Talk:Apollo program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleApollo program has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 10, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 10, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 20, 2016Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 25, 2004, May 25, 2005, May 25, 2007, May 25, 2008, May 25, 2009, May 25, 2010, and May 25, 2013.
Current status: Good article

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 ...as 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)

yes agreed

i personally have the psa test point adaptor https://www.flickr.com/photos/1ajs/sets/72157705166193482

also curiousmarc on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KSahAoOLdU&list=PL-_93BVApb59FWrLZfdlisi_x7-Ut_-w7 is restoring a AGC computer back to working condition at this time

1ajs (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2019 (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. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS10_LM.PDF And a youtube video discussing it. Al Worden is featured in it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjLZBrQ-Oq4 --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)

Lunar ferroan anorthosite photo[edit]

Yesterday I had replaced a blurry image of an Apollo 16 sample with a clear photo of exactly the same rock, although from a slightly different angle and lighting. Just curious why the edit was reverted. Jstuby (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The most glaring thing is that the new photo has a different aspect ratio, 1.333 height to width, versus 1.1455 in the old photo; this causes it to not line up with its mate in the Template:Multiple image. The two need to be displayed at the same height. If you can figure out how to adjust the inputs to fix this, I have no objection to the replacement. (I know, it's complicated and the instructions seem a bit confusing.)
The other thing that stood out was that the older one had less color; I found the color more visually striking than the focus, which I failed to catch. I guess the focus is more important than the color (since Moon rock just looks grey, after all).
I just did your work of adjusting the template so they're the same height. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice job! Jstuby (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Partial failures[edit]

@2601:190:402:3150:213e:f031:d8a7:bb55: Apollo 13 is considered by NASA to be a complete mission failure, because it failed in its major objective to land two astronauts on the Moon, not just to get them back alive. Jim Lovell's and Gene Kranz's rhetoric about a "successful failure" notwithstanding. Failure does not necessarily mean the astronauts die. They did not complete a "partial mission" by flying around the Moon; they were too busy trying to survive. The only mission objective which was a success was crashing the S-IVB into the Moon for the seismic experiment; that is an extremely small percentage of success. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

NASA defines "partial mission success" (or at least did in 1970) as the achievement of at least one primary mission objective. Please check page 2–39 of the Apollo Program Summary Report. The primary objectives of Apollo 13 were:

  1. to perform selenological Inspection, survey, and sampling of materials in a preselected region of the Fra Mauro formation;
  2. to deploy and activate an Apollo lunar surface experiments package;
  3. to develop further man's capability to work in the lunar environment;
  4. to obtain photographs of candidate exploration sites.

It is pretty obvious none of these was achieved, and I believe it would be original research to call it a partial failure (which necessarily implies partial success). JustinTime55 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Real Cost of Apollo Program Grossly UNDERSTATED[edit]

These statements badly understate American inflation - a glaring mis-statement to my eye:

"Landing men on the Moon by the end of 1969 required the most sudden burst of technological creativity, and the largest commitment of resources ($25 billion; $107 billion in 2016 dollars)"

And related sidebar:

"Cost $25.4 billion (1973)[1] ($107 billion 2016)[2] "

(BTW the two cost figures for 1969 and 1973 imply that about one-billion was spent on Apollo during those four years - another problem)

Let's first stipulate that "GDP deflators" are appropriate (instead of the commonly used CPI-U). The calculation is still significantly incorrect.

Go to the link below (from the reference 2):

https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/

Use US NOMINAL GDP for a data series greater than 1963-2016

Nominal GDP's , 1963-1969 is about $0.8-Trillion - $1-Trillion for 1963-1973.

In 2016 the Nominal GDP is about $18.6-Trillion - the resulting ratios are 18 to 23 (!)

Using "REAL GDP" the ratio is the stated 4 plus a small fraction.

This is a misapplication of GDP data.

One could argue CPI is more appropriate.

