Talk:Apollo 12/Archive 1

who?
The offical roster is at http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.crew.html. I didn't know he died, I should have said his nickname was "pete." SecretaryNotSure 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the rationale for the change of the names of the crew? Does the editor have some knowlege or a reason why they should be called by more informal names? Maybe the editor knew the crew personally, was it Conrad's dying wish that he be called "Pete" instead of his full name? Or is there some published preference?

The rationale for the more formal names is that it's more "accurate" -- even if "Pete" isn't exactly "wrong." If a schoolchild is using the Wikipedia for reference, he might think his name was "Pete," which might later be changed to "Peter" or some other inaccuracy might creep into history. SecretaryNotSure 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You can also read http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800011953_1980011953.pdf pgs 319-320 and other pages (see index). In the NASA documents, the commander is listed as "Charles Conrad Jr.," or "Conrad, Charles (Pete) Jr." SecretaryNotSure 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

At least we got an answer, thank you: (Stop changing this! Links are to names of articles. Besides, none of the other Apollo mission pages are done that way.)

But I have to disagree for the following reasons:

1- The links still work, the links include the displayed text and the internal link, using that | symbol to separate them. By the way, if you follow that link from "pete conrad" the main wikipedia article on him says his name is Charles "Pete" Conrad, Jr. Every NASA document and even the Wikipedia article says his name is "Charles." What's the dispute about? 2- If none of the other Apollo mission articles include correct names, they should be fixed instead of putting the error in this article so it matches the other errors.(!)

3- Not including their military titles could be seen as "anti-militaristic" or a sign of disrespect. (removing the role of the military from the history of the events) The way it reads now, they sound like "some ordinary guys" that went to the moon. But in reality most of them were distinquished military officers. The way that NASA recruited from the military at that time and all it's implications -- is part of the story. That's history, no matter if we like it or not. On the other hand, It would be just as unfair and biased if we made the entire moon landing sound like it was done by the military, which of course is also not true. It was both a military and civilian achievment.

4 - Lastly, and I guess I shouldn't say this like a wise guy, but the fact remains: his name was Charles not "Pete" even though people informally called him "pete." That information should be included, that his friends called him pete, and sometimes you'll read the transcripts and they call him "Pete" -- but the official NASA documents and his real name was "Charles." We may not like it, but are we supposed to change his name because we don't like things? This is an encyclopedia... not some "history revising commission."SecretaryNotSure 00:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC) -

I don't know about this part: "he inadvertently pointed it directly into the Sun, destroying the vidicon tube (idiot!)." Obviously, the is editorializing. But I'll leave that for others to decide. As a child waiting anxiously to see the TV coverage from the moon for the 2nd time, when the picture went blank after a few minutes, the editorial comment above is just what I was thinking.SecretaryNotSure 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tartan?
Is it true that Alan Bean took a piece of the MacBean tartan (plaid to Americans) to the moon?--Hugh7 (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Earth to the Moon
According to the From the Earth to the Moon episode, "That's All There Is", Bean was struck on the head by an unsecured camera on splashdown and suffered a concussion. Did that really happen, or was that artistic license? If it really happened, then an injury to a crewmember ought to be noted in the article. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 11:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is sect. 16.1, Touchdown & Impact, of the Technical Crew Debriefing -
 * CONRAD - We really hit flatter than a pancake, and it was a tremendous impact, much greater than anything I'd experienced in Gemini. The 16-mm camera, which was on the bracket - and we may have been remiss in this and I'm not sure, but it wasn't in the checklist - whistled off and clanked Al on the head to the tune of six stitches. It cold-cocked him, which is why we were in stable II. Although he doesn't realise it, he was out to lunch for about 5 seconds. Dick was hollering for him to punch in the breakers, and in the meantime, I'd seen this thing whistle off out of the corner of my eye and he (Bean) was blankly staring at the instrument panel. I was convinced he was dead over there in the right seat, but he wasn't, and finally got the breakers in. By that time, we'd gone stable II which was no big deal.
 * I think that adequately describes it... Shimgray | talk | 14:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This can be also confirmed by listening to the audio of the launch - A popular link for this is the Apollo Archive site at http://www.apolloarchive.com. I don't know if this excellent archive website should be in cluded and referenced in Wiki. I'll leave that up to others to decide. Stevefrommelbourne (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

