Jump to content

Talk:Apollo program/Archive 2

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

Listing specific missions

I oppose the listing of specific missions in the main "Project Apollo" article. This information is fully covered by the List of Apollo missions sub-article. (Or if it isn't, that's the place to make changes.) The sub-article is mentioned in the "Missions" section of the main article, but perhaps it could somehow be made more prominent? (Sdsds - Talk) 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article needs to deal with some of those missions in a prose narrative (rather than in a list). I have been working my way through the article but I don't have a lot of free time at the moment so I haven't gotten around to doing it. So if anyone wants to jump in, feel free. MLilburne 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right: there's a need for prose narrative summarizing the missions. I've added a paragraph attempting that for the manned Saturn V missions. A preceding paragraph (or two) about the prior missions would be good. The "mission types" section is currently a bit awkward because it presents information both about what was initially planned and what was actually attempted. Would it be better to edit out the bits about stuff that never happened? (Sdsds - Talk) 08:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Your right. I just saw an empty "Manned missions" section and just added a list -- I hadn't noticed the sub-article. When you said leave out the stuff that didn't happen, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that - do you mean the missions which were planned but then cancelled (as there is a separate section in the sub-article: Cancelled missions), or do you mean all the ones which were unsuccessful - Apollo 13 was quite dramatic and I certainly think that should be included, if not have its own section as it was the only major failure in the project. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a little bit about mission planning is appropriate, if only because it helps the reader understand why Apollo 8 was such a bold step. But you're right to say that it may go into just a bit too much detail. I'll be bold and try to sort things out a bit, and will write something about the unmanned missions later today. Hopefully J. Atkins won't mind me eliminating the list now that there is something else to put in its place. MLilburne 12:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's much better - well done. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 15:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added content to the unmanned missions section -- see what you think. It's not much, but it'll do for now. Needs to be expanded though. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 16:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a good start. Thanks for all your hard work on the article. MLilburne 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(Multimedia) external links?

While I appreciate the work that has been done, I'm not sure that the article really needs a collection of multimedia external links. In general it's better to err on the side of too few rather than too many, as articles are often in danger of turning into link farms once they go over a certain threshold. (See WP:NOT#LINK.) A rule of thumb that I've heard is that FAs should have no more than 5-7 external links in total. I'd be interested in hearing other views on the subject, though. MLilburne 15:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume that by this you are suggesting that the Multimedia section is removed. This is okay by me, and like I said if there's too many links then that's a problem that needs to be fixed, but are you just warning not to get excessive or actually suggesting removing the section? The links I have added so far are all official NASA websites (apart from that software programme which I didn't add, just moved it to this section). Should I just remove the other links and just have two multimedia links: one to the NASA image gallery and one to the NASA audio gallery? --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
My preference would be to remove the section, but it's not a strong one. Having a Multimedia section would be fine as long as there are only a couple of links in it. What is more a question for debate is what the links should be. There are *so* many good Apollo resources online that we have to be very selective about what we choose and why. They have to add significant value to the article, and I'm not entirely sure that either the image gallery or the audio gallery are unique enough to do that. MLilburne 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to sort the links, removing not-of-highest-importance ones. I have tried to just keep just NASA links, as they are the only official source and they were the ones that went to the Moon. You're completely right about there being too many good websites -- it's hard to get rid of them but being over-extensive is, like you said, not too good especially for any GA/FA nominations. If you can make it any neater removing unnecessary links that would be great. Thanks for all your work on the article. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Shape of the article?

Seems to me that it's time we started discussing the shape and structure of the article of a whole, especially given recent additions. Inevitably as it is improved, it will get longer, so it's worth thinking about what is going to make the cut and what isn't. I'm just going to throw out some questions here and start by seeing what people think...

  • Do we need the "mission types" subsection?
  • Do we need a wider section on science in the Apollo program? (I think so.) What should be included?
  • How much does Apollo applications count as part of the Apollo program? How in depth do we want to be?
  • What focus should the "legacy" section have? It is currently a bit diffuse.
  • Do future moon landings fall within the scope of the article?
  • Do we need a photo gallery?
  • Do we need a "See also"?
  • Do we need a "Further reading" section?

That's enough to be getting on with, I think! In general my POV is that some of the post-article sections are not needed if their content (photos, wikilinks and citations) can be better integrated into the main body of the article. But I'm interested to hear what others think. MLilburne 18:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a draft layout:
  • Background; up to Kennedy announcement
  • Development and "choices"; include discission of Gemini, direct launch ideas, etc
  • Final design
    • Apollo/Saturn details
    • Mission plans (and LOR?)
    • Scientific plans
  • "Actual" program history - Apollo 1 to Apollo 17
  • Later history/legacy
  • Apollo Applications and ASTP
  • Cancelled missions (I am fond of that article...)
  • Future moon landings
  • Scientific results - all that fun geological stuff
  • Further reading style stuff - cultural impact, hoax theories, maybe something on Big Science or the end of the space race
In effect - history to 1961, history to 1967ish, discussion of technical aspects, "real history" 1968-1973, legacy. It's a little weird to have the technical aspects in the middle of the chronology, but it makes sense (and it's what we have now) - discuss them after we've explained how they were developed, but before we've explained how they were used. Shimgray | talk | 19:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the idea of more scientific info is great and much needed. I'd say keep See also, as it links to important related topics (maybe remove some links if they are unnecessary). I also think that cancelled mission info, future landings, and further reading is important too. Further reading is debatable, but it does allow readers to find out more from different sources, which is a good thing and is in many, many other artilces. I've tried to keep external links with just the most important links, as to not bloat it. Like you said, "actual" program history would really improve the article. I think the photo gallery is a neat way to show some of the most famous photographs from the program, and quite a lot of other articles do have them -- that's just my opinion, I added that earlier when I couldn't think of anything else to put on. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, guys. I'm still pondering these questions myself, but here are my thoughts for the moment, framed as responses to Shimgray's outline. I will bullet point them so they can be responded to point by point.

