Talk:Apollo Lunar Module/Archive 1

Lunar lander redirect
Noted that Lunar lander redirected here. Perhaps it should go to Lunar Lander instead, or have some sort of disambig page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.41.228 (talk) 14 September 2005
 * I've added some disambig notices to the top of the respective articles. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 21:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

3, 4, or 5 legs?
This statement needs clarification:

"The initial design iteration had the LEM with three landing legs. It was felt that three legs, though the lightest configuration, was the least stable if one of the legs were damaged during landing. The next landing gear design iteration had five legs and was the most stable configuration for landing on an unknown terrain. That configuration was too heavy and the compromise was four landing legs."

Where did this information come from?

The initial LEM Statement of Work that went out to the 11 companies that bid on the LM is dated July 1962. It shows an LM with four legs. Of course, this was just a initial drawing, and NASA did not specify a preferred number of legs. The "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft" reference that is in the document states that Grumman started with 5 legs in 1963 and then went to four because of the shape of the descent stage and because it fit better in the adapter during launch. Cjosefy 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This page specifically says: "...Grumman advised that, from the standpoint of landing stability, a five-legged LEM was unsatisfactory. Under investigation were a number of landing gear configurations, including retractable legs."--62.243.82.106 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Landing legs manufacturer
I've heard a Canadian🇨🇦 company built the landing legs. Anybody know which one it was? Trekphiler🇨🇦 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Heroux-Devtek from Longueuil, Québec (south shore of Montréal) built the lander's landing gears.

http://www.herouxdevtek.com/

http://www.herouxdevtek.com/aboutus/history.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.80.181 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. (My 🇨🇦 definitely includes )  TREKphiler  08:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Consistency of numerals?
If we're aiming for consistency, shouldn't it be with the original? And didn't NASA use Roman numerals? (Which is why I changed it...)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  16:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "the original"? As every other Wikipedia page about the Apollo missions uses Arabic numerals, I'm going to revert the one change you made so this page is consistent with the others. You're right in that NASA used Roman numerals for the Gemini missions, however they used Arabic for Apollo. Although, having said that, if you look at the mission patches, several of them use Roman, although they were designed by the astronauts, so it would be down to their personal taste. Hopefully this makes sense. --Whoosher (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It do, & obviously I haven't seen enough of the NASA materials. The designators & patches I've seen have all been Roman numerals.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Grumman contract
I seem to remember that Grumman's bid for the LM was "cost plus $1". Can anyone reference that and add it to the article? Bubba73 (talk), 06:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are they now?
Maybe I haven't read the article sufficiently well, but I can't see anything here which describes the fate of the LMs. Are they still in Lunar Orbit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.31.57 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why two engines?
I've been wondering why the LM had two engines, a descent and ascent engine, when one would do the job and save a lot of weight. Have it built into the ascent stage, of course, and in the sapce where the decent engine was just have an extension on the rocket bell. I've heard that NASA wanted some redundancy in the craft, hence two engines, but the CM only has the single engine, it was required to fire several times and it it failed then the astronauts would have been equally stranded anyway. Just curious. Billzilla (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Studies indicated little weight difference between a one and two-engined lander. The two-engined design was chosen for redundancy. The descent engine had to be throttleable, which was a more complex design than the fixed-thrust ascent engine or service module engine. This increased the need for a redundant backup using the ascent engine. If the service module engined malfunctioned, there was time to troubleshoot. During a lunar landing with a single engine, there would be little time for that. Joema (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good answer, thanks for that. Billzilla (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Successors" section breaks the flow
I think documenting the details of the Altair lander here is inappropriate and breaks the flow of the article. It especially may be moot now that Our Genius President has seen fit to assassinate the program. I have no objection to including a brief reference to it with a link to the article, under a section titled Proposed Successors (remember Wikipedia Is Not a Crystal Ball) if there is concern about the Altair article being orphaned (as the President seems to want to do to the actual program.) :-)

I also think the Apollo Telescope Mount needs to be moved up with the LM Truck into a separate section titled Proposed Derivatives since these were both not actually implemented, and the ATM wasn't really used as such in the real Skylab (the paragraph also needs to be revised slightly for accuracy.)

