Featured articleApollo 11 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 20, 2020.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
December 9, 2018WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
January 7, 2019Good topic candidateNot promoted
January 13, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 20, 2004, July 20, 2005, July 20, 2006, July 20, 2007, July 20, 2008, July 20, 2009, July 20, 2010, July 20, 2012, July 20, 2013, and July 20, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Article is missing some basics on the return

Seems to me that the "Return" section is missing some basic information. How long did they stay in lunar orbit after the LM rejoined? What were they doing during that time? When was the trans-Earth injection burn done by the CSM and how long was the burn for? How long was the return voyage, were any mid-course corrections necessary, and did the crew do anything of note during this time? Compare for instance with Apollo 10#Return to Earth and Apollo 12#Return. There doesn't have to be a lot on this – obviously the return isn't the main focus of the article – but these basics should be covered. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

In the section mission -> landing, the line: LGC address 413 contained the variable that indicated the LM had landed is incorrect, the LGC/AGC(synonym) is the main computer and does not have addresses like this, that LGC should be changed to AGS(abort guidance system), this is stated in the supposed inline citation [1] at line 102:45:47 Rogervanbommel (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nice catch Rogervanbommel!. I have corrected the reference from LGC to AGS as is the source also plainly states. --askeuhd (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.landing.html

First Man

Why isn't First Man (2018 film) among the films mentioned in the films section? Aminabzz (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Oh my, I personally have no idea but will take some of the blame as a once-in-awhile editor of this page for never adding it or not noticing if it had been removed if someone had added it. Great find and question, Aminabzz, thank you. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you in return for adding it. Aminabzz (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is Apollo 11 in popular culture. Cwater1 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Human" vs "Crewed"

I don't see why this would need to be discussed, but some users have disagreed with changes without any obvious reason. The change is in the description that writes "crewed Moon landing". I prefer "human Moon Landing" because humans who land on the Moon might be space tourists as well, and therefore passengers rather than crew members. There weren't any moon tourists so far, but "crewed" in those descriptions puts too much focus on the occupation and not on the fact that humans landed on the Moon. Again, I don't see why this needs to be discussed, since "human [spaceflight]" is as much allowed as "crewed" per the WP consensus as written in NASA's guidelines which WP supports. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Crewed" was NASA jargon. Military style language to distinguish missions (more jargon) with and without people on board. We aren't limited to that approach. I like "human". HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, if the term "human" isn't allowed for whatever reason, the pages Human spaceflight and List of human spaceflights should be moved then. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of the accusers have answered so far, I've moved the above mentioned pages, even though in fact the consensus is that "human" should be allowed. If it isn't, it should be made clear before anyone is accused again of allegedly not following the consensus. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think crewed is more commonly used in most context. There is such a thing as "human spaceflight" which is not "crewed spaceflight" but with respect to missions, "crewed" is the term which is used as a substitute for the deprecated "manned", especially by NASA, see here for an example. While we are not limited to what NASA does, it does make sense to adopt the terminology of the sources. And all eleven crewed Apollo flights are Featured Articles, and have passed through review processes involving a number of people who are knowledgeable about Apollo, as well as some who are not. Incidentally, you'd get more and faster response if you pinged people. They may not be watching this page as indeed I am not. Wikiproject Spaceflight might be a better place to bring your concern as that is watched by a large number of people.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NASA is using "crewed" because the astronauts they fly and flew to the Moon are indeed their crew. NASA itself never flew space tourists so it's unnecessary for them to keep an eye on the expression. Space tourists are flown by Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin so it would be wrong for those two companies to talk about "crewed spaceflight" only (Virgin Galactic could have done this only prior to Virgin Galactic Unity 22, albeit in WP's list the flight is listed as "fully crewed" indicating WP has a different definition for "crew(ed)" which includes passengers). Roscosmos and SpaceX occasionally fly space tourists (or private people) as well. Hence, a majority of space companies flies not only "crews" but passengers as well. Since NASA isn't the only space agency in the world, talking about "human spaceflight" would have been better, but WP's definition obviously includes passengers. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the official definition of "crew" and how it's interpreted in non-english speaking countries, but as a non-native English speaker, I'm used to read its meaning (and translation for my native Language, portuguese) as any occupant of a vehicle, or even any group of people at all.
I mean, reading "human moon landing" sounds even funny to me, because it's as if we could have other species landing, as if we were in some kind of sci-fi setting where it needed to be specified that were humans landing there, and not another species. That might made sense when we still sent dogs or champies there, but fortunately this don't happen anymore (I hope).
So, using "crewed" in the sense of "with people on board" (regarding if they are crew or just passengers), even if just as a consensual international jargon ignoring setting aside its dictionary meaning (if it makes sense for other countries too) just sounds more logical to me. Vinicius Yglesias (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In English, "crew" means persons other than passengers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glyn Oliver, Welsh designer who designed the docking hatch

could someone add Glyn Oliver to this article please? he was instrumental in keeping the crew safe, news article is in Welsh but you can translate the page to learn about him. https://www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/67660659?at_format=link&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_origin=BBCCymruFyw&at_link_id=FD050D9E-A016-11EE-939E-DAF054826ABF&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned&at_medium=social&at_link_type=web_link Hogyncymru (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the right article for it. You want Apollo Lunar Module. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time of moonwalk is wrong

6 hours after landing is not 20:56 but 02:56 UTC 37.60.79.90 (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Someone just changed it claiming it to be a typo. They were incorrect, I've changed it back. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AApollo_11
No tags for this post.