  • The development section should probably have something about the concept of "all up" testing and how it was agreed on.
  • I like the idea of putting mission plans in the planning section.
  • Not so sure about science plans, however. It would seem logical to discuss the results of the science at the same time, so to me it makes sense to leave it where it is now, in between "actual missions" and "legacy."
  • I agree with having the technical aspects in between plans and reality--good way of justifying why it is this way.
  • Locating Apollo 1 is a bit problematic because it came before several of the test missions and so it messes up the manned/unmanned distinction. I haven't got a solution yet,
  • Obviously much more is needed on the actual missions. I'm slowly working my way along, slightly worried by the idea of how long it might be!
  • I like the idea of an expanded legacy section (with the possible exception of the science subsection).
  • Future moon landings ought to be very brief, as it really isn't within the scope of the article, and should possibly focus on the ways that the experience of the Apollo program is informing planning for Orion.
  • A general cultural zeitgeist section would be cool, and I'm all behind it, but am worried about two things: 1) trivia and 2) moon hoaxer revert wars. Both are real concerns so we'll have to be extra careful with that section.
  • The see also section does seem like a bit of a grab-bag to me at the minute. Keeping it makes sense but only if we can decide what's really important and put it in some sort of order.
  • I'm going to try to incorporate some of the gallery pictures in the body of the article as the text gets expanded.

That's a lot to consider... MLilburne 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 1 and the test missions do belong in development, it's true. Perhaps... hmm, I know. Run development section chronologically, with a subsection at the end for Apollo 1 and subsequent project redesign; then stop and have our tech section. Start again with brief mention of the three "named" test shots, then straight into Apollo 7. I don't think we really need to keep to a strict manned/unmanned distinction, so long as it's clear in the text.
On the actual missions, we can probably get away with being terse - don't get bogged down with minutae of crew names and landing sites and so on - just a couple of sentences summarising each, to make sure we get that all-important in-text link. A sidebar table might be appropriate here, say with manned missions and their dates. Shimgray | talk | 22:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As to photo galleries and see-also, I tend to find these to be essentially a holding box - "stuff we will incorporate into the article at some point but haven't worked on yet". For further reading, perhaps a bibliography of the major works on the subject would be good? Shimgray | talk | 22:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm all for being terse with the actual missions. (I say this having written a whole paragraph on Apollo 4, but I assure you that my heart is in the right place!). Just brief summaries, with perhaps small human interest details to keep the whole section from becoming too dry. Fitting Apollo 1 into the development section also does make some sense, but we'd have to try it and see how it looks first.
Your "holding box" attitude is basically mine as well. I'm going to keep an eye on both sections and see how much I can work into the main text as I expand it. And yes, further reading would work as a bibliography as long as we can include books that are cited in the article too. MLilburne 08:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand the desire to structure an article chronologically. But doing so is sometimes a dis-service to the reader, who quite justifiably wants to get to the "good stuff" early on. In the case of Apollo, the good stuff is people landing on the Moon. (Why, by the way, does a link to Moon not occur until the third sentence of the lead paragraph?) My structure proposal would be:

  • Intro
  • Moon landings
    • Apollo 11
    • Other landings
    • Non-landing but noteworthy flights
  • Chronological History
  • Sociopolitics
  • Scientific results
  • Cultural legacy

(sdsds - talk) 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Have to disagree. This article isn't Apollo 11, nor is it Moon landings. The story of the Apollo program is a lot bigger than the story of the people who actually landed on the moon, and there is a lot of other good stuff in it. The article has a table of contents, so that anyone who wants to skip straight to the missions can do so, but I think that the current structure is a lot more logical. MLilburne 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be good to emphasise the moon-landing aspect in the introduction. FWIW, the Britannica article starts with a brief summary of what the program did (moon landing by Saturn/Apollo), then rattles through the missions consecutively. Apollo 11 doesn't appear until past the half-way mark... Shimgray | talk | 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MLilburne, you're right: this article isn't Apollo 11. But it isn't Space race either. Yet the first section ("Background") spends four paragraphs to rehash material from the Space race article. While that might make sense if the information in the article is going to be presented chronologically, the space race coverage (which addresses motivation for the program) just isn't as important as moon landings and moon rocks (which address results of the program). I'm advocating a "results first" approach. (sdsds - talk) 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Its good that we're thinking this over and discussing it first. In my opinion,
  • The lead section is fine (I'm not concerned that Moon only appears in the third sentence, but I guess that's debatable)
  • I agree with the opinion that the photo gallery is "to-add" content, and shouldn't stay there for ever -- thinking about it now, it seems pretty random to just leave all the images in a photo gallery -- I'm all for spreading the important ones across the corresponding sections of the article.
  • I think that the missions section is good and should keep the A through G "mission types" and explanations -- I like it, especially when it aids reading of "Apollo 18 to 20 would have been J missions" ... "H missions were short stays on the moon and two EVAs" etc.
  • I'm for changing the title of "Future Moon landings" to "Influence on space exploration".
  • I definitely don't think that we should have individual sections per mission, as I think this would just be bloat; I think we should spend more time on the overall Apollo program and its influences today.
  • I think that the idea of "further reading" being a bibliography is great, because as said, it will give the opportunity for readers to find out more information if they wish.
Thanks to everyone who's been working on this article; it's really turning out great.
--J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the lead paragraph accomplishes both of its main goals: it defines the topic for a reader unfamiliar with the subject area, and it explains the notability of the topic. That said, I think it could do a better job of emphasizing that the program conducted the only Moon landings to date, and is one of only two programs that has successfully conduct lunar sample return missions. Those are they aspects that make it notable. I don't feel the right place to cover the Applications programs (Skylab and Soyuz) is the first paragraph of the lead. I think Apollo 11, 13, 1, and maybe 8 are more notable. That is, I would move the Applications discussion to a third paragraph. Oh, and as for the first sentences, hypothetically consider this possibility: "The Apollo program was a human spaceflight program undertaken by NASA in 1961 with the goal of sending astronauts to the Moon. It accomplished this goal in July of 1969 when Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first person to set foot on the lunar surface." While MLilburne is totally right that the article needs to tell a story, "a lot bigger than the story of the people who actually landed on the moon", it also needs to "give the devil his due" and cover the incredibly famous aspects up front. (I know somewhere along the way we're going to lose the attention of the 10-year-old readers, but I'd rather not do it in the first paragraph! ;-) (sdsds - talk) 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as the first paragraph goes, I'm entirely with you. Not perhaps in the exact phrasing that you suggest, but I do agree that it needs to be an accessible introduction to the topic that hits the main points and the ones that people will recognize. Of course it also has to reflect the content of the article, but I think that both goals are achievable at the same time. So far I haven't done any work on the introduction and I would love it if someone else would beat it into shape.
I also agree with pretty much all of what Jatkins just said above, with the exception of the lead section issue. MLilburne 19:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the lead section - I've had a go at re-phrasing the opening paragraph to include the goal and significance of the Apollo program earlier on. I've also changed two sections titles: Photo gallery -> Gallery of images (although likely this will be dispersed across the article), and Future moon landings -> Influence on future human space exploration. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 19:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the hoax accusations, which I assume you find to be debunked and of no real evidence (Soviet Union tracking, possibility of still reflecting lunar equipment left there, science and effort behind it, scientists views, etc. etc.), but if we were to include (debatable I know, personally I'd say no), then I think something along the lines of "there have been occasional accusations of a hoax conspired by NASA, although this is largely regarded as untrue, by scientists, NASA, and the majority of the general public alike. The main debunking arguments are as follows: a) NASA return scientifically-classified moon rocks, b) the Soviet Union tracked the astronauts to the Moon, and 3) the impracticality of a 35-year cover up". --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My only real reluctance to discuss the hoax idea in this article comes from my fear that it would become a focus for controversy, edit wars and so on. (You only have to look at the hoax article to see what can happen.) If it does get discussed, then I personally would rather not mention any arguments whatsoever, pro or con. Just mention that hoax believers exist and leave it at that. In my view it's the only way to hold the line. MLilburne 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Saturn 1B

