Talk:Direct ascent

Spaceflight Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry 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.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lunar Orbit Rendezvous error

The article states that "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was evetually selected as most feasible. I don't see a citation for it, and to the best of my knowledge, the opposite is true. This is also reflected in the articles on Earth Orbit Rendezvous and Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. While it's true that the Apollo Command/Service Module and the LEM would rendezvous with each other in lunar orbit after the LEM left the lunar surface, "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" refers to both spacecraft being launched separately from Earth, and docking for the first time in lunar orbit, after having made their way to the moon separately, on individual rockets. I'm striking the sentence from the article. If anyone finds information to the contrary, please update. TheSwordandScales (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. While I agree that is the obvious meaning of the term, the first page Google found for Apollo lunar orbit rendevouz seems to make NASA's use pretty clear: Lunar Orbit Rendezvous and the Apollo Program. However, I'm not sure that sentence is really required in this article anyway. Mark Grant (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. Further research seems to demonstrate that "LOR" has taken on both meanings. Perhaps the LOR article should be edited to include this? It certainly creates some ambiguity. TheSwordandScales (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]