This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
At a glance, I do not see the golf balls represented. They ought to be. -Cory
I agree, the personal objects taken up and left are just as much artificial objects and in a way just as interesting - for instance Charlie Duke's photograph of his family left on the ground. I think they should be added to the list - perhaps a separate section of the table? Do people agree? CharlesC12:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think it should be added, including the flags left, there is a limited and destinguishable amount of objects on the moon and i think they should be included.
It is mentioned tat various object fell to the moon after orbital decay. There is no air there so what causes the decay?
The gravitational field of the Moon is not uniform. You have the Sun and the Earth causing orbits to change. There are also mass concentrations below the surface of the Moon which mean that orbits will eventually be changed so much that they pass "through" the surface. Evil Monkey∴Hello21:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about the US flag (are there other flags?) and the landing site plaque? Also wasn't other equipment such as lunar rovers left behind after Apollo missions? - Keith D. Tyler¶18:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The plaques were integrated in to the ladder leg of the LEM descent stage, and the rovers were all parked very close by in order to ease the unloading of material and equipment. As for the flags, I'm not sure. I've heard that it was planted at a considerable distance from the LM after 11's was knocked over by the blast of the ascent engine, but that might be apocryphal.
Title should change
I think the title of this page should change to Terrestrial objects on the Moon, or Human made objects on the moon. I know it is pretty unlikely there are any other type of objects up there, but it is pretty arrogant to assume we are the only ones make artificial objects... Any one against it?
I am. The current article title is precise and non-confusing. If we ever find on the Moon an artificial object made by Martians, we'll calmly add it to this list. Tempshill00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to nit-pick a little, there is no dark side of the moon, but a far side; Every point of the moon sees sunlight at one point or another of it's month-long 'day'.Chris CII13:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grid?
Is this just because I've been drinking too much beer tonight, but is the grid plotting the objects downright nonsensical? It gives no indication what the axises (sp?) are supposed to be. If they are latitude/longitude coordinates, then the grid is plotted on a weird scale (what is at 100 degrees latitude?) --Bletch00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that image cropping may have been premature.
Yes, it is true that less than one hemisphere is visible during a single full moon.
However, over time, more than half of the Lunar surface is visible from earth due to variations in both Earth and Lunar orbits known as librations. Approximately 188 degrees of Longitude and 186 degrees of latitude are visible from Earth.
There is a telescope video on the web that demonstrates this very well. However I have not been able to re-find it.Ccordes03:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrecks
I would like that the readers, at a glance, could distinguish between intact objects and wrecks. I have three suggestions:
Divide the table into a table with the intacts and a table with wrecks.
A sixth column with condition (intact/wreck).
A prefix like 'crashed at 29.1°N 0°W in the Location column.
Image:Smart28261.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:Lk102.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
In the grid, the location of the Apollo 17 lunar rover is given as 20.17°N 30.77°W.
All the other Apollo 17 artifacts are in the Eastern Hemisphere. Is this in error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.123.48.148 (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Not in the list, but..."
As of this comment, the very first paragraph in the article reads
The following table is a partial list of artificial objects on the surface of the Moon. The list does not include smaller objects such as the retroreflectors and Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package. Nor does it include several commemorative or personal objects left there by Apollo astronauts, such as the golf balls from Alan Shepard's lunar driving practice during Apollo 14, flags, or the Fallen Astronaut statuette left by the crew of Apollo 15.
Which is really just a more verbose way of saying "This is an article that talks about things except about the things we're talking about in this paragraph of the article."
I would suggest adding the things in the paragraph to the list, and changing the paragraph to read something like:
The following table is a partial list of artificial objects on the surface of the Moon. The list is particularly incomplete when it comes to smaller objects such as retroreflectors or commemorative/personal objects such as flags and golf balls.
A NASA pin and a family photo of one of the astronauts (in a zip bag), mentioned by the Apollo astronauts in a recent documentary. --79.168.10.241 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial = not natural. Man-made is more specific, which is why I changed the article name. I hope it won't be controversial. Mr. PIM (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Artifical" is, IMHO, the most appropriate term for things like this. Simple, concise, accurate and to the point. Redirects from "...man-made..." and "...human-made..." would be appropriate, though. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lede rewrite
The lede does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for a lede section. Moreover, the first paragraph, arguably the most important paragraph in the article, spends most of its text telling the reader what is NOT going to be covered in the article. Seems odd. N2e (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support with love and respect. Vastly better as a title. Out of curiousity I checked and saw that Artificial got 37k hits in WP while "man-made" got 7k. Gregkaye✍♪19:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
re-use and other data
Does anybody talk about re-using these objects? If not, why not. Do we want to expand the info on this article, or as it is a List maybe it should have a companion page about what people want to know about these things- why they are there, how they are there. What is the significance, are there problems, are there official records of all the objects, as there are objects in space, do the items have a catalogue number. Who owns them? Perhaps I am being very naïve, but it looks like if one had a good rover, one ought to be able to land in the right place and put together wonderful things from the surrounding hundreds of kilos of old hardware!
I have just modified 2 external links on List of artificial objects on the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on List of artificial objects on the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Poor article
This article is appalling. Either the title needs to be changed and the bags of poo removed from the list or we need to actually make it what the title implies it is. At the moment it's a list of space crafts and a bag of poo. Any thoughts? Cls14 (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
When/how should this article be updated to reflect the Chinese Chang'e 5 mission? Last I saw the descent stage is remaining on the Moon, and sample return vehicle is in/approaching lunar orbit. GenericHumanoid (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading mass figures?
The second line, "Luna 2 - Third stage of Vostok rocket" says mass=9100 kg. No references. Sounds improbably high for an empty, expended Block E. A quick check showed "gross mass of 3rd stage (8K72 Block E) = 7984 kg, mass after complete fuel burn = 1472 kg" [1]. 9100 or 7984 isn't an issue, the difference isn't that big. The point it, this mass never reached the Moon. Most of it was fuel, burnt in transit. Retired electrician (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please update with: 2022 crashed space debris rocket body
Should this be added to the article? Did material survive the impact? Seems like the identity of the object isn't really clear yet. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
