Talk:Apollo program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Apollo program has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Moon (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Moon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

About the table...[edit]

Perhaps we should change the "Partial Failure" listed by Apollo 13 to "Successful Failure". Many people including Flight Crew members refer to it as such. The phrase is well known, and is more commonly used to describe the result as opposed to "Partial Failure". Lilly (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Edit found an official NASA website backing me up so I am changing it.

"Classed as "successful failure" because of experience in rescuing crew." Lilly (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the term "Successful Failure" is used by nasa, I feel like "Partial Failure" is a more neutral and accurate term. The mission's goal was to send a crew to the moon and return them safely. While they did return safely, we cannot ignore the fact there was a very serious failure on board. I am not trying to discredit the incredible ingenuity and the fantastic story of the Apollo 13 crew and engineers at NASA, but the fact of the matter is the mission did not go as planned due to a failure during the flight. To keep wikipedia as neutral and academic as possible, the term "Partial Failure" should be used to describe the Apollo 13 mission. NASA can label the failure however they wish, however, that does not change the facts concerning the mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:51, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of neutrality, I don't believe it is necessary at all to place success/failure ratings in this mission table; it's not our obligation to make such judgements (WP:OR), and the fact that it raises a controversy shows it's not a good idea. Also, I don't believe you'll find this in the equivalent mission list tables in most other encyclopedias or space program reference books. We are not in the actuarial business.
We also should remember that during the Apollo program, space travel was (and even to this day should be considered) largely developmental (forgetting this was suggested as contributing to the Challenger tragedy at the time), and not everything could be expected to succeed 100% on every mission. The only real failures were the Apollo 1 tragedy and Apollo 13. Even the engine failure on Apollo 6 didn't stall the program, and there were many little bugs and glitches that had to be worked around in the successes.
Therefore, I would like to simply remove the color-coded designations; the failures can be easily noted in the "Mission Result" text (which we might want to think about renaming.) JustinTime55 (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Make judgments? The entire point of Apollo 13 was to land on the Moon and it failed to do so. There is no "original research" at play here in just mentioning the fact that the mission did not meet NASA's own stated goals for it. Propaganda and spin aside, there is no real controversy over what Apollo 13 was: a failure.-- (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Partial success would be a lot better Ash :) (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Space program infobox[edit]

User Soerfm has added a generic infobox to this article, similar to how he changed the infoboxes in Project Mercury and Project Gemini to refer to the programs themselves rather than the spacecraft. I think a Template:Infobox space program would might be a good idea, but this requires some careful thought and design. It perhaps could be used on all programs (at least the "real" ones), e.g. Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Skylab, Space Shuttle, Shenzou, etc. Until this is done, I don't think it represents a net value added here (unlike in Mercury and Gemini), so I have reverted it.

Some might not agree that this infobox is necessary, and maybe some technical expertise is required to create a new template (I've only done some editing to existing ones.) I think this should be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Comment revised JustinTime55 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have created the template, Template:Infobox space program. I am not going to transclude it on any articles at this time. I will be posting this on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page so that it can be reviewed. The template does include an example that uses all of the parameters I have defined in the template using the Apollo Program as the example. Feel free to check it out. MasterSearcy (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Please direct all discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Space Program Infobox JustinTime55 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in Thrust figures[edit]

"Sending the three-man Apollo Command Module directly to the lunar surface and back would require an extremely large launch vehicle, the Nova, which could send over 130,000 pounds (59,000 kg) to the Moon. While the Saturn V was less powerful than the Nova would have been, it still holds the record for largest payload capacity (260,000 lb/120,000 kg to LEO or (220,000 lb/100,000 kg to the Moon) of any rocket developed as of 2012."

