Jump to content

Talk:Apollo program/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

thanks, wikipedia!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion page is for improving this article. See WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:Fringe theories.

Just wanted to note that, unlike other articles, such as the great pyramid article, the apollo article does NOT include nonsense like "we never landed on the moon"...and I wanted to say, Thanks, Wikipedia Community, for having the article that way. If only editors of other articles would follow this example!!!71.116.98.136 (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we split it out to a whole different article: Moon landing conspiracy theories. Hope you don't notice the POV fork. Enjoy. SBHarris 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a link to that article somewhere here? Seems like anything to do with any government anywhere should be linked to its conspiracies, tidiness and or patriot/nationalism is no excuse for obscuring controversy. After all, if these folks could land people on the moon they could certainly fake it as well, not saying I believe the hoax theories though. It did take place at a point in U.S. history full of lies and secrecy though..you know the whole cold war/civil rights era thing, maybe it might turn out that it was the greatest act of global propaganda infamy ever in history that'd still be a pretty big accomplishment.24.1.202.55 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
No. The hoax enthusiasts are not scientists, or engineers, they're just a bunch of crazies. Not a single one of their claims has any scientific credibility. The retro-reflectors are still on the Moon, the moon rocks that were returned are still on Earth, and none of it was faked. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 13:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can add today aug 23 2010 That my Dauthers 10th grade History teacher is one of the "never landed in the moon" team it is definitely scary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.114.251 (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask him to show you that in the history textbook. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest this whole article is moved to a sub-section of the moon landing fiction article. Wikipedia should avoid treating the ficticious moon landings as fact. The editors need to sort this out. Also, the earth is flat, so how can a spacecraft orbit the earth? I'm sure the Flat Earth Society can provide some scientific references to kill the theory that the earth is a sphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.240.195 (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline

The Article currently says: The Apollo program ran from 1961 until 1975, and was America's third human spaceflight program (following Mercury and Gemini). Well, While it is certainly true that Apollo's first flight as well as its program termination were later than Gemini's, it also seems to be undisputed that Project Apollo was started earlier, with Gemini in something like a dedicated supporting role, to gain experiences needed for Apollo. Several sources also claim more advanced technology in some details of the Gemini spaceship due to the corresponding Apollo systems having been design-frozen at an earlier time. So I think Apollo should be numbered as America's second human spaceflight program and Gemini third. --BjKa (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point about Apollo actually starting earlier than Gemini (which was planned to support Apollo), so I agree "third program" should be changed. But consider these:
  • I think it would be just as "wrong" to call Gemini the third program, since it actually did fly before Apollo.
  • I (and at least one other WP editor) notice a disturbing trend toward giving numbered statistics for everything in spaceflight, down to individual space flights. Perhaps it isn't so important to rank Gemini and Apollo as second or third.
Therefore, I think we should strike "third program" and just say that it followed Mercury, and the manned launches followed Gemini (and similarly in Project Gemini.)
I would also be very interested in seeing specifics about Gemini technology more advanced than Apollo. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
While the correction of removing "third program" from the timeline statement is a good one, I feel that stating that Apollo followed the Mercury and Gemini programs is equally inaccurate. If Apollo ran from 1961 to 1972 (as is stated), then it ran concurrently with these programs. I suggest stating something to this effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.43.239 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Space Task Group / support for LOR

The statement: In late 1961 and early 1962, members of NASA's Space Task Group at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston began to come around to support for LOR. is at issue as the Manned Spacecraft Center article states it did not open until 1963. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.66.8 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This gets tricky. Space Task Group article states it was located at Langley VA. If you check the external link to NASA org. charts from that article, you see an organization for MSC existed in September 1962 (while it was being built), and Gilruth was head of both organizations. My guess is, the Task Group was being phased out in favor of the MSC, which was probably still based at Langley. We should probably replace MSC with a reference to Langley (which is already wikilinked), or mention the transition to MSC. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thrust figures

It seems to me most of the thrust figures in the article contain errors, in that the thrust given in N is about a tenth of the thrust given in pounds. For example, for Saturn 1B, the article says 1,600,000 pounds (730,000 N), when in fact 1 pound = 4.4 N approximately, so this should be more like 7,400,000 N. Could this be corrected, please? I won't edit myself, because I don't know which figure is accurate, and there are also minor inconsistencies with the specific articles about the different types of launch vehicle. -- 163.1.146.148 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The thrust error is usually caused by a common error caused by Template:Convert, because you have to use a different code for "pounds-force", which is different from "pounds" (taken as a unit of mass). I'll take a look and fix it. (There should really be no difference since a pound mass is the same as a pound force on Earth, but I'm not familiar with template programming. I would guess using pounds-mass makes it think the Newtons are kilograms, so it's not applying the 9.8 metric conversion factor.)
As for launch vehicle inconsistencies, can you please specify? Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I fixed that specific error, but there seem to be several other places where the template was used and the conversion is incorrect. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
How are you guys able to turn updates around so quickly? :-) I tried to do what you two did and kept getting edit conflicts (including this talk page reply). JustinTime55 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Original IP user: we still haven't settled what you mean by minor inconsitencies with other articles. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Numbering of Apollo Missions

The first Apollo mission was "Apollo I" while the next mission after that was designated "Apollo 7". What happened to missions 2 through 6? Any art or design to the numbering of the Apollo missions? Theaternearyou (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all explained carefully in the article. Please read it.SBHarris 05:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Putting lipstick on a pig"

The old proverb says this doesn't make much sense; it's still a pig. Similarly, I don't think the solution for this paragraph in the Cultural impact subsection, is to make incremental copyedits, but rather to remove it:

The dramatic accident of Apollo mission 13 was a well-known event and many people from around the world witnessed the magical return of the Apollo 13 crew members. However, the mission was not a very popular event during its launch, and TV ratings were at their historical low for space mission launches. ABC was showing the Dick Cavett Show when the Apollo 13 incident happened. That night Dick Cavett mentioned the mission on his show, saying how 3 million fewer viewers watched the launch compared to the last mission, even comparing it to the first few missions. ABC switched from the talk show to a "Special Report on Apollo 13". Then the TV screen displayed a special message on the Apollo 13 spacecraft and its failure. Apollo 13 made headlines for every newspaper and TV programs.[citation needed]

Being uncited (and thus OR), alone is enough to remove it. Besides that, this much detail about Apollo 13 might belong in that article, but is way out of scope of cultural impact of the entire program. (One suspects that the writer's source was the Apollo 13 film.) The writing style is poor, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to call "the magical return" peacock wording, but it's certainly not encyclopedic tone. I'm frankly surprised this stayed here for so long.

