Lunar orbit records

[ambrous]

Does anyone know a link or have information regarding lunar records? i.e. astronaut duration or orbits completed solo or with 3 in the cabin

 

[rybanis]

Not sure, but you might try looking at www.astronautix.com <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

There were only 9 missions tonthe Moon. You should be able to compile the records yourself from the data at astronautix and also wikipedia.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

don't use wiki or astronautix. They aren't verified. Go to NTRS and look up Apollo documents

 

[qso1]

Just a few based on your question:<br /><br />Apollo 8 and 13 were the only lunar missions in which all 3 astronauts orbited the moon the whole time and 13 didn't complete a lunar orbit. The reason for other missions having astronauts orbiting solo was the other two were on the moon or in transit between the moon and the CSM. On Apollo 10, there was no lunar landing but two of the astronauts flew the LM to within 10 miles of the lunar surface in a dress rehearshal for Apollo 11s landing. Prior to Apollo 10, Apollo 9 did essentially the same kind of mission as 10 but in Earth orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Some articles are sourced on Wikipedia, some aren't. Saying don't use Wikipedia is like saying don't use books. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Some articles are sourced on Wikipedia, some aren't. Saying don't use Wikipedia is like saying don't use books." <br /><br />It doesn't matter. Anyone can change the data on Wikipedia. You can't with a book. <br /><br />Always used a second source with wiki.

 

[mithridates]

One common myth about Wikipedia is that it attempts to be a primary/self-referenced source. It doesn't. Wikipedia is _based on_ secondary sources. Behold one of their better articles, with over 200 sources to verify the content:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Oh, and by the way 'wiki' is a type of software, not an abbreviation for Wikipedia. Wiki is to Wikipedia as radio is to BBC. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[bobw]

Wikipedia probably OK for stuff like book reviews, the list of an author's works and a bit of history like who what when where but I would never trust it for why and am skeptical about the what. For technical stuff it is a joke.<br /><br />In the Neanderthal thread, kyle_baron wrote:<br /><br /><i>" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cynognathus_BW.jpg<br /><br />How the evolutionists can assume FUR ON FOSSILIZED BONES, is beyond common sence."</i><br /><br />I agree with him not because it is evolutionists, but because it is wikipedia. The picture is self-drawn by a guy named ArthurWeasley. Who the heck is he and why should I take his drawings seriously? He has a main page there that starts off with "The muggle world and its history keep fascinating me..." and the bottom of his page has a bunch of "awards" from people like "Spawn Man" and "EWS23" LOL.<br /><br />Arthur writes "So far I have provided illustrations for more than 200 prehistoric animals for wikipedia." I write "So freaking what?" At least with a book I can find out who wrote the darn thing. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AArthurWeasley?uselang=en<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mithridates]

It looks like you've overlooked the main point of my post: Wikipedia is not a primary source, and the validity of a page depends on the number of sources cited therein. That means that there will be fantastic pages here and there, lots of somewhat good pages that aren't yet complete, and a lot of basic pages you definitely shouldn't trust. Since there's no rule on who can edit what pages, it's also not possible to state with certainly that Wikipedia is good at field A but not at field B. It all depends on who has edited the page and how much has been referenced by external sources, that's all.<br /><br />http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/119640/wikipedia-vs-the-old-guard.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[bobw]

I haven't overlooked anything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mithridates]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I haven't overlooked anything.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Didn't know you could use that to get the upper hand in a discussion. Okay, now *I* haven't overlooked anything. Top that.<br /><br />Feel free to continue the discussion when you have the motivation to contribute more than a single line. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Folks, this Wikpedia discussion is pretty far off topic from the original post.<br /><br />If you want to discuss the merits of Wikpedia, may I suggest that discussion be in a new thread in Free Space or Technology, not here in Missions and Launches?<br /><br />Thanx<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

That's true. Sorry, I'm used to posting on other boards where discussions rarely ever remain on the original topic. Only replies on lunar orbit records from now on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Back on topic, this page and the others seem to have the numbers:<br /><br />http://www.spaceline.org/flightchron/apollo17.html<br /><br />Apollo 17 made 75 orbits. Wikipedia claims the same thing. You could add up the numbers for each one, though I don't know about orbits done solo vs. with three inside. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>