Talk:John Young (astronaut)/Archive 1

Archive 1

December 2004

Gemini, Apollo and the space shuttle make three different kinds of spacecraft, not four. I know CNN is saying four but why? Rmhermen 15:37, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Gemini
  • Gemini 3 (vanilla flavored spacecraft)
  • Gemini 10 + Agena Target Vehicle (much much higher!)
• Apollo
• Space Shuttle

Here are the 4 types of spacecraft.

Maybe they meant

• Gemini
• Apollo CSM
• Apollo LM
• Space Shuttle

-- Toytoy 16:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Personal Information

John Young was born September 24th, 1930 in San Francisco, California. He is married to the former Susy Feldman. He has two children, a daughter Sandra Young, and a son John H. Young. As well as two granddaughters Caitlyn and Lindsey Gay. His hobbies include reading, windsurfing, gardening, and bicycling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.159.34.147 (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

John Young (astronaut) → John Watts Young — Using his full name (currently a redirect) would seem better than using his first and last names with a disambiguator, per WP:NCP. --GW… 12:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. As the naming conventions you linked to say: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person) is not advised." The most common name for this person is John Young. Jafeluv (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  But they also say "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation". --GW… 14:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  "John Young (astronaut)" doesn't seem particularly complicated or non-NPOV to me. The person is called John Young, and he's notable for being an astronaut. Jafeluv (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The first rule of thumb in WP:NCP is to use the "name that is most generally recognisable". To me, I read "John Young" and think, "he walked on the moon and commanded STS-1"; I read "John Watts Young" and think, "uh...". The present name suits the exception that GW cites of "the simplest" way to deal with disambiguation. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seven Flights again

This has been thoroughly dealt with. The NASA page last time also referred to the six missions. The compromise was to allow the statement of six, but with the additional comment. I should not need to go over the issues again; but Young has had seven launches and seven landings. Even if you maintain that it is six, the compromise of stating six but seven IF the lunar flight is counted should remain. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is nonsensical. Whatever the compromise was between two semi-anonymous individuals - it was not a compromise between yourself and a trusted authority, which establishes the official spaceflight count. --Alvez3 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Two points - all discussions are watched by the Wikipedia cohort - objections can be made at that time. Secondly, I would understand any concern that tried to put in place the statement that there were definitively seven flights; this does not, it states that there are six, but seven if the additional flight from the Moon is counted; that statement is 100% accurate, and any attempt to remove it detracts from the information the site provides. I will put it back tomorrow. I suppose I should add that two people have agreed to this in the past, and the objection by one person ... Alan Davidson (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that there are several stes that refer to the Moon launch as ... another launch, and flight. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

