Talk:Apollo 11

Aldrin confirmes flag got knocked over.

Buzz Aldrin admitted that they knocked over the American Flag when the crew left the moon. The now 77-year old astronaut said this in a lecture he gave at the Technical University of Delft, on 13th march 2007. He, Armstrong and Collins decided not to tell this, because of the controversy it might cause in America. Please add this fact to all the moon articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.126.160.35 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

He has been saying this for years, but for some unknown reason (ok, let's just say it: they don't know what they're talking about), local media picked this up as the first time he ever revealed it. Already in the 70's he wrote the flag story down. Nicolas Herdwick 08:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So, when does he finally admit that they never went to the moon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.105.96 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For Aldrin to make such an admission would constitute a falsehood, because manned Apollo missions 8, and 10 through 17 visited the Moon and/or made landings. When do you finally admit that you and other hoax believers are just glib and smug religionists? 68Kustom (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

MARVEL vs CAPCOM?

In the Crew/Support Crew section, the article has the abbreviation for Capsule Communicator as CAPCOM, but MARVEL? Is this real (and needs supporting evidence) or vandalism? Spudzonatron 06:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like junk to me... Shimgray | talk | 19:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

nice stuff

http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html

--83.131.9.149 09:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(--67.130.182.68 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Change first sentence?

Great article. Apollo 11 of course was not the first Apollo mission to go to the Moon. It was the third. Apollo 8 and 10 both went to the moon, but did not land. Furthermore many unmanned missions went to the moon previously. Perhaps a better first line would be something like: The Apollo 11 moon mission was the first space flight to land humans on a body other than the Earth.

-- Mfbabcock 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory exposition?

I've noticed that there isn't a partial article on any of the Apollo landings that have to do with the hoax. I think there should be one on either this one (because it's so famous, and the basis for most of the hoax theories) or the project Apollo page.

Ztobor 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, which deals with the lunacy ( :-) I crack myself up). As for mentioning it in this article, I don't think it is appropriate --- would seem like having a section on the 9/11 conspiracies in World Trade Center or George W. Bush. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Interstellar Date Line

It is interesting that the anniversary of the first moon landing is 20 July. That is, of course, only relevant to which side of the International Date Line you were on at the time.

In Australia for example, the actual day of the first moon landing was 21 July 1969. That is the day upon which thousands of Australians were gathering around televisions and radios to watch and listen to the first moon landing. Of course, in the USA, it was still 20 July 1969, so they have a different perspective of which date it occured. My mother has quite a firm view on this matter: the first moon landing took place on 21 July 1969, as she was giving birth to my brother at the time, in New South Wales, Australia.

So this brings the question, what is the baseline for dating events that take place in space?

For this event, why was a date relative to the USA's position used? Yes, it was their moon mission, but is that reason enough to use their relative date? Even the TV signal relay was picked up by a radio receiving station in Australia on 21 July 1969, I think because Australia was facing the moon at the time. So that's another reason - the USA was on the OTHER side of the Earth when the first moon landing took place, meaning that the moon was on Australia's side of the International dateline.

Anyway, just thought I would mention that, and ask the baseline question. Thanks!--203.10.224.58 06:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