I think the article progresses nicely up until the LM Truck section and then it's slowed to a crawl. If I hear no objections, I will implement this soon. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

LLRV
The History section's description of the LLRV is incorrect (or at least incomplete and misleading.) The LLRV (later LL Training V) was a vehicle the astronauts actually flew around in, not a crane, designed and built at Edwards AFB and operated at the Houston MSC. The Langley article states NASA used a crane-mounted "LM mockup" to conduct landing simulations there. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the "flying bedstead" rig, yes? The one Neil crashed?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one. If you look at the article, it says that three of the five crashed (implying it was risky to fly), but apparently all pilots (including Armstrong) ejected safely.  I considered mentioning this in the article.  What do you think? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd put it in. It wasn't risky, as I understand, as much as damn difficult (which may amount to the same thing ;p). I've heard it compared to flying a helo, but harder. The difficulty suggests the level of skill in putting the LEM down safely, & emphasises Neil's fine control in skating across the surface on short fuel. As an aside, I have a vague recollection a similar rig was used to train Harrier pilots; if true, it may merit a mention by way of comparison.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Helium pressures
Does anyone know where to find verification of the true helium pressures? Where did the ones given in the article come from? The ascent stage value was given as 21 MPa which is 3000 psi; sounds about right. But the descent stage value was given as 10.7 kPa which is only 1.555 psi, which doesn't sound right at all. I just guessed it was supposed to be MPa too, but 1,555 psi is still only about half the APS value. ??? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 13 did not explode
The accident on Apollo 13 was a violent rupture of the O2 tank, not an explosion, and such was determined by NASA in its review of the incident. The Apollo 13 article corrects this long-standing mis-impression, as supported on its discussion page.

Most people probably think the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was an explosion also, but notice that article careflully explains the similarly misunderstood event and says the craft broke up or disintegrated, not "exploded". JustinTime55 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thrust figures
Thrust is incorrectly converted to metric units in both AS and DS, you are missing a factor of ten. The thrust to weight ratio is related to the weight on earth which does not make sense, and should read 2.1:1 as the initial AS weight on the moon is only about 7600 N while thrust is 15600 N. Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.51.121 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I corrected the thrust to weight; whoever produced the original number must have been confused. But I don't see what you mean about the thrusts; they all look correct in pounds, and I calculate 2.12 as thrust-to-weight.
 * I used the units conversion template for thrusts and weights (and double-checked them against a hardcopy reference), so the Newton values should be correct (I don't happen to have the pounds-to-Newtons conversion factor at hand.) Are you sure you weren't multiplying the kilograms weight by the thrust-to-weight? I know the Newtons/kilograms conversion is about 9.8 (close to ten.)  (That's an advantage of the English system; as long as you ignore the difference between mass and weight and use pounds instead of the actual mass unit, thrust-to-weight is easy to calculate.) JustinTime55 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see the problem (coded lb for pounds-mass instead of lbf pounds-force) and someone corrected it in the infobox. However it was missed in the article body, and I just corrected that. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Weight reference in lead
I wonder about the clause in the lead section pointing out the CSM was "approximately twice as heavy." Is that factoid relevant to the lead section? (Mass, of course, is more significant in microgravity than weight to begin with). RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it is. Three points:
 * I added the brief description of the CSM to the lead because the LM can't fly its intended mission without it. Do you really think four words bloat the lead?
 * And as it happened, being twice as heavy (massive) turned out to be relevant on Apollo 13, when the LM's RCS had to be used to control the attitude of the complete CSM/LM stack. Captain Lovell described it in Lost Moon as "trying to fly while holding a dead elephant [the CSM] over your head." (You may remember Tom Hanks saying this line in the movie.) The reasons for this have to do with center of gravity and moment (physics), which puts the CG closer to the CSM's RCS than the LM's because of the difference in weight (mass). Under normal conditions, the lighter LM didn't "feel like a dead elephant" to the CSM's RCS. It might be a good idea to mention this in the body of the article where Apollo 13 is mentioned.
 * I think it would be pedantic to insist on a strict distinction between mass and weight in this context. The difference is only significant if you're doing flight dynamics calculations of the craft in space. By definition there's a one-to-one correspondence between a pound mass and a pound weight on Earth, and it's intuitive for most laymen to think that way. It's perfectly reasonable to talk about spacecraft weights which is common practice. Every pound of mass sent into space is a pound of weight that the launch vehicle had to lift off of Earth.
 * This is parenthetical to the point, but you happen to be repeating a common mistake in using the word factoid this way. Most people probably mistakenly assume the "-oid" suffix means little, but android refers to a robot designed to look like a man, rather than to a male dwarf; and humanoid refers to an extraterrestrial being with characteristics similar to a human, rather than to a child.
 * Therefore the suffix "-oid" really refers to something that looks like something else, but really isn't. So a factoid is actually not a piece of trivia, but an unverified (probably untrue) statement that looks like a fact but isn't (necessarily), which of course we're all trying to keep out of the Wikipedia. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your characterization of my use of factoid; however, I would refer you to the Wikipedia definition, which notes "the word can sometimes mean, instead, an insignificant but true piece of information." RadioBroadcast (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed heavy to massive in the lead; it may be true that many readers do not care about the difference but that is no reason to use the less accurate term when both are easily understood. Some easily understood description of the proportions between the two craft is important; I don't know if the lead is the best place or not. Jminthorne (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reason for change from LEM to LM
Aha -- so that explains it. Sounds logical; do you have a citation, to keep it strictly kosher? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuel reserve technique on Extended class missions
Do we have a source for the Service Module Powered Descent Initiation tactic? (I don't remember it being advertised at the time.) Also, did the CSM keep the 50,000 ft. pericynthion for its scientific observations? I would think they would have wanted to go back to the circular orbit for the rendezvous, and it would have had to at least done some kind of separation burn to avoid following the LM to its pericynthion, for safety sake. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Confusion" over Lunar Module Pilot title
O'Dea: Explicitly describing the function was not what I was calling non-encyclopedic. If you want to describe the pilots' (plural) functions, that's fine. I was thinking of the tone or style of phrases like "confusingly", or "despite his title".