'A quick Google search' is as serious an argument as a gossip overheard in a crowded subway car. As for the definition of a 'launch', nobody discusses that since it is not synonymous with an inclusive extended definition of a 'spaceflight'. An ignition of maneuvering engines in outer space performed for the purposes of undocking with a space station is also technically a 'launch', as is a mid-course correction ignition, let alone the fact that a simple jump on the Moon's surface from the standpoint of celestial mechanics constitutes a suborbital flight. Frankly, sir, this stubbornly pushed pseudo-logical kind of argumentation stands in sharp contrast with the list of achievements on your rather blossomy personal page. --Alvez3 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Random person here, but I'd like to see a reliable source, preferably a NASA one, which catalogues the flight from the moon as a separate "flight". I've always known the number of flights to refer to the individual missions, not individual launches. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from being personal. We disagree and can communicate civilly. I can see an objection to the statement that there are seven flights, but not to the statement that there are six and then the mention of seven in brackets, if the Moon launch is counted. There are many legitimate sources, please look before making a change to a statement in place for more than a year. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There are myriads of factually incorrect statements that linger on as part of Wikipedia contents for years. Such is the nature of the beast. Only topics that draw most attention are being corrected promptly. The length of time an incorrect statement remains uncorrected doesn't make it any more truthful. Quoting the Wikipedia's entry on primary sources of information: 'Social documents are records created by organizations, such as registers of births, tax records, and so on'. Biographical entry on NASA's official web site isn't exactly a birth certificate but for all informational purposes is as authoritative as any other official document.--Alvez3 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another random person here. I've never heard NASA or the astronauts refer to a single lunar mission as two "flights" based on the lunar liftoff. To call this seven flights would be misleading. Even parenthetically saying it could count as seven sounds inappropriate and tinged with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. But if there's any serious division of editors here (as opposed to one or two vocal editors), I suggest that we avoid the issue and count missions rather than flights, which has no similar issue. TJRC (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump back into this discussion to say that I agree with TJRC re: OR and NPOV, and Alvez3's distinction between "launch" and "spaceflight". If we were in some hypothetical future where space colonization exists, and Young (and Duke et al.) could have arrived somewhere and flown back later, that would certainly count as separate flights. As it is, Young flew in space using a series of spacecraft (CSM, LM, and even his own personal spacecraft we call a spacesuit) and returned home, all in a single flight. I've never been happy with the "7 if you count the moon" parenthetical and only conceded its inclusion back in April 2009 to avoid an edit war. In terms of consensus, my position is firmly on the side of counting his record at 6 flights, period. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is clear consensus here to accept the statement without the additional statement. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I found my original source. The NASA biography page states: "In September 1962, Young was selected as an astronaut. He is the first person to fly in space six times from earth, and seven times counting his lunar liftoff." http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/young.html and http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/young_retires.html Shall we reinstate this fact with the appropriate reference? In fact it is already the current reference. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's still silly, even if it's in the NASA bio, for all the reasons described above. It's not unusual for notable persons to add puffery to bios. Unless a consensus emerges to double-count the mission, let's leave it as is. TJRC (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion seemed to be based on two points (1) that the idea of the seventh was "silly" (2) that it was not supported by the official NASA site. The answer is (1) NASA does not think so and (2) it is so supported. One argument written above in relation to Primary sources was: "NASA's official web site isn't exactly a birth certificate but for all informational purposes is as authoritative as any other official document". The argument before was to prefer the NASA site over a particular view. It seems unreasonable to now reverse that argument just to suit you. The consensus was to prefer the NASA view. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Get consensus, then make the change if you get it. TJRC (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was to use the NASA view. I will change this later. But I invite discussion. It seems unreasonable to argue for the official NASA view (above) and then when it is against your personal view to argue against it. Your two arguments above were Original Research (which it cannot be when taken from the official site); and Neutral Point of View - which should favour the official site, not your view. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You might be right. Let's find out, though, shall we, please? Determine whether there is a consensus for the change, and if there is, then make it. TJRC (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree but it has been in place with "7" since April 2009; there was a mistake about 2 weeks ago that the NASA site said only 6; there needs to be a consensus to change it from the established status quo. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus prior to today was to call this six flights. You've provided a new source that may make consensus change. If consensus has indeed changed, the article should be changed.

Just to be clear, I am not pushing to have my view in the article. I'm pushing to have the WP:CONSENSUS view in the article. My preference is that the consensus that emerges will be the same as mine, but if not, WP:SHRUG. Okay, there's no link for that, but there should be. All I'm saying is, calm down, get a consensus, and adapt the article to that consensus. In the meantime, it might be best if someone other than User:Alandavidson and User:TJRC talk for a while.

(As a side note, I erroneously hit the REVERT tag rather than the UNDO tag to reverse your most current edit. That was a mistake; revert is only for vandalism, not for differences in opinion. My apologies for that; it was just a mouse equivalent of a typo, and not intended as an accusation of vandalism.) TJRC (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement; particularly on consensus. There should be a consensus to make the change from the version that was in place since April 2009. I suggest a mistake was made just 10 days ago stating: "Here's a link to John Young's official page on NASA website - http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/young.html. It says six flights and that is official." Well, that was wrong, and we all proceeded on that basis. I agree with your words: "All I'm saying is, calm down, get a consensus, and adapt the article to that consensus." In the meantime the established status quo should appear. Let find if there is a consensus for a change, if there is one now the mistake has been discovered. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from altering the page without consensus. To go against the stated consensus above that the site should reflect the official NASA site is WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Alan Davidson (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the NASA biography page at http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/young.html I tend to consider it suspect. It concludes with the disclaimer "Updates must be sought direct from the above named individual" which I infer to mean that the information was copied verbatim from an outside source and does not necessarily represent an "official" NASA position on the matter. On the other hand, the NASA-published "Astronaut Fact Book" (2005, available at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/astro.pdf) lists Young at 6 flights (page 10) and also (page 64) mentions his Congressional Space Medal citation for 5 (at the time, prior to STS-9) flights. Finally, there's one other point I'd like to make: in a quick scan of the other moonwalkers' articles, it appears that only Young's makes the "+1 if you count the Moon" claim. To me, that kind of makes consensus 11-to-1 against. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, the "disclaimer" you quote has two sentences. The first sentence states: "This is the only version available from NASA." I respect our discussions and I am happy to leave it at that. I understand the geo-centric reluctance, but it was this web site that was put to me as the offical site, which I accepted. But ... to now not accept this as a legitimate source, when it was put to me so strongly when it was thought to say the reverse ... well that indicates NPOV bias - does it not. But, whilst it remains a point from a legitimate NASA source, it won't appear on Wikipedia for the present. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Autistic-like"?