Anyone see the totally obvious contradiction? 100,000 kg to me clearly isn't "less powerful" than 59,000 kg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say "vandalism", but maybe someone just got confused. The correct Saturn V lunar payload is 100,000 pounds (not kg). It's fixed now. (BTW: your heading is wrong; that's payload, not thrust. There's a lot of lay confusion about what "rocket power" means.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Structure and grammar[edit]

Due to the extensive rewrites made over the last several months by an ambitious, well-meaning, but I suspect slightly English-writing-challenged newbie, I've downgraded the quality rating from B to C, in light of how good it was before and how close we were, shooting for a featured article. I appreciate the spirit of WP:BOLD and some of these updates, but I just feel the goal is now a bit farther rather than closer, and it will take a lot more work to clean up and move ahead.

The style and grammar should be obvious to those following the edits to this, Project Mercury, Project Gemini, and Apollo 11 (this last a real problem, since it was GA and now I feel merits a reevaluation.)

As for structure, my major complaint is that it is oriented too much around "missions" (a word I believe not always fully understood.) I've believed for a while that an area of improvement was to structure the history of the program a bit better around the actual development history of the initial unmanned tests, the initial plan for manned flight, which got tragically blown away by the Apollo 1 fire (something I feel has gotten neglected), and then the recovery to the testing of the real lunar hardware and the resumption of manned flight planning.

Also, the editor mentioned added an artist's conception of the lunar mission profile to Apollo 11, something which I believe better belongs here and this article has been lacking. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was User indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet of Maxviwe

Extended content

Characterization of Apollo as 'obsolete government propaganda'[edit]

In my view, the Apollo program was one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in history. It is now obsolete and the time has come to publish the truth. I appeal to the editors to stop scrubbing this article. You are compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. To present all of NASA's claims here as fact is misleading and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApoGnosis (talkcontribs) 11:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As a reasonable observer, ApoGnosis's behaviour signifies a non-neutral POV and breaches the WP:3RR explicitly: [1]. Mephtalk 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
WP:FRINGE clearly applies, we shouldn't give undue weight to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. --W. D. Graham 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A review of the archives suggests that there is an established consensus that the content of this article need not be tagged as disputed. However, consensus can change - rather than edit warring, can you present reliable sources that form the basis of the material you believe should be included in this article? VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason to repeat what's covered at Moon landing conspiracy theories here. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree - not sure why anyone is seriously listening to this guy... Ckruschke (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Thanks editors for sharing your views. I have seen the page Moon landing conspiracy theories I do not wish to repeat information that exists there. Although, it is possible that I will make contributions to that page in the future.
To my way of thinking extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is NASA that is making the extraordinary claim that from 1969 to 1972 seven manned missions went to the moon six of which landed on the surface. They have released a huge body of evidence to support this claim, however there are problems with many, many elements of it. My goal with adding the 'disputed' tag was to alert scholars that these NASA claims are disputed. As far as i am concerned I am using the scientific method and engaging in scholarship. I was confused and disappointed to have this labeled as "vandalism"
I understand my characterization of Apollo as "obsolete government propaganda" is controversial. In my view this narrative better explains the vast body of evidence that NASA has released. Through your comments and other interactions with editors at Wikipedia I am coming to understand that this narrative challenges a dominant cultural narrative and is threatening in a unique way.
Please consider the article Zoophilia, which contains a section Arguments for zoophilia . I do not agree with the argument, and I suspect that very few people do. However I see that it is included and presented as a legitimate point of view within the larger article. I think most of you will agree that a much larger group of people dispute the claims made by NASA regarding the Apollo program. Yet this viewpoint seems to be taboo in a way that arguments for bestiality are not. I do not know why this is. --ApoGnosis (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
As you say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", however I would argue that the "extrordinary" claim here is not only that the US Government attempted to deceive the world, but that the Japanese, Chinese and Indian governments and the European Space Agency are complicit in it. This seems far less likely.
I think there is enough evidence to present the landings as factual, and most of the evidence to the contrary fails to stand up to much scrutiny. --W. D. Graham 16:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, many people feel as you that the burden of proof rests with those who question NASA claims. However, I feel that this is an example of Hindsight bias. Now that NASA claims have become part of the dominant cultural narrative it is considered "extrodinary" to question them. I am interested in debating the evidence from all sources you mention. However, in this context I want to focus my argument on how exactly WP:FRINGE is applied. If I understand it correctly WP:FRINGE has been applied to my view *without* scrutiny of any evidence. --ApoGnosis (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you know of something beyond that presented at Moon landing conspiracy theories? Cite your references here (or there). Be forewarned, it would be easier to convince us that Elvis Presley lived a decade or more beyond his reported death in 1977. Several of us contributors have first- and second-hand knowledge of the efforts to put a man on the moon. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless major reference works (other than certain crowdsourced online encyclopedias) have begun printing that the Apollo program was all a hoax, your assertion is firmly in fringe territory. Major published references are the basis of Wikipedia, not rumor or things-somebody-posted-on-the-internet. Wikipedia is not a forum for debate, and this page is concerned with improvement of the article based on reliable sources. We recognize that Wikipedia can be attractive for folks with original or out-of-the-ordinary ideas who wish to promote them, which is why reliance on mainstream accounts and due weight are a fundamental principal. Use of this page (or any other Wikipedia page) as a soapbox for fringe theories is not appropriate. The short answer is that you've come to the wrong shop for a debate, argument or "scrutiny of evidence." There are plenty of places elsewhere on the Internet for that. Acroterion (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that very few trees died to promote my point of view. Many of the strongest arguments against NASA claims exist on the Internet and have not been published. It is interesting that you marginalize "crowdsourced online encyclopedias" when you spend your time editing one. Also, It is interesting that if you read this thread, people alternately demand evidence and say that scrutiny of evidence is irrelevant to this forum. I do recognize that you feel you are part of an in-group who's job it is to re-enforce the dominant cultural narrative and to marginalize different points of view labeling them as "vandalism" or "fringe." It is understandable that you wish to quash debate on this issue.--ApoGnosis (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If it isn't published in a reputable source (paper or otherwise), it's of no use to Wikipedia: that is a central, non-negotiable policy of Wikipedia, which we've explained several times now. Wikipedia is not a reliable source (you can't cite Wikipedia to reference a Wikipedia article, nor can you cite any other crowdsourced reference here except in very limited circumstances). You mistake requests for reliable sourcing, which you've not provided, for an offer of debate. This isn't a debate shop. Show us the sources (and it's going to have to be something along the lines of a story in the New York Times: "NASA Admits Moon Landing Hoax"), or else nobody will take you seriously. Acroterion (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Restore link to conspiracy theories[edit]


