Talk:Apollo 11

Very little about Collins in the Command Module during Armstrong/Aldrin's surface operations

Was a bit surprised to find so little in this article about what Collins was doing - or feeling or thinking or saying - during his near 24 hours alone in the Command Module. I don't have the knowledge to say anything about this myself, but seems to me there should be something about it to complete the article, and certainly before it's comprehensive enough to be a Featured Article.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2019

In the first paragraph of § Landing, the 107 ft altitude is formatted using {{convert|107|ft|m|adj=on|sp=us}}, which produces the adverb form which does not fit the surrounding sentence: "Now 107-foot (33 m) above the surface". The |adj=on is wrong and should be removed, to produce "Now 107 feet (33 m) above the surface".

The same correction is needed twice more in the second paragraph. (The third paragraph, however, uses |adj=on correctly.)

Another thing that deserves a mention (but I haven't written the wording for, so it'll be a separate edit request) is the oft-repeated story about "20 seconds of fuel remaining". The engines were shut down about 20 seconds from "bingo", which was the last possible time to abort. Abort required 5 seconds of 100% thrust, so there was 20 seconds of 25% hovering thrust after bingo. In addition to those 40 seconds of guaranteed fuel, about 30 seconds more of unquantified residual remained.

• Fjeld, Paul (May–June 2013). "The Biggest Myth about the First Moon Landing" (PDF). Horizons (Newsletter, AIAA Houston Section). 38 (6): 5–10.

209.209.238.189 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done as to the conversions. When you're ready for the other request, please reopen or add a new request. Thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I had decided not to include the amount of fuel remaining after reading through sources. The source that made me decide (maybe First Man?) said the gauge was too inaccurate to really tell, but that it was low. If anything is included, it should be something like that. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: The Fjeld article above is one of the best sources, and it explains in detail the sloshing in the tanks which caused the low fuel light to falsely trigger early (and was corrected by adding baffles in Apollo 14 et seq.). It was a backup to the fuel quantity gauge and was expected to trigger around the moment of landing. I think the truth is pretty well-documented; it's just that a lot of people misunderstand the word "bingo" in that context.

What I'm trying to figure out is if there was 18 or 22 seconds until bingo at landing. It's well established that the quantity light came on at 102:44:31 and engine shutdown was alled out 72 seconds later at 102:45:43. What's not clear is if the "bingo" moment was 94 seconds from the quantity light (22 seconds after shutdown) or 90 seconds (18 seconds after shutdown).

The text above says it's 94 seconds ("bingo" at 102:46:05), but the 60 and 30 second callouts at 102:45:02 and 102:45:31 are more consistent with the 90 second number. And if you're trying to get down to second-level accuracy, the location of the timestamps is important because there's 1.3 seconds one-way communication delay (plus quite probably some additional transmission delay between the DSN tracking site and Houston).

