Talk:Apollo 15

Apollo 15 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 23, 2019	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
March 9, 2019	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Spaceflight FA‑class High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy FA‑class High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / Cold War FA‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

Template:WP1.0

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Untitled

WE need to add something about the postage stamp scandal.

Bondarenko

There was some discussion of 'Russian Cosmonauts.' PEOPLE: RUSSIA DID NOT HAVE A SPACE PROGRAM OR COSMONAUTS UNTIL 1991 OR SO. BEFORE THAT, they were SOVIET. In this case, the error is particularly egregious because it contains a direct reference to fallen cosmonaut Bondarenko, who was UKRAINIAN, NOT RUSSIAN. The proper term for all cosmonauts, armies, etc before 1991 is SOVIET. This is why "USSR" (CCCP) not "Russsia" was painted on the rockets. The only time using 'Russian' might be ok is in some context where you might in a parallel discussion use terms such as 'Californian' or 'Texan' when talking about some specific subset of astronauts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.7.28 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U of M Graduates

It's my undersanding all 3 crewmen were University of Michigan grads, not sure where to source this or how exactly to insert this tidbit. Does anyone know if this was unique? (i.e. can any other school claim an entire crew of alums?)

Almost - Dave Scott is a Texas Military Academy and MIT graduate, and was given an honorary degree by U of M after the mission. --Jkonrath 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Scott was also a U of M grad, not just honorary. He went there for a year before attending West Point - as noted on his own Wiki page. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe

Did they really leave out an apostrophe from the plaque? JMcC 07:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of Dave Scott's spacesuit

Sorry, I just have a question to ask- is there any photographer willing to go to the National Air and Space Museum to snap a better framed photo of the display? I've just been to the discussion page on this photo's eligibility as a featured photo, and I agreed that the photo was oddly cropped and angled. But I still really, really like it, so if there is a better photo out there, it'd be great if somebody could upload it! Thanks! .onion 01:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing mfg of the SII

This article stated that Boeing was the developer of the Lunar Rover, which is fine, but it also said they were the contractor for the Saturn V second stage (SII) which is incorrect. The correct manufacturer of the SII was North American Aircraft. True that they were ultimately purchased by Boeing, but I think better to stay true to history of the day. At the time of its creation, it was North American. Donboy2k 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this right?

"Apollo 15 was the ninth manned mission in the Apollo program and the fourth mission to land on the Moon". Was this the ninth manned mission? how could it be when there are only four to the moon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chickenfeed9 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Apollo 4-6 were unmanned test flights, Apollo 7-10 were manned test flights, Apollo 11-17 were manned lunar landing flights. Only 11, 12, 14, 15,16 and 17 actually landed. Matariel (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency with the other Apollo mission pages

The Apollo 15 page stands out compared to the other mission pages, differing in page structure and is severely lacking in actual mission information. The additional information on hardware updates and mission change to the J mission profile is important, as is the context of the smuggled cargo, but none of the actual achievements of the mission itself are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matariel (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the current page structure is very unorthodox. Can't help feeling that it would be better to merge all the separate pages into one that addresses the entire mission comprehensively. ChiZeroOne (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive mission highlights section has been added below training/planning. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over mission duration

The Apollo 15 Flight Journal gives the splashdown time which agrees with the one in our infobox, 53 seconds after the hour. Since the launch was (within one second) of 13:34:00 (UTC), 53 seconds is what the mission duration has to end with. The text under Return to Earth said 33 seconds; I don't know where that came from. (I couldn't find it on the Astronautix page or in the A15FJ.) Of course, what's 20 seconds in over 6 days? :-) JustinTime55 (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apollo 15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apollo 15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720232257/https://history.nasa.gov/ap15fj/ to https://history.nasa.gov/ap15fj/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NASA template

Hello Wehwalt. Noticed you removed the main NASA template from the page and wondering if you'd reconsider. This is certainly a template of interest to many readers who look at the template listings. Even though this specific mission isn't on the template, and would be included in the Apollo article, it is directly related. Of course, historically, the Moon landings are among NASA's most prominent achievements (if not the most prominent), and arguably could be linked individually on the template itself. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but it's because of Hawkeye7's comment at the A-class review. Could you comment there, or he here, so we can have a discussion in one place?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant editing guideline is WP:BIDIRECTIONAL: Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. So I asked: "Do we need the NASA nav bar? It doesn't have Apollo 15 in it like the others." I didn't remove it from Apollo 11, but Apollo 15 already has four bona fide navboxes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the rule was silly...but them's the rules. I agree with Hawkeye's suggestion. Kees08 (Talk) 23:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the purpose of consolidating a topic like "Apollo" without having to list each and every Apollo lunar orbiting and landing mission on the template - which may be the solution that justifies adding the NASA template to the massively historic Apollo mission pages as the 50th anniversaries roll on - is then we don't have to list each and every mission. Keeping the NASA template on the major Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo mission pages seems to fit some of the common sense exception slots pretty much mandated on all top-of-the-page guideline templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By major mission pages I mean not every Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo mission, but a couple of the first, a few of the second, and the Apollo manned (humaned?) missions. These are NASA's crowning jewels. Does that seem like a fair assessment? And can you believe John Kennedy had the gumption to call for men to walk on the Moon and return to Earth within the decade, and they pulled it off? Things legends are made of, in the long run. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feature

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

Dromair (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parachute failiure is incorrectly described

The failure of one main parachute during Apollo 15 is thoroughly investigated and documented in Appendix C of the *Apollo Experience Report: Earth Landing System* <https://www.scribd.com/document/46944318/Apollo-Experience-Report-Earth-Landing-System>. It is inaccurate to claim that "one of the three parachutes on the CM failed to deploy properly". The report clearly states

   The three main parachutes of the Apollo 15 spacecraft deployed and inflated properly at approximately 10 000 feet altitude.  Films show that all three parachutes disreefed and opened fully in the proper sequence.

After the astronauts visually confirmed that the parachutes were fully opened, they fired the reaction control system (RCS) to deplete the fuel and oxidizer, which was standard procedure for all previous Apollo flights. This time, excess fuel ignited, burning through some of the parachute support lines and deflating one of the main parachutes.

Future Apollo flights eliminated the RCS purge.

Thanks. OK, I've modified the language. I think it should say "likely" because the mission report (p. 182) says "the fuel dump is considered to be the most likely cause of the anomaly".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mislabeled Photograph

There is a photograph in the section titled "Command module activities" of the Tsiolkovsky Crater captioned as follows: "Tsiolkovskiy crater on the far side of the Moon. Taken by Al Worden towards the end of the 13th orbit. The object on the left of the picture is a CSM thruster".

This can not have been taken by Worden. The Service Module RCS thrusters were not visible from inside the Command Module owing to the steep angle between the Service Module's surface and that of the Command Module. In fact, if you go to this page, https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?87, you can see that this photograph (AS15-87-11729) is from a roll of film exposed by the LM crew after detachment from the CM. It wasn't taken by Worden, and it wasn't taken from the CM.