I would like to restore the a link on the Apollo Program page which leads to the Moon landing conspiracy theories page. I have reviewed the history of this article and found that a section was added in November 8th 2003 called "related issues" Under this heading a link was added to the conspiracy page. This link survived seven years until June 13th 2010 when it was removed without comment by User:Gwillhickers

I do no believe the anything changed between June 12th 2010 and June 13th 2010 to warrant such a change.

I would like to revert Gwillhicker's change and restore this link. Since some of my edits have been controversial in the past. I am posting here first to notify other editors and see if anyone has an objection. --ApoGnosis (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Gwillhickers to ask him if he remembers his reason for removing the link and asked him if he objects to its restoration. --ApoGnosis (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the link in the "see also" section, where anybody who looks for "conspiracy" can find it. Is that enough? SBHarris 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, while I have a huge personal distaste for these theories, they have achieved quite significant attention. Maybe we should consider giving them a brief and neutral mention in the body of the article itself. --W. D. Graham 21:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. So far as I'm concerned, a reader of the conspiracy theories article is likely to believe less in the conspiracy than more, since much rebuttal is given. Wish I could say the same for the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article.SBHarris 21:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I would oppose adding anything more to this article; the See also link is quite enough, and is now on a par with Apollo 11. Check that article's talk page and archives; this has come up there several times and a consensus has formed that it's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Besides, the length of this article is already problematic. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus in other situations, such as September 11 attacks has been that a "see also" link is sufficient, which has been fairly consistent for articles meriting a separate fringe theory/conspiracy daughter article. Acroterion (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your consideration of this matter. Thanks also, for restoring the link in the "See Also" section. I respect your commitment to the ideal of neutrality. For me personally, I have difficulty with this concept and cannot resist advocating for a specific POV, which I feel is "more true". I will take a break from my crusade at this point and leave the discussion of these matters to more experienced editors. --ApoGnosis (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Table of missions[edit]

