Photogrammetry of Apollo 11 surface imagery

Abstract

We used photogrammetry to study surface photographs made by the crew of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM). We represent photogrammetrically determined locations of 116 from total 123 camera stations (6 additional stations were located approximately based on auxiliary data), hardware left on the surface and natural features. Our analysis improves results of earlier determinations made with rough methods. Errors of distances from the LM to the EASEP instruments have been reduced from meters in the map from the Preliminary Scientific Report to about 0.1 m. Determined locations were compared to positions of artifacts in orbital photographs made by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC); an excellent agreement was established. We identified at least 58 boulders seen both in LROC images and in EVA photographs. Distance accuracies are mostly within 3 percent. A new, more exact and detailed map of Tranquility Base was composed.

Full text

1
Photogrammetry of Apollo 11 Surface Imagery
JBIS, Vol. 67, pp.???-???, 2014
PHOTOGRAMMETRY OF APOLLO 11 SURFACE IMAGERY
VLADISLAV-VENIAMIN PUSTYNSKI1 AND ERIC M. JONES2
1. Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Physics, Ehitajate tee 5, Tallinn 19086, Estonia.
2. 48 Huon Creek Road, Wodonga, Victoria 3690, Australia.
Email: vlad.pustynski@gmail.com1 and honais@gmail.com2
1. INTRODUCTION
Our ability to map the lunar surface advanced dramatically
beyond what was possible from telescopic observations
because of data returned by various successful spacecraft sent
to the Moon between 1959 and 1974. After a sixteen-year
hiatus, there has been a broad-based resumption of interest in
lunar exploration, with a number of unmanned spacecraft sent
to the Moon. While the ve Lunar Orbiters provided coverage
of 99 percent of the Moon at 60 m resolution or better, and
coverage of potential Apollo landing sites at 1 m resolution,
nearly a half century later the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
Camera (LROC) team is working toward global coverage at
1 m resolution.
Surface photography by the Apollo crews provides
case studies of lunar terrain on a human scale. Modern
computers make it possible to extract from the photos new
information that is not only of historical interest but also has
applications to future lunar operations by human crews and
unmanned rovers. Photogrammetric analysis can provide
exact locations of surface features, their ranges, sizes,
distributions etc. However, it was problematic to perform
precise photogrammetry calculations in the era of relatively
slow computers. The very rst photogrammetric work of
Apollo 11 lunar surface imagery may be found in [1], where
a camera station map and a traverse map (prepared using
rough manual triangulation methods) are represented. Being
generally correct in the rst approximation, these maps
contain signicant errors in respect of locations, azimuths
and tilts of some individual cameras, as well as in positioning
of several artifacts and natural features. Positioning quality
was substantially improved in a 1978 map [2], but this map
contains no data on camera stations.
In order to create a more accurate map of Tranquility Base,
we undertook a photogrammetric analysis of Extravehicular
Activity (EVA) photographs. Our choice is conditioned by the
historic value of this mission. Another factor is a relatively
We used photogrammetry to study surface photographs made by the crew of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM). We represent
photogrammetrically determined locations of 116 from total 123 camera stations (6 additional stations were located approximately
based on auxiliary data), hardware left on the surface and natural features. Our analysis improves results of earlier determinations
made with rough methods. Errors of distances from the LM to the EASEP instruments have been reduced from meters in the
map from the Preliminary Scientic Report to about 0.1 m. Determined locations were compared to positions of artifacts in
orbital photographs made by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC); an excellent agreement was established. We
identied at least 58 boulders seen both in LROC images and in EVA photographs. Distance accuracies are mostly within 3
percent. A new, more exact and detailed map of Tranquility Base was composed.
Keywords: Apollo program, Apollo 11, photography, photogrammetry, maps
small number of photographs taken during the only EVA. A
limited pool of images makes it possible to compose a nearly
complete camera stations map with reasonable efforts.
There are several software products available that are intended
for photogrammetric analysis. We have chosen ImageModeler™
due to its intuitive interface and control. This software is intended
mostly for architecture modeling and for extracting textures.