I don't think you have any basis to conclude that confusion over the meaning of "pilot" is widespread. The term is used generically to refer to anyone in the business of flying (or controlling a boat), as well as to the person actually steering. The person in the right-hand seat of a commercial plane lists his/her profession as pilot, even though the other guy is "the pilot". Most real-world writers don't seem to have had a problem with NASA's use of the word in their crew position titles over the last four or five decades (e.g., Gemini: Command Pilot / Pilot, Apollo I: Command Pilot / Senior Pilot / Pilot; etc.)

I'm going to leave in the crew descriptions, but remove the second-guessing of NASA's titles. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Design Phase edit
The following edit made by Edgy01 has several major problems:


 * "An additional design problem was discovered by RCA engineers when due to convenient design the steering rockets of the LM impinged upon the LM rendezvous radar beam. When the rockets were firing to maneuver, you couldn't depend upon the radar.  Additionally the Ryan landing radar, a precision altimeter, was poorly designed by being located beside the huge landing thruster.  The effects of the rocket plasma upon the radar veracity were disasterous.  Although RCA warned NASA about this discovery during testing, NASA operations shrugged it off.  It was later learned during Apollo 11 how significant this problem was as Astronaut Neil Armstrong had to land the clumsy vehicle visually and kinesthetically, using up nearly all of their fuel in so doing.  For Armstrong, the Ryan landing radar proved to be useless.  The antenna was moved onto outriggers for subsequent moon shots, which improved the problem greatly, but introduced some parallax, for future flights."


 * It is unsourced. This cannot stand, especially given the controversial claim that NASA ignored vendor engineers.
 * It makes a dubious conclusion (WP:OR?) that the Apollo 11 landing problem was due to this alleged radar problem, when it was known that a guidance computer programming error was taking them downrange of the intended landing target.
 * It makes an editorial judgement ("clumsy") about the LM (WP:BALANCE).
 * It's not specific enough; exactly what testing is supposed to have revealed the problem to the RCA engineers?
 * It is out of place here; the intent of this section is to track the evolution of the design configuration of the LM; operational problems found in development would belong somewhere later on.

Also, the writing style is poor (ex.: "due to convenient design"; "you couldn't depend on the radar"; redundancies "for subsequent moon shots", "for future flights"), and parallax should be wiki-linked.

