Talk:David Scott/Archive 1

Picture of lunar suit
Back in 2004 at a signing of his and Alexei Leonov's book, Dave made the comment that the lunar suit on display in the Smithsonian (the one pictured in this article) isn't actually his flight suit from 15. He believes it's a training suit. The caption therefore needs to be amended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qprmeteor (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (Yes, I know I'm responding more than 4 years after the comment) The sign on the display (visible if the photo is viewed in its entirety) reads "This space suit was worn on the moon by an Apollo 15 astronaut in 1971. Moon dust is still visible on the suit, especially on the legs."  I'm inclined to believe the Smithsonian is correctly labeling its exhibit, unless there's some more specific and verifiable reason to believe it isn't.  I've added a reference to the Smithsonian's page for the artifact; although that page does not definitively say it was worn on the moon, it provides some authentication of the artifact itself. TJRC (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott's rank
Please add Scott's rank as Col USAF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.240.4 (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed - After NASA
The article states "In 2003 he was briefly engaged to British television newscaster Anna Ford", but if you check the Personal life section in the latter's article, it states "She was then briefly engaged in 2000 to former astronaut David Scott", and the linked news article, dated 3 August 2001, seems to corroborate that. Is there a source which definitely states 2003? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've found an error. The book Moondust says 2000 as well.  I will update and source this. TJRC (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes please -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you did (that's what comes of having a long watchlist to plough through) - thanks. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Treacherous mountains?
I could understand a sensationalist tabloid rag describing the mountains (which he didn't land on) as "treacherous. But Wikipedia? Well I never.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.162.207 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)