GMT Coriolise 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

' Local time ', i.e. local of the mission control, which was in Houston, Texas, and therefore in the Central timezone,--Abebenjoe 21:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this a couple of times. The manual of style for Wikipedia states that events should be dated for the time zone they occur. Which of course is a little difficult for landing on the Moon since it didn't occur in a time zone. We also have two times to worry about. The landing itself and the first steps on the Moon. And these two events occurred on different days in GMT. The landing was at 20:17:40 UTC on 20 July and the moonwalk was at 2:56 UTC on 21 July. Both of these times are of course on 20 July in the United States. BUT the crew themselves appeared to be running on EDT (the timezone of Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center). On their first day in space they went to bed at 8:52 p.m. (two hours earlier than planned), the next night, bed time was 9:42 p.m.. The start of the sleep period was much later on the day of the landing, being at 4:25 a.m. EDT July 21. So if we assume that the astronauts were keeping track of such things, they would have thought of the landing as taking place in the afternoon of the 20th and the moonwalk taking place late in the evening. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, where the mission is controlled from, is where the time zone is assigned. At the time of launch, the mission was controlled from Cape Kennedy, in the Eastern Time Zone. Once the Sat. 5 cleared the tower, mission control switched to Houston, Texas, and remained there for the rest of the flight, all in the Central Time Zone. The inconsistency in the article is not stating the 'Local Time' accurately. As with most publications in the USA, everything seems to be conventionalized on the Eastern Time Zone, for various reasons. The NASA logs are usually split between EST and CST (for this mission EDT and CDT). UTC or GMT would make more sense in terms of standardization, but the historical convention is to place this in July 20th, not July 21, at least in the majority of English language texts, and this is English wikipedia.--Abebenjoe 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent conflict

The article contains this statement: "After describing the surface dust ("fine and powdery ... I only go in a small fraction of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots"), Armstrong stepped off Eagle's footpad and into history as the first human to set foot on another world..." Er...how could he see his footprints before he had stepped onto the surface? --ukexpat 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There was dust blown onto the steps of the LM from the deceleration onto the lunar surface. -72.24.198.13 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Flight Trivia

The parenthetical inclusion of the number of prior spaceflights each crewman had prior to Apollo 11 is completely unnecessary here, an article on Apollo 11. The article was made to look even worse by the fact that the backup crew had not only the prior flights, but the later flights, and instead of simply the number of flights we got names.

Look, I know the nature of the space program is such that it is common to see such trivia. But if this stuff has a place, that place is called . . . a sentence. None of this, however, truly was necessary where it was located, so I have deleted it. Unschool 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the other Apollo articles, I realize that this "format" in this article was applied quite inconsistently. For that reason, in addition to those stated above, these articles are better off without this schtuff. Unschool 02:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Apollo 11 in popular culture

To be honest I think a page like Apollo 11 in popular culture would constantly lack content, and as such I propose the merging of this article into Apollo 11 as a subsection. Please voice your opinion and I'd be glad to work something out.
-- Python (Talk to me!) 14:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For two reasons I strongly recommend the articles NOT be merged:

(1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of popular culture trivia: What Wikipedia is not

(2) The Apollo 11 article is already 38KB long. General Wikipedia guidelines say articles shouldn't be over 32KB: Wikipedia:Article size. Merging another substantial article would make the main article even larger. Joema 15:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Based on them it leads me to believe that maybe a subsection could be provided on the Apollo 11 page of "Apollo 11 in popular culture" which will provide a link to the Apollo 11 in popular culture page.
-- Python (Talk to me!) 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already a "Depiction in fiction" section, which provides a single link. You could add a link to the "popular culture" page there. If you do, it probably makes sense to then remove the link that currently exists in the "See also" section. (sdsds - talk) 16:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. Main article is big enough. The popular culture has enough content, but it needs a stylistic reworking to make it a significantly better article. Usually, when I read that an article is to be merged/deleted, it is usually due to a poorly written article, rather than the subject matter or facts that it contains, and I would say that rule applies here. So keep them separate, but also the pop culture article should be copyedited.--Abebenjoe 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge pop-culture article is too convoluted and with "no citations" and the need for more, it would be a lengthy task for sure. Infact, with the continual vandalism on Apollo 11, I'd recommend a six-month lock-out on all edits. A Wiki-break from Apollo 11 would be good. The article already exceeds recommended article size. Moving pop-culture and trivia section out to their own articles with back-ref is preferred. LanceBarber 08:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge Gwen Gale 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Contingency television address2

