Talk:Apollo 11/Archive 3

--86.29.4.8 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)--86.29.4.8 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Aldrin confirms flag got knocked over.

nnvn

Buzz Aldrin admitted that they knocked over the American Flag when the crew left the moon. The now 77-year old astronaut said this in a lecture he gave at the Technical University of Delft, on 13th march 2006ęĕÄàñ♥₵•⟨♣ابتثٍُ،ـغ--86.29.4.8 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)⟩. He, Armstrong and Collins decided not to tell this, because of the controversy it might cause in America. Please add this fact to all the moon articles. —80.126.160.35 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

He has been saying this for years, but for some unknown reason (ok, let's just say it: they don't know what they're talking about), local media picked this up as the first time he ever revealed it. Already in the 70's he wrote the flag story down. Nicolas Herdwick 08:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So, when does he finally admit that they never went to the moon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.105.96 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For Aldrin to make such an admission would constitute a falsehood, because manned Apollo missions 8, and 10 through 17 visited the Moon and/or made landings. When do you finally admit that you and other hoax believers are [PA redacted]? 68Kustom (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this namecalling allowed, when a comment asking for people to examine facts for themselves before calling others names is deleted? The comment above either needs to be removed, or Gwen needs to let poeple respond to it. Do not remove comments asking for rational thought while allowing flippant comments like the one above to stay. How can you call this a discussion page when any attempt to rebute is removed without just cause? Tremas Koschei (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to redact PAs, but given how the sources overwhelmingly and in deeply threaded ways support the American moon landings, I most strongly suggest you take this to the talk page of Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories and see what kind of consensus you can stir up there, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Further to Gwen Gale's comment, I would just like to add that if your comment is not addressed to the improvement of this article, it does not belong on this talk page. Arguably, some of the comments made over a year ago should have been removed at that time, but that's note a license to continue in the same vein. I intend to continue to delete comments made that are not related to the improvement of the article, regardless of the point-of-view they express, and hope that Gwen Gale and others do likewise. Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX if you're unclear on what comments are appropriate. TJRC (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

MARVEL vs CAPCOM?

In the Crew/Support Crew section, the article has the abbreviation for Capsule Communicator as CAPCOM, but MARVEL? Is this real (and needs supporting evidence) or vandalism? Spudzonatron 06:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like junk to me... Shimgray | talk | 19:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

nice stuff

http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html

--83.131.9.149 09:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(--67.130.182.68 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Change first sentence?

Great article. Apollo 11 of course was not the first Apollo mission to go to the Moon. It was the third. Apollo 8 and 10 both went to the moon, but did not land. Furthermore many unmanned missions went to the moon previously. Perhaps a better first line would be something like: The Apollo 11 moon mission was the first space flight to land humans on a body other than the Earth.

-- Mfbabcock 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Interstellar Date Line

It is interesting that the anniversary of the first moon landing is 20 July. That is, of course, only relevant to which side of the International Date Line you were on at the time.

In Australia for example, the actual day of the first moon landing was 21 July 1969. That is the day upon which thousands of Australians were gathering around televisions and radios to watch and listen to the first moon landing. Of course, in the USA, it was still 20 July 1969, so they have a different perspective of which date it occured. My mother has quite a firm view on this matter: the first moon landing took place on 21 July 1969, as she was giving birth to my brother at the time, in New South Wales, Australia.

So this brings the question, what is the baseline for dating events that take place in space?

For this event, why was a date relative to the USA's position used? Yes, it was their moon mission, but is that reason enough to use their relative date? Even the TV signal relay was picked up by a radio receiving station in Australia on 21 July 1969, I think because Australia was facing the moon at the time. So that's another reason - the USA was on the OTHER side of the Earth when the first moon landing took place, meaning that the moon was on Australia's side of the International dateline.

Anyway, just thought I would mention that, and ask the baseline question. Thanks!--203.10.224.58 06:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

GMT Coriolise 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

' Local time ', i.e. local of the mission control, which was in Houston, Texas, and therefore in the Central timezone,--Abebenjoe 21:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this a couple of times. The manual of style for Wikipedia states that events should be dated for the time zone they occur. Which of course is a little difficult for landing on the Moon since it didn't occur in a time zone. We also have two times to worry about. The landing itself and the first steps on the Moon. And these two events occurred on different days in GMT. The landing was at 20:17:40 UTC on 20 July and the moonwalk was at 2:56 UTC on 21 July. Both of these times are of course on 20 July in the United States. BUT the crew themselves appeared to be running on EDT (the timezone of Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center). On their first day in space they went to bed at 8:52 p.m. (two hours earlier than planned), the next night, bed time was 9:42 p.m.. The start of the sleep period was much later on the day of the landing, being at 4:25 a.m. EDT July 21. So if we assume that the astronauts were keeping track of such things, they would have thought of the landing as taking place in the afternoon of the 20th and the moonwalk taking place late in the evening. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, where the mission is controlled from, is where the time zone is assigned. At the time of launch, the mission was controlled from Cape Kennedy, in the Eastern Time Zone. Once the Sat. 5 cleared the tower, mission control switched to Houston, Texas, and remained there for the rest of the flight, all in the Central Time Zone. The inconsistency in the article is not stating the 'Local Time' accurately. As with most publications in the USA, everything seems to be conventionalized on the Eastern Time Zone, for various reasons. The NASA logs are usually split between EST and CST (for this mission EDT and CDT). UTC or GMT would make more sense in terms of standardization, but the historical convention is to place this in July 20th, not July 21, at least in the majority of English language texts, and this is English wikipedia.--Abebenjoe 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent conflict

The article contains this statement: "After describing the surface dust ("fine and powdery ... I only go in a small fraction of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots"), Armstrong stepped off Eagle's footpad and into history as the first human to set foot on another world..." Er...how could he see his footprints before he had stepped onto the surface? --ukexpat 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There was dust blown onto the steps of the LM from the deceleration onto the lunar surface. -72.24.198.13 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Flight Trivia

The parenthetical inclusion of the number of prior spaceflights each crewman had prior to Apollo 11 is completely unnecessary here, an article on Apollo 11. The article was made to look even worse by the fact that the backup crew had not only the prior flights, but the later flights, and instead of simply the number of flights we got names.

Look, I know the nature of the space program is such that it is common to see such trivia. But if this stuff has a place, that place is called . . . a sentence. None of this, however, truly was necessary where it was located, so I have deleted it. Unschool 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the other Apollo articles, I realize that this "format" in this article was applied quite inconsistently. For that reason, in addition to those stated above, these articles are better off without this schtuff. Unschool 02:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh no, it is not typical of the U.S. space program (NASA) to write about a spaceflight in that manner, in terms of the number of prior spaceflights of each crewman. Such pecking-order prose is a wiki-spastic writing quirk ("Katrina was the 11th named storm" of the season), and numbering of events is not the way NASA writes about events. I agree the focus is about "Apollo 11" rather than the pecking-order ranks against all other events beyond Apollo 11. This is a strange writing-quirk in Wikipedia, and it should be stopped in general. See below: "#Was 27th space carpool". -Wikid77 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Apollo 11 in popular culture

To be honest I think a page like Apollo 11 in popular culture would constantly lack content, and as such I propose the merging of this article into Apollo 11 as a subsection. Please voice your opinion and I'd be glad to work something out.
-- Python (Talk to me!) 14:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For two reasons I strongly recommend the articles NOT be merged:

(1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of popular culture trivia: What Wikipedia is not

(2) The Apollo 11 article is already 38KB long. General Wikipedia guidelines say articles shouldn't be over 32KB: Wikipedia:Article size. Merging another substantial article would make the main article even larger. Joema 15:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Based on them it leads me to believe that maybe a subsection could be provided on the Apollo 11 page of "Apollo 11 in popular culture" which will provide a link to the Apollo 11 in popular culture page.
-- Python (Talk to me!) 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already a "Depiction in fiction" section, which provides a single link. You could add a link to the "popular culture" page there. If you do, it probably makes sense to then remove the link that currently exists in the "See also" section. (sdsds - talk) 16:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. Main article is big enough. The popular culture has enough content, but it needs a stylistic reworking to make it a significantly better article. Usually, when I read that an article is to be merged/deleted, it is usually due to a poorly written article, rather than the subject matter or facts that it contains, and I would say that rule applies here. So keep them separate, but also the pop culture article should be copyedited.--Abebenjoe 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge pop-culture article is too convoluted and with "no citations" and the need for more, it would be a lengthy task for sure. Infact, with the continual vandalism on Apollo 11, I'd recommend a six-month lock-out on all edits. A Wiki-break from Apollo 11 would be good. The article already exceeds recommended article size. Moving pop-culture and trivia section out to their own articles with back-ref is preferred. LanceBarber 08:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge Gwen Gale 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Contingency television address2

Adjusted wording to clarify there would be no communications cutoff. Apollo astronauts have been asked many times what they'd have done had the LM ascent engine not worked. They all replied they'd have been feverishly working on the problem until the moment they died. This would require constant communication with Mission Control. Joema 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Accordingly I put "when all hope was lost" only because I've both heard and read that in such a situation radio communications would have indeed been curtailed by Houston. That said, more sources and input (such as a "working on the problem until the moment they died" quote or whatever) would be helpful. Gwen Gale 20:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should be moved to Apollo 11 in popular culture, the main Apollo 11 article seems to be detailing the actual event, while the other page is geared more toward this type of content. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it, WP:BOLD. Gwen Gale 21:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the contingency plan belongs in popular culture. I think it would be more appropriate in Apollo program, if not returned to its original location. AlphaEta ^{T / C} 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The plan was strictly political/cultural, was never implemented, had nothing to do with contingency planning for the mission itself and is only of cultural interest. Gwen Gale 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question still remains, why should an unimplemented speech be considered "popular?" Also, unless someone provides a solid reference to suggest otherwise (i.e. transcripts of the above mentioned interviews), the text stating that Mission Control would decide when to "close down communications" should remain. Especially considering that the NYTimes referenece stating such is written by William Safire himself! Finally, the plan to provide the astronauts with a "burial at sea" in the event of a failed mission was very much part of the official protocol. Kindest regards, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The meaningful word here is culture, not popular. Gwen Gale 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no official documents from NASA or White House that mention any contingency plan whereby communications would be cut off. The Safire memo only mentioned a "moon disaster", said nothing about failure of the LM ascent engine or a stranding scenario. This is corroborated by the astronauts themselves. One example is Harrison Schmitt, Lunar Module pilot for Apollo 17. When asked about the "stranded" scenario, he said:

"...little likelihood existed that we would be stranded on the moon. Indeed, I don't think any Apollo crew seriously contemplated what they would do in that eventuality. For example, among the hundreds of parts making up the ascent engine, only the exit nozzle and the massive fuel and oxidizer injector ring had no matching pair or backup component (No one could figure out a way these parts could fail.) As a last resort, we could even wire the descent batteries to the circuit breakers controlling the ascent engine fuel and oxidizer valves and force the valves open. As these pressurized liquids react on contact as they mix in the engine, we would be on our way..." [1]

The LM ascent engine was incredibly simple -- it had no pumps, no ignition system, no throttle, no nozzle gimbaling, and oxidizer/fuel valves were redundant.

There are many ways the astronauts could have died on the moon -- tore a space suit, crashed on surface due to guidance error, etc. The "stranded" scenario was but one, and thought very unlikely.

The Safire memo was obviously written to cover many possible scenarios. But it says nothing about (a) a communications cut off, or (b) a specific "stranded" scenario. Those may come from the imagination of a newspaper reporter, or Hollywood screenwriter, or both. Unless those elements are corroborated by an official source (NASA document, astronaut interview transcript, etc) they seem speculative and not encyclopedic. Joema 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree, which melds with why I supported moving the account to Apollo 11 in popular culture and did so. Gwen Gale 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at page 2 of the Safire memo, there is a contingency for a "burial at sea" ceremony listed under the heading: "AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT, AT THE POINT WHEN NASA ENDS COMMUNICATION WITH THE MEN." I can only interpret this phrase to mean that NASA would decide when to end communication with the astronauts, not the other way around. Also, as mentioned previously, the NYTimes essay written by Safire makes it clear that Mission Control would cut communications and leave the men to their demise. It's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect such a move was intended to let the astronauts determine their own fate without interference from Earth (i.e. whether or not to commit suicide). Considering that the original memo says, "NASA ends communication with the men," and that Safire's 1999 essay explicitly states that MC would decide when to cut communication with the LM, I'm convinced that the text stating such should stay in the article. As far as the move is concerned, I'm not opposed to removing the content from the main Apollo 11 article, but it doesn't seem to meet the necessary criteria to be considered "popular culture." I don't plan to move it though. I'll leave it up to you all. Thanks for the discussion, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right the Safire memo does mention a point where NASA would end communication. This would be when they were dead. There is absolutely no official evidence or reference from NASA or any current or ex-astronaut that communication would be cut off prior to that. In fact Apollo astronauts have said they'd be working on the problem to the bitter end. To cut off communication before that point would be foreclosing a possible opportunity to fix the problem, however remote.

The Safire essay (not the memo) was written 30 years after the fact. He obviously is in error. E.g, him thinking the astronauts could starve on the moon. This is a physical impossibility. Another example is him thinking the lunar ascent was the most dangerous mission phase. In fact the lunar descent was widely considered the most dangerous. Neither Safire memo nor essay were NASA contingency plans. They did not spell out NASA policy or procedure. They were a political contingency plan for handling the situation.

The article should not state or imply cutting off communications prior to the astronauts death was a NASA procedural contingency plan. It's OK to mention the Safire memo, but we should emphasize (a) it was intended to cover various possible lunar death scenarios, and (b) it was a White House contingency plan for handling these various scenarios, not a NASA contingency plan. Joema 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think including this in the article could easily mislead the casual reader. Death is always a background worry in spaceflight, the outcome is mostly cultural, the Safire memo dealt strictly with the popular cultural aspect and the whole affair is of marginal notability except as a cultural note, hence I do think the closest match for this is Apollo 11 in popular culture. Lastly, they did not die, they lived, so this refers to nothing more than a reference to a plan which, if tragedy had struck, might not have even played out as Safire suggested. Cheers. Gwen Gale 18:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be in the main article, and Dgies' addition of The Soldier reference strengthens the case for its inclusion on the pop culture page. Kindest regards, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hurriyet21July1969.jpg

Image:Hurriyet21July1969.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages

I have moved this section to the Apollo 11 in popular culture. This fact seems more relevant there, because this article is primarily concerned with dealing with the main landing (and is also quite long), while the Apollo 11 IPC is geared more towards these kind of related but secondary facts. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Gwen Gale 17:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Communion

I dispute the claim that Alvin did not talk about taking communion for several years. Upon reading newspapers from the day of the event I found the fact mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested disambiguation notice

Since this article is quite long and specific, I think it would make sense to disambiguate readers and editors between the content goal on this article (which details the process of mission and landing), and the Appollo 11 IPC article (dealing with the cultural/public significance of the event). Maybe something like This article deals with the mission itself, for the mission's cultural significance please see Apollo 11 in popular culture. Thoughts? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds helpful to me. Gwen Gale 23:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Change Posted

I modified the paragraph containing information about how it fulfilled Kennedy's dream. I believe this was important because it restablished the American pride in the launching of Apollo 11. It helped to regain American confidence in their role of the Space Race. This lack of confidence was because of the fear the United States suffered because of the illusion that the Americans had of a missile gap.

The role of Apollo was not simply to bring a man to the Moon. It had several goals and reasons under the facade of scientific exploration. The "Space Race" was an analogy to the "Arms Race" and became the fundamental reason for being the first to put an American citizen on the Moon. Thus I believe it was important to note this restablishment of the United States confidence. —165.91.196.52 (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unnecessary editorialization that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Reverted. TJRC (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it would belong in the Apollo 11 in popular culture article mentioned in the above sections. 203.129.137.62 (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Another world

From this article: the first human to set foot on another world. I might be wrong but surely the Moon (being a moon) doesn't qualify as another world? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

World in English is a very broad term, with way over a dozen meanings. Another world in this context indeed has the same meaning as any heavenly body other than the Earth. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One current theory about the Moons origin is that it has drifted into Earth orbit after becoming becoming drawn into Solar orbit. When Astronauts step on the Moon, they are stepping onto something from far away.Johnwrd (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Communications Link

There are a couple of things fishy about the article that provides the basis of the second half of the "Communications Link" section. That article contains the following:

• "Everything seemed to work until July 14th, 1969... the lone Intelsat III over the Atlantic had suffered Intelsat's first failure in space."
• "Intelsat had one spare Series III satellite and launch rocket. It was rushed to a pad at Cape Kennedy to try meeting its one possible launch window before the last lunar shot window on the morning of July 16. Unfortunately, it went into a huge looping orbit."

That implies that there was a failed launch of an Intelsat betweek July 14 and July 16, 1969.

According to multiple sources, [2] [3], there was no Intelsat launch until July 29th. So I'm not sure how reliable the source for that section is. — PyTom (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lunar ascent and return -- weight v. mass

Regarding the following: "With some difficulty the astronauts lifted film and two sample boxes containing more than 22 kg (48 lb) of lunar surface material to the LM hatch..."

