# Talk:Apollo program

This recently appeared: Casey Dreier, "An Improved Cost Analysis of the Apollo Program"
[1]. Should used to update this wikipedia article. Jess_Riedel (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Coming here to get consensus because of an edit war. PiyushBhati2005 insists on changing "landed" to "splashed down" which seems awfully sensationalist to me, but want to get more feedback. I believe it should remain landed (as it has been for quite a while) unless consensus can be reached otherwise. For more context, it's this sentence in the lead: while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the command and service module (CSM), and all three landed safely on Earth on July 24. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae Sir, as we all know that all the Crewed missions from Apollo included the crew capsule splashing down safely in the ocean and being recovered by navy. Using landed instead of splashed is wrong. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not a sir and would appreciate you stop misgendering me and other editors. WP:STATUSQUO applies - this has been "landed safely" since at least 2016. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae please tell me one thing, how does something being wrong from a long time makes it correct? Landed and Splashed are two completely different terms and shouldn't be used for same explanation. Apollo mission's crew splashed in ocean, not landed on land. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
"Land" means "to descend to a surface". Both "landed" and "splashed down" are accurate. Splashed down is a little more specific and not at all sensationalist to my reading, but it is a little more verbose. I think changing to "splashed down" in the lead is an improvement here, since for a reader unfamiliar with the subject this would be the first time they find out the Apollo CMs landed on the water. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose change. I don't see how that's an improvement; there is nothing "wrong" with the way it is now. As VQuakr points out, land = descend to a surface which includes water as well as solid earth. All US space capsules, past (Project Mercury, Project Gemini), and present-future (Orion (spacecraft), Crew Dragon, etc.) land on the water. The article pages say this and no one is confused. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@JustinTime55 Splashed down is technically more correct because it is the actual scenario, and wikipedia is supposed to give info in the best way possible. So I favour changing it to splashed down. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Upon rereading the lead I see we say "landed... in the Pacific Ocean". So there's no risk of confusion here for a new-to-the-subject reader. I agree the status quo wording wins out because it is simpler, equally informative, and equally accurate. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@VQuakr but splashed is definately more accurate, plus it makes more sense. Why can't we have it as splashed down when it is the truth. I don't understand why you people are so resistive to changes. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. 'Splashed down' is technically correct but so is 'landing'. Seaplane talks about landing on water. So I followed its link to water landing, which says 'In aviation, a water landing is, in the broadest sense, an aircraft landing on a body of water.' - telling me that landing doesn't require physical soil. If we're going to get real pedantic about it, then an 747 airliner cannot land at an airport because it stops on tarmac (not land) and a helicopter cannot land on top of a high-rise building because it stops on concrete (not soil) - but most people will just laugh at us. In most contexts for both amateurs and professional, landing just means to stop flying.  Stepho  talk  00:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs Plane and capsule are definately not the same, plus NASA itself uses splash and not landed for its capsules. Plus splashed down is technically more correct so I think it should be changed. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Planes and capsules are both vehicles that travel through the air, so they share many terms. As said, 'splashed down' is technically correct - and so is 'landed'. Here's a web page by NASA that uses both https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html (see bottom where it has a heading 'landing' with Pacific Ocean as the location. If it's good enough for NASA ...). For the introduction, I favour the less wordy version when both are correct. The exact means and location of the landing is not important to the intro - details of the water landing can be given in the more detailed sections.  Stepho  talk  01:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs when NASA itself uses both, then why can't we use the one which is more informative. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Because 'landed' is simpler and conveys the same information to readers. Why complicate it?  Stepho  talk  11:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs how in the world does it convey same info? splash specifically means landing on water, while landing can be used for solid ground as well. but as we all know the crew capsule splashed down in pacific ocean and did not land on any solid ground. so I insist changing it to splashed down. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose change. Wikipedia is here to serve readers, and we have an obligation to write plainly and clearly, with focus on what is conceptually important, and avoiding pedantic emphasis that obscures the central point.The central point is that Apollo returned to earth, and the usual and general term for such a return is "landing." "Splashed down" is somewhat of a colloquialism, is overly specific emphasis, and may not be clear to someone who does not already have a basic understanding of spacecraft return. I will also point out that anybody who has flown over water in a commercial aircraft has heard a briefing on what to do in the event of a "water landing," so there is no contradiction in common usage concerning landing in water. PiyushBhati2005, please don't "insist" that your view must prevail. Content is subject to consensus. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Acroterion you say wikipedia is to write plainly and clearly, but landed in place of splashed changes the whole concept of the final phase of an apkllo mission. landed can be misjudged for a solid suface landing. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Or go with returned safely to Earth as another option (although 'landed' is correct as the capsule landed on top the water and did not sink, because in this case 'Earth' is uppercased as the name of the planet and not lowercased to refer to the planet's soil and rock). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@PiyushBhati2005: We do not need you to lecture us on which is more technically correct or "informative", thank you very much. What Wikipedia policy or guideline do you cite for "wikipedia is supposed to give info in the best way possible"? We have long established a WP:CONSENSUS for how spaceflight articles are supposed to describe landing and have invested a lot of work in this. We have a Template:Infobox spaceflight which we use for every mission; it universally uses the term "landing" to describe the return to Earth. As Stepho-wrs has pointed out, there is no reason to complicate it. Please read WP:PEDANTRY and stop being pedantic. I think it's high time to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@JustinTime55 ok I give up, I just wished for the correct sense to be conveyed. But people here are way too resistive against changes.