I'm reverting the change. You are welcome to try again, if you have a citation and can write it in a more neutral manner, in the appropriate section. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

LM was not an SSTO
Category:SSTO says it is intended "for SSTO spaceplanes". This is stretching the definition beyond its intent. Since it was successfully demonstrated in 1969, it obviously was not that difficult to design a rocket-powered vehicle to take off from the Moon and reach orbit in a single stage, given the one-sixth gravity and no atmospheric drag, compared to doing the same thing on Earth, which as far as I know has yet to be demonstrated. Overcoming these challenges is what defines a "spaceplane", a term which cannot properly be applied to any lunar vehicle. This change should be reverted. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Langley Research Center prototype
I just added the image at right to Apollo Lunar Module. It is an experimental prototype; the image is from NASA and was taken in May 1963 at Langley Research Center.

What's also needed is an update to the history section incorporating the details behind that prototype and what influence (if any) it had on the program. 67.101.6.172 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe you are misinterpreting what this is. If you read the Description NASA page link on this picture, you see the words "Subject category: Simulators, Lunar Module". This is not a prototype design of the real LM, but probably a proposed simulator for training the astronauts on Earth how to land the LM on the Moon. (An open glass, Earthbound helecopter cockpit on the Moon, really?) Reading the History text makes it clear that by March 1963 the actual LM design was pretty mature.


 * There is an Astronaut training section already in the article; if this picture belonged anywhere, it would be there. But reading the text makes it clear that this prototype would have been beat out by the LLRV in 1964. We really should have a picture of that here. It might be interesting to mention the other prototype as a side note (moot, anyway, unless we can find a textual source for verification of exactly what this is), but adding this picture would probably just crowd the section. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the Apollo 11 LM photo correct?
The photo of the Apollo 11 LM Eagle in flight shows only 3 contact sensing probes. It is my understanding that Eagle had 4 such probes. Based on statements made by Neil Armstrong after the mission that the contact probe on the leg with the ladder could have (but didn't) obstructed access to the surface, subsequent missions removed the sensing probe from the leg with the ladder attached. Since the photo includes no probe on the leg with the ladder, this photo doesn't appear to be of the Apollo 11 LM, Eagle. --LESJet (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Where and when did you see/hear Armstrong's comments? If he meant to imply that his LM did have the fourth probe, his memory must have mistaken. His flight was the first one on which the extra probe was removed. It wasn't just an issue of obstructing access, but of safety. They had to be careful about sharp objects like these probes, or antennas, puncturing the astronaut's space suits. The LM's on Apollo 9 and 10 had all four probes, but luckily someone must have given it some serious thought and didn't want Armstrong to risk being killed as he was taking his first step, from a puncture of his suit by the probe sticking out by the ladder! (Take a look at the surface photos available: the probes didn't go straight down through the soil; they bent sideways, or in some cases, even stuck up at an angle. Armstrong took enough pictures to clearly show the bent probes around the side and back footpads, but not on the front one.)


 * Eagle was also distinguished by the reddish thermal foil on the legs which didn't appear on the other LM's, and by the pattern of its black markings on the ascent stage, which again varied from LM to LM. Compare this photo with the ones taken on the lunar surface; that's definitely Eagle. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected! I double checked with the David Woods book and confirmed your statement above. Thanks for setting the record, and myself, straight. LESJet (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ascent Module thrust-to-weight-ratio
The article currently says "2.124 (in lunar gravity)". Given the stated APS thrust of 16 kN, gross mass of 4700 kg and lunar gravity of ~1.62 m/s^2, it should be 16 kN / (4.7e3 kg * 1.62 m/s^2) = 2.101, not 2.124 -- unless I'm missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.165.165 (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ECG??
Any ECG in the ship? i saw a vid that show an ecg in the ship Jer10 95 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In the space-suits, actually, I would think. ISTR reading that during the first landing, Armstrong's heart rate hit some amazing number, so they must have had telemetry on him, but I'm too lazy/busy to find the ref. Noel (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The astronauts wore a sensor strap that monitored their vital signs. Armstrong's HR reached a reported 150bpm during the final stages of the landing.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_PAOMissionReport.html

Looneybunny (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Looneybunny

Productions Flights: Perilune
This article currently says:

"This meant that the complete spacecraft, including the CSM, orbited the Moon with a 9.1-nautical-mile (16.9 km) perilune, enabling the LM to begin its powered descent from that altitude with a full load of descent stage fuel, leaving more reserve fuel for the final approach. The CSM would then raise its perilune back to the normal 9.1 nautical miles (16.9 km).[10]".

