Talk:Apollo 12
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article contains material that originally came from a NASA website or printed source. According to their site usage guidelines, "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". For more information, please review NASA's use guidelines. |
I've removed:
- In 2002, a rocket stage from the mission was recaptured by the Earth's gravitational field, after being in a heliocentric orbit since 1971. The rocket stage is projected to leave Earth orbit again in 2003, with a very small chance of hitting either Earth or the Moon.
as it's clearly out of date. Could someone update and replace it, please? Andy Mabbett 06:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Tartan?
Is it true that Alan Bean took a piece of the MacBean tartan (plaid to Americans) to the moon?--Hugh7 (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] weather
Is this the launch that was struck by lightning? -FZ 15:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yup. Lost control briefly on ascent, switch SCE to AUX and solved. Worth reading about; it's an interesting story. The guy who knew how to solve the problem only did so because he'd been playing around with obscure corners of the simulators a while before... Shimgray 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] From the Earth to the Moon
According to the From the Earth to the Moon episode, "That's All There Is", Bean was struck on the head by an unsecured camera on splashdown and suffered a concussion. Did that really happen, or was that artistic license? If it really happened, then an injury to a crewmember ought to be noted in the article. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 11:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is sect. 16.1, Touchdown & Impact, of the Technical Crew Debriefing -
- CONRAD - We really hit flatter than a pancake, and it was a tremendous impact, much greater than anything I'd experienced in Gemini. The 16-mm camera, which was on the bracket - and we may have been remiss in this and I'm not sure, but it wasn't in the checklist - whistled off and clanked Al on the head to the tune of six stitches. It cold-cocked him, which is why we were in stable II. Although he doesn't realise it, he was out to lunch for about 5 seconds. Dick was hollering for him to punch in the breakers, and in the meantime, I'd seen this thing whistle off out of the corner of my eye and he (Bean) was blankly staring at the instrument panel. I was convinced he was dead over there in the right seat, but he wasn't, and finally got the breakers in. By that time, we'd gone stable II which was no big deal.
- I think that adequately describes it... Shimgray | talk | 14:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cockroach
Is it true that a cockroach was found in the command shuttle? 70.124.49.166 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] who?
The offical roster is at http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.crew.html . I didn't know he died, I should have said his nickname was "pete." SecretaryNotSure 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the rationale for the change of the names of the crew? Does the editor have some knowlege or a reason why they should be called by more informal names? Maybe the editor knew the crew personally, was it Conrad's dying wish that he be called "Pete" instead of his full name? Or is there some published preference?
The rationale for the more formal names is that it's more "accurate" -- even if "Pete" isn't exactly "wrong." If a schoolchild is using the Wikipedia for reference, he might think his name was "Pete," which might later be changed to "Peter" or some other inaccuracy might creep into history. SecretaryNotSure 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You can also read http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800011953_1980011953.pdf pgs 319-320 and other pages (see index). In the NASA documents, the commander is listed as "Charles Conrad Jr.," or "Conrad, Charles (Pete) Jr." SecretaryNotSure 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
At least we got an answer, thank you: (Stop changing this! Links are to names of articles. Besides, none of the other Apollo mission pages are done that way.)
But I have to disagree for the following reasons:
1- The links still work, the links include the displayed text and the internal link, using that | symbol to separate them. By the way, if you follow that link from "pete conrad" the main wikipedia article on him says his name is Charles "Pete" Conrad, Jr. Every NASA document and even the Wikipedia article says his name is "Charles." What's the dispute about?
2- If none of the other Apollo mission articles include correct names, they should be fixed instead of putting the error in this article so it matches the other errors.(!)
3- Not including their military titles could be seen as "anti-militaristic" or a sign of disrespect. (removing the role of the military from the history of the events) The way it reads now, they sound like "some ordinary guys" that went to the moon. But in reality most of them were distinquished military officers. The way that NASA recruited from the military at that time and all it's implications -- is part of the story. That's history, no matter if we like it or not. On the other hand, It would be just as unfair and biased if we made the entire moon landing sound like it was done by the military, which of course is also not true. It was both a military and civilian achievment.
4 - Lastly, and I guess I shouldn't say this like a wise guy, but the fact remains: his name was Charles not "Pete" even though people informally called him "pete." That information should be included, that his friends called him pete, and sometimes you'll read the transcripts and they call him "Pete" -- but the official NASA documents and his real name was "Charles." We may not like it, but are we supposed to change his name because we don't like things? This is an encyclopedia... not some "history revising commission."SecretaryNotSure 00:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about this part: "he inadvertently pointed it directly into the Sun, destroying the vidicon tube (idiot!)." Obviously, the () is editorializing. But I'll leave that for others to decide. As a child waiting anxiously to see the TV coverage from the moon for the 2nd time, when the picture went blank after a few minutes, the editorial comment above is just what I was thinking.SecretaryNotSure 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
