Jump to content

Talk:Lunar orbit rendezvous

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While this article seems to give a good description (so far as I know) of the importance of and fight over the adoption of lunar orbit rendezvous, it does not provide much of a description of the actual rendezvous technique. I worked on this (along with a number of other people) at Grumman Aircraft, and would be glad to add a description of what rendezvous entailed and required in the way of fuel, radar, etc., if that is thought appropriate. Contact me at tham153@hotmail.com if this is wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.236.173 (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

old talk

[edit]
  • The paragraph below has obviously been moved, or a paragraph has been added to split it from where it would make more sense. I'd suggest it be moved back up to be joined to the paragraph beginning "Lunar=orbit rendezvous..."

"Upon return to Earth, the command and service modules separate, leaving the command module to plunge into the Earth's atmosphere at a velocity of 25,000 mph"

  • Who are "we" in the sentence near the end:

"Without NASA's adoption of this stubbornly-held minority opinion, we may still have gotten to the moon, but almost certainly it would not have been accomplished by the end of the decade, as President Kennedy had wanted."

Are "we" the readers of wikipedia, the American people, or the citizens of Earth? Maffew 14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a NASA quote, it should be in quotation marks. We is probably the United States, although you could extend that to the entire world. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 11:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new paragraph

[edit]

I'm concerned about this new paragraph

An Earth orbit rendezvous was considered far less risky as if rendezvous could not be achieved the orbits would naturally decay and reentry would naturally occur. In lunar orbit, if rendezvous failed, then the astronauts would never return.

If the rendezvous failed in Earth orbit and the LM reentered, the astronauts would be dead anyway. Isn't the point that in Earth orbit, a rescue mission was possible? Bubba73 (talk), 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is talking about engine failure, not failure of the rendezvous. I fixed it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too am concerned about that paragraph, but for different reasons. First, it is largely in the passive, i.e. it says something "was considered far less risky", without saying who considered it to be that way. This leads to the second concern, which is that the section lacks source citations. Which leads to a third concern: (eventually) this article will need to discuss more than just Apollo mission modes. Project Constellation (or if not, something else eventually) will almost certainly conduct LOR missions. So there are two types of risks to cover: those that exist given our best knowledge today, and those that seemed to exist to Apollo mission planners. I would really like to see these two kept seperate! (sdsds - talk) 19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be directly from this, so that is a source. However, I realized that that source seems to be confusing the engine failure in lunar orbit with rendezvous. I tried to clarify that in the paragraph, but it could still use some work. Bubba73 (talk), 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of mission modes is inconsistent. On the Apollo page there are 4 on this page there are 3. Someone should clarify the correct one.

[edit]

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about number of engines

[edit]

"requiring two sets of engines, one on the lunar lander and another attached to the command module"

Shouldn't that be "three sets of engines - two on the lunar lander and another attached to the command module". The lander separated on ascent using its second engine - not wrong, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.168.106 (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, read again: it says two sets of engines; the statement is general and doesn't go into detail about exactly how many engines and where they are located on either craft. Second, this article is about the concept of lunar orbit rendezvous missions in general, not specifically about Apollo or the Apollo spacecraft. It's basically fine the way it is. (The specific phrase "command module" shouldn't be used.) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

The last few paragraphs of the article are, ironically (given the ethos of Houbolt's crusade against what he perceived as an ingrained NASA prejudice in favour of Nova), biased toward a favourable and exalted interpretation of the LOR technique. Needs a neutrality rewrite IMO. But I thought I'd check first. (Instead of going to, and fixing the source. So.. yes, I note the irony)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.156.169 (talk • contribs) 20 April 2014‎

Agreed. The last two paragraphs struck me as particularly out-of-place as I was reading the article. Because they add no new information, I will simply remove them. Their non-neutrality appears to stem from the fact that the Advocacy section is largely copied from this NASA page. I will leave the rest of the section as is, as I feel it still adds to the article (and the NASA page is not copyrighted). 2604:6000:1112:C081:7037:A93F:E4F9:AB90 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lunar orbit rendezvous. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lunar_orbit_rendezvous&oldid=1216385290"