How about having a table of the missions? Or a table of the unmanned missions and a table of the manned missions? For manned missions, the first column would be the mission, then the launch vehicle, the then three astronauts, then perhaps the backup crew, and finally a comment. For unmanned, list the mission, launch vehicle, and objective. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Similar to Project_Gemini#List_of_missions and Project_Mercury#Manned flights. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


The lead says "Conceived during the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower as a follow-on to Project Mercury, which put the first Americans in space, and Project Gemini, which developed the space travel techniques needed,...". This sounds like Gemini was conceived during the Eisenhower administration, but I think it was later. As I understand it, Gemini was started after Apollo. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Project Gemini, Gemini was conceived in the Kennedy administration. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This sentence was recently edited to say it was a follow-on to Gemini as well as Mercury, which I agree is grossly incorrect and should be changed. (In fact, there was a debate somewhere, I think it may be in the archives here, whether Gemini was the "second" or "third" US manned program.) What really happened was, that Apollo was conceived as a multi-man program to follow Mercury. The Mercury contractor, McDonnell, was pushing (and NASA was thinking about) extending Mercury to a bigger, two-man spacecraft, called "Mercury Mark II". This fell by the wayside, but after Apollo was assigned to Kennedy's Moon mission, the two-man Gemini was invented to help support Apollo, and McDonnell's "Mark II" design was the ideal starting point for it. (Of course, that all is way too much info for Apollo's intro here.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the way it is now isn't exactly right either. It makes it sound as if the manned lunar landing program were conceived during the Eisenhower administration. It began as a spacecraft program with several tentative missions, until Kennedy focused it on the Moon. And it's not accurate to say it followed Gemini if it began the planning stages first; it ran concurrently with Gemini and only the manned flights followed it. I'm going to try another pass. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


The article says "After Apollo 12 placed the first of several seismometers on the Moon...", but Apollo 11 left a seismometer, right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's right. I think I've been getting this confused with the crashing of the LMs starting with 12. Not sure why they didn't crash 12's S-IVB, since they already had two seismometers in place then; this would have to be researched. I'm going to fix it. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Low Earth Orbit[edit]

In the article, it says that only 24 people have been beyond Low-Earth Orbit. What about the Hubble serving missions? Or any others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Low Earth orbit is defined as below 2,000 kilometers (1,200 mi). The Hubble orbits at only 559 kilometers (347 mi), so is not beyond LEO. The region of space immediately above LEO is in the Van Allen radiation belt, and would be dangerous for a human stay for any length of time with current spacecraft/spacesuit technology. The Apollo astronauts passed through and did not linger in it. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Science legacy[edit]

Is there additional discussion of the science legacy of Apollo anywhere? I expected to see something in this article, but all I found are a few sentences in the "Samples returned" section, while the "Legacy" section doesn't specifically address scientific discoveries at all. There was a nice article on arxiv today ( that summarizes some of the key science results. James McBride (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

AS-1xx, AS-2xx, and SA-5xx[edit]

In the subarticle List of Apollo missions it says: The Marshall Space Flight Center, which designed the Saturn rockets, referred to the flights as Saturn-Apollo (SA), while Kennedy Space Center referred to the flights as Apollo-Saturn (AS). This is why the unmanned Saturn 1 flights are referred to as SA and the unmanned Saturn 1B are referred to as AS. Except that this does not explain why the manned Marshal flight with the fire (never launched) was indubitably named AS-204 not SA-204.

