Talk:Apollo program/Archive 1

message: "The Apollo program was primarily motivated by psycho-political considerations, in response to persistent perceptions of American inferiority in space technology vis-a-vis the Soviets, in the context of the Cold War. In this respect it succeeded brilliantly. In fact, American superiority in manned spaceflight was achieved in the precursory Gemini program, even before the first Apollo flight."  needless and unjustified bias?  --drj
:Yes, I think so.  The Apollo 1 tragedy hardly left NASA feeling overly superior.
::No, actually, I believe you're wrong. The Gemini program accomplished ten successful mannned flights in 22 months. It achieved the first rendezvous and docking of spacecraft in orbit, widely regarded as the next and most crucial step in the development of manned spaceflight (both for earth orbital and lunar mission operations), and repeatedly demonstrated this capability. The Gemini flights set impressive records for mission duration, orbital altitude and extra-vehicular activity. During this period the Soviet Union did not launch a single manned spaceflight. When the Soviets did resume flight a few months after the Apollo 1 fire, they failed to achieve a planned docking, and the mission ended in disaster with the death of the cosmonaut. Yes, the Apollo 1 fire was a serious setback. But despite the fire, American superiority in manned spaceflight achievement was clear.
: The major problem isn't that it's needless or biased.  The problem is that those sentences are poorly written and punctuated.  "Psycho-political", "persistant perceptions", "vis-a-vis", and "in the context of" are wretched abuses of language.
: drj is totally right - this is needless, biased and above all subjective. The question to ask is what constitutes as "superior" in manned spaceflight? The first space walk, the first rendezvous of two spaceships, the first space station, the longest duration of a human in space? Well for me the achievements in manned spaceflights by Russia and America are about equal. themanwithoutapast
Well, for me, the Russians are around 10 years ahead of the Americans in rocket technology (there are reports concerning this of the US governement) and around 15 years in Station development. There would be no ISS without them, but they could have their own SS if they wanted to. Were they not superior at that time? I truly believe that should Korolev not died prematurely, the first man on the Moon would have been a Russian. For me, the adjective "superior" should be taken out or rephrase by saying something like "made the Americans feel superior". In that way you are more objective: "there existed a feeling of superiority" even when for some people this superiority is true or completely false. luiscar
:First man on Luna a Russian? I doubt it. The N-1 was too complicated, & complexity equals prone to fail. There's a reason both N-1 test shots blew up on the pad.  Trekphiler 07:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Space Race

message: I've deleted this stuff: The cost of Apollo program: $25.4 billion | Amount of moon material brought back by Apollo program: 381.7 kg | (a price of about $60,540 spent per gram of moon brought back) There seems to me to be no limit to this type of "interesting snippet" except if the Apollo program was really about mining moondust. Cost per human step on the moon? Cost per breath taken by astronauts? Cost per defecation? No thanks. Hotlorp 02:57 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
:Agreed this could get silly, but a few pertinant bits of information to indicate the costs / benefits might be informative?2toise 17:08, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You of course have not taken into account that the benefits of research cannot be measured at all. How do you measure the result given by the Michelson/Morley experiment AT THE TIME of the experiment? How do you measure the mistaken efforts of Frege to define "set"? Please do not try to rate the benefits of a research you may only be able to realize in 200 years' time. I know what I am talking about: the mathematics of Gauss (a lot of them) were only beneficial as you call it, long long after his death. Ditto for Galois' theories. Pfortuny 11:54, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, while cost per breath or even cost per kg of moon rock might be excessive, I think that the total cost of the program and the economic impact it had is VERY appropriate for this article, I actually came here looking for some information about how much the program cost, and was surprised to find none at all in the article. -lommer 21:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you intend to measure the cost in $/rock, then measure it in relation to benefit of improved quality control in industry, new materials that didn't exist before, new techniques that were impossible before (remote medical telemetry). Only opponents of continued space flight claim it was "nothing but a few kg of rocks".  Trekphiler 13:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There have long been claims that we have the space program to thank for Tang, Velcro, and many other things which were used by but not created by said program. We are now at the point of launching a new program to spend more hundreds of billions of dollars to send astronauts to the moon again and to mars to bring back more rocks. The cost per rock should be compared for manned versus robotic collection, with the additional option of analysis on mars by robotic analysis equipment, eliminating the possibility of an Andromeda Strain  type introduction of pathogens on earth. Edison 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost of Apollo

message: :Image:SpaceCapsule.JPG
If its from the NASM, then its Apollo 11--enceladus 21:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: An Apollo?

message: Can someone explain why a lunar mission was named after the sun god?
:good question.  Endymion would have been ever so much cooler. Maybe because the mission was gay? 
*Above comment by Dbachmann
::Heh, funny guy.  Apollo is the god of light, and the twin brother of Artemis, the goddess of the moon, right?  Maybe naming it after a girl wasn't feasible in the 1950s. - Chairboy 17:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun god? 