If someone feels it's appropriate to mention that Apollo 13 marked a turning point in waning public interest in the Moon shots, one or two sentences should do it (with appropriate citation.) JustinTime55 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Command/service module - heat during re-entry

The majority of heat during re-entry is due to compressing the air ahead of the re-entry vehicle. The air "cannot get out of the way" as the vehicle is entering at supersonic speeds. Calling it "air friction" is somewhat of a misconception. This is discussed in the atmospheric entry article under the real gas section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry, and is also discussed on the space shuttle page. WikiDrPizza (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

APOLLO named after the ranging experiment??

It amazes me that this article and scientists in general never discuss what one of the main purposes of the APOLLO missions were or what even 'APOLLO' stands for - it is by far the best way of shooting down the conspiracy theory. The "Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser Operation" placed retro-reflectors on the moon so that we could accurately measure the distance to the moon. Measurements such as this are very important for geodesy and are fundamental to designing systems such as GPS etc., we measure distances to these reflectors to this day and any thought of placing one without a manned mission in those days is quite ridiculous. Jonny2vests (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation says that experiment started operation in 2005, whereas we all know the Apollo manned program was named in 1960. Indeed, the observatory APOLLO is based at, Apache Point Observatory didn't even exist before the mid-80's. Furthermore, we'd been soft landing instruments on the moon since the Surveyor Program in 1966, and could have put anything we wanted on them. The Soviets placed a lunar laser reflector without a manned mission in 1970 (eventually did this twice, actually). So, you're being silly. APOLLO for the laser program is an after-the-fact made-up acronym. Rather like MESSENGER for the Mercury spacecraft. Nice troll post, tho. SBHarris 03:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

About the table...

Perhaps we should change the "Partial Failure" listed by Apollo 13 to "Successful Failure". Many people including Flight Crew members refer to it as such. The phrase is well known, and is more commonly used to describe the result as opposed to "Partial Failure". Lilly (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Edit found an official NASA website backing me up so I am changing it.

"Classed as "successful failure" because of experience in rescuing crew." http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/apollo/apo13hist.html Lilly (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the term "Successful Failure" is used by nasa, I feel like "Partial Failure" is a more neutral and accurate term. The mission's goal was to send a crew to the moon and return them safely. While they did return safely, we cannot ignore the fact there was a very serious failure on board. I am not trying to discredit the incredible ingenuity and the fantastic story of the Apollo 13 crew and engineers at NASA, but the fact of the matter is the mission did not go as planned due to a failure during the flight. To keep wikipedia as neutral and academic as possible, the term "Partial Failure" should be used to describe the Apollo 13 mission. NASA can label the failure however they wish, however, that does not change the facts concerning the mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.174.107 (talk • contribs) 21:51, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of neutrality, I don't believe it is necessary at all to place success/failure ratings in this mission table; it's not our obligation to make such judgements (WP:OR), and the fact that it raises a controversy shows it's not a good idea. Also, I don't believe you'll find this in the equivalent mission list tables in most other encyclopedias or space program reference books. We are not in the actuarial business.
We also should remember that during the Apollo program, space travel was (and even to this day should be considered) largely developmental (forgetting this was suggested as contributing to the Challenger tragedy at the time), and not everything could be expected to succeed 100% on every mission. The only real failures were the Apollo 1 tragedy and Apollo 13. Even the engine failure on Apollo 6 didn't stall the program, and there were many little bugs and glitches that had to be worked around in the successes.
Therefore, I would like to simply remove the color-coded designations; the failures can be easily noted in the "Mission Result" text (which we might want to think about renaming.) JustinTime55 (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Make judgments? The entire point of Apollo 13 was to land on the Moon and it failed to do so. There is no "original research" at play here in just mentioning the fact that the mission did not meet NASA's own stated goals for it. Propaganda and spin aside, there is no real controversy over what Apollo 13 was: a failure.--172.190.41.63 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Partial success would be a lot better Ash :) (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Space program infobox

User Soerfm has added a generic infobox to this article, similar to how he changed the infoboxes in Project Mercury and Project Gemini to refer to the programs themselves rather than the spacecraft. I think a Template:Infobox space program would might be a good idea, but this requires some careful thought and design. It perhaps could be used on all programs (at least the "real" ones), e.g. Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Skylab, Space Shuttle, Shenzou, etc. Until this is done, I don't think it represents a net value added here (unlike in Mercury and Gemini), so I have reverted it.

Some might not agree that this infobox is necessary, and maybe some technical expertise is required to create a new template (I've only done some editing to existing ones.) I think this should be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Comment revised JustinTime55 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have created the template, Template:Infobox space program. I am not going to transclude it on any articles at this time. I will be posting this on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page so that it can be reviewed. The template does include an example that uses all of the parameters I have defined in the template using the Apollo Program as the example. Feel free to check it out. MasterSearcy (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Please direct all discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Space Program Infobox 192.249.47.179 JustinTime55 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in Thrust figures

"Sending the three-man Apollo Command Module directly to the lunar surface and back would require an extremely large launch vehicle, the Nova, which could send over 130,000 pounds (59,000 kg) to the Moon. While the Saturn V was less powerful than the Nova would have been, it still holds the record for largest payload capacity (260,000 lb/120,000 kg to LEO or (220,000 lb/100,000 kg to the Moon) of any rocket developed as of 2012."

Anyone see the totally obvious contradiction? 100,000 kg to me clearly isn't "less powerful" than 59,000 kg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say "vandalism", but maybe someone just got confused. The correct Saturn V lunar payload is 100,000 pounds (not kg). It's fixed now. (BTW: your heading is wrong; that's payload, not thrust. There's a lot of lay confusion about what "rocket power" means.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Structure and grammar

Due to the extensive rewrites made over the last several months by an ambitious, well-meaning, but I suspect slightly English-writing-challenged newbie, I've downgraded the quality rating from B to C, in light of how good it was before and how close we were, shooting for a featured article. I appreciate the spirit of WP:BOLD and some of these updates, but I just feel the goal is now a bit farther rather than closer, and it will take a lot more work to clean up and move ahead.

The style and grammar should be obvious to those following the edits to this, Project Mercury, Project Gemini, and Apollo 11 (this last a real problem, since it was GA and now I feel merits a reevaluation.)

As for structure, my major complaint is that it is oriented too much around "missions" (a word I believe not always fully understood.) I've believed for a while that an area of improvement was to structure the history of the program a bit better around the actual development history of the initial unmanned tests, the initial plan for manned flight, which got tragically blown away by the Apollo 1 fire (something I feel has gotten neglected), and then the recovery to the testing of the real lunar hardware and the resumption of manned flight planning.

