Talk:Canceled Apollo missions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Canceled?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs Half way in theres a alien craft. I don't know..

Where they really canceled? They could be lying to us. I want to believe. This video does look real. Too real. Joerite 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The patch briefly shown at the front includes "Leonov". The blue datascreen that follows is from an in-flight Apollo 11 film. The text at the bottom is apparently talking to Vandenberg... it's only ten seconds in, and we've racked up three bits of silliness. I wish they could at least construct plausibly consistent hoaxes... Shimgray | talk | 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 20

Can someone do a debunking of the Apollo 20 myth? There seems to be a lot of stuff floating round the internet purporting to be footage from it, of an alien craft on the Moon. It's a fake, but not one of the worst ones. Still worth a mention. --MacRusgail 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree I think it's worth including. Some of the footage circluating on Youtube looks professoinally done, suggesting perhaps an Alternative 3-style production exists (so this would go under the Fiction category. Some of the Youtube clips claim the truth will be revealed in September 2007, so maybe this film is set to be released that month and the clips circulating are some sort of viral marketing. 68.146.47.196 14:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've got no idea what the person who released those clips was trying to do. Basically I had been keeping an eye on the Youtube site for some time and we are now in Jan 2008 and there has been no film release or further clips since about June of 2007. See [Apollohoax.net] for one skeptical discussion of these claims. Graham1973 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The lost and forgotten missions

Please, read the book "Apollo - the lost and forgotten missions", and you can know which crews was prefare for the cancelled apollo mission.

P. Mevius, Germany 2009-03-04 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.216.233 (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

LM-13: destined for Apollo 18 or Apollo 19?

The article currently claims that LM-13, on display at the Cradle of Aviation Museum, was scheduled to land on the moon for Apollo 19. However,

• the museum itself says here that it was planned for launch on Apollo 18 in 1973, to Copernicus Crater

and

• the ASME website, where it designates LM-13 as and engineering "Landmark", claims that it was slated for Apollo 18
• Paul Filmer, (Staff, Geosciences Directorate, National Science Foundation) researched the disposition of the LM's and posted on the Mad Sci network that it was for Apollo 18
• the SpaceCraft Assembly and Test (S/CAT) Remembered web site agrees

Admittedly,

• This Usenet thread from sci.space.history supports the Apollo-19 claim
• The Lunar Republic also says that LM-13 was scheduled for Apollo 19, but it says that Apollo 18 became the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, so its numbering is questionable

Useless links include

• The Apollo Archive, which only notes (when you click on the Spacecraft link) that it was "Cancelled"
• The Franklin Institute also punts the question with a Cancelled and no further details

So to sum it up, I'm wondering if there is either a more "authoritative" source or (even better) some place that could explain the numbering confusion?

-- Eliyahu S ^Talk 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Far side mission

Did NASA ever consider landing an Apollo mission (probably 20 or 21) on the lunar far side? I know there is a fictional miniseries from the 1980s that covers an Apollo-like sequence of missions, based largely on real history, but then fictionally adds a far-side landing that is cut short by a solar flare. How would NASA maintain communications with astronauts on a far-side landing site then, and how would they do it in 2020 if they decide to? GBC (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In Andrew Chaikin's book From the Earth to the Moon, there's mention that Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt pushed for a lunar far side mission. He apparently suggested the use of two surplus Telstar satellites in lunar orbit to relay communications from the proposed far side landing site. NASA higher-ups told Schmitt the idea wasn't feasible. It could be added to article with the relevant citation, but I don't have the book with me. Can anyone else add it? 68Kustom (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have read, "surplus Telstar satellites to be launched into lunar orbit," the idea being that their launch would precede the proposed manned far side mission. 68Kustom (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mission type

Resolved

The article says that A15 was originally to be an H mission like A12, 13, and 14. But that is inconsistent with List of Apollo mission types, which says A12 and 13 were G missions but A14 and 15 were H missions. What is correct? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the above question has been resolved, because if the List article ever said Apollo 12 and 13 were G missions, that was incorrect and has now been fixed. However, there is a more fundamental problem with this article's use of the "mission types"; see the next section. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious use of the "mission types" list

The list of lettered A-J mission types was not created by NASA until September 1967, to guide the direction of the program after the Apollo 1 fire. Therefore it shouldn't be introduced as the first section, and can't be used as it is in the Early Missions section, making it sound as if it existed earlier. The article needs to be restructured slightly and revised. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Crews section

This section lists a blog entry from a person as a "historian", but his article does not describe him as a historian. Also, blogs are not reliable sources. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reread WP:BLOGS. Cassutt is a recognized space historian, and his comment is citable as a source. Ylee (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 21 original research

