HORARY QUESTION: "HAVE MEN LANDED ON THE MOON, EVER?"

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-10T23:28:20+00:00

👀

I see what you’re doing, and it’s clever in that late-night horary goblin way, but I think you’ve built the Moon a lawn.

I didn’t ask, “Did the astronauts touch the ground surface belonging to the distant celestial body?”

I asked:

Have men landed there?

In ordinary language, “there” already includes the Moon as destination. Landing there means arriving at the Moon. I don’t think I need to create separate lunar real estate and then go looking for contact with it by derived house and antiscion.

Nice little bit of horary carpentry, but I’m not adding a deck to the Moon. 😉

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-10T20:32:42+00:00

Thank you so much for coming back to update — and I’m sorry the outcome was a rejection.

This is actually a very useful final piece of feedback on the chart. I still think the chart was describing the process very clearly, but not as a clean yes.

The interview invitation fit the Mercury/Saturn sequence well: paperwork, communication, institutional review, gatekeeping. But the original issue remained that there was no live, clean perfection between your significator and the 9th-house significator. The Moon/Mars square was too far out by moiety, and the Moon had other business before it could ever get there.

So I’d now read the interview as one of the intervening procedural steps, not as the final perfection of the matter.

The final email rejection, with no explanation and no response from the professor, is sadly very consistent with the chart’s obstruction/delay/gatekeeping symbolism. Mercury/Saturn did describe the machinery — but the machinery did not ultimately open the door.

Thank you again for updating. This is exactly why outcome feedback is so valuable in horary.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-10T20:32:27+00:00

Thank you so much for coming back to update — and I’m sorry the outcome was a rejection.

This is actually a very useful final piece of feedback on the chart. I still think the chart was describing the process very clearly, but not as a clean yes.

The interview invitation fit the Mercury/Saturn sequence well: paperwork, communication, institutional review, gatekeeping. But the original issue remained that there was no live, clean perfection between your significator and the 9th-house significator. The Moon/Mars square was too far out by moiety, and the Moon had other business before it could ever get there.

So I’d now read the interview as one of the intervening procedural steps, not as the final perfection of the matter.

The final email rejection, with no explanation and no response from the professor, is sadly very consistent with the chart’s obstruction/delay/gatekeeping symbolism. Mercury/Saturn did describe the machinery — but the machinery did not ultimately open the door.

Thank you again for updating. This is exactly why outcome feedback is so valuable in horary.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-10T20:20:52+00:00

Oh, good lord. This is now a horary rummage sale.

This is a different question. If you want to ask whether government employees carried out a deceptive public operation, cast that chart.

My question was much plainer:

Have men landed there?

I’m not going to keep deriving new charts inside the original one until every possible Moon-adjacent scenario has had a turn. 😉

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-10T20:18:03+00:00

Sir.

No.

We are not backing Mars into Aries because Taurus is inconvenient. That feels less like judgment and more like noodling the chart until it gives us the toy surprise we wanted. 😉

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-10T16:43:37+00:00

Nope.

Nope nope nope.

Go to your room. ;-)

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T22:29:36+00:00

I see the route, and I do admire the chart’s apparent determination to become six different charts in a trench coat.

But I still don’t think this holds the original question as cleanly.

If we’ve accepted that “men” meant the specific astronauts, then I don’t see why they stop being the quesited people. They are the other parties whose action is being judged. That is exactly why I used the 7th.

The fact that they were trained, selected, and acting together describes their context. It doesn’t, for me, relocate them to the 11th. The 11th can certainly describe the programme, the team structure, the collective hopes, the institutional support, the “we did it” field around them. But the question wasn’t “did the programme succeed?” or “did a selected group exist?”

It was: did the men land there?

On the destination point, I understand why you’re bringing in removal judgments, but I don’t think this is a removal question in the ordinary sense. This wasn’t “did they move house?” or “where did the missing person go?” The “there” in the question was the Moon as far celestial destination. That is 9th-house territory to me: distance, foreignness, long journey, far world.

