Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Apollo Lunar Module) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Apollo Lunar Module) (bot |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 29:
http://www.herouxdevtek.com/aboutus/history.php <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.185.80.181|75.185.80.181]] ([[User talk:75.185.80.181|talk]]) 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thanks so much. (My {{flagicon|Canada}} '''definitely''' includes {{flagicon|Quebec}}) [[User:Trekphiler|<
== Consistency of numerals? ==
If we're aiming for consistency, shouldn't it be with the '''original'''? And didn't NASA use Roman numerals? (Which is why I changed it...) [[User:Trekphiler|<
:Not sure what you mean by "the original"? As every other Wikipedia page about the Apollo missions uses Arabic numerals, I'm going to revert the one change you made so this page is consistent with the others. You're right in that NASA used Roman numerals for the Gemini missions, however they used Arabic for Apollo. Although, having said that, if you look at the mission patches, several of them use Roman, although they were designed by the astronauts, so it would be down to their personal taste. Hopefully this makes sense. --[[User:Whoosher|Whoosher]] ([[User talk:Whoosher|talk]]) 16:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::It do, & obviously I haven't seen enough of the NASA materials. The designators & patches I've seen have all been Roman numerals. [[User:Trekphiler|<
== Grumman contract ==
Line 67:
The History section's description of the LLRV is incorrect (or at least incomplete and misleading.) The LLRV (later LL Training V) was a vehicle the astronauts actually flew around in, not a crane, designed and built at Edwards AFB and operated at the Houston MSC. The Langley article states NASA used a crane-mounted "LM mockup" to conduct landing simulations there. [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 15:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
:That was the "flying bedstead" rig, yes? The one [[Neil Armstrong|Neil]] crashed? [[User:Trekphiler|<
::Yes, that's the one. If you look at the article, it says that three of the five crashed (implying it was risky to fly), but apparently all pilots (including Armstrong) ejected safely. I considered mentioning this in the article. What do you think? [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I'd put it in. It wasn't risky, as I understand, as much as damn difficult (which may amount to the same thing ;p). I've heard it compared to flying a helo, but harder. The difficulty suggests the level of skill in putting the LEM down safely, & emphasises Neil's fine control in skating across the surface on short fuel. As an aside, I have a vague recollection a similar rig was used to train [[Hawker Siddeley Harrier|Harrier]] pilots; if true, it may merit a mention by way of comparison. [[User:Trekphiler|<
== Helium pressures ==
Line 210:
:I guess that depends on one's definition of spacecraft, and whether or not it includes space stations. Space stations obviously don't survive landing on moons or planets, and certainly Skylab didn't. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 04:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
::I wouldn't normally think of ''Skylab'' or ISS as a spacecraft, but there's an argument that could be made: they do operate entirely in vacuum & weren't intended to re-enter. [[User:Trekphiler|<
:::I support deletion of the sentence in question. Merriam-webster.com defines "spacecraft" as "''a vehicle or device designed for travel or operation outside the earth's atmosphere''", which implies that "manned spacecraft" includes manned space stations. Also, space stations are included in the Wikipedia articles [[Spacecraft]] and [[List of manned spacecraft]]. -- [[User:HLachman|HLachman]] ([[User talk:HLachman|talk]]) 13:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Maybe instead of deleting the sentence, change it to something like, The Lunar Module was designed to operate exclusively in the airless vacuum of space. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 22:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Line 265:
==Video==
This [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9519e2ctqPQ vintage video is about the Apollo Lunar Module] and could be "mined" for source-use on this page, as could [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-the-apollo-lunar-module this NASA page honoring the 50th anniversary of the Apollo Lunar Module] spacecraft. Dig in for good sourced material. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 07:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
== Requested move 12 December 2018 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Moving back to longterm title before this reaches the point of no return. Obviously anyone can start a new RM for this immediately but it should be from the old name. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 07:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
----
[[:Apollo lunar module]] → {{no redirect|Apollo Lunar Module}} – Incorrectly moved, controversial [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 05:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:<small>This is a contested technical request ([[Special:Permalink/873278167|permalink]]). [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 05:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)</small>
