Skip to content

MSC View Program / Exhibit

LM descent · The docking window during the powered descent

Four frames of the 1969 descent charts: the view up through the LM's docking window during the braking burn, recomputed from the planned descent profile. The stars and the Sun land where the program put them; the horizon comes close only early in the burn.

Panel
View
Style
Star catalog
-50-50-40-40-20-2000202040405050X, degY, degProcyonDnocesAlphardRegulusSun

Seen from the spacecraft’s reconstructed position: bodies include parallax, and stars behind the Earth or Moon are hidden.

Residuals: recreation vs. the 69-FM-197 (1969) scan (at the figure's own inputs)

BodyScan x, y (°)Recreation x, y (°)Δ (°)Within 2°
Dnoces-32.72, 38.53-32.77, 38.510.06Yes
Procyon17.57, 48.5817.64, 48.540.08Yes
Alphard22.40, 17.5622.39, 17.590.04Yes
Sun-0.96, 47.49-0.53, 47.480.43Yes

RMS 0.22°, max 0.43°. The attitude was fitted to this figure's labelled stars, so their residuals show the quality of that fit, not a prediction; the Sun, Moon and planets are predicted from it.

What the charts were for

The Apollo 11 note gave the crew a frame every 20 to 40 seconds of the twelve-minute powered descent: the view through the two front windows (170°, with the landing point designator scale) beside the view up through the docking window (100°, with its scribe). The report’s Figure 5 is a pair like these. The crew flew the first part of the descent with the windows facing the surface, then yawed to face up about four minutes in.

How it is recomputed

  1. When. The note’s planned ignition, 102:35:40, plus the frame’s time into the burn.
  2. Where. The LM on the note’s planned descent profile: surface range to the landing site and altitude against time, read from its Figure 6.2.0-1(b), along the great circle from the Mission Report’s ignition point to the landing point.
  3. Which way it points. Fitted from the labelled stars in each frame alone: 3 to 8 stars, 0.04° to 0.15° RMS. Those residuals show the quality of the fit; the Sun, the planets and the horizon are predicted from it.
  4. The window. The docking-window outline and scribe are traced from the first frame and reused; the plot is fixed to the LM.

How close it comes

Tests set before measuring:

Frame Sun (limit 2°) Lunar horizon (limit 1.0° RMS)
(a) begin burn 0.43° 0.72° RMS but max 4.2° — missed
(e) 2:06 0.26° 0.49° RMS, max 1.0° — pass
(j) 5:26 0.60° 4.15° RMS, max 8.6° — missed
(p) 8:06 0.42° (no horizon in view)

Venus and Saturn land within 1°. The Sun’s agreement shows these charts were drawn for the real date, unlike Figure 1. Early in the burn the drawn horizon lies close to the geometric one; after the yaw to windows-up it does not. On Figures 1, 2 and 3b the program’s horizon also parts from the geometry, and the rule it used is still unknown.

The first run of this test put the LM on the landing site’s radius (the datum its altitudes are measured from) but drew the horizon on the Moon’s mean radius, 2 km larger. The final review caught the mismatch; with one datum, frame (e) passes. Both sets of numbers are in the ledger.

Limits