Of course, on the moon 22 kg of material has a weight of about 8 pounds... or material that weighs 48 lb has a mass of 131 kg. So the "22 kg (48 lb) is not an irrelevant error (as the reader is trying to understand how heavy was the material that the astronauts were trying to lift into the lunar module). Perhaps someone can update this. David (david271@gmail.com) —66.235.54.70 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

the story about the hatch size appears to be untrue

"a redesign of the LM to incorporate a smaller hatch was not followed by a redesign of the PLSS backpack, so some of the highest heart rates recorded from Apollo astronauts occurred during LM egress and ingress"... I find no other statement of this on the web. The two footnotes cited make no mention of it either. In fact, one of the citations clearly states that the highest heart rates were during the use of the pulley system to lift the cameras and moon rocks back into the LM. Further, it's not believable that the crew would not have tested ingress/egress in full suits on the ground prior to the mission; therefore the drama suggested by the quoted sentence appears to have been manufactured by the author. Mcglynn (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrofit talk-page year headers/subpages

01-July-09: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2007" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and moved entries into date order for 2007 & 2008.
Then I added "Talk-page subpages" beside the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Was 27th space carpool

01-July-09: As of June 2009, the intro text was obsessed with ranking the event (rather than stating details): "It was the fifth human spaceflight of Project Apollo and the third human voyage to the Moon." So, I was expecting, "It was the 27th space carpool" as the 3rd sentence. It is not typical of the U.S. space program (NASA) to write about a spaceflight in that manner, as ranked against a number of other events. Such pecking-order prose is a wiki-spastic writing quirk (as in: "Katrina was the 11th named storm" of the season). The focus should be about "Apollo 11" rather than the pecking-order ranks against all other events beyond Apollo 11, and also avoiding the general personal lives of the astronauts involved. The ranking of many related events is a strange writing quirk in Wikipedia, and it should be stopped in general. The intro should describe the 6 W's: who, what, when, where, why & how. It should refrain from multiple views about ranking the event: just state "first moon landing" and then give specific details. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Original recordings 'found'

The article states that These original recordings were originally reported as missing, but by June 26th 2009 the tapes were reported to have been found[27].

Evidence here and here, attributed to Bob Jacobs, NASA Deputy Administrator for Public Affairs, appears to suggest that this is either ficticious or a hoax.

As someone who is new to editing Wiki I don't know the correct action to take here or if the sources are of sufficient voracity to recind the information from the entry. --Ouroboros726 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Send it to hoax hell, with all the other missing footage recovery fakes. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For background, see Apollo program missing tapes. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out it was there too. Have removed. MartinSFSA (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I should say, having now read it, the SE article which stirred all this up was sloppily written and has many mistakes about what the telemetry tapes were to begin with, indeed hinting at a clumsy hoax (and maybe a gullible reporter). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I listen to NASA TV now who plays realtime apollo 11 audio as it happened back then, 40 years ago. AndersL (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

misleading photo

In the "Nomenclature" section, there's a photo captioned "Apollo 11 Command Module, named Columbia." The photo's actual description notes that it isn't really Columbia, but a boilerplate CM. Either the caption should change, or a photo of the actual capsule from the Air & Space museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.114.225 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Time between landing and walk

The text states that it was 'exactly six and a half hours after landing' that Armstrong stepped onto the surface. The times given, hoever, are 20:17 and 02:56 UTC, respectively. That is six hours and 39 minutes. Nit-picking, perhaps, but it isn't 'exactly'. Something to change, perhaps, as it makes it sound as if they made sure to wait until the half hour on the mark, which the times clearly disprove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.46.250 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed - word removed. --LjL (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Embedded external links

Please avoid embedding links to external sources. Using the <ref> tag is preferred. See WP:ECITE:

An embedded citation is one method of citing sources on Wikipedia. With this method, the URL link to the source website displays within the text, like the note at the end of this sentence.[1] However, because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full references, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not particularly recommended as a method of best practice. For details about the other inline citation methods see Wikipedia:Citing sources.

More info on why they're disfavored, and what else is required when they're used (which is part of why they're disfavored), is in that guideline. TJRC (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

directed toward the sun?

What does it mean in the article when it says a stage was "directed toward the sun"? If it means "directed so as to drop into the sun", then this is an enormously expensive maneuver, probably needing more fuel than all the rest of the mission except the leo access. If this is the meaning, a citation would be very welcome. 72.220.103.199 (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As found in reference 1, under the Apollo 11 entry, under the Translunar Phase section,

A ground command for propulsive venting of residual propellants targeted the S-IVB to go past the Moon and into solar orbit.

So, the reference given earlier in the same paragraph seems to indicate that it was put into solar orbit, and that this was accomplished via the :burning of the fuel remaining in the stage (the stage also passed near the moon.) Elentirno (talk) :23:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Venting, not burning. The S4B was capable of only a single restart. That being said, the IP poster was correct and I've modified this sentence for accuracy.Jminthorne (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Date of Landing / First Walk

I've corrected the last sentence of the first paragraph which had previously been changed to "On July 20, Armstrong and Aldrin became the first humans to walk on the Moon, while Collins orbited above." to read "On July 20, Armstrong and Aldrin became the first humans to land on the Moon, while Collins orbited above." Although the LM landed on the 20th July, the astronauts did not start their first moonwalk until several hours later, on the 21st. This is supported by the dates shown on NASA's timeline here. 86.7.21.237 (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a wash which we use - the moonwalk was in the early morning of the 21st by UTC (which the NASA timeline slightly confusingly lists as "GMT"), but ground control was operating in either Eastern or Central Time (I forget which) and so for them it occurred late on the night of the 20th. I agree it's worth emphasising the landing date (which everyone agrees on) and omitting the walk date until later in the article, when we can explain it better. Shimgray | talk | 11:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is related, but I removed an unsourced claim that the landing occurred on the 21st that was added by an IP. If there's some dispute about this of which I'm not aware, let me know. Aruthra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

The landing will have occured "on" the early morning of the 21st for anyone watching it in UTC+4 or greater - China, India, Australia, perhaps some of the USSR but I don't know how their summer-times worked. I don't think any sources routinely use that date, though, so I suspect it's confusion over the UTC moonwalk time. Shimgray | talk | 12:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article?!

I would have hoped that today of all days that this article would be the featured article? 213.94.192.200 (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not good enough yet. Maybe for 2019 ;-) Shimgray | talk | 11:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a good ten years to get it right! :-) 213.94.192.200 (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen featured articles that IMO are not as good as this one. Perhaps you should nominate it if you think it is good enough, or whatever the procedure is to change an articles status to featured. Originalwana (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. WHO THE HELL DETERMINES THIS??? I had the Google gadget for a while, but deleted it because 90% of the "Fetured Articles" consisted of WikiCrap that is not worthy of my time.

Who is the IDIOT that decided that this is "not good enough yet"? Even a sub-par article about THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY should be featured. Anybody who doesn't agree should go away and hide forever.

[Sorry if this comes off as a personal attack. It's not. But, dammit, you BOZOS totally fucked up.]

"I would have hoped that today of all days that this article would be the featured article?"

Amen Wizdar (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why didn't you contribute to improve it before the anniversary, so it would be in a good enough shape to be featured? Duh. --LjL (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Second all veteran crew

It'd be third; after Apollo 10 and Soyuz 1, which I suspect is the one not being counted. If that's 'cos they intended to fly rookies in Soyuz 2 it doesn't count. Not changing the article at the moment, it's taking quite a bashing today! MartinSFSA (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Any way to make the videos bigger?

The embedded video players are absolutely tiny, it's very hard to see anything (especially on the third one). Any chance their sizes could be adjusted? The videos themselves seem to have sufficient resolution to be at least twice as large... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.243.253 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Making the videos larger would affect the layout of the page. If you would like to view larger versions of the videos, click play > more > about this file. Originalwana (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Participation of Colombia (latin america)

http://www.eltiempo.com/vidadehoy/telas-colombianas-forraron-el-apolo-11-eran-resistentes-al-fuego-y-por-eso-la-nasa-las-escogio_5654787-1 the traduction: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eltiempo.com%2Fvidadehoy%2Ftelas-colombianas-forraron-el-apolo-11-eran-resistentes-al-fuego-y-por-eso-la-nasa-las-escogio_5654787-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.93.144.10 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled resting time after landing / before walk

The article states that the rest period was skipped because they would be unable to sleep.

What is the source of that info? I read something different here (halfway down the article):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31965108/ns/technology_and_science-space//

Wild Wizard (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for Preparation

The article states under Lunar surface operations: "Preparation required longer than the two hours scheduled." Living in Germany, were it was about 4am in the morning, I well remeber, that it was announced well in advance, that the first EVA is scheduled some 6 hours after the landing. Hence to me the above cited statement does not appear to be justified. Rgds --Boobarkee (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's two different things here. Firstly, the overall schedule - the original plan was for the crew to land at 102:45, get a few hours sleep, then they'd eat, and begin preparing at about 110:30. At 112:30, they'd open the hatch. So, in the plan, there'd be a two-hour preparation time.

However, this plan changed. At 104:40, they decided to move the EVA forward, and announced this fact to the world; preparation then began at 106:10, but the door didn't open until about 109:10 - it took three hours, not the expected two, to prepare.

I'm guessing what you remember hearing is the announcement just after landing (at 104:40) that the EVA was moved forward. I don't think I've seen any other source which expected an early EVA, but I'd love to be corrected! Shimgray | talk | 12:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Darn, I just read something where the moving forward of the EVA was planned-for, but I don't remember where. I've been reading a lot of Apollo and space books recently. My uncitable recollection is that the plan was to have the EVA after a sleep period, but the astronauts and mission planners had discussed in advance that they didn't expect the astronauts to be able to sleep, having just landed on the moon. If that was the case, as expected, they'd skip the rest period and do the EVA immediately (for certain values of "immediately"). Three books I've read recently in this area are Chris Kraft's book Flight: My Life in Mission Control; In the Shadow of the Moon; and William E. Burroughs's This New Ocean. If it was one of these, I'd bet it was the Kraft book. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(additional info) There's some discussion of this in the Apollo 11 Surface Journal,[4] at 104:39:48. Aldrin recalled in the 1969 debriefing, "We had discussed, among ourselves, the possibility of evaluating, during this first 2 hours, whether we wanted to go on with the rest period (scheduled to begin at 104:50) or to proceed with the EVA preparation. I think we had concluded before the end of the simulated countdown that we would like to go ahead with the EVA and it was sometime in here that Neil called to ground and let them know that." This implies to me that, contrary to what I wrote above, the astronauts came up with the idea after landing. However, I still think I read about a pre-flight discussion of this somewhere. The fact that mission control concurred in a non-emergency in 35 seconds suggests that there was some pre-launch discussion (but now I'm just speculating). TJRC (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting! So it wasn't an impulse decision, but rather a contingency they'd considered but not formally planned for - that'd certainly make sense. I wonder if it's mentioned in any of the detailed mission plans as an alternative? You could bury just about anything in one of those and not notice for decades... Shimgray | talk | 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting aspects you are pointing to. To me it seams worthwile, to put a summary of it into the article. Thanks anyhow! --Boobarkee (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Crew photo

Here is an alternate version of the crew photo that we use. It's a little higher res and the color balance looks better. The downside is that Collins' expression is a bit weird. Anyone have any thoughts on which we should keep? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a higher-quality version of the "standard image" here - it might be worth uploading that, if resolution is an issue. Shimgray | talk | 19:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Russian probe

I have just watched a BBC episode from the Space Race series, and it said that at the time Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon, the Russians sent a probe which crashed, if not close to them, but at least on the moon. Anybody know about this?--andreasegde (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to Luna 15, from what I've read, the Soviets shared the flight plan with the Americans to ensure that the two missions didn't interfere with each other.--RadioFan (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article?--andreasegde (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I did it.--andreasegde (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory exposition?

I've noticed that there isn't a partial article on any of the Apollo landings that have to do with the hoax. I think there should be one on either this one (because it's so famous, and the basis for most of the hoax theories) or the project Apollo page.

Ztobor 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, which deals with the lunacy ( :-) I crack myself up). As for mentioning it in this article, I don't think it is appropriate --- would seem like having a section on the 9/11 conspiracies in World Trade Center or George W. Bush. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that (according to most polling sources) over 20% of the American public believes this particular Lunar landing to be a hoax, I don't see how it's inappropriate to at least mention the fact that there *is* a controversy, or at least link to the page regarding the controversy. I feel the same for the 9/11 issue as well. Many many topics with controversial/critical viewpoints at least acknowledge those viewpoints somewhere in the article. Granted, I don't particularly believe in many of the conspiracy theories surrounding these types of events, but the fact is that a large number of people do, and whether it's simply 'lunacy' or actual fact, the people who read these articles should at least be made aware that these theories exist and have followings, if for no other reason than for the public to be able to call them out on their lunacy, or join their ranks as believers in the conspiracy. This article isn't to commemorate the Apollo 11 mission, it's to objectively make available all known issues and information surrounding the mission. This isn't a NASA fan page, it's meant to be an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge, and as such I certainly don't find it 'inappropriate' to (at the very least) mention the controversy surrounding this subject. Basically, if there is any controversy on any subject that has a substantial following and does not intentionally provide false information, it should be included. Untilzero (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But there is a link to the relevant page, it's in the "See also" section. --LjL (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to liken this with anything having to do with 911, it's not the same thing. Meanwhile this article is about only one mission, while most of the Apollo hoax sources (which I do think are as weak as weak can get) have to do with the Apollo program as a whole, which I'd say would be a fit spot for a paragraph or two about the somewhat low-level and I think mistaken popular belief, stretching back to the early 1970s, that these missions were hoaxes, along with a link to the main article. Mind, even if the Apollo program was amazingly expensive, dangerous and wasteful, even if all the technology claimed as spinoffs would have happened anyway, with its outcomes being the fatal and flawed, cash-eating boondoggle called the Space shuttle along with its utterly wasteful kin the ISS, aside from the pithlessness of it all, many of us still have a soft spot in our hearts for Apollo because of all the talent and skill that got those folks to the moon for the first time. Anyway don't be afraid of NPoV, let the sources speak for themselves and besides, most readers are smarter than some are wont to think. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is absolutely not the place to put any discussion about a hoax. The poll about '20% of Americans believing the moon landing is a hoax' is from a statement made by a Fox executive, this number is very suspect for a variety of reasons and certainly not "most polling sources"; the best Gallup data suggests 5%-6% is more appropriate. There is also a page "Moon landing conspiracy theories" where any claims of a hoax are more appropriately discussed. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just a layout question

I think the article has some issues with how the images/boxes are affecting the overall look - namely, the large blank gaps in the "Spacecraft location" and "Nomenclature" sections, the boxes in the Crew section (they could be one box, with an extra "backup" slot). Not to mention the "Mission highlights" section has a stack of pictures down the entire right side. I'm sure we have links to much more comprehensive image collections at the bottom (actually, I know with certainty that we do), so why are we striving to induce WorldBook nostalgia in the users? NeutronTaste (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some serious layout issues with parts of this article, most notably the "spacecraft location" section. The pictures are great, but something needs to be done. I, however, am at a loss about how to resolve the issue without simply removing photos. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of whitespace

It seems like there is a bit of excessive white space in this article, particularly at the end of the Crew and Spacecraft Location sections. I didn't attempt to change it, since I'm not sure if the awkward spacing was for page compatibility issues or something like that. Thoughts? Jminthorne (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The White space is caused by the photos on the sides of the page. Someone needs to do some editing to make them fit, or they need to be removed. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I made this edit to try to improve the layout of the spacecraft locations sections. Is it an improvement? TJRC (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a major problem here is that the two "whitespace heavy" sections are up at the front. If we put more text into the crew section, or moved it down a bit, this would seem less of a problem. Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DEED U NO: 40 th Anniversary of Apollo Moon Landings

40th ANNIVERSARY OF THE APPOLLO MOON LANDINGS Deed U No: That; Muslim Scholars, Mathematicians, Scientists, Astronomers, Physicians and Philosophers including: Thabit bin Qurrah (836-901CE); Al-Battani (858-929 CE);Al-Sufi (903-986 CE); Al-Haitham (965-1040 CE); Al-Zarqarli (1028-1087 CE);And; Ulugh Beg (1393-1449 CE) – all have a “surface feature of the moon” named after them. !

What does this have to do with Apollo 11?--RadioFan (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Auto-archive

I like what User:MiszaBot_I does for readability of talk pages. How do people feel about setting it up for on here? Jminthorne (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Added the bot. I set it to archive 14 day old threads and removed the 2007, etc headers to keep them from confusing the bot. Jminthorne (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Safire's "What if they died" speech

This contingency speech by William Safire was to be used if the astronauts did not return. It may be worth referencing in this article or a related one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That was showbiz, already dealt with at Apollo_11_in_popular_culture#Contingency_television_address. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Time for Preparation (cont'd)

In a now-archived discussion last July, see Talk:Apollo 11/Archive 3#Time for Preparation, we had been discussing whether the moving of the EVA to prior to the scheduled sleep period was planned for prior to the mission, or only arose after landing. I had vaguely recalled reading in some book that it had been considered during mission planning, and the crew was aware of its possibility as a contingency; but could not find a reference.

I just finished re-reading Collins' Carrying the Fire (after I don't know how many years), and it's documented there, at page 405 of my copy, 11 pages into chapter 13:

Things must be going extremely well, for Neil and Buzz want to forgo a scheduled four-hour nap in favor of proceeding immediately out onto the lunar surface. I thought they might, as this has been a topic of debate for some months. It seems ridiculous to expect them to unwind at this stage of the game and suddenly fall asleep; on the other hand, if they do go EVA now and struggle into the LM dog-tired a few hours later, and then are confronted with an emergency requiring immediate lift-off and rendezvous, they would be so shot that they would probably make a lot of mistakes, and rendezvous is not a very forgiving phase of flight. But anyway, Houston agrees, and so do I, for whatever it is worth.

TJRC (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

lunar descent

The whole first paragraph is inaccessible to non-specialists. Really needs to be clarified, simplified. 65.64.102.33 (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph seems fine to me, and I'm not a NASA engineer.--Abebenjoe (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To 65.64.102.33: Perhaps a more detailed explanation of what is inaccessible about it would help. Otherwise we just have a "yes it is / no it isn't" discussion. CosineKitty (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

AP11 FINAL APPROACH VIDEO

Hi ! Just want to mentioned about the video taken from the Apollo Lunar Surface Lournal from Eric Jones Editor. The title of the video shown on the page is not The moon landing from Gary Neff, but it`s the AP11 Final Approach which was made by Jonathan and René Cantin also contributors of the Eric Jones Journal.