From the article:

The Saturn IB had only 1.6 million pounds of thrust in its first stage—compared to 7.5 million pounds for the Saturn V—but was capable of putting a command and lunar module into earth orbit.

This is absurd on its face. According to the Saturn V article, the rocket itself had a mass of more than 3,000 short tons, or greater than six million pounds. A first stage with only 1.6 million pounds of thrust would not even budge the rocket. Spoxjox 06:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the article is trying to suggest that a mission like Apollo 7 was possible using the Saturn IB, but not a mission like Apollo 8. (sdsds - talk) 06:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
As you'll see from the footnotes, my source for the figure is the Saturn IB News Reference, which is a pretty reliable source. The weight that you're citing is for the Saturn V, not the IB, which weighed only 650 tons. So I don't see that there's a problem. MLilburne 07:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Right you are. My apologies. Don't know what I was thinking. Spoxjox 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to nominate for good article/featured article?

I was just wondering: is it time to nominate the article for good/featured status? I'm interested in what other editors think about the lead section; I'd say it was pretty much perfect. Maybe certain things to do before nomination:

  • Integration of the photo gallery images into the main article
  • Check against requirements for nominations/featured/good status.

I'd love to see this article recieve good status soon, if not featured.

--J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the article is nowhere near featured status yet, and it has a decent way to go before GA status too. What needs to be done? That's a big question, but off the top of my head...
  • There are almost no footnotes from the "Missions" section onwards.
  • The "Missions" section needs a certain amount of expansion.
  • There needs to be a "Science" section and not just "Samples returned"
  • "Cultural legacy" is a mess.
  • "Further reading" needs sorting out.
  • Much of the article needs copyediting for typos, grammar and prose style.
I know I haven't been doing much work recently but that's just because I've been busy, not because I think it's adequate as it is. We still have a ways to go. MLilburne 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'll see what I can do. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the photo gallery and placed all the images that were part of it as thumbnails in relevant locations on the page - please have a look and see what you think. I've also added some information from the Neil Armstrong article - a paragraph about his opinions on a human mission to Mars in the section Influence of future human space exploration: Manned. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to express strong support for inclusion of the material in the Cultural Legacy section, and for the suggestion that it should be improved. The connections between Apollo and a "one Earth" worldview are super-important for readers to "get" when they ask, "Why did we do this?" (sdsds - talk) 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, in fact I hadn't really considered that. Like the sentence in the lead section 'the human lunar landings are often cited as one of the greatest achievements in human history', and like you said, it gives huge respect to the Apollo program/me - as President Nixon said "it brought together all of mankind for a few precious moments" -- Apollo had to be worked for, very hard, and it was successful (of course other reasons for it were the huge scientific and technological benifits it provided and giving way to future spaceflight back to the Moon and other worlds, Mars, etc. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of meta information not relevant to the apollo program

user sdsds wishes to have the following text tacked onto the 'blue marble' image in this article: "In the environmental documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore cited it as the most published photography in human history, and used to illustrate the importance of protecting the Earth's natural environment." I maintain that this information, while interesting, is inappropriate to this article. it has nothing to do with the article itself. it's meta-info, which while interesting, doesn't add to this article in a useful way. i would submit that - if it belongs anywhere at all, it belongs on the Blue Marble page (though I disagree it belongs there either). i'm going to revert the change again. editorializing images in articles strikes me as, well, just that - editorializing, where instead we're supposed to be building an encyclopedia. Anastrophe 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't actually sdsds that put that text there - it was me, so sorry if it seemed inappropriate, however I do think that perhaps it is reliable: The Blue Marble image (whilst perhaps it is difficult to find a reliable citation) is seen in many contexts, in many mediums, and literally is one of [if not the] the most famous image of the Earth from Space, perhaps even the most famous photograph ever taken. Also, the reference to An Inconvenient Truth reiterates the view that the Earth is a fragile planet, "a Blue Marble", if you will. Perhaps we could incorporate this into the text and remove it from the image caption -- would that seem sensible (or perhaps, I suppose it could be actually used as a <ref/>. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
not sure how i got the two userid's mixed up, sorry. in any event, I still don't think it's appropriate to this article. these are meta-topics, which just don't belong in this article. again, the Blue Marble article exists and would be the right place for it. Anastrophe 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there's a good compromise. My edit restored the prior text originally added by Jatkins, which Anastrophe had removed. (And which has been removed a second time now.) I hope we all agree that for any historic event or set of events, the Wikipedia article about them should also discuss the repercussions those events had and how they shape the world we live in today. In the case of the Apollo program article, the "Legacy" section is the place for this, yes? As regards specifically the "Cultural legacy" subsection, perhaps the article needs attention from someone with a focus in that field, rather than from someone with a focus in space programs, to help make sure the coverage meets Wikipedia's standards for this particular type of material. Is there at least basic agreement that the scope of the article is broader than just the technical specifications of the spacecraft and the dates of the missions and such?
In any case I assert the text (or at least the material it covers) belongs in this article. Perhaps not in an image caption, though. Maybe the "Cultural legacy" subsection needs an sub-subsection totally devoted to the "Notable photos taken during Apollo missions"? (sdsds - talk) 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the cultural legacy is important; the apollo space program touched a wide swath of human activities as the initial source of scientific and technological breakthroughs that had secondary and tertiary repercussions. As long as whatever is added doesn't mention Al Gore or An Inconvenient Truth, i have no objections. Why would I object to that? It's far too specific, and temporally too recent. The apollo program ended more than 30 years ago. The effects of the 'blue marble' were immediate and notable, and in the intervening decades, the 'blue marble' has been discussed and analyzed at length. Al Gore's mention that it is [one of]the most often reproduced/published images is not notable at all - this fact has been noted for decades. the environmental movement preceded An Inconvenient Truth by many decades; it does a disservice to the millions who came before Mr. Gore's enlightenment to focus on his mention of it.Anastrophe 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Anastrophe here, in the sense that there must be better and more comprehensive sources available on Apollo's cultural legacy. An important topic, but it's not yet being treated in quite the right way. MLilburne 09:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Anastrophe, I completely agree with what your saying -- the Blue Marble had a huge influence prior to An Inconvenient Truth, I just thought that was a citation/reference for it being a) one of the most famous photographs and b) having an impact on environmentalism/space colonisation - I was by no means saying that [An Inconvenient Truth] was the first or only impact - in fact, An Inconvenient Truth specifically noted that the world environmental movement began just months after the first publication of the Earthrise image, but it's hard to find a reference elsewhere. I also agree that the image is good with just a short caption, but I think (even without a reference to An Inconvenient Truth) it is appropriate to keep the info about the impact on environmentalism/space colonisation. That's just my opinion - it doesn't really bother me much regardless. Btw, just to avoid confusion with [one of], in Al Gore's exact words: "... and it is the most commonly published photograph in all of history". --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) thanks. i haven't seen the film so wasn't sure exactly what he said. i've heard the statement elsewhere that it's the most published photo in history - but i do wonder about the veracity, and how it would be verified; before the internet era there are probably publishing records, but since then, who knows what might be the most published image. but that's quibbling. Anastrophe 16:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess we've come to the conclusion that the image caption should be left alone without meta info. I've added an online transcript of An Inconvenient Truth as a <ref>erence to the statement which reads "... has motivated many people to environmentalism". See what you think. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 10:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction to the Apollo/Soyuz section

