Jump to content

Talk:Apollo 8/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

older comments

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Apollo_8 article:

  • Can link celestial body: ... [[orbit]], and the first time anyone was closer to another celestial body than they were to Earth. ...
  • Can link command module: ...== *[[Frank Borman]] (2), commander *[[James Lovell]] (3), command module pilot... (link to section)
  • Can link lunar module: ...Lovell]] (3), command module pilot *[[William Anders]] (1), lunar module pilot... (link to section)
  • Can link Saturn V: ...ction burn=== *[[December 21]], [[1968]], 15:41:38 UTC The Saturn V, S-IVB third stage, was fired for a second time. It burned ... (link to section)
  • Can link S-IVB: ...=== *[[December 21]], [[1968]], 15:41:38 UTC The Saturn V, S-IVB third stage, was fired for a second time. It burned for a t... (link to section)
  • Can link third stage: ...[December 21]], [[1968]], 15:41:38 UTC The Saturn V, S-IVB third stage, was fired for a second time. It burned for a total of 318 ... (link to section)
  • Can link meters per second: ...as propelled from an earth parking orbit velocity of 7792.8 meters per second to a translunar trajectory velocity of 10,822 meters per se... (link to section)
  • Can link low Earth orbit: ... 8 astronauts were the first human beings to venture beyond low Earth orbit and visit another world. What was originally to have been a... (link to section)
  • Can link another world: ...st human beings to venture beyond low Earth orbit and visit another world. What was originally to have been an Earth­orbit checkout o... (link to section)
  • Can link lunar lander: ... was originally to have been an Earth­orbit checkout of the lunar lander became instead a race with the Soviets to become the first ... (link to section)
  • Can link first nation: ...lander became instead a race with the Soviets to become the first nation to orbit the Moon. The Apollo 8 crew rode inside the comman... (link to section)
  • Can link Christmas Eve: ...They took photographs, scouted future landing sites, and on Christmas Eve read from the Book of Genesis to TV viewers back on Earth. ... (link to section)
  • Can link Zond program: ...ets were trying to preempt the first lunar flyby with their Zond program, which aimed to fly a stripped down Soyuz on a Proton rocke... (link to section)
  • Can link Proton rocket: ...Zond program, which aimed to fly a stripped down Soyuz on a Proton rocket carrying 1-2 Cosmonauts. The Soviets conducted a partially ... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

  • In Silly Putty, can backlink Apollo 8: ...apy, and in medical and scientific simulations. The crew of Apollo 8 even used it to secure tools in zero-gravity."...
  • In STS-32, can backlink Apollo 8: ...aunch of the Saturn V rocket; the first manned lunar orbit, Apollo 8; the first lunar...
  • In Johnson's farewell address, can backlink Apollo 8: ...on, symbolized most recently by the wonderful flight of the Apollo 8, in which all Americans took great pride,...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Something I want to add

Here is something that I have written to look at the historical importance of the mission. I hope that it catches the idea that I am going for that Apollo 8 was a truly important moment in the history of mankind.

Historical Importance

Apollo came at the end of 1968, a year that had seen much upheaval around the world. Soviet tanks had put a stop to the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia; Martin Luther King, Jr. & Robert F. Kennedy had been assasinated; the Vietnam War had escalated with the Tet Offensive; University campsus's across the United States had seen rioting and occupation of buildings by students; May had seen rioting in Paris that almost lead to revolution.

Yet over all these other events, TIME magazine chose the crew of Apollo 8 as their Men of the Year for 1968, recognising them as the people that most influenced events in the preceding year. They had been the first people to ever leave the gravitational influence of the Earth and orbit another celestial body. They had survived a mission that even the crew had themselves had rated as only having a fifty-fifty chance of success. The affect of Apollo 8 can be summed up by a telegram received by the crew after the mission that simply stated "Thank you Apollo 8. You saved 1968."

One of the most famous aspects of the flight was the Earthrise picture that was taken as they came around for their forth orbit of the Moon. Although it was not the first image taken of the whole Earth nor would it be the last, but this was the first time that humans had taken such a picture. Some regard the picture as being the start of the environmentalism movement, with the first Earth Day in 1970.[1]

The mission was the most widely covered by the media since the first American orbital flight by John Glenn. There were 1200 journalists covering the mission, with the BBC coverage being broadcast in 54 countries in 15 different languages. The Soviet newspaper Pravda even covered the flight without the usual anti-American editorialising. It is estimated that a quarter of the people alive at the time saw either live or delayed the Christmas Eve transmission during the ninth orbit of the Moon.

Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Data source

Just as a note for anyone interested, all the data for orbits and speeds included in this article are from The Apollo 8 Flight Journal. Any conversions were done using Google Calculator. I have also used miles instead of the NASA standard of Nautical Miles for the distances. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuit?

Is it worth mentioning Madalyn Murray O'Hair's lawsuit? I can't offhand find reference on wikipedia; sum was that she took offence to NASA personnel reading from Genesis on the grounds of separation of Church & State, and sued. (It got dismissed by the Supreme Court in the end, AIUI). It's not directly related to the article, but it is an interesting footnote. Shimgray 20:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The story does sound familar. If you can find a good source add it - the article is already quite large, so another paragraph won't be that harmful. Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
I'll have a dig around tonight or tomorrow, and see what crops up; there doesn't seem to be an obvious resource on the net, but I'm off home tomorrow and my source material's all there. Shimgray 21:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
sci.space.history comes through again; here's a couple of notes by Robert Zimmerman. I added the papal comment he quotes; it seems a nice cap on the mentions of the Genesis reading, which is one of the two particularly famous details of the mission (that and Earthrise). Shimgray 00:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To me, the reading of Genesis was perhaps the most important aspect of this mission. It is what really sets it appart from all others in the Apollo program. I'm not sure if the Genesis read occurs before or after the Santa Claus comment, but I do think it was after. Since this article is very long, I'd like to place a sentence in the appropriate place in the chronology, and then write a new stub specifically on the Genesis reading. I'll come back to this later once I find enough sources that tell me at what time this reading took place. There is a site that has a transcript, but it does not place it in the mission time. With a little luck, I will be able to meet Jim Lovell at Master Mind 2006, an event in San Diego where he will speak to a bunch of REALTORS® So, I think the whole reading, and O'Hair's lawsuit should be enough content for an entire article, or at least a stub. --Woolhiser 13:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the "Historical Importance" section (speaking of O'Hair, Aldrin taking communion, etc) needs citations. Some references to these same events can be found on the Wiki Buzz Aldrin page in the last paragraph under "Time As an Astronaut"...[2]. I have not read these references myself, but they may be able to provide the citations needed in this Apollo 8 article as well.Pieces of Arzt 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of flights...