It's all a bit confusing, but something can be said that's more accurate than the oft-repeated "20 seconds from running out of fuel". (I most recently heard it repeated in the Lunar Module episode of the Moon Machines documentary series.) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good; I see now that I did leave in the article that 25 seconds of fuel were remaining. I will try to compile a list of sources and how much fuel they say was remaining so we can accurately summarize it in the article; I would love any more sources or input that you have. I will probably start off w/ Reichl, First Man, and Carrying the Fire; I will see if it is mentioned in the mission report, and decide from there if the sources agree enough that we can pick a number or if we need to put a range of numbers (and explain why) in the article. Thanks for pointing this out. Kees08 (Talk) 20:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not a frequent contributor here so forgive any lapses. But I would like to see this page more accurate in time for the 50th anniversary. There *is* a primary source for fuel remaining and it is here: . Apollo 11 had 216lbs of usable fuel at cutoff, and Apollo 14 had 228lbs. Apollo 12 had 386lbs. Apollos 15 to 17 were heavier vehicles (due to the moon rover) and so had more fuel loaded, and more left over. So, as has been commented above, there was ~20 seconds til bingo, ~20 seconds *after* bingo, and ~20 seconds they didn't know about at the time, due to the fuel slosh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Added to the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is that 216 pounds was enough for way *more* than 25 seconds. More like 65. The AIAA Houston newsletter article explains all. It's simply wrong to say that A11 had 25 seconds of fuel left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Give us a source and it can be added to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do you get that 216 pounds of fuel would last 65 seconds? No reliable source could say that; a sanity check on the fuel consumption rate is relatively easy to estimate. The specific impulse of the LM descent engine was 311 seconds. The LM mass at the point of landing was 10,042 pounds for the ascent stage, plus 4,483 pounds for the dry descent stage, plus the 216 pounds fuel, equals 14,741 pounds, divided by 6 (lunar gravity) equals 2,457 pounds of lunar weight, minimum hover thrust required to land. 2,457 pounds divided by 311 seconds gives a fuel consumption rate of 7.9 pounds per second. Meaning 216 pounds would have lasted 27 seconds (actually less, because thrust must be slightly greater than weight.) This is more consistent with the traditional 25-second estimate than with 65 seconds. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The LM descent engine was at (AIUI) 25% thrust, not 100%. The point is that the LM was ~25 seconds from "bingo" - the last possible moment for abort. Abort required 5 seconds of full thrust, which is 20 seconds of hover. Plus the "slosh" triggering the bingo countdown about 20 seconds early, makes 65. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: we are deep in WP:NOR territory here, but I believe the thrust estimates and specific impulse apply to the exhaust stream, which is equal to the mass flow of fuel+oxidizer not fuel alone. Usable F+O at cutoff for Apollo 11 was 674 lbm, not 216, so 85 seconds of run time to engine cutoff (though the crew and mission controllers could not have had confidence in all 85 seconds of operation during the flight; usable fuel quantity remaining is based on post-mission analysis). VQuakr (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm well aware of the NOR policy and I'm not proposing putting calculations in the article; as I said I just was making a sanity check. I also was unaware the 216 pounds was literally just fuel, and not the total propellant. Obviously, we're dependent on reliable sources to change the figure. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that you and I are equally aware of NOR. A primary source for remaining fuel quantities is linked above and here. I think changing the article text to "216 lbm of fuel and 458 lbm of oxidizer" would be uncontroversial regardless of the wording of the "25 seconds" part. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Second request: Clarify the amount of "fuel" remaining

All told, I agree with the above requestor (209.209.238.189): "Eagle landed at 20:17:40 UTC on Sunday July 20 with 216 pounds (98 kg) of usable fuel remaining—enough for another 25 seconds" is misleading and needs to be clarified. Surely the Fjeld AIAA article (Fjeld, Paul (May–June 2013). "The Biggest Myth about the First Moon Landing" (PDF). Horizons (Newsletter, AIAA Houston Section). 38 (6): 5–10.) is a reliable enough source to modify the text to clearly explain the original estimate was time from bingo (abort decision) and to more specifically quantify the extra time subsequently found due to the "fuel" sloshing. We also need to clarify that "fuel" alone doesn't count, and clearly use the term propellant instead. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason I quoted the fuel figure and not the total propellant figure was to enable an accurate comparison to be made with Apollo 14 (which landed with *less* usable propellant). If you examine the amounts of fuel and oxidiser consumed in A11 and A14 you find a F/O ratio of 0.63 and it becomes apparent that in both cases the fuel would have run out before the oxidiser. Hence I think quoting the fuel remaining figure *is* valid - to make the point that A11 did not have *significantly* less flight time than other missions. (It must be remembered that A15 to A17 had a moon rover on board and hence more contingency fuel to provide the same contingency hover time - but I have yet to look at their bingo times). I also think the AIAA article (these people really *are* rocket scientists!) must surely be a reliable source. But the real issue is the number of seconds. It's the figure that will be quoted in countless newspaper articles on the 50th anniversary. The current "25 seconds" has as source the ALSJ transcript, but that itself says "the remainder would have been enough for about 45 seconds". At the least the current wording could be changed to "45 seconds" without any change in attribution. But with the Fjeld article as source it could be reworded to explain that they *thought* they had 45 or so, but they *actually* had 65 or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a stab at the change, [1]. Feel free to tweak/edit/fix. VQuakr (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Vastly better than what was there before! (Although I would switch 50 seconds for 65 seconds). I'll probably have a go at some alternative wording; I think that it might be a good idea to introduce the bingo concept in more depth *before* the "landed at" bit, and then the "slosh" detail after, so that the text reflects the chronology. The reason being that everybody (sort-of :-) knows the "thirty seconds" call and without a clear explanation the "dangerously low on fuel" meme will continue. FWIW: the skill and bravery of the crew are not in question. Indeed, I think the article should make the point that they did *not* run "dangerously low on fuel" but entirely within mission parameters, which is what you would expect from a skilled test pilot like Armstrong. Is the phrase "contrary to popular belief" allowed on Wikipedia? As said earlier, I am essentially a newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I did 50 seconds because that was consistent with the source provided. I figure we need to balance encyclopedic level of detail with perfection, though that doesn't mean my version is ideal. "Contrary to popular belief" is tricky because it makes the editorial statement in Wikipedia's voice that it is a popular belief - which itself needs to be sourced. See list of common misconceptions for an example of this in practice. VQuakr (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 11 launch photo