The article claims that the Apollo CSM that took part in the Apollo/Soyuz Test Project was unmanned. This is, of course, untrue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_soyuz

I've changed this already. Dwtno

Ramifications of Apollo Cancellation

I recall hearing that a significant fraction of all the aerospace engineers nationwide were directly or indirectly employed by the Apollo program, and its cancellation resulted in a glut of aerospace engineers which lasted for years afterward. Is this at all correct? If so, it would merit inclusion in the article. GoodSirJava 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Error re: U.S. planned landing versus rest of world?

Article says that, under current plans, the U.S. would be the first to next land human beings on the Moon, but the reference is to "no later than 2020", which logically would include the entirety of 2020. The ESA is said to plan to land "before 2020". "Before 2020" is self-explanatory. If the ESA intends to land "before 2020", then the statement that the U.S. would be the first to next land humans on the Moon would be incorrect. Am I missing something? If not, please make the necessary correction. I'd do it myself, but I want to get a second opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.49.124 (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit: In the above I was referring to the following sentence: "Currently, several nations have planned future manned Moon landings, the earliest being the United States (NASA) who have announced plans to land on the Moon no later than 2020, in a speech by President Bush titled "The Vision for Space Exploration". On reflection, it seems that this sentence could refer to the chronological order of the PLANNING, versus the order of the planned LANDING. However, this, to me, isn't clear, and the original appearance of an error could still obtain.

Also, stylistically, "United States (NASA) who have announced" may be inconsistent with the typical American usage, "United States (NASA) who has announced". "United States" shouldn't be a plural noun under modern American usage. Further, the parenthetical addition does not make the subject plural, it seems to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.49.124 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the section of future human landings--and--looking at it now I realize I really made a mess of it. There aren't even any citations to the planned human landings, and I understand what you're saying about it sounding weird. I'll have a look, try and find a reference, and sort it out. Thanks for noticing it. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've cleared it up, and I'm now going hunting for references. Again, thanks for pointing it out. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that what the section needs are sources that directly discuss the ways that the technological legacy of Apollo has influenced the Orion program. Simply comparing Apollo and Orion doesn't really offer the analytical leverage that the section needs, and it also tends to sound a bit like original research. MLilburne 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I will try to look for references -- my primary objective with the edits I made today was to remove confusion -- I simply obtained the human lunar landing dates from the List of future lunar missions article, which, shockingly, has no references other than one relating to a UK satellite launch (Moonlight) in 2010, nothing for the human lunar landings. If you know of any references that'd be great too. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have added references for the ESA and also for Japan, and tried to clear the section up a bit. Hope that helps. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside from vague references to similarities or differences from the apollo program, most of the section really has nothing at all to do with the apollo program. i'm unclear why it belongs in this article, and not others. Anastrophe 16:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you there. What the section needs are good reliable sources that discuss the ways in which Apollo-era technology and ideas are being used in the Orion program. As far I can tell, the plans of other nations to land on the Moon have nothing to do with Apollo. MLilburne 16:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point, but wouldn't you agree that the success of Apollo has at least inspired many of these? The Moon landings were a huge scientific and political (amongst other things) achievement and I'm sure the Apollo program(me) is what is a challenge that these other programmes are rising to -- that's just my opinion. I really (definitely) don't think that the section itself should be removed, as (I believe) Apollo has influenced people's opinions about human spaceflight, and set challenges and proved that much is possible. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Apollo program#Influence on future human space exploration the section under discussion? If so its heading is pretty self-explanatory! The trick, as MLilburne suggests, will be to find citable references that say, "This aspect of that future human exploration mission was influenced by these events of the Apollo program." (sdsds - talk) 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
exactly. as it stands, most of it is little more than WP:SYN and WP:OR, which doesn't belong. Most of it should be removed absent citable details. Anastrophe 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to remove it, go ahead. I can hardly see, however, that Apollo didn't set the stage for these future missions - "The Americans did it, so we need it"? mho, I'm not bothered - I do take your points however. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A good and reasonably polite first step would be to mark with {{fact}} or other inline markup the sentences which seem most egregious. The assertion of WP:OR or WP:SYN might imply the original editor was trying "to advance a position" which hasn't been published. We all "know" that isn't the case here! We "know" the material does belong, because we "know" lots of people have claimed that Apollo influenced many other space exploration efforts -- we just have to help the article become more specific about who it is that has made these claims, and when and where the claims were made. (sdsds - talk) 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
the apollo program influenced a lot more than just future space exploration efforts, as we know. however, as an encyclopedia entry, it should confine itself to describing The Apollo Program, without speculating about the nature and extent of such influence. don't get me wrong: i'm as big a 'fan' of the apollo program as anyone - i stand in awe of what the people involved accomplished. but i think it's better if the article stick with that which is directly citable, and that which is directly associated with the subject of the article. which, frankly, should be awe-inspiring enough in itself.
bear in mind also, that while WP:OR and WP:SYN can be wielded with negative implications in mind, they don't inherently carry those implications. Anastrophe 05:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the wider historical influence of the Apollo program is part of its history, and therefore does belong in the article. (Or in a subarticle if this one gets too long.) It wouldn't be speculation if we found reliable and verifiable sources. However, until then I think that the best thing to do is remove the section. It just looks bad at the moment, and it is vague enough that it isn't really informative to anyone. MLilburne 07:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with what you're saying -- that we know it, but it needs to be cited. I've tried to find citations, and I have found this quote from a PDF document titled "Societal Impacts of the Apollo Program" (Google cached HTML version here):
One more thing: regarding the Constellation programme, on NASA's "Lunar Exploration Trailer" (QuickTime video), the text says "We took a giant leap [...] We stopped [...] It's time to take another giant leap [...] We're going back to [...] The Moon" -- I think this shows NASA's realization of the need to return, to not stop what it started - an appreciation of the success and popularity of Apollo.
--J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd also just like to emphasize something I think is really important (not that I'm implying there's disagreement about it): I definitely believe (probably a lot more) information should be included about the Constellation programme, since it is the direct successor to Apollo (not in space programmes, of course, but in human spaceflight beyond Low Earth orbit, and to the Moon), and is NASA's next big step. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(reindent)do you mean a lot more information should be included in this article, about project constellation, or do you mean a lot more information about project constellation should be added to the project constellation article? i'm strongly against the former. Anastrophe 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