René Cantin

ps:This is a fantastic reference page beautiffully well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by René Cantin (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Precise landing location

I'd like to add a couple of sentences regarding the landing location. Prior to commencing the lunar ascent phase, HD Reed (Green Team FIDO) had to determine exactly where Eagle had landed so that he could compute the optimum launch time. He discovered that there were several different potential sites, eg. from the LM computer, the backup guidance system, and ground tracking. Therefore he had to ask Aldrin to do a rendezvous radar check, and by knowing exactly where the CSM was he could pinpoint the correct site. It turned out to be at least 5 miles from any of the alternatives. I only just learned about this event after reading a recent article in Popular Mechanics. Any comments? Logicman1966 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 11 Landing Film

The comparison of the DAC film with lunar orbiter frame 5076_h3 was created by René and Jonathan Cantin, rather than Gary Neff. Please change the credit to René and Jonathan Cantin/Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

In addition, although NASA hosts the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, the ALSJ is not a NASA creation. Some of the content is NOT in the public domain. Although the raw DAC film is in the public domain, the comparison and annotation are not. Permission will be freely given for use in Wikipedia, provided that proper credit is given.

---

Eric Jones ALSJ Editor honais@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMJALSJ (talk • contribs) 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Eric, can you be more specific? Searching the article for "Neff", "DAC" or "5076" finds nothing. TJRC (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The film clip is the one on the right in the Video Gallery. Clicking on the "More" and "About this file" buttons gets to a page crediting Gary Neff with creation of the file, rather than the Cantins. Gary has done some great work with the landing films, but this particular version isn't his. Thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.80.207 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Eric, I don't have a "More" or "About this file" button, but I've updated the info at Commons:File:AP11 FINAL APPROACH.ogv, where the file is stored. Does everything appear as it should now? TJRC (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Little West Crater

Resolved

The crater Armstrong explored was Little West, not east, see here [5]. Since this page is locked, would someone please fix. 174.60.75.146 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "East Crater" seems to have been an artifact of, and unique to, Eric Jones's ALSJ. He's changed to using "Little West Crater," which seems to be its actual name, consistent with the IP editor's comment above. See [6] I've modified the article accordingly. TJRC (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, TJRC! 174.60.75.146 (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Third all-veteran crew?

Resolved

I don't believe this statement is correct (and it's certainly unsourced.) No Gemini mission was all-veteran; they either paired a veteran with a rookie, or flew two rookies in three cases. Similar situation with the Voskhods. Only Apollo 10 had an all-veteran crew, making Apollo 11 the second. It's only the third if you include Komarov on Soyuz 1, but is it logical to consider him an "all-veteran crew", since he flew solo? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I've updated the article, with cite. Happy moon day to you. TJRC (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (You mean Moon day, don't you? :-) JustinTime55 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We've resolved this, but in fairness I just discovered this relevant lone entry in the last archive (which I believe was made too quickly, as I state elsewhere here):

"It'd be third; after Apollo 10 and Soyuz 1, which I suspect is the one not being counted. If that's 'cos they intended to fly rookies in Soyuz 2 it doesn't count. Not changing the article at the moment, it's taking quite a bashing today! MartinSFSA (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)"

You can't logically call a one-man flight an "all-veteran crew". JustinTime55 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Alleged UFO encounter

Is the alleged Apollo 11 UFO encounter (mentioned at http://ufos.about.com/od/nasaufos/a/apollo11.htm) regarded as fact? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned in this article? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. It is clearly true that astronauts saw things that, at the time, were unidentified. This is not specific to the Apollo 11 mission, but happened all the time. However, now we know what they were [7]. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Gravity Check = sat

Did the crew of Apollo 11 have weightless training? I know that nowadays there is the Vomit Comet and various simulated weightless environs. I was wondering if Aldrin and Armstrong had undergone something similar (or to 1/10th of Earth's gravity which is the Moon's gravitational pull). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

by inference if the mercury astronauts did: Mercury Astronauts in Weightless Flight a source would be nice Accotink2 talk 13:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the question is a bit ignorant; the answer is, of course they did. NASA never sent anyone into space (even civillians on the Shuttle) without at least this elementary weightlessness acclimation in a "Vomit Comet", which was not a single airplane but the generic nickname given to several aircraft used for that purpose, again since the early Mercury days.

In addition to this, the Apollo 11 crew (plus the other six lunar landing crews and their backups) of course received training in lunar gravity (which is one-sixth of Earth's, not one-tenth) by several other methods, including water tanks (which could also simulate weightlessness); suspended sideways walking on an angled wall, and suspended from a frame which supported five-sixths of their weight. (I know there is a picture of this somewhere.)

If you want to document this, the Apollo 11 article isn't the appropriate place because it's way too specific (because as I said, just about all astronauts in the program underwent it.) A better place might be the Apollo Program article. And sources are required, not just "nice". JustinTime55 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Anniversary observances

I think the "40th anniversary events" section should be expanded into a general "Anniversary events" section to cover observances during the 10th, 20th, 25th and 30th anniversaries in 1979, 1989, 1994 and 1999. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 14:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

40th Anniversary LIFE website

Sorry if that tag seems a bit extreme, but I couldn't find one I thought exactly fit. This is the sentence to which I specifically object:

"In the gallery, Morse talks with LIFE about the astronauts, the Moon landing, quarantine, and rare and never-before-published photographs capturing that thrilling time."

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that last clause wasn't copied from LIFE; it certainly sounds promotional and doesn't have the tone we want here. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It was, pretty much, at the site cited. I've reworded. Feel free to twiddle it further. TJRC (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Auto archive--back to the future

I like what User:MiszaBot_I does for readability of talk pages. How do people feel about setting it up for on here? Jminthorne (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Added the bot. I set it to archive 14 day old threads and removed the 2007, etc headers to keep them from confusing the bot. Jminthorne (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Other major Appollo articles (see Talk:Apollo 8, Talk:Apollo 13) have the bot set at 90 days. I think 14 days is a bit too short; there are some threads in the last archive that I think are important (as I demonstrated by bringing this back.) Would anyone object if I set this one to 90, consistent with the other two? (There are also a few cosmetic differences in the other two.) JustinTime55 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A small discrepancy concerning lunar descent in two different articles

In the chapter "Lunar descent" of article "Apollo 11" it is stated that: "As the descent began, Armstrong and Aldrin found that they were passing landmarks on the surface 4 seconds early and reported that they were "long": they would land miles west of their target point." However, in the chapter "Voyage to the Moon" of article "Neil Armstrong" it is stated that "Three minutes into the lunar descent burn he noted that craters were passing about two seconds too early, which meant the Eagle would likely land beyond the planned landing zone by several miles."

Which one is correct? The latter excerpt contains also a reference where the might be checked from: Smith, Andrew (2006). "Moon Dust (Paperback ed.). Bloomsbury. p. 11. ISBN 0-7475-6369-1." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihannula (talk • contribs) 10:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

From the official verbatim transcript [8], Armstrong calls "We went by the 3-minute point early" at (exactly) three minutes after PDI, and "About 3 seconds long" 35 seconds later. The second reference is more accurate than the first, although "about two" should be "about three". Tevildo (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Flags taken to the Moon and back

Why is there a picutre of Vatican flag and not any other ones? Vatican has a bad reputation on world domination... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanityWins (talk • contribs) 00:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Who built Apollo 11

I have been wondering for a long time who built Apollo 11? I mean, Niel Armstrong and his crew would have never reached the moon without this man. Does anyone know the answer, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.180.211 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no "one man" who built the spacecraft. Four different companies (North American Rockwell, Grumman Aerospace, McDonnell Douglas, and Boeing), each employing hundreds of people, built the two spacecraft (Apollo Command/Service Module and Apollo Lunar Module), plus the huge three-stage rocket Saturn V which sent it to the Moon. A man named Wernher von Braun is credited with inventing the Saturn V. They certainly couldn't have done it without him. But we did it because President John F. Kennedy said he thought we should, and we were afraid enough of what the mean government then in charge of Russia was doing (or could do) in space that we conldn't do yet, that most of us agreed it was a good thing to try to do. If you read the Project Apollo article, it will tell you everything.

This taught us a good lesson: when there's something you don't know if you can do, it helps if you try for something even harder than what you think you need to do. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Time of landing vs. time of first step

The following recent edit (addition in italics) is factually mistaken:

"Apollo 11 was the spaceflight that landed the first humans on Earth's Moon on July 20 1969 (July 21 for the majority of the world east of the Americas[9]). "

• The landing took place at 20:17:40 UTC on July 20, 1969. UTC is the standard way chosen to time space flight events, and avoids "majority of the world" issues.

• The reference BBC article says Armstrong took his first steps on the surface at 02:56 GMT (essentially UTC) July 21, as it says in the article body. This did not occur simultaneous with landing, but almost seven hours later. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Call sign of Lunar Module

The term call sign refers to a name used for purposes of radio communication, not the christening of a ship. Therefore, while the LM was thought of as Eagle (and all the crews in general tended to use the names as ship names, e.g. Apollo 13), as soon as it landed, the alternate call sign Tranquility Base was used several times by Armstrong and Aldrin, once by Collins when he spoke directly to them in a communications test, and by CAPCOM's Charles Duke, Owen Garriott and Bruce McCandless. (Duke also used Eagle a few times, but not as often as Tranquility.) This is documented in the communication transcripts given in "Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal: The First Lunar Landing". and the following two sections; check it out. Perhaps someone would like to go through and count all the instances of Eagle and Tranquility; I don't have the time. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the infobox currently reads "Callsign. CSM: Columbia. LM: Eagle in-flight; Tranquility Base on lunar surface". This implies that the LM itself was renamed from Eagle to Tranquility Base upon landing, which of course it was not. Tranquility/Tranquility Base was the location of the LM (as Houston was the location of mission control and hence its callsign), but it was not the name of the LM itself.Catiline63 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it implies any such thing, to anyone who understands what I said above, that "call sign" does not mean "ship name". The "Command Module" and "Lunar Module" infobox entries should not have said "callsign". And the infobox should wikilink Call sign (there is no such word as "callsign"; that's just a shorthand contraction used for the infobox parameter) so that people understand what it means; I'm going to try making that change. And also, this should be spelled out in the article text (and also generically in the Apollo program article, if it isn't already. And the Call sign article can be improved to include the extension from ships and airplanes to manned spacecraft. JustinTime55 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Moon vs. moon

By longstanding consensus, the improper noun "moon" refers generically to any natural satellite, and Earth's moon is rendered as a proper noun, "(the) Moon". Thus, DreamGuy's recent edits changing "Moon" to "moon" are out of order. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: By the same token, the improper noun "earth" refers to (terrestrial) dirt; the planet we live on (most of us, at least :-)) goes by the proper noun "Earth". JustinTime55 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If I was from here, I'd report you for that remark. ;p Sarek of Vulcan ^{beam me up} 06:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Always nice to meet a wikipedian with a sense of humor. Live long and prosper, "image of Sarek". :-) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Peace & long life, Earthling. ;p Impossible Man ^{change channels!} 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No Faceman

The recent add of the "no landing" nonsense troubles me. Does this not fail fringe? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, and this has been hashed out before here. It's gone. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

TYVM. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

'Victory' in the Space Race

Space Race was not about putting a man on the Moon, but about leadership in space exploration. Apollo 11 can't be called a US victory in the Space Race, 'milestone' would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceParrot (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well since the Soviets never landed anyone on the moon, I'd say it signalled a victory, wouldn't you say? SuperAtheist (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Moon race was what the Cold War Space Race was all about, and it was a victory which ended it, though it did not end the development of space travel, which is something else entirely. No revisionist history, to make everyone feel good; Read the Space Race article. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

May be, but "victory" is a bit POV, don't you think? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It absolutely is POV, and should be removed. The previous language characterizing it as a "milestone" was accurate and should be retained. TJRC (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the wording could be changed a bit, but the point here is historical revisionism: it is a verifiable, historical fact that it was perceived at the time (Cold War) that the US "won" the "race" (i.e., the challenge that Kennedy set before Khrushchev in response to Khruschev's race to get the first satellite and man in space. Redefining it in modern, utopian, "politically correct" terms is, in my opinion, original research.

Thinking about it, that sentence there strikes me as basically fluff, anyway. The third paragraph, mentioning Kennedy, is the essence of the matter, anyway. How about if we replace sentence no. 2 by moving the contents of paragraph 3 up after the first sentence? JustinTime55 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually like the structure of the lede in its present form, other than the "victory in the space race" hoo-hah . ¶ 1 introduces the subject and states why it is important. ¶ 2 relates, in a nutshell, what actually happened. ¶ 3 provides additional historical context. ¶ 4 describes what followed. I don't think by any means stating that the mission was a major milestone in space exploration is either original research or "politically correct." It's just less opinionated. TJRC (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Allright, then here's my compromise position: strip out "a major milestone in the Cold War Space Race with the Soviet Union" and just let it go as "is considered a major accomplishment in the history of exploration." The other phrase, as I said, just becomes more, redundant fluff ("milestone" means the same as "major accomplishment" in this metaphoric sense.)

I still don't think y'all get the point that getting a man on the Moon first was what the Space Race was all about. Without the idea of getting to the Moon first (one winner, one loser), there was no point at all in calling it "the Space Race". It wasn't just a "friendly" competion like the Olympics. That isn't just my opinion; as I said, read Space Race and its discussion page. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't think you get the point about WP:NPOV, as your edit summary [10] shows. It has nothing to do with "political correctness", as has been made very clear above. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The article cited (Space Race) mentions at least two other legs of the so-called Space Race, which, of course, we all know about anyway: the Russians were first to successfully launch an orbital satellite, and first to get a man in orbit. So to claim that he/us/they "don't get the point that getting a man on the Moon first was what the Space Race was all about" is an odd thing to say, since getting a person on the Moon clearly is not what the SR was all about, since it was about at least two other astronautical endeavors as well. "Victory in the Space Race" should so be changed, on various grounds now (see below). Chafe66 (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the image of Buzz Aldrin saluting the flag should be changed from "Aldrin salutes the flag symbolizing America's victory in the Space Race." to perhaps "Aldrin salutes the flag". As is, it seems petty. Bubba7322 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It also represents the writer's opinion, not necessarily Aldrin's opinion, about what was being saluted. Why is it needed at all? All Aldrin is unquestionably doing is saluting a flag. Think how unobjective it would be to say, "Aldrin salutes the flag symbolizing all things that are True and Good." Silly, of course, but the point is that what an icon symbolizes is not firmly established, especially in this context. The wording makes the photo be about something that it arguably is not.Chafe66 (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

is considered a major accomplishment in the history of exploration

Isn't "is considered a major accomplishment in the history of exploration" a bit weak? Not trying to sound like a 'fanboy', but I would say that it is quite probably THE biggest accomplishment in the history of exploration, without a "considered". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to go one step further and refer to Apollo 11 as "the biggest accomplishment in human history". However I do know not everyone would agree with that, but as you say surely it ranks top in the field of exploration achievements? JieBie (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't fix it, but there is a typographical error. It says "The United States mission is considered thee major accomplishment in the history of space exploration." Someone with the right permissions should fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.68.187 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. You could fix it yourself by signing up... ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Crewed by?

Near the beginning of the article we read: " ... lunar mission of NASA's Apollo program, was crewed by..." Ouch. Technically, "crew" as a verb might be acceptable. But it sure sounds terrible (here at least), especially in a passive construction, which more often than not itself strongly suggests a rewrite is in order. Toddcs (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Connection of Columbia name with Jules Verne

An authoritative source, a book published shortly after the mission with the collaboration of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin, states explicitly that the crew had Jules Verne's fictional cannonball craft in mind when picking the name. I intend to look it up tonight.

Farmer, Gene (1970). First On the Moon: A Voyage With Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Library of Congress 76-103950. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

JustinTime55 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a new one on me. It shouldn't surprise me, tho. I don't recall Collins mentioning it in Carrying the Fire...but maybe I missed it. And it's been, oh, 20yr... :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2:39 UTC July 21 is not the same time as 10:39 EDT July 20

[quote]At 02:39 UTC on Monday July 21 (10:39pm EDT, Sunday July 20), 1969, Armstrong opened the hatch, and at 02:51 UTC began his descent to the lunar surface.[/quote]

Did someone subtract when they should have added? These are not the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.robie (talk • contribs) 00:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No; there's no reason for them to be. Armstrong couldn't just start crawling backwards out the open hatch (a painstaking process, anyway) until both astronauts turned on their suit water cooling systems, which had to be done in a vacuum. He also took the "Lunar Equipment Conveyor", a lanyard/pulley system, out with him which contributed to the twelve-minute lag. Also, after going out the hatch, the first thing he did was to check that he would be able to get back in (because of very tight clearance around his Portable Life Support System. According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal linked in the citations, the hatch came open at 109 hr:07 min:33 sec mission elapsed time, and Armstrong said "Okay. Houston, I'm on the porch" at 109:19:16, at which point one could say he began his descent. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was confused by your quoting of the two event times in the article; apparently your contention is that 02:39 UTC doesn't equal 10:39PM EDT. But there is still no mistake; the UTC given is 02:39 AM UTC (Ante Meridiem -- they moonwalked late at night, not in the afternoon), which would be equivalent to 14:39 PM (Post Meridiem) UTC, carrying 12 hours. Check Eastern Time Zone; Eastern Daylight time equals UTC-04. Therefore 14:39 - 4:00 equals 10:39 PM.

