Talk:Apollo 11/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

Your article states that one of the Flight Directors for Apollo 11 was Gerry Griffin. This is not correct; the 4th Flight Director was Milt Windler. You can check "Apollo The Race To The Moon" to verify this fact. 208.68.20.176 (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Orloff p. 272 clearly states that it was Griffin; Windler headed a shift on Apollo 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Milton Windler includes Windler as a FD for Apollo 11, but the cited source, (Orloff) NASA's SP-4029 Apollo by the Numbers doesn't show him (on Apollo 11). Note that it is, at best, 3rd-hand info, lists two different FDs for shift #1, and no shift #4; it is "Compiled from various documents and memoranda in the Rice University archives":

• Shift 1: Charlesworth, Griffin
• Shift 2: Kranz
• Shift 3: Lunney

2. Apollo, the race to the moon says:

• Maroon: Windler (our article does not show a maroon team)
• Gold: Griffin
• Black: Lunney
• White: Kranz
• Green: (only one hit for "green team" in this book, but it's not visible in the snippet (ed:); "charlesworth" has three hits, but without team or shift association.)

3. The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum shows:

• Maroon: Windler
• Black: Lunney
• White: Kranz
• Green: Charlesworth
• (no mention of a Gold team or Griffin)

4. NASA's SP-4223 Before This Decade is Out:

• Shift 4: Windler
• Shift 1: Charlesworth/Griffin
• Shift 3: Lunney
• Shift 2: Kranz

5a. Apollo 11 Flight Journal, day 4, part 4:

• n/a: Windler – 081:41 GET: "Flight Director Milt Windler now talking" (the first time Windler appears)

5b. ...and Apollo 11 Flight Journal, day 3, part 1:

• Black: Lunney – 046:58 GET: "The Green Team led by Flight Director Cliff Charlesworth has just relieved Glynn Lunney's Black Team"
• Black: Griffin – 040:58 GET: "Flight Director Gerry Griffin who is spelling the usual Black Team Flight Director, Gene Lunney"
• White: Kranz – 054:45 GET: "White Team led by Gene Kranz"
• Green: Charlesworth – 046:58 GET: "The Green Team led by Flight Director Cliff Charlesworth has just relieved Glynn Lunney's Black Team"

6a. From the NASA Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: Flight Controller Assignments page, MOCR Teams:

Flight Dir	Charlesworth	Kranz	Lunney	Windler
	Griffin	Tindall

Note that a new name, Tindall, has appeared. From the rest of the doc, it appears that the second row is meant to be in addition to the first row (i.e. additional flight directors). Though it's a scanned image, the bolding and thicker borders around the third column appear intentional.

6b. Also from the ALSJ page above, Flight Controller Assignments, p. 141, entitled "MCC/MOCR MANNING" agrees with SP-4223 (#4, above). I'll note that "Apollo 11" does not appear on the page, and it is followed (on p. 142) by a news release related to Apollo 12. I.e., it could be the last Apollo 11 page or the first Apollo 12 page. This is just a collection of scanned documents, and we are relying on the editor having assembled them in a correct/meaningful sequence since there is no ToC and only some pages are unambiguously labeled. Someone could compare some of the other position assignments against other sources to ensure this is an Apollo 11-related page (if necessary).

7. NASA's SP-4214 Where No Man Has Gone Before, Appendix 5 agrees with SP-4223:

• Shift 1: Charlesworth, Griffin
• Shift 2: Kranz
• Shift 3: Lunney
• Shift 4: Windler

---

Conclusion

So, from all but source 1, I believe the citable, likely "truth" is:

Name	Shift	Team	Activities	Refs
Clifford E. Charlesworth	1	Green	Launch and extravehicular activity (EVA)
Gerald D. Griffin	1	Gold	Backup for shift 1
Gene Kranz	2	White	Lunar landing
Glynn Lunney	3	Black	Lunar ascent
Milton Windler	4	Maroon	Planning

References

References

(Pinging @Kees08 and Hawkeye7:) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this request for consensus to be formed. Please re-open the request by changing "|answered=yes" to "|answered=no" when agreement is reached. NiciVampireHeart 21:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight § Input requested for more input. Barring any objection, I'll put the above conclusion in the article in a day or two. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I've also emailed NASA. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it sure looks like we have an error and that you found the answer. I think you can safely edit the article with your findings (perhaps with a footnote saying that Apollo by the Numbers has it listed wrong/likely wrong? Could prevent future editors changing it back). If you are still unsure at all, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal folks are pretty responsive. Kees08 (Talk) 05:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

NASA was quick to respond:

According to the Apollo 11 manning lists in our collection and at JSC, team four was led by Milton Windler and served as the planning shift. Gerald Griffin and selected controllers from his Gold team were backup for shift 1 only.

