Talk:Apollo 11/Archive 2

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

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

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


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

In actually, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, and Apollo 14 underwent post-flight quarantines. Apollo 13 did not undergo the post-flight quarantine due to the tank malfunction and the last three Apollo crews did not have to do the same because the samples returned to Earth, as well as the previous three quarantines, revealed that the Moon was a lifeless body. Also, only Apollo 11 required its crew to wear the biohazard suits while the crews of 12 and 14 only wore gas masks. Rwboa22 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I've removed it, he didn't list his reasoning here, and it doesn't seem to meet the wikiped definition anyway. It's a well referenced article.WolfKeeper 15:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * vex5 is either a troll or a nutcase. Either way, it's bogus. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC


 * The topic is not controversial or disputed in the normal sense of the word. You must differentiate between a few sensational stories vs valid criticism. E.g, by this standard a round earth is disputed and controversial -- there are periodic stories about "Flat Earthers". However based on this we don't slap TotallyDisputed tags on geography articles.


 * If you have specific concerns, state precisely what those are and we can discuss them. If you want more background information, see Clavius.org Joema 16:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is, --vex5 19:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "I am neither, sir, and I don't appriciate the name calling. The reason that I added the disputed tag is because this is a highly-controversial topic, the sources of which you cited are the sources which are in question in the first place.". Methinks he protesteth too much. Definitely a troll. Who uses honorifics like 'sir' if they're not trolling? Nobody.WolfKeeper 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Grow up. Instead of adding meaningless and unwitty remarks to this page, go contribute something useful.


 * Uh huh. And your contribution is indistinguishable from vandalism. Way to go!WolfKeeper 12:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The Apollo 11 article is 90204 bytes; the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article is 227607 bytes - more than 2½ times as long. I think the crackpots have scored ample attention on this. Copey 2 14:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And that's not all of it. Currently at List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969, hoax believers are insisting that the dual spaceflight of Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 is was a space rendezvous, either because Soviet propeganda at the time said so or because hoax proponents say so.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Then please do tell, where were the stars in the background of the footage?

...

 * There is no legitimate basis whatsoever for doing that. For comparison, see other encyclopedias covering similar subject material. Various small minorities have eccentric views on many subjects. For example a few believe the earth is flat, that Elvis Presley is still alive, or the  9/11 attacks  were a Jewish conspiracy. Yet encyclopedias don't reference these crackpot theories prominently (if at all) in related articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer, and needs to exclusively retain an encyclopedic focus. Joema 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed it's as low as 6%. Apart from the people who would say anything to get away from the pollster, there must have been people with severely inadequate schooling and IQ in the poll. Those people could have said anything to any question. My understanding is that about 6% is what you would normally expect to get to any stupid Gallup poll question.WolfKeeper 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A recent Gallup poll showed that 49% of Americans believe space aliens have visited earth. Another Gallup poll found one in five aren't sure if the earth revolves around the sun. A 1996 Gallup poll found 71% of Americans believed there's a U.S. government cover-up of UFOs. A recent Gallup poll found 48% of Palestinians (millions of people) felt American Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.


 * : "According to Gallup....'do you believe that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth at some time in the past,' 51% said no."
 * : "According to a July 1999 Gallop Poll, 18% of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the earth"
 * "A 1996 Gallup poll showed that 71 percent of Americans believed that the U.S. government knows more about UFOs than they have told the public"
 * : "a Gallup poll...revealed...48 percent of Pakistanis polled reported that they thought that American Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks." Joema 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no end to the crackpot ideas people have. In some cases a surprising number hold these views. However the purpose of an encyclopedia is NOT to cater to these by acknowledging legitimacy with prominent mention. An encyclopedia documents the facts according to conventional mainstream wisdom. Look at Britannica, Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, etc. You won't see prominent moon hoax references in their Apollo-related articles. You won't see prominent 9/11 conspiracy references in their articles on that topic. You won't see a prominent "Disputed" tag on their Solar System articles stating millions don't believe the earth revolves around the sun. Why? Because an encyclopedia's main mission is to document the topic according to mainstream thought, not give credence to eccentric speculation.