also, aside from stylistic objections i have to the quoted material from astrosociology.com ("impact" used twice in the space of two sentences, while discussing the space program, is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me), the pdf is marked 'draft', and on that basis wouldn't qualify as a reliable source. Anastrophe 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I think that the technological debt of Orion/Ares to Apollo should certainly be mentioned, but that there shouldn't be too much on Constellation in this article. After all, this is the Apollo article... as Anastrophe points out, the place for detailed discussion of Constellation is in the Constelation article.

As for NASA's Lunar Exploration Trailer, Jatkins, you say that "I think this shows NASA's realization of the need to return." I hate to say it, but this sounds like your opinion again. You need to find other sources who are saying this, not your interpretation of what NASA realizes or doesn't realize. MLilburne 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(and a little more) I'm also dubious about the reliability of the "Societal Impacts of the Apollo Program" PDF as a source, but take a look at the footnotes... lots of potential sources there! MLilburne 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking over it again, I think there's quite enough of Project Constellation -- I just think that it should stay in the article (as well, perhaps, as the other planned human missions to the Moon), because I think it's important that people know about what (will) follow Apollo - what's next for human exploration of the Moon. Just one section, not tons - keeping the "Further information: List of future lunar missions" (and perhaps also adding "See also: Project Constellation"), so that people can find out more if they want.

Regarding the PDF, I really haven't had a thorough look at it, but I found it Googling for "Apollo program influence", and searched it to find the keywords -- so I thought it might be useful, but it was just I suggestion so I didn't add it to the article.

As far as the "trailer" is concerned, I was really referring to the line "We stopped. [...] It's time to take another giant leap". I'm really not talking about or suggesting filling the article with bloat about future missions by other countries. That's all. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I have removed the information of future planned missions and simply stated: "Several nations have planned future human lunar missions, and several space agencies also intend to build lunar bases."
I recognize that this is not really related article, and hope that clears the section up. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Griffin on Chinese earliest return to moon

In a speech given recently and aired on NASA TV, Mike Griffin (NASA administrator) indicated he believed China would put astronauts on the moon before the U.S. did so again. Given that, I've removed the bit of text that strongly implied NASA intends to get back soonest. (sdsds - talk) 06:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Did he give specifics (i.e. a date)?, because the current Wikipedia citation for China's astronauts reaching the Moon is 2024. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 16:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly I don't think it matters to this article when China is or is not planning to go back to the Moon. The relevant information is in the current revision: namely, that the US plans to go back and that Orion draws on the technological legacy of Apollo. All of this other information belongs in a different article. MLilburne 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree - it belongs in Exploration of the Moon#Future plans (see my note above about removing future missions info). --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Resolved
 – Lead section updated. (sdsds - talk) 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose using the following as the lead paragraph for this article:

The Apollo program was a human spaceflight program undertaken by NASA during the years 1961 – 1975 with the goal of conducting manned moon landing missions. John F. Kennedy announced this goal in 1961, and it was first accomplished on July 20 1969 by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during the Apollo 11 mission. Five other Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the most recent one in 1972. These six Apollo spaceflights are the only times humans have landed on another world.

I realize this cuts a lot of material currently in the first paragraph. I believe some of that material belongs in other paragraphs of the lead section, and some might even be better placed in the body of the article. What remains is intended to keep a tight focus on "who, what, when", followed by a single sentence intended to emphasize the notability of the subject. Comments? (sdsds - talk) 05:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer your's to the current one (but I'd remove the first from first accomplished - I think was accomplished on its own works well). Maybe it should include a short sentence noting the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft. Other than that I think it's perfect. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 08:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreement here. MLilburne 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
this new version is much better than the current version. it'd be nice if Michael Collins were acknowledged, but that falls into a fuzzy/grey area. also, i think 'the most recent one in 1972' has an anachronistic quality to it. i think "the last one in 1972" is more direct. Anastrophe 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to integrate the suggestions above into the version of the paragraph used in the article. Please examine the other edits made to the lead section, which may still need additional work. (sdsds - talk) 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's much better, it's halved in size! Thanks. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Apollo program not quite past tense?

