Jump to content

Talk:Apollo 11

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vex5 (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 9 March 2006 (→‎...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Is the folklore about the couple arguing about sex really necessary? It just doesnt seem to impact the story in any way, nor is it relevant to Apollo 11. Seriously, it should be removed. Some 5th grader doing a school project is going to try and look up information regarding the moon landing, and is going to get barraged with links to Wikipedia Oral Sex. At least remove the link, so that this page doesnt directly lead to that topic...

An event mentioned in this article is a July 20 selected anniversary

This might not be appropriate for a Talk page, but ...

Much has been said in the USA lately about the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks being one of those moments where people will one day ask, "do you remember where you were when you heard the news?" For me, the biggest event that warranted that sort of response in the past was the first lunar landing. I was five years old, crowded into my grandmother's living room with perhaps every relative on the planet, trying to see the television, and eagerly chatting with everyone about what we were seeing. Thinking about the Apollo program lately has been therapeutic for me; a reminder of the heights to which humanity can reach, and a memory of being able to share in that experience, in however small a way.

So where were you when they walked on the Moon?


I don't think September 11 should be mentioned in the same paragraph as the achievement of Apollo- I ask only that you remove that comparison- because Apollo represents all that is great about America. The men that perpetrated September 11 could only destroy and murder the innocent people and their families in their thousands because it was made easy for them to do so. Their first action was to slit the throat of an innocent defenceless stewardess.

Please don't link the two even in the "where were you" context- it gives a bad taste!!

Again, apologies if this is not appropriate; willing to remove it if so. -- RjLesch

The old photo: Image:Apollo11.png -- Taku 00:59 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

The photo above is actually of Apollo 11, so I'm putting it back in. Here's the photo I'm removing, which must be from a later mission that included the rover:
Image:As15-88-11866.jpg
-- Arteitle 16:38 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on moon photos, but surely the Rover shown only went with later Apollo missions. Hotlorp 00:20 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely right, the photo currently up is not a picture of Apollo 11, because it didn't bring a rover along. -- Arteitle 16:06 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

im french, sorry for my english....i come from french wikipedia for download picture of space. All Nasa picture are free ?

I surprised, rover is use only for apollo 15, 16, and 17...i think its apollo 15 mission with james irwin on it.

And the picture on this page is apollo 11,12, or 14 because we dont see the deployment structure of the rover (some plastic on one side and root)...but also, we dont see the big parabolic reflector of apollo 12...and i dont recognize standard module of ALSEP in foreground...Apollo Lunar Scientific Experiment Package, use only after Apollo 11.

Oliezekat 19:51 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Me again :op

Im sure that old photo come from apollo 11 because ALSEP use nuclear power...dont need solar system :o)

Oliezekat 19:57 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Correct, the device in the old photo is the PSEP (Passive Seismic Experiment Package). More info here: http://www.myspacemuseum.com/alsepa2.htm -- Arteitle 16:18 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Suggest 20 possible wiki links and 6 possible backlinks for Apollo 11.

FIRST COMMENTS Peter Ellis 07:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I added links I considered appropriate, also for retroreflector and Sibrel backlinks (other backlinks are mostly-unwikified articles). -- Curps 08:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Apollo_11 article:

  • Can link 31 minutes: ...closed''': July 21, 05:11:13 UTC **'''Duration''': 2 hours, 31 minutes, 40 seconds... (link to section)
NO
  • Can link Eastern Daylight Time: ...dule at that point, and guided it to a landing at 4:17 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on July 20 with less than 30 seconds' worth of fuel left in... (link to section)
NO
YES, obviously -- Curps
  • Can link southern Sea: ...uts left footprints.]]The first Apollo landing site, in the southern Sea of Tranquility about 20 km (12 mi) southwest of the crater ... (link to section)
NO
  • Can link Ranger 8: ...haracterized as relatively flat and smooth by the automated Ranger 8 and Surveyor 5 landers, as well as by Lunar Orbiter mapping... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Surveyor 5: ...as relatively flat and smooth by the automated Ranger 8 and Surveyor 5 landers, as well as by Lunar Orbiter mapping spacecraft, an... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Lunar Orbiter: ...he automated Ranger 8 and Surveyor 5 landers, as well as by Lunar Orbiter mapping spacecraft, and therefore unlikely to present major... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Scientific Experiment: ...lecting rocks. They planned placement of the Early Apollo Scientific Experiment Package (EASEP) and the U.S. flag by studying their landing... (link to section)
NO
NO
  • Can link John W. Young: ...gh the hatch with his PLSS. According to veteran moonwalker John Young, a redesign of the LM to incorporate a smaller hatch was no... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Remote Control: ...l seconds to clear the tower on [[July 16]], [[1969]].]]The Remote Control Unit controls on Armstrong's chest prevented him from seein... (link to section)
NO
  • Can link another world: ... footpad and into history as the first human to set foot on another world. He reported that moving in the Moon's gravity, one-sixth o... (link to section)
NO
  • Can link man on the Moon: ...to fulfilling President John F. Kennedy's mandate to land a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s, Apollo 11 was an engineering t... (link to section)
YES, perversely!
NO, it's a link to the film of that name -- Curps
  • Can link life support: ...rd rung and climbed into the LM. After transferring to LM life support, the explorers lightened the ascent stage for return to lun... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link American flag: ... the [[Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment]]. They also left an American flag and other mementos, including a plaque bearing two drawings... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link mini-series: ...on, D.C.]] <sup>&#10013;</sup>According to the documentary mini-series ''[[From the Earth to the Moon]]'', Michael Collins said be... (link to section)
NO - it is ´tacky´!
YES, obviously -- Curps 08:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Can link National Archives: ...urface with gold visor raised. From 16-mm film (NASA).]]The National Archives in Washington, D.C. has a copy of the following contingency... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Mother Earth: ...urned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.... (link to section)
NO
NO
  • Can link brotherhood of man: ...feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man. In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes ... (link to section)
NO - No!
NO

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

  • In Retroreflector, can backlink Apollo 11: ... passage of vehicles. ==Retroreflectors on the Moon== The Apollo 11, 14, and 15 missions left retro-reflectors on the [[Moon]] ...
YES
  • In STS-32, can backlink Apollo 11: ...ned lunar orbit, Apollo 8; the first lunar landing mission, Apollo 11; three manned Skylab launches; and the...
YES
  • In STS-68, can backlink Apollo 11: ...ostal Service in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing....
YES
  • In Juno Reactor, can backlink APOLLO XI: ...t was issued by American label TVT and Ben was also part of APOLLO XI, alongside THE ORB's ALEX PATERSON who recorded the 'PEACE ...
YES
  • In Ronald Evans, can backlink Apollo 11: ... member of the astronaut support crews for the Apollo 7 and Apollo 11 flights and as backup command module pilot for Apollo 14....
YES
  • In Bart Sibrel, can backlink Apollo 11: ...through a small hole (template) to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit", and adds "Bart has misinterpre...
YES

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

Contingency press release

I don't think the contingency press release should be quoted in full in this article, though it should be linked - perhaps in a subpage - or a subpage of the Apollo_project article. The full text of the President's "Phone call" to Apollo 11 on the moon would be more appriopriate to quote in this article. What do you think? 62.253.128.12 1 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

  • It's not a contingency press release; it's a speech that would have been delivered live on television by Nixon. That said, I think it's short enough (and interesting enough) to be quoted in full. Where is the text of the phone call?--Pharos 1 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
    • If you want the text of the phone call, it'll be in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal somewhere, should be easy to dig up for here. I do feel the contingency release is a good inclusion to the article, as it stands. Shimgray 1 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)

I've corrected the section title to reflect the fact that the text was intended for use as a TV address not a press release.

Presidential Telephone Call

I thought I'd put the text of the "Phone call" here for consideration. My thinking was that as this was the what Nixon actually said to the world it would be more appriopriate to quote than what he might have been called on to say.

Houston: ...We'd like to get both of you in the field-of-view of the camera for a minute. (Pause) Neil and Buzz, the President of the United States is in his office now and would like to say a few words to you. Over.

Armstrong: That would be an honor. Houston: All right. Go ahead, Mr. President. This is Houston. Out.