I updated the table above. I'll update the article later today when I'm awake —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Worth mentioning ?

I've just read an interesting artice (https://www.businessinsider.com/classified-apollo-11-anomaly-threatened-to-crash-first-moon-astronauts-2019-6?r=US&IR=T), which mentions a near-miss during the Apollo 11 mission : after the Service Module was jettisoned, it followed the Command Module into the atmosphere. It was close enough for Aldrin to see it through the window, and apparantly there was a risk of the two vehicles colliding which could have had catastrophic consequences. The separation procedure was modified in subsequent missions to avoid this. Worth mentioning? Logicman1966 (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems a little overly sensationalist. Odds of two objects colliding like that are pretty small, especially when they had almost the same initial velocities before hitting the atmosphere. The slightest drag would have changed them sufficient to make a collision extremely unlikely. Seems more like someone just shilling for their new book than something that was a measurable risk. Others may have a different opinion though. Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

By all means include it. It's an interesting part of the Apollo history, especially the decision to not fix it until 13, which highlights the kind of tight schedule they were operating under. We'd need more detail to say anything about the level of risk involved, but as technical glitch with pretty spectacular visual results (for 11 at least), it's worth mentioning. (Also I'm not convinced by the claim that a collision would have been "extremely unlikely" is relevant. The system was designed to ensure that the situation didn't arise, and when the system failed, they made the effort to fix it.) — Aldaron • T/C 20:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, include it with polished wording. An interesting historical incident in the final stages of Apollo 11. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, worth including ~ 100 years from now the future astronauts would like to know how primitive and how challenging or space program was ~ WP:Humor ~ but yes it will be worth editing into the article ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment at...

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#POTD/Parkes Observatory and DYK/Maspalomas Station about this subject. Please join. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Tranquility vs tranquillity

I think a single l is US spelling, per Cambridge dictionary. Anyone have issues if I change it from tranquillity to tranquility? Kees08 (Talk) 06:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tranquility Base also has one L so I would agree with this change. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

While the British spelling does yes have two ls, and that's more accurate to the original Latin, I don't think I ever see Sea of Tranquility written with two ls. If I do it's very rare. So I'd agree with the single l spelling. And that's before we get into the fact this is very clearly a US article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, the British spelling has two L's. I think you misspoke here. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Doh. Yes I mistyped there. I meant 2. I'm going to correct to avoid more confusion. Canterbury Tail talk 14:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Righto, made the change, thanks for the input. Kees08 (Talk) 14:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tranquility Base timeline

Can someone with knowledge about this pop in the Tranquility Base article the correct time following the landing of Eagle that Armstrong exited it. The lede now reads "crewmembers Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed their Apollo Lunar Module Eagle at approximately 20:17:40 UTC. Armstrong exited the spacecraft six hours after touchdown, followed 19 minutes later by Aldrin.", and I'm questioning the "six hours" as being too much of a round number to be accurate. If, for example, it was "six hours and two minutes", that's the language the sentence should contain. Hoping someone has a quick and accurate answer, thanks (and what a great week to be editing these pages, Happy Anniversary everyone!). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019

Should Say,fifth mission into space, instead of fifth mission. Everyone Forgets That Apollo 1 Was The First Crewed Apollo Mission But Due To The Fire It Never Flew. Apollo 1 Is Still Recognized As The First Crewed Apollo Mission. Ptj4403 (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ptj4403:  Not done: Reasonable, but most reliable sources, including NASA's website, seem to describe it as the fifth mission, so you'll need to find sources calling it the sixth. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Um, the proposal was not to describe it as the "sixth mission", but as the "fifth mission into space"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

