Talk:Apollo 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Apollo 11 has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
WikiProject on Space Exploration This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space exploration. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping.
See also our assessed articles.		 Assessment:
Good article GA Class
High Importance
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Apollo 11 as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Slovak language Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apollo 11 article.

Contents

[edit] Evidence against a hoax/cover-up

The Soviet Union, which also had a space tracking network and their own outer-space tracking infrastrurture. This was the 1960s, height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had no reason to let the U.S with a hoax of that magnititude.

Okay, fine they could only track if SOMETHING was on a path between the earth and moon, or perhaps metallic objects on the lunar surface. It wouldn't be conclusive evidence of manned landing.

If there was manned capsule in Earth orbit and the 'bogus' package was on the way to the moon. Wouldn't the Soviet space tracking network have discovered this?

But the video and audio signals containing the video coverage of astronauts would be easily triangulated as sourced from outer space (radio tracking). Of course, you theorists would argue the probe carried a beacon transmitted the pre-recorded footage.

How about the thousands, nay, tens of thousands of people who would have to know that the landings were faked? Why has no one spoken up for the last 40 years?! Why has the KGB not discovered a single piece of evidence that the landings were a hoax?

The only way you theorists would believe it is if you got the chance to go up there and see the footprints for yourself. Or would you prefer to think they sent boot-wearing robots?

Roswell Crash Survivor 02:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that evidence exists pointing to the falsification of the Apollo moon landing.

Is the folklore about the couple arguing about sex really necessary? It just doesnt seem to impact the story in any way, nor is it relevant to Apollo 11. Seriously, it should be removed. Some 5th grader doing a school project is going to try and look up information regarding the moon landing, and is going to get barraged with links to Wikipedia Oral Sex. At least remove the link, so that this page doesnt directly lead to that topic...

An event mentioned in this article is a July 20 selected anniversary

This might not be appropriate for a Talk page, but ...

Much has been said in the USA lately about the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks being one of those moments where people will one day ask, "do you remember where you were when you heard the news?" For me, the biggest event that warranted that sort of response in the past was the first lunar landing. I was five years old, crowded into my grandmother's living room with perhaps every relative on the planet, trying to see the television, and eagerly chatting with everyone about what we were seeing. Thinking about the Apollo program lately has been therapeutic for me; a reminder of the heights to which humanity can reach, and a memory of being able to share in that experience, in however small a way.

So where were you when they walked on the Moon?


I don't think September 11 should be mentioned in the same paragraph as the achievement of Apollo- I ask only that you remove that comparison- because Apollo represents all that is great about America. The men that perpetrated September 11 could only destroy and murder the innocent people and their families in their thousands because it was made easy for them to do so. Their first action was to slit the throat of an innocent defenceless stewardess.

Please don't link the two even in the "where were you" context- it gives a bad taste!!

Again, apologies if this is not appropriate; willing to remove it if so. -- RjLesch

The old photo: Image:Apollo11.png -- Taku 00:59 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

The photo above is actually of Apollo 11, so I'm putting it back in. Here's the photo I'm removing, which must be from a later mission that included the rover:
Image:As15-88-11866.jpg
-- Arteitle 16:38 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on moon photos, but surely the Rover shown only went with later Apollo missions. Hotlorp 00:20 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely right, the photo currently up is not a picture of Apollo 11, because it didn't bring a rover along. -- Arteitle 16:06 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

im french, sorry for my english....i come from french wikipedia for download picture of space. All Nasa picture are free ?

I surprised, rover is use only for apollo 15, 16, and 17...i think its apollo 15 mission with james irwin on it.

And the picture on this page is apollo 11,12, or 14 because we dont see the deployment structure of the rover (some plastic on one side and root)...but also, we dont see the big parabolic reflector of apollo 12...and i dont recognize standard module of ALSEP in foreground...Apollo Lunar Scientific Experiment Package, use only after Apollo 11.

Oliezekat 19:51 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Me again :op

Im sure that old photo come from apollo 11 because ALSEP use nuclear power...dont need solar system :o)

Oliezekat 19:57 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Correct, the device in the old photo is the PSEP (Passive Seismic Experiment Package). More info here: http://www.myspacemuseum.com/alsepa2.htm -- Arteitle 16:18 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest 20 possible wiki links and 6 possible backlinks for Apollo 11.

FIRST COMMENTS Peter Ellis 07:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I added links I considered appropriate, also for retroreflector and Sibrel backlinks (other backlinks are mostly-unwikified articles). -- Curps 08:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Apollo_11 article:

  • Can link 31 minutes: ...closed''': July 21, 05:11:13 UTC **'''Duration''': 2 hours, 31 minutes, 40 seconds... (link to section)
NO
  • Can link Eastern Daylight Time: ...dule at that point, and guided it to a landing at 4:17 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on July 20 with less than 30 seconds' worth of fuel left in... (link to section)
NO
YES, obviously -- Curps
  • Can link southern Sea: ...uts left footprints.]]The first Apollo landing site, in the southern Sea of Tranquility about 20 km (12 mi) southwest of the crater ... (link to section)
NO
  • Can link Ranger 8: ...haracterized as relatively flat and smooth by the automated Ranger 8 and Surveyor 5 landers, as well as by Lunar Orbiter mapping... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Surveyor 5: ...as relatively flat and smooth by the automated Ranger 8 and Surveyor 5 landers, as well as by Lunar Orbiter mapping spacecraft, an... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Lunar Orbiter: ...he automated Ranger 8 and Surveyor 5 landers, as well as by Lunar Orbiter mapping spacecraft, and therefore unlikely to present major... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Scientific Experiment: ...lecting rocks. They planned placement of the Early Apollo Scientific Experiment Package (EASEP) and the U.S. flag by studying their landing... (link to section)
NO
NO
  • Can link John W. Young: ...gh the hatch with his PLSS. According to veteran moonwalker John Young, a redesign of the LM to incorporate a smaller hatch was no... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Remote Control: ...l seconds to clear the tower on [[July 16]], [[1969]].]]The Remote Control Unit controls on Armstrong's chest prevented him from seein... (link to section)
NO
  • Can link another world: ... footpad and into history as the first human to set foot on another world. He reported that moving in the Moon's gravity, one-sixth o... (link to section)
NO
  • Can link man on the Moon: ...to fulfilling President John F. Kennedy's mandate to land a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s, Apollo 11 was an engineering t... (link to section)
YES, perversely!
NO, it's a link to the film of that name -- Curps
  • Can link life support: ...rd rung and climbed into the LM. After transferring to LM life support, the explorers lightened the ascent stage for return to lun... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link American flag: ... the [[Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment]]. They also left an American flag and other mementos, including a plaque bearing two drawings... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link mini-series: ...on, D.C.]] <sup>&#10013;</sup>According to the documentary mini-series ''[[From the Earth to the Moon]]'', Michael Collins said be... (link to section)
NO - it is ´tacky´!
YES, obviously -- Curps 08:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Can link National Archives: ...urface with gold visor raised. From 16-mm film (NASA).]]The National Archives in Washington, D.C. has a copy of the following contingency... (link to section)
YES
  • Can link Mother Earth: ...urned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.... (link to section)
NO
NO
  • Can link brotherhood of man: ...feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man. In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes ... (link to section)
NO - No!
NO

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

  • In Retroreflector, can backlink Apollo 11: ... passage of vehicles. ==Retroreflectors on the Moon== The Apollo 11, 14, and 15 missions left retro-reflectors on the [[Moon]] ...
YES
  • In STS-32, can backlink Apollo 11: ...ned lunar orbit, Apollo 8; the first lunar landing mission, Apollo 11; three manned Skylab launches; and the...
YES
  • In STS-68, can backlink Apollo 11: ...ostal Service in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing....
YES
  • In Juno Reactor, can backlink APOLLO XI: ...t was issued by American label TVT and Ben was also part of APOLLO XI, alongside THE ORB's ALEX PATERSON who recorded the 'PEACE ...
YES
  • In Ronald Evans, can backlink Apollo 11: ... member of the astronaut support crews for the Apollo 7 and Apollo 11 flights and as backup command module pilot for Apollo 14....
YES
  • In Bart Sibrel, can backlink Apollo 11: ...through a small hole (template) to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit", and adds "Bart has misinterpre...
YES

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Contingency press release

I don't think the contingency press release should be quoted in full in this article, though it should be linked - perhaps in a subpage - or a subpage of the Apollo_project article. The full text of the President's "Phone call" to Apollo 11 on the moon would be more appriopriate to quote in this article. What do you think? 62.253.128.12 1 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

  • It's not a contingency press release; it's a speech that would have been delivered live on television by Nixon. That said, I think it's short enough (and interesting enough) to be quoted in full. Where is the text of the phone call?--Pharos 1 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
    • If you want the text of the phone call, it'll be in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal somewhere, should be easy to dig up for here. I do feel the contingency release is a good inclusion to the article, as it stands. Shimgray 1 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)

I've corrected the section title to reflect the fact that the text was intended for use as a TV address not a press release.

[edit] Presidential Telephone Call

I thought I'd put the text of the "Phone call" here for consideration. My thinking was that as this was the what Nixon actually said to the world it would be more appriopriate to quote than what he might have been called on to say.

Houston: ...We'd like to get both of you in the field-of-view of the camera for a minute. (Pause) Neil and Buzz, the President of the United States is in his office now and would like to say a few words to you. Over.

Armstrong: That would be an honor. Houston: All right. Go ahead, Mr. President. This is Houston. Out.

Nixon: Hello, Neil and Buzz. I'm talking to you by telephone from the Oval Room at the White House, and this certainly has to be the most historic telephone call ever made. I just can't tell you how proud we all are of what you (garbled). For every American, this has to be the proudest day of our lives. And for people all over the world, I am sure they, too, join with Americans in recognizing what an immense feat this is. Because of what you have done, the heavens have become a part of man's world. And as you talk to us from the Sea of Tranquility, it inspires us to redouble our efforts to bring peace and tranquility to Earth. For one priceless moment in the whole history of man, all the people on this Earth are truly one; one in their pride in what you have done, and one in our prayers that you will return safely to Earth. (Pause)

Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. President. It's a great honor and privilege for us to be here representing not only the United States but men of peace of all nations, and with interests and the curiosity and with the vision for the future. It's an honor for us to be able to participate here today.