*{{ping|Randy Kryn|Dicklyon}} This move was to revert an undiscussed move. But Dicklyon in a move comment said that "''Dicklyon moved page Talk:Apollo Lunar Module to Talk:Apollo lunar module: Same as consensus on command and service module as Randy Kryn noted''". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 05:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*Please revert back to the upper-cased name as a controversial move, not a new RM starting with [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Apollo+Lunar+Module%2Cthe+Apollo+lunar+module%2CApollo+Lunar+Module%2CApollo+lunar+module++&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cthe%20Apollo%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cthe%20Apollo%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CApollo%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CApollo%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0 the incorrect lower-case name]]. Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 05:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' obviously. We just went through a 2-week RM discussion at [[Talk:Apollo command and service module]], which Randy Kryn acknowledged would have equivalent result on [[Apollo lunar module]]. So I moved it. Should we move it back and discuss a while more, or go ahead and complete the process that obviously has consensus, in time for the upcoming 50th anniversary featuring [[Apollo 8]]? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:*Apollos and oranges. I said it would probably impact on this page only in that it was "next in line" for the lower-case crowd (<s>one of whom closed the Apollo Command Module page which I've asked to be opened again</s>). The Apollo Lunar Module has much more majority support for its long-term upper-casing (see n-gram). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 05:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:*:So you think it might be good if WP would be the unique source to use such an odd mixed capitalization? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:::It does seem that the capitalization should be consistent. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 06:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Regardless of the merits of the move, as a controversial undiscussed move, this should have been automatically reverted once requested at [[WP:RM/TR]], per BRD, prior to opening a proposal here. Unless there is consensus in favor of the lower case name here, this should be returned to the stable title. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 06:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*:After the other close, this was obviously an uncontroversial case fix per [[WP:NCCAPS]]. How Randy can think otherwise is beyond imagining. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*::But it's not uncontroversial. At least one person disagrees in good faith. There's nothing wrong with you making a good faith bold move, but once any editor requests it be reversed at [[WP:RM/TR]], that should not be denied by an admin just because they possess a tool that other editors do not. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 06:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*:::"In good faith" does not describe Randy's move in this case. He's just trying to disrupt convergence. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 07:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:*Imagine it. On the Command Module RM the n-grams seemed to favor lower-casing up to 2008, but on this one the n-grams show upper-casing in the clear majority. And NASA is using upper-casing in its anniversary information. This is a separate spaceship, and the spaceship was named the Apollo Lunar Module. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 06:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:*:[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+lunar+module%2C*+Lunar+Module&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t2%3B%2C%2A%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthe%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Ba%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThe%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BApollo%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Band%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btheir%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%27s%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bof%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B11%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B_START_%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2C%2A%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthe%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BApollo%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B_START_%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThe%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Band%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Ba%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bof%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B11%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btheir%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%27s%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0 Nonsense!]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:::*The name is Apollo Lunar Module, not lunar module. As your n-grams show there is no such thing, the full proper name is Apollo Lunar Module [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Apollo+Lunar+Module%2Cthe+Apollo+lunar+module%2CApollo+Lunar+Module%2CApollo+lunar+module++&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cthe%20Apollo%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cthe%20Apollo%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CApollo%20Lunar%20Module%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CApollo%20lunar%20module%3B%2Cc0 per the ngrams I provided above and here.] Well this "RM" is off to a rollicking good start and for some reason using the controversially moved wrong name. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 06:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:::*:Barely half capitalized, including in the many book names and such, does not come close to the consensus criterion in [[WP:NCCAPS]]. Why are you doing this? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*This [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-the-apollo-lunar-module NASA page honoring the Apollo Lunar Module] upper-cases throughout as well as including links to other NASA information and a video which upper-case (I'll link to those here later). The n-grams from 2008 are upper-cased and trending to further upper-casing. NASA is using the upper case for its 50th anniversary information and celebration. So there certainly is nothing wrong in objecting to a non-discussed move when, using [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] would keep it at the societal norm of upper-casing this historical class of spacecraft. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 07:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>