... On the basis that it was the sixth mission. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well the edit request looks pretty clear to me. I'm not sure it's fair to deny it, just based on that interpretation. But if NASA always calls it "the fifth mission", of course, it might be wise to stick with that. An alternative might be to add a small footnote about the failed First Mission (which "everyone forgets"? Just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, but a) this is a malformed edit request either way as it doesn't state what specific part is to be edited; b) the current wording in the lede, assuming that is the issue, seems adequate based on the cited sources in the article; and c) based on the reasoning of the proposal it would be equally inaccurate to call it the "fifth mission into space", as Apollo 1 was also a mission into space, just a failed one. So, in light of those three factors, it seems reasonable to deny the edit request. Cheers —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As this was Ptj4403's fifth edit to the encyclopedia, I was prepared to cut them a little slack. Never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You Want Source NASA States, "About Apollo 7, the First Crewed Apollo Space Mission" This Is The Lead Headline Of This Article - https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo7.html . Therefore Making The Edit Of Apollo 11 The Fifth Mission Into Space. As For Apollo 1 NASA States, "The first manned Apollo mission was scheduled for launch on 21 February 1967..." Article Source - https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_01a_Summary.htm . By Not Making This Edit You Are Not Including Apollo 1 Into The Apollo Project And Not Giving Those Men Their Due Recognition And Sacrifice Of Their LIVES That Lead To Apollo 11 To Become A Part Of History. Apollo 1 Fire Investigation Lead To Many Changes Allowing NASA To Advance To Apollo 11, Source, NASA Article Apollo 204 Review Board Final Report ( https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/content.html ) - Part IV Subsections 2. Investigation And Analysis And 3. Findings, Determinations And Recommendations, https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/invest.html , https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/find.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptj4403 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit to Apollo 11

Under "Lunar Surface Operations" 3rd paragraph states "Copies of this video in broadcast format were saved and are widely available, but recordings of the original slow scan source transmission from the lunar surface were likely destroyed during routine magnetic tape re-use at NASA.[127]"

New information indicates not all the tapes were destroyed. Several where purchased in the 1970s by Gary George a former NASA intern. He purchased a large lot of used tapes planning on selling them to local TV stations but saved three that where labeled Apollo 11. They are claimed to be the only three reels of original footage of man's first walk on the moon. The tapes are being sold at Sotheby’s auction on July 20th 50 years after the landing. - Time https://time.com/5626388/apollo-11-tapes-auction/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkt777 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

George's tapes were recorded at the Manned Spacecraft Center, now the Johnson Space Center, in Houston, Texas. They were not directly recorded from data transmitted from the moon, but from feeds sent by three ground stations that had downlinked the Apollo 11 data and converted it into a format fit for broadcast television.
That distinction is crucial when valuing the tapes, says space memorabilia collector Robert Pearlman.
“They are a copy of the final broadcast signal, not the original data received from the moon and not something that was used by NASA to carry out the rest of the flight," Pearlman, the founder and editor of collectSPACE.com, told Al Jazeera." [1]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Plaque language

I have been meaning to do this change myself all week, but apparently will not find the time. I think the recently added text is undue weight for a particular portion of the plaque language. At the behest of the Nixon administration to add a reference to God, NASA "shrewdly" included the vague date as a reason to include A.D., which stands for Anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord".

My intention has been to expand Lunar plaque with a section on 'Plaque design' and to include the above text in that section I planned to use: Before the Fall, After Apollo?, and a NYT opinion piece by one of the writers. If others agree with this and have time to make the edits, I would greatly appreciate it. I would love for the section on the lunar plaque to include the bits about the verb tense change and whatever else is easy to source. Kees08 (Talk) 17:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You know ~ "bon Anniversary" ~ if you want to find out exactly what the plaque reads today ~ I have a formula for you ~ Resolution in radians = 1.22λ/D, where λ is wavelength and D is aperture. Resolution in this case means minimum distance between two equal objects at which they can be separate ~ Using λ=500nm, D=(1.22)(500E-9)/2E-10 = 3050 meters~ You would need a telescope that is this wide ~ `3,000 metres (1.9 miles)' ~` Does anyone know where I can buy one of those ~ I looked everywhere ~ (by the way I'm on a limited budget)~ Just a question ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Documentary Films list

Is there a reason the excellent Ron Howard film In the Shadow of the Moon isn't on the documentaries list? It has some powerful interviews with astronauts; it's not restricted to 11, but a few of the others seem not to be too. Chris Rodgers (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, good catch. Although not a Ron Howard film. There are several other documentaries, some produced this year, which may not have pages as yet. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Closure of hatch time 05:01 is incorrect - it was 05:11.