Nixon: And thank you very much and I look forward...All of us look forward to seeing you on the Hornet on Thursday.

Aldrin: I look forward to that very much, sir. (Pause)

[edit] EVA timings

NASA often gives EVA timings from the point of cabin depressurisation to repressurisation, as this is the time the crew are actually exposed to the conditions of space - perhaps this article could give this information in addition to the hatch open/close times given?


[edit] Remove Mission Parameters section

Almost the entire Mission Parameters section should be removed.


Most of this data provides no knowledge (what could anyone ever do with the UTC time differential between Aldrin's egress and ingress?). Some makes no sense to me (what is the 'period' of a mission with one and a half Earth orbits and 88 Moon ones).

[edit] Remove Mission Parameters section

Almost the entire Mission Parameters section should be removed.

Most of this data provides no knowledge (what could anyone ever do with the UTC time differential between Aldrin's egress and ingress?). Some makes no sense to me (what is the 'period' of a mission with one and a half Earth orbits and 88 Moon ones). Js229 21:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Also stuff like the orbital heights and periods aren't that useful. In the case of a mission like Apollo 15, the CSM had six different "orbits" -- the one they entered into on LOI, a circularised orbit, a lowered orbit for when the lunar module was set to land, a trimmed version of this, a circularised orbit again and a plane-changed orbit. If anything we shouldn't be giving orbital heights to hundreds of meters, as they just weren't that stable with mascons. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One small step for man

Should there be mention of these flubbed words? There so rarely is.

The Neil Armstrong article has some discussion on it. j-beda 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudohistorians

To satisfy the conspiracy theorists and pseudohistorians, don't you think we should add a "disputed" tag? They keep babbling about how the lunar landing never happened, how the spanish inquisition and other such regimes never tortured anyone, how the holocaust never happened etc. j/k Elp gr 16:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
No. There is, to say the least, overwhelming evidence that the moon landings took place. This takes the form of both tangible evidence (photographs, rocks, etc.) as well as personal testimony by the persons involved and those who watched live coverage of the event (including myself). It is simply not credible that this could all have been faked, even given the resources available to NASA and the US Government. If these allegations are to be taken seriously, then most of the rest of Wikipedia would also have to be tagged as "disputed". 86.7.20.251; 19:05, 03 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what the pseudos claim should also be placed in a separate article, along with the evidence that contradicts their claims. Just a few years ago, one such individual got into Buzz Aldrin's face about it, and to his credit, Aldrin hit him in the mouth! Carajou 17:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Apollo XI Landing

I've always wondered why this has never occurred to anybody else. The date usually quoted, 20 July 1969, is an entirely arbitrary one, because this event occurred on a world where time and calendars have never been defined. It is not unreasonable to try to date the event using the main (but by no means only) calendar from Earth, the Gregorian Calendar, even though that date is meaningless in relation to anything that happens outside the Earth. But at the moment the landing happened, it may have been 20 July in the eastern states of the USA, but it was a different date in other places on Earth. Since Armstrong talked about one giant leap for "mankind", not just for Americans, I think something needs to be said about the arbitrary choice of the date. Not sure what, though. JackofOz 06:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Time isn't expressed as being "defined" anywhere; time is expressed in relation to a single point of reference. In all official documents, NASA used either the time in central England (GMT) or the time elapsed since the LV stack left the ground (GET). From an engineering standpoint, any other frame of reference is unnecessary and would merely confuse calculations. YingPar

[edit] Only Buzz Aldrin has pictures

I have heard several times that Buzz Aldrin, upset that he was not going to be the first person to walk on the moon, "forgot" his camera on Earth. As a result, only Aldrin's photo could be taken by Armstrong. I have not found any definitive proof of this, but it would definitely be a nice one-liner under trivia if it can be collaborated.

There were a number of cameras on board, though only one was used on the surface; it was mostly carried by Armstrong, and intended for technical purposes - photographing rock samples in situ before they were collected, inspecting equipment, and so on. However, a number were taken of the astronauts, both for historical reasons and for "engineering" ones; it was helpful to be able to see how the dust settled on the suits, that sort of thing. However, it never occured to anyone at NASA - astonishing though it may sound - that there would be a need to take photographs of individuals as individuals; as such, they didn't really plan for Aldrin to take any photographs of Armstrong as photographs of Armstrong - there were some, but they didn't take care to note them as important, or make sure to list them as photographs of Armstrong. As the suits on Apollo 11 were identical, they couldn't tell the two astronauts apart.
When they got back and started going through the photographs, someone noticed that almost all the photographs were of Aldrin, and remembered that Armstrong had carried the camera most of the time, and it became generally thought that all the pictures were of Aldrin. However, there are a couple with Armstrong in - not significant ones, but they're there - which were discovered by some very, very patient archive work (going through the mission timeline with a fine-tooth comb) relatively recently. Shimgray | talk | 00:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That was the reason for the red stripes on the commanders' suit in later missions - made it easy to tell which was which in the photos.Michael Dorosh 04:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contact light

I deleted this:

"Although it is commonly said that the first words spoken on the Moon were Armstrong's announcement that "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed", they were in fact "Contact Light" said, by Aldrin as the landing probes on the Lunar Module's feet touched the surface."