message: who the hell filmed what's his name getting out of the capsule during the first landing
there was no moon buggy to mount a camera on for the first trip
so who filmed it?
It was probably filmed in a studio
Dudtz 7/23/05 4:59 PM EST
:The camera was mounted on the leg of the lander.  Please research before assuming conspiracy. - Chairboy 21:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lunar Module had a Modularised Equipment Stowage Area (MESA) that carried stuff that would be needed by the crew on the lunar surface but would not be needed while they were inside Lunar Module. As Neil Armstrong moved through the hatch and out onto the hatch, he pulled on a D-ring that caused the MESA to swing down into an accessible position. If you go to this page can scroll down to 109:21:09, this is the moment he pulls the D-ring. Mounted on the MESA was the TV Camera that showed Neil Armstrong descending down the ladder. This was the same TV Camera that the crew would later mount on a tripod to record the rest of their EVA. The placement of the MESA can be seen in this top-down drawing and in this training photo. This drawing shows what was included in the MESA. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but can you fake the perfect parabolic trajectories of the lunar dust that can been seen in the videos, or the way 1/6th gravity affects the way a person walks? Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: They did use colour cameras. Apollo 11 was the only one not to. Check out the video on Apollo 15 (in Ogg Theora format). You may also want to look at Apollo moon landing hoax accusations if you already haven't. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: To prove that the landing is real, you can shoot a laser on a precise location on the Moon and get a reflection back due to a mirror placed there by astronauts. And no, there is no secret mirror in the sky doing this. There is absolutely no evidence that the landing was faked. To fake the hammer and feather experiment you need a vacuum the size of Heathrow airport which is as you can imagine quite difficult to do. There are rocks from the Moon with characteritics unique to the Moon's environment. Tourskin 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunar landing 

message: Apollo 13 is listed as being the only manned circumlunar flight, but it says right above it that Apollo 8 was the first manned flight around the moon. Does anyone understand what the author was trying to say? Willhsmit 02:26, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
:It comes from the way circumlunar is defined by Apollo nerds (such as myself :-) ). Circumlunar means not actually entering into a stable orbit around the Moon. I'll make this more clear in the text. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo 13 only circumlunar flight???? 

message: What is the etymology of this project's name?  Why is it named after Apollo?
The following site (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/v1p1.htm) gives clues as to its origins:  During the month of Feb. 1960, "At a luncheon in Washington, Abe Silverstein, Director of the Office of Space Flight Programs, suggested the name "Apollo" for the manned space flight program that was to follow Mercury. Others at the luncheon were Don R. Ostrander from NASA Headquarters and Robert R. Gilruth, Maxime A. Faget, and Charles J. Donlan from STG. Interview with Charles J. Donlan, Langley Research Center, June 20, 1966."  Also: July 25th 1960, "NASA Director of Space Flight Programs Abe Silverstein notified Harry J. Goett, Director of the Goddard Space Flight Center, that NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan had approved the name "Apollo" for the advanced manned space flight program. The program would be so designated at the forthcoming NASA-Industry Program Plans Conference."  As to why the program name was picked and approved, good hunting.  It's interesting to note that the Apollo program originally specified a permanent manned space station as announced by NASA Deputy Administrator Hugh L. Dryden.
It would appear that Dr. Silverstein made a common mistake and confused Apollo with Helios (the sun god) and his twin sister Artemis is also sometimes confused with Selene (Goddess of the moon).  Of course, no one can ask him, as he died in 2001 at the age of 92.
66.14.219.136 19:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: Howcum the Boeing rover isn't linked? And can we include a mention of Dr Gerard Kuiper, who selected all the Apollo landing sites?  Trekphiler 13:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff 

message: Firefox swallowed my last revert summary, so for the record, it was because it's meaningless to talk of Apollo 2 and 3, which would have been launch designations, as being specific spacecraft which were dismantled. Shimgray | talk | 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert summary 

message: Shouldn't there be a criticism section in the article? Like cost spent instead of ending famine worldwide, racism (no coloured guy went to the mooon), etc. 195.70.32.136 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in as a commentary or "Social Effects" or something, include the above, & note it had enormous economic spinoff effects. That money didn't evaporate; it went to hiring "butchers & bakers & telescope makers", as Bova put it, hi paid engineers doing "hi-value" jobs (to use the overused phrase). If you're interested in reducing welfare, the space program does it by creating hi pay jobs for a few (hundred) engineers & thousands of jobs for the people that support them (grocers, real estate agents, movie theater clerks, tire salesmen...). In this section, you might also mention where Grumman & Boeing built the spacecraft, & where their subcontracted parts came from; I'll wager every one of the 50 states were involved. It wasn't just a few space nerds at the Cape. (Of course, I'm biased...)  Trekphiler 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-sidedness 