Nixon: Hello, Neil and Buzz. I'm talking to you by telephone from the Oval Room at the White House, and this certainly has to be the most historic telephone call ever made. I just can't tell you how proud we all are of what you (garbled). For every American, this has to be the proudest day of our lives. And for people all over the world, I am sure they, too, join with Americans in recognizing what an immense feat this is. Because of what you have done, the heavens have become a part of man's world. And as you talk to us from the Sea of Tranquility, it inspires us to redouble our efforts to bring peace and tranquility to Earth. For one priceless moment in the whole history of man, all the people on this Earth are truly one; one in their pride in what you have done, and one in our prayers that you will return safely to Earth. (Pause)

Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. President. It's a great honor and privilege for us to be here representing not only the United States but men of peace of all nations, and with interests and the curiosity and with the vision for the future. It's an honor for us to be able to participate here today.

Nixon: And thank you very much and I look forward...All of us look forward to seeing you on the Hornet on Thursday.

Aldrin: I look forward to that very much, sir. (Pause)

EVA timings

NASA often gives EVA timings from the point of cabin depressurisation to repressurisation, as this is the time the crew are actually exposed to the conditions of space - perhaps this article could give this information in addition to the hatch open/close times given?

Remove Mission Parameters section

Remove Mission Parameters section

Almost the entire Mission Parameters section should be removed.


Most of this data provides no knowledge (what could anyone ever do with the UTC time differential between Aldrin's egress and ingress?). Some makes no sense to me (what is the 'period' of a mission with one and a half Earth orbits and 88 Moon ones).

Remove Mission Parameters section

Almost the entire Mission Parameters section should be removed.

Most of this data provides no knowledge (what could anyone ever do with the UTC time differential between Aldrin's egress and ingress?). Some makes no sense to me (what is the 'period' of a mission with one and a half Earth orbits and 88 Moon ones). Js229 21:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Also stuff like the orbital heights and periods aren't that useful. In the case of a mission like Apollo 15, the CSM had six different "orbits" -- the one they entered into on LOI, a circularised orbit, a lowered orbit for when the lunar module was set to land, a trimmed version of this, a circularised orbit again and a plane-changed orbit. If anything we shouldn't be giving orbital heights to hundreds of meters, as they just weren't that stable with mascons. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

One small step for man

Should there be mention of these flubbed words? There so rarely is.

Pseudohistorians

To satisfy the conspiracy theorists and pseudohistorians, don't you think we should add a "disputed" tag? They keep babbling about how the lunar landing never happened, how the spanish inquisition and other such regimes never tortured anyone, how the holocaust never happened etc. j/k Elp gr 16:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Apollo XI Landing

I've always wondered why this has never occurred to anybody else. The date usually quoted, 20 July 1969, is an entirely arbitrary one, because this event occurred on a world where time and calendars have never been defined. It is not unreasonable to try to date the event using the main (but by no means only) calendar from Earth, the Gregorian Calendar, even though that date is meaningless in relation to anything that happens outside the Earth. But at the moment the landing happened, it may have been 20 July in the eastern states of the USA, but it was a different date in other places on Earth. Since Armstrong talked about one giant leap for "mankind", not just for Americans, I think something needs to be said about the arbitrary choice of the date. Not sure what, though. JackofOz 06:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time isn't expressed as being "defined" anywhere; time is expressed in relation to a single point of reference. In all official documents, NASA used either the time in central England (GMT) or the time elapsed since the LV stack left the ground (GET). From an engineering standpoint, any other frame of reference is unnecessary and would merely confuse calculations. YingPar

Only Buzz Aldrin has pictures

I have heard several times that Buzz Aldrin, upset that he was not going to be the first person to walk on the moon, "forgot" his camera on Earth. As a result, only Aldrin's photo could be taken by Armstrong. I have not found any definitive proof of this, but it would definitely be a nice one-liner under trivia if it can be collaborated.