 * There's nothing wrong with having articles on these bizarre notions. There are already Wikipedia articles on Apollo moon hoax, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Flat Earth Society,  alien abduction, etc. That many people often believe in these ideas is noteworthy, and these articles are where to mention that, not other places. In the related articles, there's nothing wrong with a simple link to these, like the Apollo 11 article has a link to the moon hoax article. But to go beyond that and insert prominent statements questioning the validity of well-established events -- even in the guise of other's opinions -- is not an encyclopedia's mission. That's why you don't see it in other encyclopedias, and it doesn't belong in this one. Joema 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Introductory photo
We've a photo and a quote right up at the top of the article. Yes, this is the defining moment; yes, it's famous; yes, it's immediately recognisable. But it's not as if "the first manned mission to land on the Moon ... the first humans to set foot on the Moon" needs clarifying - wouldn't this be better worked into the rest of the text? Shimgray | talk | 15:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

mysterious objects.
I noticed the line "Secondly, a less well known urban legend suggests that they were being 'watched' while on the Moon, and had seen alien vehicles there." in the trivia section. While they didn't see anything but rocks on the actual surface of the moon, on the third day of the flight, they actualy did observe an object moving alongside them. The astronauts on board didn't tell mission control (until they returned) because they feared that someone might want them to turn back because of aliens or some stupid crap. They figured that it was most likely the S-IVB (Saturn V 3rd stage) that separated from them 3 days earlier, so they asked mission control where it was, and they responded saying that the S-IVB was actualy 6,000 nautical miles from them, therefore the object that they observed couldn't have been the S-IVB (mind you, I'm not saying it was aliens or some stupid crap like that, it was probably just space junk (what little there was in 1969) or even (though much less likely) the Soviets spying on them). I looked all through this article, and there is no mention of it, and I think that it deserves to be discuseed. Someone should look into it and write about it. The QBasicJedi 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick poke around and can't find anything in the Mission Report, or the Flight Evaluation Report. Any idea where we might be able to find a source for this? The most likely hypothesis, if indeed it did happen, would be something shaking loose after separation from the S-IVB and gradually diverging; an insulation panel or the like. It seems odd that experienced Gemini crews would misinterpret something as a booster stage, though; they'd done Agenda rendevous before. Hmm. Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Chappaquiddick info has any relevance here other than the fact it happened at the same time. Heck, the success of the Chicago Cubs at the same time probably distracted some baseball fans. It is true that NASA withheld news of the accident in their radio news reports to the astronauts but that's the only link I can see and that's not mentioned. DrBear 12:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should have mentioned where I heard this. It was on a show on the Science channel called "First on the Moon: the Untold Story". I know it did happen because they had Buzz Aldrin on there and he was talking about it and everything. Furthermore, they actualy showed a video of a similiar object from a latter flight (so this wasn't the last time this happened). Please don't treat me liek a crazy conspiracy theorist dumbass. This really happened and it should be mentioned in the article. :) The QBasicJedi 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just popped by this page because I wanted more info about these "mysterious objects". I'd just like to mention that the documentary "First on the Moon: the Untold Story", including the interview with Aldrin in which he discusses the objects quite a bit, is available at http://www.tv-links.co.uk/video/9/5963/8960/57530/81895 if any of you would like to see it.  I'm really curious what these were.  It's fun to imagine an alien observation base that hadn't yet realized they were now visible from the humans' first pioneering space capsules, though I suspect a far more mundane explanation. Xezlec 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

On pages 430 to 432 of my copy of First Man it talks about the sighting. On the evening of the third day Aldrin saw an object that moved relative to the stars. They radioed mission control who told them the S-IVB was 6000 miles away, that being their first guess as the cause. Armstrong is described as being confident what they saw was one of the SLA panels (Image:As7-3-1545.jpg has a nice shot of them still attached on Apollo 7. On Saturn V flights, they disattached after it was decided that they could pose a hazard to getting the LM out during later flights). The object is also mentioned in section 6.40 of the mission report (scroll down from here). Evil Monkey - Hello 04:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. So we have some sources that prove this. So now how can it be included in the article? The QBasicJedi 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

SIDENOTE: I recently watched a documentary on the Discovery (or was it the Explorer) channel about the mission; Aldrin clearly stated they saw an UFO on the way to the Moon but did not inform Mission Control, instead they asked about the whereabouts of the second rocket engine (second phase of the rocket busters) and were told it was some 10 000 kilometers behind them so apparently the UFO was not part of the ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.249.65 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Most pilots and astronauts have tales to tell about stuff they saw and couldn't explain. I don't think it's at all notable to mention visual sightings of unidentified anomolies (unidentified "flying objects") in this article, since whatever they saw didn't interfere with the mission and they didn't even bother to report it at the time. Since Aldrin has talked about it, his recollection of it could go into his article I guess. However, documentaries on the telly are not often considered reliable sources, so I'd hope to see any such inclusion supported by a verifiable and reasonable citation of a reliable source (I see hints of some above). What was it? Likely debris. Space is big, visibility can be measured in billions of light years. Cheers! Gwen Gale 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Contingency television address
Was NASA really going to cut all communications with Apollo 11 if something went wrong? LCpl 18:24 31 May 2006 (EST)