All three astronauts were promoted by Nixon
Listening to the audio of Apollo 12, President Nixon talks live to all three astronauts whilst they are on the USS Hornet after splashdown. He refers to their current rank as Commander, then, on the spot, President Nixon states he is "exercising my right as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces have decided that you should be promoted from this day forward to Captain Conrad, Captain Gordon and Captain Bean, Congratulations". Should this be mentioned in the article? Stevefrommelbourne (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Williams' astronaut wings
I removed the bit about Bean leaving Williams' wings on the moon, do to the lack of a reference. Chaikin's book describes Bean throwing his own pin into the Surveyor crater, but mentions nothing about Williams.. all references in the Google search come up with sources that probably originated from Wikipedia. I've also removed the statements from the articles Clifton Williams and Space accidents and incidents. Mlm42 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Vidicon reference changed to SEC
I changed the reference to the vidicon tube being damaged, as the Apollo 12 Lunar TV Camera had a Secondary Electron Conductor (SEC) tube in it. The vidicon was a tube developed by RCA not by Westinghouse. Dstevenb (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of centerfold
I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but is it really necessary to include an image of a Playboy centerfold to illustrate a prank? Having the photo does not appear to add anything to the article that is lacking in the text itself, and it seems to narrow the audience of the article (making it inappropriate for young students). - Daram.G (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, considering the content it's not really that relevant to the article nor do I see the article as lacking any merit without it. I will remove it. --128.208.87.149 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering this is a two-year old comment and had not garnered any traction until now, this is primarily a moot issue. Nevertheless, the entire section is about astronaut pranks and stunts, so the image is appropriate, and besides, Wikipedia is not a censoring body. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC).


 * This prank is mentioned in the larger Apollo history books, yet none of them include the image. Since those books and this page are also likely to be read by students, the inclusion of the image is controversial. The image doesn't really elaborate the prank that much, so the small gain of having the image isn't worth the controversy.  Stepho  talk 22:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What controversy? FWiW, Wikipedia does not act as a censoring body. Bzuk (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

Off Stage
I've removed:


 * In 2002, a rocket stage from the mission was recaptured by the Earth's gravitational field, after being in a heliocentric orbit since 1971. The rocket stage is projected to leave Earth orbit again in 2003, with a very small chance of hitting either Earth or the Moon.

as it's clearly out of date. Could someone update and replace it, please? Andy Mabbett 06:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks like this is referring to J002E3. Cyanoir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

EVAs (Transcluded from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight)
I would like to suggest a couple of changes to the current article. 1 as it currently stands, the article implies that the visit to Surveyor 3 was the first task during EVA 1 rather than towards the end of EVA 2. 2 The description of the experiment package left by Apollo 11 is misleading as it states that the ASLEP left by Apollo 12 was longer lasting. It could be argued the opposite is true as the former package was unpowered and the range reflector there still works. 3 The article states that several rolls of film were accidentally left on the Moon. In fact only one roll was left behind (a colour film that had probably not been used at all). That roll was supposed to be used to document the Surveyor lander but they took B&W pictures of it by mistake. Clipperride (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the intro necessarily implies that ("one of two EVA's" doesn't necessarily mean the first), so much as it doesn't really go into detail in the article body about what they did on each EVA. This could probably be expanded. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is probably a good source.
 * I partially disagree with your interpretation. Several of the missions left the laser range reflectors, which were unpowered (and thus capable of operating indefinitely), but this isn't really considered part of the ALSEP (or Apollo 11's EASEP). As I recall, the only powered EASEP component was the seismometer, which was solar-powered. So one might think this also could operate indefinitely, but I don't know enough about it to be sure if this was true. But again, you point out that what's there isn't really well-researched and could stand some improvement.
 * Interesting. I see there doesn't seem to be any citations in the paragraph mentioning the film, which obviously needs to be corrected. I remember reading something (probably in the ALSJ) about the roll of color film, and the lack of color pictures of the Surveyor being either Conrad's or Bean's screw-up, but I seem to remember (?) it being more like they forgot to bring the roll out to the Surveyor. Again, we should look it up and fix it in a better-written version of the EVA activities.
 * Thanks for the observations. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

weather
Is this the launch that was struck by lightning? -FZ 15:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup. Lost control briefly on ascent, switch SCE to AUX and solved. Worth reading about; it's an interesting story. The guy who knew how to solve the problem only did so because he'd been playing around with obscure corners of the simulators a while before... Shimgray 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have an illustration of the Command Module instrument panels with a box indicating the SCE switch. Would this be something that might be good to post? AremRed 06:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoax
I just reverted the addition of a presentation of why Apollo 12 was a hoax.

—EncMstr (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was improperly placed per WP:TALK: it should be a new subsection at the bottom.  Also, please sign your message.
 * It did not aid discussion of improving this article. Instead, it was an out-of-context WP:SOAPBOX.
 * Such content is probably already included in Moon landing conspiracy theories, but if it is not, that would be a good place for it and especially on the talk page of that article to discuss its inclusion.

Simulation
— Spacemonk 20:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we make a paragraph about a simulation center?
 * Content


 * My French is practically non-existent. Is that link talking about the original simulation centre used during Project Apollo or is it a modern recreation? I would be in favour of an article describing the historical simulation centre (although I have no time to write it myself) but mildly against an article for the modern version.  Stepho  talk 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a hoaxer website, in French. VQuakr (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 12. 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/20110517151518/http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/13/playboy_playmates_pr.html to http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/13/playboy_playmates_pr.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)