The EVA duration is stated as 2 hours, 31 minutes, 40 seconds. The hatch was opened at 02:39, but the article says it was closed at 05:01, which is only 2 hours 21 minutes. The transcript notes the closing time as "04 15 39 13", that is, at 05:11 UTC. See also: http://apollo11.spacelog.org/04:15:39:13/#log-line-401953 or http://apollo11.spacelog.org/original/411/ 49.197.130.241 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

OP is right; this is an error. I checked the numbers in Orloff (2000) and Jones (1995). Running the calculations I got 05:11:13 UTC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed to 05:11:13 UTC. Start: 02:39:33 and End: 05:11:13 gets us to 2 hours, 31 minutes, 40 seconds. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I was curious how long that was there and found the diff. Probably a simple math error. I will double check the other times to be sure. It does seem the correction made above is the accurate time. Kees08 (Talk) 22:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Small point. The 05:11:13 time applies to the hatch closure directly after the EVA, the LM was then re-pressurised to allow the removal of the DPSS etc. The position of the time of hatch closure and re-pressurisation in the text implies it refers to the re-closure following the de-pressurisation and hatch re-opening for the ejection of the backpacks etc. Pendleboater (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Weight?

"They spent about two and a quarter hours together outside the spacecraft, and collected 47.5 pounds (21.5 kg) of lunar material to bring back to Earth"

So, is that how much it weighs on Earth, or on the Moon? 24.156.190.134 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Your exactness to detail is very good, may consider further Wikipedia editing. As for the answer, I personally don't know (guessing it's Earth weight but you're right that it's not totally clear) and someone who does will be along. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This source and this one say nothing about weighing the samples, so one might guess the weighing was done back on Earth. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting point. So if the samples didn't have a scale weight in the Lunar Module then NASA must have had a set-amount of weight allotted for the samples, per take-off weight and fuel considerations, probably erring on the high side. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think so. It seems the crew's job was just to fill the containers available. In fact, Ryan Ziegler, NASA's Apollo sample curator, interviewed here, said: "Neil Armstrong decided that the rock box with the samples looked empty ... so he shoveled four or five shovelfuls of dirt into the rock box." Ziegler said that the soil is "probably the most valuable sample" that Apollo 11 brought back. "If I could pick one sample from Apollo 11, this is it." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

21.5 kg are always 21.5 kg. It does not matter where you measure the mass. I think you might confuse mass with weight. :) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah-ha. So a weighing scales from Earth would work fine on the Moon? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A balance scale would work, but not a scale that is based on measuring objects' weights (such as bathroom scales). Fomalhaut76 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes I see. I've yet to see any mention of a balance scale on the Moon. Or, in fact, any scales. So I guess, as Randy suggests, they just factored in an estimate of the extra mass that needed to be lifted back up off the surface in the LM. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The astronauts weighed each sample in the lunar module, using a spring scale calibrated for the Moon's one-sixth gravity. You can see a picture of one here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh thanks! One wonders how they weighed the "four or five shovelfuls of dirt". (Although that page doesn't actually mention Apollo 11?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Wonder if they left their spring scale on the Moon or packed it up with them. If it was left it can be included in the 'things left on the Moon' article. Liking the story of noticing that there was room left in the box and just shoveling in some dirt. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Clicking through the gallery, I see that the explanatory text says: "This is one of the early scales used by astronauts for training." This page also shows a spring scale and a "sample return container, or "rock box" is one of two used by Apollo 11 astronauts... " But again no mention of weighing. Does that 1 - 80 scale show kilograms or pounds? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Should the article just contain a link to Apollo 11 anniversaries instead of having some information only on that page and some information on both pages? Lorax (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The goal was to summarize important anniversary events (like using an anniversary to propose another Moon landing), and then have the target article be a more thorough resource. When I created it there was a lot of information about the 40th, so I presumed the 50th would have even more. Kees08 (Talk) 20:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 11 landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969 4:17 pm (16:17 EDT), Armstrong set foot on the Moon on July 20, 1969 10:58 pm (22:58 EDT)

MODERATOR: No one - NO ONE - lists Neil Armstrong as walking on the Moon on July 21, 1969. This must be corrected. 73.85.206.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The reference is given in UTC, which would be July 21. The time is the same. Given that most references use U.S. time, the apparent conflict might be mentioned in some form to prevent confusion. Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

3rd paragraph edits

After being __sent to__ suggest "propelled toward"

the Moon by the Saturn V's third stage, the astronauts separated the spacecraft from it and traveled for three days until they entered lunar orbit. Armstrong and Aldrin then moved into Eagle and landed in the Sea of Tranquility. The astronauts used Eagle's ascent stage to lift off from the lunar surface and rejoin Collins in the command module. They jettisoned Eagle before they performed the maneuvers that propelled __the ship_ suggest "Columbia"

out of the last of its 30 lunar orbits on a trajectory back to Earth.[4] They returned to Earth and splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on July 24 after more than eight days in space.