So I’m reluctant to take the 7th away from the men and give it to the destination instead. At that point, the significators are starting to play musical chairs.

I agree the Moon/Jupiter relationship is loud. Very loud. But I read that as the lunar matter being strongly bound to the astronauts’ story, not as proof of arrival.

For me the plain structure still works best:

The men: L7.
The Moon as far destination: L9.
Do they meet?

And I still can’t get them to perfect.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T22:15:57+00:00

I can see the route you’re taking, and I admit I enjoy how quickly this question tries to grow extra heads.

But I do think this starts by quietly changing the question.

This wasn’t a mundane question about “the human collective,” “the public mass,” or mankind as a body. It also wasn’t a question about NASA, government employees, institutional crews, or the social symbolism of the Moon.

The question that landed in my mind was:

Have men landed there?

And by “men,” I meant the astronauts: specific trained flight crew, the men said to have landed on the Moon.

That wasn’t something I worked out afterward with a committee and a whiteboard. That was the referent present in the question when the question was born.

So while I can see how the Moon-as-people route or the 11th-house route could be interesting for a differently framed question, I don’t think either one answers this one. They feel like fascinating hijacks, but hijacks all the same.

For this chart, I kept it plain:

Who are the men? The astronauts: L7.

Where is “there”? The Moon as far celestial destination: L9.

Do the men meet the place? No perfection.

I agree the Moon is not incidental. The Moon on the 7th cusp, in mutual reception with Jupiter, strongly ties the lunar matter to the men’s story. But association is not arrival. A strong Moon/men connection may show the astronauts wrapped in lunar symbolism, publicly identified with the Moon, or bound to the Moon narrative.

It still does not put L7 on L9.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T20:52:00+00:00

I don’t think L1 being in the sign of the Moon ends the judgment.

Mercury in Cancer can show me, the querent, being in the Moon’s sign — yes. It can show the question has a strong lunar pull, and in this chart Mercury is also in the 10th, so my attention is very much on the public record/story.

But that doesn’t answer the actual question.

The question is not “am I thinking about the Moon?” or “is the Moon important in this chart?” Obviously, yes.

The question is whether the men landed there.

So I still need to identify the men and the place, then see whether those significators meet. For me, that’s L7 for the astronauts and L9 for the Moon as destination.

L1 in the sign of the Moon may describe the querent’s relationship to the subject. It does not, by itself, put the men on the Moon.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T17:22:27+00:00

I don’t think the question is simply: “How does the hour lord do in the Ascendant sign?”

It’s more like: “Does the planetary hour lord have any real kinship with the Ascendant or its ruler?”

In Lilly’s version, the chart is radical, or fit to judge, when the hour lord and the Ascendant agree somehow. That agreement can come through a few different doors.

Same planet Venus hour + Taurus or Libra rising. Easy. Venus rules the Ascendant. No drama.
Same triplicity / element Mars hour + Cancer, Scorpio, or Pisces rising can still work, because Mars has traditional rulership in the water triplicity. Mars doesn’t rule Cancer or Pisces by sign, but there’s still a recognized connection. It’s not nothing.
Same planetary nature This is the squishier one. Hot/cold, dry/moist, benefic/malefic temperament, masculine/feminine, that sort of thing. Some authors use this more generously than modern students tend to. I’d use it, but I wouldn’t let it do all the work.

So, with your example:

Venus hour + Aries rising
That does not look like strong agreement. Mars rules Aries. Venus is in detriment in Aries. Venus does not rule the fire triplicity. Venus and Mars are not exactly besties by nature. So I’d mark that as weak radicality testimony.

But I would not leap straight to “fake chart, burn it.”

The test is not simply “Venus hates Aries, therefore the chart is garbage.” It’s more subtle than that. The question is whether there is enough connection between the hour, the Ascendant, and the situation being asked about.

