Talk:Apollo program: Difference between revisions

	Apollo program is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 10, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:WPSpace Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Former Astronaut Don Peterson's Ideas for Future Human Flight Programs". Spaceref.com. May 20, 2004.

This article was previously the Space Collaboration of the Week.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 25, 2004, May 25, 2005, May 25, 2007, May 25, 2008, May 25, 2009, and May 25, 2010.

Archives

November 2006—June 2007 June 2007—November 2008

Just wanted to note that, unlike other articles, such as the great pyramid article, the apollo article does NOT include nonsense like "we never landed on the moon"...and I wanted to say, Thanks, Wikipedia Community, for having the article that way. If only editors of other articles would follow this example!!!71.116.98.136 (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we split it out to a whole different article: Moon landing conspiracy theories. Hope you don't notice the POV fork. Enjoy. SBHarris 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a link to that article somewhere here? Seems like anything to do with any government anywhere should be linked to its conspiracies, tidiness and or patriot/nationalism is no excuse for obscuring controversy. After all, if these folks could land people on the moon they could certainly fake it as well, not saying I believe the hoax theories though. It did take place at a point in U.S. history full of lies and secrecy though..you know the whole cold war/civil rights era thing, maybe it might turn out that it was the greatest act of global propaganda infamy ever in history that'd still be a pretty big accomplishment.24.1.202.55 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The hoax enthusiasts are not scientists, or engineers, they're just a bunch of crazies. Not a single one of their claims has any scientific credibility. The retro-reflectors are still on the Moon, the moon rocks that were returned are still on Earth, and none of it was faked. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can add today aug 23 2010 That my Dauthers 10th grade History teacher is one of the "never landed in the moon" team it is definitely scary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.114.251 (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask him to show you that in the history textbook. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is a conflict between the first and last sentences of this paragraph: "Like Apollo, Orion will fly a lunar orbit rendezvous mission profile, but unlike Apollo, the lander, known as Altair, will be launched separately on the Ares V rocket, a rocket based on both Space Shuttle and Apollo technologies. Orion will be launched separately and will link up with Altair in low earth orbit like that of the Skylab program. Also, Orion, unlike Apollo, will remain unmanned in lunar orbit while the entire crew lands on the lunar surface, with the lunar polar regions in mind instead of the equatorial regions explored by Apollo. Constellation will also employ an Earth orbit rendezvous mission profile, which was dropped in favor of lunar orbit rendezvous in Apollo" (emphasis added). I don't know enough about Constellation to know which way to fix it. Jminthorne (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure myself, but those details should stay in the Constellation article not here. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the introduction to this article should not include the "The major space exploration milestones leading up to the moon landing include:" and the incorperated list. This should be placed elsewhere in he article. 114.77.86.32 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 July 2009 I added current information about the restoration process of the surviving Apollo 11 moon tape data by Lowry Digital. The project is supervised by NASA senior engineer Dick Nafzger, who was involved with the actual data during the live transmission.^[1][2] Xin Jing (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding edits made by Fnlayson: Please explain again why you deleted my boxed quotes. I spoke on your talk page because you hadn't posted here yet. Then I explained my reasons. You didn't answer all of my questions and redirected to the article's talk page. Now I am here, so I will recap my reasons for wanting you to recend your deletion. Honestly, this is just part of the diplomatic formality process I know that takes place on Wikipedia. You didn't offer me any opportunity to explain why they should stay before you deleted them, then had me run in a circle to get them back. Shame on you!

Fnlayson, I noticed that you removed my boxed quotes from the article. You said the quotes were not cited, summarized in the text, and format references.

It sounds like a few hoops I have to jump through:

1. Citations - The quotes came from the articles which I referenced. So I need to do a [1] to keep them in?

2. Summarized in text - I felt the actual quotes of people that worked on the project at the beginning and now for the restoration project added a flavor of authenticity to the article. I've seen many articles where a quote is added in the paragraph, these were instances where the text sets up the quote to dynamically underscore the problems mentioned in the article.

3. Format references - I'm guessing this has something to do with the box quotes not being appropriate for the article, but I'm not sure. Could you clarify?

In summary, the article can exist in good quality without the box quotes. With that said, I think the content of the box quotes needs to return to the article, as they add a specific person that was there, a stand out statement about that particular segment of the article. The quotes also add flavor, a soundbite of people that are still directly involved in the project and have been since day one. There were technical challenges on the ground while Armstrong was taking his first step, and the repercussions wouldn't be realized until nearly 40 years later. To delete them is a mistake given the nature of the article. Please take a moment and comment on what you think specifically needs to happen for them to return in some form.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in your editing process. Xin Jing (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of the edit made by Fnlayson, I have reverted the changes made. Let us discuss intended changes here before they are made. I prefer to make changes to keep them there, not strive for achievements to get them back. Xin Jing (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes were not directly cited as policy requires. They are not particularly notable and not really needed since the text summarizes them. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you didn't respond to my suggestion that your deletion preceded any communication here. When I inquired why you made changes, you referred me to this talk page for further discussion. It occurs to me that you should have engaged me in discussion before making your changes, allowing us to avoid a circular conversation and waste time. If content is missing a citation, usually there is a short period where the content can be ammended to meet policy requirements before it is outright deleted. Does the policy that you are so quick to quote mandate an immediate deletion of content that fails to adhere to that policy, without opportunity to bring it into compliance? As to Notability, my interpretation of those guidelines is that they refer to a seperate article, quotes within an article are not mentioned. Perhaps you can cite a specific passage that applies to quotes. Additionally, "not really needed" is subjective and in need of further explanation. If the text needs to be ammended to eliminate redundancy, I will take a look into it. I understand you are involved in "300+" articles, but please take some time and explain your editorial intentions with specifics on the article talk page before initiating content deletion. Thank you Xin Jing (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. And note I removed the quotes 1 time. Time to move on to something else.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding quote citations. Xin Jing (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this section really belong in the introduction? It almost seems like it could be summed up with, "The program set major milestones in the history of human spaceflight." Anyone mind if I change it? Jminthorne (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list and tighten some wording in the area. That link should be added also. Here's the milestone list for anyone wondering:

• first sub-orbital spaceflight (1944) (Germany)
• first orbital flight (1957) (USSR)
• first unmanned lunar mission (1959) (USSR)
• first man in space (1961) (USSR)
• first unmanned lunar landing (1966) (USSR)
• first manned lunar mission (1968) (USA)
• first manned lunar landing (1969) (USA)

Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the milestones internal link to the introduction.Jminthorne (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first text box in this section is glitching (it interjects itself mid paragraph and isn't properly left justified); I am not familiar enough with text boxes to fix it. I do notice that it goes away if we make the quote long enough to start a second line.Jminthorne (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I switched to a different, but similar quote template in an effort to fix that. That seems to fix the overlap glitch for me. Hopefully that fixes it for you and others. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://everything2.com/title/Apollo+2. While it is true that a retroactive naming of these missions to Apollo 1a, Apollo 2 and Apollo 3 was suggested after the fire, it is also true that it was officially rejected, and these names are not now and never were official. The change of AS-204 to Apollo 1 and AS-205 to Apollo 7 were official. So I've taken the liberty of removing the Apollo's 1a, 2, and 3 names from the mission list. If somebody wants to add that these were once suggested or proposed as names, but never approved by NASA, that's fine, but the official list here, should have the presently-official names. SBHarris 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cox the phyisicist made the statement that $14 dollars came into the US economy for every $1 spent on Apollo. If this can be verified in true Wikipedia style it could be most useful. Soarhead77 (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article:

According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (or approximately $145 billion in 2008 dollars).

The problem with this statement is it doesn't mention which inflation measure is used. For example, if I use the GDP deflator, I get a price of roughly $94-119 billion in 2008 dollars. The NASA New Start Index might be what was used (if so, it is inappropriate, since it is used to price NASA contractor R&D), but I can't tell. In any case, I think this figure should either be corrected and the measure of inflation attributed. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, it's worth looking into but we would need a source to corroborate.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just list the then-years cost and forget the projected/inflated 2008 cost. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried in vain to find the Garber page referenced to get the $83 billion figure, but I did find a NASA presentation paper report [[1]] which gives a different 2005 figure, about twice as high: $160 billion. I did a sanity check by looking up the Consumer price index by country#United States of America, and the curve indicates a rise from ~30 in the 1960's to ~200 in 2005 (indexed to 100 in 1983), a 667% increase. This is consistent with $24 billion x 6.67 = $160 billion, and would have put the $83 billion back in the 1980's. I will try to fix this when I get a chance. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article said LBJ responded "on the following day" to JFK's query on how to beat the Soviets. But when I go to LBJ's memo, the date is April 28, 1960, not April 21, which is one week instead of one day after April 20. The dates are clearly visible on what look like photocopies of the originals. (Space Race had the same problem.) Can anyone explain this? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to briefly mention Constellation as a legacy of Apollo, fine, but I don't understand why the impulse to clutter this historical article with details of the new craft or the continuing political saga of whether or not it will survive. This section needs to be stripped down to the main article link and a summary stating no more than that it was proposed and some design and testing has begun, but that its status remains uncertain. The details should be moved out to Constellation program. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, too much detail on the Constellation here. The Constellation article probably covers most or all of that already. I trimmed the text back some as a start. Feel free to cut more.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section A_world_wide_audience claims "Approximately one fifth of the population of the world watched the live transmission of the first Apollo moonwalk." citing a book I do not have access to, as the source. I find this figure very unlikely to be reliable. Even today it's difficult to accurately calculate worldwide audience estimates when the figures enter the hundreds of million range. Back then even figures like domestic audience were diffiuclt to accurately estimate (a lot easier now) so it seems absurd that something which would be difficult even today could have been accurately calculated back then.

Unless a reliable source(s) can be found, I think it needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.193.221 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you can't get your hands on a hard copy right away, doesn't mean the source is necessarily unreliable. I gave the source the benefit of the doubt and changed the wording to a less-definitive "An estimated one-fifth ..." Is that better? Just deleting it without knowing the facts, would be original research. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an estimate. The book that cites that is already a reliable source. Start by finding a source that says states an appreciably different number. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is often said that much of the data and knowhow (that will be again needed for the return to the moon has been lost). Is there a list somewhere about what was lost form the Apollo Project ? Has anyone been made responsible or any inquiry about that loss and cost to the taxpayers ? --79.168.10.241 (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]