The article (and all the other Apollo mission articles) has a section on the crew:

  • Frank Borman (2), commander
  • James Lovell (3), command module pilot
  • William Anders (1), lunar module pilot

(1) number of spaceflights each crew member has completed, including this mission.

The thing is, this isn't what it says; it's the number of flights the crewmember had completed as of the end of the mission (Lovell later flew a fourth time, on Apollo 13). The problem is, I can't think of a clear way to phrase this... "number of spaceflights each crew member had completed up to and including..." is a bit unwieldy. Thoughts? Shimgray 20:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, I can't find the wording that NASA use. Some of their sites use a numbering scheme like above (for example) but they have no explanation of the numbers. You might have to go with the unwielding phrasing as I can't think of any other way to put it. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:12, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
The ones NASA uses are previous flights - ie, the number of flights experience they had before the mission. It's probably as good a number as any to use... Shimgray 22:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Having thought about it a bit more... how would something like this look?
It seems pretty pointless just to give the number without linking it to anything, and this form seems reasonably clear as to what it shows. Shimgray 16:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Be bold. Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Heh. I do like to check before messing up your nice article, though ;-) - okay, modified version in, listing all flights (and not just previous ones). I've included Apollo 8 as a link; that way it comes out bolded, but it might be best just to have it as a non-link (and thus not bold). If you can come up with a better version, let me know; otherwise, I'll roll this out to the other spaceflight articles next week (when I've some free time). Shimgray 23:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. I unlinked them as the bolding made Apollo 8 stand out as if were more important than the others. I also italised all the missions as that is the style used in the article. As for editing my "nice article", people on Wikipedia have got into trouble for thinking that pages are their own. I don't want to be seen as the gatekeeper who is trying to protect his precious baby. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pope

I noticed that the Pope links to Pope John Paul II. This doesn't seem right. The Pope at the time was Pope Paul VI. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

'Collins'

The .ogg file linked off "Go for TLI" is captioned as being Michael Collins - in the context it's placed, it clearly is either a) not Collins but Lovell, or b) not an Apollo 8 audio file, surely? Not knowing which, I won't change it. --FleetfootMike 12:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The relevant part of the transcript:

002:27:20 Collins: Apollo 8, Houston.
002:27:21 Borman: Go ahead, Houston.
002:27:22 Collins: Apollo 8. You are Go for TLI. Over.
002:27:27 Borman: Roger. We understand; we are Go for TLI.

This from http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/02earth_orbit_tli.htm. Evil Monkey∴Hello 19:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Confused by mention of Collins having to scratch from the mission. Might be worth referring to him as Capcom (which I assume is what he was?) in that caption, just to prevent other folks being confused? -20:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:33, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Seven Missions Numbers and Letters

Rather than 1 to 7 the missions were A through G with Apollo 8 being C-Prime, since it was added (the original mission for the Borman crew was the cancelled E mission) references from Astronautix.com any objections if I add it?

No problem - I just used Numbers rather than letters as you can't make a alphabet list very easily without using bullet points. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
It's fixed, I had to use Bullets, for better or worse. -- John 20:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Collins

Collins did not fly on Apollo 10 as stated in the main page, only on Apollo 11. I have only checked the Wiki Apollo 10 page to confirm this, but I am essentially certain it is incorrect as stated. -- Bill@wwheaton.com

--24.205.82.251 04:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Odd, I fixed that error four hours ago. Maybe you were seeing an old cached version. I've purge the cache for this article. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:10, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Saturn V production number

I think there is an error describing 503 as the third production Saturn V. 501 and 502 that flew as Apollo 4 and 6 were both built under the supervision of Von Braun and Rudolph's Marshall team and differed in instrumentation from the production Saturn V's supervised by Boeing. 503 was the first true production Saturn V. There is also an interesting issue that the Saturn V was man rated by NASA after only two flights.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.146.218 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

New Apollo 8 image

File:Apollo 8 - Earthrise.jpg
Earthrise

Normally I'd just dump it on your main page, but since this is an FA, thought I'd post it here. Enjoy. Palm_Dogg 06:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We already have a slighly different coloured and cropped version of the famous Earthrise image at Image:NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg. The latter is currently a Featured Picture over at commons. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. My bad. Palm_Dogg 17:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Earthrise photo caption

The caption of the earthrise photo says that it was the first photo of an earthrise. I am not sure about that. I think thatthe first one here was the first earthrise photo. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

over 101 defects

The article says "over 101 separate defects were discovered". How many is that - 102?? If there is no exact number, wouldn't it be better to say "over 100" rather than "over 101"? I'm making that change, but someone with a good reason for changing it back can do so. Bubba73 (talk), 19:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Has anyone been able to find a link on the Internet to view the Apollo 8 (and Apollo 13, as well) video footage?