 * There's a big difference between "we're going to keep working on this problem until you die", "we're going to stop talking now, call us if you need something" and "we're going to cut off all communications". I suspect the plan was option b. Shimgray | talk | 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently they had planned to quit broadcasting the TV if some disaster happened.    In the US and I think most of the world, there was a six-second delay on the TV added for that contingency. Bubba73 (talk), 03:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve Bales and Presidential Medal of Freedom
I have edited the information about Steve Bales and the Apollo 11 landing. He didn't actually receive the Presidential Medal of Honor for his role in the mission, but rather accepted a NASA Group Achievement Award on behalf of the mission control team. Anyone who wants to discuss this further can do so either here or on my talk page. --MLilburne 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First words said when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.
I remember what Neil Armstrong's words were when he first set foot on the moon. They were, "It's a kind of a soft powdery stuff, I can kick it with my boot." I destinctly remember him speaking about the moon dust adhering to his suit (I think from static electricity). In fact he spoke for what seemed like several minutes from the ladder, before he put the second foot on the moon and said his famous line. Doesn't anyone else remember it? --Djfeldman 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The ALSJ :


 * 109:23:38 Armstrong: I'm at the foot of the ladder. The LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It's almost like a powder. (The) ground mass is very fine. (Pause)
 * 109:24:13 Armstrong: I'm going to step off the LM now. (Long Pause)
 * 109:24:48 Armstrong: That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind. (Long Pause)
 * 109:25:08 Armstrong: Yes, the surface is fine and powdery. I can kick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers, like powdered charcoal, to the sole and sides of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles.


 * He briefly described the dust (and kicked the dust on the footpad?) then stepped down, but the whole "I can kick the dust around" bit was, it seems, immediately afterwards. Shimgray | talk | 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I added this:


 * "completed at the end of September 2006, it confirms Armstrong did say "a" and settles the long-standing controversy."

on the basis of a news report 1 October 2006 that said NASA's examination had been completed and confirms it. For all those who disputed me when I said this last time, feel free to contact NASA... Trekphiler 05:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I am new to editing Wikipedia, but have closely followed Space exploration efforts since the announcement of Sputnik, when I was four years old. I also have some experience manipulating wave files with Cool Edit and Goldwave (the program used by Ford to analyze Armstrong's statement). I also have pretty good hearing, and have listened to Armstrong's words over and over. There is no room to fit the word "a" between "for" and "man". As nice as it would be if Armstrong had said what he meant to say, the evidence is that he did not. I assert that Ford's analysis is erroneous, and so should be treated as tentative until others have confirmed or refuted it. Jeff Root 01:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
Several concerns. In general, the article doesn't feel tidy. There are incidences of bad text formatting, e.g. ".[3]).", and the article contains several lists that might be better converted to prose or sent to the "See also" section. Standard recommendation with galleries seems to be to have it at the end of the article. In this case, I would suggest taking the best photographs from the gallery into the main text, and putting the rest at the end, or making sure it is listed on the Commons page. The structure of the article is not that great, with the short section on the contingency address stranded in the middle of the article, before the details of comms. Even the mission insignia are probably more important, although I might agree that the contingency address is important enough to not end up in the trivia section. In fact, you ought to consider spinning the "trivia and urban legends" section out into a separate article, leaving behind just a brief summary of one to three paragraphs. "See also" needs to be alphabetic or in some other structure that makes sense. Finally, it is not clear which reference(s) support(s) the comms section; this is probably the gravest problem. I'm fairly confident that if you address these concerns and reapply, you'll get through.

Best,

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a number of the elements which have been moved out into the Apollo 11 in popular culture article are important details of events which occured on the mission and should remain in the main article. Examples include the broken ascent engine circuit breaker in the LM and the sighting of the unknown object on the way to the moon. 86.6.10.96 01:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Mission Trivia" section as it stands now is very unclear and awkwardly written. Would it make sense to remove it entirely, and just put a link to Apollo 11 in popular culture in the "See also" section? I'm not sure how it's possible to sum up the grab-bag of facts that is the popular culture article. --MLilburne 08:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Trivia, by definition, involves random facts. Putting the link to the more detailed trivia page seems appropriate.  Other pages use the same strategy.  For ex: Wal Mart and its link to the  Criticism of Wal-Mart articles.  Abe Froman 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy
Rocks were retrieved, hours of footage was taken, thousands of photographs were taken, reflectors were placed on the moon. What would constitute concrete evidence in your mind?

