Talk:Moon landing/Archive 1

Scientific background
This section isn't discussing the scientific background behind landing on the moon, it's a long, rambling section about mankind's history with astronomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.22 (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this section is very overwritten and a lot of it isn't relevant to the topic. It could probably be removed entirely but it would be better if someone could rewrite it. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

references and inline citations
Does anyone know why the template for the unclear citations is on this article? The template is dated February 2008 and there doesn't seem to be a problem with the citations now. Does the template need to come off? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For an article of this length, 12 inline citations isn't a lot. There are whole paragraphs which have no direct sources. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  20:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lunar Rover?
May I suggest including some info/pics on the US Lunar Rover (Apollo 15 Rover)? Seeing Astronaut John Young in the rover riding around on the moon was a phenomenal event and surely a major part of the moon landing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.157.118 (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi im 11 i live in New Zealand and this is my opinion about the Moon landing I have 2 words that can prove you wrong about astronorts NOT landing on the moon Neil Armstrong.He was the first man to walk on the moon,And if Neil Armstrong didnt land on the moon,Then why is`nt he trying to profit from his fake exploit by promotions and interviews.Because he doesnt want to make a cent!!!!! YEAH SO TRY AND PROVE THAT WRONG!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.42.108 (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Use SI units
I think it would be a good idea to use SI units (km, km/h instead of miles, mph, ...) - what do you think? The non-metric units could still be mentioned in brackets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.206.226 (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Vandalism in Hoax Section
Removed "Some conspiracy theorists insist it was a hoax for some of these reason. In some of the pictures taken by NASA'S astronauts there are shadows from diffrent directions signifying that there were more than one source of lighting. Also when one of the astronauts was standing in the shadow of appolo 11 he was still clearly visibly even though you should not have been able to see him. Another thing that most conspiracy theorists use to claim it was a hoax was that the flag was waving when put in the moon this can not and will not be ignored by conspiracy theorists." Apart from being poorly written, it's just moon landing conspiracy rubbish. I believe that some amount of detail pertaining to the main elements of the conspiracy theories should be added to the Hoax section, just not POV stuff like the above. 24.128.82.57 13:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

List of moon landings
The last editor has a good point, Apollo 13 shouldn't be in that list as they never landed. If you are including Apollo 13 then you have to include all the other missions that went round the moon and it isn't appropriate. Ben W Bell 08:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, as far as I know, the list is complete, and the marker (or whatever it's called should be removed. The links to each of the Apollo missions, I think, also shows that complete information on each of the missions is only a click away. 68.227.80.79 22:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Removed as yes it is complete (though some conspiracy theorists may disagree). Ben W Bell 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

May I disagree on the above point- Apollo 13, although it didn't succeed, must surely have a mention as it was projected to land. There is no mention on the page of why there is no 13 on the list and it should be on the page somewhere? Andy

May I suggest calling it "the ill-fated Apollo 13" to highlight the mission was intended to land...fiddler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.128.122 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to know why we haven't landed on the moon since the 1970's? Shouldn't we have better technology to do it more frequently and efficiently now?

There is no reason for us to go now. It was a goal to show supremacy in the 60's and it has been done, all further exploration can be done by robots. We don't have the rocket power to get there anymore anyway.

Public Reaction
Is there anyone that can contribute any content that describes the general public's reaction to this event? Did this consume the mass media for the weeks and months to follow? Was this the kind of event that left an indelible lifelong memory of where you were when it happened? Thanks, Shawn 05:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this was a huge event for the world; the first time a human set foot on a celestial body, something that has been worshiped as gods throughout history. At least the number of people watching the live event on television, I think the number was around 600 million but I can't confirm it. Sarke 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More Conspiracy Theories
As recently as 12.28.2006, NASA is still seeking fake moon dust. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/28dec_truefake.htm?list955127

LOL

StudyAndBeWise 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Masonic flag
um.. i've seen it mentioned several places that the masonic flag also went to the moon - can anyone support/refute this?


 * shhhh, its a secret! Brentt 04:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The US Said...
From the article:
 * When Neil Armstrong landed in 1969, the United States said Clarke "provided the essential intellectual drive that led us to the moon."

This should be more specific as to who the speaker is. Its not good form to treat the US as a speaker in articles because the US isn't really a entity that is monolithic enough to "say" anything. Specific bureaus, administrations, officials and branches of government say things (e.g. congress says, being short for "congress passed a resolution stating", or the "Bush administration says"). But saying "the US says" just doesn't sound right. Brentt 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened after 1970's landing?
I'm curious as to why we no longer go on the moon. Is it that pointless? Did we just do this to 'win the space race'? Piepants 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants


 * Short answer is too expensive and little political will; yes for the most part pointless; and yes to win the space race. However, setting up a moon base (more expensive) could serve as a practical research and launch point for space missions if significant frozen water could be located. - RoyBoy 800 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To start with if the Pentagon can "lose" 2 trillion US dollars and no one cares (announcing it the day before the WTC attack may have 'coincidentally' obscure it from general awareness), then I would suggest cost may not be a a very good explanation. I won't get into your Federal Reserve System (swindle) here, but even with deflation of currency they could start from scratch and take the whole of NASA for just what the Pentagon lost in it's couch. Of course they wouldn't have to start from scratch (or would they?). Secondly, if by political will you mean of the people, they don't listen to the people (or bother to ask them). Thirdly, if it is pointless why are they planning to go back. This is all rhetorical, I don't need a response.
 * You dont need a response because you're insane. Seriously.  You're simultaneously buying into every possible conspiracy in one paragraph and then smugly stating "you dont need a response"  Have fun (although it doesnt SOUND like fun) living in that miserable alternate reality where everything is the machination of a shadow organization out to "get you".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.34.33 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism By Myself

 * Hi everyone. I edited this page and added a false claim to the introduction (regarding the conspiracy theories) about 3 minutes ago. I just wanted to say I didn't actually mean to do what it looks like. It's kind of hard to explain, but my teacher made a remark about Wikipedia earlier today and I wanted to prove a point. He said that Wikipedia is very unreliable because anyone can edit, etc. I'm sure we've all heard it before. However, he said that "I could even go to the page about the Holocaust and say it never happened; then it would be regarded as fact and never edited because people don't fact check things on Wikipedia." So thank you John254 for the fast edit--you just proved my point. Again, I realize this is hypocritical and I apologize. Saeghwin 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not hypocritical, it's just... not a super duper thing to do.  We have a document that addresses this specifically, WP:POINT.  No worries, I know you were trying to actually cause trouble, and we appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't do it again.  If the subject comes up, just tell 'em about what happened this time or show them the history for a high profile article, there's usually some vandalism and reversion you can show as evidence.  Best regards, C HAIRBOY  (☎) 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess we do have an article on everything. Heh...I wonder what you'd be saying if I had edited the Holocaust article instead. That wouldn't be quite as forgivable I imagine. Saeghwin 02:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may, if someone isn't watching an article (as there will be for major articles) you can manipulate it to your heart's content until someone educated comes along and edits it back. Jachra (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It just showed that the foundations behind Wikipedia are strong- with enough people looking over it stands more chance of telling the truth. An interesting point- if the Holocaust was deleted by a German user, he or she would be breaking the law in Germany, even though it would be quickly reverted back. I don't see a need to apologise or be ticked off, user Saeghwin was merely operating within the system and the system was resiliant enough to resist and carry on on the true path. The only problem with Wikipedia is that protocols are not clear, but that is because I have not really read the instructions myself.. I need a ticking off too......fiddler.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.128.122 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the validity of Peter Shann Smith's claim to so-called "scientific proof" that the word "a" is in Armstrong's moon landing speech
Peter Shann Smith's claim to have proven the existence of the word "a" in Armstrong's speech is completely unscientific. For a start, the original NASA audio download that Peter links to on Control Bonics' website is 8bit, 11kHz, a level of quality that a speech analysis researcher would be very unlikely to rely on to make a claim like this. Further, I would take issue with Peter's claim in his PDF that the noise removal process does not change critical voice characteristics. Does Peter know anything about the process used to remove noise from a recording? I doubt it, since he doesn't even use a spectrogram analysis of the audio in question to search for the true signs of a voiced "a", rather than original transmission or subsequent signal coding artifacts. Finally, I think it's a complete farce of Peter to claim his "research " is valid after peer assessment by an astronaut and a physiotherapist with a Masters in Biomechanics, rather than some well respected researchers in speech analysis. I am not questioning what phrase was actually uttered by Armstrong, but I am totally questioning Peter Shann Ford's authority, and his motivation. I suspect this is all a publicity stunt for himself and the Control Bionics company, if not also Goldwave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.3.39 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, yeah, there's quite a few people who dispute his claim. For a start, there's a whole field of Linguistics which deals with taking audio of speech and figuring out what was said, as in, the actual mouth movements. Phonology, I mean. It seems Peter wasn't as aware of the field as he should have been, nor of the fact that phonologists have been using computational analysis of speech for decades. I mean, I don't agree with the sentiment that his research was 'unscientific', I just think it was scientifically naive. There's some good analysis by professional linguists at Language Log:, , . In any case, I think this article does a good job of staying away from the controversy.
 * I've recently replaced what were brakets around the a (like: (a)), with editorial brackets (like: [a]). I think this more elegantly brings across the point that it's what he meant to say, even if there's controversy over if he did. --Dom 21:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the cultural significance of the quote, I don't think a small explanation would be out of order. Something like:

(there is heavy dispute among the scientific community as to whether the word "a" was in the original transmission).