However, its ability to create 3D scenes from 2D photographs
may be successfully used to perform analysis of lunar imagery.
We used Magazine S Hasselblad EVA photographs together with
5 photographs taken from both windows of the LM to create a
3D scene and to deduce locations of artifacts, terrain features, as
well as camera locations and rotations.
2. METHOD
The following general algorithm is applied in photogrammetric
software to create a 3D scene from 2D photographs. Point-like
objects present in different images are chosen and labelled with
calibration benchmarks. A focal length corresponding to each
image may also be provided, together with coordinates of the
principle points, thereafter calibration procedure is performed
and a 3D scene is generated. After calibration, number and
positions of benchmark labels may be adjusted to improve
the quality. Later on, a suitable local coordinate system based
on labelled benchmarks may be introduced. Finally, two
benchmarks with a known actual distance between them are
chosen as the distance reference basis. The resulting scene
contains coordinates of benchmarks and cameras, as well as
camera rotations.
Below we enumerate the most important problems
inuencing accuracy of the photogrammetric scene created
from lunar surface photographs:
1) Blurring. Objects chosen as benchmarks may be out of

2
Vladisalv-Veniamin Pustynski and Eric M. Jones
focus at least in some photographs, so some benchmarks
may be inadvertently shifted from the right place.
2) Lack of point-like benchmarks. Benchmarks should be
distributed more or less uniformly over the plane of a
photograph. This requirement makes use of natural
benchmarks (mostly rocks) inevitable. Since rocks
are generally not sharp, benchmark positions have
dispersions.
3) Focal lengths are known approximately. The actual
focal length for each photograph depends on its focusing
distance (most common values are 63.65 mm, 61.93
mm and 61.27 mm, which correspond to xed focusing
distances of 5, 15 and 74 ft used in the lunar cameras).
Focusing distance may be estimated from distance
to objects in sharp focus, but this estimation may be
sometimes wrong.
4) Inexact reference distance basis. Since computed
coordinates of the two benchmarks used to determine
the reference distance basis contain uncertainties, the
basis itself also contains an uncertainty.
3. MAP OF TRANQUILITY BASE
During the EVA the astronauts took 123 photographs using a
single Hasselblad 70mm EDC camera, 121 of which contain
recognizable objects. These photographs are numbered as
AS11–40–XXXX, where XXXX is a four-digit number in the
range 5850–5970 (there are also two images 5882A and 5966A).
Below, we will refer to the photographs using their four-digit
numbers. In total, we were able to use 121 photographs, 116 of
which are EVA photographs and 5 are window photographs.
Seven EVA photographs are not included. These are: 1) 5904
and 5966A (since they do not contain recognizable features);
2) close-ups of the Boot Penetration Soil Experiment (BPSE),
5876–5880 (they contain features concentrated within a very
small area of terrain and it was difcult to include them due to
technical issues). We used digital scans from the Apollo Image
Atlas [3]. The generated 3D scene contains basic information
about locations and rotations of 116 EVA and 5 window
photographs. The scene also gives positions of hardware left
on the lunar surface and locations of natural features like rocks,
boulders and crater rims. It is also possible to identify the
locations where the Boot Penetration Soil Experiment and Soil
Core Sampling were done.
Determining locations requires denition of the coordinate
system. In principle, it is preferable to choose the coordinate
system’s z axis parallel to the local vertical. Unfortunately, lunar
imagery does not give accurate data on the local vertical. A
viable alternative is provided by the pole driven into the ground
early in the EVA to support the SWC experiment. The direction
vector of this pole was used as the z-axis. Although the pole is
not precisely parallel to the local vertical (as discussed in Section
3.3, the tilt is about 4 deg), the difference is small enough, so
resulting errors in horizontal locations are small. The direction
of the y-axis is dened by the vector from the center of the +Y
footpad to the –Y (south) footpad. The direction of the x-axis
is dened by the vector from the –Z footpad to the +Z footpad.