Or, put more simply: 10:39 PM EDT plus 4 hours equals 02:39 AM the next day, UTC. In the United States, they landed and started their moonwalk on the same day, July 20. But in England, the moonwalk occurred on the next day, July 21 because of the time zone difference. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Crew Decontamination

In the decontamination section of the article, is sodium hydrochloride supposed to be sodium hypochlorite (aka bleach)? The sodium salt of hydrochloric acid is just sodium chloride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.99.169 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, sodium hydrochloride is another bleach-based disinfectant. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

TV Camera

The uncited sentence "He removed the TV camera from the MESA and made a panoramic sweep, then mounted it on a tripod 39 feet (12 m) from the LM." cannot be correct. It is clearly further away from the LM just based on observation. The Google Earth (Moon option) with the Apollo 11 landing site overlay confirmed this. I am changing the distance to 80 feet (24 m). This is the distance I measure from the TV camera position to the MESA on the LM. ShelbyBell (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thirty-nine feet is obviously wrong, but notice we already have a NASA map of the landing site down in the picture gallery, with a distance scale on it. It pretty clearly shows the distance as 64 feet. I'm unfamiliar with the Google-Moon site; is it possible your measurement is off by 16 feet? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, the K. B. Larson map shows the camera 65 ft from the center of the LM (58 ft from the MESA). Google Moon uses the NASA "Traverse Map" http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/USGS1978A11.jpg . In this map, the camera is 77 ft from the center of the LM (68 ft from the Mesa). It looks like Google stretched this map by about 10% (adding 7 ft of error) and the measuring tool added another 5 ft of error because it measured undulation along the lunar surface between the camera and the LM (I didn't realize this was happening until I viewed the "ruler" from surface level). 68+7+5 = the 80 feet I measured. I'll use the 68 ft value based on the Traverse Map because (1) NASA believes it is more accurate (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html#Maps) and (2) The relative distances between objects in the recent ASU LRO image (http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M109080308RE__published_ap11_lmdeck_deconvolved.png) match the Traverse Map better than the K. B. Larson map. ShelbyBell (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Good show. Thanks, Shelby. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First Humans

Apollo 11 was more a "NASA mission" than a "spaceflight".

It is childish to say that it landed “the first humans” it is obvious that those who landed in a NASA spacecraft must be humans.

I believe that it is better to mention the landing place in the first paragraph because it gives a point of interest to the reader as everybody knows that they landed on the Moon.

As for the time of the astronauts on the Moon, it is: “21 hours, 36 minutes”.

That “Their lunar module, Eagle, spent 21 hours 31 minutes” is a mistake because part of the Lunar Module Eagle still is on the Moon, so it should be: The astronauts spent 21 hours 36 minutes in the Moon, and left Tranquility Base in the Ascent Stage of the Eagle spacecraft. Source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html

Another mistake: U.S. President John F. Kennedy's goal was not “reaching the Moon before the Soviet Union” as it is now in the article, but “of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The mention of the race with the Soviet Union must go in another phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Iani (talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please remove propaganda photo

This article contains a propaganda photo of an American flag with the spacecraft / condensation cloud in the background. This photo must be a composite, since it is impossible for the distant spacecraft to appear so large in relation to the flag, which must be in the foreground. I propose that this Yankee-Doodle-Dandy shot be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.0.52 (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that state that this photo is a composite? Your opinion will not be sufficient.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever hear of a telephoto lens, genius? And even if it were a composite, that doesn't make it "propaganda" or improper in any way. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Telephoto lens, deep depth of field on a sunny day, skill and some luck. Yes, Apollo 11 was launched amidst much propaganda, which also had something to do with boosterism of the US aerospace industry (please forgive that latter pun). No harm in readers seeing echoes of that, quite otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather famous photo that I have admired for years. I was a bit disappointed to see this quote from NASA's Flickr account: "The American flag heralds the flight of Apollo 11. Man’s first lunar landing mission. The photograph was taken from Cape Kennedy, adjacent to Kennedy Space Center where Apollo 11 lifted off from Pad 39A at 9:32 a.m. EDT. This image was imposed upon the image of the flag filmed a day earlier." (ref: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommons/4940991448/) The composite photo is still great work and worthy of being included since it has become somewhat historical in its own right. ShelbyBell (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is a doctored photograph, the angle of the shot would not allow both to be visible. The pole has a head-on appearance and the Saturn V would not have hit Mach 1 at such a low altitude, doing so would result in its destruction. However, unless the un-doctored one is found, this one seems to be a good substitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.180.53 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Mission sequence (artist concept)

The depiction of the lunar mission sequence is useful information to have in the Wikipedia, but doesn't really belong in this article, for the following reasons:

• It's really out of scope of this article, which is written with the idea that this mission was not just a run-of-the-mill Apollo mission, but an historical event: the first actual landing of men on the Moon. There are plenty of photographs of the actual spacecraft (even more available than those used here.) But to add even more photographs (e.g., of the initial transposition and docking) would just clutter and crowd the article more (it already suffers from crowding and a dilemma of proper picture placement.)
• The steps followed in the landings are technical details, again worth noting but out of place here. The pictures are also generic to all the landing missions, and so better belong in the Apollo program article.
• The section detracts from the structure of the article; after we have already walked through the entire mission in detailed prose, this just looks like it's thrown in here.

Therefore, I intend to move the pictures (with generic captions) to Apollo program, which has been lacking this information. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

grounded

Can anyone tell me what crew member of a launch was grounded because of an imballence in his equillibrium.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.134.254 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are thinking of Alan Shepard and his struggle with Ménière's disease ?? Woz2 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The missing "a."

This writer, then an Army Staff Sergeant, recalls hearing the missing "a" from his avionics shop at Long Thanh North, Vietnam, where he was monitoring the NASA HF network with a spare High Frequency radio. The landing time would have placed the Moon in line of sight to an Australian tracking station, which could have made it possible to hear a syllable dropped during further relays around the Earth.Radioka5s (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Crew Decontamination

In the decontamination section of the article, is sodium hydrochloride supposed to be sodium hypochlorite (aka bleach)? The sodium salt of hydrochloric acid is just sodium chloride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.99.169 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, sodium hydrochloride is another bleach-based disinfectant. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The section describing the return states that sodium-hydrochloride was used to desinfect the astronauts. This substance doesn't exist. Probably the authors meant sodium hypochlorite. 82.136.235.84 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You just missed this topic, which was automatically relegated to the archives (see above.) I thought the same thing, but I was mistaken; sodium hypochloride is correct, and is a disinfectant distinct from the bleach hypochlorite. Just because it's not in Wikipedia, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Try a Google search, and you'll get hits on yahoo.answers.com and www.ask.com.

(And an instructional tip: new topics should be placed at the bottom of talk pages, not the top; the "New section" tab will do this automatically.) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 11 Photo Links

Links with more excellent photos

• The Apollo 11 Journey in Photographs; The Atlantic; July 20, 2112. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Luna 15

"Luna 15 was launched just 3 days before Apollo 11 and managed to reach the lunar surface before Apollo 11, but during the descent a malfunction eventually caused Luna 15 to crash on the Mare Crisium of the Moon, just after Armstrong and Aldrin completed their first moon walk." Obviously Luna 15 cannot have reached the lunar surface before Apollo 11 and then crashed into the surface *after* the first Moon walk. Needs editting to state that it reached 'lunar orbit' before Apollo 11, to match the Luna 15 article.2.24.51.38 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ckruschke (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

15 or 21 hours on surface

A couple of the lines in the first two paragraph confuse me. The first says "A third member of the mission, Michael Collins, remained alone in lunar orbit until they returned from the surface about 15 hours later." Then in the second paragraph it says "They stayed a total of about 21½ hours on the lunar surface...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.76 (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

21 hours must be the right time. Please see commons:Apollo 11 flight for a timeline. Soerfm (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the intro more carefully. The prior sentence says, "Armstrong became the first to step onto the lunar surface 6 hours later [from the landing time] on July 21 at 02:56 UTC." They returned about 15 hours later than Armstrong's first step. Six plus 15 equals "about" 21 or 21½ total hours on the surface. These are approximations; the exact times are in the infobox and the article body, and are well verified. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the point -- I was confused by this as well. It says Collins was in the command module (i.e. in Lunar Orbit) until they returned from the surface 15 hours later. That implies that the time that Aldrin & Armstrong were on the moon was less than 15 hours. Since the infobox claims that they were on the lunar surface for 21 hours and 21 hours is longer than the 15 hours that Collins was in the command module, then there's something obviously wrong here. Phil (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the extra 6 hours was from a timezone difference on the moon -- ha ha ha. Phil (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

commons:Apollo 11 flight says that at 4 days, 4 hours, the lunar module and command module separated. In addition, it says that the ascent stage docked with the command module at 5 days, 8 hours. That implies that Collins was alone in the command module for 1 day, 4 hours, or 28 hours in total. I'm going to fix that right now. 96.247.52.133 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A good lead is supposed to summarize the key points of a topic for the casual reader, and introduce the rest of the article for those who want to read the whole thing for more depth. The purpose of the Apollo program was to land men on the Moon, not to compile statistics on how long Command Module pilots could fly solo. The intent was to highlight Armstrong's and Aldrin's time on the Moon, and Collins is mentioned so he isn't left out; even though he didn't land on the Moon, he was an important part of the crew.

While the amount of time he spent alone might be an interesting statistic, I don't think it's important enough to highlight in the intro, but if included, should be lower in the body. The important thing to highlight is the time Armstrong and Aldrin spent walking on the Moon, and the amount of lunar material they collected and brought back to Earth. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Customs Declaration

I found this on University of Cincinnati's website the other day and thought it might be something that could be used in the article; I'm not exactly sure where though.

• http://magazine.uc.edu/favorites/web-only/armstrong/moonrocks.html

It states that the Apollo 11 crew had to fill out a customs declaration for the moon rocks they brought back! --Noha307 (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Communion

Communion: Correction needed: Article states about Aldrin: "He had kept the plan quiet (not even mentioning it to his wife) and did not reveal it publicly for several years.[citation needed]" I think this sentence needs to be removed, since it is contradicted with the factual information in the next paragraph.139.55.18.163 (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Made change. Ckruschke (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Crew decontamination: hypochlorite or hydrochloride?

There seems to be an ambiguity about the chemical used to decontaminate the astronauts (Apollo 11#Splashdown and quarantine): The original said sodium hydrochloride, with a citation of book Hornet Plus Three. A while back someone changed it to sodium hypochlorite, a disinfectant listed here. I did some Google searching, and did find references to another disinfectant called sodium hypochloride, so apparently there is such a thing and I changed it back. (Discussed in Talk:Apollo 11/Archive 3#Crew decontamination.) Now, Rifleman 82, who identifies himself as a chemist, has changed it back to hypochlorite again. It's possible for book authors to make mistakes, I suppose. Can someone please shed light on whether the other compound actually exists, and which is correct? JustinTime55 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note. I wasn't aware of the previous changes.

Hydrochloride is a (perhaps) sloppy way of talking about the hydrochloric acid salt of a (usually amine) base. For example, triethylammonium chloride could be referred to as "triethylamine hydrochloride". Some drugs are used as hydrochloride salts of amines, due to their better solubility in water than amines themselves. You may encounter them, e.g. oxycodone HCl = hydrochloride salt of oxycodone. [11]

Sodium on the other hand, is not an amine base; it doesn't form these hydrochloride salts (where the H+ is still present). Reacting sodium with hydrochloric acid would hypothetically lead to sodium chloride and hydrogen gas. There's no such thing as sodium hydrochloride.

The alternative that will make sense is sodium hypochlorite, a 6 % solution of which, is sold as household bleach. "Sodium hypochloride" doesn't exist incidentally. Hypo=lower, but the salt of chlorine and sodium doesn't have a lower oxidation state than -1 for chlorine. Sodium hypochlorite has a lower oxidation state of +1 for chlorine, as opposed to +3 for sodium chlorite.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Dates of events

I notice that the date given in this article for the first moon walk differs from that given in the official NASA history (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html) - the article says the 21st, the NASA page says the 20th. I suspect this may result from the article's use of UTC time instead of a US time zone. If this is so, may I respectfully suggest that the discrepancy be explained in the article? Regards, HistorianK (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the case. Wikipedia (specifically, WikiProject Spaceflight) has chosen by consensus to use UTC by convention to date all space travel events, since Earth time zones don't apply where the event is happening. And NASA, being American, will generally use Eastern Time for launches (Cape Canaveral/Merrit Island, FL), and/or Central Time since the crewed flights are controlled at the Johnson Space Center in Houston TX. And this is something that applies to all Wikipedia space flight articles. (Occasionally, ET or CT is also given for certain events.)

Since the UTC article is, by style convention, hyperlinked, and the article states that the landing, EVA, etc. times are given in UTC, the meaning should be clear. How would you propose we clarify NASA's use of local (Earth) time uniformly and easily, without requiring changes to dozens, if not hundreds, of articles? Perhaps you might like to raise this for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the lunar EVA duration time, reverting an edit by 82.124.9.81 at 15:14, 30 May 2008. The duration time in the previous revision by Gwen Gale at 20:49, 29 May 2008, was "2 h 31 m 40 s." The NASA SP-4029 reference gives the same EVA duration time. Alan G. Archer (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Luna 2

Surely it's worth mentioning that Luna 2 arrived on the moon almost a decade prior to Apollo 11? At the moment the anniversary, and indeed the craft itself, is not even mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.101 (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Anniversary of what?

Go ahead and add it. ColinClark (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Human after all

"Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin" - do they need to be American... why aren't they humanoids. We are talking about the first contact of Earthlings to another planet. I thought this is what united the entire human race together. One shared vision realised. It reaches beyond boundaries drawn on a map. When you look at Earth from the moon, is it not all the same? Can you see the pencil lines of bureaucrats? I'm not saying that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are not Americans, of course they are. But they are humans first, Americans second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.142.157 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

During cold war it was nation first, human later as per John F. Kennedy's this speech. All this mission was product of battle of patriotism between US and Soviet Russia. Americans won. So they have right to include 'American' word. neo (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent anon-IP vandalism in German

Already here the author, well known in Germany as a moon landing hoax believer kook, proves is non-knowledge of basic facts so we even don't need to go through his crap mathematics and can simply dump it. He ignores the tiny fact that it wasn't just the CSM/LM in earth orbit that propelled itself to the moon, but that they had the third stage of the Saturn V still attached that was doing the whole work. He also isn't giving reference where he got the figure of 4 tons of propellant that the CSM was supposed to only have.

Well, as I said, the usual hoax believer crap.... --Kucharek (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've put Kucharek's comment back; we need to decide how to handle this. The person writes only in German, and has used several IP addresses (91.23.3.4; 91.23.34.211; 91.23.20.238; 91.23.11.209; 91.23.3.46, 91.23.21.131; 91.23.18.112). He has also added this once to How do we deal with this? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What are the options? We can't block a range of IPs. I don't think we can or should protect the talk page. He's a hoax kook, so we can't talk/reason with him. We can continue to just revert every time he edits, which is annoying but effective enough. Any other options? ColinClark (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

On the German article's talk page is this comment: "Die Privattheorien des Herrn Marquardt werden hier seit Jahren ungelesen gelöscht. Zurecht. Das wird auch so bleiben. --Felix frag 22:19, 12. Jul. 2013 (CEST)"

My rough translation: "For years we've been deleting Herr Marquardt's theories, unread, from this page. We will continue to do so." So, it seems they haven't found a better option than to just keep reverting, and they've been dealing with the problem for a long time. ColinClark (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally think just continuing to revert is a lousy option; we've got better things to do. But to keep everyone here up to speed on the latest: he's been going at the talk pages on the various Apollo missions. Finally, he decided to write his rant in English on Talk:Apollo 12. (Crappy translation; I think he just used Google translate.) This seems to have satisfied him, and two editors left it and have responded to it. Hopefully that's the end of it. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I removed that section. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. It specifically says right at the top of the page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" His rants have nothing to do with article improvement and are subject to removal.--Asher196 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DENY is the correct solution. Just remove the off-topic posts without discussion or recognition. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Citations misused

In the Lunar Surface Operations section of the article is this paragraph:

"Armstrong claims to have said "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" when he first set foot on the lunar surface. The "a" is not clear in NASA recordings but the audio and video links back to earth were somewhat intermittent, partly because of storms near Parkes Observatory. More recent digital analysis of the tape by NASA revealed the "a" may have been spoken but obscured by static.[29][30]"

With two citations. However neither of them supports the statements they're attached to, and even seem to somewhat contradict it. The statement that audio and visual links were intermittent and may have obscured the "a" is not present in either citation. Neither is mention of a NASA digital analysis of the audio - other analysis are mentioned, but none really supports the statement that they "revealed the "a" may have been spoken but obscured by static" - they either left this question ambiguous or cast doubt on it. Not only does the Snopes.com article (the second citation) conclude that Armstrong did not say the "a", but it also quotes another source, Rick Houston in his history of the Apollo program as stating the same. Basically either the citations should be removed and just let this statement stand as the original research it is, or the paragraph should be rewritten to accurately portray what is in the citations, right now they just add false appearance of authority.--90.199.141.241 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in statements about distance Armstrong walked ?