• 
  Current
• 
  Possible replacement

In light of the recently closed FPC at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Apollo 11 launch (Saturn V rocket), is there any support for replacing the photo of the Apollo 11 launch? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I like the possible replacement Mitchellhobbs (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

Change landing time for Lunar Module section of infobox from 20:18:04 UTC to 20:17:40 UTC. TronBoss (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The current source in the infobox is this? Not sure where the time is given. The relevant entry is "102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light." The text says: "Eagle landed at 20:17:40 UTC" with that same NASA source and also this source. That first text source seems to support 20:17:40 where it says: "Buzz made the call at 20:17:40 GMT/UTC on 20 July 1969." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light.

At least one of the probes hanging from three of the footpads has touched the surface. Each of them is 67 inches (1.73 meters) long. The ladder strut doesn't have a probe. Buzz made the call at 20:17:40 GMT/UTC on 20 July 1969. I believe 20:18:04 UTC is when Armstrong says "The Eagle has landed." --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so the proposed change seems necessary. There's an argument over whether or not contact of one of three 67-inch probes is really "landing", but at least the text and info box would then be consistent? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Now corrected. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured topic?

I was slightly surprised to note that Apollo 11 isn't yet a featured topic on Wikipedia. Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins and this article are all at FA status, so I think it would be worthwhile to get the topic promoted before the 50th anniversary, unless there are disagreements from other users. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The previous nomination failed; the discussion is here. Kees08 (Talk) 16:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Not sure why I didn't notice that in the first place... — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

Your article states that one of the Flight Directors for Apollo 11 was Gerry Griffin. This is not correct; the 4th Flight Director was Milt Windler. You can check "Apollo The Race To The Moon" to verify this fact. 208.68.20.176 (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Orloff p. 272 clearly states that it was Griffin; Windler headed a shift on Apollo 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Milton Windler includes Windler as a FD for Apollo 11, but the cited source, (Orloff) NASA's SP-4029 Apollo by the Numbers doesn't show him (on Apollo 11). Note that it is, at best, 3rd-hand info, lists two different FDs for shift #1, and no shift #4; it is "Compiled from various documents and memoranda in the Rice University archives":

• Shift 1: Charlesworth, Griffin
• Shift 2: Kranz
• Shift 3: Lunney

2. Apollo, the race to the moon says:

• Maroon: Windler (our article does not show a maroon team)
• Gold: Griffin
• Black: Lunney
• White: Kranz
• Green: (only one hit for "green team" in this book, but it's not visible in the snippet (ed:); "charlesworth" has three hits, but without team or shift association.)

3. The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum shows:

• Maroon: Windler
• Black: Lunney
• White: Kranz
• Green: Charlesworth
• (no mention of a Gold team or Griffin)

4. NASA's SP-4223 Before This Decade is Out:

• Shift 4: Windler
• Shift 1: Charlesworth/Griffin
• Shift 3: Lunney
• Shift 2: Kranz

5a. Apollo 11 Flight Journal, day 4, part 4:

• n/a: Windler – 081:41 GET: "Flight Director Milt Windler now talking" (the first time Windler appears)

5b. ...and Apollo 11 Flight Journal, day 3, part 1:

