Talk:Project Apollo

Template:Onlinesource2004

---

An event mentioned in this article is a May 25 and July 30 selected aniversary.

---

Contents

1 Apollo-Soyuz 2 The Space Race 3 Cost of Apollo 4 A Moon Ant...? 5 Thanks 6 An Apollo? 7 Response to User:JesseW regarding page move 8 Reverts of Trollminator 9 Sun god?

Apollo-Soyuz

Some shoudl write up the Apollo-Soyuz mission (where an apollo and a soyuz docked). http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/astp/astp.html

The Space Race

"The Apollo program was primarily motivated by psycho-political considerations, in response to persistent perceptions of American inferiority in space technology vis-a-vis the Soviets, in the context of the Cold War. In this respect it succeeded brilliantly. In fact, American superiority in manned spaceflight was achieved in the precursory Gemini program, even before the first Apollo flight." needless and unjustified bias? --drj

Yes, I think so. The Apollo 1 tragedy hardly left NASA feeling overly superior.

No, actually, I believe you're wrong. The Gemini program accomplished ten successful mannned flights in 22 months. It achieved the first rendezvous and docking of spacecraft in orbit, widely regarded as the next and most crucial step in the development of manned spaceflight (both for earth orbital and lunar mission operations), and repeatedly demonstrated this capability. The Gemini flights set impressive records for mission duration, orbital altitude and extra-vehicular activity. During this period the Soviet Union did not launch a single manned spaceflight. When the Soviets did resume flight a few months after the Apollo 1 fire, they failed to achieve a planned docking, and the mission ended in disaster with the death of the cosmonaut. Yes, the Apollo 1 fire was a serious setback. But despite the fire, American superiority in manned spaceflight achievement was clear.

The major problem isn't that it's needless or biased. The problem is that those sentences are poorly written and punctuated. "Psycho-political", "persistant perceptions", "vis-a-vis", and "in the context of" are wretched abuses of language.

drj is totally right - this is needless, biased and above all subjective. The question to ask is what constitutes as "superior" in manned spaceflight? The first space walk, the first rendezvous of two spaceships, the first space station, the longest duration of a human in space? Well for me the achievements in manned spaceflights by Russia and America are about equal. themanwithoutapast

Cost of Apollo

I've deleted this stuff: The cost of Apollo program: $25.4 billion | Amount of moon material brought back by Apollo program: 381.7 kg | (a price of about $60,540 spent per gram of moon brought back) There seems to me to be no limit to this type of "interesting snippet" except if the Apollo program was really about mining moondust. Cost per human step on the moon? Cost per breath taken by astronauts? Cost per defecation? No thanks. Hotlorp 02:57 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed this could get silly, but a few pertinant bits of information to indicate the costs / benefits might be informative?2toise 17:08, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You of course have not taken into account that the benefits of research cannot be measured at all. How do you measure the result given by the Michelson/Morley experiment AT THE TIME of the experiment? How do you measure the mistaken efforts of Frege to define "set"? Please do not try to rate the benefits of a research you may only be able to realize in 200 years' time. I know what I am talking about: the mathematics of Gauss (a lot of them) were only beneficial as you call it, long long after his death. Ditto for Galois' theories. Pfortuny 11:54, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, while cost per breath or even cost per kg of moon rock might be excessive, I think that the total cost of the program and the economic impact it had is VERY appropriate for this article, I actually came here looking for some information about how much the program cost, and was surprised to find none at all in the article. -lommer 21:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A Moon Ant...?

User:152.163.252.7 asserts: "The first actual living organism on the moon was an ant named Chris Christian, which was droped by Neil Armstrong before making his historic first steps on the moon." Not, I think, true, and I would request some documentation if we are to leave it in the article. It would be easier to believe if it wasn't a [1] first anonymous edit [2] made by someone who could spell "organism" (in the edit summary) [3] made by someone who could spell "dropped" [4] and if googling "Chris Christian" or "ant moon" supported it. -- Someone else 20:46 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks

I had to do a project for class and this page helped me tramendously, thank You.--MOnique Flaherty

An Apollo?

Image:SpaceCapsule.JPG If its from the NASM, then its Apollo 11--enceladus 21:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to User:JesseW regarding page move

I did the move because Mercury has far more references (Google count) as "Project Mercury," and Gemini's references are about the same quantity either way. As there are still quite a number of references to "Project Apollo," (which is the official title) I felt it was important to be consistent, despite this one case having fewer instances of that title. -Joseph (Talk) 01:56, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Links:

• http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo.html
• http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/apollo.html
• http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/apollo_patches.html

For starters... And if you do a Google, "Project Apollo" does still have a significant number of hits. -Joseph (Talk) 02:00, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Great! That explains it very well. Thanks, now no-one else will be confused. JesseW 02:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure. For what it's worth, I am unable to move Gemini program to Project Gemini because that page has an edit history. -Joseph (Talk) 02:33, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Reverts of Trollminator

Its all very well arguing NPOV when adding "Controversy surrounds the claim that" to the start of the article. But this is not a case of NPOV. To me it seems like amending the Holocaust article to state that it didn't happened. --Enceladus 02:08, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. JesseW 15:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personally I believe they landed, but there's a growing body that (wrongly I think) doesn't. They should be noted, and probably a link into a moon conspiracy page put in. My two cents! - RB

I disagree. That would lend more credence to a crackpot theory. -Joseph (Talk) 17:48, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I came here looking for some sources and information on the crackpot theory (and rebuttals). It doesn't need to be primarly featured, obviously, but could be noted and cross-linked. The fact that it's a crackpot theory doesn't mean it needs to be suppressed, just documented.

Sun god?

Can someone explain why a lunar mission was named after the sun god?