There were a number of cameras on board, though only one was used on the surface; it was mostly carried by Armstrong, and intended for technical purposes - photographing rock samples in situ before they were collected, inspecting equipment, and so on. However, a number were taken of the astronauts, both for historical reasons and for "engineering" ones; it was helpful to be able to see how the dust settled on the suits, that sort of thing. However, it never occured to anyone at NASA - astonishing though it may sound - that there would be a need to take photographs of individuals as individuals; as such, they didn't really plan for Aldrin to take any photographs of Armstrong as photographs of Armstrong - there were some, but they didn't take care to note them as important, or make sure to list them as photographs of Armstrong. As the suits on Apollo 11 were identical, they couldn't tell the two astronauts apart.
When they got back and started going through the photographs, someone noticed that almost all the photographs were of Aldrin, and remembered that Armstrong had carried the camera most of the time, and it became generally thought that all the pictures were of Aldrin. However, there are a couple with Armstrong in - not significant ones, but they're there - which were discovered by some very, very patient archive work (going through the mission timeline with a fine-tooth comb) relatively recently. Shimgray | talk | 00:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contact light

I deleted this:

"Although it is commonly said that the first words spoken on the Moon were Armstrong's announcement that "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed", they were in fact "Contact Light" said, by Aldrin as the landing probes on the Lunar Module's feet touched the surface."

This is a mistake (one I used to make...). The LEM was not down when the contact light came on; it was triggered by a "tether" of sorts, as a warning to shut down the descent engine & let the LEM drop the last meter or so. Recall, the next words were, "Okay, engine stop."

I also corrected the parenthetical "[a]" in Neil's famous quote. He did say it, & (fairly) recent digital cleanup of the tape showed it; it didn't get heard on the '69 TVcasts (or the tapes since, including Hanks' reconstruction in "FTETTM") because of static.

BTW, the LEM footpads were made in Canada, so we put first man on the moon... Trekphiler 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Armstrong's quote

Trekphiler has twice now changed the quote from "a small step for [a] man" to "a small step for a man". This was not what Neil Armstrong said. As the Armstrong article says, he fluffed his line and missed out the indefinite article. Therefore this is a misquote. It's important to indicate where things not said have been added in. David | Talk 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is very well-known that Armstrong actually said ""a small step for man" while intending to convey "for a man". Any assertion otherwise needs extraordinary sources. -Willmcw 22:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've listened to the recording, and there's no way it could be cleaned up to be "a man" -- Armstrong's word pacing is such that "for man" is almost one word. --Carnildo 07:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing the above: any claim to the contrary needs to be sourced. Durova 03:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this seems rather settled. Don't see why it really needed an RFC. --ACG 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote me

File:First step on moon.jpg
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for Pete Conrad."

What he should have said....


Audio and Video

It might be interesting to link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4166049933953240830&q=45017 Nyh 09:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Low fuel issues

I changed several items related to the low fuel situation during final descent. There's a lot of incorrect and misleading information on this. First, although technically the term is "propellant" the astronauts themselves often call it "fuel", so that term is OK.

There were no low fuel warnings from the computers. The fuel gauges could only read accurately down to about 5%. At that point a "quantity light" illuminated. From that point they had about 94 seconds flying time left, plus a 20 second buffer, or about 114 seconds until the engine quit. The actual time remaining varied based on engine throttle -- the descent propulsion system was throttleable. A flight controller manually calculated in real time the revised fuel remaining based on throttle position and clock time. There was no gauge or indicator from the 5% point to zero -- it was just manually calculated by hand, and the resulting flying time remaining radioed back to the crew.

The Eagle landed about 10 seconds after the "30 seconds" fuel remaining call. Some concluded only 20 second fuel remained at that point and some network broadcasts shortened this further to 15 seconds. In fact the "30 seconds" call was time to "bingo", which means abort or land immediately (within 20 seconds). Later analysis indicated they probably had about 50 seconds fuel remaining at touchdown, or about 30 seconds to bingo. Backing up from this it appears the low fuel "quantity light" came on about 10 seconds too early: 50 sec (actual fuel remaining) minus 30 sec (last fuel call) minus 10 sec (time from 30 sec call to touchdown) = 10 sec discrepancy. Joema 02:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarantine?