• Black: Lunney – 046:58 GET: "The Green Team led by Flight Director Cliff Charlesworth has just relieved Glynn Lunney's Black Team"
• Black: Griffin – 040:58 GET: "Flight Director Gerry Griffin who is spelling the usual Black Team Flight Director, Gene Lunney"
• White: Kranz – 054:45 GET: "White Team led by Gene Kranz"
• Green: Charlesworth – 046:58 GET: "The Green Team led by Flight Director Cliff Charlesworth has just relieved Glynn Lunney's Black Team"

6a. From the NASA Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: Flight Controller Assignments page, MOCR Teams:

Flight Dir	Charlesworth	Kranz	Lunney	Windler
	Griffin	Tindall

Note that a new name, Tindall, has appeared. From the rest of the doc, it appears that the second row is meant to be in addition to the first row (i.e. additional flight directors). Though it's a scanned image, the bolding and thicker borders around the third column appear intentional.

6b. Also from the ALSJ page above, Flight Controller Assignments, p. 141, entitled "MCC/MOCR MANNING" agrees with SP-4223 (#4, above). I'll note that "Apollo 11" does not appear on the page, and it is followed (on p. 142) by a news release related to Apollo 12. I.e., it could be the last Apollo 11 page or the first Apollo 12 page. This is just a collection of scanned documents, and we are relying on the editor having assembled them in a correct/meaningful sequence since there is no ToC and only some pages are unambiguously labeled. Someone could compare some of the other position assignments against other sources to ensure this is an Apollo 11-related page (if necessary).

7. NASA's SP-4214 Where No Man Has Gone Before, Appendix 5 agrees with SP-4223:

• Shift 1: Charlesworth, Griffin
• Shift 2: Kranz
• Shift 3: Lunney
• Shift 4: Windler

---

Conclusion

So, from all but source 1, I believe the citable, likely "truth" is:

Name	Shift	Team	Activities	Refs
Clifford E. Charlesworth	1	Green	Launch and extravehicular activity (EVA)
Gerald D. Griffin	1	Gold	Backup for shift 1
Gene Kranz	2	White	Lunar landing
Glynn Lunney	3	Black	Lunar ascent
Milton Windler	4	Maroon	Planning

References

References

(Pinging @Kees08 and Hawkeye7:) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this request for consensus to be formed. Please re-open the request by changing "|answered=yes" to "|answered=no" when agreement is reached. NiciVampireHeart 21:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight § Input requested for more input. Barring any objection, I'll put the above conclusion in the article in a day or two. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I've also emailed NASA. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it sure looks like we have an error and that you found the answer. I think you can safely edit the article with your findings (perhaps with a footnote saying that Apollo by the Numbers has it listed wrong/likely wrong? Could prevent future editors changing it back). If you are still unsure at all, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal folks are pretty responsive. Kees08 (Talk) 05:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

NASA was quick to respond:

According to the Apollo 11 manning lists in our collection and at JSC, team four was led by Milton Windler and served as the planning shift. Gerald Griffin and selected controllers from his Gold team were backup for shift 1 only.

I updated the table above. I'll update the article later today when I'm awake —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Worth mentioning ?

I've just read an interesting artice (https://www.businessinsider.com/classified-apollo-11-anomaly-threatened-to-crash-first-moon-astronauts-2019-6?r=US&IR=T), which mentions a near-miss during the Apollo 11 mission : after the Service Module was jettisoned, it followed the Command Module into the atmosphere. It was close enough for Aldrin to see it through the window, and apparantly there was a risk of the two vehicles colliding which could have had catastrophic consequences. The separation procedure was modified in subsequent missions to avoid this. Worth mentioning? Logicman1966 (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems a little overly sensationalist. Odds of two objects colliding like that are pretty small, especially when they had almost the same initial velocities before hitting the atmosphere. The slightest drag would have changed them sufficient to make a collision extremely unlikely. Seems more like someone just shilling for their new book than something that was a measurable risk. Others may have a different opinion though. Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

By all means include it. It's an interesting part of the Apollo history, especially the decision to not fix it until 13, which highlights the kind of tight schedule they were operating under. We'd need more detail to say anything about the level of risk involved, but as technical glitch with pretty spectacular visual results (for 11 at least), it's worth mentioning. (Also I'm not convinced by the claim that a collision would have been "extremely unlikely" is relevant. The system was designed to ensure that the situation didn't arise, and when the system failed, they made the effort to fix it.) — Aldaron • T/C 20:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, include it with polished wording. An interesting historical incident in the final stages of Apollo 11. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, worth including ~ 100 years from now the future astronauts would like to know how primitive and how challenging or space program was ~ WP:Humor ~ but yes it will be worth editing into the article ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment at...