Also, the editor mentioned added an artist's conception of the lunar mission profile to Apollo 11, something which I believe better belongs here and this article has been lacking. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was User indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet of Maxviwe
Extended content

Characterization of Apollo as 'obsolete government propaganda'

In my view, the Apollo program was one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in history. It is now obsolete and the time has come to publish the truth. I appeal to the editors to stop scrubbing this article. You are compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. To present all of NASA's claims here as fact is misleading and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApoGnosis (talk • contribs) 11:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As a reasonable observer, ApoGnosis's behaviour signifies a non-neutral POV and breaches the WP:3RR explicitly: [1]. Mephtalk 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
WP:FRINGE clearly applies, we shouldn't give undue weight to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. --W. D. Graham 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A review of the archives suggests that there is an established consensus that the content of this article need not be tagged as disputed. However, consensus can change - rather than edit warring, can you present reliable sources that form the basis of the material you believe should be included in this article? VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason to repeat what's covered at Moon landing conspiracy theories here. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree - not sure why anyone is seriously listening to this guy... Ckruschke (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Thanks editors for sharing your views. I have seen the page Moon landing conspiracy theories I do not wish to repeat information that exists there. Although, it is possible that I will make contributions to that page in the future.
To my way of thinking extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is NASA that is making the extraordinary claim that from 1969 to 1972 seven manned missions went to the moon six of which landed on the surface. They have released a huge body of evidence to support this claim, however there are problems with many, many elements of it. My goal with adding the 'disputed' tag was to alert scholars that these NASA claims are disputed. As far as i am concerned I am using the scientific method and engaging in scholarship. I was confused and disappointed to have this labeled as "vandalism"
I understand my characterization of Apollo as "obsolete government propaganda" is controversial. In my view this narrative better explains the vast body of evidence that NASA has released. Through your comments and other interactions with editors at Wikipedia I am coming to understand that this narrative challenges a dominant cultural narrative and is threatening in a unique way.
Please consider the article Zoophilia, which contains a section Arguments for zoophilia . I do not agree with the argument, and I suspect that very few people do. However I see that it is included and presented as a legitimate point of view within the larger article. I think most of you will agree that a much larger group of people dispute the claims made by NASA regarding the Apollo program. Yet this viewpoint seems to be taboo in a way that arguments for bestiality are not. I do not know why this is. --ApoGnosis (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
As you say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", however I would argue that the "extrordinary" claim here is not only that the US Government attempted to deceive the world, but that the Japanese, Chinese and Indian governments and the European Space Agency are complicit in it. This seems far less likely.
I think there is enough evidence to present the landings as factual, and most of the evidence to the contrary fails to stand up to much scrutiny. --W. D. Graham 16:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, many people feel as you that the burden of proof rests with those who question NASA claims. However, I feel that this is an example of Hindsight bias. Now that NASA claims have become part of the dominant cultural narrative it is considered "extrodinary" to question them. I am interested in debating the evidence from all sources you mention. However, in this context I want to focus my argument on how exactly WP:FRINGE is applied. If I understand it correctly WP:FRINGE has been applied to my view *without* scrutiny of any evidence. --ApoGnosis (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you know of something beyond that presented at Moon landing conspiracy theories? Cite your references here (or there). Be forewarned, it would be easier to convince us that Elvis Presley lived a decade or more beyond his reported death in 1977. Several of us contributors have first- and second-hand knowledge of the efforts to put a man on the moon. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless major reference works (other than certain crowdsourced online encyclopedias) have begun printing that the Apollo program was all a hoax, your assertion is firmly in fringe territory. Major published references are the basis of Wikipedia, not rumor or things-somebody-posted-on-the-internet. Wikipedia is not a forum for debate, and this page is concerned with improvement of the article based on reliable sources. We recognize that Wikipedia can be attractive for folks with original or out-of-the-ordinary ideas who wish to promote them, which is why reliance on mainstream accounts and due weight are a fundamental principal. Use of this page (or any other Wikipedia page) as a soapbox for fringe theories is not appropriate. The short answer is that you've come to the wrong shop for a debate, argument or "scrutiny of evidence." There are plenty of places elsewhere on the Internet for that. Acroterion (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that very few trees died to promote my point of view. Many of the strongest arguments against NASA claims exist on the Internet and have not been published. It is interesting that you marginalize "crowdsourced online encyclopedias" when you spend your time editing one. Also, It is interesting that if you read this thread, people alternately demand evidence and say that scrutiny of evidence is irrelevant to this forum. I do recognize that you feel you are part of an in-group who's job it is to re-enforce the dominant cultural narrative and to marginalize different points of view labeling them as "vandalism" or "fringe." It is understandable that you wish to quash debate on this issue.--ApoGnosis (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If it isn't published in a reputable source (paper or otherwise), it's of no use to Wikipedia: that is a central, non-negotiable policy of Wikipedia, which we've explained several times now. Wikipedia is not a reliable source (you can't cite Wikipedia to reference a Wikipedia article, nor can you cite any other crowdsourced reference here except in very limited circumstances). You mistake requests for reliable sourcing, which you've not provided, for an offer of debate. This isn't a debate shop. Show us the sources (and it's going to have to be something along the lines of a story in the New York Times: "NASA Admits Moon Landing Hoax"), or else nobody will take you seriously. Acroterion (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Editors,

I would like to restore the a link on the Apollo Program page which leads to the Moon landing conspiracy theories page. I have reviewed the history of this article and found that a section was added in November 8th 2003 called "related issues" Under this heading a link was added to the conspiracy page. This link survived seven years until June 13th 2010 when it was removed without comment by User:Gwillhickers

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollo_program&diff=367683484&oldid=367610848

I do no believe the anything changed between June 12th 2010 and June 13th 2010 to warrant such a change.

I would like to revert Gwillhicker's change and restore this link. Since some of my edits have been controversial in the past. I am posting here first to notify other editors and see if anyone has an objection. --ApoGnosis (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Gwillhickers to ask him if he remembers his reason for removing the link and asked him if he objects to its restoration. --ApoGnosis (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the link in the "see also" section, where anybody who looks for "conspiracy" can find it. Is that enough? SBHarris 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, while I have a huge personal distaste for these theories, they have achieved quite significant attention. Maybe we should consider giving them a brief and neutral mention in the body of the article itself. --W. D. Graham 21:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. So far as I'm concerned, a reader of the conspiracy theories article is likely to believe less in the conspiracy than more, since much rebuttal is given. Wish I could say the same for the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article.SBHarris 21:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I would oppose adding anything more to this article; the See also link is quite enough, and is now on a par with Apollo 11. Check that article's talk page and archives; this has come up there several times and a consensus has formed that it's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Besides, the length of this article is already problematic. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus in other situations, such as September 11 attacks has been that a "see also" link is sufficient, which has been fairly consistent for articles meriting a separate fringe theory/conspiracy daughter article. Acroterion (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your consideration of this matter. Thanks also, for restoring the link in the "See Also" section. I respect your commitment to the ideal of neutrality. For me personally, I have difficulty with this concept and cannot resist advocating for a specific POV, which I feel is "more true". I will take a break from my crusade at this point and leave the discussion of these matters to more experienced editors. --ApoGnosis (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Table of missions

