Talk:Apollo 17/Archive 1

Last one off the moon?

So who was the last one off the moon? (the last one to touch it?) Armstrong was the first, so who was the last (to date)? → JARED ^(t)  23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The last person to walk on the moon was Apollo 17's commander, Gene Cernan. Andy120290 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Plaque

"depiction of the plaque left on the moon by Apollo 17" This should either say

"The plaque left on the moon by Apollo 17."

or

"A copy of the plaque left on the moon by Apollo 17."

Which is it? Rich Farmbrough 21:52 3 March 2006 (UTC).

Good point.. reading the caption the NASA gives they say it is the plaque to be left on the moon; but they also say the date the image was taken was December 14, 1972.. which is when they left the surface of the moon.. perhaps the date is wrong? 131.111.8.98 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Was this the military mission to the moon?

I heard that the last mission to the moon was a military operation... so is this one it? -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 23:45, February 16, 2007 (UTC)

None of the missions to the moon were military. The only experiments on board were scientific packages. In fact, the last mission was the only one with a scientist-astronaut. You may be confusing them with some of the space shuttle missions, which carried classified Department of Defense payloads (usually spy satellites, according to reports) and had little news about them released to the public, except for launch and landing times and crew members' names. (A good book that looks at such missions is "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane, who flew on two classified missions.)DrBear 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Colourful quote

Regarding the "Okay, Jack. Let's get this mother outta here" claim: those words don't appear on the liftoff video. Were they said off-mike, or edited out of the video, or is the claim apocryphyal? Wdfarmer 19:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably the latter. NASA's lunar surface journal (http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.launch.html) had this to say about it: [According to Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham in his book "The All-American Boys" Gene's last words on the Moon were "Let's get this mother out of here." During the mission review in Santa Fe, Gene was surprised not to hear those words but what seems likely is that what he was remembering was his "Now, let's get off." at 188:01:25 and that, in later tellings, the wording changed to the more colorful version Cunningham quotes. I have discussed this matter with Andrew Chaikin, who is another aficionado of the audio tapes, and we agree on the interpretation given here. My thanks to William Bianco for reminding me about this issue.] --Jkonrath 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone close to me spoke to Mr. Cernan at a conference a number of years ago, and states that at this conference, the astronaut attested to the colorful version of this quote. So according to the man himself, that was what he said.

Ledelste 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sample amount from the moon

According to German Wikipedia and http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17ov.html , 110 Kilogram - not pounds - were brought back from the moon. The article seems to mention the right numbers, but the wrong units. Has anybody got better/more reliable sources? - Alex Contributions/62.224.192.75 (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mission Highlights section too short

Maybe it is just me, but it seems the section saying what they actually did at the moon is too short. This was the most ambitious manned Moon mission. There is very little about what they did during a three day stay on the Lunar surface. It needs to be expanded. Andy120290 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I second this. I just read an article on some of the emergency repairs the crew had to make to the rover, they go unmentioned in the entire article. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/21apr_ducttape.htm 24.16.250.243 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Filming of the return launching

When the Apollo 17 Lander left the moon surface it was the last craft to do so, the departure is tracked for some time by some type of camera on the moon surface. I would be very interested to know how this footage was achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibblerman (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The lunar liftoff was filmed (video) by the camera on the Lunar Rover, which was operated remotely from Mission Control in Houston. The interesting fact here is that the camera operator had to estimate the time delay for control and radio signals to and from the moon and begin tilting and zooming the camera a few seconds before Challenger's ascent stage actually lifted off from the Moon. I don't know who was at the controls, but as you can see if you watch the video the guy really nailed it spot on. Ehbowen (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In the TV series From the Earth to the Moon there is a dramatization of the camera operator's difficult job. They tried to do the same thing on the previous 2 missions, but it didn't work as well.142.68.223.14 (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible appearance in The Red Dove

Rather annoyed the following was removed, but I'll repost it here for discussion.

The character Robert Massey in the novel The Red Dove by Derek Lambert was Command Module Pilot of an Apollo mission to the "...fringe of the Sea of Serenity", presumably Apollo 17.

References

Reason I added it is as follows, firstly the mission in the book is described as taking place in 1972, secondly, it's clearly a J-Class mission, thirdly, Taurus-Littrow is on the "fringe of the Sea of Serenity". Finally the other two crew, while not being named are described as "..the commander and a geologist" which nicely fits Cernan & Schmidt.