Thanks!
-----Jacnoc (Discuss | Desk | Contributes) 16:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a contemporary NASA documentary at archive.org, I just added a link to it on the article page. I think there's an Apollo 13 documentary on that site too. Mark Grant 01:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Speed

It occurs to me that the Apollo 8 astronauts at the moment of TLI (10,822 m/s) probably still hold the speed record for humans. All the later moon missions had an appreciably heavier payload, so presumably may have taken a somewhat slower trajectory to get there, by optimising for payload rather than for time. However, Apollo 8 is the only article which gives its speed. Does anyone know the details of this? Deuar 23:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, so I had a look at Apollo By The Numbers: A Statistical Reference, an excellent place for all sorts of Apollo related stats. Below are the various TLI Space-Fixed Velocity, which shows that Apollo 15 was the quickest (35,511.6 ft/sec, 10,824 m/s), while Apollo 12 was the slowest (35,389.8 ft/sec, 10,787 m/s). Actually the top speeds were recorded at reentry interface. The top speed there is 36,314 ft/sec recorded by Apollo 10. The slowest was Apollo 17 with 36,090.3 ft/sec. However IIRC this speed also depended on the Earth-Moon distance more than anything else, so was more a luck of the draw type thing. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up - and for linking those pages! :-) Deuar 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

to date

"It had been the most watched broadcast to date." This sounds funny. --Gbleem 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

New Image?

I have an image taken at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry of the module. The image unfortunately has me on it. I expected an image to already be here. I thought I should ask since this is a featured article. My head and upper body blocks a small corner of the module. There is a possiblity of cropping the image, and the quality looks pretty good otherwise. Is there any point to upload the image? Royalbroil T : C 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could upload it and post a link so that we could review it?Fl295 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: Image:Apollo8AtChicagoMuseumOfScienceAndIndustry.jpg. I would like it to either be modified or deleted in the next few days. I expected there to be an image from the museum in here, so I didn't think to take a pic without me on it. I live way too far from the museum to return. The image isn't as clear as I first thought. Royalbroil T : C 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lunar Orbit Altitudes

In different parts of the article it says ~111 km / ~111 miles. Which is it? Do any of the other Apollo articles have these same mistakes? Sagittarian Milky Way 07:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:January 3, 1969 Time Magazine Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:January 3, 1969 Time Magazine Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR Passed

Now that this article has been kept as a featured article, I wanted to post a note here so that I don't forget. December is a long way off, but it would be nice to have this article on the main page during the 40th anniversary of the flight, wouldn't it? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great! I personally have grown fond of the subject. Between now and then hopefully we can filter out remaining instances of informal language, etc. --Laser brain (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Apollo 8 be ...

... Apollo 8? That was this manned ship's radio call sign, same as Apollo 7. 68Kustom (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At one point, it was both - Apollo 8 for the mission, and Apollo 8 for the spacecraft. We changed it to just Apollo 8 for the entire article so that it was uniform, and changed the other mission designations to match. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I ask because it's becoming more common that publications ignore properly italicized nomenclature. I suppose 7 and 8 lie in a grey area as they are NASA mission designations, thus spacecraft names by default. Although ... the LM, CSM, SLA, and LES comprise the entire Apollo spacecraft! 68Kustom (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Earthrise first seen on 4th orbit?

The article states that "When the spacecraft came out from behind the Moon for its fourth pass across the front, the crew witnessed an event no one had ever seen — Earthrise."

How does that work? Shouldn't they have seen it once on every orbit? Were they too busy on the three previous passes, or did they just forget to look? Multi io (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fourth orbit is when they noted it, according to the mission transcripts. Prior to that, they were pretty busy focusing on the lunar surface, so - if it was visible - it's not surprising they missed it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Velocity vs Acceleration

"The burn increased the velocity of Apollo 8 to 35,505 feet per second (10,822 m/s) per second" - seems to be an extra "per second" there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.115.45 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

mirrors?

"the first time humans could view the entire Earth at once" I know what we mean, but it isn't what is being said there. Visible from a long way away is up to half the earth, all the disc perhaps. Midgley (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Adjective changed to "whole", as with the thumbnail photo description.--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Eyes

This sentence, "became the first humans to see the far side of the Moon with their own eyes" should make it clear and mention that the Russian Luna rocket took photos, no?--andreasegde (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody has added nonsense to the section "Lunar Trajectory". I don't know how to revert stuff, so somebody who knows how to use wikis may wish to fix it. 89.124.144.37 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Romanticism?

Since when did encyclopedias (or Wikipedia) allow romantic descriptions of things in its articles?

"The crew timed this reading to coincide with a full view of planet Earth hanging in the empty blackness of space while clearly showing the rich diversity of the living planet as indicated in Terran colors, seas, landforms, and weather patterns, rising over the dull gray horizon of the lifeless Moon."

I just don't know how to rephrase that in a better, more encyclopedic way. --nlitement [talk] 12:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • "The crew timed this reading to coincide with a full view of the Earth, rising over the horizon of the moon" would make it more encyclopedic, perhaps? A bit dull, of course. T-roland (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Vostok 1

"The Vostok 1 mission was the first time anyone had journeyed into outer space and the first time anyone had entered into orbit."