How about having a table of the missions? Or a table of the unmanned missions and a table of the manned missions? For manned missions, the first column would be the mission, then the launch vehicle, the then three astronauts, then perhaps the backup crew, and finally a comment. For unmanned, list the mission, launch vehicle, and objective. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Similar to Project_Gemini#List_of_missions and Project_Mercury#Manned flights. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Gemini

The lead says "Conceived during the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower as a follow-on to Project Mercury, which put the first Americans in space, and Project Gemini, which developed the space travel techniques needed,...". This sounds like Gemini was conceived during the Eisenhower administration, but I think it was later. As I understand it, Gemini was started after Apollo. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Project Gemini, Gemini was conceived in the Kennedy administration. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This sentence was recently edited to say it was a follow-on to Gemini as well as Mercury, which I agree is grossly incorrect and should be changed. (In fact, there was a debate somewhere, I think it may be in the archives here, whether Gemini was the "second" or "third" US manned program.) What really happened was, that Apollo was conceived as a multi-man program to follow Mercury. The Mercury contractor, McDonnell, was pushing (and NASA was thinking about) extending Mercury to a bigger, two-man spacecraft, called "Mercury Mark II". This fell by the wayside, but after Apollo was assigned to Kennedy's Moon mission, the two-man Gemini was invented to help support Apollo, and McDonnell's "Mark II" design was the ideal starting point for it. (Of course, that all is way too much info for Apollo's intro here.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the way it is now isn't exactly right either. It makes it sound as if the manned lunar landing program were conceived during the Eisenhower administration. It began as a spacecraft program with several tentative missions, until Kennedy focused it on the Moon. And it's not accurate to say it followed Gemini if it began the planning stages first; it ran concurrently with Gemini and only the manned flights followed it. I'm going to try another pass. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

seismometer?

The article says "After Apollo 12 placed the first of several seismometers on the Moon...", but Apollo 11 left a seismometer, right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's right. I think I've been getting this confused with the crashing of the LMs starting with 12. Not sure why they didn't crash 12's S-IVB, since they already had two seismometers in place then; this would have to be researched. I'm going to fix it. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Low Earth Orbit

In the article, it says that only 24 people have been beyond Low-Earth Orbit. What about the Hubble serving missions? Or any others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.235.96 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Low Earth orbit is defined as below 2,000 kilometers (1,200 mi). The Hubble orbits at only 559 kilometers (347 mi), so is not beyond LEO. The region of space immediately above LEO is in the Van Allen radiation belt, and would be dangerous for a human stay for any length of time with current spacecraft/spacesuit technology. The Apollo astronauts passed through and did not linger in it. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Science legacy

Is there additional discussion of the science legacy of Apollo anywhere? I expected to see something in this article, but all I found are a few sentences in the "Samples returned" section, while the "Legacy" section doesn't specifically address scientific discoveries at all. There was a nice article on arxiv today (http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6768v1) that summarizes some of the key science results. James McBride (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

AS-1xx, AS-2xx, and SA-5xx

In the subarticle List of Apollo missions it says: The Marshall Space Flight Center, which designed the Saturn rockets, referred to the flights as Saturn-Apollo (SA), while Kennedy Space Center referred to the flights as Apollo-Saturn (AS). This is why the unmanned Saturn 1 flights are referred to as SA and the unmanned Saturn 1B are referred to as AS. Except that this does not explain why the manned Marshal flight with the fire (never launched) was indubitably named AS-204 not SA-204.

Later-- never mind, this is indeed all screwed up. I did find both AS and SA designations for Apollo 4, 5 , and 6 in the period literature. Even though 4and 6 used Saturn V and 5 used the IB originally intended for the manned AS-204 of the fire, and was thus even flown by the same name at the time. Sigh.SBHarris 20:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did we RETURN to the moon?

I understand that we went there for the glory, the demonstration of strength against the soviet and also a little for science... but why did we go several times? I don't get that. I thinks it's a gap in the explanation. --Jules.LT (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We didn't go for a "little science." We went for all the science we could get. The moon is a very complicated place (see Geology of the Moon), with rocks of all kinds of different ages, with the really old stuff overlain with younger lavas/basalts and over that, even younger regolith breccias (see moon rock) and dust. Hard to tell age "by eye," and yet if you get back to Earth and have just another piece of the same dust, breccia, and lava you got the previous time, you've failed. And it's hard to dig-- the really good stuff is scattered around impact craters where it's been excavated for you. You've got to survey this gigantic place and you have little time and oxygen. Even with the rover (last three missions) you dare not go farther than you can walk back from. It's amazing what they got done with only six mission (the first of which was just a land, salute, grab a few rocks, and leave). SBHarris 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not a random forum discussion: the reasons behind the Apollo program are very important to this article. The scientific knowledge we gained from these expeditions might be very interesting, but it is not the reason why we embarked on this multi-billion adventure. So once we had reached the goals of the project that are represented in the "background" section of this article had been achieved? (mostly, a demonstration of strength against the soviet), what kept us going? This should be investigated, sourced, and included in the article. --Jules.LT (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Just because the "original / public intent" for the Apollo program was something sold to President Kennedy as "an achievable milestone that the program could have a chance at delivering before the Soviets", doesn't mean that that was the "sole intent" of the Apollo program. The Apollo program itself had a far reaching goal or why else plan to go all the way up through Apollo 20? So there's no gap in the explanation - there's simply a gap in your pre-conceived notion / initial hypothesis that the goal of the Apollo program was somehow ONLY to be first to the moon.
Don't get me wrong - if you are saying that the WIKI PAGE is lacking and needs additional text sourcing to the program's goals, that's one thing (and the short thumbnail sketch on this page seems to indicate the the major goal of Apollo was to get to the moon first), but if we are simply discussing the program itself and its overall intent, we are getting into forum / axe-grinding territory. Ckruschke (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I do think that the page is lacking, because the goal I get from it is insufficient to account for Apollo 12-20. You say that there was some far reaching goal, so I'm guessing that you know what it was. Could you please include it in the page and source it? --Jules.LT (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Important information missing