On that basis it's more likely than not that Massey is the fictitious substitute for Evans. Comments? Graham1973 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry you were annoyed. That wasn't my intent, and I deliberately overrode the default UNDO message to indicate that I understood your edit to be a good-faith revision.

Unless the book refers to the mission as Apollo 17, I think it's a mistake to include it in this article. Massey clearly could have called the mission Apollo 17 had he wished, and apparently did not do so. It could have just as easily been a fictional mission, just as, for example, the novel Space had a fictional Apollo 18 mission.

You make some interesting points in concluding that it must be Apollo 17, but ultimately that's WP:OR and not a basis for inclusion here. TJRC (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment accepted. I've had a bad experience earlier with someone reversing information I'd obtained from watching a film where the information available online contradicted the actual plot-line of the movie and so I'm a bit sensitive to this sort of thing. It probably would have been better if I had posted it for discussion first.

Thank you for taking time to explain in more detail why you reversed it. I am going to add that I am reasonably sure that the authors intent was at the very least to imply the mission was Apollo 17 (I've left a note to that effect in the List of fictional astronauts). Given that the Massey character spaces out while the Commander & Geologist are on the lunar surface and then has a breakdown while preparing for the post mission press conference I can understand the author not saying outright what mission it was (The real astronauts might have sued, even in the 1980s when this was written).

Graham1973 (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

EVA 4

EVA 4 should not be listed under Moon Walks. It definitely was not a moon walk. Although I can't find any information on what it actually was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil Monkey (talk • contribs) 20:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

It was probably EVA in Lunar orbit to retrieve camers from the outside of orbiter. I remember this was done during at least one Apollo mission. JamesHoadley 19:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The SIM was an external experiment/camera bay that was first introduced in Apollo 15, and was on 16 and 17. The EVA was to take out the film. Check the Apollo 15 article for more explanation and a picture. --Jkonrath 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

EVA 4 was in cislunar space during transearth coast. The purpose was to retrieve the film canisters from the scientific instrument section of the service module. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.35.34 (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 17 Featured Picture facing delisting

This image isn't used in any article and will have to be delisted as an FP unless it can be usefully placed on an article. I don't know what article might be appropriate, so help is needed here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is almost identical to File:Apollo 17 The Last Moon Shot.jpg - same size, too. This one is a little darker. But I don't think this one is needed. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a copy of File:Apollo 17 The Last Moon Shot.jpg direct from the NASA website to be sure to have the best copy. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting.... both images are from the very same source negative and in that sense I think the two files ought to be merged together. The one difference between the featured image and the one that is currently being used is that the featured image has been manually retouched/edited to remove some artifacting and some other minor problems. In this case, I don't know which would be considered the "better" image. It is a fair assessment. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of plaque quote

I noticed recently an anonymous contributor changed the quotation from the plaque to all capitals, and this was changed back to lowercase shortly thereafter, with the reasoning "DONT SHOUT". I should point out that the plaque is in fact written in all capitals. My understanding (see for example the essay Wikipedia:Quotations) is that for quotations we should be using the same formatting which was originally used. And originally, it was written in upper case. I understand that on the internet (and only in the last 10-15 years), writing in All caps is often interpreted as shouting.. but is this justification to change the formatting of the quotation? The answer is not obvious to me. Mlm42 (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think all caps look like shouting when copied on the Wikipedia page. I realize the plaques were printed in all caps (it is pictured lower on the page), but I don't think Wikipedia:Quotations strictly applies in this case. The word quotation is somewhat ambiguous, and I think the essay was written with quote in the sense of a person's comments, either spoken aloud or in print (newspaper, book, magazine, etc.), in mind. I don't think we have a hard guideline for quoting words printed on plaques.

Note the same issue exists in Apollo 11; there the plaque quote is also set in italics (as it originally was before the all-caps conversion.) Note also, that there the plaque picture (taken in flight on the Moon by Armstrong) is located near the quote in the text.

The Apollo 17 article also suffers from a bigger formatting problem, in that it's crowded with pictures on both sides, forcing the text into a narrow central gutter. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Yes, too many images and not enough text is often the problem caused by NASA providing some many great images for free! Possible solutions include removing some pictures, or adding more text.. either one seems fine. Mlm42 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Was Nixon a witness to the liftoff?