Or even:

''There is dispute as to whether Armstrong used the word "a" in his original speech. The word was not present in the original recording, but this may be due to the poor quality of the transmission. Armstrong claims that he said it, and noted researcher Peter Shann Smith claims to have found scientifically proof that it was present. However, Smith's claims are disputed among academia, and the issue remains unsettled.''

With citations, of course, for both points of view. -Patstuart 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone vandalized this article
I don't know how to correct these articles, and only registered to point out that someone rewrote/edited it to read that the first man to walk on the moon was an Englishman named Mr. Bean.

Unless history has been revised, I don't think that is correct.

Ox41234 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)ox41234

So.. does USA "own" the moon?
what's with all the flag loving i see on the photos in mission articles. --Leladax 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the LEM plaque it says "We came in peace for all mankind". The US stated to begin with that our landing should not viewed as a declaration of ownership, and in fact originally multiple national flags were to be planted. However the selection process became so involved with trying to balance out equal representation without leaving out some and "hurting feelings" the entire idea was scrapped and just the US flag was planted. And the reason you see the flag everywhere? if you had just landed on the moon don't you think you would be proud of your country? Draknfyre 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories
I have placed the conspiracy theroies section into this article which was formely part of the Apollo 11 article. Andy120290 01:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying (probably in vain) to do something to sort out that most controversial of articles at the moment. It does strike me that the treatment in this article is actually way too much for a NPOV (given the weighting to minority views). Ii think it would be better in a link of "see also" magnitude, not a whole section taking up so much of the page. Before I'm shot, I'll sign out. LeeG 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the conspiracy section should not try to refute the conspiracies, but rather, just mention them and point to the appropriate link. Jrbart 16:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

24 people?
Just doing a bit of clean up, and I moved a rather odd sentence "In the history of NASA, there have been 24 Astronauts who have travelled to the Moon." from the Hoax bit to the list of missions (seemed a bit more appropriate) but I am struggling to reconcile the number. Is 24 correct? It looks too big to me, but I have no direct knowledge one way or the other. LeeG 21:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That presumably includes people who orbited but didn't land. Though I make that 27, not 24 (Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 to 17). I suppose Apollo 13 didn't actually go into orbit, but they did pass around the back to slingshot them to Earth.Mark Grant 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, and I was forgetting that some people went twice :). Maybe that explains it. Mark Grant 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that was where I was confused, I had assumed "travelled to" meant "set foot on" which is an entirely different thing. Thanks for the clarification. LeeG 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Here's the list of people who have gone to the moon, given as CDR, CMP, LMP

Apollo 8	Borman, Lovell, Anders Apollo 10	Stafford, Young, Cernan Apollo 11	Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin Apollo 12	Conrad, Gordon, Bean Apollo 13	Lovell, Swigert, Haise Apollo 14	Shepard, Roosa, Mitchell Apollo 15 	Scott, Worden, Irwin Apollo 16	Young, Mattingly, Duke Apollo 17	Cernan, Evans, Schmitt

9 missions, but Lovell, Young and Cernan each went to the lunar vicintity twice.

Next moon landing
Should there be some info about China's prospected moon landing? Brutannica 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there much information about Chinese plans? There have been plans for various landings ever since the end of Apollo, but obviously none have ever come to anything.


 * I guess it might be worth having a 'future plans' section giving a brief description of which countries and companies have said what. Mark Grant 17:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Moon Landing Hoax entries in "See Also" section
I recommend that the explicitly named Moon Landing Hoax "documentaries" be removed from the "See also" section. There is already a link to the page addressing this issue, and if these are of any notability they should be found there. There is no need to name them individually. Having them listed on this page merely convolutes the "See Also" section.128.54.152.172 19:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Astronaut on ladder photo
I seen information that this photo was actually of Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong. The story goes that there could not be a photo or video of Armstrong coming down the ladder since no one was on the moon yet and this is just a mistake that gets perpetuated because it is more media friendly. There are no citations for where this photo comes from to prove it's validity as being Armstrong. If this can be provided and verified as being from NASA and not some other source that may have miss captioned the photo it should be provided. (IRMacGuyver 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

For the record, the Apollo 11 lunar black-and-white video recordings were taken by an electronic TV camera attached to the side of the lunar module near the ladder and later moved to a tripod stand. Video recordings were thus never "taken" by either astronaut. There is a single color film photograph of Armstrong, near the lunar module and with his back to the camera, that was taken by Aldrin; all other color photos were taken by Armstrong of Aldrin. There are two widely used video stills circulating today, one with the vertical sync bar in the middle of the frame and one without. Which of these is Armstrong, if either, is not widely known and would need to be certified by a NASA historian. 74.92.213.117 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC) rickyjames

Scope - Earth's Moon or any planet's moon
I would like to develop a clearer concensus on whether this article should cover landings on the moons of any planet, or only landings on the Earth's Moon. My personal preference is to tighten the scope of the article to just Earth's Moon, with the exception of a single section near the end mentioning that some spacecraft might also land on the moons of other planets, and on the surfaces of other bodies smaller in size than planets, i.e. asteroids. The current lead sentence which reads:"A moon landing is the arrival of an intact manned or unmanned spacecraft on the surface of a planet's natural satellite." is not supported by the current article content, and although landings on those other moons are important, the subject of landings on Earth's Moon is worthy of an entire Wikipedia article unto itself. (sdsds - talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should restrict to the Earth's Moon. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article, as it is written, only discusses landing on Earths moon. In my view this is by far the more relevent and important topic. I have changed the article lead to a discussion of Earths moon only to better reflect the content of the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of color
How does the recently added use of color in this article comply with the Manual of Style, which at WP:MOSCOLOR reads, "It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color?" (sdsds - talk) 03:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is NOT found in WP:MOSCOLOR as you claim!!! Please read the actual "color coding" section directly below your link - "It is certainly desirable to use color as an aid for those who can see it, but the information should still be accessible without it.". I therefore read the manual of style as saying that colour should not be used to convey information solely. The use of color here is relatively subdued, intuitively understandable, and as noted, does not cause colour-blind people to lose any information. Ingolfson (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but look again! WP:MOSCOLOR is a redirect to Manual of Style. The text I quoted above is copied directly from the current revision of the page. That section strongly asserts: Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. The current use of e.g.  does not appear to be in compliance. By the way I agree with your reading of the section below, which relates to use of color as the sole means of conveying information, and agree with you that this is not the case for this article. I would like to further point out that there are many tables of mission successes and failures in the articles within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight. It would be great if there were some consistent way these mission outcomes were indicated across all the articles. Using a template might be the right approach, eh? (sdsds - talk) 05:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in this case, one MOS seems to conflict with the other which notes that the use of colour is "desirable". That should be cleared up, and my opinion is that Wikipedia-wide, colour should not be generally banned. As for templates, yes, that would be good, but I am not a common contributor to space articles, so I will let others do that standardisation. Ingolfson (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the "Hoax accusations" section

 * 1) It gives undue weight to hoax accusations which have no merit.
 * 2) The sentence "However, it has recently become apparent that from the multiple scheduled or proposed governmental and private efforts to send landers or orbiters to the Moon, it is likely that independent proof will be returned, and conclude any conspiracy theories" is hopelessly naive; true hoax believers will never have their mind changed by any evidence.
 * 3) In its place, a link to Apollo moon landing hoax accusations should be added to the "See also" section.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Sadly, although the hoax assertions have no merit, they are notable. A way to give them appropriate weight would be to retain the section and the main link, and eliminate all but a brief description of the assertions and the best proof they are false, i.e. the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment retroreflectors. The other paragraphs contain material which will likely creep in again; removing it is merely a cleanup chore. (sdsds - talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MIP Impact location
The article lists as impact coordinates:

000.00S 016.30E

However these numbers are apparently wrong ("Impact in southpolar region"). Are there any real numbers available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.6.118 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Listing (hard and soft) landings
I see MIP (ISRO) but there's no mention of SMART-1 (ESA) in the article ?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.2.126 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Return to conspiracy theory
Easy to debunk it all. If no craft went to the Moon the Soviets would have known from their tracking devices, in other words, they would not detect any radio signals coming from the Moon and would have voiced their suspicions (they didn't). One could argue that maybe a craft went up with no astronauts in it. So would it realistically have been possible to either fool the whole of NASA or (if they were in on a hoax) keep them quiet for 40 years?! Someone would have let the cat out of the bag. Easier to send the astronauts than make a movie to hoax it. Isnotwen (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this on the discussion page?