Hopefully I will learn more and come with solid arguements.
Thankyou for your precious time. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn for your information, the capsule dips into the water for a very brief moment and then floats up, so splashed down can be used. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
As can 'returned safely' which describes the end result. "Landed", while technically accurate, does imply and provides a conscious thought of a pilot-directed landing, such as the Space Shuttle, rather than a free-fall return assisted at a key moment by parachutes, which is why I have empathy for your concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn yes 'returned safely' can be used. I completely agree with you. So should I make the change? PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
No, don't change it, no consensus here to do so and it looks like the 'landed' question has been addressed previously. I like accurate language as well but sometimes, such as here, what looks inaccurate does actually fall within the accepted use of the words. 'Landed' means the capsule came to a descent stop on its way back to Earth (uppercased, which means the planet, where it did land upon the planet's ocean). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Launch Operations Centre could also mention the Saturn/Apollo Mobile Service Structure. There was only one, shared between 39A and 39B.[2], (It is mentioned in Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39#Apollo_and_Skylab but not here). Seems it was moved using the Crawler. - Rod57 (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't Apollo 13 only a partial failure? 2600:1008:B13E:6E8D:C091:9A4B:6099:AA7B (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Read through the article or do a web page search. The Mission summary table entry mentions the "successful failure" label by NASA. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
How is that different than Apollo 6, then? 2603:6000:8740:54B1:C4DD:72CB:52B5:8898 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: per WP:ONEWAY Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.[…] If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.
Reliable sources do not mention conspiracy theories when they talk about the Apollo program. Parham wiki (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There are LOTS of reliable sources about the Apollo program that mention the conspiracy theories… even if it’s only to debunk them. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:ONEWAY explicitly uses the example of astronomy vs astrology (ie, science vs pseudoscience). That example is almost exactly our situation of moon landing vs faked moon landing. By your reasoning, astronomy books don't talk about astrology, so therefore WP:ONEWAY's very first example of good usage is rubbish. Sad to say, there are a lot of people that believe the moon landings were faked, so we need to debunk it.  Stepho  talk  12:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@Blueboar and @Stepho-wrs: See WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:UNDUE: the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. Earth is an astronomy article. Parham wiki (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what your argument is there. You pointed to WP:OTHERCONTENT (ie, don't use other articles as examples) and then pointed to Earth as an example. Whereas my argument is lifted almost directly from the directions for WP:ONEWAY (which you brought up, by the way). Also, WP:UNDUE would apply if I tried to put many links about conspiracies in the article or used much fanfare - as opposed to a single link with no fanfare.  Stepho  talk  13:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
You said from the example of astronomy vs astrology that it is related to astronomy (like earth and flat earth) in WP:UNDUE an astronomical example is given. The fact that it is an astronomical article is not a reason to refer to marginal theories. Also, WP:BLP says editors should not write controversial claims about living people (like Buzz Aldrin), let alone false allegations. Parham wiki (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Huh? When did I make false false claims against Buzz Aldrin? The conspiracy debunking article reports that some other people have called him a fraud and then we defended him. It's hard to debunk something if you are not allowed to say what you are debunking.  Stepho  talk  13:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs: I didn't say what you said, I apologize if it seems like that. Parham wiki (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Just my opinion here, but I don't think the cospriacy theories belong in the article but should be treated as a distinct phenomenon. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The matter can be raised at the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they should be separate.  The Moon landing conspiracy theories article is one that has existed for a while. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

In the first paragraph after the sentence "By 1971, the decision was made to also cancel missions 18 and 19." The next sentence says "The two unused Saturn Vs became museum exhibits....." but then goes on to list 4 locations.  Did all 4 locations get a Saturn V? I know the first two listed did, not sure about the others.
Sorry, I could not log in to Wikipedia, I could not remember which email address I used for my account, and therefore could not reset my password (assuming I created an account in the first place.  It's been a long time since I edited anything).
Jim 2603:9000:9A06:BE39:25E7:CBD8:9D8C:3775 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Existing Citation #23 has become inaccessible due to modification to outside source recordkeeping without utilization of way back machine. The article was moved from https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Apollo.html to https://www.nasa.gov/history/the-first-step-langleys-contributions-to-apollo/. I understand that this may not be of much importance to anyone, but I was struggling to find my way to the route source for citation. Simplygathered (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed via archive.org .  Stepho  talk  05:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)