The statement that "the discrepancy is likely due to Apollo 8" is not supported by any citations; also use of the phrase "it is likely..." is generally considered bad style. There is no verifiability that the plan to launch the first manned LM mission on two Saturn IB's existed as late as 1968 (Apollo 8 planning). The dual-Saturn IB plan existed in 1966, prior to the Apollo 1 fire (read the above section of this article), after which all bets were off. It probably (again, we're in OR territory here) was made on the assumption that the LM would be ready to fly before the Saturn V. The fire gave both components a chance to catch up to each other, and the Saturn V actually flew first. I don't know of any instance where NASA was seriously thinking in the post-fire recovery plan of flying the manned LM mission on two Saturn IB's.

Also, it makes no sense that they would have been planning landings out through the end of the Saturn V batch (mission 21) even in 1968, because they had no indication of success. One of the NASA bigwigs (Robert Seamans, I believe) said in an oral history that they were pleasantly surprised at the success rate in getting the first landing with the sixth Saturn V, and they expected to consume more of them to get to that point.

Absent such verification that the AS-207/208 plan actually existed as late as 1968, all but the first sentence and a half becomes OR and should be struck.

That doesn't leave very much, and I don't see any evidence the references to Apollo 21 are anything but apocryphal. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Archived Talk:Apollo 21

Since I believe the redirect which links Apollo 21 to this article's section should probably be deleted (nothing in Main space links to it), I think it's important to preserve the discussion about what started as a separate article, and a pointer to its proposed deletion discussion, here (since it is only available through the Apollo 21 breadcrumb). Since the "explanation" for the references is OR, and absent any real verification of them, I believe we have a bit of a quandry because we are left with nothing supportable. If you read the deletion discussion linked below, the lack of consensus appears to be based on the OR. I think the whole idea of "Apollo 21" should be deleted, because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be in the business of promoting mistaken ideas which amount to gossip. JustinTime55 (talk)

---

This article (Apollo 21) was nominated for deletion on September 9, 2005. The result of the discussion was No Consensus default to Keep.. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

before you are surprised about the Apollo 21 mission. Apollo 21 was the first cancelled mission in 1969. The mission was very inofficial, and e few people knew about the mission of Apollo 21.

Philipp Mevius (84.141.206.123)

Because the stub. I readed a german children the moon book from Dr. Heinz Haber 1969 edition. This book came in short time after the first manned landing on the moon. After apollo 12 a new edition of the book the moon cames in shops. Apollo 21 can also be a mistake by writing of Dr. Heinz Haber. But the apollo-sojus-test-projekt was the 21. flight of the apollo hardware system. Maybe the capsule for ASRP cames from apollo 4 in 1967, but i don`t know it.

Philipp Mevius

Factual accuracy

I thought it would have been neat to help expand this article on a little-known moon mission, but a lot of references I'm getting from the sci.space.history groups indicate there was no Apollo 21. The sources actually naming Apollo 21 might be anecdotal. Therefore I put a dispute template until someone can verify one way or the other. -Timvasquez 16:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

---

End of archive: JustinTime55 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsectioned comments

This site is very good. Now you found better informations about apollo 21 than me. I am from germany and have found only stubs about apollo 21, but you better refered this site. Many thanks from Germany by Philipp Mevius, September 20, 2005

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.206.123 (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Numbers by Names!

The cancelled missions apollo 18 to 20 are needed for skylab, but they have not numbers. Apollo 21 would not named in the sixties. But the Apollo-Sujus-Test-Project is the 21st (twenty-first) start of the Apollo Commmand module in July 1975.

Many thanks from Germany by Philipp Mevius, september 26, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.206.123 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are saying but I'm guessing you're suggesting that the three manned Skylab flights were in fact Apollo 18-20 and ASTP was Apollo 21. This isn't correct. Skylab was a completely different program that just happened to use the same hardware as the Apollo lunar landing program. ASTP is sometimes called Apollo 18, though this is incorrect as during its flight, the callsign used just Apollo. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

In the Portuguese language wikipedia is apollo 18 as ASTP written, but i cannot speak portuguse. When an english spaeking man can speak portuguese then he can help to cancel the mistake.

P. Mevius October, 24 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.206.123 (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Instead of Roosa i would prohiby Tom Stafford for the Command of the apollo 20 mission, because he was not allowed to land with apollo 10 in may 1969.