Just clarifies what the Saturn V did, and which ship actually returned to Earth. 157.131.110.215 (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2019

Add the fact that the last rung of the ladder was so high off the ground, because the lunar lander's legs were designed to compress to absorb kinetic energy, however with a very soft landing, it did not compress much and so the ladder was still high enough that it required a jump down and a jump up to ascend it from the ground.-source is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlPO0PKP4Fs PiPhiTau (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

An interesting bit if true. Hopefully a source will be provided. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It always struck me that "One small step" was somehow not quite right. Now we know why, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In fairness he says it as he steps off the foot of the lander, not as he steps down off the ladder onto the foot. So it's still just a small step at that point. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It is true, and likely was popularized by a recent Everyday Astronaut YouTube video (I saw the title card for it but did not watch it). I believe I initially learned about it from Chaikin's book. I thought it was also because they were not sure how thick the surface layer of dust was (I recall that as being the entire reason, but going off of memory here). Kees08 (Talk) 14:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but still  Not done: The source provided above is indeed the Everyday Astronaut video mentioned by Kees08. I'm not familiar with this channel, but from reading his profile he has no particular expertise in this area, and the video doesn't cite any sources or interview any experts or anything to back up his claims. Don't get me wrong - the explanation in the video makes sense to me, but as far as I can tell this is a self-published source and shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia. If someone more familiar with this source or topic area disagrees and would like to make the edit they're more than welcome to do so. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Cultural Significance Sovs reaction

"The Soviets publicly denied there was a race to the Moon, and indicated that they were not making an attempt.[206] Mstislav Keldysh said in July 1969, "We are concentrating wholly on the creation of large satellite systems". It was revealed in 1989 that the Soviets had tried to send people to the Moon, but were unable due to technological difficulties.""

I dont get this, weren't both sides in the 60s trying to get to the moon and this is what the space race is about. Why are they denying this? To make themselves appear like they weren't even a part of this?--2600:1700:4000:62E0:6070:8E51:3C48:1631 (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The space race was not solely about the moon - the Americans had plenty of troubles early on, but the US program was never secret. The Soviet moon program was troubled, to say the least, and rockets kept blowing up. The N1 (rocket) never flew successfully. It was an embarrassment. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Sony TC-50 dictaphone and astronauts' music

I feel this should be mentioned somewhere.... https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/12/mickey-kapp-apollo-11-astro-mixtapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Out_of_the_Moon#Played_in_space_by_Neil_Armstrong

The TC-50 in fact appears to have no mention whatsoever anywhere on wikipedia, despite it predating the Walkman by a decade. I just noticed it on a BBC documentary about Apollo 11 (8 Days: To the Moon and Back) and was like, wtf? they had *Walkmans* ?!?!? 81.155.74.220 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, the tape player should be mentioned, starting in Apollo program and radiating out to other articles as contextually appropriate. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Fly Me to the Moon