At the top of the each of the four primary landing struts there
is a tting suitable for use as a benchmark. The mean distance
between diagonal ttings was chosen as the distance reference
basis. The corresponding distance on the LM was found to be
5.954 m from the drawings [4]. We preferred not to use the
distance between the diagonal landing pads, since struts may
have been deformed slightly due to shock absorption at landing.
The photogrammetrically compiled map of Tranquility Base
and its vicinity is shown in Fig. 1. The map includes 122 of the
123 EVA camera stations, locations of all principle hardware,
as well as some of the most distinctive craters and the largest
boulders. The northern azimuth of the map was set using data
of the LM alignment data from [5] (Table 9.6–IV). The mean
value of the yaw is α = 13.270. An enlarged fragment of the map
is presented in Fig. 2, where the LM and its vicinity are shown
with better resolution. Labels of Pan 1 camera stations may be
read from the inset in Fig. 1. The version with better resolution
may be downloaded from the dedicated page in Apollo Lunar
Surface Journal [6].
3.1 Camera Stations
Arrows in the map indicate camera locations, azimuths
and tilts. Points at the beginning of the arrows label the
corresponding camera locations, and directions of the arrows
coincide with the camera azimuths. The four-digit number
parallel to each arrow is the last number in the Magazine S
label. Camera stations in Pans 1 and 5 are displayed as insets.
The Pan 1 camera stations were moved from near the LM
ladder to avoid a clutter of arrows; Pan 5 camera stations were
shifted towards the LM to make the map more compact. For
each of the 5 panoramas the central point and the circle of
mean distance of cameras from the central point are shown
(see the legend). Larger circles correspond to panoramas with
larger dispersions of camera locations. Arrows corresponding
to the photographs 5876–5880 and 5966A were drawn with
bolder lines to indicate that locations and azimuths of these
cameras were found approximately, based on visual analysis
of images and without using photogrammetry. Camera
stations 5876–5880 were put near the BPSE location; and
data for 5966A were obtained by comparison with 5965/5966.
Locations and azimuths of the 5 window camera stations
inside the LM cockpit are not shown.
When the photogrammetric map was compiled and
compared to LROC orbital images of Tranquility Base, it
was discovered that the Pan 5 station locations had some
obvious discrepancies, particularly with regard to their
locations relative to the prominent 4.5 meter crater just a
few meters north of the spot where Neil Armstrong took the
pan. These discrepancies were due to (1) technical issues in
using IM when the number of benchmarks is large (it was
impossible to correct the discrepancies later); and (2) the
fact that most benchmarks visible in photos 5954–5959 were
distant boulders. To remove these discrepancies, we did a
dedicated photogrammetric analysis for 5954–5959 using
local rocks as benchmarks. The resulting small map was tted
to the photographic location (seen in LROC photos) of the
sharped-rimmed crater just inside the southwest rim of Little
West Crater. The result may be conrmed by the fact that the
corrected location of Pan 5 is in good agreement with the
eastern end of Armstrong’s track to Little West Crater seen in
high-Sun LROC images.
3.2 Hardware and Natural Features
Most notable pieces of hardware are represented in the map,
including the LM, the ag, the EASEP instruments and
others. The top projection view of the LM was taken from
[7]. Dimensions and orientations of vertical projections of the
artifacts in the map are tted to their photogrammetrically found
dimensions and rotations. Only locations of rocks with a size
of 0.5 m or greater are shown in the map. Some of the largest

3
Photogrammetry of Apollo 11 Surface Imagery
and sharpest crater rims are also shown. All rims (except for the
outline of Double Crater) were approximated with circles using
photogrammetric locations of 3–4 pieces of rock lying on the
rim of each crater. The rims of the three main components of
Double Crater were also outlined using small rocks; however,
since these rims have considerable widths (about 1 m), the
outline is approximate.
3.3 Accuracy of the 3D Scene
We made some checks of the distance scale, the chosen
direction of the z-axis, and the sizes of manmade objects close
to the LM.