===Following discussion===
Randy, if you're OK with ''lunar module'' and ''Apollo Lunar Module'' as your comments above suggest, let's stick with that compromise and move forward to stabilizing the Apollo articles, yes? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:That's okay as a temporary compromise, but this obviously is the same case as the just-concluded RM on the command/service module. Every single {{lang|la|pro}} and {{lang|la|con}} argument is going to apply in the same way. Kryn's emotive appeals to NASA advertising material about an anniversary (which are written in marketing style – very, very fond of over-capitalizing) were given no weight in the last RM, and won't have any in this one. WP cares what {{em|[[WP:INDY|independent]]}} sources do, and if only around half of them are capitalizing this, WP will not capitalize it. It's the exact same discussion all over again, so Kryn re-advancing the same arguments that were rejected in the last RM is simply going to be a combination of [[WP:TE]], [[WP:FORUMSHOP]], [[WP:NOTGETTINGIT]], and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
::Agreed; I was actually surprised to see Randy opposing this obvious move to [[Apollo lunar module]] after the clear outcome at the other RM discussion. But for now, it's more important to fix overcapitalization of "lunar module" and tons of other things in the Apollo articles in time for the 50th anniversary than to let this one title hold up progress. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 20:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Dicklyon}} I didn't witness what went down here, but do I read it right that you (or somebody else) did a BOLD move without RM? If so, I think that was a procedural mistake that it's not too late to correct. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] 05:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Yes, I did a bold move, as I thought repeating the RM discussion at this point would be silly, given the consensus. At this point, so close to the 50th anniversary featureing of [[Apollo 8]], it's best not to have such an open discussion preventing convergence. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::You and I feel that the considerations are the same, but I recognize that others may legitimately disagree. That means RM, and an RM result is a stronger consensus than an unchallenged BOLD move. But ok, provided everybody understands that this is only a temporary solution and there will be an RM after said anniversary. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] 05:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
:A RM discussion is likely to be "same song second verse" since it is analogous to CSM and onomastically, capitalising Apollo as an attributive derived from a proper noun does not confer capitalisation on the full noun phrase, which is descriptive of its function. Regards, [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 23:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
::Yes, I expect Randy knows this will be temporary. I've done a ton of fixing of over-capitalization in the Apollo articles, and this is just a speed bump of the type he likes to throw in for some reason. A stickier one is the [[Apollo Guidance Computer]]. Even though it's usually not capped in sources, just like all the other system components, I expect the computer fans will want to treat this as a proper name. The [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=apollo+guidance+computer&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Capollo%20guidance%20computer%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BApollo%20Guidance%20Computer%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BApollo%20guidance%20computer%3B%2Cc0 n-grams evidence] is not super clear, as with the lunar module, since there are so many capped occurrences in titles, headings, citations, and such that n-grams do not distinguish from uses in sentences. For example, [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gXYItzQARVoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=%22apollo+guidance+computer%22&ots=25hHRnb-53&sig=oUmR7VY555hNIh7HBtYd-krfjAc#v=onepage&q=%22apollo%20guidance%20computer%22&f=false this book] adds more counts for the capped version than for the lowercase version, but should be counted only in favor of lowercase since it never caps it in sentence context. It would be cool to have a better tool, e.g. that would crawl book hits and find uses in sentences. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 23:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
:::The confusion on capping might be attributed to capping of acronyms/initialism - but capping in an acronym does not confer capping on the base phrase (as you know). NASA is probably the home of acronym soup. Regards, [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 00:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Yes, they love their acronyms, but even NASA mostly uses lowercase for most of these subsystems. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 00:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
