The "Shard," as Hoagland named it, projects
from the lunar surface like a ruined spire. If it is a real object, it would
be approximately 1 mile high. While it is a small feature on the photograph,
it is still approximately 15 times the resolution of the camera in height.
To the immediate left of the Shard, a feature
Hoagland calls the "Cube" appears to hover in space. A faint "tail" can be
seen extending for a short distance toward the lunar surface, suggesting
that it might be supported by some unseen structure, perhaps consisting of
narrow supporting members that are below the resolution of the photograph.
This feature has a width approximately 8 times the size of the smallest feature
resolvable by the camera.
The accompanying small JPEG was created from a positive print of the Lunar Orbiter 3 Frame 84M.It shows that the long axes of both the Shard and Cube align with the lunar vertical and not with the axes of the photograph, which were the same as the axes of this JPEG image. This makes it more llikely that these are real objects on the moon, rather than photographic defects, although it by no means proves that. The "M" designation means that it was taken by the Orbiter's medium resolution camera. The positive was made from an 8X10 inch negative from the National Space Science Data Center. The 8X10 inch print from which the image was scanned was an enlargement of a 0.5X0.4 inch area on the negative. A histogram equilization was applied to bring out some details visible on the positive print that were obscured in the original scanned TIF file. No further enhancements were done.
This photograph was the reason I became interested in examining the Sinus Medii region of the moon, and a search for a second confirming image of the Shard led me to the various other Orbiter and Apollo photographs on the Sinus Medii page that are interesting. We haven't found that second image of the Shard yet, but we're still looking.
This was my first try at image digitization and enhancement. I tried to compromise between the different brightness levels needed to best see the Shard and the Cube. The results are far from spectacular. The Shard is too light and the Cube is too dark, especially on a PC. Increasing the brightness of the JPEG with your image viewing software will reveal more internal details of the Cube, and the "tail" extending from it down towards the lunar surface.
The versions of LO3-84M produced by Richard Hoagland's Mars Mission are much better than the image here, so contact them for prints. An example of one of his enhancements of the Cube is here in this 50K gif. Mike Lomax has done his own enhancments of the Shard and Cube directly from prints he had made fr omhis own copy of the negative he ordered from NSSDC. He adjusted the brighness and contrast separately for best visibility of the two objects in the clips that can be seen here in this 99K gif. Note the network of dark lines running at right angles to each other within the Cube.
For those interested in acquiring a negative of LO3-84M from the National Space Science Data Center, the following information might be of use in locating the Shard and Cube on the negative:
Some internal structure can be seen in both the "Shard" and the "Cube". The white "X" just above the "Shard" is a camera registration mark on the photographic film. These marks were placed on the film prior to the LO3's launch so that distortions in the transmitted image could be accounted for.
The "tail" extending down from the cube appears longer than it does on the negative (when the brightness on your viewer application is turned up sufficiently).
The dark streak running from the apparent base of the Shard down to its right looks as if it might be the Shard's shadow. The sun was behind the camera and to the left. The Orbiter's angle of view of the lunar surface at the position of the Shard is very oblique, about 1 degree above the horizontal because this position was so close to the horizon, where the angle of view above the horizon is zero degrees. From some trig calculations I have done, I believe that the position of the Shard's shadow should be about 4 degrees above the horizon, when in fact it appears to be 7 degrees below the horizon. There is a possibility that the Shard's position on the slope could account for this discrepancy, but I am not yet certain of that. I am not even certain what exactly the true horizon is on the rolling terrain in the vicinity.
Another point of contention about this image is the presence of a large streak of bimat development fluid, which arcs across the image, passing 4 mm below the base of the Shard. It has been suggested that both the Shard and Cube are really droplets of this development fluid. On examining the defect on the negative, it is my opinion that the Shard and Cube bear little resemblance to these bimat droplets in shape, coloration, and orientation.
Also, if the Shard and Cube are truly part of this defect, then they are the droplets farthest from the centerline of the bimat streak except where it is thickest on the opposite side of the negative. By that standard, the Shard and Cube do not really appear "close" to the defect in any meaningful sense. The bimat streak is thickest on the right, and considerably less damage was done in general to the left side of the photograph, where the Shard and Cube was positioned.
A description of the known defects in Lunar Orbiter photography, taken from a NASA publication, is given on the page of Lunar Orbiter Camera information.
(I will insert an image of the defect on this page when I get a chance.)
Spacecraft altitude: 46.75 km. Spacecraft radius 1784.7 km.
Spacecraft nadir point: 2.93 degrees East, 1.61 North.
Position of principal point in photograph: 1.03 degrees West, 0.802 degrees North.
North deviation at principal point: 305.69 degrees.
Sun's position at principal point in photograph:
Azimuth 91.64 degrees. Elevation above the horizontal: 9.84 degrees.
The distance to the horizon from the Orbiter is 412 km (derived).