"Apollo 8 was the first manned space voyage to achieve a velocity sufficient to allow escape from the gravitational field of planet Earth"

we have conflicting statements there. sounds like vostok was first, not apollo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentBob420BMFJ (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In space flight, orbital flights are still under the influence of Earth's gravity; that is what keeps the craft in orbit. In the Apollo flights, the orbital speed (about 17,500 mph) had to be increased (to about 25,000 mph) to break out of Earth orbit. Vostok was the first flight in space (in Earth orbit); Apollo 8 was the first to break free of Earth orbit and enter another body's (the Moon's) gravitational field.DrBear (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pope source

If the pope really did say that, shouldn't there be a better source than the "newspaper of record in Cumberland County, Tennessee"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.62.168 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing it. The only results of a google search are the source, this page and a religious blog; if the Pope did say something so momentous, there'd be a better source. 71.194.62.168 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Crew

Other Apollo mission pages list the support crew - but not this one - should they not be added here? SpaceHistory101 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Escape from the gravitational field of Earth

It should probably be noted that only the jettisoned S-IVB booster achieved escape velocity and not the Apollo 8 capsule. Reading the introduction makes one wonder why Apollo 8 did achieved escape velocity as this would not have been fuel efficient for the purpose of reaching the moon. Only later deep in the text we find that the S-IVB booster got accelerated after being jettisoned to move out of the way of the spacecraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.11.247 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it actually did because the speed to achieve a Hohmann transfer orbit to the moon (most energy efficient way to get to the moon) is not much less than Earth's escape velocity. If someone could add some more info on this that would be great, because at a first read it does surprise why it has reached escape velocity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.11.62 (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above posters. I've reworded the lead accordingly. Tevildo (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that my change was reverted. I've restored it, and feel that I should explain in more detail. Before my edit, the relevant sentence read "Apollo 8 was the first human spaceflight mission to achieve a velocity sufficient to allow escape from the gravitational field of planet Earth" - I deleted the words in italics. Although the previous version may have been literally true, it gives (IMO) a misleading impression that the spacecraft achieved escape velocity, which it didn't; the velocity was only "sufficient to allow escape" because of the presence of the Moon. If it's felt that some additional wording is necessary, I'd suggest something like "follow a course (trajectory?) that left the influence of the Earth's gravitational field" - we shouldn't use the word "velocity" or "speed". Tevildo (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Aldrin's seat position on Apollo 11 launch

It just so happens I have a source to support the fact that Aldrin sat in the center couch for the Apollo 11 launch. However, that's really irrelevant here and might be confusing, so I support its removal. It might be an interesting fact to add to the Apollo 11 article, but it doesn't go into that much detail and there's no immediately obvious place where it would fit. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Apollo missions did not escape Earth's gravity

It is a common misconception that the Apollo spacecraft achieved Earth escape velocity to go to the Moon; this is not true and the first lead sentence was incorrect. They achieved a velocity close to escape, which took them on a very high orbit that approached the Moon. Think about it; the Moon itself hasn't achieved escape velocity, but remains in a high orbit around the Earth. Someone explained in the body of this article. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Only humans can take photographs

The removal of the phrase "by humans" from the two Earth picture captions was probably made in good faith (not by me), and is actually a good edit for two logical reasons:

  • Humans are by definition the only terrestrial creatures capable of taking photographs; and
  • Wikipedia is not concerned with possible actions of hypothetical extra-terrestrials (whose existence is not even accepted as known.)

Therefore the first pictures had to be taken by humans, and there is no value added. Let's not get carried away, people. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Are there any such pictures (prior to December 1968) in existence? If not, the distinction is still moot. (And technically, they're still taken at the direction of humans who sent the probe. I think all our unmanned probes took pictures on ground command, rather than being auto-programmed to "point and shoot.") And I think the lunar and planetary probes of that period were probably focused on photographing their targets, not taking pictures of Earth. Does anyone know of a lunar probe catching an Earthrise? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know of any probes that took Earthrise pictures before Apollo 8's -- or for that matter, any images of Earth from anywhere other than LEO. Of course, I'm sure to be corrected any minute now. :-) Also, most of the 60's lunar probes, and nearly all of the planetary probes, took pictures according to a pre-programmed sequence -- the lifetime of most of the probes was fairly short (especially so for the Ranger crash-landers), and they didn't want the 2.8 sec round trip delay to cause problems. Of course, since the lifetimes were so short, taking pictures of Earth would have probably been considered a wasteful extravagance. Anyway, I agree with you, though, taking out "by humans" was the right thing -- but if anything can be found about pre-Apollo 8 Earth imagery, it might be an interesting addition to the article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, who says there isn't proof of extraterrestrials? An eminently reliable source presented the proof 16 years ago. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Lunar Orbiter 1 August 23, 1966, first Earthrise photo .

It's robotic, and therefore the reason why humans was included in the Apollo 8 photo.Abebenjoe (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The FIRST Image?

I think that the first photo of the "Earth Rise" taken on the Apollo 8 mission was actually in black and white, and wasn't reproduced very much afterwards due to that. If you listen to the recording, you hear them scrabbling round for a colour film, and this is the image that is described as the "first" image in the article - can we get the black and white one? Bit new to editing images so not feeling too confident with doing it myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstils (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Was Zond flight really a motive?

The issue of whether the Soviets might soon send men around the Moon is treated quite differently in the Apollo program article:

"Although it has often been claimed that this change was made as a direct response to Soviet attempts to fly a piloted Zond spacecraft around the Moon, there is no evidence that this was the case. NASA officials were aware of the Soviet Zond flights, but the timing of the Zond missions does not correspond well with the extensive written record from NASA about the Apollo 8 decision. The Apollo 8 decision was primarily based upon the LM schedule, not fear of the Soviets beating the Americans to the Moon."

With all due respect to the astronauts, their recollections might not be the most reliable source in this context; they were not necessarily made privy to every aspect of mission decisions made by NASA management. This needs to be resolved.