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#POTD/Parkes Observatory and DYK/Maspalomas Station about this subject. Please join. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Closure of hatch time 05:01 is incorrect - it was 05:11.

The EVA duration is stated as 2 hours, 31 minutes, 40 seconds. The hatch was opened at 02:39, but the article says it was closed at 05:01, which is only 2 hours 21 minutes. The transcript notes the closing time as "04 15 39 13", that is, at 05:11 UTC. See also: http://apollo11.spacelog.org/04:15:39:13/#log-line-401953 or http://apollo11.spacelog.org/original/411/ 49.197.130.241 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

OP is right; this is an error. I checked the numbers in Orloff (2000) and Jones (1995). Running the calculations I got 05:11:13 UTC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed to 05:11:13 UTC. Start: 02:39:33 and End: 05:11:13 gets us to 2 hours, 31 minutes, 40 seconds. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I was curious how long that was there and found the diff. Probably a simple math error. I will double check the other times to be sure. It does seem the correction made above is the accurate time. Kees08 (Talk) 22:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Small point. The 05:11:13 time applies to the hatch closure directly after the EVA, the LM was then re-pressurised to allow the removal of the DPSS etc. The position of the time of hatch closure and re-pressurisation in the text implies it refers to the re-closure following the de-pressurisation and hatch re-opening for the ejection of the backpacks etc. Pendleboater (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Tranquility vs tranquillity

I think a single l is US spelling, per Cambridge dictionary. Anyone have issues if I change it from tranquillity to tranquility? Kees08 (Talk) 06:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tranquility Base also has one L so I would agree with this change. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

While the British spelling does yes have two ls, and that's more accurate to the original Latin, I don't think I ever see Sea of Tranquility written with two ls. If I do it's very rare. So I'd agree with the single l spelling. And that's before we get into the fact this is very clearly a US article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, the British spelling has two L's. I think you misspoke here. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Doh. Yes I mistyped there. I meant 2. I'm going to correct to avoid more confusion. Canterbury Tail talk 14:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Righto, made the change, thanks for the input. Kees08 (Talk) 14:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tranquility Base timeline

Can someone with knowledge about this pop in the Tranquility Base article the correct time following the landing of Eagle that Armstrong exited it. The lede now reads "crewmembers Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed their Apollo Lunar Module Eagle at approximately 20:17:40 UTC. Armstrong exited the spacecraft six hours after touchdown, followed 19 minutes later by Aldrin.", and I'm questioning the "six hours" as being too much of a round number to be accurate. If, for example, it was "six hours and two minutes", that's the language the sentence should contain. Hoping someone has a quick and accurate answer, thanks (and what a great week to be editing these pages, Happy Anniversary everyone!). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"We choose to go to the Moon"

I am surprised not to find a mention of this speech in this article. Is there good reason for that? I know Kennedy's other speech, to Congress, is mentioned but his speech in Texas is more famous and notable here as well. If I hear no objections I will add it a day or two. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019

Should Say,fifth mission into space, instead of fifth mission. Everyone Forgets That Apollo 1 Was The First Crewed Apollo Mission But Due To The Fire It Never Flew. Apollo 1 Is Still Recognized As The First Crewed Apollo Mission. Ptj4403 (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ptj4403:  Not done: Reasonable, but most reliable sources, including NASA's website, seem to describe it as the fifth mission, so you'll need to find sources calling it the sixth. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Um, the proposal was not to describe it as the "sixth mission", but as the "fifth mission into space"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