The Fly Me to the Moon page says that the song "became the first music heard on the Moon when played on a portable cassette player by Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin after he stepped onto the Moon." with a 1990 New York Times reference. Haven't heard of this before, and don't recall it being in the films or documentaries unless I didn't pay attention. True? Was a portable cassette player carried to the Moon by Aldrin and Armstrong? And then left there, along with the cassette containing the song? It's not linked to this page or on Buzz Aldrin, although it's linked somewhere on the Neil Armstrong page. Should it be added here? If true it seems like an interesting addition. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The Miami Herald says it was used on Apollo 11. Interestingly, it refers to this article in Vanity Fair, which mentions the song in conjunction with Apollo 10, but not Apollo 11, which would be a surprising omission; so I'm still a bit skeptical, despite the level of detail in the Miami Herald article (and apparently this article in the NYTimes, but it's paywalled, so I can't check). TJRC (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Armstrong had a portable casette player. See the heading above in this page about the Sony TC-50 dictaphone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Just looked at the section above and don't remember seeing it, and it brought up a really interesting topic. Sony TC-50 Dictaphone on the Moon? And Aldrin was playing "Fly Me to the Moon" (when did he play it? the song article can't be correct in that it says Aldrin played it as he moonwalked, or did he?)? A nice topic maybe best described, to quote the IP in the above section, "WTF?". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The links that 81.155.74.220 left (and my apology that I missed the section) refers to Armstrong playing the album during for Aldrin on the trip to the Moon and on the return trip to Earth, with corresponding NASA tapes. Nothing about it being taken to the Moon and being used by Aldrin to play "Fly Me to the Moon" while he moonwalked (an entirely different kettle of fish), as referenced on the song page. Maybe someone can take a look at the paywalled New York Times page to see if it actually says that. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The Apollo astronauts carried portable tape players on every flight to listen to personal music, but the claim that the song was played on the surface just does not pass the smell test. The lunar EVA was way too busy for something as trivial as music; they would have needed some type of patch cord to pipe it into their suit headsets; and it certainly would have been audible on the transmissions to Earth. (PBS and CSPAN replayed the entire EVA TV transmission for the 50th anniversary). NASA obviously made no provisions for them to play music during EVA. (But journalists are our heroes; they certainly never get it wrong, do they? Can you spell telephone game?) JustinTime55 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Good points, thanks, it would have been heard on the tapes. Wondering how it's been gotten so wrong at the Fly Me to the Moon#NASA association page which has a New York Times paywalled reference. A great imaginary scene though. When someone gives the Times source a look maybe they can fix it at the song page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"it certainly would have been audible on the transmissions to Earth" I had always assumed the helmet of the space suits incorporated cupped earphones. Or would any music have leaked out of these and into the microphone? But I agree with you, it all sounds very unlikely anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming it would have been patched into the voice loop, had NASA provided the capability. I wasn't talking about a one-way patch into the astronaut's headphones; that would have been just more nonsense they did not design into the suits.

Let's also not lose sight of the fact NASA took a no-nonsense approach to Apollo design and planning. See the Vanity Fair article linked above; the reason the astronauts could listen to music at all was luck; the tape recorders were intended to be used as dictaphones for mission notes. NASA allowed them to make their own music mix tapes, subject to modified fair-use rules (i.e., minimum publicity of copyrighted music). JustinTime55 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, ok. So I think we all agree that the music would have been heard, by both astronauts and via broadcast to earth, when played in the open module environment. As soon as an astronaut put on his helmet, he would not have heard it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

References

"We choose to go to the Moon"

I am surprised not to find a mention of this speech in this article. Is there good reason for that? I know Kennedy's other speech, to Congress, is mentioned but his speech in Texas is more famous and notable here as well. If I hear no objections I will add it a day or two. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Very little about Collins in the Command Module during Armstrong/Aldrin's surface operations

Was a bit surprised to find so little in this article about what Collins was doing - or feeling or thinking or saying - during his near 24 hours alone in the Command Module. I don't have the knowledge to say anything about this myself, but seems to me there should be something about it to complete the article, and certainly before it's comprehensive enough to be a Featured Article. I feel the same about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.53.184.207 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The Columbia in lunar orbit section covers how he felt, even starting off with During his day flying solo around the Moon, Collins never felt lonely. The same general criticism was given in the FAC and I expanded what he did and how he felt about his role, is there anything specifically that you think is missing? Kees08 (Talk) 22:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

First-step decision

"the egress checklist had the lunar module pilot exit the spacecraft before the command module pilot"

should be changed to:

"the egress checklist had the lunar module pilot exit the spacecraft before the commander"

FredrikF Sweden (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)FredrikF

•  Fixed Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Anniversaries

@Hawkeye7: I have been meaning to replace Apollo_11#Anniversary_events with a summary of the new-ish Apollo 11 anniversaries page. The current section has a lot of recent-ism (especially with how much 40th anniversary detail is in there; 50th I get). I will probably get to it eventually, but was seeing if you would be able to make time for it. Kees08 (Talk) 17:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

First tv broadcast of landing

I remember seeing the tv broadcast. I remember also that the first images were upside down, a fact that is not mentioned. I think it should be included in the page. 2001:981:EA29:1:BC86:915A:4C58:8BC4 (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Question request

In the article, it says, "Apollo 11 entered Earth orbit at an altitude of 100.4 nautical miles (185.9 km) by 98.9 nautical miles (183.2 km)".