Was U.S. President Richard Nixon a witness to the liftoff (most likely from the V.A.B. or Mission Control)? 72.82.160.208 (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The only launch he witnessed in person was Apollo 12. DrBear (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apollo 17/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: }

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• One dab link: "electromagnetic"
• Looks good. For a FAC article, there are a number of paragraphs that are too short and snappy, and some that could be expanded. No problem for GA though.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. The link in question has been dabbed. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

New moon landing pics

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/lro-briefing-20110906.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.122.49.112 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Image has been added by User:RadioFan. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Last Moon landing

Isn't it true that, while astronauts were somehow able to travel 240,000 miles to the moon in 1969 and 1972, in the past forty years since then, they have never traveled beyond about 250 miles away from Earth? I'm not sure where it belongs, but that seems like quite a notable piece of information. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the second sentence of the article, "Launched at 12:33 a.m. EST on December 7, 1972 ... Apollo 17 remains the most recent manned Moon landing and the most recent manned flight beyond low Earth orbit". I'm not sure we need to state explicitly that it was forty years ago, given the date is quoted. Shimgray | talk | 21:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Timings differ from two otherwise reliable sources

I've been reading both Encyclopedia Astronautica and the Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal and the timings are as much as three-hours off. Has this been commented on before? As an example, since today is the 40th anniversary of the landing, both Astronautix and NASA's Mission Report summary list the landing at about 2:54:58 p.m. EST or 110:21:58 Ground Elapsed Time (GET)(see page 1-1 of the 1973 Apollo 17 Mission Report, JSC-07904). However, the Surface journal lists the landing as 113:01:58 GET, which would be 5:34:58 p.m. EST. Does anyone else know about these different times? Usually I consider the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal as the authoritative source, but I'm wondering in this case?--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I got an answer from the journal editors this evening. Apparently, Mission Control continued using GET as if the mission launched on time, so that the astronauts' check lists would still be the same (their timings were in the original GET). Using the original GET for the lunar walks and operations, accounts for the two-hour and forty minute difference in timings between original and actual timings. NASA's official Apollo 17 Mission Report uses the actual GET. By performing a roughly two-second burn after TLI, Apollo 17 eventually made up the lost time caused by the launch delay and arrived at the moon at the originally estimated date and time. This is where some of the confusion arose from. ALSJ will put a note to remind readers about this, because it sure confused me this afternoon.--Abebenjoe (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 17 not last Apollo mission?

The article's opening sentence states that Apollo 17 was the last Apollo mission. I find that rather weird, since the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) in 1975 was the last Apollo mission. Calling it Project Apollo's final lunar mission is both accurate and factually correct. I'll change it soon, unless a reasonable explanation as to why this is included can be given.--Abebenjoe (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 17 was the last mission of the Apollo program, which was created for the purpose of landing men on the Moon. Apollo-Soyuz is sometimes referred to as anApollo application, because it used a left-over Apollo spacecraft and launch vehicle. It was an entirely separate, single-mission space "program" born out of detente. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JustinTime55. ASTP was distinct from Project Apollo, despite using the same spacecraft type. NASA lists Project Apollo missions as Apollos 7-17; and treats ASTP separately, not as part of Apollo itself. Apollo 17 was the last Apollo mission. The list of manned Apollo missions at [1] ends with Apollo 17. [2] refers to Apollo 17 as the "final Apollo mission". NASA publication The Early Years: Mercury to Apollo-Soyuz says "The final Apollo mission, Apollo 17, was launched December 7, 1972," on page 6, then separately discusses ASTP on the following pages (although it does refer to ASTP as "a fitting conclusion to the Apollo flights"). TJRC (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Even the mission press kit called it "Apollo's last lunar mission." [[New edit in after the original]] The NASA Apollo-Soyuz history page calls that mission "the Apollo Program's last mission."[[End of edit]] But I don't want to get into an edit war over something this trivial, so leaving it as it currently reads is fine with me.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

After this 40th anniversary, we should try to get an authority to settle if this is really "the last mission" or merely the last lunar mission. There are contradictions all-over NASA's literature. The kind of authority I'm referring to would be a space historian like Asif Siddiqi or Roger Launius.Abebenjoe (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's official! Most space experts say that the Apollo program is over.

Good idea. While you're at it, why don't you ask if they can shed any light on the age-old dilemma, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" :-)

I'm sorry; I just couldn't resist a facetious answer. Now for my serious one: I don't think that's a good idea at all.