Adjusted wording to clarify there would be no communications cutoff. Apollo astronauts have been asked many times what they'd have done had the LM ascent engine not worked. They all replied they'd have been feverishly working on the problem until the moment they died. This would require constant communication with Mission Control. Joema 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Accordingly I put "when all hope was lost" only because I've both heard and read that in such a situation radio communications would have indeed been curtailed by Houston. That said, more sources and input (such as a "working on the problem until the moment they died" quote or whatever) would be helpful. Gwen Gale 20:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should be moved to Apollo 11 in popular culture, the main Apollo 11 article seems to be detailing the actual event, while the other page is geared more toward this type of content. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it, WP:BOLD. Gwen Gale 21:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the contingency plan belongs in popular culture. I think it would be more appropriate in Apollo program, if not returned to its original location. AlphaEta ^{T / C} 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The plan was strictly political/cultural, was never implemented, had nothing to do with contingency planning for the mission itself and is only of cultural interest. Gwen Gale 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question still remains, why should an unimplemented speech be considered "popular?" Also, unless someone provides a solid reference to suggest otherwise (i.e. transcripts of the above mentioned interviews), the text stating that Mission Control would decide when to "close down communications" should remain. Especially considering that the NYTimes referenece stating such is written by William Safire himself! Finally, the plan to provide the astronauts with a "burial at sea" in the event of a failed mission was very much part of the official protocol. Kindest regards, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The meaningful word here is culture, not popular. Gwen Gale 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no official documents from NASA or White House that mention any contingency plan whereby communications would be cut off. The Safire memo only mentioned a "moon disaster", said nothing about failure of the LM ascent engine or a stranding scenario. This is corroborated by the astronauts themselves. One example is Harrison Schmitt, Lunar Module pilot for Apollo 17. When asked about the "stranded" scenario, he said:

"...little likelihood existed that we would be stranded on the moon. Indeed, I don't think any Apollo crew seriously contemplated what they would do in that eventuality. For example, among the hundreds of parts making up the ascent engine, only the exit nozzle and the massive fuel and oxidizer injector ring had no matching pair or backup component (No one could figure out a way these parts could fail.) As a last resort, we could even wire the descent batteries to the circuit breakers controlling the ascent engine fuel and oxidizer valves and force the valves open. As these pressurized liquids react on contact as they mix in the engine, we would be on our way..." [1]

The LM ascent engine was incredibly simple -- it had no pumps, no ignition system, no throttle, no nozzle gimbaling, and oxidizer/fuel valves were redundant.

There are many ways the astronauts could have died on the moon -- tore a space suit, crashed on surface due to guidance error, etc. The "stranded" scenario was but one, and thought very unlikely.

The Safire memo was obviously written to cover many possible scenarios. But it says nothing about (a) a communications cut off, or (b) a specific "stranded" scenario. Those may come from the imagination of a newspaper reporter, or Hollywood screenwriter, or both. Unless those elements are corroborated by an official source (NASA document, astronaut interview transcript, etc) they seem speculative and not encyclopedic. Joema 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree, which melds with why I supported moving the account to Apollo 11 in popular culture and did so. Gwen Gale 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at page 2 of the Safire memo, there is a contingency for a "burial at sea" ceremony listed under the heading: "AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT, AT THE POINT WHEN NASA ENDS COMMUNICATION WITH THE MEN." I can only interpret this phrase to mean that NASA would decide when to end communication with the astronauts, not the other way around. Also, as mentioned previously, the NYTimes essay written by Safire makes it clear that Mission Control would cut communications and leave the men to their demise. It's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect such a move was intended to let the astronauts determine their own fate without interference from Earth (i.e. whether or not to commit suicide). Considering that the original memo says, "NASA ends communication with the men," and that Safire's 1999 essay explicitly states that MC would decide when to cut communication with the LM, I'm convinced that the text stating such should stay in the article. As far as the move is concerned, I'm not opposed to removing the content from the main Apollo 11 article, but it doesn't seem to meet the necessary criteria to be considered "popular culture." I don't plan to move it though. I'll leave it up to you all. Thanks for the discussion, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right the Safire memo does mention a point where NASA would end communication. This would be when they were dead. There is absolutely no official evidence or reference from NASA or any current or ex-astronaut that communication would be cut off prior to that. In fact Apollo astronauts have said they'd be working on the problem to the bitter end. To cut off communication before that point would be foreclosing a possible opportunity to fix the problem, however remote.