Vandalism in the article
I just created an account to report this paragraph in this important article that reads as follows:

"The United States space agency NASA achieved the first manned landing on Earth's Moon as part of the Apollo 11 mission commanded by Thomas Nowell. On July 20, 1969, Nowell, accompanied by Mohammed "pino" Shah, landed the lunar module Eagle on the surface of the Moon, while Lamin Bojang orbited above. Nowell and Shah spent a day on the surface of the Moon before returning to Earth. NASA carried out six manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972."

How does one correct this? I don;t think Nowell, Shah and Bojang were the first to land on the moon.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckmutations (talk • contribs) 02:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Goal of humankind?
It says The concept has been a goal of humankind since it was first appreciated that the Moon is Earth's closest large celestial body.. That's going way too far. Most people who have lived never thought about it and didn't care. It became a goal (of some, at least) more in the 20th century. Saros136 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious portion of the article - reason for Apollo 8 change
The article states the following about the Apollo 8 mission changing to a lunar visit rather than a lunar module (LM) test:


 * However, believing from faulty CIA intelligence that a Soviet manned lunar flight was imminent in late 1968, NASA fatefully changed the flight plan of Apollo 8 from an Earth-orbit to a riskier lunar orbit mission scheduled for late December 1968.

This is not supported by most of the literature that I've read on the subject. What I seem to recall is that there were ongoing problems with the LM, and that it would not be ready on time for Apollo 8. If Apollo 8 were to launch on schedule, as things were planned at the time, it would essentially be a repeat of Apollo 7, and therefore a waste. Someone at NASA had the idea of having Apollo 8 orbit the moon instead of staying at Earth, which would allow them to test the command/service module (CSM) systems in a realistic situation. The political advantage it would gain may have been a consideration, but I do not believe it was the main one.

However, I do not currently have a reliable source in front of me. Therefore, for now, I'm marking that section with the tag, in the hopes that someone might be able to clarify that section later. — MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is one of many links documenting a CIA connection to Apollo 8. Just Google "Apollo 8 CIA" for more.


 * http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1868461,00.html?iid=fb_share —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.36.53 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've read Lost Moon since my last post, and there is indeed a CIA connection. However, that wasn't the only factor according to the book, and as I stated before, not even the main one.  As stated before, Apollo 8 was originally planned as a low-orbit test of the lunar module—but the LM wasn't going to be ready in time.  It was George Low, a high official at NASA, who suggested the change in mission so that if Apollo 7 went well (as it did), Apollo 8 would become a so-called "C-prime" mission, and would fly to the moon.  In addition, the crews of Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 were switched, as Jim McDivitt had already made it clear he wanted to test the LM, and Borman, Lovell, and Anders were working on the kind of high-altitude reentry maneuvers that would be necessary in the C-prime mission.  — MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs) 18:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Need a volunteer to re-write the Intro
Is anyone who pays attention to this page feeling up to re-writing the intro? It had been tagged for ages, and contained an interesting Jules Verne quotation, which really needed to be moved elsewhere. I've stripped it down to essentials, but now it kind of sucks. Would anyone be willing to do a quick outline of the major points, as per wiki guidelines? If no one else gets around to it, I will try to tackle it in the next few days. -- Oliver<  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoax dispute
'''Some claims can be empirically discredited by three retroreflector arrays left on the Moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15. Today, anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system may bounce laser beams off these devices, verifying deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at historically documented Apollo moon landing sites. This evidence indicates the deployment of equipment which was constructed on Earth and successfully transported to the surface of the Moon -- though a manned mission was not necessary to do so.'''

Please discuss before resuming any edit war. 74.50.94.234 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the reference you removed. Please do not remove sourced material from the article. By all means discuss the matter here. If there is consensus to remove it, fine. However, from your presentation, above, it is unclear why you think that it this should be removed. Please explain. Sunray (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think this paragraph should be removed, and the section should just be a reference to conspiracy theories existing and a link to the page discussing them. I don't see a justification in this particular rebuttal being given space on this page, when none of the others are. Although the retroreflectors evidence may be empirical, it is not readily demonstrable. Unlike other evidence which can be readily shown - even repeated in the living room for the most part, or shown as a fallacy with common sense; it's almost impossible to make a convincing, mass public demonstration of the retroreflectors. All observers see is a graph on a monitor and not all observers have any possibility of procuring equipment to make their own test. As far as evidence to convince people who are almost bent on disbelief goes, it's pretty weak, and certainly not something to put it on this page when all other arguments are in a different article.

But having said my piece, I will take no further part in this debate, because in my experience, Wikipedia "oh, oh, oh... don't delete this paragraph" arguments are a hiding-to-nothing: consensus by complainers is taken to mean a requirement of universal agreement, although I doubt consensus was sought before adding the content. Tsuchan (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate crashes..
"For example, during the Apollo program the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V moon rocket as well as the spent ascent stage of the lunar module were deliberately crashed on the moon several times ..." How exactly do you crash something several times? 68.177.12.38 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they mean the third stages from several missions were crashed once each onto the moon to help calibrate the seismometers left on the surface. Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

India's MIP a hard landing?
India's MIP mission is detailed under the section titled "Recent unmanned hard landings". It appears that MIP crashed on the surface of the Moon, it was therefore not a hard landing. Should the section's title be changed?