And the last sentence seems dubious: "If the Soviets were successful in being first to get humans around the Moon, then that would greatly detract from having Americans being first to land on the Moon." Being able to land is what really counts, which the Soviets had no chance of doing without a successful N-1 rocket. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I was 14 at the time, and I saw both Apollo 8 and 11 lift off. In my mind at the time, Apollo 8 was a bigger step. (Now I know how much more difficult a landing is.) I think that it would have mattered a lot in public opinion if the USSR had circled the Moon first. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of the quote given above and I have read many a book on the subject (being fascinated with the topic myself). Although the Americans were somewhat alarmed because of the Zond flights, I think the motive of sending 8 around the Moon was simply because they could. According to the books I've read (some written by the astronauts themselves), Apollo 8 was taken simply as a logical step, the other option being a dry run in Earth orbit. Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's opinions, but it's really not supposed to be about our opinions, but about what's verifiable, right? And I recently tried the YouTube link given as this citation and see that they removed it, for a copyright violation. So the way it's written now ("Even more pressing"), implying that the Zond flight was a major motivation, no longer passes the verifiability test. I think we should keep mention of the Zond flight, but reword it. The problem is, we need a new citation.

And also remember the issue that we're contradicting what the Apollo program article says about it (quoted above); does anyone have any thoughts about that? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The book Moon Shot, although it has been criticized for factual errors, talks about it at some length, pp. 225ff. It says that Zond was the reason for the Apollo 8 flight at that time. But also consider that the Lunar Module wasn't ready yet. An Apollo 8 type mission was not in the original Apollo program (see List of Apollo mission types). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The more-respected A Man on the Moon, by Chaikin mentions it on page 76. He says that after Zond 5 did a figure-8 around the Moon, many speculated that a manned flight would be next. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Upon browsing through the Apollo 8 chapter in my copy of the book, I've noticed that it goes back to the very birth of the idea to send Apollo 8 around the Moon. It eludes to the fact that the real reason for sending Apollo 8 around the Moon was to keep up with the mission schedule for the program itself in order to achieve a lunar landing before the end of the decade. Don't forget that it was already 1968 and 8 was scheduled to be the maiden flight of the LM. If the flight planners chose to wait until the LM was ready to be flown (it wasn't at the time), this would have pushed the flight into the next year, 1969. This would allow little room for error and a very short amount of time to achieve a lunar landing before the end of the '60s (see pg. 57). Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Frank Borman acknowledges that it was a factor and that Slayton and he discussed this exact issue many times in the late summer and fall of 1968 as outlined in the PBS American Experience episode "Race to the Moon", which utilized Chaikin as both a consultant and commentator.
Astronaut Frank Borman remembered Deke Slayton calling him into his office and telling him, "'Look, the CIA has got hard evidence that the Soviets are going to try a manned circumlunar flight before the end of the year. Your Lunar Module has slipped. It isn't going to be ready until February at the earliest. Can you get ready -- this was August -- and change the Apollo 8 flight and go to the moon?'
Although Tyro15 is correct in stating that the genesis of the C-Prime mission predated the August meetings, it never-the-less became one of the arguments used to convince Webb and others for the need to take what is still considered an inspired risk. If the Soviets were not as close as they were to sending a Soyuz spacecraft with two cosmonauts on a cis-lunar mission, the Americans may not have been so bold. Besides the schedule, it was also the challenge the Soviets presented and Zond 5 did freak them out a bit, especially when the human voice recordings that at first sounded like a genuine human was onboard, began broadcasting from the vincity of the Moon. So the short answer is, yes Zond, or more specifically, the Soviet Lunar program, inspired the need for this mission, but it was not the only factor.--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The contemporary account of this can be seen in Time Magazines December 6, 1968 issue, which has a cover image of a Soviet cosmonaut and an American Astronaut racing to the Moon. The article within that backs the assertion that the Soviet Lunar program also spurred the decision is [Poised for the Leap]. The magazine's date should seem signifcant, it was on that day that the Soviets had a launch window for the Moon, 15-days before the Americans, but as we now know, they did not have anything on the pad that day or December 9 as the cosmonauts begged the Politburo to do, because of the November Zond 6 crew compartment depressurization failure that would have killed a human occupant (see Siddiqi (2003) The Soviet Space Race with Apollo pages 662–678).--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Max distance from Earth?

"Apollo 8 achieved a maximum distance from Earth of 203,752 nautical miles (377,349 km).[18]"

It must've been greater than this distance in miles, as 238,000 miles +/- 13,000 is the distance of the moon from the earth. Can anyone find the correct figure? I was reluctant to change it without a source. The Km distance converted gives a figure of 234,475 miles. Sorry if it seems pedantic, but I've so enjoyed Wiki's Apollo entries, and wanted to contribute to its accuracy BMrider (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

203,752 nautical miles is 234,473 statute miles. But, yeah, this is confusing and should be clarified. TJRC (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I've made this edit. If that seems like a good idea, we may want to edit other potentially confusing measures. TJRC (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Totally my error in not reading the units correctly and assuming it was statute miles! Sorry. From now on I will only work in SI units. Thank you for checking it. I'd realised my error (with some embarassment), and returned to this Talk page, and am impressed to have two replies so quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMrider (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to be embarrassed. When I saw your comment, I thought, "yeah, that can't be right," after reading just the quote. Then I looked at the source and confirmed the number, and then really started scratching my head before the distinction between the units dawned on me. I was, however, careful not to let on about my own confusion in the comment I posted; can't spoil the image, you know.
Although I agree that we should use in Wikipedia the same units the sources use, as a petty gripe, I wish NASA and other entities would not use nautical miles as a unit of altitude, or of any other distance other than on the earth's surface. A nautical mile is designed to correspond to one minute of maximum arc on the earth's surface; anywhere else, there's no contextual basis to use it. TJRC (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

New LRO images recreate the first photo

NASA just released a new rendering of the Apollo 8 flight data compiled with information of from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which recreates the circumstances of the image taking of the Earthrise.

NASA-Goddard YouTube page --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Borman estimated pogo?