This is a mistake (one I used to make...). The LEM was not down when the contact light came on; it was triggered by a "tether" of sorts, as a warning to shut down the descent engine & let the LEM drop the last meter or so. Recall, the next words were, "Okay, engine stop."

I also corrected the parenthetical "[a]" in Neil's famous quote. He did say it, & (fairly) recent digital cleanup of the tape showed it; it didn't get heard on the '69 TVcasts (or the tapes since, including Hanks' reconstruction in "FTETTM") because of static.

BTW, the LEM footpads were made in Canada, so we put first man on the moon... Trekphiler 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You need to provide a source for the "a" - Chaikin says it was left unsaid. Please provide a source or quote for your info.Michael Dorosh 04:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Armstrong's quote

Trekphiler has twice now changed the quote from "a small step for [a] man" to "a small step for a man". This was not what Neil Armstrong said. As the Armstrong article says, he fluffed his line and missed out the indefinite article. Therefore this is a misquote. It's important to indicate where things not said have been added in. David | Talk 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It is very well-known that Armstrong actually said ""a small step for man" while intending to convey "for a man". Any assertion otherwise needs extraordinary sources. -Willmcw 22:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I've listened to the recording, and there's no way it could be cleaned up to be "a man" -- Armstrong's word pacing is such that "for man" is almost one word. --Carnildo 07:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Echoing the above: any claim to the contrary needs to be sourced. Durova 03:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, this seems rather settled. Don't see why it really needed an RFC. --ACG 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quote me

"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for Pete Conrad."
Enlarge
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for Pete Conrad."

What he should have said....

[edit] Audio and Video

It might be interesting to link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4166049933953240830&q=45017 Nyh 09:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low fuel issues

I changed several items related to the low fuel situation during final descent. There's a lot of incorrect and misleading information on this. First, although technically the term is "propellant" the astronauts themselves often call it "fuel", so that term is OK.

There were no low fuel warnings from the computers. The fuel gauges could only read accurately down to about 5%. At that point a "quantity light" illuminated. From that point they had about 94 seconds flying time left, plus a 20 second buffer, or about 114 seconds until the engine quit. The actual time remaining varied based on engine throttle -- the descent propulsion system was throttleable. A flight controller manually calculated in real time the revised fuel remaining based on throttle position and clock time. There was no gauge or indicator from the 5% point to zero -- it was just manually calculated by hand, and the resulting flying time remaining radioed back to the crew.

The Eagle landed about 10 seconds after the "30 seconds" fuel remaining call. Some concluded only 20 second fuel remained at that point and some network broadcasts shortened this further to 15 seconds. In fact the "30 seconds" call was time to "bingo", which means abort or land immediately (within 20 seconds). Later analysis indicated they probably had about 50 seconds fuel remaining at touchdown, or about 30 seconds to bingo. Backing up from this it appears the low fuel "quantity light" came on about 10 seconds too early: 50 sec (actual fuel remaining) minus 30 sec (last fuel call) minus 10 sec (time from 30 sec call to touchdown) = 10 sec discrepancy. Joema 02:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quarantine?

Could someone explain why the austranauts had to be quaranteened for three weeks after the landing? Thanks! --vex5 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

NASA didn't want to take any chances. However unlikely, they thought it at least possible that there would be living organisms on the moon, and it was considered prudent to isolate the astronauts and observe them. Apollo 12 astronauts were the only other lunar explorers subjected to this process. Apollo 13 astronauts were to be the first to not undergo quarantine, but even if the quarantine was still in effect, 13's crew never landed on the moon. Expect a similar quarantine for astronauts that visit any other planet for the first time, unless the space agency(ies) figure the long flight time back to Earth is sufficient to detect problems.

As to living organisms on the Moon, maybe not so farfetched, from a scientific/evolutionary point of view. Seen the movie "The Andromeda Strain"? The fictional movie concerned the discovery of a life form perfectly suited to survive in space. And how about nanosized robots small enough to enter our bodies? (think the Borg of Star Trek and the movie "Moontrap" with Walter Koenig!) I'm sure NASA was thinking more of the Andromeda Strain type of potential, however. GBC 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought - very common of 1960s sci-fi culture, just wanted to make sure there is no other reason for this. --vex5 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TotallyDisputed tag