It appears that both the powered descent altitude perilune and the CSM's "normal" orbital perilune should not both be 9.1 nautical miles. At least one of these must be wrong. Also, there should be some standard of hyphenating or not hyphenating "9.1 nautical miles".

Bugsi (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugsi (talk • contribs) 13:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching my mistake; the normal perilune was around 60 nautical miles. As for hyphenation, the standard is built into the Template:Convert: "9.1-nautical-mile" is used as an adjective, so the hyphen is used to separate the number and the unit. (Someone apparently thought the appropriate style was also to insert the hyphen between words of a compound unit, "nautical-mile".) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Apollo Lunar Module. 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/20080725195300/http://www.btinternet.com/~ursine/LMhandbook.pdf to http://www.btinternet.com/~ursine/LMhandbook.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205062826/http://easylander.com:80/ to http://www.easylander.com

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"The Lunar Module was the first, and to date only, manned spacecraft to operate exclusively in the airless vacuum of space.
The International Space Station is engineered to work in the vacuum of space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewota (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess that depends on one's definition of spacecraft, and whether or not it includes space stations. Space stations obviously don't survive landing on moons or planets, and certainly Skylab didn't. - BilCat (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't normally think of Skylab or ISS as a spacecraft, but there's an argument that could be made: they do operate entirely in vacuum & weren't intended to re-enter.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I support deletion of the sentence in question. Merriam-webster.com defines "spacecraft" as "a vehicle or device designed for travel or operation outside the earth's atmosphere", which implies that "manned spacecraft" includes manned space stations.  Also, space stations are included in the Wikipedia articles Spacecraft and List of manned spacecraft.  -- HLachman (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of deleting the sentence, change it to something like, The Lunar Module was designed to operate exclusively in the airless vacuum of space. VQuakr (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The space station issue can be very easily resolved without deleting the sentence. The only part that has to be removed is ", and to date only,". "The Lunar Module was the first, and to date only, manned spacecraft to operate exclusively in the airless vacuum of space" remains a true and valid sentence. And it was touted at the time, when it was the only such spacecraft, before space stations were launched. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apollo Lunar Module. 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/20080706190928/http://astronautix.com/engines/tr201.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/engines/tr201.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215210907/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apotruck.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apotruck.htm

