Also, what module are they in when the photo was taken...

The lunar module.

...and what are the approximate dimensions of the cabin?

While standing at the controls (the closest you can get) the window is about an arm's length.

Is that a landing strut we can see, or some other type of equipment?

I venture some sort of equipment, but it may also be the window frame. Here is a lower-resolution copy which is nevertheless scanned with a higher gamma value. The feature in question obviously lies in front of the other features, supporting the contention that it's a reflection on the glass.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5844

...If the cabin is smaller than half that distance, then the reflection theory doesn't wash.

But depth of field also depends on the characteristics of the lens. Do you know the depth-of-field characteristics of the Zeiss Biogon? Have you ever used that lens?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

If you photograph something reflected in a mirror, do you focus at the mirror's distance or at the distance to the mirror plus the distance to the object reflected in the mirror?

But I always assumed the windows were perfectly flat.

The LM windows are flat.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I have drawn you a pretty picture (because you seem cranky).

...at the distance to the mirror plus the distance to the object reflected in the mirror?

That one.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I have drawn you a pretty picture (because you seem cranky).

I don't agree that all the objects indicated by green arrows exhibit the same degree of focus.

ETA: if I apply various digital edge-detection strategies on the lunar horizon, and on the edges of the feature in question, I get lower-frequency density changes on the feature than on the horizon, suggesting that the focus is not identical among them.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

We know the horizon is in focus because we know the transition from lunar surface to black sky is a sharp gradient. To conclude that the image in question is in focus, well, we would have to know what the image in question was to begin with. Otherwise, we don't know if the apparent soft edges are due to the nature of the object or of the effect of focus.

Jay, I completely agree with you that the degree of sharpness is not the same, but if what you said about the cramped nature of the capsule is correct, the reflected image would have to be some distance from the window to be in focus. The window frame itself is WAY outta focus, and so is the other outside equipment, so that's what I am basing this assumption on.

We just don't have enough information to make a definitive statement one way or the other. Doesn't mean it's a UFO or a moon base - those aren't the only alternatives, obviously.

BTW, could the softness of a portion of the image could be due to motion blur?

Motion blur would blur the lunar horizon as well. I'm pretty good at picking out motion blur, and I don't see it here.

Another possibility to consider is that the dark bulk on the right of the photo is likely the LM nose, not the window frame. (Can't say the same about the dark bulk on the left.) If that's true, then window would be rotated about 45 degrees to the optical axis, meaning that a reflected object could be across the cabin. We can be confident that it's not any closer than about 24 inches to the window, but it may be as far away as six feet. The LM nose would actually be closer in that case.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

This was my initial impression. Given the angle of the windows to the photographer, my first thought was that it was a photo taken by the LMP and reflecting part of the suit of the CDR.

I get back to the fact that the image is translucent and it impinges on the silhouette of the window frame. To me, the second point discounts the object as being external to the LM, and the first supports a reflection.

In fact, looking at the image from the 70mm catalogue that Jay linked to earlier, to me it looks like a band of sunlight has lit up part of a suit. The image in question looks like a reflection of an illuminated strip of a larger object.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

The image in question looks like a reflection of an illuminated strip of a larger object.

I agree with this interpretation. In keeping with Joe's reminder, we have to consider that the sharpness of those edges will depend also on the sharpness of the band of illumination. Penumbra effects have to be considered.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I have the front half of a Revell 1/48 scale model of the LM ascent stage
which I never finished assembling. I can almost get an astronaut's-eye
view by looking through the back. The windows are right-angle triangles
with the right angles at the bottom. Normal to the glass is approximately
35 degrees down from horizontal and 45 degrees to the sides. The thin
light-colored line in the dark area on the right side of the photo matches
the angle of the right edge of the window when the left edge matches.
My recollection from seeing the LEM interior mockup in the Smithsonian,
or other photos, is that the white dots along that thin line are fasteners
along the edge of the window. So the dark area just to the left of that
line must be the exterior "nose" of the spacecraft: the avionics bay just
above the front hatch and the panel beside the hatch.

(Why are those panels beside the hatch? Purely structural?)

I wonder if the dark bulge at the bottom is the front foot pad.

The bright white spot at the bottom looks exactly like a white, domed
LED, but I don't think those were in use yet in 1969, and I'm not sure
white LEDs had even been developed yet. Any idea what it is?

So you are suggesting that because the window is tilted down and to
the side (lower-left edge near; upper-right corner far), the reflected
object may be to the right of the camera, at shoulder-level or above.

James,

In my judgement, the bit of the reflection with the dot in it, that you
point to with the middle green arrow, is no sharper than the rest of
the reflection or the edge of the spacecraft visible outside the window.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

In my judgement, the bit of the reflection with the dot in it, that you
point to with the middle green arrow, is no sharper than the rest of
the reflection or the edge of the spacecraft visible outside the window.

IMHO that particular part looks very much like the adjustment/clasp on a strap or harnass (like the ones you use to secure a load in your truck). I also disagree with the assertion that the parts in quetion are the same focus as the moon in the distance.

I do find it curious that the reflection would be as clear as that, but not have anything else visible in reflection. Is there a possiblity that it was a double exposure or some other effect in the development/scanning process?