I asked why vex5 put a Template:TotallyDisputed on this article. Awaiting response. Joema 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it, he didn't list his reasoning here, and it doesn't seem to meet the wikiped definition anyway. It's a well referenced article.WolfKeeper 15:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

vex5 is either a troll or a nutcase. Either way, it's bogus. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I am neither, sir, and I don't appriciate the name calling. The reason that I added the disputed tag is because this is a highly-controversial topic, the sources of which you cited are the sources which are in question in the first place. Therefore, I recommend adding a disputed or question tag to the article, or at least a reference at the beginning referencing to the posibility of false information to better provide an objective, unbiased perspective on this subject. --vex5 16:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The topic is not controversial or disputed in the normal sense of the word. You must differentiate between a few sensational stories vs valid criticism. E.g, by this standard a round earth is disputed and controversial -- there are periodic stories about "Flat Earthers". However based on this we don't slap TotallyDisputed tags on geography articles.
If you have specific concerns, state precisely what those are and we can discuss them. If you want more background information, see Clavius.org Joema 16:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
All I'm saying is, --vex5 19:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"I am neither, sir, and I don't appriciate the name calling. The reason that I added the disputed tag is because this is a highly-controversial topic, the sources of which you cited are the sources which are in question in the first place.". Methinks he protesteth too much. Definitely a troll. Who uses honorifics like 'sir' if they're not trolling? Nobody.WolfKeeper 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Grow up. Instead of adding meaningless and unwitty remarks to this page, go contribute something useful.
Uh huh. And your contribution is indistinguishable from vandalism. Way to go!WolfKeeper 12:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's valid to have a slightly more prominent mention that theories are circulated about the validity of the lunar landing, instead of a one-sentenced remark at the bottom of the page. -- Vex5

There's a big difference between giving slightly more prominent reference to moon hoax theories vs slapping a TotallyDisputed tag on the article without prior discussion or explanation. If you continue doing do that on other articles, it will cause a lot more commotion than you've experienced here. Joema 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I completely oppose giving any quarter to nutbags who question the Moon landings. Any extra mention simply gives false credence to the crackpots. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Also the "one-sentenced remark at the bottom of the page" isn't a stand alone item -- it's a link to an extensive article on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. The material is already written. Why duplicate parts of in in this article? If in Apollo 11, then why not also Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, etc. I think the current format is basically OK. If readers want to learn more about the so-called moon hoax, this article links to that. Joema 05:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Apollo 11 article is 90204 bytes; the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article is 227607 bytes - more than 2½ times as long. I think the crackpots have scored ample attention on this. Copey 2 14:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And that's not all of it. Currently at List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969, hoax believers are insisting that the dual spaceflight of Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 is was a space rendezvous, either because Soviet propeganda at the time said so or because hoax proponents say so. Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...

Fine, if you don't want the totally disputed tag, then add a tag to the top of the page recommending the readers think twice about the validity of the story at hand. Do it in 24 hours, or I will do it myself. --vex5 04:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no legitimate basis whatsoever for doing that. For comparison, see other encyclopedias covering similar subject material. Various small minorities have eccentric views on many subjects. For example a few believe the earth is flat, that Elvis Presley is still alive, or the 9/11 attacks were a Jewish conspiracy. Yet encyclopedias don't reference these crackpot theories prominently (if at all) in related articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer, and needs to exclusively retain an encyclopedic focus. Joema 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
A 1999 Gallup poll showed that 6% of Americans believe the moon landing was false. Now, 6% translates into millions of individuals. I don't know about you, but that seems a little noteworthy. If nothing else, move the hoax landing link to the upper part of the article. --vex5 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed it's as low as 6%. Apart from the people who would say anything to get away from the pollster, there must have been people with severely inadequate schooling and IQ in the poll. Those people could have said anything to any question. My understanding is that about 6% is what you would normally expect to get to any stupid Gallup poll question.WolfKeeper 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
A recent Gallup poll showed that 49% of Americans believe space aliens have visited earth. Another Gallup poll found one in five aren't sure if the earth revolves around the sun. A 1996 Gallup poll found 71% of Americans believed there's a U.S. government cover-up of UFOs. A recent Gallup poll found 48% of Palestinians (millions of people) felt American Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.
Cite your sources please. --vex5 07:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[1]: "According to Gallup....'do you believe that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth at some time in the past,' 51% said no."
[2]: "According to a July 1999 Gallop Poll, 18% of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the earth"
[3] "A 1996 Gallup poll showed that 71 percent of Americans believed that the U.S. government knows more about UFOs than they have told the public"
[4]: "a Gallup poll...revealed...48 percent of Pakistanis polled reported that they thought that American Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks." Joema 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no end to the crackpot ideas people have. In some cases a surprising number hold these views. However the purpose of an encyclopedia is NOT to cater to these by acknowledging legitimacy with prominent mention. An encyclopedia documents the facts according to conventional mainstream wisdom. Look at Britannica, Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, etc. You won't see prominent moon hoax references in their Apollo-related articles. You won't see prominent 9/11 conspiracy references in their articles on that topic. You won't see a prominent "Disputed" tag on their Solar System articles stating millions don't believe the earth revolves around the sun. Why? Because an encyclopedia's main mission is to document the topic according to mainstream thought, not give credence to eccentric speculation.
There's nothing wrong with having articles on these bizarre notions. There are already Wikipedia articles on Apollo moon hoax , 9/11 conspiracy theories, Flat Earth Society, alien abduction, etc. That many people often believe in these ideas is noteworthy, and these articles are where to mention that, not other places. In the related articles, there's nothing wrong with a simple link to these, like the Apollo 11 article has a link to the moon hoax article. But to go beyond that and insert prominent statements questioning the validity of well-established events -- even in the guise of other's opinions -- is not an encyclopedia's mission. That's why you don't see it in other encyclopedias, and it doesn't belong in this one. Joema 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen I think you exagerate on calling Vex a vandal for stating his point of view on this, which is a point of view shared by several people, not only in the USA but around the world including myself. First of all, I think it's wrong to compare 9/11 and a Flatearth theory with this. These three issues are very different from each other. Flat Earth theory lacks of all fundament, Earth's roundness has been proven through the ages, it's even logical from a physics' point of view. 9/11, well, political motivators for terrorists are a wide and complex topic, in my personal perspective those guys were pawns of a greater power game which has been held, with different players through the ages and which has costed life to thousands of people, the immediate motivators for these guys as perhaps the next, linked to Islam: they see several indications that world's comming to an end (according to Islam), highways, increase on "violent" music and dressings, more and more women act "like men" and viceversa and then you get another crucial point, in their regions there are wars developing, and there's a country that can be even called the trigger of this apocalypse: USA. In their minds they think that they can fight off this country by commiting attrocities such as the one committed in 9/11, but, this was not without a reason, everything has triggers. How do you expect them to recat with such a context of theirs? But well, this is quite different compared to USA's arrival to Moon. Claiming that USA's arrival to Moon was a hoax is infinitely more sensate than stating that Earth is round, that Holocaust didn't exist or that the Sun is made out of ice and ketchup sauce. All we have is images from the nation with the most developed mediatic machine in the world, with the most developed filmistic technology in the world. In the middle of a race with other superpower USA was in need to seem to have won the upper hand, it seems pretty coherent that USA might have invented all the stance in the Moon at some scenario in Hollywood. USA has always been good with special effects and it's doubtful that they wouldn't have used it for political credibility. Remember when several people swalowed Orson Welles' alien invation... now sum up to it a whole mediatic and governmental support. It's hard to believe USA's men reached the Moon under these circumstances. It's very easy for you to compare this claims, these doubts, to absurdities such as neglecting that WWII existed, but, they're pretty different. We're in our right to question the veracity of that issue given the circumstances, in my perspective. --- Zealot_Kommunizma, non registered user. 06/.26/.06