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) 07:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Apollo Lunar Module. 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/20100201084039/http://astronautix.com/craft/lmerical.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmerical.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100201083530/http://astronautix.com/craft/lmlggear.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmlggear.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130814193732/http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/permanent_exhibits/exploring_space/grumman_lunar_module_lm-13.html to http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/permanent_exhibits/exploring_space/grumman_lunar_module_lm-13.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) 22:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Confusing word choice
I noticed that in the first paragraph the LM is referred to as being "crewed" as opposed to "manned" or "piloted". Many may not realize that this type of homophone can be confusing to the visually impaired or anyone who prefers to hear the article/have it read to them. I realize much of the information in this article comes from a time before such things were considered, but I think it makes sense to use less confusing verbiage. Just imagine hearing (as an example) "This was the first crewed spacecraft to orbit the earth". You can see how this could be ambiguous in certain situations. Any thoughts on using "manned" or something similar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.46.76 (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Manned" is already used in the previous sentence, and using it again so soon is usually considered bad style. Also, "piloted" can imply that a previous spacecraft has a crew, but that the craft was unpiloted/automated. Please note that in today's gender-neutral climate, "crewed" is now preferred to "manned", and most instances of the latter are being changed to the former in Wikipedia spacecraft articles, but not by me. Sometimes you can't please everyone no matter what you do. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Well I am all for inclusive language, but NOT at the expense of a more ambiguous sentence. Please tell me this is not a controversial opinion!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B02F:5B13:DC4B:6994:E1E0:A5AF (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The gender-neutral language proponents would probably have an opposite take, as most activists view their issue as the most important. Anyway, I believe the context of the sentence should make clear which word is being used here. Would someone really write "This was the first crude spacecraft to orbit the earth", as opposed to a "complex" spacecraft? - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am not being clear. I understand that in this particular instance you may be right that "crewed" is a better choice in terms of style.  My surprise is at the fact that some "activists" would change language even at the expense of clarity.  This does not improve the project.  In other words, I am a proponent of inclusive language, but never at the expense of improving an article.  If the choice is between inclusive and non-inclusive language by all means use inclusive EXCEPT when doing so makes an article clunkier or less clear. This should be a no brainer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B005:46A1:E52C:F5E5:BB14:6BE9 (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing on Wikipedia is a no brainer. No matter what someone thinks is best, there's someone who thinks the opposite, and usually someone caught in the middle. - BilCat (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My sole objection to used "crewed" for Apollo and earlier US spaceflights is that it's applying a gender-neutral word to what was not then a gender-neutral activity. We wouldn't refer to "the people on the University of Texas softball team", even though it is a gender specific team. Once we got to Shuttle flights and mixed gender crews, calling them "crewed" is perfectly sensible.  Almostfm (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * May I suggest this:
 * "The Lunar Module was the first manned spacecraft to operate exclusively in the airless vacuum of space, as well as the first, and to date only, one to land anywhere beyond Earth."
 * Tho a bit inelegant, it does solve both problems. (Please, please, don't anybody suggest we substitute "staffed" for "crewed"!)  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  05:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Video
This vintage video is about the Apollo Lunar Module and could be "mined" for source-use on this page, as could this NASA page honoring the 50th anniversary of the Apollo Lunar Module spacecraft. Dig in for good sourced material. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Moving back to longterm title before this reaches the point of no return. Obviously anyone can start a new RM for this immediately but it should be from the old name. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Apollo lunar module → Apollo Lunar Module – Incorrectly moved, controversial Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This move was to revert an undiscussed move. But Dicklyon in a move comment said that "Dicklyon moved page Talk:Apollo Lunar Module to Talk:Apollo lunar module: Same as consensus on command and service module as Randy Kryn noted". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please revert back to the upper-cased name as a controversial move, not a new RM starting with the incorrect lower-case name]. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose obviously. We just went through a 2-week RM discussion at Talk:Apollo command and service module, which Randy Kryn acknowledged would have equivalent result on Apollo lunar module. So I moved it. Should we move it back and discuss a while more, or go ahead and complete the process that obviously has consensus, in time for the upcoming 50th anniversary featuring Apollo 8? Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Apollos and oranges. I said it would probably impact on this page only in that it was "next in line" for the lower-case crowd ( one of whom closed the Apollo Command Module page which I've asked to be opened again ). The Apollo Lunar Module has much more majority support for its long-term upper-casing (see n-gram). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So you think it might be good if WP would be the unique source to use such an odd mixed capitalization? Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It does seem that the capitalization should be consistent. VQuakr (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regardless of the merits of the move, as a controversial undiscussed move, this should have been automatically reverted once requested at WP:RM/TR, per BRD, prior to opening a proposal here. Unless there is consensus in favor of the lower case name here, this should be returned to the stable title. Station1 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * After the other close, this was obviously an uncontroversial case fix per WP:NCCAPS. How Randy can think otherwise is beyond imagining. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But it's not uncontroversial. At least one person disagrees in good faith. There's nothing wrong with you making a good faith bold move, but once any editor requests it be reversed at WP:RM/TR, that should not be denied by an admin just because they possess a tool that other editors do not. Station1 (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "In good faith" does not describe Randy's move in this case. He's just trying to disrupt convergence. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Imagine it. On the Command Module RM the n-grams seemed to favor lower-casing up to 2008, but on this one the n-grams show upper-casing in the clear majority. And NASA is using upper-casing in its anniversary information. This is a separate spaceship, and the spaceship was named the Apollo Lunar Module. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense!. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The name is Apollo Lunar Module, not lunar module. As your n-grams show there is no such thing, the full proper name is Apollo Lunar Module per the ngrams I provided above and here. Well this "RM" is off to a rollicking good start and for some reason using the controversially moved wrong name. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Barely half capitalized, including in the many book names and such, does not come close to the consensus criterion in WP:NCCAPS. Why are you doing this? Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This NASA page honoring the Apollo Lunar Module upper-cases throughout as well as including links to other NASA information and a video which upper-case (I'll link to those here later). The n-grams from 2008 are upper-cased and trending to further upper-casing. NASA is using the upper case for its 50th anniversary information and celebration. So there certainly is nothing wrong in objecting to a non-discussed move when, using WP:COMMONSENSE would keep it at the societal norm of upper-casing this historical class of spacecraft. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Following discussion
Randy, if you're OK with lunar module and Apollo Lunar Module as your comments above suggest, let's stick with that compromise and move forward to stabilizing the Apollo articles, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's okay as a temporary compromise, but this obviously is the same case as the just-concluded RM on the command/service module. Every single pro and con argument is going to apply in the same way. Kryn's emotive appeals to NASA advertising material about an anniversary (which are written in marketing style – very, very fond of over-capitalizing) were given no weight in the last RM, and won't have any in this one.  WP cares what  sources do, and if only around half of them are capitalizing this, WP will not capitalize it.  It's the exact same discussion all over again, so Kryn re-advancing the same arguments that were rejected in the last RM is simply going to be a combination of WP:TE, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:NOTGETTINGIT, and WP:BATTLEGROUND.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I was actually surprised to see Randy opposing this obvious move to Apollo lunar module after the clear outcome at the other RM discussion. But for now, it's more important to fix overcapitalization of "lunar module" and tons of other things in the Apollo articles in time for the 50th anniversary than to let this one title hold up progress.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't witness what went down here, but do I read it right that you (or somebody else) did a BOLD move without RM? If so, I think that was a procedural mistake that it's not too late to correct. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did a bold move, as I thought repeating the RM discussion at this point would be silly, given the consensus. At this point, so close to the 50th anniversary featureing of Apollo 8, it's best not to have such an open discussion preventing convergence. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You and I feel that the considerations are the same, but I recognize that others may legitimately disagree. That means RM, and an RM result is a stronger consensus than an unchallenged BOLD move. But ok, provided everybody understands that this is only a temporary solution and there will be an RM after said anniversary. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A RM discussion is likely to be "same song second verse" since it is analogous to CSM and onomastically, capitalising Apollo as an attributive derived from a proper noun does not confer capitalisation on the full noun phrase, which is descriptive of its function. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I expect Randy knows this will be temporary. I've done a ton of fixing of over-capitalization in the Apollo articles, and this is just a speed bump of the type he likes to throw in for some reason.  A stickier one is the Apollo Guidance Computer.  Even though it's usually not capped in sources, just like all the other system components, I expect the computer fans will want to treat this as a proper name.  The n-grams evidence is not super clear, as with the lunar module, since there are so many capped occurrences in titles, headings, citations, and such that n-grams do not distinguish from uses in sentences. For example, this book adds more counts for the capped version than for the lowercase version, but should be counted only in favor of lowercase since it never caps it in sentence context.  It would be cool to have a better tool, e.g. that would crawl book hits and find uses in sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The confusion on capping might be attributed to capping of acronyms/initialism - but capping in an acronym does not confer capping on the base phrase (as you know). NASA is probably the home of acronym soup. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they love their acronyms, but even NASA mostly uses lowercase for most of these subsystems. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt that's a significant factor, as there are no lower-case acronyms. I think intelligent folks have noticed that capping in an acronym does not confer capping on the base phrasethat "WTF" means "what the fuck", not "What The Fuck"and there haven't been any unintelligent folks in these discussions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NASA is now using the upper case. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:THREAD that would appear to be a reply to my comment. Since I can't see how it has anything to do with my comment, I'll assume it's just misplaced or incorrectly indented. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , then what did you mean by "Randy, if you're OK with lunar module and Apollo Lunar Module as your comments above suggest, let's stick with that compromise and move forward to stabilizing the Apollo articles, yes?" as well as this edit summary saying that "compromise per Randy's claim that when Apollo is part of the name it's a proper name"? That's what I was acting on in good faith since you wrote that. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant let's cooperate on getting the Apollo articles tuned up and stabilized before their various 50th anniversary featuring. We did that; thanks for your help.  The only thing that looks peculiar is a handful of instances of Apollo Lunar Module with it's out of place capitalization, following that compromise title.  In the long run, it's not up to you and me, but I would think this should get fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Questionable statement in the second paragraph
I have some difficulty accepting the current statement that the Apollo Lunar Module was "the only component never to suffer a failure that significantly affected a mission."