What does this mean? Surely there's only one altitude measurement needed? what does "x miles by x miles" mean? I'm not ignorant of science, but I don't understand this. I'm curious, but perhaps it should also be explained in the article. Thanks. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

An orbit takes the form of an ellipse. So it means that the maximum altitude was 185.9 km, and the minimum was 183.2 km. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No orbit is perfectly circular - the orbit in this case was an ellipse of varying altitude. I agree that it could be described as such. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm all for accessibility, but I think it's wrong to call the orbit elliptical, because that was not the intent; the target parking orbit is circular so it should be called near-circular, and the accessibility invested in a wikilink to clarify the orbit. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"Evoloterra" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Evoloterra. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Evoloterra until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Appolo 11" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Appolo 11. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Appolo 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 15:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The word “a” in brackets in the lead

I don’t think we should include the word “a” in brackets in the lead: “one small step for [a] man”. As indicated in the accompanying note, Eric Jones of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal explains that the indefinite article "a" was intended immediately before the word “man”, though all of the “more rigorous analyses of the transmission” indicate that the article “a” was not actually used, and "The important point is that the world had no problem understanding his meaning." So, if the word wasn’t actually used, and excluding it doesn’t create any problem understanding what was meant, then why include it in the lead? Details like this properly belong later in the article, and in the accompanying note, but not in the lead itself. Anyway, Armstrong obviously meant the word “mankind” in a broader sense than the word “man” and it’s easy to read it that way without the word “a” (e.g. it’s easy to read the word “mankind” as referring to both present and future generations while the word “man” refers only to people alive in 1969). Additionally, reliable sources view what he actually said as more poetic than what he allegedly meant to say, so who are we to spoil the poetic effect in the lead? And one more thing to keep in mind: if Charles Dickens can say it was the best of times and the worst of times, then why can’t Neil Armstrong say it was both a small step for humanity, and a big step for humanity? Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Andyjsmith, this discussion was started hours ago, but you have not responded, nor raised any objections. Please do. Simply reverting without objecting to any changes does not make much sense. Aside from the change discussed above, I made a bunch of other changes that all got reverted by you, so I'm curious whether you object to every bit of it, or some of it, or none of it. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe the a should be there in brackets either. It wasn't said, it's not part of the extremely common public record of events. Shoulda woulda coulda isn't what happened. Inserting it is just confusing to the reader wondering why it's being put into one of the most well known quotes in human history. Canterbury Tail talk 22:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, User:Canterbury Tail. If you have time to peruse the other changes I suggested, please say if you have any problems with them. For example, giving dates in the lead seems fine, but adding multiple different UTC times of day seems unnecessarily detailed for the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the [a] needs to be kept. This was the result of prolonged discussion among many editors, and should not be changed without a clear consensus, which we don't have. The dates and times in the lead have also been the subject of so much debate, so much so that it was put into the FAQ. Andyjsmith was right to revert. If you want to take an Apollo article to FAC, Apollo 10 needs a lot of work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

” this discussion was started hours ago, but you have not responded, nor raised any objections” - well it would have been nice to have had the chance. The point of posting a comment here is to wait for replies before charging ahead. As for the edit, a lot of other changes were made that also merit discussion, some of them seem rather opinionated. Andyjsmith (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You have had lots of chances to explain reasons for your opinions about proposed edits, but still haven’t, Andy. Same for Hawkeye. I’ll be leaving now, which seems to have been the primary goal recently, but I urge you both to read the essay “Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Bye! Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:FAOWN trumps as it, being a policy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Which says “it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first.” I did so as regards the Armstrong quote, at considerable length, above. No one has bothered to offer any contrary reasons, and yet my edits in that regard have been summarily and repeatedly reverted AFTER I gave a reasoned justification here at this talk page. There is no willingness at this talk page to discuss any reasons for content edits. And there is no contradiction between WP:FAOWN and Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Anyway, I am not presently in a mood to pursue this. Maybe next year I’ll get a Featured Article Review started, and we can all spend a hundred times the amount of time that we could have spent discussing content informally. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Apollo 11 silver dollar real 2.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

69.245.234.97 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The first person ever to be on the moon was actually spongebob

After careful research, and interviewing Patrick and SpongeBob's other friends and family, this may be false. Please provide references, spontaneous notes, and photographic proof. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Source check

Footnote 244: Earth magazine, 2011-03, pp. 42–51, least should have a title.--Jarodalien (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My best but unconfirmed guess is that it is probably

Gutheinz, Joseph Richard, Jr. (March 2011). "A memoir: A decade-plus of tracking lunar larceny". Earth. American Geosciences Institute. pp. 42–51.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

An excerpt of the article, about the lunar samples, is at [2], but does not seem to include the supporting text. AGI does sell a PDF of the issue for $2 if anyone cares enough to get it and verify. TJRC (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