message: What is meant by a "Lunar Corridor" in the tragectory towards moon. Can anyone please explain little further this term?
Penguine_s  January 24, 2006
*If I'm not mistaken, it refers to the angle at which the trajectory towards the moon that is necessary for lunar orbital insertion.  Too far one way, and you fly off into space.  Too far the other way, and you've made yourself the most expensive projectile ever to strike the moon.
* Yup, thats it. Kinda incredible how they managed to not ONLY figure out the proper corridor to get in orbit, but how they programmed that on a computer that had 32kb of RAM and weighed over 100lbs. I wish I could get someone from NASA to explain HOW they did that out back then.... I wonder how many of them read this stuff... Ghostalker 05:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lunar Corridor

message: This article's detailed infoboxes on the CSM and LM are redundant with the boxes found at Apollo Command/Service Module and Apollo Lunar Module, and I think they take up too much space. I propose to remove them and transfer the Apollo insignia to the upper-right corner instead. Melchoir 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'll just do it. Melchoir 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box removal 

message: I actually came here to learn about the Apollo missions.  As a reader, I was surprised not to see at least one mention of the crew names for each mission, or to a less degree, the name of the place where each landed.  Could I insert those?
Something with a little more impact on the structure would be a precis of each of the missions.  Would anyone find that objectionable?
:I'm concerned that this article is already pretty long. Do you think the listings under the "Flights" section and the "Missions" section are really inadequate? Melchoir 02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crews 

message: Mark Wade here http://www.astronautix.com/astrogrp/nas51966.htm mentions that in 1965 there were up to 30 planned AAP missions to Earth Orbit. He is credible on most sources. Going to add mention of attempt to interest USAF in Apollo equipment.Piersmasterson 11:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo Applications/Blue Apollo 

message: I have submitted this article for peer review, with the aim of eventually making it a featured article. Any help and feedback would be appreciated. The review page is Wikipedia:Peer review/Project Apollo/archive2. Thank you. --GW_SimulationsTalk | Contribs | E-mail 13:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: My understanding is that, even though neither Apollo 7 nor Apollo 8 actually carried a Lunar Module, both Walt Cunningham and Bill Anders had the title "Lunar Module Pilot" anyway. RandomCritic 12:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure either way. Can you find a cite? --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure either, but I'd guess true. NASA'd have all its crews trained & designated same way, no?  Trekphiler 07:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunar Module Pilot 

message: Who put the comment about NPOV after the quote:
:"New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space"
Surely quotes are not subject to the NPOV policy. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV???

message: In the subsection "mission types", it lists some types of missions and labels them with letters, A, B, C... etc; my understanding is that these were only used in the planning, and don't necessarily correspond to actual missions? for example, was there an E type mission? this should be made clear.. and in fact, if they don't correspond to actual missions, that list should probably be moved below the real listing of missions. Mlm42 09:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a planning designation (if Tom Hanks' "From the Earth to the Moon" is to be believed).  Trekphiler 07:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mission types 

message: I'm not fanatical about it, but some say Apollo I isn't appropriate, since the bird didn't fly. Some say "Apollo 204" (for the booster). I'd say change it to "Apollo 012", for the spacecraft involved in the plugs-out test fire. Comment?  Trekphiler 07:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apollo 012

message: I would like to soon nominate this artice for good article status, and before doing so, have a few suggestions on improvements.
* In "background", I think that this statement "The Apollo program was at least partly motivated by geopolitical considerations, in the context of the Cold War and the Space Race" needs to be given more discussion, as the space race was why a Moon landing was proposed in the first place.
* In the section "choosing a mission mode", some (but not all) of the material coming after the list might be more appropriate for the following section "spacecraft".
* It is a shame that there is nor more information of "The Launch Escape Tower (LET)" in Wikipedia. Perhaps this needs a two line description in the section "Spacecraft".
* The section "Astronauts" seems to me to be out of place. Perhaps this should be in an info box? Or just at the very end of the article as some form of "appendix"? In any case, this section should come after missions.
* All of the tables between "missions" and "samples returned" need to be integrated into the text somehow, or added as an asside in an info box. They really disrupt the flow of the article. It is debatable as to whether some of the info in the tables is necessary, such as "serial number", "CM name". It would perhaps be acceptable to delete, or substantially reduce the size of these tables, as they are present on the linked pages.  I would suggest listing them in the text as a bulleted list with a one sentence desription.
* There is no textual description associated with "Launch Complex utilization"
* A section summarizing "lunar science" and "ALSEP" should probably be given on this page. 
* there are very few inline sitations.
* "The Moon" should be captilized. At a minimum, the article should use a consisten approach.
* Apollo applications: "Skylab's last crew departed the station on February 8, 1974, whilst the station itself returned prematurely to Earth in 1979, by which time it had become the oldest operational Apollo component." Explain what "prematurely" means here, and why!
* End of the Mission. "Only one of the remaining Saturn Vs was actually used; the others became museum exhibits." I could be wrong, but I thought that there was only one unused Saturn V, and that this is on the lawn of JSC.
* "It appears that much of the original film and telemetry data is missing. " I think that this is an overstatement. There are some missing data, but "much" might be overstating this problem.
Lunokhod 13:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact nearly all of it appears to be missing. Gravitor 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give me a reference to a reputable source that backs this claim up? And could you quantify what "nearly all" means? Is this 90%? 95% Thanks. Lunokhod 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions before GA nomination 