Edit: *Shrug* when I look more closely, there does appear to be more in the reflection, but as the intensity of the reflection fades, it blends very well with the moon in the background.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

JayUtah, thanks for that link to the photo in the Apollo Image Atlas.

I had forgotten that the information with orbital photos there states the latitude and longitude of the spacecraft (4° N / 134° E) and features. In this case, the two largest craters are Green (4° N / 133° E) and Hartmann (3° N / 135° E -- in the foreground). That makes it more than 60km between the centres of the two craters. Their identification leads to finding them on a map, which in turn gives us more information about the photo.

Jairo, note the above for identification of lunar features at the Apollo Image Atlas in future cases.

Anyway, we have a rather odd orientation of the LM in this photo, AS11-40-5844. Instead of facing in its westerly line of travel, it appears to be facing nearly north, perhaps north-northwest. Link to high-resolution photo.

A line through the centres of the two biggest craters to the horizon points roughly northwest, and the direction of the LM's travel is along the top of the "UFO," from lower right to upper left.

A line from the lowest left (7:30 position) of the rim of the foreground crater, Hartmann, to the same part of the small, sharp crater which is partly covered by the highest point of the UFO, is close to parallel to the moon's equator and the LM's path. Therefore Jay is correct in saying the sun would be in front and to the left.

It appears that from this, and from what we can see in the two copies of the photo, the LM is feet-down and facing nearly north. With the sun high ahead and to the left, I wonder if it's possible that a chink of sunlight is coming through the overhead docking window and catching part of Aldrin's spacesuit to the right and, as Jay says, across the cabin. This could better explain the sharpness of a suit than if it were Armstrong's suit closer to the window.

But would the camera axis and the slant of the window allow such a reflection without Armstrong blocking it? Aren't there also white fabrics and straps with dome closures up near the ceiling of the LM, and some in the back?

Jamesmatthews, may I point out that debating robustly is not the same as being cranky?

You said, "They are focused on infinity to get the moon to be as clear and sharp as possible." Not necessarily. The best trick in using a wide-angle lens is to use its depth-of-field scale ("sharpness zone" for laypeople) and set its hyperfocal distance for the aperture being used, because focussing on infinity can waste valuable depth of field. For example, the hyperfocal distance for a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera at f11 is just over 2 metres, and gets everything in focus from one metre to infinity. The Biogon would have much less depth of field than this, but the principle is the same. From reading the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, I get the impression that the astronauts made full use of hyperfocal distances. It makes good sense for them to have done so.

It's not curious if it is caused by sunlight coming through the small overhead docking window above the commander's position. This small patch of sunlight can often be seen moving around in TV shots of the LM's interior.

No aliens,ufos,etc. Only a few gloved fingers of the astronaut. That's what I think. Mr Q

__________________
What goes around, comes around, eventually.

Meade DS-10 (10" newt)
10x50, 10x70 binos

It looks like a segment of an orthocone to me. More evidence for the lunar cephalopod overlord theory!

__________________
The other Shaltanac's joopleberry shrub is always a more mauve-y shade of pinky russet

Do you have any evidence for this? The time the photo was taken and whether the astronauts were suited up and gloved at that time, or whether they were still out of their suits and barehanded? Besides, the outer gauntlet of the pressure suit was dark gray with blue fingertips, not white. The reflection doesn't look like gloved fingers to me.

If you are using the proper definition of "UFO," the light patch is indeed a UFO as pointed out in post 7:
After more study, I think the object is less likely to be a reflection of part of a spacesuit and more likely some white fabric that is part of the LM interior.

The fronts of the spacesuits have all sorts of appendages that are not visible in the "UFO," such as the NASA emblem, the US flag, the Apollo 11 patch, a name tag, coloured attachments for umbilicals, valves, and fawn-coloured tapes.

There are some vaguely-familiar parts to the UFO -- what looks like a flap with a chromed dome at bottom right, and two fabric-covered hoses or umbilicals at far left. These are similar to the umbilicals that connect to the astronaut from the right side of the PLSS.

Below the "hoses" on the UFO is what looks like semicircular plate with many light-coloured radial lines -- see the hi-res version -– and makes me wish for close-up photos of the ascent engine cover.

In the Spacecraft Film's Apollo 11 DVD set, Disc 1, "Fly Me To The Moon, Unscheduled TV broadcast during translunar coast, Probe removal and LM checkout, GET 55:08," there are good views of the LM interior and the many white fabrics. The first is the Interim Stowage Assembly (ISA) covering the instrument panel at front centre. Shortly after ingress, at 0:35:43 on the DVD, Buzz Aldrin tucks this up by the ceiling using what looks like bungee cords or electrical cables.

0:35:43 GET 55:45:44 Duke: 11, Houston. We see you removing the ISA now, folding it up, putting it up on the AOT. The instrument panels are coming into view behind. [AOT = Alignment Optical Telescope.]

In the NASA film, "Apollo 13: Houston, We’ve Got a Problem," at around 0:20:16 Fred Haise is sleeping in the commander's position, and there are a many pieces of white fabric behind him, some almost touching his right shoulder and some extending back toward the rear of the LM near the ascent engine cover. Fifty seconds later in the film, Haise floats through the tunnel from the command module, and again, many pieces of white fabric are visible at right.

It was in this position in the Eagle that Armstrong's PLSS was stowed, which could possibly account for fabric-covered umbilicals on the "UFO."