Right from the beginning, the article makes sure to name all the directors who were involved in management ans such... But information about those who really made this happen (the chief scientists) is vague, diffuse, or missing. For instance, who were behind the design of the shuttle? Who were those involved 1st hand into conceptualization, engineering and design at each stage of the programs? We know about Von Brown and Kurt Heinrich Debus, both Nazis (we could say "former" after the fall of the Nazi, although intentions and perceptions are of individual matters whatever the final issue of WW2 since they did not flee Germany like Einstein, and served Hitler until the end), but that's about it. For instance, it's not because a rocket is more spectacular than a shuttle, that it's then "more difficult" to design, it's just more dangerous for the technicians (the term "Rocket science" is only a populist figure). Why should only Nazis be rewarded with stardom more than other scientists? Because that's how it looks, and too many amongst those "negationists" regarding the walk on the Moon, are using that argument as some "ad hominem" judgment over the whole program. So, who were they? Unfortunately I don't have this information. --HawkFest (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Nazi: 1. A member of Adolph Hitler's political party that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945; 2. an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.
From your POV tirade, which seems to be focused on deriding von Braun and Debus as "Nazis" (utter slander in von Braun's case, IMO), I'm having a hard time seeing what glaring omissions exist in the article. It's strange that you seem to criticize the term "rocket science" as "a populist figure" (what does that mean?), yet you seem to be misled yourself by it as you ask for "the chief scientists" who made this happen, not recognizing the difference between science and engineering.
The preliminary Apollo capsule design, which ended up being used, was made by Maxime Faget, who perhaps should be mentioned here. (The Apollo spacecraft feasibility study could also be summarized here, with a little more info on the spacecraft contractor selection process. The chief engieers at the contractors (North American Aviation and Grumman, Boeing and McDonnell) were responsible for the detailed design and engineering work; with a significant contribution from the Marshal Spaceflight Center for the Saturn V integrated design; these are covered in the space vehicle hardware articles. Perhaps they could be summarized or wikilinked a bit better, but nobody's trying to "only reward Nazis with stardom." JustinTime55 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Political response

(political stuff) Yes. I also would like to know about the decision after Kennedy's address to the congress: Any resistance? Any discussion? It is assumed that the congress accepted Kennedy's proposal, but did they really? When then? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You bring up a good point which probably should be covered. At the beginning, there was such a fear of the Soviets (see Space Race) that I'm sure there was not much opposition at the start, when we were so far behind and it was perceived as a national security threat (Congress approved the required funds, after all.) I'm sure the liberals would have much rather spent the money on social welfare programs, but political blowback didn't really start until NASA started getting into trouble (see reaction to Apollo 1.) On the day of the Apollo 11 launch, the Rev. Ralph Abernathy led a protest outside the gates of the Kennedy Space Center, and Administrator Thomas Paine spoke to him. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Well then ... sources? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I know... right? JustinTime55 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Science spin-offs findings

(science spin-off stuff findings) I know that the Apollo program influenced the theories of the early solar system and the origin of the moon very much (Geology of the Moon, Origin of the Moon, Late Heavy Bombardment, etc..) but some article text is needed for that, up to and including academic sources making the syntheses. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Found some sources for science findings:
Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This is probably the biggest outstanding deficiency (see Science legacy above). Two points:
  • What's there seems to be limited to technology spinoffs, and doesn't really cover the lunar geology and cosmology. Unfortunately those aren't my strong suits, nor apparently of the others heretofore interested in this article. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I really don't like lumping the "science" and culture impact together under the heading "Legacy". I think this should be considered a word-to-watch (don't know whether to call it peacock, weasel, or euphamism when overused). I think science and culture should be two separate main sections, with science subdivided into "Lunar science" and "Cosmology".
I think I'll try to solicit some help on the Spaceflight project page. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mission profile pictures

Source of the mission profile images

The purpose of this image montage is to illustrate the basic steps in the lunar mission, but not every detail of the mission. They are taken from the single montage image shown here. It's nice that you found and uploaded a line-drawing image of the LM sleeping arrangements, but that's an internal detail that's out of scope of the mission profile, which is not intended to answer such interesting questions as "How did the astronauts sleep?". Note that all the images are from outside the spacecraft. There is no similar picture of the astronaut's sleeping arrangements in the Command Module, or other internal mission details such as using the navigation sextant, toilet facilities, etc. Where would it end?

The informational value of your image is appreciated, and I put it in the Apollo Lunar Module article, where I think it fits best. We have summary sections here on the spacecraft, but to add it there I think would still be trying to cram too much. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Nine or six manned flights above LEO?

This article reads the following, "...while the final Apollo 17 mission marked the sixth Moon landing and the ninth manned mission beyond low Earth orbit". What are the other three then? The Low Earth orbit article tells a completely different story, "With the exception of the manned lunar flights of the Apollo program, all human spaceflights have taken place in LEO (or were suborbital)." I'll change this article to six but feel free to revert/discuss if I'm wrong and there indeed were nine manned flights above LEO.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 were manned missions that orbited the Moon without landing. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
And Apollo 13 flew past the moon without landing after a malfunction in the service module. Those are the three instances in which manned craft flew out of LEO without landing on the moon. Since all three flew to the vicinity of the moon, all can still be reasonably called "lunar" flights in the LEO article. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy half dollar photo with speech quote as caption

@Tdadamemd sioz:, this is inappropriate for several reasons:

  • Inappropriate use of photo: does not illustrate the speech, and carries an implicit memorial. Images are supposed to be used to illustrate the text in the article.
  • A caption is supposed to be a brief description of the photo. The text did not describe the half dollar, and (again, inappropriately in a POV way) was used to sneak in the prose you wanted to add with Kennedy's statement.
  • Again, the point of this article is not to memorialize Kennedy and say what "a grand sales pitch" he gave. There is a Costs section; if you feel his comment is appropriate, put it in there. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of space historians who point to Kennedy's Rice speech as having been a grand sales pitch. But the article does not say that, so I find it curious that you will quote something I wrote in the article summary as a basis for your objection.
As for the appropriateness of the image, it was the US Congress that decided to memorialize JFK on that coin. Not me. So what you are objecting to happens to be an historical fact. And guess how else Congress memorialized JFK? By naming an entire space center after him. The Wikipedia Policy does not prohibit articles from including what the US Congress has decided to be an appropriate memorialization.
JFK kicked off Project Apollo. He was memorialized on a coin. The flights were launched from a space center named after him. Appropriate, appropriate, appropriate ...as I see it. Clearly an NPOV account of history.
His speech mentioned the cost being on the order of 50 cents, and so I included a photo of a 50 cent piece. Is that really a huge problem? I'll suggest you take a fresh look at Wikipedia policy to see that it gives absolutely no prohibition against accurate history.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You must be off your meds if you are so hyped up on your admiration of Kennedy that you can't properly interpret what I'm saying. I'm going to take a deep breath, and try to explain slowly and patiently, as clearly as I know how, so you can understand:
I never said that putting Kennedy's face on the half dollar was inappropriate. Please read the hyperlink I made above to WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. That says "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The topic of this article is the Apollo program, not how great a President (communicator) he was, or the appropriateness of memorializing him on a coin. I do not object to the historical fact of JFK's face on a coin. I do not object to "space historians describing the Rice speech as a great sales pitch". The linking of the half dollar memorial to the Apollo program would be WP:OR on your part. There are obviously other reasons besides Apollo which led to the issuance of the coin. The "50 cents" is purely a coincidence; using the picture would amount to WP:SYNTHESIS.
Using this or any other Wikipedia article (even his biography) to highlight what a great communicator he was,
It is also poor form to write a paragraph of text (which you desire to place in the article) in an image caption; that is not what a caption is for; it is to simply describe what the image shows. This image shows the Kennedy half dollar, which you don't say in the caption (and is not the point of the article.)
I have no objection to your adding text saying something like, "In his Rice University speech, Kennedy compared the cost in terms of what citizens were paying for cigarettes". This of course has to be put in context of the prose which is already there; Kennedy and the cost of the program (in terms of absolute estimates) are already mentioned.
Please remove the photo, leaving the text. I would be happy to assist you with this. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Music"/sounds during pass behind moon

