Residuals: recreation vs. the TN D-6853 (1972) scan (at the figure's own inputs)
Body
Scan x, y (°)
Recreation x, y (°)
Δ (°)
Within 2°
Dabih
5.20, 38.84
4.77, 39.49
0.78
Yes
Altair
31.19, 32.87
31.06, 33.63
0.77
Yes
Peacock
-37.61, 25.28
-38.03, 25.46
0.46
Yes
Nunki
-3.84, 17.43
-3.88, 17.95
0.52
Yes
Atria
-46.79, -2.90
-46.67, -2.51
0.41
Yes
Rasalhague
35.70, -2.61
35.35, -1.90
0.79
Yes
Antares
-5.10, -15.18
-5.17, -14.62
0.56
Yes
Mars
-3.88, -22.07
-4.04, -20.87
1.21
Yes
Alpheratz (printed label; actually Alphecca)
47.25, -33.70
47.18, -32.98
0.72
Yes
Menkent
-25.09, -40.19
-24.70, -39.78
0.56
Yes
RMS 0.71°, max 1.21°. An input was inferred from this figure, so this is a consistency check, not independent validation (RMS ≤ 1° and max ≤ 2°: met).
What we found
Both the 1969 Apollo 11 note (69-FM-197, Fig 9.3-8c) and the 1972 report (TN D-6853, Fig 3c) print the gimbal angles for this view as I = 89.10°, M = 0°, O = 0°. Recomputed with those values, the telescope points almost exactly the opposite way: the labeled stars are off by about 150°.
The figure’s own stars say what the attitude really was:
A mislabeled star. Every separation between a pair of labeled stars matches the real sky to within 0.2°, except each pair involving the star printed as “Alpheratz”, which are off by 30–90°. That glyph is Alphecca (Apollo navigation star 26, α Coronae Borealis), within 0.11°. The names are similar, and the labels were typed by hand.
A sign error. A free fit of the other nine labeled stars, converted back into gimbal angles on the same platform alignment, gives I = −88.5°, M = −0.4°, O = −0.1°. The same procedure applied to Figs 3a and 3b returns their printed angles to within 0.3°. The printed magnitude is right to 0.6°, but the sign is wrong.
The recreation shown here uses I = −89.10° with the corrected label. Its ten bodies land within 0.71° RMS (1.21° worst). That is a consistency check, not independent validation, because the sign was inferred from this same figure. To see the attitude the documents print, type 89.1 into the inner gimbal field under “Try it”.
Limits
The plot is drawn from the command module’s reconstructed position (see Fig 3a). The Moon is 163° from the telescope’s axis here, out of view.