This sentence has a citation failure: "Frank Borman estimated the oscillations were approximately 12 hertz and ±0.25 g (±2.5 m/s2)." The source cited is the Apollo 8 chapter of Apollo By the Numbers, but this doesn't mention the pogo vibrations at all. It's also extremely unlikely that Borman himself could have "estimated" the data, which came off of telemetry data which engineers at the ground looked at. (He might have reported the numbers in an interview.) To my knowledge, there were no vibration instrumentation readouts in the cockpit.

There is a reference given in Apollo 13, a Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne article on the Apollo pogo experience, which mentions Apollo 8, but gives the frequency as 18 hertz, but doesn't mention the amplitude, and says Borman "felt a little pogo." Did someone maybe make a mistake with the citation? Does the sentence need to be reworded? JustinTime55 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on a closer look at the Rocketdyne article, I see there is a graph given for "Astronaut report" on AS-503 (Apollo 8). It gives the peak as 8-10 Hz, 0.1 g peak, so I might stand corrected on cabin readouts. The instrumentation at the second stage center engine showed a relatively severe pogo, peaking at 17-18 Hz, with an amplitude of 9 g's (!), most of which was obviously absorbed by the structure and not transmitted to the cabin sustained for about 40 seconds. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Inadvertent launch of pre-launch program

There is an account of an error made by Jim Lovell in a Wired Article about Margaret Hamilton. It relates that some time before the Apollo 8 flight her 4-year-old daugther Lauren, playing with the simulator’s keyboard, “crashed the simulator by somehow launching a prelaunch program called P01 while the simulator was in midflight” and goes on to say that Hamilton wanted to add code to mitigate this operational mistake but was told that it would not happen to the astronauts. The article continues: “But it did. Right around Christmas 1968—five days into the historic Apollo 8 flight […] Jim Lovell inadvertently selected P01 during flight. Hamilton was in the second-floor conference room at the Instrumentation Laboratory when the call came in from Houston. Launching the P01 program had wiped out all the navigation data Lovell had been collecting. […] Hamilton and the MIT coders needed to come up with a fix […]. After spending nine hours poring through the 8-inch-thick program listing on the table in front of them, they had a plan. Houston would upload new navigational data. Everything was going to be OK.”

Nothing in the current article seems to be about this incident, but the section Unplanned manual re-alignment seems quite similar. It differs in the involvement of “Houston” and the Hamilton team, and perhaps in the amount of time needed to correct the problem.

I came across this through a German article that mentions measuring star positions like the above-mentioned section does, but not as a solution but a cause for a problem. It begins by saying that Hamilton was worried what would happen if the astronauts might start the “launch preparation program” in mid-flight but that a culture of pilots believing they would not make mistakes and not wanting to yield control to a “digital nanny” led to the concerns being dismissed. The article continues (my translation): “The astronauts had measured their position via the stars, using a sextant. They wanted to routinely compare these manually measured data with those given by their on-board electronics. As they did this they inadvertently activated the launch preparation program, erasing important data. Hamilton’s team at MIT had to work for nine hours, then they sent the lost navigational data back via Houston.”

So we have three differing accounts of the same incident (or perhaps two differing accounts of a fairly significant incident that is not mentioned in the current article). I am wondering whether and how this should be dealt with. SeL (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Error/problem with ((convert))

How can the following be true: "100-nautical-mile (190 km) AND 99.99 nautical miles (185.18 km) AND 99.57 nautical miles (184.40 km)" 99.99-99.57=0.42nmi equates to 185.18-184.40=0.78km --- now here is the error --- 100-99.99=0.01nmi equates to 190-185.18=4.82km --- converting an increase of 0.01nmi is LARGER than an increase of 0.42nmi - Forward this to the person that can fix it. ESAD-Hooker (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The seeming problem is apparently caused by the default algorithm attempting to select significant figures according to the input. 100 nautical miles input is only one significant figure (because trailing zeroes with no decimal point are not significant), so it must round the output to two significant figures to get 190 km which is incorrect. The correct result 185.2 has four significant figures, therefore the correct result is obtained by specifying sigfig=4. You should post this issue to Template talk:Convert to see if a template programmer can do anything about it. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dubious length of LOI burn

The article says "4 minutes and 13 seconds, placing the Apollo 8 spacecraft in orbit around the Moon. The crew described the burn as being the longest four minutes of their lives. If the burn had not lasted exactly the correct amount of time..." I don't think that it has to be that exact to avoid the dire consequences. A little more or less and it should just go into a different orbit. Also, Moon Shot by Shepard and Slayton gives 247 seconds instead. I can't find my copy of How Apollo Flew to the Moon right now. The NASA Apollo 8 Mission Report, section 1.0 says 246.9 seconds. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the language in this sentence is pretty far-fetched. I can't see a situation in which a too short LOI burn would make the spacecraft be flung off into space. And even for a highly elliptical orbit the burn would have to be VERY short. In fact, the risk of striking the moon in a long burn is much more likely. Leonardo (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The Moon's escape velocity is about 7800 fps. At the time of the burn, Apollo 8 was going about 8400 fps. Any burn that would have bled off less than 600 fps (back of envelope calculation: about one minute) would have left them going too fast to stay in orbit, and would have also thrown them off their free-return trajectory so they'd have missed the Earth. "Flung off into space" is not an inaccurate description of what would have happened. But even if it burned long enough to put you in some kind of wonky orbit, the fact that the engine shut down before it was supposed to would not bode well for it firing the proper time to get you back home. In that respect, the timing _was_ critical, because it indicated that the engine worked properly for the entire burn.Almostfm (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
A very short burn at LOI resulting in an elliptical orbit would have been perturbed at apogee by the earth, which would have lowered the perigee. That could result in scenarios in which the CSM would crash into the moon's surface on the first orbit. VQuakr (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apollo 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Apollo 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Photo

The lead photo in the "Launch and trans-lunar injection" section is a double-exposure, so I'd suggest it be pulled. Although it is made clear in the caption that it is a double-exposure, which makes it an art photo montage instead of a real photograph, even having it on the page enters a realm of "fake historical news" which should probably be avoided on Wikipedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've switched it with another image of the launch. (This should not be taken to imply that I understand what you're talking about.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The difference would be a photograph of a real event compared with a composite image of two different events combined to form an artwork (in this case the poetry of the composite is nice, but not an accurate representation of the launch). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

TFA prep

@Hawkeye7: This article is up for TFA soon I think, and it can use some work. There are some things we could cleanup. I saw some uncited information. I will also add alt tags and add closed captioning to the audio. If there is anything else you think we should do, feel free to do it or list it here and I will try to get to it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 32:10. I'll post problems here as I find them.

