.jpg){kind=small} | Astronomy Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
List of moon landings
The last editor has a good point, Apollo 13 shouldn't be in that list as they never landed. If you are including Apollo 13 then you have to include all the other missions that went round the moon and it isn't appropriate. Ben W Bell 08:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Also, as far as I know, the list is complete, and the marker (or whatever it's called should be removed. The links to each of the Apollo missions, I think, also shows that complete information on each of the missions is only a click away. 68.227.80.79 22:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Removed as yes it is complete (though some conspiracy theorists may disagree). Ben W Bell 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
May I disagree on the above point- Apollo 13, although it didn't succeed, must surely have a mention as it was projected to land. There is no mention on the page of why there is no 13 on the list and it should be on the page somewhere? Andy
I just want to know why we haven't landed on the moon since the 1970's? Shouldn't we have better technology to do it more frequently and efficiently now?
Public Reaction
Is there anyone that can contribute any content that describes the general public's reaction to this event? Did this consume the mass media for the weeks and months to follow? Was this the kind of event that left an indelible lifelong memory of where you were when it happened? Thanks, Shawn 05:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, this was a huge event for the world; the first time a human set foot on a celestial body, something that has been worshiped as gods throughout history. At least the number of people watching the live event on television, I think the number was around 600 million but I can't confirm it. Sarke 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theories
How about some information about the conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landing? As I understand it, many people think it was a hoax. This may be covered on another page, but I can't find it. I'd add some info myself, but I know very little about it. Haddock420 09:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link to a credible site: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm It thoroughly debunks the sceptics.
There are plenty of website debunking it, but shouldn't it be mentioned in the flippin' article? An alarming amount of people think it was a hoax.
- There was actually, at some point, a section in the article on conspiracy theories but someone has removed it. I shall see if I can recover it and if it was good enough to keep in. Ben W Bell 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Okay I've recovered and added back in what was there originally but was removed. I think it covers it well enough and links to the page discussing the possible hoax where it is dealt with in more detail than should be covered on this page. Ben W Bell 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
More Conspiracy Theories
As recently as 12.28.2006, NASA is still seeking fake moon dust. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/28dec_truefake.htm?list955127
LOL
Masonic flag
um.. i've seen it mentioned several places that the masonic flag also went to the moon - can anyone support/refute this?
- shhhh, its a secret! Brentt 04:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The US Said...
From the article:
- When Neil Armstrong landed in 1969, the United States said Clarke "provided the essential intellectual drive that led us to the moon."
This should be more specific as to who the speaker is. Its not good form to treat the US as a speaker in articles because the US isn't really a entity that is monolithic enough to "say" anything. Specific bureaus, administrations, officials and branches of government say things (e.g. congress says, being short for "congress passed a resolution stating", or the "Bush administration says"). But saying "the US says" just doesn't sound right. Brentt 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened after 1970's landing?
I'm curious as to why we no longer go on the moon. Is it that pointless? Did we just do this to 'win the space race'? Piepants 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants
- Short answer is too expensive and little political will; yes for the most part pointless; and yes to win the space race. However, setting up a moon base (more expensive) could serve as a practical research and launch point for space missions if significant frozen water could be located. - RoyBoy 800 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Recent Vandalism By Myself
- Hi everyone. I edited this page and added a false claim to the introduction (regarding the conspiracy theories) about 3 minutes ago. I just wanted to say I didn't actually mean to do what it looks like. It's kind of hard to explain, but my teacher made a remark about Wikipedia earlier today and I wanted to prove a point. He said that Wikipedia is very unreliable because anyone can edit, etc. I'm sure we've all heard it before. However, he said that "I could even go to the page about the Holocaust and say it never happened; then it would be regarded as fact and never edited because people don't fact check things on Wikipedia." So thank you John254 for the fast edit--you just proved my point. Again, I realize this is hypocritical and I apologize. Saeghwin 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not hypocritical, it's just... not a super duper thing to do. We have a document that addresses this specifically, WP:POINT. No worries, I know you were trying to actually cause trouble, and we appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't do it again. If the subject comes up, just tell 'em about what happened this time or show them the history for a high profile article, there's usually some vandalism and reversion you can show as evidence. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I guess we do have an article on everything. Heh...I wonder what you'd be saying if I had edited the Holocaust article instead. That wouldn't be quite as forgivable I imagine. Saeghwin 02:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I dispute the validity of Peter Shann Smith's claim to so-called "scientific proof" that the word "a" is in Armstrong's moon landing speech