Am I missing something or is this not mentioned anywhere in the articles for the Apollo program? Here's the Apollo 10 lunar module onboard voice transcription, recorded on the lunar module onboard recorder data storage equipment. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS10_LM.PDF And a youtube video discussing it. Al Worden is featured in it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjLZBrQ-Oq4 --RThompson82 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would you expect Wikipedia to have covered this, when the story was just reported on by CNN two hours ago (NASA releases recording of 'outer-space type music' from far side of the moon) and NASA has been quiet about it for 39 years? Since the transcripts and tapes were declassified and released in 2008, I find it curious that it didn't hit the popular media's radar until this weekend.
We could consider adding it, but take WP:FRINGE into account, not painting it as "ufology" and including the likely natural explanation, which is interference between the CM and LM radio systems. YouTube is certainly not a reliable source in this case. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Lunar ferroan anorthosite photo

Yesterday I had replaced a blurry image of an Apollo 16 sample with a clear photo of exactly the same rock, although from a slightly different angle and lighting. Just curious why the edit was reverted. Jstuby (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The most glaring thing is that the new photo has a different aspect ratio, 1.333 height to width, versus 1.1455 in the old photo; this causes it to not line up with its mate in the Template:Multiple image. The two need to be displayed at the same height. If you can figure out how to adjust the inputs to fix this, I have no objection to the replacement. (I know, it's complicated and the instructions seem a bit confusing.)
The other thing that stood out was that the older one had less color; I found the color more visually striking than the focus, which I failed to catch. I guess the focus is more important than the color (since Moon rock just looks grey, after all).
I just did your work of adjusting the template so they're the same height. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice job! Jstuby (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Partial failures

@2601:190:402:3150:213e:f031:d8a7:bb55: Apollo 13 is considered by NASA to be a complete mission failure, because it failed in its major objective to land two astronauts on the Moon, not just to get them back alive. Jim Lovell's and Gene Kranz's rhetoric about a "successful failure" notwithstanding. Failure does not necessarily mean the astronauts die. They did not complete a "partial mission" by flying around the Moon; they were too busy trying to survive. The only mission objective which was a success was crashing the S-IVB into the Moon for the seismic experiment; that is an extremely small percentage of success. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

NASA defines "partial mission success" (or at least did in 1970) as the achievement of at least one primary mission objective. Please check page 2–39 of the Apollo Program Summary Report. The primary objectives of Apollo 13 were:

  1. to perform selenological Inspection, survey, and sampling of materials in a preselected region of the Fra Mauro formation;
  2. to deploy and activate an Apollo lunar surface experiments package;
  3. to develop further man's capability to work in the lunar environment;
  4. to obtain photographs of candidate exploration sites.

It is pretty obvious none of these was achieved, and I believe it would be original research to call it a partial failure (which necessarily implies partial success). JustinTime55 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Real Cost of Apollo Program Grossly UNDERSTATED

These statements badly understate American inflation - a glaring mis-statement to my eye:

"Landing men on the Moon by the end of 1969 required the most sudden burst of technological creativity, and the largest commitment of resources ($25 billion; $107 billion in 2016 dollars)"

And related sidebar:

"Cost $25.4 billion (1973)[1] ($107 billion 2016)[2] "

(BTW the two cost figures for 1969 and 1973 imply that about one-billion was spent on Apollo during those four years - another problem)

Let's first stipulate that "GDP deflators" are appropriate (instead of the commonly used CPI-U). The calculation is still significantly incorrect.

Go to the link below (from the reference 2):

https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/

Use US NOMINAL GDP for a data series greater than 1963-2016

Nominal GDP's , 1963-1969 is about $0.8-Trillion - $1-Trillion for 1963-1973.

In 2016 the Nominal GDP is about $18.6-Trillion - the resulting ratios are 18 to 23 (!)

Using "REAL GDP" the ratio is the stated 4 plus a small fraction.

This is a misapplication of GDP data.

One could argue CPI is more appropriate.

Using CPI the range of CPI ratios (2016:1963, 2016:1973) is 7.8 to 5.4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsusky (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Apollo program "artifcacts"

How about a table listing current locations and of the Apollo Command Modules, and other associated hardware still in existence? (perhaps better as a separate article. Perhaps also another article listing splashdown locations and U.S. Navy's support ships involves. Wfoj3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

yes agreed
i personally have the psa test point adaptor
https://www.flickr.com/photos/1ajs/sets/72157705166193482
also curiousmarc on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KSahAoOLdU&list=PL-_93BVApb59FWrLZfdlisi_x7-Ut_-w7 is restoring a AGC computer back to working condition at this time
1ajs (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Gender neutrality

What justifies the use of gender-specific language here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/From_the_archives

https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html "Gender-Specific Language (e.g., Manned Space Program vs. Human Space Program)