"... Then Armstrong loped about 120 metres (390 ft) from the LM to snap photos"; "... In a 2010 interview, Armstrong, who had walked a maximum of 196 feet (60 m) from the LM, explained that NASA limited the first moonwalk's time..."
Surely both statements can't be correct ? Correction needed ? Rcbutcher (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. The 390 ft number is incorrect. This is verified by the map of the landing site; blow it up and you will see the distance to the western crater was 196 feet. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Story style

No offence, but this article reads like a magazine article rather than an encyclopaedic one. Finding key pieces of data, such as times and dates requires reading through quantities of sub-ordinate information which is evenly distributed throughout the article rather than conforming to wiki style guidelines. Key data (e.g Earth lift-off date/time, Moon landing date/time, Moon lift-off date/time, Earth landing date/time) should appear first in the introduction and necessary detail should be added later in a heirarchical manner. In general the article should facilitate research etc rather than being an account or story. LookingGlass (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, we in Project Spaceflight take some liberties in departing from the standard, data-oriented style used in the majority of space missions (see all Apollo missions except 11 and 8), because a few missions were of monumental, historical importance. Apollo 11 was the first human landing on the Moon; see similarly-written Apollo 8, the first time humans left Earth orbit and flew the 230,000 miles to the Moon. Notice this article is still rated as Good (check the archives for its review), and Apollo 8 is even Featured. So apparently there is a consensus that this is OK. And I'm sure there must be some examples of the same thing in other subjects throughout the Wikipedia, where the particular topic or event is of major historical impact.

Sorry you find the data so difficult to locate; perhaps something could be added to put it at the reader's fingertips, without removing the narrative. Notice the infobox template was recently revised, with the goal of including the important mission data. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Or in other words and as Napolean said:- "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". In a sense I think it may be good that you guys are aware of what you are doing in some way. However I would tske issue with your resasoning. A vast number of things can easily be recognised as being of major historical impact: global war, the industrial revolution, penicillin, Hiroshima, the Bubonic Plague etc etc. All these can be said to have transformed the world as we know it. On the other hand an argument could also readily be made that space missions in their totality are an obscene self-induilgence and merely a flight from the endemic issues that plague our species and its eco-system. It's a matter of perspective and values not one of fact. Of course, we all tend to think that what's on top of our tree should be on top of everyone else's because it's special. There is a circularity on this argument which leads to us coming to imagine that if it's not at the top of someone else's tree then that's on account of their ignorance or lack of vision or envy or etc. I don't know how thes is ther metrics you cite are compiled but I'd be very hesitant before overruling a value system such as wiki's with a "Like"-type voting system. If this "Napoleonic" exceptioning is something patronised by a wikipedia version of the "pigs" (Napolean and buddies) then imo it is a very slippery path wiki is headed down. The primary reason imo NOT to have narrative style entries on wiki is that they distort the picture given, adding a spin and colouring that under the NPOV centrepiece should be studiously avoided. If the Apollo missions are as you imagine then they should be able to stand without any pageantry or fanfare i.e without the need for a narrative style. LookingGlass (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the tag denigrating the article, which I consider to be clearly unwarranted (as is the rhetorical excess of citing Orwell in this thread). The overall presentation of the article strikes me as quite reasonable. If LookingGlass's concern is shared, this can be addressed by copyediting or perhaps by adding a summary or overview section or expanding the lead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your action proves the points I've made Newyorkbrad. Two of the three comments expressed here acknowledge that the article is in a narrative style. That is what the tag notes. However with no balancing argument, a few hours after the discussion has begun, on the basis that your opinion is the ruling one you've reverted it. So, I've reverted your revert. If your preference to debating is to engage in an edit war then fine. Three reverts and then we go to arbitration. For myself, I prefer reason and debate but obviously that's up to you. BTW you also seem to have entirely misunderstood my analogy to Orwell. I do NOT think wiki is like that. I DO think that this article is pushing it down that path. THAT is what I object to. LookingGlass (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I waited a few days before responding to this in the hope that some other editors would comment here, but since no one has, I'll respond myself. I have read through the article again, and while like most articles it could always stand editing and improving, I still don't see it as fundamentally flawed in the way you do. I don't believe "story" in the tag you applied refers to any article written in a "narrative style," which hundreds of thousands of historical articles are in whole or part, and the other concerns mentioned in the tag such as an overly personal perspective done apply here at all.

In that context, having carefully considered your views, I am going to remove the tag. We can continue to discuss your concern about the article, and I would welcome your suggesting specific improvements, but the tag on the article should not be restored unless there is a consensus to re-add it—or at a bare minimum, unless at least one other editor besides yourself agrees with re-adding it.

You are also welcome to seek a third-opinion or bring additional eyes to this discussion; however, your reference to "arbitration" is premature and inapposite (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You have inferred the lack of agreement with you as being proof of agreement and furthermore as justificstion for continuing to delete my work. I can do no other than revert once more. It should be redundant to say that you may take your own advice, or to point out that I will follow mine. I also disagree with your "premise" that other historical articles are written as narratives or that narratives are not stories. I can see no logic in your argument and so nothing that requires addressing. LookingGlass (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have posted to the talkpage of Wikiproject Spaceflight seeking other users' input on this issue. I hope that hearing from other experienced editors will inform our discussion of whether the article suffers from the problem you assert, and if so, whether the problem is so severe as to justify the template you have applied. I will remove the template once more pending discussion, with the statement that I will not revert again if at least one other editor supports your view. On the other hand, if you revert and re-insert what I perceive as an unnecessary and counterproductive template on this high-profile article without attaining support from anyone else, much less a consensus, then I will ask an administrator to intervene. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not part of the Spaceflight project, but IMO LookingGlass is guilty of POV pushing about what a science-oriented Wiki page should look like (apparently "encyclopedic" is austeer and technical with narative only used as absolutely necessary). I've seen this many times where an "editor-with-a-mission" stumbles on a page, decides it "sucks", slaps a tag on it, and then goes to the Talk page to berate the established authors about how they've let the page goto hell. Wiki is not a science fair project where only the facts matter. FWIW, I see no problems with this page. Ckruschke (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

@LookingGlass: can you explain in a little more detail what issue you take with the article as written? You say you are having trouble finding key dates and values, but I see a plethora of succinct dates and values in the lede and infobox, right at the start of the article. The "story" template you added to the article really does not contain anything actionable. VQuakr (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Fair point. I'd been thinking whether and how to further this, as the "debate" had descended into personal attack etc.

As the tag is/was for a stylistic issue the issue is general not specific, however to answer I've simply taken the first paragraph and editted it into a less narrative style by way of example. The edit goes some way to follow the other articles on the Apollo missions but to do so properly would mean moving the crew references to later in the article. So as not to pour petrol on the fire I've not gone that far though I think there is an argument to be made for separating the personal from the mission:

Apollo 11 was the spaceflight that landed the first humans on the Moon, Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, on July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC. Armstrong became the first to step onto the lunar surface six hours later on July 21 at 02:56 UTC. Armstrong spent about two and a half hours outside the spacecraft, Aldrin slightly less, and together they collected 47.5 pounds (21.5 kg) of lunar material for return to Earth. A third member of the mission, Michael Collins, piloted the command spacecraft alone in lunar orbit until Armstrong and Aldrin returned to it just under a day later for the trip back to Earth.

Apollo 11 was the fourth manned mission in the United States Apollo program and conducted the first manned Moon landing. Michael Collins piloted its command craft in lunar orbit while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed the Lunar module on July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC. They spent about two and a half hours collecting lunar material, and about a day on the surface. Armstrong was the first to walk on the Moon at 02:56 UTC on July 21.

This example contains slightly more information that the existing, while being almost 30% shorter, in a readily digestible form and without the narrative style. LookingGlass (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making this discussion a bit more concrete. I personally prefer the existing lead, because it starts off with the most noteworthy aspect of the mission, and I frankly still don't quite grok what you are saying about "narrative style." Let's see what other editors think. Incidentally, Apollo 11 was the fifth manned Apollo mission, not the fourth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

See Apollo 10 for ref. Perhaps you could contribute.

I could not find "grok" in the dictionary.

Your preference for ordering of phrases would be addressed thus:

Apollo 11 conducted the first manned Moon landing and was the fourth manned mission in the United States Apollo program.

However as I said the purpose of the edit was not to provide a replacement but to illustrate a non-narrative/magazine style of writing i.e without the adjectives and adjectival constructions that bloat/peacock the article unnecessarily. The achievement of the mission is obvious. To me the more "tabloid" style only detracts from this.

LookingGlass (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Grok. --Alexbook (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I still like it better as is. Let's see what others think. (And to repeat, Apollo 11 was the fifth manned Apollo mission, not the fourth.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate the new conciliatory dialogue LookingGlass. This conversation is much better than slapping a tag on a page FIRST, making everyone scramble, implying edit w ars, etc, etc.

That being said, I also see no reason to change the lede. Ckruschke (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Days of Week

This comes up because of the "where were you when we landed on the moon" aspect of our culture. July 16 was a wednesday, and the 20th was a sunday. Any chance I could get one of you good a people to insert days of week once with each date? Thanks. Theresavalek (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not an awful suggestion. I'm not sure where the best place would be - info box? Any other editor have a suggestion. Ckruschke (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

"Apollo Eleven"

The usage of Apollo Eleven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Apollo Eleven -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

editrequest, disambiguation hatnote

Please change the hatnote to point to the disambiguation page Apollo 11 (disambiguation)

{{otheruses}}

For other uses, see Apollo 11 (disambiguation).

-- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: Agree in principle, but used {{About|the 1969 manned lunar mission}} instead, for more specificity. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Apollo 11 Crew.jpg

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Apollo 11 Crew.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 20, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-07-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The crew of Apollo 11, which, 45 years ago, became the first manned mission to land on the Moon. From left to right: Neil Armstrong, commander; Michael Collins, command module pilot; and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, lunar module pilot. Armstrong and Aldrin spent almost a day on the Moon, including several hours outside their lunar module collecting lunar material; Collins remained in the command module in orbit.Photograph: NASA

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

Please change the years it has been since the launch and landing in the column on the right. July. 20 1969 until 2014 is only 45 years, not 55. 137.119.138.211 (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by another - petty vandalism - thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2014

Second paragraph - it says 21 1/2 hours instead of 2 1/2 hours. 82.36.167.183 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done It's correct as written. The period of 21 1/2 hours refers to the total time the LM remained on the mood from landing until LM liftoff (not just the time the astronauts worked on the moon). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

editrequest, Collins, "a" / "the"

isn't better to change

A third member of the mission, Michael Collins, piloted the command spacecraft alone in lunar orbit until Armstrong and Aldrin returned to it just under a day later for the trip back to Earth.

with

The third member of the mission, Michael Collins, piloted the command spacecraft alone in lunar orbit until Armstrong and Aldrin returned to it just under a day later for the trip back to Earth.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.51.136 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2014‎ (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Collins Did Not Design the Apollo 11 Insignia

The first three sentences of the Apollo 11 “Insignia” section are not accurate. In context, the second sentence is in fact false, contradicting Refs. [11] and [12]. Mike Collins alone did not design the patch. This paragraph directly contradicts Neil Armstrong’s own discussion of the badge insignia in your Reference [11, pages 107-108] as well as that of Mike Collins [Ref. 12, page 333]. I was there when all of this happened, and I have three mementos in thanks from Armstrong to prove that I came up with the idea of the olive branch for Apollo 11, not Collins. This is all documented in Refs. [11] and [12].

Also, the fourth sentence wanders off on something irrelevant (although Collins did draw a version with the olive branch in the beak). I suggest deleting this sentence as extraneous.

Here is what I suggest as a satisfactory idea for a re-write of the first four (4) sentences of “Insignia”. It is critical that the pages involved are directly cited, else people will never find Armstrong’s own version. Note that my name does not appear in this change. The original is first, followed by my recommendation:

Insignia

The Apollo 11 mission insignia was designed by Collins, who wanted a symbol for "peaceful lunar landing by the United States". He chose an eagle as the symbol, put an olive branch in its beak, and drew a lunar background with the Earth in the distance. NASA officials said the talons of the eagle looked too "warlike" and after some discussion, the olive branch was moved to the claws. The crew decided the Roman numeral XI would not be understood in some nations and went with "Apollo 11"; they decided not to put their names on the patch, so it would "be representative of everyone who had worked toward a lunar landing".

My recommended change is:

Insignia

The Apollo 11 mission insignia evolved from these basic ideas above about the eagle and a lunar landing. Collins began the insignia by sketching the image of an American bald eagle landing on the Moon with the Earth in the background. The sketch was given to an artist and a preliminary version was brought by Aldrin to an Apollo 11 training session. There it was criticized by their NASA flight instructor who said it needed an olive branch to symbolize why Americans were going to the Moon [11, pages 107-108]. It was to be a peaceful lunar landing by the United States. The olive branch was then added and this theme changed the patch to its final form [12, page 333]. The crew decided the Roman numeral XI would not be understood in some nations and went with "Apollo 11"; they decided not to put their names on the patch, so it would "be representative of everyone who had worked toward a lunar landing".

ThomasWilsonTexas (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

On August 12, 2014 I submitted a comment under "Talk" for this Apollo 11 piece. It pointed out that there are several errors in the discussion of "Insignia". Who can help me implement this change? Alternatively, how can I go about it? ThomasWilsonTexas (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Make 1 more edit to Wikipedia anywhere, and you'll have editing access to the article. Stickee (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

CORRECTION TO TYPO: # OF HOURS ALDRIN & ARMSTRONG WERE OUT ON THE MOON'S SURFACE

" ... Armstrong and Aldrin then moved into the Lunar Module and landed in the Sea of Tranquility. They stayed a total of about 21½ hours on the lunar surface ... "

Should read: ... 2 1/2 hours [not 21 1/2 hours]

71.226.53.70 (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Joyce T. Smith, Tucson, AZ

The EVA time was about 2 1/2 hours. The LM was on the surface for about 21 1/2. When the article says "they stayed...on the lunar surface", to me, that's pretty clearly talking about how long the LM was there.Almostfm (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've just created an FAQ. Notice someone else already requested this above. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2015

Armstrong claims to have said "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" when he first set foot on the lunar surface.

Please change "claims" to "claimed" because Armstrong is now dead and can't claim anything anymore. 65.210.65.16 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 65.210.65.16 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How much lunar material was taken?

• "With some difficulty the astronauts lifted film and two sample boxes containing more than 22 kilograms (49 lb) of lunar surface material to the LM hatch..."
• "Two and a half hours later, at 17:54 UTC, they lifted off in Eagle's ascent stage, carrying 21.5 kilograms of lunar samples with them..."

Which is it? —sroc 💬 16:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Authoritative source: Apollo By the Numbers: they returned 21.55 kilograms of Moon rock. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

First music

The first music played on the moon was Bart Howard's "Fly Me to the Moon", by Buzz Aldrin, on a portable casesette player: [12]. Surprised this is not mentioned here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to call Quincy Jones or Buzz Aldrin a liar, but that might not be the best source for this, if it happens to be true (despite being in the New York Times). It's well known that the astronauts carried portable tape recorders with their favorite music (in fact the crew of Apollo 10 took Fly Me to the Moon to the Moon, but they didn't land), so it's not implausible that Aldrin took it to the lunar surface to listen to inside the LM, but it is highly unlikely it happened the way Jones says in the article, that "just as he was getting ready to step off the spacecraft, he reached back and took the cassette ..., and he played it."

• As there is no air on the Moon, he would not have been able to hear it, unless he somehow put it inside his space suit, or was able to hook it into his comm system.
• The song was not heard, or mentioned, during the moonwalk, which was televised live and watched by many people (including yours truly).
• The astronauts were on an extremely busy schedule for the moonwalk (Aldrin in a British tabloid, for example, blamed President Nixon's phone call for him not taking more pictures of Armstrong), so this type of frivolity would seem out of order.

The song certainly wouldn't have been considered contraband, so I would expect to see a reference to it in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. I looked at the pages just before, during, and after landing, and the beginning of the moonwalk, and didn't find it. I think we should look for a better source to corroborate it.

(BTW, I'm sure you're aware this is mentioned, using the same source, on the Fly Me to the Moon page.) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I linked the song article. I must admit I had not seen Jones' highly implausible description. I had assumed "on the moon" meant when they were landed on the moon inside the module. BBC Radio 3's Clemency Burton-Hill seemed to think it was true, this morning, as she used it as an excuse to play a version of the song by the incomparable Oscar Peterson. She said Buzz had the Sinatra version. But then the BBC are known to use some really outlandish sources at times of unusual lunar activity. Nixon had no musical taste, by the way. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Trying to Google this for better verification; no luck, but I came across this curiosity: [13]: check out number eight: "Aldrin isn’t a fan of “Fly Me to the Moon”—“I have heard Frank Sinatra sing [it] almost too many times," he said...". Makes me wonder if Buzz was pulling Jones' leg at the party? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems quite clear. Although probably not a WP:RS. It's also mentioned in Jones' biography by Clarence Bernard Henry: [14] Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

New York Times headline

The July 21, 1969 New York Times headline "MEN WALK ON MOON" was set in one of the largest, perhaps the largest, size type they've ever used for a front page headline. It so it should be noted either in the Apollo 11 or The New York Times articles or both. However, in a little searching in the usual places online, I haven't found a solid source for this being the biggest type ever used in an NY Times headline. Does anyone know of one? Aside from being important, this headline comprised four short words. Other important events, e.g. end of WWI, were described by more verbose headlines, so, although the headline as a whole was larger, stretching to several lines, a smaller font was used.CharlesHBennett (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if true, that seems pretty trivial to an article about the landings in general. VQuakr (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a checklist error

The article includes a quote from Margaret Hamilton saying that the program alarms during the LM's descent stemmed from "an error in the checklist manual." Even though Hamilton is clearly a source of authority on the Apollo Guidance Computer, she is mistaken here. As explained by Don Eyles and noted in the entry for Jack Garman, the cause of the executive overflow program alarms was not a checklist error. The switch in question—the rendezvous radar mode switch—was set by Buzz Aldrin on purpose, so that in the event of an aborted landing, the LM's rendezvous radar would already be active and the crew would have one less post-abort task to accomplish so that they could immediately go about the business of locating the orbiting Command Module.