It is arriving Tuesday Kees08 (Talk)

Okay, I'm done. We're nearly there. Two problems left:

  1. FN16 Lattimer stuff about the mission patch
    Added the page number. The last sentence of the paragraph is not supported by the book. I could not find Bradley in the index and it was not mentioned in the Apollo 8 section. Kees08 (Talk)
  2. FN69 Quotes from Lovell. It is pretty tangential, and could be removed.
    Most of that paragraph could probably be pruned out. Kees08 (Talk)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. Could use a background section.
  2. I could add something on call signs, they wanted to use Columbiad, which is mentioned in Lattimer's book.
  3. What do you think of renaming the planning section to preparations, and then making Saturn V a subsection of that? Verifying the Saturn V was working properly was part of the preparations for this launch.  Done
  4. Should we put historical importance, spacecraft location, and in popular culture as subsections of a legacy section?  Done

@Hawkeye7: Took care of one thing above and gave my input on another. Came up with a few more suggestions, wanted your input. My schedule should be more freed up than it was last month. Kees08 (Talk) 00:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We still have two unreferenced sentences: "The graphic design of the insignia was done by Houston artist and animator William Bradley." and "In his 1994 book, Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13, Lovell wrote, "My training [on Apollo 8]; came in handy!" In that book he dismissed the incident as a "planned experiment", requested by the ground crew." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed both of those. Completed some of the things above. Kees08 (Talk) 07:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I realize now the preparations section is really the background section (at least for the most part). I will try to read through it soon to verify, and then move it before the Framework section since that is an odd way to start an article. Kees08 (Talk) 06:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I've added a short background section explaining what it was all about, for the benefit of the people who have never heard of the Apollo project. Text is an abbreviated version of that in the Apollo 11 article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 and Kees08: – per discussion and evidence below, do you agree we should fix the capitalization of the modules? I can do the work if you like. Also, whatever your opinion is, if you've reviewed the evidence you might consider stating a position at Talk:Apollo_Command/Service_Module#Requested_move_26_November_2018. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been doing a number of minor but important style edits. Seems odd that a TFA would have so many nits still. Where's Tony1 when you need him? Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 and Kees08: the silence is deafening. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not have any strong feelings on this and am happy to go along with consensus, whatever that ends up being. On a copyediting note, I put in a request to GOCE a couple days ago, which should help some. I figured I would give it a once-over when that is complete (if it is done in time). Otherwise, I started working on other Apollo articles to get them ready for the anniversary. Kees08 (Talk) 22:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I came in to fix up the referencing to get the article ready for TFA later in the month. I admit have done some other work, including adding an image and some text. I have no opinion on capitalisation. I would suggest, though, that you document any decisions in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you guys have no strong opinions. The consensus guidelines are already clearly documented, so if you think following guidelines is a good idea, why not say so? Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The RM closed in favor of lowercase, so I made the appropriate edits. There may be more. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
There remain some MOS:JOBTITLE issues on things like Command Module Pilot, which I have left capped for now, but which in some contexts should be lowercase. I'll go through those later if nobody else does. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not have strong opinions on those, but I recall seeing on various talk pages that others do. I do not recall where, sorry. You may want to try to find a place to seek consensus on it ahead of time. Otherwise, I am sure you will find the people who have a preference quickly. Kees08 (Talk) 06:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization

Please be aware that there may be major changes to this page before its featured date due to a Requested Move discussion at Apollo Command/Service Module which seeks to lower-case command module and service module. If those pass then the stated next step is to lower-case the Lunar Module to lunar module. Good work on the page, and it's nice that editors took the initiative to feature it near or on the anniversary. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Good points, Randy. I notice that most of the references, including the most-cited ones, on this article use lowercase for command module and service module and lunar module. We should fix that over-capitalization, independent of that RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Did you check all 104 references, and all the bibliography items? Quite the task, thank you for taking it on. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I started with the ones most cited. You? And I previously checked all I could on the Apollo Command/Service Module article. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What sources say

I have tabulated what all the referenced sources say, per Randy's inquiry, to make it clear that caps are pretty rare. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

These sources use lowercase command and service module(s), lunar module, command module, service module:


These sources capitalize the modules (in sentence context; headings and TOC entries and such don't count):


To check; hard to find online.

In Lattimer, only looking at the cited pages: Lovell's quote has it both ways; the author's words have it both ways as well. Kees08 (Talk) 06:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


No mention of modules, or not printed

Horrible second sentence

"The three-astronaut crew—Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders—became the first humans to travel beyond low Earth orbit; see Earth as a whole planet; enter the gravity well of another celestial body (Earth's moon); orbit another celestial body (Earth's moon); directly see the far side of the Moon with their own eyes; witness an Earthrise; escape the gravity of another celestial body (Earth's moon); and re-enter the gravitational well of Earth."

