Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Apollo Lunar Module) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Apollo Lunar Module) (bot |
||
| (10 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 332:
::{{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>
| |||