As you've already found, there is no consensus among sources for the "official" answer, therefore it is inherently unverifiable. People choose either Apollo 17 or ASTP according to whether they define the Apollo program as either a project with the objective of landing men on the Moon, or else as the sum of missions flying a particular spacecraft and launch vehicle. In fact, if used in an article, that use of official would be considered a weasel word.

Are you familiar with fallacious appeal to authority? I quote from that article: the strength of an argument from authority "depends upon two factors: 1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject, and 2. There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion." I also have a problem with the two experts you've named: Siddiqi is noted for his writings about the Soviet space program; and Launius is the curator of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, so presumably an expert on space hardware. Why would either of them be expected to be an authority on the "official" scope of the Apollo program?

Asking space historians, even those expert in the Apollo program, would be nothing more than soliciting more opinions to a moot question. And you have called it trivial and said you're happy with the current wording. Do you really think it would improve the encyclopedic value of the Apollo 17 article to include a statement about whether or not there were "other Apollo missions"? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Video clip

The video that is supposed to show Jack Schmitt singing, actually shows a scene from Apollo 16 where John Young and Chalrie Duke approach a geology section called "house rock".This is highly misleading. This is the Apollo journal section where Jack is singing:http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html and he actually was on video by himself and on his way back to the LEM:http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1213545.rm. A better quality video is here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnIoqfT2W4Q It shows the sequence where Jack Schmitt actually sings on the Moon. May somebody who actually knows how to edit this articel either delete that video or corrects the articel in a right way, please? tobiashommerich@aol.com Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve hislop (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

All Apollo 17 images now now available in hi-res

Like the title says, all Apollo 17 images taken with the Hasselblad 550EL's have been uploaded to Flickr as public domain. I thought I would point that out here in case someone wants to upload them for the article. Links:

• Flickr Repository
• Article showing a few good selections from the many many images

198.58.155.118 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What prep of suits

What servicing and prep of moon suits did they have to do between walks - oxygen, cooling system ice, batteries etc? How did they make the ice? etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.161.31 (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

How many lunar orbits?

From when it entered the Moon's orbit until it left it, does anyone have a source for the exact number of lunar orbits that the command module flew? The infobox says 75 but with no source. The hours in orbit are listed in the text, 148, but not the number of orbits. If 75 is accurate is this also a standing record for crewed flight and, if so, probably should be included in the record summation in the lede. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Following a 143.69-second maneuver at 234:02:09.18 at an altitude of 62.1 n mi, transearth injection was achieved at 234:04:32.87, at a velocity of 8,374.3 ft/sec, after 75 lunar orbits lasting 147 hours 43 minutes 37.11 seconds. The crew had spent an additional day in lunar orbit performing scientific experiments.

References

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Apollo lunar orbits were two hours long, so the expected number would be 74; maybe there's some rounding error. Apollo By the Numbers should have this statistic. The infobox documentation says completed orbits are to be used. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Same source has following for other Apollo missions.

• Apollo 11: 30 lunar orbits[3]
• Apollo 12: 45 lunar orbits[4]
• Apollo 14: 34 lunar orbits[5]
• Apollo 15: 74 lunar orbits[6]
• Apollo 16: 64 lunar orbits[7]
• Apollo 17: 75 lunar orbits[8] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit to list, 64 orbits for Apollo 16) Randy Kryn (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Actually, two hours was for the "nominal" 69-nautical mile circular orbit used on the early missions. Later on, they got smarter and decided they could save landing fuel by keeping the CSM/LM combo in the descent orbit with a 50,000-ft perilune, which speeds it up and shaves some from the orbital period, so that probably accounts for the 75. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Coffeeandcrumbs and JustinTime55, good stats and all the crewed lunar Apollo pages should probably include the exact numbers in text and not only the infobox. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Have added the number of orbits and links to the Apollo mission pages, as well as the 31 for Apollo 10. According to these numbers, and including Apollo 8's two orbits but not counting the partial orbit of Apollo 13, the Apollo mission command modules orbited the Moon 356 times [EDIT: See below for correct number] If this number isn't on the Apollo program page (haven't looked yet) it probably should be listed, for the interest factor alone. Thanks again for the detailed research. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh??? Where did you get two orbits for Apollo 8? They in fact made 10 orbits, bringing the total to 364. And yes, Apollo 13's cislunar fly-around doesn't count as an orbit. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. I misread the Apollo 8 infobox. Luckily I haven't added the orbit number in the Apollo program lead or page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

JustinTime55, made an edit to the list from the source, 64 orbits for Apollo 16 rather than 65, which would make the total 363 if I'm adding them up right. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Schmitt "bumped" Curt Michel from the Apollo 17 mission?!?