I saw a show on PBS last night (called The Moon - don't know who produced it) that claimed that the Apollo program is not quite over. The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment is the last aspect of the program that is still ongoing. Can the laser experiment legitimately still be called part of the Apollo program? If so, should it be mentioned under the "Legacy" section? — Eoghanacht talk 16:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation! Does any LLRE funding come from NASA? If so, I bet the budget line item doesn't say, "Apollo"! That said, LLRE should definitely be mentioned somewhere in this article! (sdsds - talk) 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This website claims that NASA's JPL at CalTech still analyzes the LLRE data (at least in 2004). But it also states "The lunar laser ranging experiment is the only lunar investigation continuously operating since the Apollo project." The word since implies that it is not part of the Apollo project -- although it is obviously directly related (they are still using Apollo equipment, and it started during Apollo). Although I would not take that wording as 100% definitive. I searched the Gov't Printing Office website for any mention of the LLRE in the 2007 budget, no dice. — Eoghanacht talk 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation of "since" sounds right. Perhaps the PBS show was just being loose with their rhetoric? You are also right to think of it as a "legacy" of Apollo. By the way, searching at JPL found this press release from 1999, which states at the end: "At JPL, this lunar ranging analysis, sponsored by NASA's Office of Space Science, is conducted by Drs. James G. Williams, Dale Boggs, J. Todd Ratcliff and Jean O. Dickey." So that implies that as late as 1999 at least some of the funding was from NASA. (I think the Office of Space Science is now part of the Science Mission Directorate.) (sdsds - talk) 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Article seems a bit messed up

I've been reviewing some recent changes to this article, and I've become a little concerned. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but I think the article's becoming bloated. The lead section is seven paragraphs long (including the quote, which for some reason has been given its own paragraph - which is already done in the second section). We now have a section "A Shift in Perspective: Looking at the Earth from Lunar Orbit". This isn't a book. We're not trying to advertise a documentary. It's a minor thing, but it affects the tone of article (IMHO).

  • I think the actual view impacted more than just the astronauts themselves. I think the heading I had put up should be put back because it reflects the body of the section; for example, the references to the formation of the environmentalism movement, etc. The astronauts themselves were not leaders in the environmental movement. They only brought us their first hand accounts of seeing the whole of the earth, etc. It was the act of looking back that was important. Seeing the outline of the continent of Africa just like it were a map on the wall has to have a profound effect, and on everyone collectively, not just the astronauts. The effect that it had personally on the astronauts is not relevent. 166.70.39.30 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it sounds like the standard Wikipedia tone. Basically, Wikipedia is for the most part factual, and doesn't really have the intention of making people awed. Whilst I do agree that the title you gave is entirely true of the astronauts' experiences, I believe mine is more appropriate on Wikipedia. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have done this now, it looks good. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The article also now has numerous layout issues: in the lunar samples table, we have bordered images within a cell border, within a table border. It doesn't look right. There are other minor errors like whitespace where it shouldn't be -- i.e. extra blank lines, and no whitespace where it should be -- i.e. in the "one small step" quote.

There's also a documentary section. Yet we already have a popular culture section. And there have been too many documentaries on the Apollo programme to list. We could list the main ones, as has been done, but there's not much point.

These things may seem trivial, and in a way they are - many articles suffer from them. But then, not all articles are former featured article candidates. There was a period of time several months ago when several editors were greatly improving the article.

I'm not critizing these edits, and I recognize that they are good faith edits meant to greatly improve the article. I messed up the article a while ago with a photo gallery section, and some other stuff. This isn't a rant, it's a call for action. This is an article about the greatest technological achievement in human history. It deserves to be a featured article. And it's not far from being one. But we need to act.

Just to prevent confusion, I'm referring to the latest version of the article as I write this comment (yes, it's obvious, but I'm just pointing it out :D): "Apollo program" as of March 19, 2008, at 22:08 UTC.

I'm off to (try) to improve it.

--J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Moon Landing Hoax accusations must be added to contents

It is mainly due to the conspiracy theorists and hoax believers that this event has not become a neglected part of our recent History. As with the 9/11 attacks, the contents contains '3.4 Conspiracy Theories' and so should the Apollo program contents. The Moon Landing Hoax link should not be relegated to it's present demeaning position. Nick Mollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

you're suggesting that if not for the hoaxnuts, the apollo program would have been forgotten by now? i think not. standard application of WP:WEIGHT applies. the article need not give the tinfoil hat crowd any more coverage than is appropriate. which is to say, virtually none. Anastrophe (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not 'suggest' I stated. This is about adding Hoax accusations to the content table. Nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As for WP:Weight

Knight Newspapers conducted a poll of 1721 U.S. citizens and found that more than 30 percent of all of the poll's respondents were "suspicious of NASA's trips to the Moon"

1999 Gallup poll, about 6 percent of the population of the United States has doubts that the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon.

Gallup Poll 1999

Do Americans remember the Apollo program with the same type of glowing terms being used to describe its historical significance today? It appears that some of the hyperbole surrounding the moon effort is not necessarily endorsed by the average American. A July 13-14 poll asked Americans if they agreed with a statement, based on an assertion appearing on the NASA web site, that "the human race accomplished its single greatest technological achievement of all time by landing a man on the moon." Only 39% agree with this statement. Fifty-nine percent don't.

Fox said roughly 20 percent of the public had doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo program after the show, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Really Land on the Moon?

In Europe the skepticism is much greater.

England: Channel 4 News Poll: 50% believe the Americans faked the whole thing

France's skepticism is greater than England's.

Taking the smallest percentage: This amounts to literally millions of Moon Landing skeptics around the world, most certainly not a minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