::::I doubt that's a significant factor, as there are no lower-case acronyms. I think intelligent folks have noticed that {{tq|capping in an acronym does not confer capping on the base phrase}}{{emdash}}that "WTF" means "what the fuck", not "What The Fuck"{{emdash}}and there haven't been any unintelligent folks in these discussions. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] 11:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-the-apollo-lunar-module NASA is now using the upper case]. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::Per [[WP:THREAD]] that would appear to be a reply to my comment. Since I can't see how it has anything to do with my comment, I'll assume it's just misplaced or incorrectly indented. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] 14:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
:*{{u|Dicklyon}}, then what did you mean by "Randy, if you're OK with lunar module and Apollo Lunar Module as your comments above suggest, let's stick with that compromise and move forward to stabilizing the Apollo articles, yes?" as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollo_Lunar_Module&diff=873345403&oldid=873288032 as this edit summary] saying that "compromise per Randy's claim that when Apollo is part of the name it's a proper name"? That's what I was acting on in good faith since you wrote that. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
:*:I meant let's cooperate on getting the Apollo articles tuned up and stabilized before their various 50th anniversary featuring. We did that; thanks for your help. The only thing that looks peculiar is a handful of instances of Apollo Lunar Module with it's out of place capitalization, following that compromise title. In the long run, it's not up to you and me, but I would think this should get fixed. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 20:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
== Questionable statement in the second paragraph ==
I have some difficulty accepting the current statement that the Apollo Lunar Module was "the only component never to suffer a failure that significantly affected a mission."
The Apollo 14 LM had not one but two critical issues that significantly affected the issue. To directly quote the Wikipedia article on Apollo 14:
"After separating from the command module in lunar orbit, the LM Antares had two serious problems. First, the LM computer began getting an ABORT signal from a faulty switch. NASA believed that the computer might be getting erroneous readings like this if a tiny ball of solder had shaken loose and was floating between the switch and the contact, closing the circuit. The immediate solution – tapping on the panel next to the switch – did work briefly, but the circuit soon closed again. If the problem recurred after the descent engine fired, the computer would think the signal was real and would initiate an auto-abort, causing the ascent stage to separate from the descent stage and climb back into orbit. NASA and the software teams at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology scrambled to find a solution, and determined the fix would involve reprogramming the flight software to ignore the false signal. The software modifications were transmitted to the crew via voice communication, and Mitchell manually entered the changes (amounting to over 80 keystrokes on the LM computer pad) just in time.[9]
A second problem occurred during the powered descent, when the LM landing radar failed to lock automatically onto the Moon's surface, depriving the navigation computer of vital information on the vehicle's altitude and vertical descent speed (this was not a result of the modifications to the ABORT command; rather, the post-mission report indicated it was an unrelated bug in the radar's operation). After the astronauts cycled the landing radar breaker, the unit successfully acquired a signal near 18,000 feet (5,500 m), again just in time. Shepard then manually landed the LM closer to its intended target than any of the other five Moon landing missions. Mitchell believed that Shepard would have continued with the landing attempt without the radar, using the LM inertial guidance system and visual cues. A post-flight review of the descent data showed the inertial system alone would have been inadequate, and the astronauts probably would have been forced to abort the landing as they approached the surface."
''
In my book, these are both failures that significantly affected the mission.
If one wants to be a systems design geek about it, it can be argued that the near-catastrophic roll of the ascent stage during Apollo 10 was a LM failure, from the standpoint that the astronauts were enabled to double-enter commands into the computer. Design could have prevented this.
[[User:Mahndrsn|Mahndrsn]] ([[User talk:Mahndrsn|talk]]) 22:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
:In my view it is not for us to engage in that kind of analysis. The sourcing is weak for a statement of such significance. In vio of [[MOS:LEAD]], the statement does not summarize any body content that I can see. So I wouldn't oppose its removal unless both problems are corrected, and I don't care enough about the statement to try to correct them myself. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] 22:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
::{{Replyto|Mahndrsn}} I'd call that a good catch. I think it's easy enough to decipher the intent of the statement, which was clumsily worded. I went ahead and boldly fixed it. I think we should follow up with a "failures" section to explain the above (which would also improve the balance of the article). Do you have good sources for those? [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 14:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
== Only section not to cause an abort? ==
In the second paragraph it is claimed that
"Apollo/Saturn space vehicle, the only component never to suffer a failure that could not be corrected in time to prevent abort of a landing mission."