In general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned). The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spaceflight Center (also known as the Manned Spacecraft Center), the predecessor of Johnson Space Center in Houston, or to any other historical program name or official title that included “manned” (e.g., Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight)." 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Kennedy's speech did not use gender-neutral language. You may read it here. While we do try to use gender neutral language, we do not engage in historical revisionism here. The program Kennedy proposed was one to "land a man on the moon", and that is precisely how the program was described at the time, not to land "a person" on the moon. There was little to no objection to that language at the time, as "landing a man on the moon" was considered no more offensive than the term "mankind" (which Kennedy also used). Find another battle to fight, please. General Ization Talk 04:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Times have changed. Editing a wikipedia article to meet current guidelines does not change the course of history. What it does do is make the history more accessible. What does the use of gender-specific language add to the caption in question? 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
It accurately describes what Kennedy said to Congress on May 25, 1961, in the speech he was delivering while the photo was taken. General Ization Talk 04:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Since I am assuming that you would agree that men are people, either wording accurately describes the speech. What does the use of gender-specific language add to the caption in question? 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Historical revisionism doesn't change the course of history; it merely, and often subtly, alters its context in ways that inaccurately describe the events as they actually occurred. At the time, the program was universally described (and appreciated) without the use of gender neutral language. We should not pretend that it was otherwise. You are welcome to call for a person on Mars; Kennedy was calling for a man on the moon. General Ization Talk 04:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment Kennedy's attitude did in fact reflect the chauvinism of the times. In the context of a modern wikipedia article on an increasingly irrelevant historical topic, what does the use of gender-specific language add to the caption in question? The exact wording of Kennedy's speech is well-documented both elsewhere in the article and in the real world, so any serious scholar has ample evidence of the motivations at the time. The general public, on the other hand, is likely not to appreciate such anachronisms in a search for information. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The principle of least astonishment has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and the use of the term "man" rather than "person", accurately reflecting what was being proposed by Kennedy, is highly unlikely to make the content inaccessible to anyone. General Ization Talk 04:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You are wrong. I suggest you review the link I have posted. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I already did, and I know it rather intimately. General Ization Talk 04:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So, given that the use of outdated language is quite astonishing, what does the use of gender-specific language add to the caption in question? 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, you are quite easily astonished. Try reading Shakespeare. General Ization Talk 04:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate your opinion, I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of me. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree in most instances, but not this one. A quote from the congressional hearing on the matter "I would disagree with Mr. Fulton that we should establish a national goal at this point to land a woman on the moon which would be to the detriment of our program..." (page 68) Page 71 talks about how it would cost more to send women to the Moon than men, and that is a reason that women are paid less. On page 56, they discuss setting a national goal to send a woman to space. They did not set the goal. They explicitly sat down and decided that specifically men and not women were going to be sent to space. They said that no American woman was qualified, and that it would cost too much in time and money to train a woman for the position. In this instance, the word man was used explicitly to exclude women, so we should reflect that intentional exclusion. Kees08 (Talk) 04:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's what NASA has to say: "In general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned). The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spaceflight Center (also known as the Manned Spacecraft Center), the predecessor of Johnson Space Center in Houston, or to any other historical program name or official title that included “manned” (e.g., Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight)." 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I do understand the policy and appreciate your efforts. There is a lot of non-gender neutral language that needs to be fixed. I recently held an RfC at the manual of style on the issue. I think a sentence like "Kennedy's plan to put a man on the Moon was the genesis of crewed spaceflight" is the type of language that NASA is encouraging. The plan was explicitly, no matter how sexist it was, to put specifically a man on the Moon (and return him safely to Earth). Kees08 (Talk) 04:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Show us, please, where NASA has revised its own history to talk about the race to put "a person on the moon." It appears that on its own Web pages talking about this mission, it has not engaged in this kind of "literary cleansing." General Ization Talk 04:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I have not viewed the link, but if NASA is not using appropriate language that is not my problem. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
It is if you are attempting to cite NASA policy to dictate changes to this article. General Ization Talk 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Wrong again. NASA not following their policy is not my problem, but the fact remains that it is NASA's policy to use gender neutral language. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I submit to you that, just as here, NASA does not have a policy of historical revisionism. The guidance you are reading is from the NASA style guide. That is a guide for the preparation of new documents of all kinds. I very much doubt that a directive was ever issued to the NASA historian to replace all occurrences of "man on the moon" with "person on the moon" in referring to the Apollo program of the 1960s and early 70s. (Nor that they would comply.) General Ization Talk 04:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not seeing historical revisionism. What I am seeing is an inability to acknowledge that gendered language alienates some readers. Gender neutral language should be used if possible. None of this changes the fact that, until Shuttle, US astronauts were exclusively male. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not the least bit concerned that we will alienate readers by accurately describing the events as they occurred at the time, including the existence of certain biases against women in spaceflight and a widespread lack of consciousness (relative to the present day) about gender issues generally. I believe we will alienate far more readers if we engage in juvenile exercises such as "global" replacement in historical articles of the terms used then with the terms we would use now, merely because we are afraid of alienating someone. General Ization Talk 05:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to an opinion. If you are serious, I would suggest adding a section to the article that explicitly talks about this. Perhaps "Historical biases against women in spaceflight" as a title. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
No, because that is not what readers are looking for at an article about the Apollo program. General Ization Talk 05:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
How about "Exclusion of women from Apollo" then. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. In the meantime, stop imposing gender neutral language on events and statements that were not, in fact, gender neutral. General Ization Talk 05:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
stop imposing gendered language, it violates both the NASA style guide and wikipedia principles. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding more material to Kees08 argument, Mercury 13 and Hidden Figures (book) shows how women were excluded at NASA even when it was shown they performed as well as the men.  Stepho  talk  05:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So, a section on the exclusion of women from Apollo would also be appropriate. Perhaps "Historical biases against women in spaceflight" as a title. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment, I think we should hold on making any changes on the main article until we come to a clear consensus over here. OkayKenji (talk page) 05:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that a separate section is the correct way to go about this, since Kennedy did in fact exclusively use gendered terms. At the same time the topic has to be addressed. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Creating a consensus adding new section

Vote: Should a section tiled "Exclusion of women from selection process" be added? (Add or No + reason). Note you can start making it, but adding it without creating a clear consensus to add it could cause problems.

  • Add the exclusion of women from the selection process is also part of the history of the Apollo program. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment We do not generally !vote on the addition of content before it has been added to an article. Whether or not such content belongs in the article depends on whether the content is relevant to the subject of the article, well sourced, of appropriate weight, and presented without POV. It remains to be seen whether the content another editor proposes to add to this article will meet all of those criteria. General Ization Talk 06:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    • This is an interesting reversal of position. Feel free to mention me by username and/or discuss directly instead of snidely referring to "another editor". 5Ept5xW (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This is not the question we have been discussing above, so there is no reversal here. My answer refers to "another editor" generically because it doesn't matter whether the other editor adding the content is you or someone else; I was explaining why "voting" on the addition is premature and unnecessary. Also, this section generally does not contain rebuttals, so please restrain yourself. General Ization Talk 06:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Creating a consensus using gender neutral language on past NASA missions

Vote: Should the (words?) be changed? (Yes or No + reason) ({{ping}} me for clarification if needed)