Using CPI the range of CPI ratios (2016:1963, 2016:1973) is 7.8 to 5.4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsusky (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Gender neutrality[edit]

What justifies the use of gender-specific language here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/From_the_archives

https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html "Gender-Specific Language (e.g., Manned Space Program vs. Human Space Program)

In general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned). The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spaceflight Center (also known as the Manned Spacecraft Center), the predecessor of Johnson Space Center in Houston, or to any other historical program name or official title that included "manned" (e.g., Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight)." 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Kennedy's speech did not use gender-neutral language. You may read it here. While we do try to use gender neutral language, we do not engage in historical revisionism here. The program Kennedy proposed was one to "land a man on the moon", and that is precisely how the program was described at the time, not to land "a person" on the moon. There was little to no objection to that language at the time, as "landing a man on the moon" was considered no more offensive than the term "mankind" (which Kennedy also used). Find another battle to fight, please. General Ization Talk 04:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Times have changed. Editing a wikipedia article to meet current guidelines does not change the course of history. What it does do is make the history more accessible. What does the use of gender-specific language add to the caption in question? 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
It accurately describes what Kennedy said to Congress on May 25, 1961, in the speech he was delivering while the photo was taken. General Ization Talk 04:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Since I am assuming that you would agree that men are people, either wording accurately describes the speech. What does the use of gender-specific language add to the caption in question? 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Historical revisionism doesn't change the course of history; it merely, and often subtly, alters its context in ways that inaccurately describe the events as they actually occurred. At the time, the program was universally described (and appreciated) without the use of gender neutral language. We should not pretend that it was otherwise. You are welcome to call for a person on Mars; Kennedy was calling for a man on the moon. General Ization Talk 04:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment Kennedy's attitude did in fact reflect the chauvinism of the times. In the context of a modern wikipedia article on an increasingly irrelevant historical topic, what does the use of gender-specific language add to the caption in question? The exact wording of Kennedy's speech is well-documented both elsewhere in the article and in the real world, so any serious scholar has ample evidence of the motivations at the time. The general public, on the other hand, is likely not to appreciate such anachronisms in a search for information. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The principle of least astonishment has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and the use of the term "man" rather than "person", accurately reflecting what was being proposed by Kennedy, is highly unlikely to make the content inaccessible to anyone. General Ization Talk 04:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You are wrong. I suggest you review the link I have posted. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I already did, and I know it rather intimately. General Ization Talk 04:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So, given that the use of outdated language is quite astonishing, what does the use of gender-specific language add to the caption in question? 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, you are quite easily astonished. Try reading Shakespeare. General Ization Talk 04:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate your opinion, I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of me. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree in most instances, but not this one. A quote from the congressional hearing on the matter "I would disagree with Mr. Fulton that we should establish a national goal at this point to land a woman on the moon which would be to the detriment of our program..." (page 68) Page 71 talks about how it would cost more to send women to the Moon than men, and that is a reason that women are paid less. On page 56, they discuss setting a national goal to send a woman to space. They did not set the goal. They explicitly sat down and decided that specifically men and not women were going to be sent to space. They said that no American woman was qualified, and that it would cost too much in time and money to train a woman for the position. In this instance, the word man was used explicitly to exclude women, so we should reflect that intentional exclusion. Kees08 (Talk) 04:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's what NASA has to say: "In general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned). The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spaceflight Center (also known as the Manned Spacecraft Center), the predecessor of Johnson Space Center in Houston, or to any other historical program name or official title that included "manned" (e.g., Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight)." 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I do understand the policy and appreciate your efforts. There is a lot of non-gender neutral language that needs to be fixed. I recently held an RfC at the manual of style on the issue. I think a sentence like "Kennedy's plan to put a man on the Moon was the genesis of crewed spaceflight" is the type of language that NASA is encouraging. The plan was explicitly, no matter how sexist it was, to put specifically a man on the Moon (and return him safely to Earth). Kees08 (Talk) 04:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Show us, please, where NASA has revised its own history to talk about the race to put "a person on the moon." It appears that on its own Web pages talking about this mission, it has not engaged in this kind of "literary cleansing." General Ization Talk 04:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I have not viewed the link, but if NASA is not using appropriate language that is not my problem. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
It is if you are attempting to cite NASA policy to dictate changes to this article. General Ization Talk 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Wrong again. NASA not following their policy is not my problem, but the fact remains that it is NASA's policy to use gender neutral language. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I submit to you that, just as here, NASA does not have a policy of historical revisionism. The guidance you are reading is from the NASA style guide. That is a guide for the preparation of new documents of all kinds. I very much doubt that a directive was ever issued to the NASA historian to replace all occurrences of "man on the moon" with "person on the moon" in referring to the Apollo program of the 1960s and early 70s. (Nor that they would comply.) General Ization Talk 04:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not seeing historical revisionism. What I am seeing is an inability to acknowledge that gendered language alienates some readers. Gender neutral language should be used if possible. None of this changes the fact that, until Shuttle, US astronauts were exclusively male. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not the least bit concerned that we will alienate readers by accurately describing the events as they occurred at the time, including the existence of certain biases against women in spaceflight and a widespread lack of consciousness (relative to the present day) about gender issues generally. I believe we will alienate far more readers if we engage in juvenile exercises such as "global" replacement in historical articles of the terms used then with the terms we would use now, merely because we are afraid of alienating someone. General Ization Talk 05:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to an opinion. If you are serious, I would suggest adding a section to the article that explicitly talks about this. Perhaps "Historical biases against women in spaceflight" as a title. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
No, because that is not what readers are looking for at an article about the Apollo program. General Ization Talk 05:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
How about "Exclusion of women from Apollo" then. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. In the meantime, stop imposing gender neutral language on events and statements that were not, in fact, gender neutral. General Ization Talk 05:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
stop imposing gendered language, it violates both the NASA style guide and wikipedia principles. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding more material to Kees08 argument, Mercury 13 and Hidden Figures (book) shows how women were excluded at NASA even when it was shown they performed as well as the men.  Stepho  talk  05:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So, a section on the exclusion of women from Apollo would also be appropriate. Perhaps "Historical biases against women in spaceflight" as a title. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment, I think we should hold on making any changes on the main article until we come to a clear consensus over here. OkayKenji (talk page) 05:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that a separate section is the correct way to go about this, since Kennedy did in fact exclusively use gendered terms. At the same time the topic has to be addressed. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Creating a consensus adding new section[edit]