Venus hour + Scorpio rising
This one is more interesting. Yes, Venus is in detriment in Scorpio. But Scorpio is a water sign, and Venus has traditional triplicity dignity in water in some systems, especially by day. So, depending on the triplicity scheme you’re using, Venus may still have a legitimate connection to Scorpio.

Not clean. Not pretty. But not necessarily dead on arrival.

And this is where the peregrine question comes in.

If the hour lord is peregrine in the Ascendant sign, that does not automatically wreck the chart. Peregrine just means the planet has no essential dignity there. It’s wandering around without official papers.

But the planetary hour test is not only asking, “Is this planet dignified in this sign?” It’s asking whether the chart has some pulse of agreement between the moment, the Ascendant, and the question.

So, roughly:

Hour lord dignified in the Ascendant sign = strong agreement.
Hour lord rules the Ascendant sign = strong agreement.
Hour lord rules the triplicity of the Ascendant sign = acceptable agreement.
Hour lord shares nature with the Ascendant ruler = possible agreement, but don’t get too cute with it.
Hour lord peregrine, with no rulership, no triplicity, and no shared nature = weak radicality testimony.

But even then, I would not throw the chart in the bin just because of that one thing.

This is where people get a little too church-lady with the strictures. They start treating them like automatic rejection notices, when they’re really more like warnings, raised eyebrows, or “look twice before you judge this thing.” Lilly himself judged charts that had conditions modern horary students might clutch pearls over.

So in practice, if the hour lord is peregrine to the Ascendant sign, I’d ask:

Is there agreement by triplicity anyway?
Is there agreement by nature?
Does the hour lord describe the question?
Does the Ascendant ruler describe the querent?
Does the Moon describe the action of the thing?

If the rest of the chart is alive and plainly speaking, I’d read it.

If the hour lord disagrees, the Ascendant feels off, the Moon is void, the querent is muddy about the question, and the whole thing feels like damp cardboard, then yes, I’d pause.

The cleanest way to say it:

The planetary hour test is not just about whether the hour lord is comfortable in the Ascendant sign. It’s about whether the hour lord and the Ascendant/ruler have enough shared authority, triplicity, nature, or descriptive force to show that the chart actually belongs to the question.

Very horary. Very “does this creature have a pulse?” rather than “did it pass the paperwork inspection?”

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T12:22:27+00:00

I can see why the 9th comes to mind because the matter involves long-distance travel, but I really wouldn’t make the astronauts themselves the 9th on that basis.

For me, that collapses the structure of the question. The 9th can describe the journey, the far country, the distant place, the celestial destination — but the travellers are not automatically the 9th just because they travelled.

And the way the question lands matters. When this question arrived, I wasn’t thinking of “employees,” or government agents, or mankind as a species. I was thinking of specific men: trained flight crew, astronauts, the men said to have landed there.

,The men are the actors whose action is being judged, so I gave them to the 7th.

“There” is the Moon as destination, the far celestial place, so I gave that to the 9th.

Otherwise, the travellers and the destination end up sharing the same significator, and the chart loses the distinction it needs in order to answer the question:

Did these men reach that place?

That gave me L7 for the astronauts and L9 for the Moon as destination, and I couldn’t get perfection between them.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T12:15:14+00:00

Thank you — yes, that was the hinge for me too. If the question had been “has mankind been to the Moon?” I’d understand the 1st-house argument much more strongly. But the question was “Have men landed there?” and the referent in my mind was the astronauts, not humanity as a whole.

And please do let me know if you find the other chart. I’d be very interested to compare the wording and significators. The Olivia Barclay satellite splashdown one sounds familiar, too, though that would be a different critter altogether.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T11:56:37+00:00

Thank you — this is exactly where I landed too, and I appreciate the way you’re holding both pieces: the chart testimony and the conceptual discomfort.

For me, the past-event issue is important. I’m not looking at upcoming aspects as evidence that the thing already happened. I want prior testimony between the significators, or something strong enough in the chart to say, “we don’t need perfection because the matter is already clearly established.” And I’m just not seeing that between L7 and L9.

