Talk:Apollo 15

Postage stamp scandal
WE need to add something about the postage stamp scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.251.201 (talk) 21:08, April 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Apollo 15 cover incident is on a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver1953 (talk • contribs) 21:57, July 17, 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in the "controversies" section.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

NASA template
Hello. Noticed you removed the main NASA template from the page and wondering if you'd reconsider. This is certainly a template of interest to many readers who look at the template listings. Even though this specific mission isn't on the template, and would be included in the Apollo article, it is directly related. Of course, historically, the Moon landings are among NASA's most prominent achievements (if not the most prominent), and arguably could be linked individually on the template itself. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will, but it's because of 's comment at the A-class review. Could you comment there, or he here, so we can have a discussion in one place?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The relevant editing guideline is WP:BIDIRECTIONAL: Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. So I asked: "Do we need the NASA nav bar? It doesn't have Apollo 15 in it like the others." I didn't remove it from Apollo 11, but Apollo 15 already has four bona fide navboxes.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I always thought the rule was silly...but them's the rules. I agree with Hawkeye's suggestion.  Kees08  (Talk)   23:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the purpose of consolidating a topic like "Apollo" without having to list each and every Apollo lunar orbiting and landing mission on the template - which may be the solution that justifies adding the NASA template to the massively historic Apollo mission pages as the 50th anniversaries roll on - is then we don't have to list each and every mission. Keeping the NASA template on the major Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo mission pages seems to fit some of the common sense exception slots pretty much mandated on all top-of-the-page guideline templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By major mission pages I mean not every Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo mission, but a couple of the first, a few of the second, and the Apollo manned (humaned?) missions. These are NASA's crowning jewels. Does that seem like a fair assessment? And can you believe John Kennedy had the gumption to call for men to walk on the Moon and return to Earth within the decade, and they pulled it off? Things legends are made of, in the long run. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Parachute failiure is incorrectly described
The failure of one main parachute during Apollo 15 is thoroughly investigated and documented in Appendix C of the *Apollo Experience Report: Earth Landing System* . It is inaccurate to claim that "one of the three parachutes on the CM failed to deploy properly". The report clearly states

The three main parachutes of the Apollo 15 spacecraft deployed and inflated properly at approximately 10 000 feet altitude. Films show that all three parachutes disreefed and opened fully in the proper sequence.

After the astronauts visually confirmed that the parachutes were fully opened, they fired the reaction control system (RCS) to deplete the fuel and oxidizer, which was standard procedure for all previous Apollo flights. This time, excess fuel ignited, burning through some of the parachute support lines and deflating one of the main parachutes.

Future Apollo flights eliminated the RCS purge.
 * Thanks. OK, I've modified the language. I think it should say "likely" because the mission report (p. 182) says "the fuel dump is considered to be the most likely cause of the anomaly".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Mislabeled Photograph
There is a photograph in the section titled "Command module activities" of the Tsiolkovsky Crater captioned as follows: "Tsiolkovskiy crater on the far side of the Moon. Taken by Al Worden towards the end of the 13th orbit. The object on the left of the picture is a CSM thruster".

This can not have been taken by Worden. The Service Module RCS thrusters were not visible from inside the Command Module owing to the steep angle between the Service Module's surface and that of the Command Module. In fact, if you go to this page, https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?87, you can see that this photograph (AS15-87-11729) is from a roll of film exposed by the LM crew after detachment from the CM. It wasn't taken by Worden, and it wasn't taken from the CM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.220.11 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've swapped it with another image.Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

James Irwin's cross on the sunlit side of the Ascent Stage of LM Falcon
Perhaps it is already mentioned somewhere in this talk page, I don't know, but... let me aim your attention toward the upper section of photograph AS15-87-11839 (Magazine 87-KK) because on the sunlit surface of LM Falcon's Ascent Stage you will see a yellowish-orange colored cross made of two bits of tape (one large vertical bit and one small horizontal bit). It could be my imagination, but I think James Irwin made a pre-mission arrangement with the technicians of Grumman to create something on the exterior surface of LM Falcon, something to give their (Jim's and Dave's) mountainous lunar landing a special 'extra'. But... as I said, it could be my imagination... DannyJ.Caes (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, take a look at the upper section of Kipp Teague's and Eric M. Jones's Hi-Res scan of the above mentioned photograph:
 * https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11839HR.jpg
 * Wouldn't that be better put in Irwin's article? And we'd have to have a reliable source commenting on that. Because how do you know for sure?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, it could be my imagination. Perhaps it's just a 'pareidolia' (two bits of tape looking like a cross). DannyJ.Caes (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you've expanded the local vocabulary, anyway!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it's your imagination; the tape is actually there and the pattern seems to be located in the exact center of the aft bay, and has the usual dimensions of the Christian symbol. But looking at Irwin's biographical data, he became a devout Christian after Apollo 15, so I doubt he would have requested it. I think it's more likely a born-again Grumman employee put the tape like that; would be the kind of statement you could get away with, not knowing whether or not the public would see it. There are clear photos of the Apollo 11 LM which don't show any yellow tape in this area; don't know why it was left on this one. Doubt it was required for structural reasons; lots of yellow tape like that was used, beyond what was necessary to fasten the thermal insulation, and held tags saying "remove before flight". Very interesting; but this would require some deep-level research to be able to put it in the Wikipedia. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:AS15-88-11866 -_Apollo_15_flag,_rover,_LM,_Irwin_-_restoration1.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 26, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-07-26. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)