville, Ohio
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 11-10-2025 07:16 PM
The two blue dots seen at the top perhaps are related to SIM bay experiments (very speculative of course). If you look at it long enough you can see anything you want! |
David Carey
Member Posts: 1085
From:
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 11-28-2025 10:04 AM
The blue artifacts in both pictures look a bit like film emulsion flaws — red/green layers missing, only blue layer remains. The brightest areas in/around these blue artifacts might correspond to no emulsion left (just film stock). The linear nature of some blue streaks in the Apollo 15 image also suggestive of flaws from film scratching as the frame was advanced. Also reminiscent of RGB scanning flaws?In any case a neat point of analysis. And I agree with all of you — I can certainly see a CM-looking shape but the power of suggestion is strong. |
Axman
Member Posts: 838
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 11-28-2025 11:09 AM
What is this about?
The CSM was orbiting at 60 nautical miles (~110km). It was slightly less than 8 meters long. It would not be resolvable as anything more than a point. And that is assuming the object being resolved is at the closest point to the observer, which is far from the case here as the "so-called object" is at a relatively low horizontal angle, and would, if it were the orbiting CSM, be at a distance of about 200 km.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. (Furthermore, there are blue dots and streaks all over this photo, including in the bottom far left corner.) |
Headshot
Member Posts: 1434
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-28-2025 11:54 AM
What you say is logical and makes sense. Camera optics are tricky and sometimes give unpredictable results. I once took an image of a planetary conjunction with a certain Canon lens. It clearly showed Jupiter's four Galilean satellites on multiple exposures. None of the experts (including one of Sky & Telescope's editors) that I showed the images to believed that this lens could accomplish what it did. Yet the satellites were in the right places for the times the images were recorded.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. |
Axman
Member Posts: 838
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 11-28-2025 12:25 PM
Ok, but we are on the moon, not the Earth. Atmospherics don't count as there is no atmosphere. Zoom lens effects don't count as this is an ordinary camera with a wide angle shot.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. There is absolutely no way the blob is Apollo 15 CSM. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 4247
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 11-28-2025 01:30 PM
When they were on the moon, Conrad and Bean saw the CSM flying overhead on two occasions from inside the LM: shortly after LM touchdown, and again after EVA-2. I suppose it would have looked like a bright star passing overhead. |
star61
Member Posts: 329
From: Bristol UK
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 11-29-2025 05:50 AM
I think an estimate of Mag 7 or 8 is way off.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. Highly polished, flat surfaces, approximately the expected location — I'd say pretty high probability it actually is Apollo 15. |
Axman
Member Posts: 838
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 11-29-2025 07:19 AM
So where are all the stars?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. Try taking a photo of the moon without a zoom lens to see how ridiculous this discussion is. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 4247
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 11-29-2025 09:22 AM
Ridiculous? |
Axman
Member Posts: 838
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 11-29-2025 09:40 AM
Would you care to post me a photo of the moon you've taken without a zoom lens? |
star61
Member Posts: 329
From: Bristol UK
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 11-29-2025 11:28 AM
You're confusing angular resolution and brightness. The intensity of the reflected light can easily be -2 magnitude. If the exposure was say 1/500 second, then its perfectly reasonable to not see any stars. 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. An alternative of course, could be a reflection off the LM window of an internal light? |
advertisement