Later-- never mind, this is indeed all screwed up. I did find both AS and SA designations for Apollo 4, 5 , and 6 in the period literature. Even though 4and 6 used Saturn V and 5 used the IB originally intended for the manned AS-204 of the fire, and was thus even flown by the same name at the time. Sigh.SBHarris 20:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did we RETURN to the moon?[edit]

I understand that we went there for the glory, the demonstration of strength against the soviet and also a little for science... but why did we go several times? I don't get that. I thinks it's a gap in the explanation. --Jules.LT (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We didn't go for a "little science." We went for all the science we could get. The moon is a very complicated place (see Geology of the Moon), with rocks of all kinds of different ages, with the really old stuff overlain with younger lavas/basalts and over that, even younger regolith breccias (see moon rock) and dust. Hard to tell age "by eye," and yet if you get back to Earth and have just another piece of the same dust, breccia, and lava you got the previous time, you've failed. And it's hard to dig-- the really good stuff is scattered around impact craters where it's been excavated for you. You've got to survey this gigantic place and you have little time and oxygen. Even with the rover (last three missions) you dare not go farther than you can walk back from. It's amazing what they got done with only six mission (the first of which was just a land, salute, grab a few rocks, and leave). SBHarris 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not a random forum discussion: the reasons behind the Apollo program are very important to this article. The scientific knowledge we gained from these expeditions might be very interesting, but it is not the reason why we embarked on this multi-billion adventure. So once we had reached the goals of the project that are represented in the "background" section of this article had been achieved? (mostly, a demonstration of strength against the soviet), what kept us going? This should be investigated, sourced, and included in the article. --Jules.LT (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Just because the "original / public intent" for the Apollo program was something sold to President Kennedy as "an achievable milestone that the program could have a chance at delivering before the Soviets", doesn't mean that that was the "sole intent" of the Apollo program. The Apollo program itself had a far reaching goal or why else plan to go all the way up through Apollo 20? So there's no gap in the explanation - there's simply a gap in your pre-conceived notion / initial hypothesis that the goal of the Apollo program was somehow ONLY to be first to the moon.
Don't get me wrong - if you are saying that the WIKI PAGE is lacking and needs additional text sourcing to the program's goals, that's one thing (and the short thumbnail sketch on this page seems to indicate the the major goal of Apollo was to get to the moon first), but if we are simply discussing the program itself and its overall intent, we are getting into forum / axe-grinding territory. Ckruschke (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I do think that the page is lacking, because the goal I get from it is insufficient to account for Apollo 12-20. You say that there was some far reaching goal, so I'm guessing that you know what it was. Could you please include it in the page and source it? --Jules.LT (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Important information missing[edit]

Right from the beginning, the article makes sure to name all the directors who were involved in management ans such... But information about those who really made this happen (the chief scientists) is vague, diffuse, or missing. For instance, who were behind the design of the shuttle? Who were those involved 1st hand into conceptualization, engineering and design at each stage of the programs? We know about Von Brown and Kurt Heinrich Debus, both Nazis (we could say "former" after the fall of the Nazi, although intentions and perceptions are of individual matters whatever the final issue of WW2 since they did not flee Germany like Einstein, and served Hitler until the end), but that's about it. For instance, it's not because a rocket is more spectacular than a shuttle, that it's then "more difficult" to design, it's just more dangerous for the technicians (the term "Rocket science" is only a populist figure). Why should only Nazis be rewarded with stardom more than other scientists? Because that's how it looks, and too many amongst those "negationists" regarding the walk on the Moon, are using that argument as some "ad hominem" judgment over the whole program. So, who were they? Unfortunately I don't have this information. --HawkFest (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Nazi: 1. A member of Adolph Hitler's political party that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945; 2. an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.
From your POV tirade, which seems to be focused on deriding von Braun and Debus as "Nazis" (utter slander in von Braun's case, IMO), I'm having a hard time seeing what glaring omissions exist in the article. It's strange that you seem to criticize the term "rocket science" as "a populist figure" (what does that mean?), yet you seem to be misled yourself by it as you ask for "the chief scientists" who made this happen, not recognizing the difference between science and engineering.
The preliminary Apollo capsule design, which ended up being used, was made by Maxime Faget, who perhaps should be mentioned here. (The Apollo spacecraft feasibility study could also be summarized here, with a little more info on the spacecraft contractor selection process. The chief engieers at the contractors (North American Aviation and Grumman, Boeing and McDonnell) were responsible for the detailed design and engineering work; with a significant contribution from the Marshal Spaceflight Center for the Saturn V integrated design; these are covered in the space vehicle hardware articles. Perhaps they could be summarized or wikilinked a bit better, but nobody's trying to "only reward Nazis with stardom." JustinTime55 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Political response[edit]