yes well without actual citations, we have no way to verify your claims. feel free to add some mention of the above to the article, but note that if it fails WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, it'll be reverted. much of what you claim above has nothing to do with the hoaxnuts - the assertion that it was the single greatest tech achievement has nothing to do with whether people believe it happened. Anastrophe (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there not a rational mediator to address my request? This is simply about what is mentioned in the post title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. It's because of conspiracy theorists that the Apollo astronauts have been stalked, insulted, and ambushed. Hoaxers are nothing other than people out to either make themselves sound good, or make a quick Sibrel buck. As has been stated above, the tinfoil hat crowd deserve no mention. They'll get a link in the See Also section to an article debunking their idiocy, and that's where it stops. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It certainly seems to me that Wiki's own article Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories gives it very adequate coverage, and we do have a link to that in the "See also" section at the end. I think the phenomenon is a very interesting reminder about the difficulties involved in the verification of information in our large and complex society, and of the psychology and sociology of contemporary human beings, but I can't see giving it much honor here. It is there, after all—in a line all its own. Wwheaton (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much resentment expressed in these responses? Yours are only personal opinions. That has nothing to do with the request in hand. The Hoax Accusations link is relegated to a degraded position and this should be corrected. As for the usage of words such as 'tinfoil hat crowd' and 'hoax nuts' surely a more intelligent and responsible reasoning can be utilized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my response seemed disrespectful; I certainly did not mean to convey resentment of you, nor of others. I think belief in the hoax theory is border line nuts, myself. But then as the Cheshire cat said, "We're all mad here!" It is the human condition to be ignorant. Practically everything we think we know we take on faith from some trusted source(s); we typically do not, cannot, verify personally. And when we are ignorant, we very often do not know it. So a great deal boils down to whom we trust and whom we doubt: sources and verification. And I think it is not insane to be unsure in this world where so many strange and clearly incompatible, contradictory, opinions are so strongly held by so many, and where people's assumptions, emotions, and prejudices clearly play such a huge role in shaping their opinions and their reason. Not to mention the role of outright lying and corruption, which when received second-hand quickly becomes sincere and honest belief. It is really very confusing! Awareness of all this is not madness, it is sanity.
But still, the article is about the Apollo moon program, not about this tangle of human psychology, sociology, and epistemological difficulty. There is an extensive article that covers the factual issues, and we reference that. Anyone who comes to this article seriously looking for it will find the link there, and a wealth of information on the issue. The decision about how much prominence to give the controversy in this article is up to consensus of the editors, of course, so all of the above is simply my opinion, and as fallible as opinions necessarily are. But "See also", with the subject clearly stated, seems adequate to me for a matter so clearly on the fringe, and I think not in serious dispute here.
You say "must" in the section title. I simply say "should not". Best, Wwheaton (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see that is impossible to gain an succinct or rational reason as to why the Hoax Allegations link is so relegated but by reading this article and others connected with it, it is easy to see an agenda bias of a very unsubtle nature taking place. Wikipedia should not be a platform for revisionism, debunking and conservative opinion. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia moderated by intelligence, learning and neutrality. Obviously it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I begin to suspect you are a person who doubts the evidence against the hoax accusations. If so, I apologize for seeming to impugn your sanity above, and I am sorry if I gave offense. As I say, we all have huge areas of ignorance, inevitably. I urge to you read the article on the subject carefully, and criticize it if it needs correction, rather than give up on Wikipedia, which is a community effort: surely highly [! spectacularly!] fallible, but seemingly the best we seem to know how to do in our present state. No doubt both articles are imperfect, which we must regret. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We already have the very-lengthy Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories, with 115 citations, and it's twice as long as this article. Given that, I don't see the need to devote space here at all, as it would needlessly duplicate what already exists. Btw, the "See also" is the normal place for related articles, and doesn't imply a "demeaning position". - BillCJ (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"the very-lengthy Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories, with 115 citations, and it's twice as long as this article" is because it is swamped with lengthy debunking. I still hold that it is because of the hoax believers and conspiracy theorists that the Apollo program gets the attention it does today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but I'd point out that the publicity it's received because of the hoax theories isn't good publicity ("any publicity isn't always good publicity"). --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly?

Do we really need the supposedly where it says 'this goal was supposedly accomplished in 1969.' The moon landing conspiracy theory is a minority view and although it probably should be mentioned I dont think there is the right place for it. --90.213.55.31 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it per our policy on neutrality. Pfainuk talk 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yuk. What rubbish. Thanks so much for getting rid of it; I hadn't noticed it. Good riddance Sibrel!!! --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. It was only there for about 20 minutes, but that was long enough for our IP friend to notice it and flag it up. Pfainuk talk 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Reference 15 (the one that gives the Nasa citation for the cost of the Apollo program) is offline (24 Nov 2008 15:57 GMT). Looks like there has been a re-organization of the NASA web sites, but I couldn't spot where it has gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.92 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It just needed a space after .html in the link. Fixed now. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Constellation Program

It looks like there is a conflict between the first and last sentences of this paragraph: "Like Apollo, Orion will fly a lunar orbit rendezvous mission profile, but unlike Apollo, the lander, known as Altair, will be launched separately on the Ares V rocket, a rocket based on both Space Shuttle and Apollo technologies. Orion will be launched separately and will link up with Altair in low earth orbit like that of the Skylab program. Also, Orion, unlike Apollo, will remain unmanned in lunar orbit while the entire crew lands on the lunar surface, with the lunar polar regions in mind instead of the equatorial regions explored by Apollo. Constellation will also employ an Earth orbit rendezvous mission profile, which was dropped in favor of lunar orbit rendezvous in Apollo" (emphasis added). I don't know enough about Constellation to know which way to fix it. Jminthorne (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure myself, but those details should stay in the Constellation article not here. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I think that the introduction to this article should not include the "The major space exploration milestones leading up to the moon landing include:" and the incorperated list. This should be placed elsewhere in he article. 114.77.86.32 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 11 broadcast data restoration project

On 17 July 2009 I added current information about the restoration process of the surviving Apollo 11 moon tape data by Lowry Digital. The project is supervised by NASA senior engineer Dick Nafzger, who was involved with the actual data during the live transmission.[1][2] Xin Jing (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Regarding edits made by Fnlayson: Please explain again why you deleted my boxed quotes. I spoke on your talk page because you hadn't posted here yet. Then I explained my reasons. You didn't answer all of my questions and redirected to the article's talk page. Now I am here, so I will recap my reasons for wanting you to recend your deletion. Honestly, this is just part of the diplomatic formality process I know that takes place on Wikipedia. You didn't offer me any opportunity to explain why they should stay before you deleted them, then had me run in a circle to get them back. Shame on you!

Fnlayson, I noticed that you removed my boxed quotes from the article. You said the quotes were not cited, summarized in the text, and format references.

It sounds like a few hoops I have to jump through:

1. Citations - The quotes came from the articles which I referenced. So I need to do a [1] to keep them in?

2. Summarized in text - I felt the actual quotes of people that worked on the project at the beginning and now for the restoration project added a flavor of authenticity to the article. I've seen many articles where a quote is added in the paragraph, these were instances where the text sets up the quote to dynamically underscore the problems mentioned in the article.

3. Format references - I'm guessing this has something to do with the box quotes not being appropriate for the article, but I'm not sure. Could you clarify?