This is erroneous. The only component of the Apollo/Saturn space vehicle which ever failed causing a landing mission to abort was the service module of Apollo 13 (the only aborted landing mission). The Apollo command module and the Saturn V launch vehicle both had zero landing mission abort causing failures in service although significant difficulties which were potentially mission threatening were encountered.
I suspect that the argument being made is that the LM, unlike the CSM stack, never caused a landing mission abort which is accurate. However, including the Saturn launch vehicle as well makes the claim of uniqueness incorrect since that never caused an abort either.
I think that this claim should be dropped entirely, or heavily clarified.
[[User:Canis3161|Canis3161]] ([[User talk:Canis3161|talk]]) 13:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks, and other editors will come by to have a look at your comment. But since Wikipedia is your encyclopedia as much as anyone's, you could edit the data yourself (and then watch to see if anyone reverts you, which is a good time to take it to the talk page). In reading your comment I'm seeing a good writer and observer, and am encouraging you to look at and edit other articles to find other mistakes in language, information, etc. Welcome aboard! [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
== Information about Lunar Module Model Depicted in Article ==
I currently live in Huntsville and noticed a local shop that has a model of the early Lunar Module depicted in the article. I looked this up to determine if that module is authentic and found a source stating that this model is an original Lunar Module model that seems to have been used in the article picture. I just wanted to make this aware and hopefully someone can find this information useful and possibly add it to the article.
https://www.huntsville.org/blog/list/post/seven-shots-to-start-your-huntsville-scrapbook/
https://www.huntsville.org/visitor-info/itineraries/space-geek/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Huntsville Engineer|Huntsville Engineer]] ([[User talk:Huntsville Engineer#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Huntsville Engineer|contribs]]) 15:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Describe Luminary - Lunar Module software ==
The missions also depended on the software which is not mentioned in the article yet. Recent work has reconstructed more and more of it, so it's time to describe it. See e.g. [https://thenewstack.io/how-a-programmer-recreated-apollo-10s-lost-software/ How a Programmer Recreated Apollo 10’s Lost Software – The New Stack] [[User:Nealmcb|★NealMcB★]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 04:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
:The [[Apollo Guidance Computer]] would be the appropriate article for such information. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 05:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
== "Lunar Module" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect [[:Lunar Module]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Lunar Module]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Soumya-8974|Soumya-8974]] <sup>[[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Soumya-8974|contribs]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Soumya-8974|subpages]]</sup> 10:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Apollo 11 gold reverse.jpeg|Apollo 11 gold reverse.jpeg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-01-02T18:06:27.545904 | Apollo 11 gold reverse.jpeg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 18:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
==ALSO this is incorrect==
"One lunar module functioned as a lifeboat for the crew of Apollo 13, providing life support and propulsion when their CSM was disabled by an oxygen tank explosion en route to the Moon, forcing the crew to abandon plans for landing."
The astronauts on A13 survived in the Service Module, not the LEM, which had not been deployed and which was abandoned in interplanetary space. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.206.79.247|69.206.79.247]] ([[User talk:69.206.79.247#top|talk]]) 13:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->.
:It is correct. The LM was used as a lifeboat from just after the explosion until just before reentry, when it was abandoned. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 22:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
::The Service Module was stuffed to the brim with propellant and life support equipment. There was absolutely no place inside for human being. And since the Apollo 13 accident was due to an explosion in the Service Module, I personally wouldn't have trusted it any further than I can hurl my mother in-law. The LM was the only thing which made it possible for the crew to survive. This must be one of the most curiously misinformed accounts I've ever read<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/73.102.143.101|73.102.143.101]] ([[User talk:73.102.143.101#top|talk]]) </small>
| |||