Talk:Moon

This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.

Comments

The Moon has popped up a number of times as an article, have been redirected to various places and have probably been deleted a number of times before this incarnation. I suggest that we change this into a serious article. Most will say that it fails the Project:What is an article? can you sleep there? test, but I beg to differ; it is the largest desert campground within human technological reach, all one have to do is take your own high-tech tent. Though going to the moon is beyond most peoples budgets, there are a handful of people on earth today that can afford to go there if they so choose. The least we can do is to provide them with real tips on what they can see and do once they get there. The added benefit of having a real article will of course be that people will stop creating garbage articles for the moon. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:49, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm just barely OK with creating this -- unlike Mars or any other place in space, at least somebody's been there -- but this is not an April's Fool article and it needs to be a lot more serious, so I've cut out the stuff about launching your own manned program or zero emissions rovers. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:48, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

FYI, some (relatively) hard data for future missions etc: [1] (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:02, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

And an apparently complete list of manmade "attractions": [2] (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:04, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that saying that you can pitch a tent on the moon makes the place suitable for an article; one could pitch a tent literally anywhere. But there are also other reasons why I don't think the moon qualifies for a "real" article: The moon is completely uninhabited, with no planned missions for ten years. What about redirecting Moon to Space, and adding a section about it there?

LeptonMadness (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is written with a tongue in cheek, but it's a legitimate topic of inquiry, with different answers to the popular questions than the Space article would have. LtPowers (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

is this a joke page?

well i mean astronauts can live in their pod on the moon and have rations so iam not sure thanks. --(WT-en) Caharoute3 11:22, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

It's not a joke; everything in the article is accurate as far as we know. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:26, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

The Pink Floyd and golfing jokes might throw one off, but yes, this is a legit article. We'll write about any possible destination, regardless of how few people can go there! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:36, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

Outline vs. usable

It looks like this article will never make it to usable status, almost by definition, as much of the infrastructure that launched Apollo was dismantled forty years ago and would need to be rebuilt pretty much from zero. That's a huge undertaking and a blueprint for doing so is not something we can fit into an individual travel guide entry. K7L (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As suggested above, merge into Space and make this article a redirect to the appropriate section there. Space tourism is already a real possibility for those with mounds of money, so having that article makes sense. Visiting the moon, Mars, etc. is not yet feasible so those should be redirects. If a trip to one of those later becomes feasible, we can re-open discussion. Pashley (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

While I like this article, and like the idea of someday being able to go to the moon, I think Pashley's suggestion makes sense - this isn't a "real" travel article, so putting everything into a "space" article that talks about current and future options seems like a more realistic approach. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the criteria define a wikivoyager to not be limited to just a recreational tourist - if anyone has gone there (a person, not just a robot like the Viking landers on Mars) the destination is technically valid. Difficult (multi-billion dollar, multi-year effort to rebuild everything lost at the end of Apollo) but possible... even with 1960s technology. Unless we can determine what needs to be rebuilt (with costs, timeline and resources required) it looks like we're stuck at "outline" but a destination which has been done can be done. K7L (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; the Moon is a distinct destination from simply going "into space". LtPowers (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Outdated info

It looks like there is no current US plan to put a manned mission back on the moon per [3] and it'll be at least 2020 if one waits for another nation to do so if [4] is any indication. 2001:5C0:1400:A:0:0:0:A15 21:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. So since you know that, please plunge forward and make the appropriate edits, and thanks for doing so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Earthrise

How is it possible that no Earthrise is visible from the moon, when moonrise is visible from the Earth? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Because the Moon's rotation is synchronized so that the same side of the moon is always facing the Earth, if you were standing on the moon, the Earth would appear to always stay in the same place in the sky (or conversely, you'd never see it if you were on the back side). But you would see the earth go through phases from new to full and back again. Texugo (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, because of w:Libration the Moon does wobble back and forth, so if you were standing near the eastern or western edge (as viewed from Earth) you would see the Earth move in the sky, and possibly set and rise. But it's a 27-day cycle so you'd be watching it rise for quite a while... --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Astronauts not seeing the dark side?

User:Hobbitschuster added "Only a handful of astronauts have ever seen the "backside" of the moon with their own eyes (usually those that didn't land on the surface).".