message: I added a link to the Moon Landing Hoax under the "End of the program and lasting influences" section.  I hope this is okay. I think that the hoax is (somewhat) notable and a lasting (if not necessarily a positive) influence of the program. Liberal Classic 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edited the sentences and would like to defend their inclusion. The idea of hoax is widespread and familar, albeit "not necessarily a positive"  Numskll 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. "Cottage industry" isn't very encyclopedic. However, conspiracy theory fits extremely well in this case, in my opinion. Liberal Classic 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually get how the term applies -- the tendancy (probably necesssity) of self publication by hoax comspiracy theorists, but to me they are just the flag bearers for the "significant minority" who believe odd things like this. Oh, and Bat Boy. I bet they believe in bat boy too. Numskll 12:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I struck the word 'significant' from the sentence. That adverb gives the minority undue weight, though the idea has certainly percolated through popular culture. Liberal Classic 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The section is in the Moon landing article. More specifically here: Moon_landing#Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations Andy120290 18:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see it now, thank you. Liberal Classic 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a small sentence and link 

message: I'm concerned the article isn't consistent in its use of these two names. Is there a distinction between them? Is one more correct? More formal? Or is it a matter of individual taste? (Personally I always use, "The Apollo Program." Maybe because that's what I've heard or read more often, e.g. in the Apollo Program Summary Report. Would it improve the article to directly address this question somehow? Sdsds 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Apollo Project refer to a project agency to develop the technics to be able to land on the Moon. The Apollo Program is about all the missions with Apollo missions, both manned and unmanned. So Apollo program is more correct to use. When looking through the files on NASA the Apollo program is more frequently used as the times goes by during the 1960's. I would like to use the Apollo program rather than project Apollo. 81.227.161.87 23:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Apollo program is more commonly used. We should rename this page. Lunokhod 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, I think that'd be better. Personally, I've never heard it referred to as "Project Apollo". --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whilst I agree with the name change, there are a lot of pages which link to Project Apollo. I think these links will just redirect so I assume its not a problem, but would this affect this article's possibility of becoming a featured article. (Probably not, just a thought, because the name must be official -- which I think Apollo Program is). --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think that it could possibly affect the article's chances of becoming an FA, and like everyone else, I think "Apollo Program" would be better. I just hope that someone else will do it--renaming pages is not one of my skills. MLilburne 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We've faffed around before with the name, as I recall - the same with Gemini and Mercury. I feel "program" is better for all three, as if nothing else it gives us a slightly broader scope for edge cases like Skylab/ASTP. Shimgray | talk | 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. A search on the NASA website reveals 15,200 results for project apollo (and even the best bet on that it titled "apollo program"), but a huge 19,000 for apollo program. I think we can successfully say that this is the best name, and almost certainly the most commonly used. I tried a rename earlier, but since Apollo Program is already a redirect to this page, it wasn't allowed (page not blank). I guess we'll need an admin to delete that page and then move it. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no objection by this time tomorrow I'll do the move; it seems pretty well-supported. Shimgray | talk | 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 18:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Done with all associated redirects (I think). I chose "program" over "Program" - I'm not entirely sure why, but it seemed more appropriate - it was a program named Apollo, not "the Apollo Program" as a single proper noun. Shimgray | talk | 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also renamed the footer template to Template:Apollo program and changed the text to Apollo program. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 09:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I would never have thought of these things. Glad someone's on top of them. MLilburne 09:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasted all morning trying to rename links that go to Project Apollo to go to Apollo program. After requesting bot help and advised to look at wikipedia policy on redirects I realised its unnecessary. Obviously it helps to have the template renamed and consistency throughout the article, I just don't want anyone else making the same mistake I did -- in fact, it slows down the system more to edit a page than it does to "fix" a link. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 16:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name - "Project Apollo" or the "Apollo Program"