[edit] Introductory photo

We've a photo and a quote right up at the top of the article. Yes, this is the defining moment; yes, it's famous; yes, it's immediately recognisable. But it's not as if "the first manned mission to land on the Moon ... the first humans to set foot on the Moon" needs clarifying - wouldn't this be better worked into the rest of the text? Shimgray | talk | 15:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mysterious objects.

I noticed the line "Secondly, a less well known urban legend suggests that they were being 'watched' while on the Moon, and had seen alien vehicles there." in the trivia section. While they didn't see anything but rocks on the actual surface of the moon, on the third day of the flight, they actualy did observe an object moving alongside them. The astronauts on board didn't tell mission control (until they returned) because they feared that someone might want them to turn back because of aliens or some stupid crap. They figured that it was most likely the S-IVB (Saturn V 3rd stage) that separated from them 3 days earlier, so they asked mission control where it was, and they responded saying that the S-IVB was actualy 6,000 nautical miles from them, therefore the object that they observed couldn't have been the S-IVB (mind you, I'm not saying it was aliens or some stupid crap like that, it was probably just space junk (what little there was in 1969) or even (though much less likely) the Soviets spying on them). I looked all through this article, and there is no mention of it, and I think that it deserves to be discuseed. Someone should look into it and write about it. The QBasicJedi 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had a quick poke around and can't find anything in the Mission Report, or the Flight Evaluation Report. Any idea where we might be able to find a source for this? The most likely hypothesis, if indeed it did happen, would be something shaking loose after separation from the S-IVB and gradually diverging; an insulation panel or the like. It seems odd that experienced Gemini crews would misinterpret something as a booster stage, though; they'd done Agenda rendevous before. Hmm. Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Chappaquiddick info has any relevance here other than the fact it happened at the same time. Heck, the success of the Chicago Cubs at the same time probably distracted some baseball fans. It is true that NASA withheld news of the accident in their radio news reports to the astronauts but that's the only link I can see and that's not mentioned. DrBear 12:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should have mentioned where I heard this. It was on a show on the Science channel called "First on the Moon: the Untold Story". I know it did happen because they had Buzz Aldrin on there and he was talking about it and everything. Furthermore, they actualy showed a video of a similiar object from a latter flight (so this wasn't the last time this happened). Please don't treat me liek a crazy conspiracy theorist dumbass. This really happened and it should be mentioned in the article. :) The QBasicJedi 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

On pages 430 to 432 of my copy of First Man it talks about the sighting. On the evening of the third day Aldrin saw an object that moved relative to the stars. They radioed mission control who told them the S-IVB was 6000 miles away, that being their first guess as the cause. Armstrong is described as being confident what they saw was one of the SLA panels (Image:As7-3-1545.jpg has a nice shot of them still attached on Apollo 7. On Saturn V flights, they disattached after it was decided that they could pose a hazard to getting the LM out during later flights). The object is also mentioned in section 6.40 of the mission report (scroll down from here). Evil Monkey - Hello 04:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. So we have some sources that prove this. So now how can it be included in the article? The QBasicJedi 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contingency television address