The problem that actually caused the program alarm to be issued is a lot more technical and was due to an oversight in the design documentation for the LM's rendezvous radar equipment. The rendezvous radar's Attitude, Translation, and Control Assembly (the "ATCA") was energized with 28-volt 800Hz AC power. Similarly, the radar's Coupling Data Units (the "CDUs") operated on the same type of power from a different source. The CDUs and ATCA were supposed to be operated with their separate power supplies frequency-synchronized and in phase lock, but the design documentation only specified that the CDUs and ATCA be at the same frequency. Rather than the devices operating in phase sync, they might be powered on and brought into frequency-sync but be out of phase—or they might not, depending on the exact millisecond the devices were powered on. If—as happened in flights prior to Apollo 11 and in simulations—the rendezvous radar switch was set to SLEW or AUTO an energized at just the right moment, the power supplies would be in phase and there would be no problem. But, as happened on Apollo 11, flicking the switch at the wrong millisecond would cause the CDUs to power up and not be in phase lock.

Because the CDUs used the ATCA's power as a baseline measurement for the physical position of the rendezvous radar's antenna, the out-of-phase signal produced readings that were far out of bounds from what the CDUs expected. The CDUs began to issue thousands of interrupts per second to the guidance computer—about 12,800 per second, every second—which took approximately 15% of the guidance computer's overhead to answer. Given that the computer was already under ~85% load with its major mode set to program 64 (the main program running the powered descent portion of the flight), the extra interrupts led to a consumption of all available core set memory errors and also all vector accumulator areas as the computer found itself unable to iterate through its entire task list in a single cycle and things began to stack up.

The real-time design of the Apollo Guidance Computer meant that in this kind of situation, the computer was able to reset itself and pick back up its tasks without interrupting the landing, which it did after each 120x program alarm. As the landing progressed and the major mode switched from P64 to P66 (the final phase of the landing), the computational load was substantially reduced and the spurious interrupts no longer exceeded the computer's capacity to deal with.

So...I'd edit this in, but I'm not confirmed yet. Sourcing is at the Don Eyles site linked above, and also from Springer's "The Apollo Guidance Computer Architecture and Operation". Lee ars (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your summary is consistent with my memory of the error, as well. As with many technical issues, there probably are general-use sources that abridge reality a bit to help a nontechnical audience understand. We should strive to accurately summarize the technical sources instead. I will see if I can remember which book I read that contained this summary. VQuakr (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, derp, Springer is the publisher, not the author, on the AGC book. Author is Frank O'Brien. Lee ars (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Error in caption?

Under "Spacecraft Location"
In 2009 the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter imaged the various Apollo landing sites on the surface of the Moon with sufficient resolution to see the descent stages of the lunar modules, scientific instruments, and foot trails made by the astronauts.
This suggests the photos were taken in 2009. But the caption on the lander module photo says it was taken in 2012.
Just wanted to make sure this wasn't in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBloodyHell (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo in Sidebar Aldrin?

I don't know for sure, but think the photos and TV stills of the man leaving the LM show Aldrin, not Armstrong. Armstrong was taking the pictures or TV shots since he went outside first.Jessegalebaker (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Armstrong did not "take the TV shots". The TV camera was turned on automatically when he opened the spacecraft compartment which contained it, while he was on the ladder; that is a picture of him descending the ladder first (which we display twice). Later, he took the camera, mounted it on a tripod, and moved it to a location where it could capture both him and Aldrin; no one had to man it. Most of the photos are of Aldrin, because he had the photo camera for only a short time. There is only one real photo of Armstrong (except when he's reflected in Aldrin's visor), which we don't seem to have here. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OK,thanks. I've been able to verify that on the NASA website. menu: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/video11.html journal http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.step.html#1092325Jessegalebaker (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I added an image of Armstrong during his EVA. VQuakr (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I still think the sidebar photo is of Aldrin. I think the bright white blob you can see through the ladder is the sun reflecting off of Armstrong's suit. This photo is used as evidence of Armstrong's suit acting as a secondary light source illuminating Aldrin coming down the ladder in the photo taken by Armstrong. http://www.history.com/news/lighting-simulation-offers-more-proof-of-moon-landing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.13.47 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Normally, I would be slow to believe NASA could make this kind of mistake, but I just got a chance to review both the videos of Neil and Buzz coming down the ladder, and you are absolutely right! Neil's position on the ladder never matches this picture; Buzz's matches it perfectly. Apparently Armstrong is standing behind the landing leg while Buzz is descending, and after Buzz is down, he eventually steps out from behind it. We need to change the caption. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Craigboy: actually is responsible for the mistake. Check the Commons history trail; it looks like the original uploader picked the proper frame of Armstrong, from the original, low-quality video with a black bar running through it. Craigboy replaced it with a frame from the restored video, but unfortunately picked the wrong frame of Aldrin. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Things that worked and things that didn't

This page does a great job of covering a broad range of topics surrounding the Apollo 11 lunar landing including information on the crew, highlights of the mission such as the launch, flight and landing of the shuttle and the space race. The sections spacecraft location, 40th anniversary events and a gallery of pictures of all things Apollo 11 are a great ending to this article. Although there is a link to the space race, I wish this page talked a little more about this topic because I feel it was an essential part of our journey to the moon. I also want to know more about the inhibitors of Earth’s reaction to the landing and the emotional side of the event, because this was such a “giant leap for mankind.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:5b0e:2a00:5533:7958:5538:24e0 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2015

The final paragraph of the introduction has a repetition error. 24.31.160.156 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. There's no need to put the whole quote in the lead anyway. Calidum 04:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

Replace the links following in the category multimedia: Multimedia

Moonwalk One – Apollo 11 : Neil Armstrong – The First Man on the Moon – 1969 NASA Documentary on YouTube The Eagle Has Landed : The Flight of Apollo 11 & Neil Armstrong Landing on the Moon – NASA Documentary on YouTube Apollo 11 "For All of Mankind" : Neil Armstrong Landing On The Moon – NASA Documentary on YouTube Video of Apollo 11 launch on YouTube

by the correct links as follows:

Moonwalk One – Apollo 11 : Neil Armstrong – The First Man on the Moon – 1969 Official NASA Documentary from the Official National Archives: https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.1257628 The Eagle Has Landed : The Flight of Apollo 11 & Neil Armstrong Landing on the Moon – NASA Documentary from the Official National Archives: https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.45017 Apollo 11 "For All of Mankind" : Neil Armstrong Landing On The Moon – NASA Documentary from the Official National Archives: https://archive.org/details/Jsc-527_apollo11ForAllOfMankind.wmv Apollo 11 launch – NASA Documentary from the Official National Archives: https://archive.org/details/VJSC_1425B

THIS SEMI-PROTECTED EDIT REQUEST IS NOT PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL AND HAS BEEN COPIED FOR THE PUBLIC ATTENTION ON INTERNET IN THE CASE OF A LEGAL CONFLICT: A COPY OF THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN SENT TODAY NOVEMBER 19TH 2015 TO NASA HEADQUARTERS' MEDIA DEPARTMENT AND TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU FOR COPYRIGHTS IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE POSITION OF WIKIPEDIA TO TOLERATE USERS WITH PRETENDING OFFICIAL LINKS TO DIRECT THE VIEWERS ON THEIR YOUTUBE CHANNEL. THESE MOVIES AND DOCUMENTS ARE OFFICIAL NASA ARCHIVES AND LIKE THE OTHER APOLLO MISSIONS ON WIKIPEDIA THEY SHOULD BE RE ORIENTATED CORRECTLY. YOUTUBE CHANNELS LIKE "wdtvlive42 - Archive Footage" REPRESENT LEGALLY AN USURPATION OF IDENTITY IF THEY PRETEND TO BE THE OFFICIAL ARCHIVES OF NASA OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. WIKIPEDIA IS RESPONSIBLE OF ANY USURPATION OR FRAUDE IF THESE USERS (AND/OR AMONG THEM, ADMINISTRATORS ON WIKIPEDIA OWNING THESE YOUTUBE CHANNELS TOO!) CONTINUE TO ACCEPT THEIR IMPLICITE USURPATION. SpaceOfficial (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Declined. All NASA publications are public domain, there is no copyright conflict here. And the links you say have been deleted off YouTube for copyright violations are still there and are not copyright violations. And please stop pretending to be an official representative of NASA. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE FROM SPACEOFFICIAL TO CANTERBURY TAIL

THESE NASA ARCHIVES ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN THIS IS WHY WE SENT OFFICIALLY A REQUEST TO NASA HEADQUARTERS' MEDIA DEPARTMENT AND TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU FOR COPYRIGHT. IT IS WORRYING FOR AN ADMIN OF WIKIPEDIA NOT TO READ PROPERLY A MESSAGE. WE NEVER SAID THAT WE ARE NASA.

BECAUSE THESE VIDEOS ARE PÜBLIC DOMAIN THEY SHOULD BE ORIENTED CORRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND NOT TO A PERSONAL YOUTUBE ACCOUNT WHICH, THIS ONE, PRETENDS TO BE OFFICIAL.

MESSAGE COPIED REF. WIKIOF11119B2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceOfficial (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of fraction template in text

@David Eppstein:, yes I definitely deny this is a "science and mathematics article", and you are misconstruing the intent of MOS:FRAC. In fact, the bullet item you cite specifically says use of the diagonal rather than the horizontal line is OK. This is basically an historical article, despite the fact that engineering (not pure "science and math", but an application of it) is involved. There is no mathematical precision involved in the use of the template in the article text; these are not scientific formulae. The expression "two and a half hours" (which, by the way, could also have been written out in English) is simply an approximation of what was more precisely 21 hours and 36 minutes, not a mathematical calculation. In fact, it could also have been written as "21½" using the Symbols under the Special characters tool. It's nice that you're a computer science professor, but I believe you are being pedantic by insisting on using the sfrac template here. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The context is the line in MOS:FRAC that "In science and mathematics articles mixed numbers are rarely used (not 1+1⁄3 times the original voltage, but 4/3 the original) and use of {{frac}} is discouraged in favor of one of these styles..." Accordingly, I changed the use of {{frac}} in this article to one of the recommended styles. However, JustinTime55 denies that Apollo 11 is a "science and mathematics article" and therefore claims that the admonition against mixed numbers should be ignored. Do we have other opinions on this issue? (Separately, MOS:MATH also strongly discourages the use of the special character for 1/2, for the good reason that it does not match similarly-formatted fractions with other numerators and denominators formed by using {{frac}}; this reason has nothing to do with whether the topic of the article is scientific or mathematical.) As for "it's nice that you're a computer science professor": please be WP:CIVIL and avoid sarcastic attacks on other editors who happen to have expertise in subjects beyond this topic as if that would prevent them from knowing anything else and as if that sort of ad hominem remark has any relevance to the case at hand. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I made no ad hominem attack, nor any other type of personal attack. I did not criticize you for being a computer science professor, or say or imply there was anything wrong with that. I was simply trying to find an explanation for why you would glom onto the idea that the MOS requires us to use Template:sfrac because "this is a science and mathematics article". It was a bad idea to try to get inside another person's head, something I tend to do when confronted with an absurd way of thinking. I'm sorry you're so thin-skinned (easily offended).

I think insisting Cold War space program articles must be written in a certain way "because it is a scientific article" is silly. (Another example that bugs me is that some say "only metric units must be used".)

The first two posts below confirm my expectation that there's a consensus that agrees with me, at least on this point of the fractions. And I also think it's silly to insist on interpreting that MOS that way, silly to regard style recommendations as iron rules (see WP:IAR), and silly to be offended by taking criticism personally. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That mathematical fraction is very ugly and completely breaks up the flow of a straightforward English sentence. It's perfect for equations etc, but in the middle of a sentence it's distracting and very out of place. We're not trying to do a sum here, providing a proof, or encourage the reader to understand a concept, just explain a time period in a history article sentence. There are no other numerators around it for it to interact with so that point is completely moot. Canterbury Tail talk 23:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

David, don't let the "science and mathematics articles" language throw you; don't worry about whether this article qualifies as such under that guideline. That's the tail wagging the dog. The purpose of that guideline is to make sure mathematical ideas are expressed mathematically. It does not make sense to apply it to the text currently under discussion. In the text being discussed here, where we're simply conveying the amount of time spent in an activity ("21½ hours"), with no use whatsoever of mathematics, the {{frac}} template, or the literal "21½", is clearly the correct approach. TJRC (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Change wording

The first sentence reads "Apollo 11 was the spaceflight that landed the first humans on the Moon, " This wording is confusing. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first humans to walk on the moon, but the wording makes it sound like Adam and Eve were in Apollo 11. A better way to write it would be "Apollo 11 was the first spaceflight to land humans on the Moon, ". This would clear up any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.144.98 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. —sroc 💬 13:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

1969/71

On Category:Apollo 11, I changed Category:1971 in spaceflight and Category:1971 in the United States, to Category:1969 in spaceflight and Category:1969 in the United States. Apollo 11 took place in 1969, not 1971, so what I fixed was an obvious mistake. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Request to edit The Apollo 11 mission had multiple problem during the adventure to the moon. For example, the crew had an issue while starting the ascent engine, a circuit. As a last resort they improvised and used a pen to keep the circuit in place during the trip to the moon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen.church (talk • contribs) 12:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The circuit breaker incident is already there, under Apollo_11#Lunar_ascent_and_return. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Request to edit Some people don't realize how large the crew was that made the trip to the moon possible. It was not just the astronauts that did everything during the mission, the scientists are the main reason that the mission was such a great success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen.church (talk • contribs) 14:48, 29 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Not done. Please indicate exactly what you propose to be changed. TJRC (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent Statements by NASA personnel refute Moon landing

Wikipedia needs to examine its core mission of promoting pure and true knowledge, and refuse to be a means for spreading propaganda. NASA Astronaut and USAF Col. Terry Virts has announced on an interview "we only can go in Earth orbit". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX_QsRJx1J4 NASA Engineer Kelly Smith, in an official NASA video, says that because of the Van Allen Belts of radiation, the new Orion capsule will need sufficient shielding to allow men to go through "this dangerous region of space." This is no longer "conspiracy theory". It is official NASA personnel stating scientific facts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpXEpJAb8ZY It is time to deal with these statements by official NASA personnel, and examine their impliciations objectively and scientifically. More NASA statements at http://MoonTruth.org/NASA 206.226.72.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a common misconception/misstatement by the "we didn't land on the moon" people. First off, Orion has a different mission than Apollo. While going to the Moon is one of it's missions, so is long duration flight, and a spacecraft that's going to be used for several months outside of LEO needs more protection than one that's just going for two weeks. Also, Orion's electronics are significantly upgraded from Apollo. The components are much smaller, which makes them less tolerant of radiation damage.

But even if those things weren't applicable, it still doesn't matter-you have to test new spacecraft, and test them beyond the parameters of a "normal" mission. Just because they test new aircraft doesn't mean that the old ones didn't fly. Almostfm (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The statement that we can only reach Earth orbit means right now. It reflects the fact that we don't currently have a vessel that can take people further out: Apollo has been scrapped and Orion isn't ready yet. A web site whose author doesn't understand this is not a reliable source. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is this WP:SYNTH, on the part if the IP editor, but it's retrospective WP:SYNTH. Very inventive, but equally flawed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Youtube University at its finest. With no reliable credible source. User should read up and research on Lunar Laser Ranging experiment left by Apollo 11. Neoking (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

These statements refute nothing. They are specific to a current program and do not apply to the Apollo program. This media interview is being taken out of context and interpreted far too widely. The question asked by the interview was about the future of the space program. "We can only fly in Earth orbit, that's the farthest we can go" is a very true statement. The capability to delivery humans past LEO ended with the Saturn V. No space program has the capability currently to go beyond LEO and the SLS is the only program in development to change that. The second YouTube video also accurately notes the inherent danger in passing through the Van Allen Belts. This does nothing to disprove the accomplishments of the Apollo program. In this second video, engineers talk about the challenges of radiation protection in long duration spaceflight, which was less of a concern in the 3 days it took to get to the moon and 8 day duration of the missions. The web links which reiterate claims from these and other videos are not reliable sources by Wikipedia or other reasonable standards.--RadioFan (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Change the first sentence to "Apollo 11 was the first spaceflight to land the first humans on the moon" --Therockisinthebuilding (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

change the first sentence to "Apollo 11 was the first spaceflight to ever land humans on the surface of the moon."--Therockisinthebuilding (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done.This does not make the sentence more readable.--RadioFan (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Armstrong became the first to step onto the lunar surface six hours later...

The article wastes no time noting that Armstrong was the first "to step onto the lunar surface" and this seems to be in keeping with a prior tradition of designating Neil Armstrong as "first man on the moon". What I was hoping to find is some discussion on just why traditionally so much more has been published about Armstrong being "first" when he was only "first" for beginning an EVA. Surely the landing itself is universally regarded as simultaneously depositing both men on the lunar surface and that point both men were "on the moon" in every meaningful sense, the EVA only substituted a moon boot for the layer between their feet and the lunar surface in place of the vehicle floor and landing legs of the LEM that were under their feet at landing. If some mishap had forced an early launch and return in the 6 hours before the EVA nobody would dispute that both men had simultaneously been the first to set foot on the Moon. They were at rest on the Moon, not in space or some other non lunar location. Some of the sources currently cited in the article appear to imply that the decision to not afford simultaneous credit for "first on the moon" might lie with NASA in the sense that some early press releases note that Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon and do not always appear to note that both men together were the first to arrive at the moon but I wonder about recollections of the broadcasts and other media. Was the distinction almost universally noted the day of landing or was the distinction only stressed later on? Are any editors aware if there been any discussion on the implication this stress on first to complete EVA over simultaneous credit for first landing and arrival for future possibly international missions where it might be more desirable to focus on the simultaneous achievement? If so I think some short reference to this discussion might improve the article.Zebulin (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I'm really having a hard time seeing what you're on about.