... On the basis that it was the sixth mission. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well the edit request looks pretty clear to me. I'm not sure it's fair to deny it, just based on that interpretation. But if NASA always calls it "the fifth mission", of course, it might be wise to stick with that. An alternative might be to add a small footnote about the failed First Mission (which "everyone forgets"? Just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, but a) this is a malformed edit request either way as it doesn't state what specific part is to be edited; b) the current wording in the lede, assuming that is the issue, seems adequate based on the cited sources in the article; and c) based on the reasoning of the proposal it would be equally inaccurate to call it the "fifth mission into space", as Apollo 1 was also a mission into space, just a failed one. So, in light of those three factors, it seems reasonable to deny the edit request. Cheers —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As this was Ptj4403's fifth edit to the encyclopedia, I was prepared to cut them a little slack. Never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You Want Source NASA States, "About Apollo 7, the First Crewed Apollo Space Mission" This Is The Lead Headline Of This Article - https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo7.html . Therefore Making The Edit Of Apollo 11 The Fifth Mission Into Space. As For Apollo 1 NASA States, "The first manned Apollo mission was scheduled for launch on 21 February 1967..." Article Source - https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_01a_Summary.htm . By Not Making This Edit You Are Not Including Apollo 1 Into The Apollo Project And Not Giving Those Men Their Due Recognition And Sacrifice Of Their LIVES That Lead To Apollo 11 To Become A Part Of History. Apollo 1 Fire Investigation Lead To Many Changes Allowing NASA To Advance To Apollo 11, Source, NASA Article Apollo 204 Review Board Final Report ( https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/content.html ) - Part IV Subsections 2. Investigation And Analysis And 3. Findings, Determinations And Recommendations, https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/invest.html , https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/find.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptj4403 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit to Apollo 11

Under "Lunar Surface Operations" 3rd paragraph states "Copies of this video in broadcast format were saved and are widely available, but recordings of the original slow scan source transmission from the lunar surface were likely destroyed during routine magnetic tape re-use at NASA.[127]"

New information indicates not all the tapes were destroyed. Several where purchased in the 1970s by Gary George a former NASA intern. He purchased a large lot of used tapes planning on selling them to local TV stations but saved three that where labeled Apollo 11. They are claimed to be the only three reels of original footage of man's first walk on the moon. The tapes are being sold at Sotheby’s auction on July 20th 50 years after the landing. - Time https://time.com/5626388/apollo-11-tapes-auction/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkt777 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

George's tapes were recorded at the Manned Spacecraft Center, now the Johnson Space Center, in Houston, Texas. They were not directly recorded from data transmitted from the moon, but from feeds sent by three ground stations that had downlinked the Apollo 11 data and converted it into a format fit for broadcast television.
That distinction is crucial when valuing the tapes, says space memorabilia collector Robert Pearlman.
“They are a copy of the final broadcast signal, not the original data received from the moon and not something that was used by NASA to carry out the rest of the flight," Pearlman, the founder and editor of collectSPACE.com, told Al Jazeera." [2]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sony TC-50 dictaphone and astronauts' music

I feel this should be mentioned somewhere.... https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/12/mickey-kapp-apollo-11-astro-mixtapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Out_of_the_Moon#Played_in_space_by_Neil_Armstrong

The TC-50 in fact appears to have no mention whatsoever anywhere on wikipedia, despite it predating the Walkman by a decade. I just noticed it on a BBC documentary about Apollo 11 (8 Days: To the Moon and Back) and was like, wtf? they had *Walkmans* ?!?!? 81.155.74.220 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Plaque language

I have been meaning to do this change myself all week, but apparently will not find the time. I think the recently added text is undue weight for a particular portion of the plaque language. At the behest of the Nixon administration to add a reference to God, NASA "shrewdly" included the vague date as a reason to include A.D., which stands for Anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord".

My intention has been to expand Lunar plaque with a section on 'Plaque design' and to include the above text in that section I planned to use: Before the Fall, After Apollo?, and a NYT opinion piece by one of the writers. If others agree with this and have time to make the edits, I would greatly appreciate it. I would love for the section on the lunar plaque to include the bits about the verb tense change and whatever else is easy to source. Kees08 (Talk) 17:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You know ~ "bon Anniversary" ~ if you want to find out exactly what the plaque reads today ~ I have a formula for you ~ Resolution in radians = 1.22λ/D, where λ is wavelength and D is aperture. Resolution in this case means minimum distance between two equal objects at which they can be separate ~ Using λ=500nm, D=(1.22)(500E-9)/2E-10 = 3050 meters~ You would need a telescope that is this wide ~ `3,000 metres (1.9 mi)' ~` Does anyone know where I can buy one of those ~ I looked everywhere ~ (by the way I'm on a limited budget)~ Just a question ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Documentary Films list

Is there a reason the excellent Ron Howard film In the Shadow of the Moon isn't on the documentaries list? It has some powerful interviews with astronauts; it's not restricted to 11, but a few of the others seem not to be too. Chris Rodgers (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, good catch. Although not a Ron Howard film. There are several other documentaries, some produced this year, which may not have pages as yet. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Weight?

