Talk:List of artificial objects on the Moon

message: I added two links to google's moon maps - Luna 13 and Apollo 11
Does anyone think this is a good/bad idea?
Que 16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Moon 

message: It is mentioned tat various object fell to the moon after orbital decay. There is no air there so what causes the decay?
:The gravitational field of the Moon is not uniform. You have the Sun and the Earth causing orbits to change. There are also mass concentrations below the surface of the Moon which mean that orbits will eventually be changed so much that they pass "through" the surface. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital decay 

message: I think the title of this page should change to Terrestrial objects on the Moon, or Human made objects on the moon. I know it is pretty unlikely there are any other type of objects up there, but it is pretty arrogant to assume we are the only ones make artificial objects... Any one against it?
:I am.  The current article title is precise and non-confusing.  If we ever find on the Moon an artificial object made by Martians, we'll calmly add it to this list.  Tempshill 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title should change 

message: Are any of the objects in this list sitting on the dark side of the Moon?  If so it would be nice to tag them as such.  Tempshill 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes anything on the grid past 90 degrees on either side (in the table past 90 degrees East or West - I guess that means Ranger 4, Lunar Orbiter 1, Lunar Orbiter 2 and Lunar Orbiter 3 -- Astrokey44|talk 14:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any on the dark side? 

message: Is this just because I've been drinking too much beer tonight, but is the grid plotting the objects downright nonsensical?  It gives no indication what the axises (sp?) are supposed to be.  If they are latitude/longitude coordinates, then the grid is plotted on a weird scale (what is at 100 degrees latitude?) --Bletch 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ive cropped it at 90 degrees, is that better? --Astrokey44 02:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup; it was the "100" on the vertical axis that got me. --Bletch 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grid? 

message: I would like that the readers, at a glance, could distinguish between intact objects and wrecks. I have three suggestions:
*Divide the table into a table with the intacts and a table with wrecks.
*A sixth column with condition (intact/wreck).
*A prefix like 'crashed at 29.1°N 0°W in the Location column.
Necessary Evil 02:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrecks 

message: How much (in mass) was removed from Surveyor 3 by Apollo 12?
71.60.155.71 10:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass of Removed Artificial Objects 

message: :Image:Smart28261.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Smart28261.jpg

message: According to the page for the orbiter there is an exact longitude and latitude.  Either this page or that page is incorrect. Cs302b (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hinten Orbiter final location

message: The image :Image:Lk102.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Lk102.jpg

message: This is the reference for this, taken from Moon Impact Probe article and verified on ISRO site 
Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIP terminated after moon impact 

message: Apollo_10 says 
The Apollo 10 LM descent stage is expected to have crashed onto the lunar surface, but the exact location is unknown.
and the footnote at List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon#cite_note-note1-0 says 
Spacecraft was in lunar orbit but is assumed to have decayed from orbit and crashed into the moon, location unknown.
so it would appear that the Apollo 10 LM descent stage has not returned to Earth. Occultations (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo 10 LM descent stage - Returned to Earth? 

message: In the grid, the location of the Apollo 17 lunar rover is given as 20.17°N 30.77°W.
All the other Apollo 17 artifacts are in the Eastern Hemisphere.  Is this in error?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.123.48.148 (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo 17 Rover Location 

message: As of this comment, the very first paragraph in the article reads
The following table is a partial list of artificial objects on the surface of the Moon. The list does not include smaller objects such as the retroreflectors and Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package. Nor does it include several commemorative or personal objects left there by Apollo astronauts, such as the golf balls from Alan Shepard's lunar driving practice during Apollo 14, flags, or the Fallen Astronaut statuette left by the crew of Apollo 15.
Which is really just a more verbose way of saying "This is an article that talks about things except about the things we're talking about in this paragraph of the article."
I would suggest adding the things in the paragraph to the list, and changing the paragraph to read something like: The following table is a partial list of artificial objects on the surface of the Moon. The list is particularly incomplete when it comes to smaller objects such as retroreflectors or commemorative/personal objects such as flags and golf balls.
Otherwise, it just seems, well, a bit inane.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.58.208 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A NASA pin and a family photo of one of the astronauts (in a zip bag), mentioned by the Apollo astronauts in a recent documentary.  --79.168.10.241 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not in the list, but..." 

message: Please see my question at the Science RefDesk. For some reason the coordinates of the crash given in the article Ranger 4 are different from the coordinates in the instant article. --Mathew5000 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates of Ranger 4 

message: Artificial = not natural. Man-made is more specific, which is why I changed the article name. I hope it won't be controversial. Mr. PIM (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated this to "human-made" due to Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". Thanks all for your work on the article! All the best, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "human-made" is unwieldy and not a common search term; "artificial" would be better, IMHO.  See also List of artificial objects on extra-terrestrial surfaces. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

text: "Artifical" is, IMHO, the most appropriate term for things like this. Simple, concise, accurate and to the point. Redirects from "...man-made..." and "...human-made..." would be appropriate, though. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial vs. man-made 

message: The lede does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for a lede section.  Moreover, the first paragraph, arguably the most important paragraph in the article, spends most of its text telling the reader what is NOT going to be covered in the article.  Seems odd.  N2e (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede rewrite 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of man-made disasters which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 01:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Didn't Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong leave behind a satchel with the medals of Yuri Gagarin?  Thismightbezach (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gagarin 

message: Does anybody talk about re-using these objects?  If not, why not.  Do we want to expand the info on this article, or as it is a List maybe it should have a companion page about what people want to know about these things- why they are there, how they are there.  What is the significance, are there problems, are there official records of all the objects, as there are objects in space, do the items have a catalogue number.  Who owns them?  Perhaps I am being very naïve, but it looks like if one had a good rover, one ought to be able to land in the right place and put together wonderful things from the surrounding hundreds of kilos of old hardware!
IceDragon64 (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-use and other data 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of artificial objects on the Moon. 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/20040104212104/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo13.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo13.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607212035/http://www.jaxa.jp/topics/2009/06_e.html to http://www.jaxa.jp/topics/2009/06_e.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) 11:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of artificial objects on the Moon. 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/20101229085520/http://research.ae.utexas.edu/cfpl/lunar/pressrelease/discussion.html to http://research.ae.utexas.edu/cfpl/lunar/pressrelease/discussion.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) 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: This article is appalling. Either the title needs to be changed and the bags of poo removed from the list or we need to actually make it what the title implies it is. At the moment it's a list of space crafts and a bag of poo. Any thoughts? Cls14 (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor article

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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) 17:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: When/how should this article be updated to reflect the Chinese Chang'e 5 mission? Last I saw the descent stage is remaining on the Moon, and sample return vehicle is in/approaching lunar orbit. GenericHumanoid (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chang'e 5 

message: The second line, "Luna 2 - Third stage of Vostok rocket" says mass=9100 kg. No references. Sounds improbably high for an empty, expended Block E. A quick check showed "gross mass of 3rd stage (8K72 Block E) = 7984 kg, mass after complete fuel burn = 1472 kg" . 9100 or 7984 isn't an issue, the difference isn't that big. The point it, this mass never reached the Moon. Most of it was fuel, burnt in transit. Retired electrician (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading mass figures? 

message: Should this be added to the article? Did material survive the impact? Seems like the identity of the object isn't really clear yet. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
NASA publishes images showing an unexpected and unexplained double crater from what is thought to be the first time human space debris – likely by a spent rocket body – unintentionally hit the lunar surface on 4 March.
 Prototyperspective (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update with: 2022 crashed space debris rocket body