Furthermore under the section titled "Unmanned landings" there is also the claim that the former Soviet Union, the United States, Japan, Europe, India and China have all achieved hard Moon landings  (emphasis mine). Can anyone with knowledge sort this out? Thanks. Pristino (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Successes listed as failures and double standards
Why are a bunch of Soviet missions where the goals were achieved listed as failures? For example, Cosmos-146, Cosmos-154, Zond-4 and Zond-6 all achieved their goals, despite various malfunctions. Then the double standards begin with Apollo 13, which failed to achieve its goals but is listed with some strange oxymoron - "Successful failure" (maybe it means failure didn't turn into human loss, but the mission still failed). Apollo 3 and 5 are listed as successes, despite uncontrolled landings which would warrant a "failure" for a Soviet mission. This article needs some consistency. If a mission achieved its goal, it should be listed as success. If it did not achieve its goal, it should be listed as "failure". Missions that achieved their goals but ran into problems should be listed as "partial success". It seems most logical to me, does anyone disagree with this? LokiiT (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Apollo 13 should be changed to failure. That "successful failure" line of NASA's was PR. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree that Apollo 13 should be 'failure'. What are the goals of the Cosmos-146, Cosmos-154, Zond-4 and Zond-6? Using only the information in the article they look like they failed their major goal, even if they achieved lesser goals. From AS-202 (Apollo 3), it was meant to test the booster (complete success) and capsule re-entry (successfully recovered but indications of further work required). From Apollo 5, the flight computer failed but the other objectives were met. Re-entry was not required. Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Going by what the article says, Cosmos-146, Cosmos-154 and Zond 4's goals were to reach high-Earth orbit, which they did, but then failed to come back to Earth in one piece or at all. But some goals were still achieved, so those are semi-successes aren't they? Zond 6's goal was to circle the moon, which it succeeded in doing, then it successfully re-entered Earth but the parachute malfunctioned, killing the animals inside. Again, seems like a semi-success. Pictures were taken, data was gathered etc.. Also, some of these entries are unsourced so it's hard to gather accurate information on them. LokiiT (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have checked all the suggestions above. As they appear to have been implemented in full, I suggest this section is now removed from the discussion. Tsuchan (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Apollo missions
Wouldn't the table of all Apollo missions in the section with that name be better in Apollo program? This article is about the moon landing, and most of these did not land on the Moon. Skylab and ASTP are particularly irrelevant to this article. The Apollo missions that landed on the Moon are later detailed in a table. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 05:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article is way too long and has a lot of details covered in other articles. Since this is an article about moon LANDINGS, I suggest removing everything to do with Earth orbits and moon orbits, leaving only missions whose goal was a moon landing. Some of the early ones which were meant to hit the moon but missed (eg Ranger 3 and 5) should stay. Stepho-wrs (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or change the name of the article to "Moon Missions". AmateurEditor (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In which case we should still remove Earth orbit missions. Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I copied the table of all Apollo flights to Apollo program, but I haven't deleted it here. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I favor "Moon missions". That won't require much change to the article except removing the Earth orbit missions.  There is a lot of good stuff about the Moon missions that didn't land.  And I would include the failures if they were intended to go to the Moon.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Conspiracy Theory Section Warranted?
Doesn't the conspiracy section violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE?ArXivist (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it IS warranted. I personally believe that astronauts walked on the moon but polls show there is a significant proportion of people who believe it was faked. There are also a number of books sold in successful numbers (I've read 'dark moon') and a number of books, magazine articles and websites which debunk these same books - that makes it notable. And this section is small, so it doesn't emphasise it unduely. Stepho-wrs (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is not warranted. Very few, if any, reliable sources claim that the Apollo lunar landings were faked.  It doesn't belong.  03:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The conspiracies, while scientifically laughable in my opinion, are very wide-spread. Like Stepho said, polls consistently show that a large portion of Americans believe the conspiracies, and there are vast numbers of books, articles, documentaries etc.. that focus on the conspiracies (whether for or against, this proves that it is a very notable subject). Removing this section would be detrimental to the neutrality and hence the credibility of the article. LokiiT (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already a Moon landing conspiracy theories Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is already a moon landing conspiracy page, there is no need nor is it appropriate, to summarize or discuss that page here, that is the reason the conspiracy page exists. A link to the Moon landing conspiracy theories page is already on the "see also" section. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As Loki has said, the subject is notable. The existing paragraph makes it clear that this is a minority viewpoint, easily debunked, and points the reader to the main article. Why is it not appropriate? -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that in the Apollo program article, we should not have the Spacecraft, Saturn, Apollo applications program, Cancelled missions, etc., sections? After all, there are already articles on those subjects. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The hoaxes are pseudoscience, this is a historical and scientific article. A discussion of hoax theories is inappropriate. If all you want to do is link to the hoax article, there is already a link in the "see also" section a separate introduction for this topic is redundant. Take this opportunity to review wp:fringe. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take the opportunity to review WP:VERIFY - the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Part of the history of the moon landings is that a significant percentage of people believe that they were a hoax.  As this is a historical article (your words), a short discussion of this belief is appropriate here. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The hoax theories are not true, ergo not relevent history when talking about the landings themselves. If the article was about moon landing conspiracy's then wp:verify would apply. Adding a discussion of hoax theories to this page is undue weight. Besides wp:verify requires a reliable source, see wp:sources. Reliable sources for moon landing hoaxes are few and far between. see wp:flat Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, we're not after truth, only notability and verifiability. Take a look at the September 11 attacks article which is about 911. It also has a short conspiracies section. Please also read WP:WEIGHT - "Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Hoaxers are not in tiny minority and a short paragraph is all that was present. Finally, regarding sources, it's pretty ironic that this article only has 12 inline citations while the hoax theory article has 121. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with wp:npov and wp:weight is a grey area. It may be appropriate to add a short section linking to the larger conspiracy article. The conspiracy section that was on here is not going to cut it though, not only is it lacking citation but doesn't meet wp:npov. Some rewriting should fix it. I am working on adding citations to the rest of the article but as you pointed out the number of citations is ridiculously small for an article of this size. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

conspiracy section
I realize that there has been extensive discussion about the hoax section but if we are going to include this section it should at least be well written. Why are we talking about the retroreflectors when the NASA's recent lunar orbiter has given us photographic evidence of the landings? And many conspiracy theories deal only with the manned landings, the existence of the reflectors do not defend against these arguments. The sentence speculating why there are so many conspiracy theories is pure speculation and isn't npov. I realize that it's important to compromise especially on more controversial topics but I can't believe that anybody is happy with the current version of this section. I would be more than happy to rewrite it but I don't want to step on any toes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason01 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What I would do is take the lede of Moon landing conspiracy theories and summarize it. I can take a stab at it tonight (I think). -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

scientific background
Not only is this section completely uncited, it is much too in depth for the article; we don't need to know the history of the mathmatics needed to go to the moon. Further attempting to find and provide citations for a section with this depth and complexity quickly becomes impossible. In an attemt to make the article more concise and readable, I have removed a large portion of the "scientific background" section that I don't think is relevent to the rest of the article. This section has been largely unchanged for a long time and discussion about its problems have apparently been unfruitful, if I am overstepping my bounds by removing this much text please revert. The section I removed is posted below.

To an Earthbound observer, a Moon rocket on its launch pad seems motionless and the Moon appears to move very slowly through the night sky. These perceptions are misleading. Actually, both the unlaunched rocket and the Moon are careening wildly through space around the Sun at tremendous speeds, exhibiting numerous periodic motions both large and small. The non-spherical and water-covered Earth orbits around its own wobbling axis every day, has the Moon orbit around that axis every 28 days or so, and both bodies orbit the Sun every 365 days or so. Each of these factors (and many additional ones) have significant interdependent gravitational effects on the timing for all of the others - the so called three body problem. Performing a successful moon landing is thus like passing an undamaged egg between two riders aboard a dynamic amusement park ride such as a Tilt-A-Whirl or Scrambler - only much, much harder. All of the complicated motions of the Moon must be completely understood so the exact location and motion of a landing zone may be predicted for some future scheduled landing time. This is an extremely difficult problem in positional astronomy, effectively the homework that must be done before the test of an actual moon landing may be undertaken.

Mathematicians took millenia to complete this necessary prerequisite to a Moon landing. Their work began with the efforts of Babylonian astronomers, who compiled the first written ongoing lunar astronomical observations around 1500 BC as part of a series of clay tablets now known as the Enuma anu enlil. By 600 BC, Chaldean astronomers had discovered and documented the Moon's 18 year Saros cycle. Aristarchus of Samos first suggested in the 3rd century BC that the Earth orbited around the Sun, and based on his work other scientists of ancient Greece built exquisite lunar motion calculators such as the Antikythera mechanism. This initial progress was stalled by Ptolemy and widespread acceptance of the geocentric cosmology described in his Almagest, published around 150 AD. His inaccurate idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth was embraced by the Catholic Church because it supported the story of Joshua in the Bible and placed humanity at the center of God's universe. After being accepted for over a thousand years throughout the Dark Ages as religious dogma, the incorrect geocentric cosmology was finally overthrown for a return to heliocentrism espoused by Copernicus in his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1593). Galileo first identified moons as worlds that could be visited by publishing details on his telescopic observations of the moons of Jupiter and mountains on Earth's Moon in The Starry Messenger (1610), angering the Church's Roman Inquisition with his findings and dying under house arrest rather than recant his discoveries.

Using years of observations recorded by Brahe, the various motions of Mars in Earth's sky were accurately explained as the red planet being an orbit around the sun by Kepler in A New Astronomy (1609). This work guided Issac Newton to develop his key concept of universal gravity that controlled the motion of all objects on Earth and in outer space. After introducing the concept of gravity in one of the most important science books ever published, the Principia (1687), Newton went on to apply his new gravitational theory specifically to lunar motion in Theory of the Moon's Motion (1702) and to develop the concept of space launch vehicles as "Newton's cannonball" in A Treatise of the System of the World (1728). After a lifetime of work by Newton using his gravitational theory to describe the motion of the Moon in Earth's sky, many important details remained unresolved. Newton himself declared that considering the intricate details of lunar motion "makes my head hurt and keeps me awake so often that I will think of it no more".

After Newton's death other scientists went beyond his geometrical-based efforts and began describing lunar motion with mathematical equations, often motivated by prizes offered by various scientific societies and the British government. Various problems regarding changes over time in the Earth-Moon apsis were worked out by Clairaut, d'Alembert and Euler by the mid-1750s. Self-taught mathematician Tobias Mayer then cracked the riddle of libration, which makes it possible to see more than 50% of the moon's surface over time even though one side of the Moon is tidally locked to always face towards Earth. The libration mathematics in Mayer's book Theoria lunae juxta systema Newtonianum (1767) resulted in the first lunar almanac accurate enough for use in ship navigation and won the hefty sum of £3000 from the British Admiralty for his widow. Efforts by Lagrange to describe remaining errors in lunar motion theory were addressed by Laplace in his encyclopedic Celestial Mechanics (1802), where he correctly accounted for tidal acceleration of the Moon's mean motion.

Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that no-recent-changes to some section is not a reason to remove it. Anyway, maybe it is realy too big, but we should not just throw it away - maybe just link to it in a new page like Moon landing scientific background? Alinor (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

vandalism in Apollo 11 listing in table
Someone has inserted a name, "Joshua Kamine," in red in the listing of the astronauts on that historic mission, but the name does not appear when you try to edit it. Hopefully someone knows the trick that permits this form of vandalism and can fix it. Reggilbert (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would appear to have been fixed now. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

split Fictional Moon Landings
I think the Fictional Moon Landing section adversly affects the readability of the article; it's long and the unwieldy and doesn't really match the rest of the content of the article which is about actual moon landings and tends to be more technical in nature. This article also has continuing problems with length, and moving this section would remove a sizable chunk of text and the largest table in the article. Before I take any action or add tags to the article I wanted to find out if there was any consensus to moving the Fictional Moon Landing section to it's own article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I agree with the proposal. The moon-landing article has a lot of content already without the fictional portrayal section. But it should be linked from this page. Tsuchan (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely move this to another article and leave a link from here to there. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

21st Century unmanned crash landings
In the 21st Century unmanned crash landings section are mentioned many US, ESA, India, China, Japan impacts, but the table includes only one. Eighter the table should be expanded to include the others or there should be explanation for the table-inclusion criteria. Alinor (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Originally, the description after Apollo program was limited to landers designed for moon landing (except diversion from mission-ended orbiters). MIP was a only achieved (hard) lander designed for moon (hard) landing after 21st century before LCROSS. We must choose to add the mission-ended orbiter's crashes to the list or not. Either way, LCROSS must be added. Moreover, I think that all crashes after 1990s should be added. The relationship between Hiten and MIP is similar to NEAR Shoemaker(intentional landing after mission end) and Hayabusa(designed for landing). Which is more notable? Juxtapositional description might be acceptable. --Gwano (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories
How about some information about the conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landing? As I understand it, many people think it was a hoax. This may be covered on another page, but I can't find it. I'd add some info myself, but I know very little about it. Haddock420 09:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a credible site: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm It thoroughly debunks the sceptics.

There are plenty of website debunking it, but shouldn't it be mentioned in the flippin' article? An alarming amount of people think it was a hoax.


 * There was actually, at some point, a section in the article on conspiracy theories but someone has removed it. I shall see if I can recover it and if it was good enough to keep in. Ben W Bell 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay I've recovered and added back in what was there originally but was removed. I think it covers it well enough and links to the page discussing the possible hoax where it is dealt with in more detail than should be covered on this page. Ben W Bell 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

did you see the photo of the flag waving in the wind on the moon? That should be debunked, too. --Make No Name (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Strike-through text

Er-- nice touch to put wires in the flag to make it look as if it was waving in the wind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.128.122 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

this is the photo http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Make No Name (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) --Make No Name (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why NASA havn't just turned the Hubble space telescope around and beamed in on the landing site. If the landing really did happen, the flags, moon rovers etc would still be there as conclusive prove, but NASA are refusing to do this. Why? 09phippsj (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hubble can't see it. The lander would have to be the size of a football field at that distance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.190.74 (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why hasn't NASA explained this? Pumanike  21:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

All these conspiracy theory rebuttals assume that ANY sort of lander landed on the moon, not necessarily a manned spacecraft. They give genuine proof of moon landing just not humans landing on the moon. I don't doubt the landing but I wonder why no one has cleared this up. Beststarter (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Beststarter

There is a ton of evidence that man went to the moon. There are hundreds of pictures, dozens of hours of film, and hundreds of pounds of rocks that were brought back. I believe that that is more than enough proof. Plus, NASA doesn't want to waste millions of dollars just to send a rover to the moon to prove that there are foot prints there. And that would still not convince any of the conspiracy theorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.205.74 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet another proof that all this is not a hoax is that we can now calculate at any given time the exact distance of the Moon from the surface of the Earth. How you ask? Because the Apollo 11 crew installed a reflective mirror on which NASA (or anybody with a powerful enough laser) may point a laser to and depending on the traveling time, the exact distance is determined. Xionbox (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Robert Goddard?
I find it odd that an article on "Moon landing" makes no mention of Robert Goddard. I just added him to the 'See also' section. I trust that we will figure out an appropriate way to work in a concise writeup of his foundational contributions.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation race and metrication of sections "Scientific background" and "Ranger Missions"
As specified by the MOS:NUM, editors should "Put the units first that are in the most widespread use in the world.", unless the sources use other units. This article, and especially these sections, do not have inline citations. Hence, it is difficult to check whether the sources specify miles per hour and pounds or km/h and kg. The inline citation race should now be started in order to determine which reference correspond to which section. In addition, contributors are encouraged to check the units used in the references and correct which units to be place first in the article. I will start this process and would be thrilled if more could join my effort. Xionbox (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the metrification tag that you added, it doesn't seem to be relevent since those sections do mostly use metric units. I agree that some sections need cleanup as far as being more consistent with what units we're using, but particularly the Scientific Background section is largely uncited, if you're looking for a project you should find sources for the numbers used in this section. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the tag because of the presence of multiple occurrence of non-SI units without their conversion and did not have time right then to convert these occurrence. However, I will look into verifying these numbers. Xionbox (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've corrected all (or at least most) references linked to the Ranger Program. The rest of the article must still be referenced and/or corrected. Xionbox (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this real?
Good song : Simple song of freedom by Bobby Darin. We miss jewelry of stone from the moon --The undoubted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.22.82 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How about we changed the name "Moon Landing" to "Lunar Exploration"?
Or something like --Craigboy (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See Exploration of the Moon. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Both articles are in bad shape and should be merged.--Craigboy (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither article is in "bad shape" and they cover different material, I don't see any reason to merge. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moon landings is in pretty bad shape, as the dates and plans posted there get quickly out of date. See the List of current and future lunar_missions, List of lunar probes, Exploration of the Moon and Template:Moon_spacecraft, all covering the same ground and being somewhat different. It would be good if at least the dates could be directly referenced from the respective spacecraft page infoboxes, is this doable ? Savuporo (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Devunow, 6 June 2011
Date of Apollo 11 launch incorrect.

"Apollo 11 	Saturn V 	Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin A. "Buzz" Aldrin 	Launched: 20 July 1969 	Lunar landing 	Success - First manned landing, exploration on foot."

Apollo 11 was acutally launched July 16 1969 as per Apollo 11's wikipage

Devunow (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that&mdash;fixed! Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Pease change "and the atom bomb, which killed hundreds of thousands in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" to 'tens of thousands'. Hundreds - ie more than 1x100 - of thousands were not killed so the order of magnitude is incorrect by one order. This is significant http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtohk (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change:

""

to:

""

205.228.108.57 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a new reference instead. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 16:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moon landing
This redirect is up for discussion. Please see WP:RFD. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 19:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Grading on the curve?
This article has problems: lots of redundancy with other articles (e.g. Space Race and Apollo program) (this may derive from a systemic Wikipedia organization problem which either hansn't been solved, or else I and many other editors aren't aware if it has); plus questionable structure and prose style; and large sections without citations. I don't think it deserves a B. Note the Spaceflight and Russia projects have a checklist that must be passed before it can rise above C. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoax Section
This is the first line: "Some people insist that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax." This needs a source, since "some people" are weasel words. If there is a source for this already, it needs to be more clear. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No independent verification
There exists no independent verifications what so ever for the claimed manned moon landings, and to claim that the reflectors up there should be some kinda proof is laughable (russians did send up reflectors too, yet they never claimed to have send humans there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.5 (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires reliable sources, which abound in this case: it doesn't demand that another nation mount an independent trip to the moon to verity that there were people there before. Besides, the promoters of moon landing hoax claims would simply claim that the "independent verification" was part of the hoax.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Other moon landings
There is nothing about other residents of the moon and how they got there, e.g. Elvis and Lord Lucan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.68.36 (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * True HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Space Race image
The Space Race diagram is incomprehensible. Also, a SVG would be much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.224.39 (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Public response
The article is missing a big portion on moon landing impact on the public and reaction of the world, it is a very significant information. 65.128.142.118 (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Scientific background section needs work
The Scientific background section needs work. There is discussion about early attempts and accomplishments that needs to be somewhere else. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Early history
Moon landing is not a new idea. It first originated thousands years ago. However, back then, if you think moon landing is possible then other people would laugh at you and think you are an insane person. This article is seriously missing a bulk of information regarding the world view on moon landing possibility and how culturally people think about it(prior to 20th century, especially in Medieval era). Wikipedia is disappointing even after 12 years of running...65.128.191.22 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the right article to place that. This is an article about actual moon landings, not people who believed that it was possible. There may be a place for that but it's not here.--70.49.82.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Clickable imagemap
I've updated the image File:Moon_landing_sites.svg and only just realised that someone (I couldn't tell who from the history as there have been so many recent changes) has made it a clickable imagemap. As I'm unfamiliar with the process of making a clickable imagemap, could I trouble the person or anyone else to update it? I've moved the labels around to categorise them by program and landing date. Please buzz me at User_talk:cmglee if you've any comments about the order of the labels (I know the lines have become quite messy, but I think the categorisation has a larger positive effect.) Thanks, cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 18:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hoax accusations
IP user 203.99.212.53 made the following updates to this section, saying he "maintained neutrality". (Some tags were added by Bubba73.) To the contrary, your additions are obviously calculated to lend support to the accusations, violating Wikipdia policy by giving undue weight to what has been determined by consensus to be a fringe theory. (See extensive discussions on the archive of this talk page, Talk:Apollo 11, and Talk:Apollo program.) This shall not stand. The main article Moon landing conspiracy theories and the wording as it stood, gives appropriate, neutral point-of-view by acknowledging the existence of the hoax theories without giving them "equal validity".