"They spent about two and a quarter hours together outside the spacecraft, and collected 47.5 pounds (21.5 kg) of lunar material to bring back to Earth"

So, is that how much it weighs on Earth, or on the Moon? 24.156.190.134 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Your exactness to detail is very good, may consider further Wikipedia editing. As for the answer, I personally don't know (guessing it's Earth weight but you're right that it's not totally clear) and someone who does will be along. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This source and this one say nothing about weighing the samples, so one might guess the weighing was done back on Earth. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting point. So if the samples didn't have a scale weight in the Lunar Module then NASA must have had a set-amount of weight allotted for the samples, per take-off weight and fuel considerations, probably erring on the high side. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think so. It seems the crew's job was just to fill the containers available. In fact, Ryan Ziegler, NASA's Apollo sample curator, interviewed here, said: "Neil Armstrong decided that the rock box with the samples looked empty ... so he shoveled four or five shovelfuls of dirt into the rock box." Ziegler said that the soil is "probably the most valuable sample" that Apollo 11 brought back. "If I could pick one sample from Apollo 11, this is it." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

21.5 kg are always 21.5 kg. It does not matter where you measure the mass. I think you might confuse mass with weight. :) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah-ha. So a weighing scales from Earth would work fine on the Moon? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A balance scale would work, but not a scale that is based on measuring objects' weights (such as bathroom scales). Fomalhaut76 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes I see. I've yet to see any mention of a balance scale on the Moon. Or, in fact, any scales. So I guess, as Randy suggests, they just factored in an estimate of the extra mass that needed to be lifted back up off the surface in the LM. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The astronauts weighed each sample in the lunar module, using a spring scale calibrated for the Moon's one-sixth gravity. You can see a picture of one here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh thanks! One wonders how they weighed the "four or five shovelfuls of dirt". (Although that page doesn't actually mention Apollo 11?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Wonder if they left their spring scale on the Moon or packed it up with them. If it was left it can be included in the 'things left on the Moon' article. Liking the story of noticing that there was room left in the box and just shoveling in some dirt. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Clicking through the gallery, I see that the explanatory text says: "This is one of the early scales used by astronauts for training." This page also shows a spring scale and a "sample return container, or "rock box" is one of two used by Apollo 11 astronauts... " But again no mention of weighing. Does that 1 - 80 scale show kilograms or pounds? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Should the article just contain a link to Apollo 11 anniversaries instead of having some information only on that page and some information on both pages? Lorax (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The goal was to summarize important anniversary events (like using an anniversary to propose another Moon landing), and then have the target article be a more thorough resource. When I created it there was a lot of information about the 40th, so I presumed the 50th would have even more. Kees08 (Talk) 20:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 11 landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969 4:17 pm (16:17 EDT), Armstrong set foot on the Moon on July 20, 1969 10:58 pm (22:58 EDT)

MODERATOR: No one - NO ONE - lists Neil Armstrong as walking on the Moon on July 21, 1969. This must be corrected. 73.85.206.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The reference is given in UTC, which would be July 21. The time is the same. Given that most references use U.S. time, the apparent conflict might be mentioned in some form to prevent confusion. Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

3rd paragraph edits

After being __sent to__ suggest "propelled toward"

the Moon by the Saturn V's third stage, the astronauts separated the spacecraft from it and traveled for three days until they entered lunar orbit. Armstrong and Aldrin then moved into Eagle and landed in the Sea of Tranquility. The astronauts used Eagle's ascent stage to lift off from the lunar surface and rejoin Collins in the command module. They jettisoned Eagle before they performed the maneuvers that propelled __the ship_ suggest "Columbia"

out of the last of its 30 lunar orbits on a trajectory back to Earth.[4] They returned to Earth and splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on July 24 after more than eight days in space. 

Just clarifies what the Saturn V did, and which ship actually returned to Earth. 157.131.110.215 (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)