In summary, the article can exist in good quality without the box quotes. With that said, I think the content of the box quotes needs to return to the article, as they add a specific person that was there, a stand out statement about that particular segment of the article. The quotes also add flavor, a soundbite of people that are still directly involved in the project and have been since day one. There were technical challenges on the ground while Armstrong was taking his first step, and the repercussions wouldn't be realized until nearly 40 years later. To delete them is a mistake given the nature of the article. Please take a moment and comment on what you think specifically needs to happen for them to return in some form.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in your editing process. Xin Jing (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • In light of the edit made by Fnlayson, I have reverted the changes made. Let us discuss intended changes here before they are made. I prefer to make changes to keep them there, not strive for achievements to get them back. Xin Jing (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The quotes were not directly cited as policy requires. They are not particularly notable and not really needed since the text summarizes them. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you didn't respond to my suggestion that your deletion preceded any communication here. When I inquired why you made changes, you referred me to this talk page for further discussion. It occurs to me that you should have engaged me in discussion before making your changes, allowing us to avoid a circular conversation and waste time. If content is missing a citation, usually there is a short period where the content can be ammended to meet policy requirements before it is outright deleted. Does the policy that you are so quick to quote mandate an immediate deletion of content that fails to adhere to that policy, without opportunity to bring it into compliance? As to Notability, my interpretation of those guidelines is that they refer to a seperate article, quotes within an article are not mentioned. Perhaps you can cite a specific passage that applies to quotes. Additionally, "not really needed" is subjective and in need of further explanation. If the text needs to be ammended to eliminate redundancy, I will take a look into it. I understand you are involved in "300+" articles, but please take some time and explain your editorial intentions with specifics on the article talk page before initiating content deletion. Thank you Xin Jing (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
See WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. And note I removed the quotes 1 time. Time to move on to something else.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for adding quote citations. Xin Jing (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Space Milestones

Does this section really belong in the introduction? It almost seems like it could be summed up with, "The program set major milestones in the history of human spaceflight." Anyone mind if I change it? Jminthorne (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the list and tighten some wording in the area. That link should be added also. Here's the milestone list for anyone wondering:
Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I added the milestones internal link to the introduction.Jminthorne (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 11 broadcast data restoration project #2

The first text box in this section is glitching (it interjects itself mid paragraph and isn't properly left justified); I am not familiar enough with text boxes to fix it. I do notice that it goes away if we make the quote long enough to start a second line.Jminthorne (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I switched to a different, but similar quote template in an effort to fix that. That seems to fix the overlap glitch for me. Hopefully that fixes it for you and others. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Official mission numbers for AS-201, AS-202, and AS-203

See http://everything2.com/title/Apollo+2. While it is true that a retroactive naming of these missions to Apollo 1a, Apollo 2 and Apollo 3 was suggested after the fire, it is also true that it was officially rejected, and these names are not now and never were official. The change of AS-204 to Apollo 1 and AS-205 to Apollo 7 were official. So I've taken the liberty of removing the Apollo's 1a, 2, and 3 names from the mission list. If somebody wants to add that these were once suggested or proposed as names, but never approved by NASA, that's fine, but the official list here, should have the presently-official names. SBHarris 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Benefits of Apollo program

Brian Cox the phyisicist made the statement that $14 dollars came into the US economy for every $1 spent on Apollo. If this can be verified in true Wikipedia style it could be most useful. Soarhead77 (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


Cost of Apollo

From the article:

According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (or approximately $145 billion in 2008 dollars).

The problem with this statement is it doesn't mention which inflation measure is used. For example, if I use the GDP deflator, I get a price of roughly $94-119 billion in 2008 dollars. The NASA New Start Index might be what was used (if so, it is inappropriate, since it is used to price NASA contractor R&D), but I can't tell. In any case, I think this figure should either be corrected and the measure of inflation attributed. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, it's worth looking into but we would need a source to corroborate.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Just list the then-years cost and forget the projected/inflated 2008 cost. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I just tried in vain to find the Garber page referenced to get the $83 billion figure, but I did find a NASA presentation paper report [[1]] which gives a different 2005 figure, about twice as high: $160 billion. I did a sanity check by looking up the Consumer price index by country#United States of America, and the curve indicates a rise from ~30 in the 1960's to ~200 in 2005 (indexed to 100 in 1983), a 667% increase. This is consistent with $24 billion x 6.67 = $160 billion, and would have put the $83 billion back in the 1980's. I will try to fix this when I get a chance. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dates on LBJ's response to JFK ?

The article said LBJ responded "on the following day" to JFK's query on how to beat the Soviets. But when I go to LBJ's memo, the date is April 28, 1960, not April 21, which is one week instead of one day after April 20. The dates are clearly visible on what look like photocopies of the originals. (Space Race had the same problem.) Can anyone explain this? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Constellation program section out of scope

If we want to briefly mention Constellation as a legacy of Apollo, fine, but I don't understand why the impulse to clutter this historical article with details of the new craft or the continuing political saga of whether or not it will survive. This section needs to be stripped down to the main article link and a summary stating no more than that it was proposed and some design and testing has begun, but that its status remains uncertain. The details should be moved out to Constellation program. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, too much detail on the Constellation here. The Constellation article probably covers most or all of that already. I trimmed the text back some as a start. Feel free to cut more.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A world wide audience section

The section A_world_wide_audience claims "Approximately one fifth of the population of the world watched the live transmission of the first Apollo moonwalk." citing a book I do not have access to, as the source. I find this figure very unlikely to be reliable. Even today it's difficult to accurately calculate worldwide audience estimates when the figures enter the hundreds of million range. Back then even figures like domestic audience were diffiuclt to accurately estimate (a lot easier now) so it seems absurd that something which would be difficult even today could have been accurately calculated back then.

Unless a reliable source(s) can be found, I think it needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.193.221 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because you can't get your hands on a hard copy right away, doesn't mean the source is necessarily unreliable. I gave the source the benefit of the doubt and changed the wording to a less-definitive "An estimated one-fifth ..." Is that better? Just deleting it without knowing the facts, would be original research. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It's just an estimate. The book that cites that is already a reliable source. Start by finding a source that says states an appreciably different number. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing data and knowhow

It is often said that much of the data and knowhow (that will be again needed for the return to the moon has been lost). Is there a list somewhere about what was lost form the Apollo Project ? Has anyone been made responsible or any inquiry about that loss and cost to the taxpayers ? --79.168.10.241 (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The way to begin digging into something like this is to cite some sources making such an assertion. It may only be hyperbole. As an aside, my understanding is that NASA's documentation protocols back then were very thorough, moreover after early 1967. Sources will likely show the worry isn't "lost know-how," but the cost and management of dredging archives and mining all the old data for helpful knowledge, rather than building a new knowledge base by mostly other means. Meanwhile, many of those technologies have come a long way since the late 60s, it's been forty years. Even if the same modular system were to be used, the "stack" might look kind of like Apollo from the outside, but that's where many likenesses would end. Here's a source which notes flights to the moon (if any) may not even be US government projects.[2] Moreover, talk about this may be more fitting at Talk:Constellation program, Talk:Moon_landing or even Talk:Exploration of the Moon. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106637066
  2. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_sc/us_sci_moon_video
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_program/Archive_2&oldid=1136526152"