You also say in your second edit you "added citation"; adding the phrase "ranging from Scholars to Astronomers and former NASA employees" does not qualify for this. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources to see what we mean by a citation.

203.99.212.53's updates are in boldface:


 * Many people (ranging from Scholars to Astronomers and former NASA employees) insist that the manned Moon landings using the Apollo programme was a hoax orchestrated by NASA for obivious political gains. However, some empirical evidence is also available to show that manned moon landings might have occured as claimed by the US Government. Anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system can bounce laser beams off three retroreflector arrays left on the Moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15, verifying deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at historically documented Apollo Moon landing sites and so proving equipment constructed on Earth was successfully transported to the surface of the Moon. Moon-hoax theorists claim that this necessarily does not prove a human landing on moon, as the reflectors could have been placed by mechanical processes on-board unmanned crafts. In addition, in August 2009 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter began to send back high resolution photos of the Apollo landing sites. These photos show not only the large Descent Stages of the lunar landers left behind but also tracks of the astronauts' walking paths in the lunar dust. This claim is contested by Moon-hoax theorists that they may have been made in the same way in order to prove manned moon-landings in the future in case uncomfortable questions arose.

Comments, everyone? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. You did the right thing in reverting it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Why were there no moon landings after 1972 ?
If people were able to walk on the moon in 1972, why were there no other visits to the moon? Why will China attempt a moon landing in 2018, whilst it was possible to land on the moon using 1972 technology?

There is a difference between debris left on the moon, visible from earth, and returning an aircraft / spacecraft from the moon. Please note spacecraft can land on an aircraft runway returning from the moon, but must land vertically on the moon, as there is no runway on the moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.2.129 (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Short answer: no money. The Vietnam War was costing too much, the U.S. was entering a recession, and the Space Race goal of landing on the moon had been achieved, so enthusiasm had waned, and Skylab and the Planetary Grand Tour (Pioneer and Voyager) were seen as higher priorities for what funding was available. Since then the infrastructure and interest in returning has not existed.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hard v soft v impact - Luna 9
Apropos Luna 9, and, e.g. this edit - Was Luna 9 a hard of soft landing - the article isn't consistent. Seems like it wasn't an impact landing, or a soft landing, but was a slower than typical hard landing. But it appears under soft landings - I guess the best fix is to change the wording of the sections to be 'non-impact'?--Elvey(t•c) 08:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Date of 1st Apollo landing
Becuase the Apollo moon landing is one of the milestones in human(political/technological) history, the date should be clear. As the article now stands, there are two different dates given. A casual editor or "uninformed" reader might think one of the dates is in error. Can some-one find a simple, unobtrusive way to explain that the double dating is due to the use of two different time zones? Kdammers (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ??? What do you mean? There is only a single date given here for the landing, 20 July. (Am I missing one?) The table gives 21 July (the next day) as the date of their takeoff for the return trip; this is clearly marked.
 * There has been some confusion in the Apollo 11 article over the mention of Armstrong's first step on the surface (which occurred several hours after the landing.) American observers will remember this as late in the evening of the same day, though it was July 21 in UTC, which is the standard for dating off-world events. We've tried to make this as clear as we can. But that isn't mentioned on this page. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

half Soviets
The intense and expensive effort devoted in the 1960s to achieving first an unmanned and then ultimately a manned moon landing can be hard to understand in normal situations, but becomes easier to comprehend in the political context of its historical era. World War II with its 60 million dead, half Soviets, was fresh in the memory of all adults.

I don't like the phrase "were Soviets" which strikes me as too much of a cold war paint job. I suspect many of the dead, if they still could, would agree with me. I would settle for "ethnic Russians or Soviet forces" but it seems too clunky, so instead of a direct edit, I'll just register my objection here. I think it is useful to remind people that the Russians in many ways got the worst of it, though. &mdash; MaxEnt 06:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have two responses to your post:
 * First, I think you're wrong; the term Soviet isn't a "cold war paint job"; the Allied country participating in the war was officially known as the Soviet Union, which comprised various ethnic nations (not just Russia); "Soviet" is the most convenient, accurate reference.
 * Even more importantly, I don't think that word choice is the most important thing to focus on in this section, which has even bigger problems. Note someone has tagged it for lack of citations; I think an even stronger tag is warranted for original research. It sounds like something someone would put in an essay, not an encyclopedia article. The intent is apparently to talk about how the lunar exploration was motivated by the Space Race (notice no link to this), which is related to the aftermath of the war. But why is it necessary to get into details, such as how many were killed in the war (in itself, an imprecise, debatable statistic)? This whole section needs a rewrite. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Men" vs. "People"
User 76.127.164.18 made a good faith edit to the "Manned Landing" section, changing the first sentence to read "A total of twelve people have landed on the Moon." instead of "twelve men" as it had been originally. I'm not sure that should have been done, but I wanted to see what people though before changing it back.

Why I think it should be reverted: All twelve people were, in fact, men (as was the entire US astronaut corps). As such, referring to "the men who landed on the moon" is no different from discussing the "women on the University of Florida softball team". I think it weakens the writing to use gender-neutral terms for what was not a gender-neutral activity.Almostfm (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in principle. We've been discussing the gender-neutral issue recently on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 6 page. Getting a consensus can be like trying to herd cats, but there's a lot of sympathy for the feeling the historical articles should leave the original "manned" terminology alone, while we should use the gender-neutral terminology for more modern or generic articles. This particular article is kind of in the middle, being generically about the idea of landing on the Moon (both people and machines.) It wasn't a conscious decision to exclude women from landing on the Moon, it just evolved that way because the astronauts were originally chosen from the existing pool of test pilots, who were exclusively men. I made a compromise by leaving "twelve people", and adding ", all of whom were men". What do you think? (I'm definitely OK with changing it back to "men".) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that this should be discussed at the WikiProject level, if not the MoS. I think it is likely that what we're seeing this morning is brigading from commenters at this r/MensRights thread, and it's probably best to stop and follow the WP guidelines and dispute resolution process if necessary. LadyLeitMotif (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Revert. And change all the ridiculous "crewed" back to "manned".--Stormwatch (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. I feel like the discussion is deteriorating with words like "ridiculous," or, in 197.35.77.88's edit summary this morning, "I can change the words lunar crafts to Moon Airplane or Space Dicks and it would "work". It still sounds stupid." LadyLeitMotif (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How about words like "brigading"? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 197.35.77.88 is absolutely correct. To put it bluntly: take this PC nonsense back to Tumblr.--Stormwatch (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey! The latest revert had no real explanation by the reverter, so I'm reverting to the phrasing the article was using before brigading started. If any editors would like to institute a widespread wording change such as this, it's probably best to discuss it on a policy page or at least the talk page itself before going through with it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please remember to WP:Assume good faith, Lady and Peter. The term "brigading" (brigade used as a verb) in this context implies a conspiracy theory. Don't use accusatory terms for editors whose opinions you disagree with. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. To me this is simply a matter of correct terminology:  "crewed" is simply incorrect. The proper terminology is manned. You refer to members of the team manning the craft as crewmembers or simply crew.  But the craft is manned, not crewed. Onel5969 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Justin! I don't use brigade in the conspiratory sense, merely that there is evidence that editors were organised in a group (a common enough use of the word 'brigade') to change the wikipedia article in a certain way- I don't know whether you or any other editor is involved, nor am I saying such a thing- merely that there are offsite attempts to slant the article in one way to a bit of an archaic form of wording (to prove some sort of point I guess?) PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the change to "crewed" was originally made Feb 25, "per MOS:GNL". The relevant quotation from policy would then be

"Non-neutral usage can sometimes be avoided by careful word choice; for example, by using people or humanity (instead of man), layperson (layman), police officer (policeman), business owners or professional (businessmen); in these cases, ensure that the basic meaning is preserved. Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ('Bill Gates is a businessman' or 'Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman')."