(political stuff) Yes. I also would like to know about the decision after Kennedy's address to the congress: Any resistance? Any discussion? It is assumed that the congress accepted Kennedy's proposal, but did they really? When then? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You bring up a good point which probably should be covered. At the beginning, there was such a fear of the Soviets (see Space Race) that I'm sure there was not much opposition at the start, when we were so far behind and it was perceived as a national security threat (Congress approved the required funds, after all.) I'm sure the liberals would have much rather spent the money on social welfare programs, but political blowback didn't really start until NASA started getting into trouble (see reaction to Apollo 1.) On the day of the Apollo 11 launch, the Rev. Ralph Abernathy led a protest outside the gates of the Kennedy Space Center, and Administrator Thomas Paine spoke to him. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Well then ... sources? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I know... right? JustinTime55 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Science spin-offs findings[edit]

(science spin-off stuff findings) I know that the Apollo program influenced the theories of the early solar system and the origin of the moon very much (Geology of the Moon, Origin of the Moon, Late Heavy Bombardment, etc..) but some article text is needed for that, up to and including academic sources making the syntheses. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Found some sources for science findings:
Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This is probably the biggest outstanding deficiency (see Science legacy above). Two points:
  • What's there seems to be limited to technology spinoffs, and doesn't really cover the lunar geology and cosmology. Unfortunately those aren't my strong suits, nor apparently of the others heretofore interested in this article. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I really don't like lumping the "science" and culture impact together under the heading "Legacy". I think this should be considered a word-to-watch (don't know whether to call it peacock, weasel, or euphamism when overused). I think science and culture should be two separate main sections, with science subdivided into "Lunar science" and "Cosmology".
I think I'll try to solicit some help on the Spaceflight project page. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mission profile pictures[edit]

Source of the mission profile images

The purpose of this image montage is to illustrate the basic steps in the lunar mission, but not every detail of the mission. They are taken from the single montage image shown here. It's nice that you found and uploaded a line-drawing image of the LM sleeping arrangements, but that's an internal detail that's out of scope of the mission profile, which is not intended to answer such interesting questions as "How did the astronauts sleep?". Note that all the images are from outside the spacecraft. There is no similar picture of the astronaut's sleeping arrangements in the Command Module, or other internal mission details such as using the navigation sextant, toilet facilities, etc. Where would it end?

The informational value of your image is appreciated, and I put it in the Apollo Lunar Module article, where I think it fits best. We have summary sections here on the spacecraft, but to add it there I think would still be trying to cram too much. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Nine or six manned flights above LEO?[edit]

This article reads the following, "...while the final Apollo 17 mission marked the sixth Moon landing and the ninth manned mission beyond low Earth orbit". What are the other three then? The Low Earth orbit article tells a completely different story, "With the exception of the manned lunar flights of the Apollo program, all human spaceflights have taken place in LEO (or were suborbital)." I'll change this article to six but feel free to revert/discuss if I'm wrong and there indeed were nine manned flights above LEO.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 were manned missions that orbited the Moon without landing. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
And Apollo 13 flew past the moon without landing after a malfunction in the service module. Those are the three instances in which manned craft flew out of LEO without landing on the moon. Since all three flew to the vicinity of the moon, all can still be reasonably called "lunar" flights in the LEO article. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy half dollar photo with speech quote as caption[edit]