The "Crew" section says, So NASA assigned Schmitt as the Lunar Module Pilot of Apollo 17,[12] bumping astronaut Curt Michel, who had a Ph.D in physics. I'm afraid this statement is not very accurate, to put it mildly.

• First, "bumped" doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
• Secondly, neither of the two referenced sources says that Schmitt "bumped" Michel from the Apollo 17 mission.

As it is known, Schmitt replaced Joe Engle, not Michel, and this is actually what Michel implies in his quoted interview if you read it carefully: Another guy was scheduled (for Apollo 17), but the National Academy of Sciences got all pushed out of shape when I left. 1) "Another guy" is obviously a person different from Michel (he uses "another guy" and "I" in the same sentence); this is, of course, a reference to Engle. 2) It couldn't possibly be Michel since, as it follows from the second part of the above sentence, he had already left NASA when the National Academy of Sciences "got all pushed out of shape". // Moreover, according to the first source, Michel said that "he left NASA in 1969 when it became apparent he would not be assigned an Apollo mission". So how could Michel have been "bumped" from the Apollo 17 mission when he was not even assigned to this or any other mission to start with? The same wrong statement is made in the Curt Michel article as well. Taurus Littrow (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Update. The Curt Michel article says, Michel decided to resign after it became clear that he would not be given a flight assignment, due to the scientific community's demands that his fellow astronaut, the professional geologist Harrison Schmitt, be reassigned to Michel's position on Apollo 17 after Schmitt's planned mission on Apollo 18 was cancelled.
• I've read carefully the history edit of that article, and I've found that the original wording was this (emphasis added): Michel believed that it was his decision to resign, after it became clear that he would not be given a flight assignment, that motivated the scientific community to demand that his fellow scientist-astronaut Harrison Schmitt be reassigned to Apollo 17 after Schmitt's planned mission on Apollo 18 was cancelled.
• As you can see, the old version doesn't say that Schmitt was "reassigned to Michel's position on Apollo 17". The above changes were made by @Manushand: on 26 May 2019.
• @JustinTime55, TJRC, Randy Kryn, and MinnesotanUser: Any comments/suggestions?
• bumping astronaut Curt Michel, who had a Ph.D in physics // Note that Harrison Schmitt had (and still has) a Ph.D., too (in geology), so he was in no way inferior to Michel. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

So it's a tale of three men: Schmitt, Engle, and Michel. The basic idea is that Schmitt displaced either or both of the latter, and in this case (if I have understood), then it's inaccurate to say that Schmitt displaced Michel, as-it-happened, because Michel was out. At a glance this all "looks right" to me, though it seems to warrant a closer look. Since the article's clause is pretty isolated and not central to article flow, it's easily excised for the time being, which is just what I've done. If further review warrants adding stuff back, that's easily done too since we're all thinking about it now. You also speak of two referenced sources (the second being a nearby one); the bit I deleted just had the one source, what was the other? Did it have different details?

I think the thing to do is to let the article remain silent on who exactly Schmitt "bumped", if it's a minor or controversial detail, barring good parsing of sourced information by editors. No information is better than misinformation, hence the quick cut I just made, for the moment.

More cosmetically, I also slightly disliked the "bumped" usage in the lead of the Joe Engle article, which I removed in an early '19 revision (I won't mess around trying to link it). Clearly the "bumped" usage carries through the editing history of the encylopedia on related topics, and may originally derive from important sourced passages. MinnesotanUser (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe it's just a misunderstanding as far as Michel is concerned. The referenced source doesn't claim that. As noted above, that claim was made by user Manushand, who apparently misinterpreted the article and changed the original (correct) wording. I've read tons of stuff on Apollo, and I've never seen a mention that Schmitt replaced Michel on Apollo 17. The "bumped" guy was Engle, that's a well-established (and well-sourced) fact. So there is nothing disputable or questionable here, really. P.S. There were two links in that reference, have a better look: 1) obituary to Michel, and 2) Michel's interview. The obituary just repeated some of Michel's statements from his interview, so there was nothing really new in it. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not well-informed on Michel, so I'll defer to the more knowledgeable editors. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Need more details on the surface experiments and their results

Need more details on the surface experiments and their results. I've started Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment and the Lunar Neutron Probe but need to add the results and details of other surface experiments especially the ones not done before Apollo 17. - Rod57 (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)