"In his book Moondust, Andrew Smith reports on an interview with Young. He describes him as having several autistic-like traits, such as addressing the wall behind Smith[3], talking at length about technical matters and asteroid impacts, and misunderstanding questions about his own feelings. Smith laments that an individual like Young, who has become a favourite of many Apollo fans, might have trouble making it in today's more superficial world of brand identities."

Is this Smith a doctor who specializes in autism? Should Young's mannerisms during the lone interview be properly considered "traits", and "autistic"? I think the actual quote should be included here, not this misleading paraphrasing of it. 68Kustom (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting this section. Moondust is a fascinating book, full of Andrew Smith's impressions of many Apollo astronauts, mostly obtained from personal interviews or correspondence with them some 30 years after the end of the Apollo project. But it's highly subjective, rather than the type of objective material that ought to be in an encyclopedia.

The characterization of "autistic-like traits" appears to be an extrapolation from Smith's sole use of the term "autistic" in the following passage on page 216: There are times when I could swear that I'm talking to Peter Sellers playing Chauncey Gardiner, the autistic gardener whose innocent homilies propel him to the White House in the film of Jerzy Kosinski's book Being There.

The statement about Smith's belief that Young not making it today is a mostly-accurate paraphrase of Smith's comments on page 223; but that's still highly subjective and guesswork; not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.

There are some portions of the book that report objective facts about Young (e.g., on page 208, that Young led the team that designed the makeshift CO₂ filter for the Apollo 13 flight), and that might be worthy of inclusion in this article, but this impressionistic portion is not such a portion. TJRC (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Smith is not a doctor of any kind, and this suggestion is preposterous. Did it never occur to him that Young may not care for 1 on 1 interviews? Ive seen the man speak publicly and he conveys emotion and ideas just as well as the next John Doe. J.Rly (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Seven flights

Young is actually credited with seven flights. Six flights from Earth and one flight from the Moon. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The launch from the Moon was part of the Apollo 16 mission and does not count as a separate flight. Seven launches, perhaps — but that seems a spurious distinction. Note too that the article states "first person to fly into space six times," and given that the Moon lacks an atmosphere, Young cannot be said to have left space by landing on it; therefore he can't have flown "into" space by having lifted off from the Moon. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This does not gell with other Wikipedia sites see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records which lists seven flights. If seven are listed there, it makes no sense to remove it here. It is the number of flights, not missions. This is also consistent with many other websites. Please check these out. But I have explained the number as well. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And I would contend that the List of spaceflight records is also wrong, or at least disingenuous with regard to what most people would consider a "flight" to be. That article does not cite a third-party reliable source that makes the same claim, and is specifically tagged as being in need of inline citations. (Besides, per WP:V it may not be used as a source here.) Also, if we're looking for internal consistency within Wikipedia, the articles for Jerry L. Ross and Franklin Chang-Diaz both mention each other as being tied for the most flights, but do not include Young. I recall that when Ross made his 7th flight, NASA and many news media made a big deal about him being the first to break Young's flight record. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly an interesting point. And one which will continue well into the future. One day we will presumably have colonies. People born there will be making flights from there. And people may migrate to colonies; only to return years later. The statement that going to and from the Moon is one flight has a view that the Earth is the centre of all things, reminiscent of Galileo. I won't have an edit war, but you will find in the literature reference to Young's seven flights. This will need to be changed to seven, in the future. However, if there is consensus from others now to break this one to one discussion … (On the point about Ross - that is a big deal - the first person to make seven flights from Earth - surely my second version explains what is meant by seven).Alan Davidson (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I suggest the amendment which I will make in the next minute - stating that there are six - but 7 if you count the Moon flight. This gives more information and remains accurate and does not offend either of us. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_MoonAlan Davidson (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can get behind that (in particular your optimism about space colonisation), except maybe for the bit about the Atmosphere of the Moon — I think the operative word there is "insignificant". Oh, and I'm hoping you meant the era of Galileo, not the man himself, who fought against geocentrism. Cheers, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, though we reached a consensus - someone changed it back commenting "No one seriously counts that as an extra flight, it is a made-up statistic". But the response would be "Wikipedia does". See the page link above. Alan Davidson (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia doesn't - if you publish your own argument elsewhere in Wikipedia and then use it to back up your point saying "Wikipedia does" nobody would take it seriously because it is not true. Frankly it is just sophistics. Until humankind colonizes space a spaceflight is a flight FROM Earth into space and BACK to Earth. Everything above the 100km (or 80km in case of the USA) limit of Earth's atmosphere is SPACE. So the mission of Apollo 16 is ONE flight and the two occupants of the lunar module were part of that ONE flight only even if they landed on and then lifted off another celestial body. Following your logic it can be easily proven that any spacecraft that docked and then undocked another spacecraft made at least two separate flights. Here's a link to John Young's official page on NASA website - http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/young.html. It says six flights and that is official. Seven flights is your opinion and therefore it is NOT official, so since Wikipedia is not a playground I think you should refrain from editing that paragraph, otherwise it would be borderline vandalism. --Alvez3 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This was dealt with below, but for completeness it is worth mentioning here. The official site you list states: "He is the first person to fly in space six times from earth, and seven times counting his lunar liftoff". It is very difficult to see how quoting your site could border on vandalism. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigma Chi badge and flag on moon?

