Talk:Apollo program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
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, May 25, 2013, and May 25, 2021.
Current status: Good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MMER0503.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

yes agreed
i personally have the psa test point adaptor
also curiousmarc on youtube is restoring a AGC computer back to working condition at this time
1ajs (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gender neutrality[edit]

What justifies the use of gender-specific language here? "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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply] 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
You are wrong. I suggest you review the link I have posted. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already did, and I know it rather intimately. General Ization Talk 04:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Apparently, you are quite easily astonished. Try reading Shakespeare. General Ization Talk 04:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
How about "Exclusion of women from Apollo" then. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
stop imposing gendered language, it violates both the NASA style guide and wikipedia principles. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
I interpret the results of the recent RfC aligning with your thoughts. Kees08 (Talk) 16:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]


  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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Raised at Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#Historical_revisionism? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

I agree. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In the 'Further reading' section there is an entry for James Gleick with 6 sub-entries. His only link to each seems to be that he did a review of it. Should we remove his name and just cite each of the individual works? Or are we explicitly linking to his review - which is not actually listed with details such as the work it was published it or the date?  Stepho  talk  12:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Apollo landers" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Apollo landers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Apollo landers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artemis program[edit]

I did not find a link to the successor of the Apollo program, the Artemis program, see Artemis program. Should a link already be added, although Artemis did not yet get anyone/anything to the moon (and back)? And back-linking to Apollo's predecessor, Project Gemini, and from there to Project Mercury, and from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo? I.e. add a predecessor/successor line to the sidebar of all those pages?

No, there is no direct connection from Apollo to the Space Launch System/Artemis program. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section "NASA spinoffs from Apollo"[edit]

The whole section seems to be quite dubious to me. If cordless tools were used in the construction of the ISS, that's fine and dandy, but the ISS didn't come into existance until decades after Apollo. None of the Apollo/Staturn enginges used methane (where the term "supercooling" is used incorrectly, BTW) or solar cells, so to say Apollo promoted the use of these technologies seems questionable to me as well. The other other examples sound very wishy-washy to me. And it all rests with one or two references, which don't support the majority of the claims made in the article.

Shall we prune this? --Syzygy (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The cordless tools should go (good find) unless there is more to their development regarding the Apollo program than what's written about on the page. The others seem applicable on a quick read, although I haven't studied the references, and should stay unless agreement is reached that they are tangential. If specific techs were invented or well-improved because of the Apollo program then they seem related enough for a mention. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked out this source: It reads more like a commercial to me, and I still find many claims extremely vague and dubious. (What exactly is the methane claim's connection to Apollo, other than that some aerospace engineers somewhere fiddled with it at the same time?) It's obviously an official NASA publication though and ought to be honored as such. What to do? --Syzygy (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apollo's legacy / successor programs[edit]

Similar to another question posted here but should Artemis be under the Legacy tab or a successor tab? I understand not counting that as a true successor as it takes a wildly different approach with completely different vehicles and whatnot. However, maybe the defunct Constellation deserves a mention? It was billed as a direct successor and would have utilized a lot of Apollo-derived tech. It was also sold as Apollo's successor by NASA. I think it deserves a mention somewhere here. --RundownPear (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New academic cost analysis of Apollo[edit]

This recently appeared: Casey Dreier, "An Improved Cost Analysis of the Apollo Program" [1]. Should used to update this wikipedia article. Jess_Riedel (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splashed down vs. landed[edit]