Surely this difficult sentence is not how we want to try to draws readers into the article. Maybe shorten it: "The three-astronaut crew—Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders—became the first humans to travel beyond low Earth orbit and enter the gravitational well another celestial body, the Moon." and leave the rest for the article? Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, some of that's in the first sentence, so maybe the second should focus on a few things they "saw". Dicklyon (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Just did an edit run on it for brevity, redundancy, word flow, and to see what other editors think. This page is certainly worth getting it right. In wording we should take into consideration that the Zond 5 mission held the first living earthlings to circle the Moon (two tortoises, meal worms, etc.) as well as return them safely to Earth. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Definitely way better! I made some minor adjustment to keep the "and" clauses more parallel. Dicklyon (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. My pleasure. Would have been nice to have Earthrise featured in the same 50th anniversary time period. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I raised a request at Apollo 8, but Wehwalt gave the slot to an article on a model train that had first run on 24 December 1949. I would have given the train next year, its 70th anniversary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm still thinking it over. On the edit side, I plan on working on fixing whatever is unsourced, I'm reading through the flight journal for major events.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
[EDIT: Unless I'm mistaken and you meant a request to move Apollo 8 to December 24, which makes sense anniversary-wise] It's a beautiful mini-train, and owned by Walt Disney. I would imagine that Disney, though, would gladly endorse Hawkeye7's idea (and the name Hawkeye7) that Earthrise take its place this Christmas Eve. Maybe the train article doesn't really have to run on its 70th anniversary, which isn't an important worldwide cultural event, but can be pushed back a couple of weeks into January? Thanks for still considering it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I have swapped the two, so now it is Apollo 8 for December 24 and Carolwood for December 27. Does that work for everyone?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Nice, thank you. Although it may not get as many views it does mark the 50th anniversary on its most prominent date for those who do read it. Can the words "and photograph" be added to "witness _________ an Earthrise (pictured)" in the feature summary? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

AS-503/SA-503

Re the note added by Jonesey95 (talk · contribs), there's an explanation in the "Apollo 8 flight journal", in the first paragraph at Day 1: Launch and Ascent to Earth Orbit. I'm sure I've read this explanation in print somewhere, as well; I'll have a think. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an unsourced note at Saturn V that explains things somewhat. It would be good to have a source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested copy edit complete

I have completed a requested copy-edit of this article. It was a pleasure to edit this well organized, thorough article. Here is a diff of the changes to the article since I started copy-editing, including changes made by other editors.

If I got anything wrong, please correct it (some of you have already done so, for which I thank you). If you have any questions about the changes I made, please ask them here. I left a few "clarify" and "when" tags in the article where I was unable to fix or add appropriate prose.

I admit that I still don't understand the section about the changes in velocity that begins with "Borman became worried that the S-IVB was staying too close to the CSM and suggested to Mission Control that the crew perform a separation maneuver." Specifically, it is not clear to me how increasing the spacecraft's velocity away from the Earth could put them an hour behind their flight plan. My common sense tells me that a speed increase would shorten their flight. There must be something I am not understanding, which means that a careful layperson reader would probably not understand it either. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I have made that specific point clearer, there was no error, but the terminology was a bit thick there.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the clarification. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to get the copyedit done prior to it being featured on the main page. A lot of work has been done by a lot of people to increase the quality of this article in the last month, great work all around! Kees08 (Talk) 18:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Genesis reading captions

I added captions to it, but do not have time right now to fine tune it. I might have time before TFA, but if someone has time to fine-tune the timing I would appreciate it. Kees08 (Talk) 19:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is pretty close to accurate now; feel free to double check my work as needed. Kees08 (Talk) 22:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox caption

Been some edits back and forth on this, so wanted to clarify why I shortened it initially. Since it is an infobox photo, a short caption is typical. I would be happy with the caption even being just Earthrise. I am fine with the longer caption we have now, and I realize I mistakenly thought the two Earthrise photos were the same image (the one in the infobox vs the one later in the article), which is why I wanted it changed. So I would prefer a shorter caption, but am fine with the longer caption we have now. My original rationale was wrong, and I wanted to clarify that. Kees08 (Talk) 20:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. There are several reasons why I added William Anders name as the photographer. The historical importance of the photograph, which has been called the most important photograph of the 20th century, mandates, at least to me, that it be attributed to the photographer. And in this case it was really Anders who, even though he was in charge of photographs on the mission, saw the earthrise and instantly knew it would be a great photo, and actually had to ask one of the other astronauts to hurry and grab either a camera or film from another part of the capsule (the detailed story of how Anders took the photo is in the book Apollo 8). So Anders saw the scene, instantly realized its potential and maybe even its societal impact, had to work to get his equipment to operate, and took the picture. The historical grandness of the Apollo 8 mission and the photograph will not be truly realized for many more decades. What a thing to have happen to the human race, and only 50 years ago, and with many of the Moon travelers still alive. Anyway, before walloftext set in. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Solid enough rationale for me. I mostly wanted to let you know I was not going to revert your change, and my initial reason for shortening the caption was incorrect. Kees08 (Talk) 21:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"Safely" in opening sentence redundant

There was not a previous mission that to left low Earth orbit, reached the Moon, orbited it, and then returned unsafely, so it is redundant and poor style to emphasise that it did this safely. It would surely have been prominent in the article if that were not the case, and it adds to the overall tone of pride in the article's lead. It was commented in defence of the adverb's inclusion that this was part of Kennedy's challenge, but that is unmentioned in the article, so vague allusion irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good edit. The subtlety in talking about Moon flights which safely returned with life aboard is that Zond 5 was the first, but the "manned" descriptor does separate the two flights. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, fair point. Even Apollo 13 returned 'safely'. I guess the usage does originate from Kennedy's speech, but isn't really needed. I'd be happy for the word to be removed. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Grammar

I tied to change "used a 2-kilograms (4.4 pounds) camera" to remove the plural, but it was reverted. But not totally - someone added a parameter to use the singular. Wouldn't it have been just as easy to leave the edit in? :) AMCKen (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to use the template, in conformance with the rest of the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_8/Archive_1&oldid=1049051393"