@Tdadamemd sioz:, this is inappropriate for several reasons:

  • Inappropriate use of photo: does not illustrate the speech, and carries an implicit memorial. Images are supposed to be used to illustrate the text in the article.
  • A caption is supposed to be a brief description of the photo. The text did not describe the half dollar, and (again, inappropriately in a POV way) was used to sneak in the prose you wanted to add with Kennedy's statement.
  • Again, the point of this article is not to memorialize Kennedy and say what "a grand sales pitch" he gave. There is a Costs section; if you feel his comment is appropriate, put it in there. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of space historians who point to Kennedy's Rice speech as having been a grand sales pitch. But the article does not say that, so I find it curious that you will quote something I wrote in the article summary as a basis for your objection.
As for the appropriateness of the image, it was the US Congress that decided to memorialize JFK on that coin. Not me. So what you are objecting to happens to be an historical fact. And guess how else Congress memorialized JFK? By naming an entire space center after him. The Wikipedia Policy does not prohibit articles from including what the US Congress has decided to be an appropriate memorialization.
JFK kicked off Project Apollo. He was memorialized on a coin. The flights were launched from a space center named after him. Appropriate, appropriate, appropriate I see it. Clearly an NPOV account of history.
His speech mentioned the cost being on the order of 50 cents, and so I included a photo of a 50 cent piece. Is that really a huge problem? I'll suggest you take a fresh look at Wikipedia policy to see that it gives absolutely no prohibition against accurate history.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You must be off your meds if you are so hyped up on your admiration of Kennedy that you can't properly interpret what I'm saying. I'm going to take a deep breath, and try to explain slowly and patiently, as clearly as I know how, so you can understand:
I never said that putting Kennedy's face on the half dollar was inappropriate. Please read the hyperlink I made above to WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. That says "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The topic of this article is the Apollo program, not how great a President (communicator) he was, or the appropriateness of memorializing him on a coin. I do not object to the historical fact of JFK's face on a coin. I do not object to "space historians describing the Rice speech as a great sales pitch". The linking of the half dollar memorial to the Apollo program would be WP:OR on your part. There are obviously other reasons besides Apollo which led to the issuance of the coin. The "50 cents" is purely a coincidence; using the picture would amount to WP:SYNTHESIS.
Using this or any other Wikipedia article (even his biography) to highlight what a great communicator he was,
It is also poor form to write a paragraph of text (which you desire to place in the article) in an image caption; that is not what a caption is for; it is to simply describe what the image shows. This image shows the Kennedy half dollar, which you don't say in the caption (and is not the point of the article.)
I have no objection to your adding text saying something like, "In his Rice University speech, Kennedy compared the cost in terms of what citizens were paying for cigarettes". This of course has to be put in context of the prose which is already there; Kennedy and the cost of the program (in terms of absolute estimates) are already mentioned.
Please remove the photo, leaving the text. I would be happy to assist you with this. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Apollo program "artifcacts"[edit]

How about a table listing current locations and of the Apollo Command Modules, and other associated hardware still in existence? (perhaps better as a separate article. Perhaps also another article listing splashdown locations and U.S. Navy's support ships involves. Wfoj3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Music"/sounds during pass behind moon[edit]

Am I missing something or is this not mentioned anywhere in the articles for the Apollo program? Here's the Apollo 10 lunar module onboard voice transcription, recorded on the lunar module onboard recorder data storage equipment. And a youtube video discussing it. Al Worden is featured in it. --RThompson82 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would you expect Wikipedia to have covered this, when the story was just reported on by CNN two hours ago (NASA releases recording of 'outer-space type music' from far side of the moon) and NASA has been quiet about it for 39 years? Since the transcripts and tapes were declassified and released in 2008, I find it curious that it didn't hit the popular media's radar until this weekend.
We could consider adding it, but take WP:FRINGE into account, not painting it as "ufology" and including the likely natural explanation, which is interference between the CM and LM radio systems. YouTube is certainly not a reliable source in this case. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apollo program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I will be taking this one. The article is large, and there are some bits that still need work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article is large, and there are some bits that still need work

