↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apollo program article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Apollo program is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 10, 2007 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Former featured article candidate

WikiProject Space / Moon / Spaceflight / Human spaceflight	(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)	SpaceWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceTemplate:WikiProject SpaceSpace articles
Space portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Outer space 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Moon (marked as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Spaceflight (marked as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Human spaceflight (marked as Top-importance).

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: "Former Astronaut Don Peterson's Ideas for Future Human Flight Programs.". Spaceref.com. May 20, 2004. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=953.  (details)

This article was previously the Space Collaboration of the Week.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 25, 2004, May 25, 2005, May 25, 2007, May 25, 2008, and May 25, 2009.

Archives
November 2006—June 2007 June 2007—November 2008

Contents 1 thanks, wikipedia! 2 Constellation Program 3 Introduction 4 Apollo 11 broadcast data restoration project 5 Space Milestones 6 Apollo 11 broadcast data restoration project #2 7 Official mission numbers for AS-201, AS-202, and AS-203

[edit] thanks, wikipedia!

Just wanted to note that, unlike other articles, such as the great pyramid article, the apolllo article does NOT include nonsense like "we never landed on the moon"...and I wanted to say, Thanks, Wikipedia Community, for having the article that way. If only editors of other articles would follow this example!!!71.116.98.136 (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Constellation Program

It looks like there is a conflict between the first and last sentences of this paragraph: "Like Apollo, Orion will fly a lunar orbit rendezvous mission profile, but unlike Apollo, the lander, known as Altair, will be launched separately on the Ares V rocket, a rocket based on both Space Shuttle and Apollo technologies. Orion will be launched separately and will link up with Altair in low earth orbit like that of the Skylab program. Also, Orion, unlike Apollo, will remain unmanned in lunar orbit while the entire crew lands on the lunar surface, with the lunar polar regions in mind instead of the equatorial regions explored by Apollo. Constellation will also employ an Earth orbit rendezvous mission profile, which was dropped in favor of lunar orbit rendezvous in Apollo" (emphasis added). I don't know enough about Constellation to know which way to fix it. Jminthorne (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure myself, but those details should stay in the Constellation article not here. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I think that the introduction to this article should not include the "The major space exploration milestones leading up to the moon landing include:" and the incorperated list. This should be placed elsewhere in he article. 114.77.86.32 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo 11 broadcast data restoration project

On 17 July 2009 I added current information about the restoration process of the surviving Apollo 11 moon tape data by Lowry Digital. The project is supervised by NASA senior engineer Dick Nafzger, who was involved with the actual data during the live transmission.^[1][2] Xin Jing (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding edits made by Fnlayson: Please explain again why you deleted my boxed quotes. I spoke on your talk page because you hadn't posted here yet. Then I explained my reasons. You didn't answer all of my questions and redirected to the article's talk page. Now I am here, so I will recap my reasons for wanting you to recend your deletion. Honestly, this is just part of the diplomatic formality process I know that takes place on Wikipedia. You didn't offer me any opportunity to explain why they should stay before you deleted them, then had me run in a circle to get them back. Shame on you!

Fnlayson, I noticed that you removed my boxed quotes from the article. You said the quotes were not cited, summarized in the text, and format references.

It sounds like a few hoops I have to jump through:

1. Citations - The quotes came from the articles which I referenced. So I need to do a [1] to keep them in?

2. Summarized in text - I felt the actual quotes of people that worked on the project at the beginning and now for the restoration project added a flavor of authenticity to the article. I've seen many articles where a quote is added in the paragraph, these were instances where the text sets up the quote to dynamically underscore the problems mentioned in the article.

3. Format references - I'm guessing this has something to do with the box quotes not being appropriate for the article, but I'm not sure. Could you clarify?

In summary, the article can exist in good quality without the box quotes. With that said, I think the content of the box quotes needs to return to the article, as they add a specific person that was there, a stand out statement about that particular segment of the article. The quotes also add flavor, a soundbite of people that are still directly involved in the project and have been since day one. There were technical challenges on the ground while Armstrong was taking his first step, and the repercussions wouldn't be realized until nearly 40 years later. To delete them is a mistake given the nature of the article. Please take a moment and comment on what you think specifically needs to happen for them to return in some form.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in your editing process. Xin Jing (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• In light of the edit made by Fnlayson, I have reverted the changes made. Let us discuss intended changes here before they are made. I prefer to make changes to keep them there, not strive for achievements to get them back. Xin Jing (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The quotes were not directly cited as policy requires. They are not particularly notable and not really needed since the text summarizes them. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't respond to my suggestion that your deletion preceded any communication here. When I inquired why you made changes, you referred me to this talk page for further discussion. It occurs to me that you should have engaged me in discussion before making your changes, allowing us to avoid a circular conversation and waste time. If content is missing a citation, usually there is a short period where the content can be ammended to meet policy requirements before it is outright deleted. Does the policy that you are so quick to quote mandate an immediate deletion of content that fails to adhere to that policy, without opportunity to bring it into compliance? As to Notability, my interpretation of those guidelines is that they refer to a seperate article, quotes within an article are not mentioned. Perhaps you can cite a specific passage that applies to quotes. Additionally, "not really needed" is subjective and in need of further explanation. If the text needs to be ammended to eliminate redundancy, I will take a look into it. I understand you are involved in "300+" articles, but please take some time and explain your editorial intentions with specifics on the article talk page before initiating content deletion. Thank you Xin Jing (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. And note I removed the quotes 1 time. Time to move on to something else.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding quote citations. Xin Jing (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Space Milestones

Does this section really belong in the introduction? It almost seems like it could be summed up with, "The program set major milestones in the history of human spaceflight." Anyone mind if I change it? Jminthorne (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the list and tighten some wording in the area. That link should be added also. Here's the milestone list for anyone wondering:

• first sub-orbital spaceflight (1944) (Germany)
• first orbital flight (1957) (USSR)
• first unmanned lunar mission (1959) (USSR)
• first man in space (1961) (USSR)
• first unmanned lunar landing (1966) (USSR)
• first manned lunar mission (1968) (USA)
• first manned lunar landing (1969) (USA)

Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the milestones internal link to the introduction.Jminthorne (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo 11 broadcast data restoration project #2

The first text box in this section is glitching (it interjects itself mid paragraph and isn't properly left justified); I am not familiar enough with text boxes to fix it. I do notice that it goes away if we make the quote long enough to start a second line.Jminthorne (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I switched to a different, but similar quote template in an effort to fix that. That seems to fix the overlap glitch for me. Hopefully that fixes it for you and others. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Official mission numbers for AS-201, AS-202, and AS-203

See http://everything2.com/title/Apollo+2. While it is true that a retroactive naming of these missions to Apollo 1a, Apollo 2 and Apollo 3 was suggested after the fire, it is also true that it was officially rejected, and these names are not now and never were official. The change of AS-204 to Apollo 1 and AS-205 to Apollo 7 were official. So I've taken the liberty of removing the Apollo's 1a, 2, and 3 names from the mission list. If somebody wants to add that these were once suggested or proposed as names, but never approved by NASA, that's fine, but the official list here, should have the presently-official names. SBHarris 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)