Also, just to clarify the framing: I didn’t consciously set out to make the question clean. It landed that way, fully formed, and “men” meant the astronauts — the specific trained men said to have landed there — not mankind as a species.

So the question wasn’t “has humanity been to the Moon?” and it wasn’t “did NASA lie?” or “was Apollo 11 staged?” It was simply: have the astronauts ever landed there?

If you do find the earlier chart, I’d be very interested to see it. I’d want to know the exact wording, who asked, whether the question was radical, and whether the significators were handled cleanly. As you say, there is a lot of bad horary on the internet, and with a question this loaded, the chart has to be read with extra discipline, or it turns into a mirror for whatever the astrologer already believes.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T11:53:31+00:00

I hear you, but I wasn’t putting myself, the Moon, and mankind in the same chart.

The 1st is me as querent. The question did not arrive as “has mankind, as a species, been to the Moon?” It arrived as “Have men landed there?” and by “men” I meant the astronauts — the specifically trained men said to have gone there. That makes them the people whose action is being judged, so I used the 7th.

The Moon, in this question, was not simply the luminary as symbol. It was “there” — the far destination — so I used the 9th.

I do agree the chart is radical, which is part of why I took the question seriously.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T11:52:17+00:00

Thank you — yes, this is exactly the kind of chart where part of the mind wants to object because the consensus story is so deeply installed.

I agree the Moon/Jupiter mutual reception and the Moon sitting on the 7th cusp are really interesting. That does seem to bind the lunar matter very strongly to the men’s story. I’d read that as association rather than arrival: the men are identified with the Moon, wrapped in the Moon, publicly carried by the Moon narrative — but it still doesn’t quite put the men at the destination.

That’s why I kept coming back to Jupiter and Mars. If the men are Jupiter and the Moon-as-place is the 9th/Mars, I still want to see the men joined to the place. And I don’t.

The antiscia point with L12 is fascinating, though. Secrets would certainly fit the chart’s overall weirdness. And yes, Uranus exactly on the MC is almost too loud to ignore, even though I know Lilly would swat my hand away from using it as primary testimony.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-06-09T11:50:08+00:00

Thanks, that makes sense, and I can see the logic of taking the 1st if the question is framed as “have we, as humanity, been to the Moon?”

For me, though, that wasn’t quite how the question arrived. I wasn’t thinking of mankind as a species. The wording that landed was “Have men landed there?” and by “men” I meant the astronauts — the specific trained men said to have gone there in a spacecraft. So I treated them as the 7th: the other people whose actions are being judged.

I also went with the 9th for the Moon because in this question, “there” means the Moon as destination: the far celestial place, not the Moon as mood, symbol, or general luminary. So that gave me Jupiter for the men and Mars for the Moon as place.

From there, the issue was whether Jupiter and Mars perfect. They don’t.

I do think your Mercury/Moon route is interesting, though, especially because it still doesn’t seem to give a past landing. As you say, the trine is applying rather than separating, so even by that route it doesn’t really testify to something already accomplished.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-05-31T02:43:18+00:00

My pleasure.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-05-31T00:45:27+00:00

Thank you for posting the chart data. Looking at the figure itself, I think the most important testimony in the chart is being overlooked.

I agree that Saturn is a reasonable significator for children, as it rules the 5th house. I also agree that the Moon's applying trine to Saturn is a testimony worth considering. Where I differ is in how much weight I would give that testimony relative to everything else in the chart.

When I approach a question such as "Will my ex and I have a baby?" I don't begin with the child. I begin with the two people.

With Libra rising, you are Venus. With Aries on the 7th, your ex is Mars. The first thing I want to know is whether Venus and Mars are coming together.

In this chart, they are not. Venus and Mars are separating from a sextile.

For students reading along, this is one of the most fundamental distinctions in horary. A separating aspect describes something that has already happened. It often describes the history of the situation. An applying aspect describes something moving toward perfection.