I don't think this is correct. Every Apollo mission that went to the moon had to circle it and perform both translunar and transearth injection on the far side. And it's not like they got to the moon and immediately moved to the LM and descended to the surface; there were several orbits before descending and after returning while they took care of chores.

Unless you have a source that claims otherwise, AFAIK every astronaut who made it to the moon had a chance to see the dark side, and would have had a least a few minutes to moongaze. --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I thought that the only thing orbiting was the command module with the third man in it (in the case of Apollo 11 that would be Michael Collins) But I don't know for sure either way. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon reading up on the issue: WP says that all astronauts of Apollo 8 and 10 through 17 saw the far side of the moon with their own eyes. Thus far, however nobody ever set foot there (due to obvious communication issues among other reasons) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal status of the moon

You totally ignored wikipedia:Outer Space Treaty this[5] is not a joke --Neurorebel (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Out of the manual

The out of the manual nature of this article can lead to hilarious situations, try not to judge it by that but by the common sense being applied, of course it is of minimal importance time to get atention when no physical help is possible but being murdered or robbed in the context of a legal void is not the same thing.

Legal status of the moon

Swept in from the pub

It seems that treating that subject in article Moon is a joke, i think is relevant info, there are no laws on the moon rather than "no population", this edition[6] was reverted when it was a SYNth from Outer Space Treaty .--Neurorebel (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess even though there are no legal impediments to your visit, practical transport options may categorize this as 'unlikely'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Map

I guess OSM does not support lunar maps, does it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell, but I've added a map from Commons and links to the map applications available from NASA and Google. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pure oxygen

In light of this edit, yes indeed, the praxis of using pure oxygen (often IIRC at roughly 0.2 atmospheres pressure, which has the same effect as regular air at normal pressure) was discontinued after both the Soviets and NASA lost lives to it (the Americans without knowing of the Soviet incident) the Americans of course famously in w:Apollo 1 Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Guide status

I've been editing this for the past few days, and it seems pretty much complete for me. Is this guide status yet? Is there anything that can be improved? If yes, what is it? The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 03:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, if 2 days after I post this comment there are still no replies and the page still exists, I'll plunge forward to change it into a guide. The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 01:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any real information about how to get to the surface of the moon, only about flybys. Unfortunately, I don't know if we have any editors with the knowledge to fix that, so IMO this article may not be able to get to guide status in the foreseeable future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

While I wouldn't want to see this article get deleted by any means, I'm personally not sure if giving it guide status sends the right message. It's hard for me to explain why I feel that way, but I must go along with Granger that, when it's extremely to get the moon and the articles doesn't even explain getting there, we should not be promoting to guide status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added some info about landing on the Moon. What about now? The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 06:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If I'm a multibillionaire whose dream is to set foot on the moon, does this article provide the information I need to make that happen? I think the answer is clearly no, so I wouldn't call it guide status. You've added some interesting information to this article, which is great—thank you for that. I don't think bringing it to guide status is a particularly realistic or high-priority goal, so maybe our energy would be better spent working on destinations that are accessible to more than a small number of professionals and ultra-wealthy. Just my two cents—if you want to keep working on this article, by all means go ahead, but I'm not sure guide status is realistically achievable right now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, then I'll go to the main Space article. The next article after that is going to be Vatican City. The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mx. Granger again here. My advice to SmileKat40 is, focus on improving articles; don't worry too much about the status. Thanks for the work you do! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And if you get automatic suggestion, treat them as suggestions: if there is some reason not to work on an article, choose the next one. --LPfi (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wondering if the moon needs its own article

Why does the moon have its own article? A few people have been to space as tourists, and projects like Virgin Galactic finally seems to be able to take passengers within a reasonable timeframe, so that there will be more space tourists than just one every few years. And of course there are many space related places on earth to see.

But the only people who have been to the moon have been trained astronauts sent out on expeditions with specific goals; not someone who would actually need a travel guide. The article links two projects where there are plans to send people on a trip around the moon, but until something has actually materialized of those, I'm not sure the moon merits its own real article (but maybe an April Fools day joke article).