Vote: Should a section tiled "Exclusion of women from selection process" be added? (Add or No + reason). Note you can start making it, but adding it without creating a clear consensus to add it could cause problems.

  • Add the exclusion of women from the selection process is also part of the history of the Apollo program. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment We do not generally !vote on the addition of content before it has been added to an article. Whether or not such content belongs in the article depends on whether the content is relevant to the subject of the article, well sourced, of appropriate weight, and presented without POV. It remains to be seen whether the content another editor proposes to add to this article will meet all of those criteria. General Ization Talk 06:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    • This is an interesting reversal of position. Feel free to mention me by username and/or discuss directly instead of snidely referring to "another editor". 5Ept5xW (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This is not the question we have been discussing above, so there is no reversal here. My answer refers to "another editor" generically because it doesn't matter whether the other editor adding the content is you or someone else; I was explaining why "voting" on the addition is premature and unnecessary. Also, this section generally does not contain rebuttals, so please restrain yourself. General Ization Talk 06:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Creating a consensus using gender neutral language on past NASA missions[edit]

Vote: Should the (words?) be changed? (Yes or No + reason) ({{ping}} me for clarification if needed)

  • Yes See NASA's history guidelines, Wikipedia's MOS, and the Principle of Least Astonishment. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No My rationale is already very clearly explained above. We do not engage in historical revisionism here, and the imposition of GNL in historical articles on the events and the statements in the language of the time that were not gender neutral is historical revisionism. General Ization Talk 06:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No For missions before the Shuttle era, there were no female astronauts. Because it was not a gender neutral activity, it makes little sense to insist upon gender neutral nouns. From the Shuttle program on, it does make sense.Almostfm (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No We should not apply modern principles to historical events. Modern missions (which are not in the domain of the Apollo article) are a different issue.  Stepho  talk  08:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Honestly, it is still unclear to me what the question even is, and why this is a yes/no vote. Is it about the Kennedy quote? Is about general usage?
I do agree with using gender-neutral language in general, even on those historical missions (e.g. "the first crewed mission" is neutral and correct). I do not agree with the one particular instance of the "man on the moon" quote: In that case, the original statement was gender-specific. Using "person" in that context seems to imply (at least to me) that Kennedy meant to encompass all genders, which he did not. That said, I'd not complain if an less awkward and neutral term were used (e.g. "put someone on the moon"...?)
In a nutshell, I'd advocate for gender-neutral in all articles as long as the historical context is preserved. (Which basically what the NASA style guide says). Averell (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I interpret the results of the recent RfC aligning with your thoughts. Kees08 (Talk) 16:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Start to a proposed new section "Exclusion of women from selection process" under "Astronauts"[edit]