Coming here to get consensus because of an edit war. PiyushBhati2005 insists on changing "landed" to "splashed down" which seems awfully sensationalist to me, but want to get more feedback. I believe it should remain landed (as it has been for quite a while) unless consensus can be reached otherwise. For more context, it's this sentence in the lead: while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the command and service module (CSM), and all three landed safely on Earth on July 24. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Praxidicae Sir, as we all know that all the Crewed missions from Apollo included the crew capsule splashing down safely in the ocean and being recovered by navy. Using landed instead of splashed is wrong. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not a sir and would appreciate you stop misgendering me and other editors. WP:STATUSQUO applies - this has been "landed safely" since at least 2016. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Praxidicae please tell me one thing, how does something being wrong from a long time makes it correct? Landed and Splashed are two completely different terms and shouldn't be used for same explanation. Apollo mission's crew splashed in ocean, not landed on land. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Land" means "to descend to a surface". Both "landed" and "splashed down" are accurate. Splashed down is a little more specific and not at all sensationalist to my reading, but it is a little more verbose. I think changing to "splashed down" in the lead is an improvement here, since for a reader unfamiliar with the subject this would be the first time they find out the Apollo CMs landed on the water. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose change. I don't see how that's an improvement; there is nothing "wrong" with the way it is now. As VQuakr points out, land = descend to a surface which includes water as well as solid earth. All US space capsules, past (Project Mercury, Project Gemini), and present-future (Orion (spacecraft), Crew Dragon, etc.) land on the water. The article pages say this and no one is confused. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JustinTime55 Splashed down is technically more correct because it is the actual scenario, and wikipedia is supposed to give info in the best way possible. So I favour changing it to splashed down. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upon rereading the lead I see we say "landed... in the Pacific Ocean". So there's no risk of confusion here for a new-to-the-subject reader. I agree the status quo wording wins out because it is simpler, equally informative, and equally accurate. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VQuakr but splashed is definately more accurate, plus it makes more sense. Why can't we have it as splashed down when it is the truth. I don't understand why you people are so resistive to changes. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. 'Splashed down' is technically correct but so is 'landing'. Seaplane talks about landing on water. So I followed its link to water landing, which says 'In aviation, a water landing is, in the broadest sense, an aircraft landing on a body of water.' - telling me that landing doesn't require physical soil. If we're going to get real pedantic about it, then an 747 airliner cannot land at an airport because it stops on tarmac (not land) and a helicopter cannot land on top of a high-rise building because it stops on concrete (not soil) - but most people will just laugh at us. In most contexts for both amateurs and professional, landing just means to stop flying.  Stepho  talk  00:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stepho-wrs Plane and capsule are definately not the same, plus NASA itself uses splash and not landed for its capsules. Plus splashed down is technically more correct so I think it should be changed. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Planes and capsules are both vehicles that travel through the air, so they share many terms. As said, 'splashed down' is technically correct - and so is 'landed'. Here's a web page by NASA that uses both (see bottom where it has a heading 'landing' with Pacific Ocean as the location. If it's good enough for NASA ...). For the introduction, I favour the less wordy version when both are correct. The exact means and location of the landing is not important to the intro - details of the water landing can be given in the more detailed sections.  Stepho  talk  01:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stepho-wrs when NASA itself uses both, then why can't we use the one which is more informative. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because 'landed' is simpler and conveys the same information to readers. Why complicate it?  Stepho  talk  11:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stepho-wrs how in the world does it convey same info? splash specifically means landing on water, while landing can be used for solid ground as well. but as we all know the crew capsule splashed down in pacific ocean and did not land on any solid ground. so I insist changing it to splashed down. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose change. Wikipedia is here to serve readers, and we have an obligation to write plainly and clearly, with focus on what is conceptually important, and avoiding pedantic emphasis that obscures the central point.The central point is that Apollo returned to earth, and the usual and general term for such a return is "landing." "Splashed down" is somewhat of a colloquialism, is overly specific emphasis, and may not be clear to someone who does not already have a basic understanding of spacecraft return. I will also point out that anybody who has flown over water in a commercial aircraft has heard a briefing on what to do in the event of a "water landing," so there is no contradiction in common usage concerning landing in water. PiyushBhati2005, please don't "insist" that your view must prevail. Content is subject to consensus. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Acroterion you say wikipedia is to write plainly and clearly, but landed in place of splashed changes the whole concept of the final phase of an apkllo mission. landed can be misjudged for a solid suface landing. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or go with returned safely to Earth as another option (although 'landed' is correct as the capsule landed on top the water and did not sink, because in this case 'Earth' is uppercased as the name of the planet and not lowercased to refer to the planet's soil and rock). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PiyushBhati2005: We do not need you to lecture us on which is more technically correct or "informative", thank you very much. What Wikipedia policy or guideline do you cite for "wikipedia is supposed to give info in the best way possible"? We have long established a WP:CONSENSUS for how spaceflight articles are supposed to describe landing and have invested a lot of work in this. We have a Template:Infobox spaceflight which we use for every mission; it universally uses the term "landing" to describe the return to Earth. As Stepho-wrs has pointed out, there is no reason to complicate it. Please read WP:PEDANTRY and stop being pedantic. I think it's high time to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JustinTime55 ok I give up, I just wished for the correct sense to be conveyed. But people here are way too resistive against changes.
Hopefully I will learn more and come with solid arguements.
Thankyou for your precious time. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randy Kryn for your information, the capsule dips into the water for a very brief moment and then floats up, so splashed down can be used. PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As can 'returned safely' which describes the end result. "Landed", while technically accurate, does imply and provides a conscious thought of a pilot-directed landing, such as the Space Shuttle, rather than a free-fall return assisted at a key moment by parachutes, which is why I have empathy for your concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randy Kryn yes 'returned safely' can be used. I completely agree with you. So should I make the change? PiyushBhati2005 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, don't change it, no consensus here to do so and it looks like the 'landed' question has been addressed previously. I like accurate language as well but sometimes, such as here, what looks inaccurate does actually fall within the accepted use of the words. 'Landed' means the capsule came to a descent stop on its way back to Earth (uppercased, which means the planet, where it did land upon the planet's ocean). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No mention of Mobile service structure[edit]

Launch Operations Centre could also mention the Saturn/Apollo Mobile Service Structure. There was only one, shared between 39A and 39B.[2], (It is mentioned in Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39#Apollo_and_Skylab but not here). Seems it was moved using the Crawler. - Rod57 (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]