1) The uncertainty of the distance reference basis was
found from measurements of two diagonals between
junctions of the primary struts. The difference between
the measured lengths is 1.25 cm, i.e. 0.21% of the
basis.
2) To estimate the inclination of the z-axis, we measured
the angle at the SWC pole tip between the pole and the
solar rays forming the shadow of the tip, and compared
it to the mean solar elevation angle. A western tilt of
the pole of about 2.40 was discovered. A northern tilt
of about 2.50 was also found from comparison with the
LM thrust axis inclination measurements and the LM
alignment data. Thus, the total tilt of the z-axis is about
4.50, the uncertainty is of the same order of magnitude.
Such tilt causes distance errors of about only 0.25%
in the horizontal plane but quite large elevation errors
Fig. 1 Map of Tranquility Base.

4
Vladisalv-Veniamin Pustynski and Eric M. Jones
(up to 7%). Therefore elevation estimations within the
scene are problematic, but horizontal distances are only
slightly affected.
3) We used artifacts with known sizes to make additional
estimations of uncertainties. The following artifact
dimensions were measured: the length and the width
of the solar panels of the PSEP (4 widths and lengths);
the side lengths of the array of retroreectors LRRR
(4 sides). These dimensions were chosen because they
cannot change during deployment. In all cases the
measurement results and standard deviations differed
by less than a centimeter from the actual dimensions
known from literature [8, 9].
4) At larger distances from the LM the photographic
coverage of specic areas decreases, parallaxes also
become smaller, so the positioning accuracy drops and
the role of systematic errors increases. As we discuss
in Section 3.5, differences between calculated positions
and LROC photographic locations of boulders at ranges
between 100–350 m can be as large as 7%.
5) The locations of camera stations can provide a measure
of the overall accuracy of the scene. Although in many
cases we do not have independent evidence of camera
station locations, the ve panoramas do provide
information on the relative accuracy. Most panoramas
were taken with the astronaut standing on one spot and
then turning by 30 degrees or less between successive
shots. If astronauts managed to stay on a single spot
while turning, the result would be a pattern of camera
stations spaced more-or-less evenly on a circle of 0.5
to 1.0 meters radius. In the map, Pans 1 and 3 show
regular circular patterns, the mean square deviations
from the circle are less than 0.2 m (the gap between the
last two frames in Pan 3 is real). The pattern of Pan 2
is more elliptical, probably because it is taken on the
rim of Double Crater. The pattern of Pan 4 is regular
only for stations pointing westwards, with portions of
the LM or rocks visible from many other locations.
The pattern of other Pan 4 stations is much less regular
because these images contain only rocks seen from
only a few locations and/or rocks seen only in the sun
glare. Therefore locations of these rocks are much more
uncertain. The irregularity of Pan 5 camera stations
pattern reects actual movements of Armstrong; this
fact was conrmed by a separate photogrammetric
analysis. These observations let us conclude that camera
positioning accuracy may reach ~0.1 m or even better if
sufcient details of the LM or other artifacts are within
Fig. 2 Camera station map, enlarged fragment of the vicinity of the LM.

5
Photogrammetry of Apollo 11 Surface Imagery
the image. Nevertheless, accuracy may fall to >1 m for
cameras where mostly rocks with insufcient parallaxes
were used as benchmarks.
3.4 Comparisons to the 1969 and 1978 Maps
We compared the new map with the 1969 map from the
Preliminary Science Report [1]. The 1969 map was constructed
using simplied methods and is less detailed than the new map.
Because a graphic overlay of the maps would be difcult to
interpret, we compared numerically distances and azimuths
of artifacts and panoramas (measured from the LM center to
the centers of the objects). We found that distance errors in the
1969 map are mostly within 30% and azimuth errors are less
than 6 degrees. Distances in the 1969 map are underestimated
by about 20% in average. Locations of EASEP instruments
contain the largest errors (up to 5–7 meters). The old map also
contains several erroneous placements of camera stations. The
actual location of 5921 is between the +Y and –Z struts, not
between the +Y and +Z struts. The location of 5892 is between
the –Y and +Z struts, not between the –Y and –Z struts. Some
camera stations are absent in the old map. The new map includes
these stations. Although the 1969 map contains camera tilt data,
it is often inconsistent: for instance, all camera stations within
the panoramas are shown with arrows of the identical length.