Was NASA really going to cut all communications with Apollo 11 if something went wrong? LCpl 18:24 31 May 2006 (EST)

There's a big difference between "we're going to keep working on this problem until you die", "we're going to stop talking now, call us if you need something" and "we're going to cut off all communications". I suspect the plan was option b. Shimgray | talk | 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently they had planned to quit broadcasting the TV if some disaster happened. In the US and I think most of the world, there was a six-second delay on the TV added for that contingency. Bubba73 (talk), 03:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Bales and Presidential Medal of Freedom

I have edited the information about Steve Bales and the Apollo 11 landing. He didn't actually receive the Presidential Medal of Honor for his role in the mission, but rather accepted a NASA Group Achievement Award on behalf of the mission control team. Anyone who wants to discuss this further can do so either here or on my talk page. --MLilburne 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First words said when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.

I remember what Neil Armstrong's words were when he first set foot on the moon. They were, "It's a kind of a soft powdery stuff, I can kick it with my boot." I destinctly remember him speaking about the moon dust adhering to his suit (I think from static electricity). In fact he spoke for what seemed like several minutes from the ladder, before he put the second foot on the moon and said his famous line. Doesn't anyone else remember it? --Djfeldman 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The ALSJ [5]:
109:23:38 Armstrong: I'm at the foot of the ladder. The LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It's almost like a powder. (The) ground mass is very fine. (Pause)
109:24:13 Armstrong: I'm going to step off the LM now. (Long Pause)
109:24:48 Armstrong: That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind. (Long Pause)
109:25:08 Armstrong: Yes, the surface is fine and powdery. I can kick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers, like powdered charcoal, to the sole and sides of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles.
He briefly described the dust (and kicked the dust on the footpad?) then stepped down, but the whole "I can kick the dust around" bit was, it seems, immediately afterwards. Shimgray | talk | 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I added this:

"completed at the end of September 2006, it confirms Armstrong did say "a" and settles the long-standing controversy."

on the basis of a news report 1 October 2006 that said NASA's examination had been completed and confirms it. For all those who disputed me when I said this last time, feel free to contact NASA... Trekphiler 05:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am new to editing Wikipedia, but have closely followed Space exploration efforts since the announcement of Sputnik, when I was four years old. I also have some experience manipulating wave files with Cool Edit and Goldwave (the program used by Ford to analyze Armstrong's statement). I also have pretty good hearing, and have listened to Armstrong's words over and over. There is no room to fit the word "a" between "for" and "man". As nice as it would be if Armstrong had said what he meant to say, the evidence is that he did not. I assert that Ford's analysis is erroneous, and so should be treated as tentative until others have confirmed or refuted it. Jeff Root 01:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Several concerns. In general, the article doesn't feel tidy. There are incidences of bad text formatting, e.g. ".[3]).", and the article contains several lists that might be better converted to prose or sent to the "See also" section. Standard recommendation with galleries seems to be to have it at the end of the article. In this case, I would suggest taking the best photographs from the gallery into the main text, and putting the rest at the end, or making sure it is listed on the Commons page. The structure of the article is not that great, with the short section on the contingency address stranded in the middle of the article, before the details of comms. Even the mission insignia are probably more important, although I might agree that the contingency address is important enough to not end up in the trivia section. In fact, you ought to consider spinning the "trivia and urban legends" section out into a separate article, leaving behind just a brief summary of one to three paragraphs. "See also" needs to be alphabetic or in some other structure that makes sense. Finally, it is not clear which reference(s) support(s) the comms section; this is probably the gravest problem. I'm fairly confident that if you address these concerns and reapply, you'll get through.

Best,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a number of the elements which have been moved out into the Apollo 11 in popular culture article are important details of events which occured on the mission and should remain in the main article. Examples include the broken ascent engine circuit breaker in the LM and the sighting of the unknown object on the way to the moon. 86.6.10.96 01:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Mission Trivia" section as it stands now is very unclear and awkwardly written. Would it make sense to remove it entirely, and just put a link to Apollo 11 in popular culture in the "See also" section? I'm not sure how it's possible to sum up the grab-bag of facts that is the popular culture article. --MLilburne 08:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Trivia, by definition, involves random facts. Putting the link to the more detailed trivia page seems appropriate. Other pages use the same strategy. For ex: Wal Mart and its link to the Criticism of Wal-Mart articles. Abe Froman 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Accuracy

It should be considered that presently, there exists no concrete evidence to support the fact that the Apollo moon landing actually occurred. Please, present all information with a neutral point of view.

Rocks were retrieved, hours of footage was taken, thousands of photographs were taken, reflectors were placed on the moon. What would constitute concrete evidence in your mind?

Concrete evidence would include rocks that were in fact brought from the moon and photographs that we know for a fact were taken on the moon and not in the Nevada (Mojave) desert as allegations say. Not all information the media presents to us is accurate. If we do not know for sure about the nature of the incident, then I think both sides should be presented (NPOV).