Could someone explain why the austranauts had to be quaranteened for three weeks after the landing? Thanks! --vex5 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA didn't want to take any chances. However unlikely, they thought it at least possible that there would be living organisms on the moon, and it was considered prudent to isolate the astronauts and observe them. Apollo 12 astronauts were the only other lunar explorers subjected to this process. Apollo 13 astronauts were to be the first to not undergo quarantine, but even if the quarantine was still in effect, 13's crew never landed on the moon. Expect a similar quarantine for astronauts that visit any other planet for the first time, unless the space agency(ies) figure the long flight time back to Earth is sufficient to detect problems.

As to living organisms on the Moon, maybe not so farfetched, from a scientific/evolutionary point of view. Seen the movie "The Andromeda Strain"? The fictional movie concerned the discovery of a life form perfectly suited to survive in space. And how about nanosized robots small enough to enter our bodies? (think the Borg of Star Trek and the movie "Moontrap" with Walter Koenig!) I'm sure NASA was thinking more of the Andromeda Strain type of potential, however. GBC 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought - very common of 1960s sci-fi culture, just wanted to make sure there is no other reason for this. --vex5 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TotallyDisputed tag

I asked why vex5 put a Template:TotallyDisputed on this article. Awaiting response. Joema 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, he didn't list his reasoning here, and it doesn't seem to meet the wikiped definition anyway. It's a well referenced article.WolfKeeper 15:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vex5 is either a troll or a nutcase. Either way, it's bogus. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither, sir, and I don't appriciate the name calling. The reason that I added the disputed tag is because this is a highly-controversial topic, the sources of which you cited are the sources which are in question in the first place. Therefore, I recommend adding a disputed or question tag to the article, or at least a reference at the beginning referencing to the posibility of false information to better provide an objective, unbiased perspective on this subject. --vex5 16:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not controversial or disputed in the normal sense of the word. You must differentiate between a few sensational stories vs valid criticism. E.g, by this standard a round earth is disputed and controversial -- there are periodic stories about "Flat Earthers". However based on this we don't slap TotallyDisputed tags on geography articles.
If you have specific concerns, state precisely what those are and we can discuss them. If you want more background information, see Clavius.org Joema 16:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is, --vex5 19:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I am neither, sir, and I don't appriciate the name calling. The reason that I added the disputed tag is because this is a highly-controversial topic, the sources of which you cited are the sources which are in question in the first place.". Methinks he protesteth too much. Definitely a troll. Who uses honorifics like 'sir' if they're not trolling? Nobody.WolfKeeper 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up. Instead of adding meaningless and unwitty remarks to this page, go contribute something useful.
Uh huh. And your contribution is indistinguishable from vandalism. Way to go!WolfKeeper 12:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's valid to have a slightly more prominent mention that theories are circulated about the validity of the lunar landing, instead of a one-sentenced remark at the bottom of the page. -- Vex5

There's a big difference between giving slightly more prominent reference to moon hoax theories vs slapping a TotallyDisputed tag on the article without prior discussion or explanation. If you continue doing do that on other articles, it will cause a lot more commotion than you've experienced here. Joema 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely oppose giving any quarter to nutbags who question the Moon landings. Any extra mention simply gives false credence to the crackpots. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also the "one-sentenced remark at the bottom of the page" isn't a stand alone item -- it's a link to an extensive article on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. The material is already written. Why duplicate parts of in in this article? If in Apollo 11, then why not also Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, etc. I think the current format is basically OK. If readers want to learn more about the so-called moon hoax, this article links to that. Joema 05:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

Fine, if you don't want the totally disputed tag, then add a tag to the top of the page recommending the readers think twice about the validity of the story at hand. Do it in 24 hours, or I will do it myself. --vex5 04:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legitimate basis whatsoever for doing that. For comparison, see other encyclopedias covering similar subject material. Various small minorities have eccentric views on many subjects. For example a few believe the earth is flat, that Elvis Presley is still alive, or the 9/11 attacks were a Jewish conspiracy. Yet encyclopedias don't reference these crackpot theories prominently (if at all) in related articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer, and needs to exclusively retain an encyclopedic focus. Joema 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 1999 Gallup poll showed that 6% of Americans believe the moon landing was false. Now, 6% translates into millions of individuals. I don't know about you, but that seems a little noteworthy. If nothing else, move the hoax landing link to the upper part of the article. --vex5 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_11&oldid=43013852"