The new map demonstrates that camera tilt patterns within
panoramas are more complicated. Tilt ranges for other cameras
are also corrected. The outlines of crater rims on the 1969 map
are qualitatively similar to the actual rim outlines shown by
LROC images: the relative locations of the craters are generally
correct, but their positions and shapes are not exact. The same
is true for rocks: relative locations of the rocks more or less
correspond to their actual positions, but their coordinates
contain noticeable errors.
The 1978 USGS/Defence Mapping Agency Site Map [2]
seems to have been constructed using more rigorous methods
than the 1969 map. It includes outlines of many craters and
generally agrees much more with high-resolution LROC
photographs. It does not include camera stations, but does
include positions of the most important artifacts. Distances
in the 1978 map are in signicantly better agreement with the
new map than for the 1969 map. The differences do not exceed
2.5 m, the mean square relative error is 7.5% compared with
20% of the 1969 map. Large errors in the LRRR and PSEP
placements in the 1969 map were corrected in the 1978 map.
3.5 Comparison to LROC Photographs
The landing site of Apollo 11 has been photographed by the
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter several times with resolution
from ~1.5 m/pixel to ~0.5 m/pixel and at a full range of solar
elevation angles [10]. These photographs show numerous
objects on the lunar surface, including the Descent Stage,
deployed items, trails of soil disturbed by the astronauts,
rocks and craters. A comparison between the new map and the
LROC images is the best means of judging the accuracy of the
photogrammetric analysis. We compared orbital photographs
taken with various resolutions and at various solar elevations
to the new map. We found that the most illustrative results
are obtained with 0.5 m/pixel resolution photographs taken at
two very different solar elevations. High-sun photographs are
perfect to show astronauts trails and deployed equipment. Low-
sun photographs perfectly reveal natural features like craters, as
well as shadows from artifacts and rocks. Orbital photographs
contain photographic perspective and therefore they also need
photogrammetric rectication. However, these distortions are
not very large within a relatively small area covered by the map,
so we were able to use a rough method of compensation. For
this purpose, we rotated the photographs and slightly changed
the proportion between the horizontal and the vertical sides.
The results proved to be satisfactory.
Figure 3 is an overlay of our map onto the 1 October 2009
LROC image [11]. The brightness and contrast were enhanced.
Soil disturbed by the astronauts around the Descent Stage,
towards the TV camera, and Armstrong’s trail to Little West
crater appears slightly darkened in the image. An excellent
agreement between the photograph and the map is obvious.
The locations of the PSEP, the LRRR, the LRRR cover in the
map perfectly coincide with the corresponding bright spots
in the photograph. The schematic representation of the TV
camera in the map is at the end of the wide, darkened path left
by Armstrong when he moved the TV to that location and then
returned to the LM. Armstrong’s path to Little West Crater
and back is in good agreement with the locations of Pan 5, the
station 5962 and the fresh crater on the rim of Little West Crater
as it is seen in the LROC image.
Figure 4 is an overlay of our map onto the 22 December
2009 LROC image [12]. As in the Fig. 3, PSEP location
in the map coincides perfectly with its image in the LROC
photograph; even the solar panels seem to be discernible in the
orbital photograph and match to their schematic representation
in the map. The LRRR appears as a light spot. The LRRR
cover cannot be seen at low sun. A lot of craters are visible,
thanks to the shadows cast by their rims. Outlines of craters in
the map closely match the visible rims in the LROC image. It
is also possible to discern darker spots to the west of several
rock labels: these should be shadows cast by the corresponding
boulders. Visibility of these shadows near the labels of rocks
conrms that photogrammetric determination of locations of
these rocks is accurate.