And may I add that, by many estimates, there were about 1 million people in the vicinity of the liftoff, as well as military personnel and media at the splashdown. By the way - given burden-of-proof, it's incumbent on those who believe it's faked to show some evidence. I have seen none - let's see some evidence, or shaddup already. DrBear 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Read WP:NPOV a bit more closely. See WP:NPOV in particular: by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority At most one sentence about the "moon landing hoax" theory needs to be included, if that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The previous quote is from the following paragraph on the Wikipedia policy page on neutral point of view:
 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Moon hoax theorists are a tiny minority. That they produce noise out of all proportion to their size doesn't make them either large or significant.

To repeat a point I made above, the Apollo 11 article is 90204 bytes; the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article is 227607 bytes - more than 2½ times as long. Copey 2 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

removed disputed tag
Please note: I have removed the disputed tag. To User:69.151.235.175 who put it on, please see WP:SNOW to understand that the disputed tag will never stay on this article. --Storkk 03:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

GA comment
There are still a few "citation needed" tags scattered around the article; seems to me that this ought to be addressed before the article achieves GA status. MLilburne 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, what's the difference between "Notes" and "External Links"? Should those two sections perhaps be merged? MLilburne 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think i've found references for each of those tags.. the references / external links should probably be cleaned up, since there are likely reduncancies.. but i haven't gone through them yet. Mlm42 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to say the references/external links section is looking really good now! MLilburne 15:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say, having read through, I thought that this should easily qualify as a GA. Well written, sourced, illustrated.  Certainly much better than some other GAs I have seen. Legis 11:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA
Great article easily upto GA standard -- Nbound 07:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Moon to Major Tom
I deleted this:
 * "The first words spoken from the surface were Aldrin's, who reported "Contact Light" as the Eagle's landing probe touched the moon. Armstrong reportedly forgot to shut the engine off at this point, and the Eagle settled gracefuly to the ground."

To begin with, "settled gracefuly to the ground" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Second, I question this qualifies as "from the surface"; unless the pads were down, I'd suggest it's not "from the surface". Third, "reportedly forgot to shut the engine off"? Sez who? I recall Neil promptly said, "OK, engine stop." What was said next qualifies as "first words spoken from the surface" (and now we can quibble about whether Neil had to be standing on the surface or not...), because CapCom said, "OK, we copy you down, Eagle."--& "Contact Light" didn't get it. I don't recall the tape well enough to know what was said next, but that ought to go in as "first words", technically--tho there's a good argument, until Neil actually stepped down, it doesn't count. Trekphiler 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Capcom actually didn't say "we copy you down, Eagle" until some seconds later, after the astronauts had already gone through their whole engine shutdown procedure.


 * This is how it went: "Contact light. Okay, engine stop. ACA out of detent. Modes control both auto, descent engine command override, off. Engine arm, off. 413 is in." "We copy you down, Eagle." MLilburne 23:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Earth to Colonel Neil
Talking about when Neil actually stepped down, anybody remember who was first to touch Hornet's deck when they got back? Trekphiler 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the video: it is hard to tell for me as they were wearing these quarantine suits with sort of gas masks that cover their faces, but maybe you still are able to identify them - in the video the scene is at 24:55. In the context of the whole mission this question doesn't seem to be that important for me, though. --Proofreader 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

TV Scene of Armstrong's "First Step"
The caption of the TV picture claiming to show Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon is incorrect and repeats a common mistake. This picture shows the large step from the bottom rung of the ladder to the foot pad of the lunar module. The first step to the surface of the moon was a small one off of the foot pad. It occurred a moment later than the picture that is shown, after Armstrong announced, "I am going to step off the LEM now," and is concurrent with his "One small step ..." statement. The actual step is probably not even visible to the TV camera, but might be visible in the slow frame rate film taken by the camera in the lunar module window above.

12.73.68.145 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)D. Richardson

Conspiracy Theories
I feel that the section relating to the hoax accusations should be removed. If people think it's necessary, it should be moved to the Project Apollo article instead becuase it is not Apollo 11 specific. Andy120290 21:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree about removing it. I'm not sure it should be moved over to the other article. Why lend credence to the moonbat theory? &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazingly, I am of the opinion that info about the conspiracy theory should be kept, but not here in this article. I deeply regret this, since I think the theories are pure and utter bollocks, yet they should be kept since the theories are "widespread" and a part of history. Nevertheless I think it should be moved to Moon landing, since that article covers the landing and this article covers the Apollo 11 mission. Maybe keep a link to the hoax article here, though. By the way, any of you guys know what the hoax people thinks of the other moon landings, Gagarin, and all orbit missions? Are they conspiracies too? Where do they draw the line? Hey, wait, maybe Columbus never went to America? :) Regards, --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the conspiracy theories section and moved it to the Moon landing article. Andy120290 01:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)