And unlike Next-to-impossible destinations here on earth that all are at least theoretically possible to get to as a private person, creating a working spaceship is, mildly put, a completely different kind of project. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

:I understand your point, but perhaps in a few years things may be completely different; perhaps we should make it a joke article until space exploration becomes generally popular. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, this is being actively edited. In my opinion, at this point in time, removing the article from mainspace can only be disruptive. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The article has been much edited as of lately, which was what drew my attention to it already earlier this week. I was just wondering if we need an article for a place noone in practice under any circumstances can't reach as a traveler as of 2019. Ypsilon (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but as the article states in "Get in," there are two groups planning to send men to the moon in the (relatively near) future. People may want to plan a trip based on those circumstances. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Like most of our articles on next to impossible destinations, few people read it for planning an actual trip. They read them either for pure entertainment or for planning an imaginary trip. Armchair voyages are not uncommon, and I suspect most readers also of many "real" destination articles belong to that category. Thus, whether or not people actually go there is less important (other than for keeping the line somewhere). I regard this as a borderline joke article, and I suppose most do. Suggesting repairing a moon rover as a means to get around is a symptom of that. Still, it is more interesting in mainspace than as pure joke, and having it here does not harm us. --LPfi (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of "armchair voyages," can you get the moon in virtual reality? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, as of current technologies, of course we can get the Moon in VR! Why this page is getting frequently edited is because I use an algorithm to see what article should I improve next, and now it's came to the Moon. By the way, if we are talking about the page's existence, why isn't this at VFD? The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 01:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd hate to see we delete this page, since I did most of the work. But many people read Wikivoyage for fun. Like me. When I read Wikivoyage, most of the time it's not because I'm planning travels, most Wikivoyage articles are still not complete enough to make me not use other websites. Usually when I read Wikivoyage, it's just for fun and I do not have any particular goal. So I'll say we keep this for the readers who read this for fun. And who knows, maybe one day there's a lot of Moon tourism! The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 01:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm with LPfi, I think that the entertainment/armchair travel value of this article earns it its place in Wikivoyage. I would oppose its nomination at VFD. Ground Zero (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Replying to SmileKat40, I agree. Wikivoyage is a great place to find trivia or learn about a place. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(indent reset) I'm sure everyone here also spends time reading about interesting places, most of which they are never going to visit. This article certainly has entertainment value, but in my opinion the border between a real article and other articles is whether anyone at all reading will have even a remote chance of going there now (not "maybe in 30 years").

Considering how long it has taken for Virgin Galactic, which has come the furthest in the "tourist space race", to reach their goal to enable people to spend a couple hours in space (when it was founded 15 years ago they thought space tourism would be up and running in just a few years but it took until February 2019 for the first test passenger to fly), I don't think going to the moon will become possible anytime soon. That is the reason I would prefer to have content of the moon in a subsection of the Space article with space travel that might be possible in the distant future. But as there seems to be consensus to keep it as its own article here in mainspace, I'm not going to argue about this further. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Communication via satellite

We now have conflicting and confusing information on communication between a rover and Earth via a Moon-orbiting satellite:

• Transmission from lunar rover via a Command Service Module in lunar orbit to Earth is infeasible for visitors to the lunar poles or the dark side of the Moon, as line-of-sight transmission to Earth is simply not available.
• A 2008 NASA proposal advocates lunar-orbiting satellites as a workaround but no system has been deployed.
• The Chinese Chang'e 4 mission, [...], uses a satellite orbiting around the Earth-Moon L₂ point to relay signals between its Yutu 2 lunar rover and Earth.

I understand that orbiting satellites have to fly quite low (how low?) because of the low gravity, severing the below-the-horizon problem. I suppose that would be the reason for rely via satellite over the far side not being feasible. This can be overcome at least with several rely satellites, is that the NASA proposal? What is the L₂ point? The Earth-Moon common gravitation centre? You would still not reach the farthest area of the Moon, but landing just behind the rim would still be landing on the far side.

If you don't need real-time communication, the satellite can communicate with Earth when above the near side and with the rover (or station) when above the far side (or the pole). How fast can you make a turn?

–LPfi (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

For the lunar poles, why wouldn't line of sight be available for a CSM orbiting over the poles? Not continuous communication, of course, if you have only one. –LPfi (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

L2 is one of the Lagrange Points of a given two body system (in this case earth-moon) it's the only way to "park" something at a "fixed location" (well relative to what you care about at a given moment) in space. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. But according to the illustration, L₂ is behind the Moon, seen from Earth. How can one rely communications to Earth from that point? Using low-speed photons, so that the gravitation has time to bend their course?  :-) L₄ and L₅ would make sense, still not reaching the farthest parts of the Moon. –LPfi (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)