P. Mevius October, 24 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.206.123 (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be better you numbered the three skylab missions as apollo 18 through 20 and ASTP as apollo 21, then it is same hardware of the apollo/saturn programm. Maybe the NASA changed the titles of the apollo applications program into the apollo by numbers.

P. Mevius 12th May 2005 (sic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.206.123 (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

But that is wrong. They are different programs. It is like saying Apollo 7 is Gemini 13. They just happened to use the same hardware. Go Mizzou 21:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esb5415 (talk • contribs)

Potential source

• Porttree, David F.S. (June 28, 2012). "Canceled: Apollo 15 and Apollo 19 (1970)". Wired. Retrieved May 15, 2013.

TJRC (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page archive

This talk page is getting a bit long, and a recent edit is responding to a 6-year-old otherwise-dormant discussion. Any objection to initiating bot archiving? TJRC (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

By all means. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No objections being heard, I'm initiating archival now. TJRC (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Crews for cancelled missions

I think the commanders for the cancelled mission came of the third selction group (It was around 1969 when Slayton think about the crew selection). I mean Apollo 18 would be Richard Gordon, this right, but Apollo 19 commander could be Donn Eisle and Apollo 20 commander position was orign Bill Anders. Eisele was back-up command-module-pilot of Apollo 10 and Pilot of the Apollo 13 Mission, so he could be Commander of Apollo 19. Bill Anders was back-up command-module-pilot of Apollo 11 and Pilot of Apollo 14. Then end of 1969 Anders left the NASA and was replaced into Mattingly. On Januar 1970 Apollo 20 was cacelled, because the Skylab space station needed a Saturn V Booster. On March 1970 Apollo 13 Crew Cooper and Eisele were replaced of Al Shepard and Stu Roosa (Mitchell stayed in the crew. Because Shepard have probleme with his ear, the Apollo 13 and Apollo 14 crews change the missions. When Apollo 13 pilot Mattingly was ill, he was replaced into Swigert. Then Apollo 13 desaster happened, Slayton gave Haise the chance to commended Apollo 19. On September 1970 Apollo 19 and 18 was cancelled. So I am wondered that Conrad or Roosa are names of commanders position for Apollo 20.

Ph. Mevius, 2007-10-29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.230.146 (talk) 29 Oct 2007

I have no clue what you are trying to sayEsb5415 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Documents regarding putting an amateur radio repeater on the moon (Project Moonray) all suggest that Owen Garriott, an amateur radio operator, was scheduled to fly on Apollo 18 (and take the repeater with him, make contacts from the moon, then leave the repeater behind). He later flew on the first amateur-radio-equipped shuttle mission. 192.150.10.200 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've located what may be a definitive list for the Apollo 17 - 20 Crews. It was contained in a report into advanced space suits designed for those missions. The report is dated 17th August 1970 and gives the following assignments:

Apollo 17

Prime

• Conrad
• Duke
• Eisele

Backup

• Cooper
• Brand
• Cernan

Apollo 18

Prime

• Young
• Engle
• Gordon

Backup

• Roosa
• McCandless
• Lind

Apollo 19

Prime

• Lovell
• Mitchell
• Haise

Backup

• Swigert
• Pogue
• Carr

Apollo 20

Prime

• Bean
• Evans
• Schweickart

Backup

• Engle
• Weitz
• Schmitt

The report does not however indicate the crew roles.

Source:Advanced Extravehicular Space (AES) suit. Final report Graham1973 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is right. Slayton used a system where a command module pilot was commander 6 missions later. The backup crew flew prime three missions later, so 20 is wrong. Young commanded 16. Conrad would not command ANOTHER lunar landing so soon. Duke flew on 16. Eisele would not fly to the moon because of his actions on 7. Cooper was not going to fly ANY mission, or be backup on ANY mission, Engle was LM pilot, etc. etc. etc. This list is wrong. Esb5415 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Apollo 18 as being the first Spaceship to Skylab?

This is just a thought but when I was a teen I always thought of Apollo 18, 19 and 20 and 21 being the 3 ships that went to Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz test mission. It sounds good anyway. Just some thoughts Magnum Serpentine (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Canceled Apollo missions. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617193358/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apoosa11.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apoosa11.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507183826/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo18.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo18.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513235733/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/skylab5.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/skylab5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507183826/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo18.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo18.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507183101/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo19.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo19.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507183948/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo20.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo20.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131121948/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/skylabb.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/skylabb.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513235733/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/skylab5.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/skylab5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110233012/http://web.mac.com/jimgerard/AFGAS/pages/apollo/CM-115.html to http://web.mac.com/jimgerard/AFGAS/pages/apollo/CM-115.html

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) 07:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)