The talk page suggests

"Other generic usages can sometimes be avoided; for example, by using operated or staffed (instead of manned), people or humanity (man), layperson (layman), business people or business owners (businessmen). In these cases, ensure that the basic meaning is preserved."

, but that didn't make it into policy, apparently. The words suggested here - "operated" and "staffed" - really don't work in the context of this article in most places. A Google Ngrams search suggests that "crewed" is a very uncommon construction compared to the standard "manned", and only fairly recently seen at all. It's very different from the situation we see with e.g. "layman" vs. "layperson" - the former still being more common in 2015, but only by around 3:1 rather than more than 10:1. (Curiously, since the 60s we see the gendered terms rapidly becoming less popular, but their replacements not catching on - it seems most people prefer to avoid the issue entirely.)

It's hard to search for, but it does appear that - at least in recent documents - NASA itself prefers "crewed" to "manned".

70.24.4.51 (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted to 'crewed' again, partly due to the edits which instated 'manned' this time were incorrectly tagged as minor and made no attempt to engage with the talk page discussion. My motivation for keeping the wording which we had in the article before attention was drawn to the issue is that 'manned' seems to just be a more archaic way of saying crewed. Using crewed is more understandable (especially, I believe, for people who don't speak English as a first language) than manned, which does seem like a bit of an odd verb upon inspection (to me, at least.) Your mileage may vary, looking forward to other input. Very interesting to hear that NASA prefers crewed- thanks IP! PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's very easy to search for, and it appears "manned" is much more common. The trick is to use Google, and include the "site" specifier, e.g. searching for

crewed site:nasa.gov

... shows the the word "crewed" occurred about 9,000 times on the pages at nasa.gov that Google indexed, while a search for

manned site:nasa.gov

... shows about 57,000 uses, indicating its occurrence is six times greater than "crewed" Marteau (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What does this say about recent use of 'crewed' versus 'manned'- would you be able to restrict the search to documents made within the last year or so? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Limiting it to pages changed in the past year (using the "Search Tools" interface, and the number of pages is not displayed until you navigate to the last set of occurrences) shows 474 pages changed in the last year containing the word "manned". For "crewed" it is 412. Marteau (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! NASA's own preference is a fairly good indicator of what we should be using. Would it be fair to say we can use these words interchangeably, or should we attempt to select one and stick to it? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What limiting the search shows is a blip in the political correctness, not an actual indicator. By far, NASA references show that the historical term is indeed manned.  Onel5969 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's an accurate or at all backed up assertion- it could simply be the growing adoption of a more accurate or easily understood term. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Full Definition of MANNED "carrying or performed by a human being " The word "manned" is based on the word "human". The issue of implied "gender" in words is a modern construct. But regardless, in this case, the word "manned" gendered or not is accurate. It also has a strong connection to the subject matter as noted by Merriam-Webster.


 * I guess another question we should ask. Should this represent the terminology of the time period or the politically correct terminology of our current time? There are also lots of other places in the article with this word. Should we change those too? TyTyMang (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Just from a definition perspective and the word "uncrewed" (which is not a word) I would think it pretty clear which word should be used. Manned is a gender neutral term, the historical documentation supports it. Aflyingkitten (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose you should tell NASA that uncrewed isn't a real word, before they use it again. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Essentially, yes I should. Look in any dictionary, it's simply not a word, and just because one press release uses it doesn't make it one. Unmanned is clearly the more commonly used word in the sources, and therefore should be the one used. Gender bias is simply not a factor here, and changing the wording from what is in the sources is pointless. Aflyingkitten (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well. The 5th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines uncrewed as "Not having a crew; crewless". I do apologise for your misfortune in picking this particular point to stand on. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And the points about the sources using specific terminology? While American Heritage might have it, Oxford, Mariam-Webster, Collins, and every other notable and large dictionary I can find doesn't. Again, a single example does not make a rule, and one must look at the most commonly used terminology in the sources. What reasons are there to change it to crewed in the first place? Aflyingkitten (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Relax. My initial (lighthearted) comment was merely pointing out your simple mistake about it not being a word. If you've a burning desire to debate this word choice, you could direct it more generally. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, if that seemed heated, it wasn't meant as such. This just appears to be a pretty simple topic and i'm surprised there is this much discussion over it. Aflyingkitten (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Manned" is non-inclusive of AI and non-human animals such as primates. "Crewed" is non-inclusive of unskilled passengers. Both "manned" and "crewed" are inclusive of women. I suggest that where a specific mission or vehicle is concerned, the terminology that was used by the majority of contemporary sources be adopted. In most cases that is "manned". For the moon landings, that is overwhelmingly so. When discussing general concepts of humans in space or hypothetical vehicles without established terminology, I suggest "crewed" be used when it is meant to encompass only skilled operators of spacecraft hardware, and "manned" otherwise. if you're genuinely concerned about brigading I suggest that you, a self-described SPA in Gamergate, vacate the page to allow native and ProjectSpaceflight consensus to come to the fore. Rhoark (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never described myself as an SPA, and I find myself concerned that you've pinged me specifically to insult me in this way. Please conduct yourself in a more civil manner, Rhoark. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Peter, had a look through and if I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong). Rhoark probably means this diff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=637991109). Don't think it was meant as an insult, just a statement. No need for anyone to get heated over this discussion really. Aflyingkitten (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanking a person. Clear signs of being an evil SPA. Perhaps you meant something different? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh, must have taken the diff after that one, my bad, but I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to ignore the "Hi! I won't debate being a Single Purpose Account " in the diff above on the same page. It's pretty clear that's what I meant and what Rhoark meant. Aflyingkitten (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made a request for dispute resolution, because I think this is sliding into ad hominem attacks on both sides. I want to thank JustinTime55 for reminding me of the need to assume good faith; I intended "brigading" in the neutral sense, in that it may be helpful to take some time to wait for any apparent activism from external sites to blow over. I think it would be more helpful to follow the MoS and the WikiProject. Of course, just because people come here from an external site doesn't mean they do or do not have a valid point. LadyLeitMotif (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It seems called for, yes. FWIW, I believe the "wiki-approved as neutral" term for "brigading" is WP:CANVAS. I agree there's a problem when multiple unrelated IPs appear to make the same set of changes and don't participate in WP:BRD. Did anyone leave notes on the relevant IP Talk pages?


 * by "hard to search for" I meant that the top-page results in both cases appeared to have false positives, because Google "helpfully" stems words and often seems to include results for variations on the words (even going so far as to boldface them in the summaries, to indicate that's what passed the filter). For what it's worth, I clicked through a couple and found that they sometimes use both "manned" and "crewed" on the same page.


 * Please WP:AGF. Someone referred to your previous statement that you won't debate being a Single Purpose Account in the Gamergate topic area. You were not called "evil"; it was merely suggested that you don't have standing to complain about "brigading". As for the issue at hand, I think it's a bit much to describe the word "manned" as "archaic", especially given the general usage statistics I dug up. I'd also argue that a comment of the form "perhaps you should inform (authority) that (statement contrary to their apparent standpoint)" is hard to read as "lighthearted" - having used this sort of rhetoric many times elsewhere on the Internet myself. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive my attempts at humour. If you'd like to continue discussing your preferred wording, you're free to take part in the dispute resolution request. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. I re-did the searches, forcing Google not to use variations by quoting the terms, and excluding pages with "crewed" in them from the "manned" searches by preceding the term with a dash (and vice versa), e.g.