The Safire essay (not the memo) was written 30 years after the fact. He obviously is in error. E.g, him thinking the astronauts could starve on the moon. This is a physical impossibility. Another example is him thinking the lunar ascent was the most dangerous mission phase. In fact the lunar descent was widely considered the most dangerous. Neither Safire memo nor essay were NASA contingency plans. They did not spell out NASA policy or procedure. They were a political contingency plan for handling the situation.

The article should not state or imply cutting off communications prior to the astronauts death was a NASA procedural contingency plan. It's OK to mention the Safire memo, but we should emphasize (a) it was intended to cover various possible lunar death scenarios, and (b) it was a White House contingency plan for handling these various scenarios, not a NASA contingency plan. Joema 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think including this in the article could easily mislead the casual reader. Death is always a background worry in spaceflight, the outcome is mostly cultural, the Safire memo dealt strictly with the popular cultural aspect and the whole affair is of marginal notability except as a cultural note, hence I do think the closest match for this is Apollo 11 in popular culture. Lastly, they did not die, they lived, so this refers to nothing more than a reference to a plan which, if tragedy had struck, might not have even played out as Safire suggested. Cheers. Gwen Gale 18:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be in the main article, and Dgies' addition of The Soldier reference strengthens the case for its inclusion on the pop culture page. Kindest regards, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hurriyet21July1969.jpg

Image:Hurriyet21July1969.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages

I have moved this section to the Apollo 11 in popular culture. This fact seems more relevant there, because this article is primarily concerned with dealing with the main landing (and is also quite long), while the Apollo 11 IPC is geared more towards these kind of related but secondary facts. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Gwen Gale 17:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested disambiguation notice

Since this article is quite long and specific, I think it would make sense to disambiguate readers and editors between the content goal on this article (which details the process of mission and landing), and the Appollo 11 IPC article (dealing with the cultural/public significance of the event). Maybe something like This article deals with the mission itself, for the mission's cultural significance please see Apollo 11 in popular culture. Thoughts? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds helpful to me. Gwen Gale 23:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Change Posted

I modified the paragraph containing information about how it fulfilled Kennedy's dream. I believe this was important because it restablished the American pride in the launching of Apollo 11. It helped to regain American confidence in their role of the Space Race. This lack of confidence was because of the fear the United States suffered because of the illusion that the Americans had of a missile gap.

The role of Apollo was not simply to bring a man to the Moon. It had several goals and reasons under the facade of scientific exploration. The "Space Race" was an analogy to the "Arms Race" and became the fundamental reason for being the first to put an American citizen on the Moon. Thus I believe it was important to note this restablishment of the United States confidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.196.52 (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unnecessary editorialization that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Reverted. TJRC (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another world

From this article: the first human to set foot on another world. I might be wrong but surely the Moon (being a moon) doesn't qualify as another world? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

World in English is a very broad term, with way over a dozen meanings. Another world in this context indeed has the same meaning as any heavenly body other than the Earth. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Communications Link

There are a couple of things fishy about the article that provides the basis of the second half of the "Communications Link" section. That article contains the following:

• "Everything seemed to work until July 14th, 1969... the lone Intelsat III over the Atlantic had suffered Intelsat's first failure in space."
• "Intelsat had one spare Series III satellite and launch rocket. It was rushed to a pad at Cape Kennedy to try meeting its one possible launch window before the last lunar shot window on the morning of July 16. Unfortunately, it went into a huge looping orbit."

That implies that there was a failed launch of an Intelsat betweek July 14 and July 16, 1969.

According to multiple sources, [2] [3], there was no Intelsat launch until July 29th. So I'm not sure how reliable the source for that section is. — PyTom (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)