During the decision making process for Apollo, it was explicitly decided that women would not be eligible to land on the moon. This is due to a number of factors. Partly, the early astronaut corp was composed mostly of military test pilots at a time when such roles were not open to women. Women transport pilots did exist, but, as was argued at the time, transport flying was much more routine than test flying. As Apollo 13 proved, a moon landing with the technology of the time was a quite risky endeavor. However, it was also noted that John Glenn would not have been selected as an astronaut due to lack of engineering background under the criteria NASA had established, so clearly the political and social dynamics of the time also played a role.[1] 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I find it quite fascinating that this was even specifically discussed at the time, so I learned something. Is the original source available online? As for the content: I always assumed that being a test pilot was a hard requirement for the job (after reading up on some of the sources at Women in space). I do also not quite understand how the last sentence fits in or what it is supposed to tell me; especially since the whole thing is about social/political context: While the risks were objectively there, the decision was based on the (probably unspoken) assumption that women must not take risks, which is a subjective viewpoint Averell (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, hell no--Such a section does not belong here, as there was no explicit decision to exclude women from Apollo. The policy for selecting astronauts from the pool of military test pilots was set back during Project Mercury (and even before, in the predecessor equivalent Air Force program. The policy of using test pilots simply continued as more astronauts were selected for Gemini and Apollo. If you want to put such a section (making reference to Mercury 13), I would say it belongs in Project Mercury rather than here. Putting it here strikes as WP:POV pushing. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should have a separate article on those women, including coverage of why they were excluded. There should be a para and a {{Main}} link from here. But it's enough of a topic for a stand-alone article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Qualifications for Astronauts: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on the Selection of Astronauts of the Committee on Science and Astronauts, U.S. House of Representatives; Eighty-seventh Congress, Second Session, July 17 and 18, 1962, Volume 2. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1 January 1962.

"Manned" vs. "Crewed"...again[edit]

So it looks like two days after our latest donnybrook over this, an editor who apparently has had no previous interest in spaceflight has taken it upon himself to change about 100 spaceflight article (as near as I can tell, all in the Apollo program and earlier) to "crewed" using WP:GNL as his justification. When I reverted the edit, pointing out that the GNL policy has exceptions for single-gender activities (as US spaceflight was at the time), he redid the edit, this time citing an RfC. Is there anything that can be done? Almostfm (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

His justification is also based on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_215#RfC_on_gendered_nouns_in_spaceflight. I don't personally agree with it but it is tough going against an RfC.  Stepho  talk  22:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Raised at Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#Historical_revisionism? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
But you brought it up without the context of the RFC that had overwhelming support for the gender-neutral language "crewed". How's that going to help resolve things? Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the RfC until I read this page. I'd have opposed it, for this historical reason. Although Almostfm's comment implies that this change isn't even supported by the RfC, for just the reason we're complaining of. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My point (which I'll admit I may not have made clearly) is that his original justification (WP:GNL) got changed when I pointed out that there was an exception in that language-a point which the RfC didn't seem to consider. I guess I'll just have to accept that the language is more or less being imposed without a good reason beyond "we say so". Almostfm (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 2 & 3[edit]

I would enjoy seeing why the labeling of the missions jumps from 1 to 4. PurpleChez (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the article; that is explained in Apollo program#Uncrewed Saturn V and LM tests. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Described in more detail in Apollo 1#New mission naming scheme. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Broadcast restoration project[edit]

The broadcast restoration project section strikes me as way too long. Would there be support for shortening it? - Sdkb (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_program&oldid=907125592"