Talk:Luna programme

Spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Soviet Union Top‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Science & education Top‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.

Untitled[edit]

Where are the lunar soil samples returned by the Luna program today?

Is there a reason the British spelling for Program is used here? This isn't Cyrillic, so I don't see a reason not to use the more widely used spelling of "program", especially considering that, for instance the Vostok program uses the U.S. spelling. StuartH 13:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In general no dialect has precedence. From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style - Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people may have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions, and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English. (although there is an etiquette which the manual goes on to discuss). Jll 23:55, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

space probes[edit]

Why is Luna a 'programme' and Surveyor a 'program'? 62.243.82.106 (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overshadowed[edit]

"Overshadowed" doesn't imply "better," it just means more attention was captured, which it was.

Contradiction[edit]

This articles claims that over 480 Kg of lunar rock samples were collected by the appolo program while the Geology of the Moon gives this number as 385 Kg. There is a contradiction here that need to be verified. --mexaguil 09:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cost in 1969 $[edit]

How much costs Luna program, in comparsion with Apollo? This would be worth mentioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.144.95.66 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure of the value of such a comparison and, if made, it must be placed within the proper context. Most importantly, it needs to be mentioned that to the costs of the Luna program must be added the costs of the failed Soviet manned lunar program if any real comparison is to be made. Otherwise, mentioning relative costs would be more misleading than illuminating. One could certainly add the costs of the Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter programs to the equation, as they were important parts of Apollo.209.244.31.35 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

"The Apollo missions returned much more Moon soil. The Soviet program returned 0.326 kg of lunar samples while the US program returned over 480 kg, some selected on-site by a geologist. However, the Luna missions were the first advanced robotic sample-return exploration missions." That's not a neutral point of view. I'm changing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.72.74 (talk) 12:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I assume you've already removed the "offending" text, but I can't for the life of me figure out what wasn't NPOV. The relative amounts of lunar samples seem correct. Harrison Schmitt of Apollo 17 was a geologist. Lunas 16, 20, and 24 were the first successful unmanned sample-return missions. What was the problem? 172.191.66.140 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this meager sampling, which by all indications was largely a failure (and the revision of the date to 1970 was obviously done because of the failure of Luna 15), is now labeled in the article as a "major achievement". Wonderful how Wikipedia works. --C S (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Luna 3 moon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Luna 9 Musee du Bourget P1010505.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

space race relevant here?[edit]

it's annoying and not informative to keep comparing the Soviet and American programs here. put the comparison in a separate article. Hacky (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luna and Luna-Glob are COMPLETELY different[edit]

A program cannot be continued after 46 years, and there is already a separate article on that topic. This page should not be edited with regard to last week's failed mission. 184.170.174.114 (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I was wondering about that. Should the last flight be Luna 25 from this year or Luna 24 from 1976? Right now it combines them to say Luna 25 was in 1976. PabloSus86 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article wording[edit]

On Luna 11, Luna 12, and Luna 13, the article states that the spacecraft was launched from an Earth orbiting platform. While technically true (the Blok-L did reach a parking orbit), the wording here implies that the probes were staged at an orbital platform, then launched, rather than being inserted into a parking orbit, then performing TLI.

I'm going to be bold here and just rewrite these sections, considering that all the other Luna programme articles don't have this awkward phrasing. Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 22:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]