And may I add that, by many estimates, there were about 1 million people in the vicinity of the liftoff, as well as military personnel and media at the splashdown. By the way - given burden-of-proof, it's incumbent on those who believe it's faked to show some evidence. I have seen none - let's see some evidence, or shaddup already. DrBear 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We only have the word of those who claim to have been on the mission and members of the government. That is, only one point of view is represented. We must take into copnsideration the words of those who believe this story to be false. I'm not asking that it be stated that the moon landing did not occur, but that both sides of the incident be represented. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy regarding a neutral point of view. Furthermore, we know for sure that the millitary has, in the past, threatened civilians in order to prevent them from leeking information; refer to the Roswell UFO incident. We have no idea what occurs in millitary bases, particulary Area 51. Only some of what they speak is truth. Please, I beg of you to think for yourself and not let the U.S. government, its millitary, and the media deceive you. Template:14:27, September 8, 2006
  • Sorry. Read WP:NPOV a bit more closely. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight in particular: by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority At most one sentence about the "moon landing hoax" theory needs to be included, if that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


The previous quote is from the following paragraph on the Wikipedia policy page on neutral point of view:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Moon hoax theorists are a tiny minority. That they produce noise out of all proportion to their size doesn't make them either large or significant. To repeat a point I made above, the Apollo 11 article is 90204 bytes; the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article is 227607 bytes - more than 2½ times as long. Copey 2 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed disputed tag

Please note: I have removed the disputed tag. To User:69.151.235.175 who put it on, please see WP:SNOW to understand that the disputed tag will never stay on this article. --Storkk 03:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA comment

There are still a few "citation needed" tags scattered around the article; seems to me that this ought to be addressed before the article achieves GA status. MLilburne 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, what's the difference between "Notes" and "External Links"? Should those two sections perhaps be merged? MLilburne 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think i've found references for each of those tags.. the references / external links should probably be cleaned up, since there are likely reduncancies.. but i haven't gone through them yet. Mlm42 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say the references/external links section is looking really good now! MLilburne 15:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, having read through, I thought that this should easily qualify as a GA. Well written, sourced, illustrated. Certainly much better than some other GAs I have seen. Legis 11:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Great article easily upto GA standard -- Nbound 07:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon to Major Tom

I deleted this:

"The first words spoken from the surface were Aldrin's, who reported "Contact Light" as the Eagle's landing probe touched the moon. Armstrong reportedly forgot to shut the engine off at this point, and the Eagle settled gracefuly to the ground."

To begin with, "settled gracefuly to the ground" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Second, I question this qualifies as "from the surface"; unless the pads were down, I'd suggest it's not "from the surface". Third, "reportedly forgot to shut the engine off"? Sez who? I recall Neil promptly said, "OK, engine stop." What was said next qualifies as "first words spoken from the surface" (and now we can quibble about whether Neil had to be standing on the surface or not...), because CapCom said, "OK, we copy you down, Eagle."--& "Contact Light" didn't get it. I don't recall the tape well enough to know what was said next, but that ought to go in as "first words", technically--tho there's a good argument, until Neil actually stepped down, it doesn't count. Trekphiler 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Capcom actually didn't say "we copy you down, Eagle" until some seconds later, after the astronauts had already gone through their whole engine shutdown procedure.
This is how it went: "Contact light. Okay, engine stop. ACA out of detent. Modes control both auto, descent engine command override, off. Engine arm, off. 413 is in." "We copy you down, Eagle." MLilburne 23:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earth to Colonel Neil

Talking about when Neil actually stepped down, anybody remember who was first to touch Hornet's deck when they got back? Trekphiler 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TV Scene of Armstrong's "First Step"

The caption of the TV picture claiming to show Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon is incorrect and repeats a common mistake. This picture shows the large step from the bottom rung of the ladder to the foot pad of the lunar module. The first step to the surface of the moon was a small one off of the foot pad. It occurred a moment later than the picture that is shown, after Armstrong announced, "I am going to step off the LEM now," and is concurrent with his "One small step ..." statement. The actual step is probably not even visible to the TV camera, but might be visible in the slow frame rate film taken by the camera in the lunar module window above.

12.73.68.145 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)D. Richardson

[edit] Conspiracy Theories

I feel that the section relating to the hoax accusations should be removed. If people think it's necessary, it should be moved to the Project Apollo article instead becuase it is not Apollo 11 specific. Andy120290 21:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree about removing it. I'm not sure it should be moved over to the other article. Why lend credence to the moonbat theory? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazingly, I am of the opinion that info about the conspiracy theory should be kept, but not here in this article. I deeply regret this, since I think the theories are pure and utter bollocks, yet they should be kept since the theories are "widespread" and a part of history. Nevertheless I think it should be moved to Moon landing, since that article covers the landing and this article covers the Apollo 11 mission. Maybe keep a link to the hoax article here, though. By the way, any of you guys know what the hoax people thinks of the other moon landings, Gagarin, and all orbit missions? Are they conspiracies too? Where do they draw the line? Hey, wait, maybe Columbus never went to America? :) Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/p/o/Talk%7EApollo_11_3abf.html"