We have identied 77 boulders – by denition, rocks bigger
than 25 cm – that appear in the Hasselblad images and in
LROC images. Thus range in distance from the LM is between
5.5 m and 565 m. In size, they range from 0.5 m to 3 m. Fifty-
eight of the seventy-seven boulders have photogrammetrically-
determined locations with small enough uncertainties that
condent matches can be made with boulders appearing in
multiple LROC images. The locations of these 58 boulders
are marked in Fig. 5. These range in distance from the LM
between 30 m and 410 m. Fifteen additional boulders with sizes
from 0.3 to 1 m can be tentatively identied in LROC image
M175124932 taken from 24 km. The remaining four boulders
have LM distances greater than 350 m. Their parallaxes
available from the surface imagery are insufcient to provide
accurate LM distances, but azimuths are well dened and, in
each of the four cases, only one suitable candidate is available
in the LROC images. Detailed descriptions and images of the
77 boulders can be found in a dedicated page in Apollo Lunar
Surface Journal [6].
Since LROC photographs contain perspective distortions,
the photogrammetric map does not match precisely to the
orbital photograph. Absolute values of deviations grow with
scale. In the vicinity of the LM their order of magnitude
is several centimeters, at distances of hundreds of meters
from the LM they grow to several meters. At the same time,
photogrammetric positioning errors also grow with distance
(see Section 3.3). This is the reason why it is difcult to

6
Vladisalv-Veniamin Pustynski and Eric M. Jones
estimate positioning accuracy of distant boulders: difference
between locations of a boulder in the LROC photograph and
in the map is caused both by intrinsic inaccuracy of the scene
and by perspective distortions of the photograph. However,
for absolute majority of the identied boulders in Fig. 5 this
difference does not exceed 6% (being generally within 4%).
Photogrammetric locations of a group of boulders to the north
of Little West crater have systematic errors; they are shifted
by ~4–7 m eastwards. This error is obviously caused by the
systematic error in positioning of Pan 5 camera stations, since
photogrammetric locations of these boulders are directly linked
to these stations.
There are many craters visible in the Hasselblad images
that may be identied in LROC images. We sought for these
craters systematically to get a better notion about the terrain of
Tranquility Base as it had been observed by the crew of Apollo
11 and to compare the surface and the LM windows views to
the orbital view. We have identied about 70 craters with radii
ranging from ~2 m to ~200 m at distances up to ~670 m from
Fig. 3 Map of Tranquility Base overlaid onto the 1 October 2009 LROC photograph. Solar elevation angle 87.80, resolution
0.54 m/pixel.

7
Photogrammetry of Apollo 11 Surface Imagery
the LM. The complete list with maps and descriptions may be
found in the dedicated page in [6].
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this photogrammetric study of the Apollo 11 landing site,
we have created a site map from 116 EVA photographs and 5
photographs taken out of the LM windows. The map includes
camera station locations accurate to better than 1 m in all cases
except for photographs Armstrong took at the rim of Little West
Crater. The map also includes locations of equipment deployed
by the crew and of numerous boulders and craters. For objects
closer than 30 m from the LM, distances are accurate to better
than 1 meter and azimuths to 2 degrees. Distances for objects
more than 30 m from the LM are accurate to a few percent.
The map has been compared to LROC images with resolution
better than 0.5 m. Agreement is excellent. The new map is
more accurate than existing 1969 and 1978 maps and contains
new information: camera locations not present in the 1969
map, locations and tilts of individual camera stations within
Fig. 4 Map of Tranquility Base overlaid onto the 22 December 2009 LROC photograph. Solar elevation angle 8.20 (the sun is
in the east), resolution 0.51 m/pixel.

8
Vladisalv-Veniamin Pustynski and Eric M. Jones
panoramas, the location of the BPSE, the LRRR cover, etc.
Some camera placement errors of the 1969 map were corrected.