Peter Shann Smith's claim to have proven the existence of the word "a" in Armstrong's speech is completely unscientific. For a start, the " original NASA audio download that Peter links to on Control Bonics' website is 8bit, 11kHz, a level of quality that a speech analysis researcher would be very unlikely to rely on to make a claim like this. Further, I would take issue with Peter's claim in his PDF that the noise removal process does not change critical voice characteristics. Does Peter know anything about the process used to remove noise from a recording? I doubt it, since he doesn't even use a spectrogram analysis of the audio in question to search for the true signs of a voiced "a", rather than original transmission or subsequent signal coding artifacts. Finally, I think it's a complete farce of Peter to claim his "research " is valid after peer assessment by an astronaut and a physiotherapist with a Masters in Biomechanics, rather than some well respected researchers in speech analysis. I am not questioning what phrase was actually uttered by Armstrong, but I am totally questioning Peter Shann Ford's authority, and his motivation. I suspect this is all a publicity stunt for himself and the Control Bionics company, if not also Goldwave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.3.39 (talk • contribs)
- Hi, yeah, there's quite a few people who dispute his claim. For a start, there's a whole field of Linguistics which deals with taking audio of speech and figuring out what was said, as in, the actual mouth movements. Phonology, I mean. It seems Peter wasn't as aware of the field as he should have been, nor of the fact that phonologists have been using computational analysis of speech for decades. I mean, I don't agree with the sentiment that his research was 'unscientific', I just think it was scientifically naive. There's some good analysis by professional linguists at Language Log: [1], [2], [3]. In any case, I think this article does a good job of staying away from the controversy.
- I've recently replaced what were brakets around the a (like: (a)), with editorial brackets (like: [a]). I think this more elegantly brings across the point that it's what he meant to say, even if there's controversy over if he did. --Dom 21:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the cultural significance of the quote, I don't think a small explanation would be out of order. Something like:
(there is heavy dispute among the scientific community as to whether the word "a" was in the original transmission).
Or even:
There is dispute as to whether Armstrong used the word "a" in his original speech. The word was not present in the original recording, but this may be due to the poor quality of the transmission. Armstrong claims that he said it, and noted researcher Peter Shann Smith claims to have found scientifically proof that it was present. However, Smith's claims are disputed among academia, and the issue remains unsettled.
With citations, of course, for both points of view. -Patstuart 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone vandalized this article
I don't know how to correct these articles, and only registered to point out that someone rewrote/edited it to read that the first man to walk on the moon was an Englishman named Mr. Bean.
Unless history has been revised, I don't think that is correct.
So.. does USA "own" the moon?
what's with all the flag loving i see on the photos in mission articles. --Leladax 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read the LEM plaque it says "We came in peace for all mankind". The US stated to begin with that our landing should not viewed as a declaration of ownership, and in fact originally multiple national flags were to be planted. However the selection process became so involved with trying to balance out equal representation without leaving out some and "hurting feelings" the entire idea was scrapped and just the US flag was planted. And the reason you see the flag everywhere? if you had just landed on the moon don't you think you would be proud of your country? Draknfyre 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theories
I have placed the conspiracy theroies section into this article which was formely part of the Apollo 11 article. Andy120290 01:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying (probably in vain) to do something to sort out that most controversial of articles at the moment. It does strike me that the treatment in this article is actually way too much for a NPOV (given the weighting to minority views). Ii think it would be better in a link of "see also" magnitude, not a whole section taking up so much of the page. Before I'm shot, I'll sign out. LeeG 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
24 people?
Just doing a bit of clean up, and I moved a rather odd sentence "In the history of NASA, there have been 24 Astronauts who have travelled to the Moon." from the Hoax bit to the list of missions (seemed a bit more appropriate) but I am struggling to reconcile the number. Is 24 correct? It looks too big to me, but I have no direct knowledge one way or the other. LeeG 21:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)