Mention of the Sigma Chi flag and badge going to the moon and the place of their current location seems trivial and an advertisement for the Sigma Chi fraternity. In an article on a man who has accomplished so much is this worth mentioning? By comparison, there is no mention of the current location of the spacecraft he flew or what experiments were done on his spaceflights.

173.13.222.49 (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Mark Wright-Johnson

Potassium and orange juice?

The Quotes section apparently has been removed from the Apollo 16 article, so the wikilink about the orange juice is pointless. It needs verification, and also clarification: what effects? Too much or too little? I also changed the wording; "was troubled by" tends to make readers (at least in the U.S.) think of an emotional worry rather than a physical complaint. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked up the deleted quote, and the sentence as written is totally incorrect; Young suffered an upset stomach (not "potassium effects") because the flight surgeon pushed orange juice on him and Charles Duke, because the Apollo 15 moonwalkers David Scott and James Irwin were observed to have a potassium defficiency after their moonwalk. I've removed it, until someone can figure out how (or even if) to re-add it. It takes a bit longer to explain properly than the single, flow-by sentence inserted here, and might even be considered too trivial to include?

He suffered from the effects of potassium in the orange juice (stomach upset due to orange juice pushed to avoid potassium deficiency) he drank during the moonwalks. (Citation would be the Apollo 16 lunar surface journal NASA page.)

JustinTime55 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, what are they supposed to say, that Young farted like a dog while up on the moon? From what I've read about the NASA transcripts, he also had quite the gutter-mouth.... --The_Iconoclast (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Young (astronaut)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think this article is well on the way to being an A article, provided that inline citations and references are used. I would suggest more information about his flights, and more photographs, since NASA photos are public domain and will help to illustrate his career better. This is the best Apollo-era Moonwalker article I've seen yet, the rest are stub or start quality. Abebenjoe 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Young (astronaut). 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/20160304000000/http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/scouting_space.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/scouting_space.aspx

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) 07:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Young (astronaut). 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/20100531211821/http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=28394 to http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=28394
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130615164321/http://2010.nationalspacesymposium.org/node/580.html to http://2010.nationalspacesymposium.org/node/580.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130615164322/http://2010.nationalspacesymposium.org/media/press-releases/legendary-astronaut-john-young-to-receive-general-james-e-hill-lifetime-space-a.html to http://2010.nationalspacesymposium.org/media/press-releases/legendary-astronaut-john-young-to-receive-general-james-e-hill-lifetime-space-a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

First to fly 4 different spacecraft?

Pete Conrad flew Gemini, Apollo CSM, Apollo LM, and Skylab before Young flew the Shuttle. I suppose the argument is that Skylab is a station and not a spacecraft and shouldn't count, but that seems a little specious to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nails67 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nails67, you've highlighted an excellent point. I've just now added a note to that statement in the lede, and in the edit summary I stated that this question you've raised is in need of further discussion.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Last sentence of navy section

Mentions space flights. So he did space flights while with the navy? Or is that supposed to be in another section? MurielMary (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Typically that sentence only has flight hours, but for some reason this time it had more than that. It is always taken from the same NASA source. Rambling a bit, but I think the retirement section is a better home for it, and I moved it there. Kees08 (Talk) 09:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question: yes, the early astronauts were active duty military. That's why Young held the Navy Astronaut Badge. In fact, of all the astronauts on Mercury and Gemini, only Neil Armstrong wasn't active duty military, as he retired in 1960 to join NASA. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Neil's Group 2 was the first to allow civilian test pilots. That group's Elliot See was also a civilian, a test pilot at General Electric. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Florida State Road 423

I do not know how to link this to the article on John Young, but I think it should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Road_423 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.221.11 (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done TJRC (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

New image

@Balon Greyjoy: NASA just uploaded a new image of Young, see here. Might go well in a training section. Kees08 (Talk) 20:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I already uploaded that image. It is here and was used on the Charles Duke article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)