More than 50 individual boulders and more than 70 craters
visible in orbital photographs were identied in EVA imagery
at distances up to 670 m. The most signicant problem with the
analysis concerns the photographs Armstrong took at Little West
and the locations of a set of boulders northeast of the LM which
are the only benchmarks available in the Little West photos. The
photogrammetry of the Little West photos is not well-tied to the
LM. The net result is a 6-m error in the positions of the Little
West camera stations and the northeast boulders.
As of mid-2013, LROC images cover 20 percent of the
Moon at 0.5 m/pixel resolution or better [10]. High resolution
lunar mapping from orbit is being done in part to provide
detailed information about possible future landing sites and
for science. Photogrammetry from images taken on the surface
can be useful for local mapping, surveying, and navigation
purposes. Although the method used in the current work is time-
consuming and labour-intensive, simplied techniques making
use of carefully-planned sets of surface images in combination
with data from orbital images may be of considerable value.
For example, the locations of selected boulders and other
landmarks in a scene captured by on-board cameras could be
compared with stored orbital data to determine the location of a
mobile vehicle in real time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One of the authors (V.-V. Pustynski) thanks the editors
and contributors of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for
encouragement and for the valuable information they have
compiled about the historic visit of the Apollo 11 crew to
Tranquility Base.
Fig. 5 Fragment of the 22 December 2009 LROC photograph, area size 632×468 m. Locations of 58
boulders identied on EVA photographs are marked with white squares. Arrows point boulders bigger
than 2 meters. Shadows spreading in western direction are visible near the squares corresponding to the
largest boulders, smaller boulders are covered entirely by squares. The unlabelled photograph may be
downloaded and examined at [12].
1. E.M. Shoemaker, N.G. Bailey, R.M. Batson, D.H. Dahlem, T.H. Foss,
M.J. Grolier, E.N. Goddard, M.H. Hait, H.E. Holt, K.B. Larson, J.J.
Rennilson, G.G. Schaber, D.L. Schleicher, H.H. Schmitt, R.I. Sutton,
G.A. Swann, A.C. Waters and M.N. West, “Geologic Setting of the Lunar
Samples Returned by Apollo 11 Mission”, Apollo 11 Preliminary Science
Report, NASA SP–214, pp. 50–52, October 1969
2. USGS/Defence Mapping Agency Site Map, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/
a11/USGS1978A11.jpg. (Last Accessed 19 September 2013)
3. Lunar and Planetary Planetary Institute, “Apollo Image Atlas”, http://
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo. (Last Accessed 19 September 2013)
4. Lunar Module basic dimensions, http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/
Documents/LM_Structures/LM_equipment_sht1.jpg and http://www.
ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/LM_Structures/LM_equipment_sht2.jpg.
(Last Accessed 19 September 2013)
REFERENCES
5. Apollo 11 Mission Report, MSC–00171, Approved by George M. Low,
NASA, Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, p 9–12, November 1969
6. V. Pustynski, E. Jones, “Photogrammetric Analysis of Apollo 11 Imagery:
New camera-station map with improved locations”, http://www.hq.nasa.
gov/alsj/a11/a11Photogrammetry.html. (Last Accessed 18 November
2014)
7. Scheme of the Lunar Module, “upper and side views”, http://lroc.sese.
asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/LM3view.png. (Last Accessed 19
September 2013)
8. Passive Seismic Experiment Package Sizes, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/
a11/a11PSEP_NASM.jpg. (Last Accessed 19 September 2013)
9. J.E. Faller and E.J. Wampler, “The Lunar Laser Reector”, Sci. Am., 222,
pp.38–49, 1970.
10. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera homepage.http://lroc.sese.asu.

9
Photogrammetry of Apollo 11 Surface Imagery
edu. (Last Accessed 19 September 2013)
11. High Noon at Tranquility Base, http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/
view/M109080308RE. (Last Accessed 19 September 2013)
12. LROC image of Tranquility Base,http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_
lroc/LRO-L-LROC-2-EDR-V1.0/M116161085RE. (Last Accessed 19
September 2013)
(Received 17 October 2013; Revision 16 November 2014; Accepted 18 November 2014)
* * *