About flags

Base on this article, "...It was decided that, in addition to the large flag, 4 x 6 inch flags of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. territories, and flags for all member countries of the United Nations and several other nations, would be carried in the lunar module and returned for presentation to governors and heads of state after the flight." So did they carried hundreds of small flags up there?--Jarodalien (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That's correct. They were presented along with a speck of Moon rock. We have images of many of them at commons:Category:Apollo 11 lunar sample displays. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Are there other sources or images that we can include in the article to strengthen the article? This seems to be a "little known fact" which is quite interesting and it would be great to expend the article with additional information. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be an effective addition to note the carrying of the flags more clearly, and to include a photo of one. The closest we get to mentioning it in the current version is "The flag of American Samoa on Apollo 11 is on display at the Jean P. Haydon Museum in Pago Pago, the capital of American Samoa", which doesn't really explain much, and implies that only American Samoa's flag was carried.

An effective photo to add would be the one of the Soviet Union flag.

It would be great to have a NASA photo of the whole set of flags, and I'd be surprised if no one thought to take a photo of them (but then again, Aldrin never thought to take a photo of Armstrong on the moon), but I've so far been unable to find one. TJRC (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

I've recorded an audio version of this article. Please add the following under External links:

{{Spoken Wikipedia|date=2020-07-13|En-Apollo 11-article.ogg}}

ExcarnateSojourner (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done I reached the required ten edits to edit the article, so I fulfilled my own request. ExcarnateSojourner (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Move "Part of a series" sidebar to another location?

The current location of the {{Apollo11series}} sidebar (under See Also) causes the sidebar to overflow into Citations, which prevents them from using the full width of the screen on desktop viewers. This causes a lot of wasted space, making the scroll to the Sources and External links to take even longer.

I propose that sidebar be moved to another location in the article. Normally I'd suggest below the infobox, but probably not in this article for the following reasons: 1., The infobox is already quite long; 2., the mission patch near the bottom of the infobox would be visually redundant with the mission patch in the sidebar that would be right below it; and 3., MOS:LEAD discourages sidebars in the lead section.

Perhaps placing the sidebar at the top of the Legacy section? There aren't any images that the sidebar would conflict with, or look cluttered near there.

Other locations / suggestions?  — sbb (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Unattributed Matter of Opinion

In the lead it is says "Apollo 11 effectively proved US victory in the Space Race", however this is a matter of opinion and is unattributed (the inline source does not even say this) The controversial nature of this opinion is accurately described on the Space Race article, stating "such an opinion is generally contentious", something not at all reflected in this article.

A user known as Hawkeye claims in their revisions of my tagging of this issue that the article is "fully sourced" as if this is somehow relevant to this issue despite me explaining in my edit summary (and now here again) how it is not.

They also accuse me of "drive by tagging" in which i direct them to WP:DRIVEBY.

If hawkeye wishes to provide a justification for their edits please do so (given they are, for some reason, incapable of doing so in their edit summaries), however if anyone has a solution to this issue (as i simply tagged it), I would also encourage a reply. Corinal (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is fully sourced, and the references in question are to Chaiken, Live from the Moon, p. 57, and Schefter, The Race, p. 288, which you claim to have checked. The former says:

“American moon” reflected the way in which Apollo 11 could be viewed through the lens of nationalism: By winning the space race with the Soviet union, Apollo had given a boost to the nation’s prestige in the world and, for many Americans, a heightened a sense of national pride.

The latter says:

The race was over. America won.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The statement can't be controversial unless someone disagrees with it. Do you have any reference to someone who says the US did not win the Space Race by landing the first person on the Moon? Fcrary (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Even the Soviet Union acknowledged it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Spacecraft properties / Launch mass

In this article, the "Launch mass" shows 100,756 pounds (45,702 kg).

First, "Launch mass" as indicated in the article is ambiguous as it does not specify to which object or set of objects it refers.

Second, this number conflicts with NASA historical data which shows weights at launch in pounds mass for the lunar module alone at 109,646 pounds (49,735 kg) and the total launch vehicle at 6,477,875 pounds (2,938,315 kg).

I'm not making any edits because I am unsure how the 100,756 pounds figure was calculated, but it seems possibly incorrect so I'll call attention to it here.

Arfyness (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you are totally misreading the NASA source. The 109,646 pounds is for the entire "spacecraft" (stack) which includes the Spacecraft-LM Adapter and the Launch Escape Tower. Those last two components should not be included because they are not part of the lunar spacecraft. We should only include the Command/Service Module (CSM) which is 63,507 pounds and the LM which is 33.278 pounds. The total lunar spacecraft is 96,785 pounds. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References