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As an encyclopedia, our job is to convey information, not perform an analysis of how sources express their information.
• The phrase "to land on (a place)" is commonly understood to refer to the touchdown of a vehicle (airplane, spacecraft) or the on-shore arrival of a water-going vehicle. The article reports, correctly, that both Armstrong and Aldrin were the first two to simultaneously land on the Moon.
• The phrase "to set foot on (a place)" is commonly understood to refer to someone stepping or walking on solid ground, upon leaving whatever vehicle was used to get there. Again, the article correctly reports that Armstrong was, undeniably, the first to do this (when he climbed down the ladder and set his boot on the ground), followed by Aldrin, who was the second.

Standing on the deck of the LM ascent stage does not count as "setting foot on" or standing on the Moon as commonly understood. I don't think Aldrin was cheated out of anything. He gets credit as being one of the first two people to land on the Moon. I don't see how the article would be improved by any discussion of the semantics of this, which would count as original research absent any reliable sources which discuss it, and proof such discussion is notable. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This concern makes no sense to me. The contributions of each crew member is well documented here and the first human to set foot on a body other than Earth is clearly noteworthy. Exiting the vehicle and standing on the lunar surface is also clearly a noteworthy accomplishment. Armstrong did it before Aldrin, so he gets the title. Much has been written about why Armstrong was the first one out of the LM but it really comes down to the fact that he was closest to the hatch in a very cramped vehicle. Nothing against either astronaut.--RadioFan (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Apollo 11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829082429/https://airandspace.si.edu:80/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/as11/a11sum.htm to http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/as11/a11sum.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811123227/https://www.usmint.gov/historianscorner/?action=coinDetail&id=347 to http://www.usmint.gov/historianscorner/?action=coinDetail&id=347
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718173757/https://ares.jsc.nasa.gov//HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ApolloCat/Part1/EASEP.htm to http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ApolloCat/Part1/EASEP.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509164913/https://thenewnixon.org:80/2008/07/23/24-july-1969-home-from-the-moon/ to http://thenewnixon.org/2008/07/23/24-july-1969-home-from-the-moon/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521161407/https://life.time.com/history/photos-up-close-with-apollo-11/ to http://life.time.com/history/photos-up-close-with-apollo-11/#1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308224145/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5848707/Moon-landings-British-scientists-salute-space-heroes.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5848707/Moon-landings-British-scientists-salute-space-heroes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103063854/https://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s951/text to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s951/text
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103064013/https://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2245/text to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2245/text
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720103800/https://life.time.com/history/apollo-11-to-the-moon-and-back-life-covers-the-1969-lunar-landing/ to http://life.time.com/history/apollo-11-to-the-moon-and-back-life-covers-the-1969-lunar-landing/#1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/23232/apollo-11-scenes-from-the-moon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Jack Garman

I saw the article “Jack Garman”. Said article should give Garman's date of birth. (Garman played a key role in Apollo 11.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can locate a source with this information, please go ahead and add it to that article. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarify "Moon Race" Section

Suggest updating the Moon Race section to make more clear that the Russian craft crashed about 2 hours before the Eagle left the moon's surface. The way it currently reads does not emphasize the important fact that the two events were happening on the moon at the same time. A causal reader may assume the Russian craft crashed before the US mission even started.

Original: During descent, a malfunction caused Luna 15 to crash in Mare Crisium about two hours before Armstrong and Aldrin took off from the surface.

Change: During descent, a malfunction caused Luna 15 to crash in Mare Crisium about two hours before Armstrong and Aldrin took off from the moon's surface to begin their voyage home.

Maybe even add a sentence to emphasize the coincidence of the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momentum942 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. I was reading the article and I was wondering if it was supposed to be earth's surface or the moon's surface. It certainly needed to be clarified. --IngenieroLoco (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Spacecraft Location section needs updating!

Hi all,

I am not an editor so I will leave that to more capable hands than mine! However, I believe that Section 4 Spacecraft Location should be updated to reflect that the CM Columbia is no longer at the main DC location of the A&S museum. I would also like to suggest adding a section for the upcoming 50th anniversary and perhaps one for the planned new exhibit "Destination Moon."

The Boeing Milestones of Flight hall recently underwent a complete reno and update in which many of the permanent display floor objects (most notably the Columbia and Glenn's Mercury capsule Friendship 7) were relocated into new display areas. They had a 'grand reopening' relighting ceremony of the hall in July of last year (2016) in relation to the 40th anniversary of the museum's opening (I was at both the 1976 opening and the 40th anniversary relighting celebration - much fun!). As part of the update, the Columbia was later removed in Dec '16 and sent to the Udvar-Hazy center in Dulles to the Mary Baker Engen Restoration hangar. It is currently there undergoing conservation to prepare it for the upcoming 50th anniversary traveling tour and future exhibit. I was just there last Saturday to see it, when they opened the hanger to the public for a few hours (again, more fun!)

It will be going on tour to 4 US cities (Houston, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Seattle) starting in October of this year, and will actually be in Seattle during the 50th anniversary celebration in 2019. It will then return to DC, and go back to the main DC location as part of a new permanent exhibit about the Apollo 11 mission called "Destination Moon" that will open in 2020.

Here is main link from the NASM site: https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/destination-moon. There are several good links at the bottom to blog articles about it's move to Va and the upcoming tour as well that will provide primary source info to update the page. You can also do a quick search of the NASM's FB and Twitter sites to find links and follow their hashtag #ApolloOnTheMove to find some good images from the event on Saturday. If I could figure out how to get them from my phone to here, I would attach a few of mine for reference!

I'm sure one of the talented editors can write up and design a nice layout for the update info better than I could attempt. I would be happy to assist, however, on proofing a preview or providing feedback if desired.

Happy editing! SunDance83SR71 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You are an editor. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Oh dear. I wouldn't know where to begin, Jason! Only created username tonight so I could post the request. = P I will try and read thru the link you added, but if anyone else wants to tackle it, please do. SunDance83SR71 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Corrections

George Low was not the Manned Spacecraft Center Director; the Director was Robert Gilruth. Low was head of the Apollo Program Office, known as ASPO. Also, one of the Flight Directors is not mentioned,i.e. Milt Windler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.20.27 (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

Please change the date for the first steps to be taken on the moon from July 21st to July 20th. https://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/apollo-program/landing-missions/apollo11.cfm This site and others say July 20th. 74.62.131.242 (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. It was July 21 UTC (GMT), which is used for spaceflight articles. I've updated the FAQ above to reflect this. TJRC (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@TJRC: just a quick query on this really. While I can understand the logic behind setting a single standard timezone for all space related articles, this does have the unfortunate effect of putting us "at odds" with virtually the whole canon of reliable sources when it comes to this particular issue. Almost all sources, from Britannica to NASA, and books I've quickly scanned, date the first lunar EVA to July 20. I wonder if at the very least mentioning both timezones in the article here might help to alleviate some of the confusion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not averse to that. I'm personally not convinced that the WikiProject Spaceflight position is the best one, but it is the consensus, and I'm not bugged by it enough to tug at that particular band-aid. I would not be apposed to a parenthetical clarification, in any event. TJRC (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001125211/http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_tables.html to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_tables.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apollo 11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603093127/http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/pdf/a11-techsum.pdf to https://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/pdf/a11-techsum.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929004340/https://history.nasa.gov/apsr/apsr.htm to https://history.nasa.gov/apsr/apsr.ht.

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018

Dr. George Low was not the Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center at the time of Apollo 11. The Director was Dr. Robert Gilruth. Dr. Low was head of ASPO, the Apollo program itself. Dr. Low was acting center director about 2 years later. Also, there were 4 flight directors for Apollo 11; the one missing is Milt Windler. 208.68.20.27 (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting... Do you have any WP:RS to back that up? Not that I don't believe you, but it should be verifiable. BytEfLUSh ^Talk 07:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —MRD2014 ^Talk 20:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Time of landing

In the text of the Landing section, it says the landing on the moon was at 20:17:40 UTC. In the sidebar on the article, though, it says the lunar lander landed at 20:18:04 UTC. Both cite the same reference. I looked at that reference and believe the former time (20:17:40 UTC) is the correct one. The reference lists mission time (time from the start of the mission on the 16th at 13:32:00 UTC). The sidebar seems to be referring to when Charlie Duke acknowledged Armstrong's "The Eagle has landed" at 102:46:06, but the landing itself was earlier, no later than Armstrong saying "Engine stop" at 102:45:43 but arguably earlier when he indicated the contact light had come on at 102:45:40. That seems to be the time the Landing section is referring to. Can someone double-check me on this? Barring objection, I'll update the sidebar in the next couple of days.

T.J. Crowder (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Change "Spaceflight" in first sentence

Spaceflight, as used in the very first sentence (fifth word) seems weird. The mission was not "a spaceflight" because the wiki page that the word is linked to (spaceflight) is used generally for most terms. Spaceflight is described as all flight/objects made by mankind sent into space. Apollo 11 is a single mission sent into space, so we should use something more specific. I suggest "mission" as the most realistic replacement because that is what Apollo 11 was, a mission. --Nickrulercreator (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Spaceflight (...) is ballistic flight into or through outer space. Spaceflight can occur with spacecraft with or without humans on board. Examples of human spaceflight include the U.S. Apollo Moon landing... Not sure what you mean, "spaceflight" is certainly more specific term than a "mission". Though, I wouldn't object to calling it a spaceflight mission or something. byteflush _Talk 00:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose "mission"; that word is overused / misused in the context of space travel. It means "a definite military, naval, or aerospace task" or "a flight operation of an aircraft or spacecraft in the performance of a mission" (Merriam-Webster). That's even less specific than spaceflight.

If you think spaceflight is too general because it includes robotic flights and missiles, how about using human spaceflight? That's certainly appropriately specific. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Human spaceflight is appropriately specific, or manned spaceflight instead. I see what you mean by mission being even more broad, and I do thing spaceflight alone is too genera because spaceflight includes unmanned flight as well. --Nickrulercreator (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the time correct?

The article says it occurred at 20:18 UTC. However, I remember this event distinctly, and it occurred at about 10 p.m. CDT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.135.184 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Apollo 11 landed at 20:18 UTC, Neil Armstrong didn't actually leave the LM and walk on the moon until about 6 hours later, which was just before 10PM CDT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.42.11 (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2018

Change "President Richard M. Nixon viewed the proceedings from the Oval Office of the White House.[citation needed]" to "President Richard M. Nixon viewed the proceedings from the Oval Office of the White House.[N]" and add citation "[N] https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/PDD/1969/013%20July%2016-31%201969.pdf" metarmask (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done, with some adjustments. I did add the reference as you requested, but the reference states that he viewed the launch from his small office in the WH, not the Oval. I updated the article accordingly and also added a mention that he watched it with Frank Borman. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Getting the article into Featured Article condition - Work list

A few things I think need to be done:

1. I would like the article to be self-contained, with a Background section that briefly summarising the Space Race and Project Apollo, and the mission flown before Apollo 11. If it's going to be the FAC on 20 July 2019, many people won't read the the other articles. We should point them there though. Y
2. Move "Moon Race" into the Background section Y
3. There's a whole article on the Apollo 11 lunar sample display but there isn't anything about the location of the samples in the article. Y
4. Or what became of the EASEP Y
5. Suggest creating a new section on subsequent events, embracing Celebration?, Moon rocks, the fate of the EASEP, Spacecraft location and 40th anniversary events. The article should end with the final quote. Y
6. The crew all have their own articles, but the Framework section is a bit perfunctory, and could be expanded Y
7. In particular, a reader might want to know why the Sea of Tranquillity was selected as the landing site Y
8. "See also: First Moon walk" This should be the main article on activities of Apollo 11, not Neil's article. Copy the material here. Y
9. The article still has many unreferenced paragraphs Y
10. Some of the references are inadequate, books lacking page numbers eg fn 9, 34 56 and 62 Y
11. Remove the bare URLS (fns 60, 61) Y
12. The long notes should be folded into the article Y
13. Better use could be made of the available images, while reducing the clutter Y
14. Remove the See Also section Y
15. Remove the Gallery section? Y
    1. Recommend removing it, although if images are relevant they can be sprinkled throughout the article. Kees08 (Talk)
16. Move the books into a references section, and check that all have ISBNs, OCLCs and locations Y
17. Do we need a "For young readers" section?

    I do not think so. Kees08 (Talk)

    Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

18. There is a drive-by tag on the External links section but no discussion on the talk page. I don't know what it is about. Remove. Y

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of Hornet Plus Three? The reference to it has no page numbers. If not, I'll remove it and re-cite from Moon Men Return. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not, feel free to use the reference with page numbers. Kees08 (Talk) 04:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: What do you think of using File:President_Nixon_speaking_with_astronauts_Armstrong_and_Aldrin_on_the_Moon.webm in place of the grainy image of Nixon on the telephone? Kees08 (Talk) 04:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Given that there are so many beautiful images available, and that the conversation is quoted in full, I was hoping we could do without either. How do you feel about the imag in to infobox? I originally had the famous one of Aldrin, but another editor swapped it around with this one. Given the violent political climate in the US, I was afraid to swap them back. But this image definitely sends a very different signal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That's fine for the Nixon image. For the infobox image, I prefer the current one. While for First Man they did not use the flag because Armstrong did not want it in the first place, in the context of the mission in the space race, I think Buzz saluting the flag may represent it the best. With that said, I do not feel strongly about the image, and if you replaced it with another (assume you meant the boot print image) I would be fine with it. Kees08 (Talk) 19:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

If you guys are interested in my two cents: I agree with Hawkeye that the "reflected in visor" image of Aldrin is probably the most iconic of this mission, and should go into the infobox, and that the pic of Buzz saluting the flag fits best in the flag raising / Nixon phone call section. Would you mind if I just swapped them? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

What's up with the quote in Lunar descent? It looked purposefully put there, but it is an accident right? Kees08 (Talk) 20:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been there a long time; I didn't add or change it. Is there a problem with it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah. It looks bad on my screen because it does not wrap around the image, which is why I noticed it. Seems weird to quote something that long from a letter published in a magazine that may be subject to copyright. Probably should replace the information with summary style prose. Kees08 (Talk) 23:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd recommend solving the problem this way:

1. Move the Columbia pic up to the beginning of the first paragraph.
2. Move the Eagle pic up level with it. (Yes, I know this violates the "anti-gutter" guideline, but there's a good reason for it (symbolic of the undocking of the two spacecraft). Plus this should push the text down far enough that the start of the quote will be evident, and at least the confusion will be eliminated.
3. Reduce the quote to the most essential and pithy of Hamilton's comments: Cut everything before "To blame the computer for the Apollo 11 problems..."; this will reduce the size of the quote by about half and hopefully eliminate the copyright problem. The first part is just paraphrasing of the situation of the computer being overworked, which we've already explained. The most important part is Hamilton's contention that the computer saved, rather than inhibited, the landing. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

   Y Moving the LM up level with the CM (which I have moved up) caused too much sandwiching on my screen, so I have only moved both up a paragraph. This should be okay. I have trimmed the quote as requested, although I can assure you that there is no copyright issue. While I'm certain that the original editor was posting the letter as quoted in another work, I obtained a copy of the original. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We need to give some thought as to how important each of the external links are. Someone is almost certain to ask that they be cut back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• All done. Article will now be taken to MilHist for an A-class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Manned -> Crewed

@Hawkeye7: All mentions of "manned" in sentences should be changed to "crewed" per the NASA History Office's Style Guide, with the exception of historical program names and references.

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

Note: This change has been made on Apollo 11, Apollo 12, and Apollo program. Currently the change has been reverted on all of them.

Posted by XYZt (talk  |  contribs) on 22:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that your change broke that rule. I'm going to wait for some more people to weigh in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you please clarify? I may have accidentally swapped the names of some references in the process, but most are fixed now. The use of the word "Crewed" has reached consensus on pages like Dragon 2. Here's an article from the Planetary Society about it. Posted by XYZt (talk  |  contribs) on 22:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning @Redrose64: to weigh in on the matter. Posted by XYZt (talk  |  contribs) on 22:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

On this or other articles, you altered the names of referenced works (e.g. Historical Archive for Manned Missions to Historical Archive for Crewed Missions; Deke! U.S. Manned Space: From Mercury to the Shuttle to Deke! U.S. Crewed Space: From Mercury to the Shuttle): this is not acceptable. You changed parameter names to a form which is not defined (e.g. |firstcrewed=Apollo 7, October 11–22, 1968 to |firstmanned=Apollo 7, October 11–22, 1968), causing information to be hidden. You changed proper names (e.g. Manned Spacecraft Center to Crewed Spacecraft Center - this is worse than a Brit altering it to Manned Spacecraft Centre). You broke links to other articles, broke template transclusions (e.g. {{US manned space programs|before=Gemini|after=Skylab}} to {{US crewed space programs|before=Gemini|after=Skylab}}) and broke categorisation (e.g. Category:Manned missions to the Moon to Category:Crewed missions to the Moon): this is also not acceptable. You made bad edits up to three times on each of three articles; after being reverted once you should have begun discussion instead of continuing to push your version. A good place would have been at WT:WikiProject Spaceflight.

Above you mentioned "with the exception of historical program names and references" - correct me if I'm wrong, but surely Apollo 11 is just about the most historical NASA mission ever? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The reason I was given for the first reverts was for causing breakage for the categorizations, which I was not aware of. I went on and tried to fix as many of the broken bits as I can. I took it to the talk page after Hawkeye told me in the edit summary to provide sources on the change.