  • Yes See NASA's history guidelines, Wikipedia's MOS, and the Principle of Least Astonishment. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No My rationale is already very clearly explained above. We do not engage in historical revisionism here, and the imposition of GNL in historical articles on the events and the statements in the language of the time that were not gender neutral is historical revisionism. General Ization Talk 06:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No For missions before the Shuttle era, there were no female astronauts. Because it was not a gender neutral activity, it makes little sense to insist upon gender neutral nouns. From the Shuttle program on, it does make sense.Almostfm (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No We should not apply modern principles to historical events. Modern missions (which are not in the domain of the Apollo article) are a different issue.  Stepho  talk  08:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Honestly, it is still unclear to me what the question even is, and why this is a yes/no vote. Is it about the Kennedy quote? Is about general usage?
I do agree with using gender-neutral language in general, even on those historical missions (e.g. "the first crewed mission" is neutral and correct). I do not agree with the one particular instance of the "man on the moon" quote: In that case, the original statement was gender-specific. Using "person" in that context seems to imply (at least to me) that Kennedy meant to encompass all genders, which he did not. That said, I'd not complain if an less awkward and neutral term were used (e.g. "put someone on the moon"...?)
In a nutshell, I'd advocate for gender-neutral in all articles as long as the historical context is preserved. (Which basically what the NASA style guide says). Averell (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I interpret the results of the recent RfC aligning with your thoughts. Kees08 (Talk) 16:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Start to a proposed new section "Exclusion of women from selection process" under "Astronauts"

During the decision making process for Apollo, it was explicitly decided that women would not be eligible to land on the moon. This is due to a number of factors. Partly, the early astronaut corp was composed mostly of military test pilots at a time when such roles were not open to women. Women transport pilots did exist, but, as was argued at the time, transport flying was much more routine than test flying. As Apollo 13 proved, a moon landing with the technology of the time was a quite risky endeavor. However, it was also noted that John Glenn would not have been selected as an astronaut due to lack of engineering background under the criteria NASA had established, so clearly the political and social dynamics of the time also played a role.[1] 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I find it quite fascinating that this was even specifically discussed at the time, so I learned something. Is the original source available online? As for the content: I always assumed that being a test pilot was a hard requirement for the job (after reading up on some of the sources at Women in space). I do also not quite understand how the last sentence fits in or what it is supposed to tell me; especially since the whole thing is about social/political context: While the risks were objectively there, the decision was based on the (probably unspoken) assumption that women must not take risks, which is a subjective viewpoint Averell (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, hell no--Such a section does not belong here, as there was no explicit decision to exclude women from Apollo. The policy for selecting astronauts from the pool of military test pilots was set back during Project Mercury (and even before, in the predecessor equivalent Air Force program. The policy of using test pilots simply continued as more astronauts were selected for Gemini and Apollo. If you want to put such a section (making reference to Mercury 13), I would say it belongs in Project Mercury rather than here. Putting it here strikes as WP:POV pushing. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should have a separate article on those women, including coverage of why they were excluded. There should be a para and a {{Main}} link from here. But it's enough of a topic for a stand-alone article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Qualifications for Astronauts: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on the Selection of Astronauts of the Committee on Science and Astronauts, U.S. House of Representatives; Eighty-seventh Congress, Second Session, July 17 and 18, 1962, Volume 2. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1 January 1962.

Apollo 2 & 3

I would enjoy seeing why the labeling of the missions jumps from 1 to 4. PurpleChez (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the article; that is explained in Apollo program#Uncrewed Saturn V and LM tests. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Described in more detail in Apollo 1#New mission naming scheme. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Broadcast restoration project

The broadcast restoration project section strikes me as way too long. Would there be support for shortening it? - Sdkb (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Gleick

In the 'Further reading' section there is an entry for James Gleick with 6 sub-entries. His only link to each seems to be that he did a review of it. Should we remove his name and just cite each of the individual works? Or are we explicitly linking to his review - which is not actually listed with details such as the work it was published it or the date?  Stepho  talk  12:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Apollo landers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Apollo landers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Apollo landers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Artemis program

I did not find a link to the successor of the Apollo program, the Artemis program, see Artemis program. Should a link already be added, although Artemis did not yet get anyone/anything to the moon (and back)? And back-linking to Apollo's predecessor, Project Gemini, and from there to Project Mercury, and from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo? I.e. add a predecessor/successor line to the sidebar of all those pages?

No, there is no direct connection from Apollo to the Space Launch System/Artemis program. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Section "NASA spinoffs from Apollo"

The whole section seems to be quite dubious to me. If cordless tools were used in the construction of the ISS, that's fine and dandy, but the ISS didn't come into existance until decades after Apollo. None of the Apollo/Staturn enginges used methane (where the term "supercooling" is used incorrectly, BTW) or solar cells, so to say Apollo promoted the use of these technologies seems questionable to me as well. The other other examples sound very wishy-washy to me. And it all rests with one or two references, which don't support the majority of the claims made in the article.

Shall we prune this? --Syzygy (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The cordless tools should go (good find) unless there is more to their development regarding the Apollo program than what's written about on the page. The others seem applicable on a quick read, although I haven't studied the references, and should stay unless agreement is reached that they are tangential. If specific techs were invented or well-improved because of the Apollo program then they seem related enough for a mention. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I checked out this source: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/80660main_ApolloFS.pdf It reads more like a commercial to me, and I still find many claims extremely vague and dubious. (What exactly is the methane claim's connection to Apollo, other than that some aerospace engineers somewhere fiddled with it at the same time?) It's obviously an official NASA publication though and ought to be honored as such. What to do? --Syzygy (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Apollo's legacy / successor programs

Similar to another question posted here but should Artemis be under the Legacy tab or a successor tab? I understand not counting that as a true successor as it takes a wildly different approach with completely different vehicles and whatnot. However, maybe the defunct Constellation deserves a mention? It was billed as a direct successor and would have utilized a lot of Apollo-derived tech. It was also sold as Apollo's successor by NASA. I think it deserves a mention somewhere here. --RundownPear (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Manned" vs. "Crewed"...again

So it looks like two days after our latest donnybrook over this, an editor who apparently has had no previous interest in spaceflight has taken it upon himself to change about 100 spaceflight article (as near as I can tell, all in the Apollo program and earlier) to "crewed" using WP:GNL as his justification. When I reverted the edit, pointing out that the GNL policy has exceptions for single-gender activities (as US spaceflight was at the time), he redid the edit, this time citing an RfC. Is there anything that can be done? Almostfm (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

His justification is also based on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_215#RfC_on_gendered_nouns_in_spaceflight. I don't personally agree with it but it is tough going against an RfC.  Stepho  talk  22:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Raised at Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#Historical_revisionism? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
But you brought it up without the context of the RFC that had overwhelming support for the gender-neutral language "crewed". How's that going to help resolve things? Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the RfC until I read this page. I'd have opposed it, for this historical reason. Although Almostfm's comment implies that this change isn't even supported by the RfC, for just the reason we're complaining of. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My point (which I'll admit I may not have made clearly) is that his original justification (WP:GNL) got changed when I pointed out that there was an exception in that language-a point which the RfC didn't seem to consider. I guess I'll just have to accept that the language is more or less being imposed without a good reason beyond "we say so". Almostfm (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_program/Archive_3&oldid=1172196415"