 * "manned" -"crewed" site:nasa.gov


 * ... and although the hit rate went down by about 10%, it was still a 6 to 1 ratio. Marteau (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been my experience in the past year or so that these sorts of operators do not completely remove related terms from the results anymore. Rhoark (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Amr.eladawy (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC) However, as this is only one IP you should be warning that IP, so it can be blocked without affecting other users - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection


 * Please check the history of the page, more than one IP are vandalising 82.219.234.21, 2.50.25.73, 173.13.34.114, 86.0.150.19   Can we protect that page to be edited by registered users only? --Amr.eladawy (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Does this article satisfy what people are really looking for?
This is a quite popular article with about 2000 views a day. I believe that most people come to know more about the manned moon landings, more precisely. To me it seems like this article should be about when men landed on the Moon. Huritisho 07:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's making an assumption about what people want. However, the article could do a better job at maximizing information about actual lunar landings, and minimize the details about uncontrolled *and* controlled spacecraft impacts, which aren't really landings. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You should also inform WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:MOON (and possibly WP:POLITICS or WP:HISTORY) of this discussion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine that 'Moon landing' colloquially often is meant as 'Manned Moon landing', and 'the Moon landing' as 'Apollo 11'. General readers might be looking to read about Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landing on the surface of the Moon. There is a hatnote at the top of the article addressing this though. Still, if enough people think this is an issue, maybe Moon landing could be redirected to Apollo 11, and its content moved to, for example, History of moon landings (a redirect I made). Gap9551 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if nothing about this article's contents changed, I kind of like the idea of renaming it to "History of moon landings". — Huntster (t @ c) 17:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not favor redirecting "Moon landing" to "Apollo 11", as there were six manned moon landings alone (out of seven missions). It's not de-emphasizing the significance of the first one to remember that all the astronauts risked their lives to make each mission happen, and that Apollo 13 came very near to ending in disaster. I agree that the article comes up short in weight wrt the manned landings, and think it would also be appropriate for mention to be made of the one attempt that was not realized. The risks were very much a part of the history. Apollo 13 proves the significance of the six successes. In addition, I would disagree with the definition of "moon landing" given in the lead sentence. An impact event is not a "landing", but a "crash", whether intended or not. "Soft landing" would indicate a successful landing without damage to the vehicle (or persons), whereas "hard landing" would indicate a non-nominal attempt at a soft landing, perhaps with damage, but without the complete destruction of an all-out impact. Evensteven (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am entirely comfortable with the assumption that the greatest interest of readers is men walking around, there. That assumption does not call for renaming the article, nor for de-emphasizing the various robots that either vaporized on impact or reported back after landing. It does call for making more clear in the intro, that readers should go to the Apollo pages for details on that topic.  I have met people who often read Wikipedia articles and were, until I told them, unaware of our use of blue links. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Moon landing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110707013006/http://english.cas.ac.cn/eng2003/news/detailnewsb.asp?infono=27849 to http://english.cas.ac.cn/eng2003/news/detailnewsb.asp?infono=27849

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Moon landing. 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/20061209110937/http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov:80/results/ice/eureka.htm to http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/results/ice/eureka.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421120647/http://moon.msfc.nasa.gov:80/ to http://moon.msfc.nasa.gov/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103142810/http://www.pulispace.com:80/en/about/our-mission to http://www.pulispace.com/en/about/our-mission

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) 14:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Full crew listings: CM pilots
It seems odd that the command module pilots are missing from the table of the Apollo crews who walked on the moon. Should we add a column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carusus (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Units
please look at changes before you revert. You and I are in agreement that since this is an American English article, the US units should be given first. However, we should use the convert template to provide SI conversions; this is standard consensus practice for most of the Spaceflight articles. I did not simply revert to Nostromo's changes putting SI first; I kept US units first. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are we putting US customary units first? I am fine with matching the source material if that's the system, but it seems worth noting that WP:ENGVAR, WP:Manual_of_Style, and WP:UNITS all seem to not support the practice (unless we are calling space articles "non-scientific"). VQuakr (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also struggling to understand why a scientific article would be using US customary units first. But the main problem with this page appears to be a severe lack of consistency, either all units should be US customary with SI conversions or vice versa - in this article there are inconsistencies across the whole page and within individual sections. Additionally, is there any basis for using US customary units in sections of the article describing Soviet missions? Nostromo^ (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Moon landing. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/results/ice/eureka.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211061336/http://www.spaceflight101.com/grail-mission-updates.html to http://www.spaceflight101.com/grail-mission-updates.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211061336/http://www.spaceflight101.com/grail-mission-updates.html to http://www.spaceflight101.com/grail-mission-updates.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015032050/http://isro.gov.in/pressrelease/scripts/pressreleasein.aspx?Aug30_2010 to http://www.isro.gov.in/pressrelease/scripts/pressreleasein.aspx?Aug30_2010
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://moon.msfc.nasa.gov/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pulispace.com/en/about/our-mission

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) 23:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moon landing. 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://archive.is/20121218012317/http://www.aai.ee/~vladislav/program_yft0060.html to http://www.aai.ee/~vladislav/program_yft0060.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928103019/http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/Programs/pioneer.html to http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/Programs/pioneer.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) 03:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Lines in first Figure
Could someone add to the caption of the first Figure the different meanings of the solid, dotted, and dashed lines? Mukogodo (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Article in the news
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/youtube-wikipedia-links-debunk-conspiracy.html

-- Green  C  03:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Luna 2 Soviet moon probe.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Luna 3 moon.jpg

Celebrations
Should this article point out that there were lots of commemorations of the fiftieth anniversary of the first Moon landing on July 20 2019? Vorbee (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019
The landing site for Luna 20 is wrong. It shows the same as Luna 18, but it actually is 47.4N 68.6E Distantsuns1 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Moon landing
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Moon landing's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Trak 2019": From Chandrayaan programme: After Mars, ISRO to Set a Date with Venus. Trak. Malvika Gurung. 20 May 2019. From Indian Space Research Organisation: After Mars, ISRO to Set a Date with Venus. Trak. Malvika Gurung. 20 May 2019. </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just imported this film from the US National Archives

 * Good video, but this doesn't need to be mentioned on the talk page of an article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Zond Assembly.jpg

List of Moon missions
This article is actually in danger in becoming that: just a list article. Better to just list the missions in a list article, so that this article can actually focus on specific aspects of moon missions. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Map of soft landings is unreadable this way
Just to mention that the clickable map that is featured in the top right corner right now, is unreadable in this size. I don't know how to fix this and either display a slightly larger thumbnail, or make it link through to the larger version that exists on Wikimedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_landing_sites.svg Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Article opening
Why are we bothering with mentioning the unmanned landings, especially in the opening? Calling them landings is dubious at best and everyone knows it. Is this some kind of fight the power thing against America?
 * Because they are still moon landings. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Balon, they are still landings and are still historic. BurntBreeze (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Luna 25's launch date needs updating
The article still lists Luna 25 as being set to launch in May 2022, when it's been rearranged to July 2023. MikeKennedy123 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
it's spelled "mascon" not "masscon": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=MASCON%2Cmascon%2CMASSCON%2Cmasscon&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3 135.180.194.177 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 06:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Confused
why are the conspiricy theories about the moon landing being faked not mentioned here? <b style="color: #3CB371;">Al</b><b style="color: #00FF7F;">la</b><b style="color: #00FF00;">oi</b><b style="color: #32CD32;">i</b> talk 21:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they're nonsense, and they have their own article for those who feel compelled to read about them.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, but maybe a link to it in the "see also" section? <b style="color: #3CB371;">Al</b><b style="color: #00FF7F;">la</b><b style="color: #00FF00;">oi</b><b style="color: #32CD32;">i</b> talk 18:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No because we don’t link to pages in see also that are already linked. There’s already an entire section about it immediately before the See also. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Chandryaan 3 launch date
Updates Asadf25 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC) please update chandryaan 3 launch date
 * Please provide information on the edit you would like to happen in the format of "Please change X to Y" with references to support your change. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 10:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is still showing launch date as 4th quarter of 2022 even it was rearrange in June 2023 for source ISRO chairman stated this in a press conference Asadf25 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, but please check to see if my edit was adequate. Thanks for bringing this here, nice catch. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Asadf25 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding Hakuto-R landing attempt
Please add the Hakuto-R Mission 1 landing attempt to the "21st century uncrewed soft landings and attempts" section. The lander was made by the Japanese ispace company. The landing attempt failed, the lander crashed into the surface. Here is the official announcement of the landing attempt result: https://ispace-inc.com/news-en/?p=4691

I'm new at suggesting edits on Wiki, should I rather make an Edit suggestion, instead of this Talk topic? Jeec WAI (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sauth poll moon landing
It makes India the fourth country after the United States, the former Soviet Union, and China to achieve the feat. India on Wednesday became the first country to land a spacecraft near the moon's south pole. The Chandrayaan-3, lander made a "soft landing" on the lunar surface just after 18:04 India time (1234 UTC). Tejeshwar Prasad (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)