"With the exception of historical program names and references" is talking about locations and programs such as "Manned Spaceflight Center". Please read the quote above. Those were fixed in my second edits. Posted by XYZt (talk  |  contribs) on 23:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

If there is a consensus for it, I'll make the change to the Apollo 11 article for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There is consensus not too deep in the WP:SPACEFLIGHT archives (to change to crewed, unless it needs to be manned for historical reasons). I can take time to find it later if you all are unable to. I was planning to do an AWB run to change them all but have not gotten around to it yet. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the change then. I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 7#Human spaceflight vs Manned Spaceflight. There's also MOS:GNL. Google ngram indicates that "manned" is still more common that "crewed" by an order of magnitude, even in the 21st century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There now XYZtSpace, see how much better it is when each instance of "manned" is considered individually, rather than being unconditionally altered to "crewed"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This issue comes up regularly, and time ago it was decided to retain the word "manned" only for the older Gemini & Apollo missions. Per consensus at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_7#Human_spaceflight_vs_Manned_Spaceflight, Talk:Human_mission_to_Mars#Requested_move_5_March_2018, and at Template_talk:Human_missions_to_Mars. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

In the first paragraph after the heading "Lunar descent", correct a typo near the end of the paragraph: replace "pressire" with "pressure". Whodoyouthinkiam (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sumanuil (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

Can you put this image in the insignia section please? Saves having to scroll back up

Mssion insignia

Hat Hater (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done ToThAc (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Landing site selection

The NASA web site which gives the candidate landing sites as "23°37" East, 0°45" North, in the Sea of Tranquility" must be mistaken. The Tranquility Base page gives the coordinates of Site 2 as 00°41′15″N 23°26′00″E which is closer to 23°37' East, 0°45' North.

Lattitude and longitude coordinates are given in degrees-minutes-seconds; a lower level of precision would be degrees-minutes; no one would give degrees-seconds skipping minutes (since seconds are more precise than minutes). I think the person who wrote the "50 Years Ago: Lunar Landing Sites Selected" web page must have confused the notation for minutes as the double quote instead of the single quote. The reliability of a "reliable source" is sometimes relative to context. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I originally had them that way, based on the same reasoning as you.[15] Lacking a RS, I reverted my change. But I'm happy with it this way if you are. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization

There are about 20 instances of lunar module, command module, etc., and 10 of Lunar Module, Command Module, etc. (not counting proper names such as Command Module Pilot Michael Collins and Command Module Columbia). The lowercase is much more consistent with sources, but at Apollo 8 they're mostly capped. I haven't checked the other Apollo articles yet, but for an A-class article this needs to be fixed. See discussions at Talk:Apollo_Command/Service_Module#Requested_move_26_November_2018 and Talk:Apollo_8#Capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The first instance of lunar module should be Apollo Lunar Module linked in text and in the first mention in a caption, with the rest 'lunar module' lower-cased per compromise at the page. It's too bad historically that the Command Module is now lower-cased on Wikipedia, but that's the result of the recent RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"Command Module Pilot Michael Collins" and so on is incorrect. It isn't a title like "President Nixon", it's a job description. Also "Command Module Pilot Michael Collins piloted the command module Columbia" is really poor (redundant) phrasing Magic9Ball (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is awkward. How about "Michael Collins piloted the Command Module Columbia"? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Abouts" in the lede

The lede paragraph includes "...Aldrin joined him about 20 minutes later. They spent about two and a quarter hours together outside the spacecraft..." This historical event, chronicled on the best encyclopedia on this planet, probably shouldn't include "abouts" on the timeline of the first Moon walk. Must be an exact minute-by-minute timeline somewhere to fix this, anyone know of one? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. There is some inherent imprecision about the duration, given various ways to measure it. Is it hatch-open to hatch-close? (2 hours 32 minutes.) Armstrong's first step off the LEM landing pad to his stepping back on? (2 hours 13 minutes.) The time they were both on the surface? (1 hour 49 minutes.) And then we start getting into some of the MOS:UNCERTAINTY issues.

I think "approximately" sounds more encyclopeadic than "about," but "about" works, too. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, exact times would be better. Encyclopedic language connotes exact information, so "about" isn't as good as the timings you mention. So Aldrin stepped on the surface 23 or 24 minutes later? That's actually a long way from "about 20 minutes". Randy Kryn (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, from the Lunar Surface Journal, the timings seem to be:

• 109:07:33 Hatch opens
• 109:24:23 Armstrong steps from pad to surface
• 109:43:16 Aldrin steps from pad to surface
• 111:27:26 Aldrin returns to the LEM (when he steps off the surface and reenters the spacecraft is unclear)
• 111:37:35 Armstrong reenters (again, where he is when is unclear)
• 111:39:13 Hatch closes

You can probably construct some somewhat precise timings from that. Again, I'm still okay with having "about" or "approximately", particularly because of the uncertainty in the timings, the exact number of minutes cannot probably be told; it would certainly be an error to have an estimated number while removing "about" so that the article text purports to give an exact number that is not in fact exact.

"About" is not vague or unencylopeadic; it acknowledges that precise times are not known and avoids providing false precision. TJRC (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Even in the absence of exact timings, AFAIK, there's never been an official definition of when an EVA starts (and a corresponding definition for when it ends). Is it when the spacecraft (or airlock in the case of the ISS) is depressurized, which would be the first time that an unsuited astronaut would die? When the hatch opens, marking the first moment an astronaut _could_ leave? When any part of the astronaut's body is outside the spacecraft? When it's completely outside? Using actual time on the surface isn't a good choice, because there have been plenty of EVAs (including ones during Apollo) where an astronaut at least partially left the spacecraft, but never set foot on the Moon.Almostfm (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping for "about" to stay in the lead for brevity's sake. We could have the specific times later in the body of the article (if they are not already there). Kees08 (Talk) 00:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be cool with that. My only point is that Randy Kryn's desire for more precision can't really be implemented unless and until there's a definition for when an EVA starts. If I were king of Wikipedia (and who hasn't had that dream at least once :-) I'd say it starts when some part of the astronaut's body is outside the spacecraft and ends when he or she is completely back inside.Almostfm (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It would not be an error to remove "about". It is understood that "20 minutes" means plus or minus 5 minutes and there is no "false precision"; the zero gives us the precision. All of our measurements use and apply this rule rigorously. The "about" adds nothing. MOS:UNCERTAINTY: Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice chart up there, thanks TJRC. Hi Hawkeye7, you're doing great work on these pages. On this one I'd suggest that down-to-the-minute accuracy is relevant and notable. The historian in me. Being the first time people walked around on the Moon, the first pleasure strolls and work strolls on another Solar System surface, encyclopedic accuracy should reach the level of the infobox numbers for the days, hours, and minutes (the infobox has the EVA duration at 2 hours, 31 minutes 40 seconds). How about something like "..stepped onto the lunar surface", "Aldrin joined him 23 minutes later", etc., like that. Pinning the language to actual walks on the lunar dust and ground, which is what all the fuss was about. Good discussion, and it's nice to see the actual times. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I always try to be as accurate as possible, proving exact dates and the like when other people don't think they are really necessary, because years of trying to paraphrase the Australian Dictionary of Biography have given me great sympathy with anyone trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia, so I try and make it easy for them. By saying that the hatch opened at 109:07:33 and Armstrong stepped onto the surface at 109:24:23, someone else can say "less than 20 minutes later" or similar. I'm not sure what other people find interesting. For me, Project Apollo is much like the Manhattan Project in its size and scope. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

From the timeline presented above, instead of "...about 20 minutes later" how about changing it to the more accurate "...19 minutes later" which is when Aldrin joined Armstrong on the surface (imagine being alone on the Moon for 19 minutes, I'd be drawing things in the dust like Picasso did in the sand in Bradbury's short story). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. 19 minutes gives a precision of ±30 seconds. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. From the times listed it's more like 7 seconds, maybe enough to drop the "about" on that portion. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2019

In the first paragraph of § Landing, the 107 ft altitude is formatted using {{convert|107|ft|m|adj=on|sp=us}}, which produces the adverb form which does not fit the surrounding sentence: "Now 107-foot (33 m) above the surface". The |adj=on is wrong and should be removed, to produce "Now 107 feet (33 m) above the surface".

The same correction is needed twice more in the second paragraph. (The third paragraph, however, uses |adj=on correctly.)

Another thing that deserves a mention (but I haven't written the wording for, so it'll be a separate edit request) is the oft-repeated story about "20 seconds of fuel remaining". The engines were shut down about 20 seconds from "bingo", which was the last possible time to abort. Abort required 5 seconds of 100% thrust, so there was 20 seconds of 25% hovering thrust after bingo. In addition to those 40 seconds of guaranteed fuel, about 30 seconds more of unquantified residual remained.

• Fjeld, Paul (May–June 2013). "The Biggest Myth about the First Moon Landing" (PDF). Horizons (Newsletter, AIAA Houston Section). 38 (6): 5–10.

209.209.238.189 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done as to the conversions. When you're ready for the other request, please reopen or add a new request. Thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I had decided not to include the amount of fuel remaining after reading through sources. The source that made me decide (maybe First Man?) said the gauge was too inaccurate to really tell, but that it was low. If anything is included, it should be something like that. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: The Fjeld article above is one of the best sources, and it explains in detail the sloshing in the tanks which caused the low fuel light to falsely trigger early (and was corrected by adding baffles in Apollo 14 et seq.). It was a backup to the fuel quantity gauge and was expected to trigger around the moment of landing. I think the truth is pretty well-documented; it's just that a lot of people misunderstand the word "bingo" in that context.

What I'm trying to figure out is if there was 18 or 22 seconds until bingo at landing. It's well established that the quantity light came on at 102:44:31 and engine shutdown was alled out 72 seconds later at 102:45:43. What's not clear is if the "bingo" moment was 94 seconds from the quantity light (22 seconds after shutdown) or 90 seconds (18 seconds after shutdown).

The text above says it's 94 seconds ("bingo" at 102:46:05), but the 60 and 30 second callouts at 102:45:02 and 102:45:31 are more consistent with the 90 second number. And if you're trying to get down to second-level accuracy, the location of the timestamps is important because there's 1.3 seconds one-way communication delay (plus quite probably some additional transmission delay between the DSN tracking site and Houston).

It's all a bit confusing, but something can be said that's more accurate than the oft-repeated "20 seconds from running out of fuel". (I most recently heard it repeated in the Lunar Module episode of the Moon Machines documentary series.) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good; I see now that I did leave in the article that 25 seconds of fuel were remaining. I will try to compile a list of sources and how much fuel they say was remaining so we can accurately summarize it in the article; I would love any more sources or input that you have. I will probably start off w/ Reichl, First Man, and Carrying the Fire; I will see if it is mentioned in the mission report, and decide from there if the sources agree enough that we can pick a number or if we need to put a range of numbers (and explain why) in the article. Thanks for pointing this out. Kees08 (Talk) 20:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not a frequent contributor here so forgive any lapses. But I would like to see this page more accurate in time for the 50th anniversary. There *is* a primary source for fuel remaining and it is here: . Apollo 11 had 216lbs of usable fuel at cutoff, and Apollo 14 had 228lbs. Apollo 12 had 386lbs. Apollos 15 to 17 were heavier vehicles (due to the moon rover) and so had more fuel loaded, and more left over. So, as has been commented above, there was ~20 seconds til bingo, ~20 seconds *after* bingo, and ~20 seconds they didn't know about at the time, due to the fuel slosh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Added to the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is that 216 pounds was enough for way *more* than 25 seconds. More like 65. The AIAA Houston newsletter article explains all. It's simply wrong to say that A11 had 25 seconds of fuel left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Give us a source and it can be added to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do you get that 216 pounds of fuel would last 65 seconds? No reliable source could say that; a sanity check on the fuel consumption rate is relatively easy to estimate. The specific impulse of the LM descent engine was 311 seconds. The LM mass at the point of landing was 10,042 pounds for the ascent stage, plus 4,483 pounds for the dry descent stage, plus the 216 pounds fuel, equals 14,741 pounds, divided by 6 (lunar gravity) equals 2,457 pounds of lunar weight, minimum hover thrust required to land. 2,457 pounds divided by 311 seconds gives a fuel consumption rate of 7.9 pounds per second. Meaning 216 pounds would have lasted 27 seconds (actually less, because thrust must be slightly greater than weight.) This is more consistent with the traditional 25-second estimate than with 65 seconds. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The LM descent engine was at (AIUI) 25% thrust, not 100%. The point is that the LM was ~25 seconds from "bingo" - the last possible moment for abort. Abort required 5 seconds of full thrust, which is 20 seconds of hover. Plus the "slosh" triggering the bingo countdown about 20 seconds early, makes 65. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: we are deep in WP:NOR territory here, but I believe the thrust estimates and specific impulse apply to the exhaust stream, which is equal to the mass flow of fuel+oxidizer not fuel alone. Usable F+O at cutoff for Apollo 11 was 674 lbm, not 216, so 85 seconds of run time to engine cutoff (though the crew and mission controllers could not have had confidence in all 85 seconds of operation during the flight; usable fuel quantity remaining is based on post-mission analysis). VQuakr (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm well aware of the NOR policy and I'm not proposing putting calculations in the article; as I said I just was making a sanity check. I also was unaware the 216 pounds was literally just fuel, and not the total propellant. Obviously, we're dependent on reliable sources to change the figure. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that you and I are equally aware of NOR. A primary source for remaining fuel quantities is linked above and here. I think changing the article text to "216 lbm of fuel and 458 lbm of oxidizer" would be uncontroversial regardless of the wording of the "25 seconds" part. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Second request: Clarify the amount of "fuel" remaining

All told, I agree with the above requestor (209.209.238.189): "Eagle landed at 20:17:40 UTC on Sunday July 20 with 216 pounds (98 kg) of usable fuel remaining—enough for another 25 seconds" is misleading and needs to be clarified. Surely the Fjeld AIAA article (Fjeld, Paul (May–June 2013). "The Biggest Myth about the First Moon Landing" (PDF). Horizons (Newsletter, AIAA Houston Section). 38 (6): 5–10.) is a reliable enough source to modify the text to clearly explain the original estimate was time from bingo (abort decision) and to more specifically quantify the extra time subsequently found due to the "fuel" sloshing. We also need to clarify that "fuel" alone doesn't count, and clearly use the term propellant instead. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason I quoted the fuel figure and not the total propellant figure was to enable an accurate comparison to be made with Apollo 14 (which landed with *less* usable propellant). If you examine the amounts of fuel and oxidiser consumed in A11 and A14 you find a F/O ratio of 0.63 and it becomes apparent that in both cases the fuel would have run out before the oxidiser. Hence I think quoting the fuel remaining figure *is* valid - to make the point that A11 did not have *significantly* less flight time than other missions. (It must be remembered that A15 to A17 had a moon rover on board and hence more contingency fuel to provide the same contingency hover time - but I have yet to look at their bingo times). I also think the AIAA article (these people really *are* rocket scientists!) must surely be a reliable source. But the real issue is the number of seconds. It's the figure that will be quoted in countless newspaper articles on the 50th anniversary. The current "25 seconds" has as source the ALSJ transcript, but that itself says "the remainder would have been enough for about 45 seconds". At the least the current wording could be changed to "45 seconds" without any change in attribution. But with the Fjeld article as source it could be reworded to explain that they *thought* they had 45 or so, but they *actually* had 65 or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a stab at the change, [16]. Feel free to tweak/edit/fix. VQuakr (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Vastly better than what was there before! (Although I would switch 50 seconds for 65 seconds). I'll probably have a go at some alternative wording; I think that it might be a good idea to introduce the bingo concept in more depth *before* the "landed at" bit, and then the "slosh" detail after, so that the text reflects the chronology. The reason being that everybody (sort-of :-) knows the "thirty seconds" call and without a clear explanation the "dangerously low on fuel" meme will continue. FWIW: the skill and bravery of the crew are not in question. Indeed, I think the article should make the point that they did *not* run "dangerously low on fuel" but entirely within mission parameters, which is what you would expect from a skilled test pilot like Armstrong. Is the phrase "contrary to popular belief" allowed on Wikipedia? As said earlier, I am essentially a newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I did 50 seconds because that was consistent with the source provided. I figure we need to balance encyclopedic level of detail with perfection, though that doesn't mean my version is ideal. "Contrary to popular belief" is tricky because it makes the editorial statement in Wikipedia's voice that it is a popular belief - which itself needs to be sourced. See list of common misconceptions for an example of this in practice. VQuakr (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 11 launch photo

• 
  Current
• 
  Possible replacement

In light of the recently closed FPC at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Apollo 11 launch (Saturn V rocket), is there any support for replacing the photo of the Apollo 11 launch? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I like the possible replacement Mitchellhobbs (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

Change landing time for Lunar Module section of infobox from 20:18:04 UTC to 20:17:40 UTC. TronBoss (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The current source in the infobox is this? Not sure where the time is given. The relevant entry is "102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light." The text says: "Eagle landed at 20:17:40 UTC" with that same NASA source and also this source. That first text source seems to support 20:17:40 where it says: "Buzz made the call at 20:17:40 GMT/UTC on 20 July 1969." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light.

At least one of the probes hanging from three of the footpads has touched the surface. Each of them is 67 inches (1.73 meters) long. The ladder strut doesn't have a probe. Buzz made the call at 20:17:40 GMT/UTC on 20 July 1969. I believe 20:18:04 UTC is when Armstrong says "The Eagle has landed." --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so the proposed change seems necessary. There's an argument over whether or not contact of one of three 67-inch probes is really "landing", but at least the text and info box would then be consistent? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Now corrected. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured topic?

I was slightly surprised to note that Apollo 11 isn't yet a featured topic on Wikipedia. Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins and this article are all at FA status, so I think it would be worthwhile to get the topic promoted before the 50th anniversary, unless there are disagreements from other users. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The previous nomination failed; the discussion is here. Kees08 (Talk) 16:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Not sure why I didn't notice that in the first place... — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)