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    See below
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    See below
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    All images are appropriately licenced
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

  • lbf -> pounds force. Or explain. Yes check.svg Done JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Dish" should be italised Yes check.svg Done JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Atlantic ocean" -> "Atlantic Ocean" Yes check.svg Done JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Pacific ocean" -> "Pacific Ocean" Yes check.svg Done JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "president Richard Nixon" -> "President Richard Nixon" Yes check.svg Done JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Broken links

Yes check.svg Done JustinTime55 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing references
  • NASA expansion - second and fourth paragraphs Yes check.svg Done (with fourth paragraph, still need second) Kees08 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Manned Spacecraft Center - first paragraph Yes check.svg Done JustinTime55 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Choosing a mission mode - first and third paragraphs
    • @Hawkeye7: Can you clarify what you want cited in these paragraphs? Might have already been done. Kees08 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Saturn IB - first paragraph Yes check.svg Done Kees08 (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Saturn V - second paragraph Yes check.svg Done Kees08 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Lunar mission profile - all paragraphs Yes check.svg Done A single reference sufficiently verifies all "paragraphs"; this is really more of a table with graphics than a section of prose paragraphs, which makes one continuous profile. I do not believe that requiring a cite at each individual paragraph is reasonable. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Profile variations - first, second, third paragraphs Yes check.svg Done Kees08 (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Preparation for manned flight - first, second and third paragraphs Yes check.svg Done Kees08 (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Disaster strikes - fourth paragraph Yes check.svg Done Kees08 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Manned development missions - all paragraphs Yes check.svg Done Kees08 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Production lunar landings - second and third paragraphs
  • Mission cutbacks - first, second and third paragraphs
  • Extended missions - first, second, third paragraphs Yes check.svg Done Kees08 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Mission summary - page numbers. Also, sources for other than surface times and sample amounts
  • Samples returned - first, second, third paragraphs
  • Apollo Applications Program - first and second paragraphs
  • Science and engineering - first, second, fourth and fifth paragraphs
  • Burrows - location and publisher Yes check.svg Done (publisher was there) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Dawson & Bowles - location Yes check.svg Done JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ertel & Newkirk - location Yes check.svg Done Already there JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That should do it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: Where are we with this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

JustinTime55, Hawkeye7, this review has been stalled for quite some time. Are further edits going to be made, or should the review be closed?

The requirement that the article meet the requirements of WP:LEAD has not been met in one important aspect: there's a limit of four paragraphs for any lead, and this one comes in at five sizable paragraphs. Please adjust the lead accordingly. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have reduced the lead to four succinct paragraphs. I hadn't paid much attention to the review because I have been overseas at Wikimania in Esino Lario, and am still on my way home. I saw little need to fail the article so long as progress was being made towards fixing the problems identified in the review. I could pitch in and help, but not until I get back. I can fail it at any time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a note that this is not an absolute requirement, and I won't fail a GA assessment over it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Citations have been really hard to find. I'll keep working. Kees08 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, there are seven more sections that need citations expanded. If we each do about two, we can finish this week! Let's get this thing pushed! I'll work on it later tonight. Kees08 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I've done everything down to the "Legacy" section. That's the only one that still needs to be done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Finished up everything past the legacy section. Could you do one final sweep of the article and make sure we addressed everything you wanted? Should be good at this point. Kees08 (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. Passing article now. Although it has taken a long time, I have articles that have been in the GA queue longer. If you want to take the article to FAC, get back to me first before nominating; it still needs a lot of work to reach that level. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)