The Apollo 14 LM had not one but two critical issues that significantly affected the issue. To directly quote the Wikipedia article on Apollo 14:

"After separating from the command module in lunar orbit, the LM Antares had two serious problems. First, the LM computer began getting an ABORT signal from a faulty switch. NASA believed that the computer might be getting erroneous readings like this if a tiny ball of solder had shaken loose and was floating between the switch and the contact, closing the circuit. The immediate solution – tapping on the panel next to the switch – did work briefly, but the circuit soon closed again. If the problem recurred after the descent engine fired, the computer would think the signal was real and would initiate an auto-abort, causing the ascent stage to separate from the descent stage and climb back into orbit. NASA and the software teams at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology scrambled to find a solution, and determined the fix would involve reprogramming the flight software to ignore the false signal. The software modifications were transmitted to the crew via voice communication, and Mitchell manually entered the changes (amounting to over 80 keystrokes on the LM computer pad) just in time.[9]

A second problem occurred during the powered descent, when the LM landing radar failed to lock automatically onto the Moon's surface, depriving the navigation computer of vital information on the vehicle's altitude and vertical descent speed (this was not a result of the modifications to the ABORT command; rather, the post-mission report indicated it was an unrelated bug in the radar's operation). After the astronauts cycled the landing radar breaker, the unit successfully acquired a signal near 18,000 feet (5,500 m), again just in time. Shepard then manually landed the LM closer to its intended target than any of the other five Moon landing missions. Mitchell believed that Shepard would have continued with the landing attempt without the radar, using the LM inertial guidance system and visual cues. A post-flight review of the descent data showed the inertial system alone would have been inadequate, and the astronauts probably would have been forced to abort the landing as they approached the surface." ''

In my book, these are both failures that significantly affected the mission.

If one wants to be a systems design geek about it, it can be argued that the near-catastrophic roll of the ascent stage during Apollo 10 was a LM failure, from the standpoint that the astronauts were enabled to double-enter commands into the computer. Design could have prevented this.

Mahndrsn (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In my view it is not for us to engage in that kind of analysis. The sourcing is weak for a statement of such significance. In vio of MOS:LEAD, the statement does not summarize any body content that I can see. So I wouldn't oppose its removal unless both problems are corrected, and I don't care enough about the statement to try to correct them myself. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd call that a good catch. I think it's easy enough to decipher the intent of the statement, which was clumsily worded. I went ahead and boldly fixed it. I think we should follow up with a "failures" section to explain the above (which would also improve the balance of the article). Do you have good sources for those? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Only section not to cause an abort?
In the second paragraph it is claimed that "Apollo/Saturn space vehicle, the only component never to suffer a failure that could not be corrected in time to prevent abort of a landing mission."

This is erroneous. The only component of the Apollo/Saturn space vehicle which ever failed causing a landing mission to abort was the service module of Apollo 13 (the only aborted landing mission). The Apollo command module and the Saturn V launch vehicle both had zero landing mission abort causing failures in service although significant difficulties which were potentially mission threatening were encountered.

I suspect that the argument being made is that the LM, unlike the CSM stack, never caused a landing mission abort which is accurate. However, including the Saturn launch vehicle as well makes the claim of uniqueness incorrect since that never caused an abort either.

I think that this claim should be dropped entirely, or heavily clarified.

Canis3161 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and other editors will come by to have a look at your comment. But since Wikipedia is your encyclopedia as much as anyone's, you could edit the data yourself (and then watch to see if anyone reverts you, which is a good time to take it to the talk page). In reading your comment I'm seeing a good writer and observer, and am encouraging you to look at and edit other articles to find other mistakes in language, information, etc. Welcome aboard! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Information about Lunar Module Model Depicted in Article
I currently live in Huntsville and noticed a local shop that has a model of the early Lunar Module depicted in the article. I looked this up to determine if that module is authentic and found a source stating that this model is an original Lunar Module model that seems to have been used in the article picture. I just wanted to make this aware and hopefully someone can find this information useful and possibly add it to the article.

https://www.huntsville.org/blog/list/post/seven-shots-to-start-your-huntsville-scrapbook/

https://www.huntsville.org/visitor-info/itineraries/space-geek/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntsville Engineer (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Describe Luminary - Lunar Module software
The missions also depended on the software which is not mentioned in the article yet. Recent work has reconstructed more and more of it, so it's time to describe it. See e.g. How a Programmer Recreated Apollo 10’s Lost Software – The New Stack ★NealMcB★ (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Apollo Guidance Computer would be the appropriate article for such information. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"Lunar Module" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lunar Module. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)