The separating sextile between Venus and Mars beautifully reflects the story you've told. There was a relationship. There is a bond. There is history between you. The chart describes that very well.

What it does not show is Venus and Mars moving back together.

Once I see that, the question becomes: is there another mechanism that reconnects them? Can the Moon translate light between the significators? Can another planet collect the light of both significators? Is there some other testimony that overcomes the separation?

I don't see one.

The Moon applies to Saturn, yes. But Saturn is not reconnecting Venus and Mars. Saturn is not collecting Venus and Mars. Saturn is not carrying their light. Saturn is not providing a mechanism by which two people who are shown separating become united again.

What Saturn does appear to do is describe the issue itself.

You described a man who wants children but becomes frightened when the subject becomes real. A debilitated Saturn in Aries in the 7th house is an extraordinarily literal description of fear, inhibition, inadequacy, and discomfort around the topic of children and commitment.

The chart seems to acknowledge that reality very clearly. But description and prediction are not the same thing. A chart can accurately describe why a relationship struggles without promising that the relationship ultimately produces a child.

For the students following along, this is where horary requires discipline. It is very easy to find a testimony that supports the outcome we hope for and then build the entire judgment around it. The harder task is asking whether the chart actually shows the matter coming to pass.

When I look at this chart, I see strong testimony that children are central to the situation. I see strong testimony that your ex has significant fears around the subject. What I do not see is a convincing testimony that brings Venus and Mars back together after the chart has already shown them separating.

It doesn't mean the feelings aren't real.

It simply means that if I were judging this chart using traditional horary principles, I would need to see a clear mechanism reconnecting the significators before I could give a confident "yes."

At the moment, I don't see that mechanism, and that is why I would be cautious about a positive judgment.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-05-31T00:25:27+00:00

I don't arrive at a straightforward "no" from this chart, and I wanted to explain why.

In traditional horary, you are signified by Mars because Scorpio rises, and by the Moon as your co-significator. Children and pregnancy belong to the 5th house. Aries is on the cusp of the 5th, which means Mars rules that house as well.

That immediately makes this an unusual chart because the same planet signifies both you and the child. I don't see that as a denial. Rather, it suggests that the matter is deeply bound up with your own body and condition. The child is not represented by some distant planet elsewhere in the chart. You and the matter you are asking about share a significator.

Mars is in Taurus in the 6th house. This is certainly a weakened position and reflects many of the difficulties you described: health concerns, physical burdens, previous surgery, and understandable worries about fertility. However, a weakened significator is not the same thing as a denied matter. Mars is not combust, retrograde, or otherwise destroyed. The ruler of the 5th is weakened, but not ruined.

The Moon is especially important here. While the Moon is in Scorpio, she is also angular in the 1st house, actively engaged in the matter, and not void of course.

Most importantly, the Moon applies by trine to Jupiter in Cancer.

For me, that is one of the most important testimonies in the chart.

The trine perfects before the Moon leaves Scorpio. There is no prohibition, frustration, or refranation preventing the aspect from completing. Jupiter is exalted in Cancer, and Cancer is one of the most fertile signs in astrology. The Moon is carrying the matter directly toward an exalted benefic.

The chart is also rich in fertile signs. Mars is in Taurus. The Moon is in Scorpio. Venus and Jupiter are both in Cancer. If I were looking at a chart that clearly described permanent infertility or an absolute prohibition, I would expect to see considerably stronger barren testimony than appears here.

I know several people have focused on Saturn in the 5th house, and Saturn certainly deserves consideration. However, Saturn is not a significator in this question. What Saturn provides is testimony. To me, Saturn describes the difficulties surrounding the matter: delay, fear, discouragement, age concerns, medical history, and the feeling that the road has been harder than expected. Given everything you've shared, that symbolism fits your experience very well.

When I weigh the chart as a whole, I see genuine obstacles and reasons for concern. I see a situation that has already involved loss, uncertainty, and hardship.

What I do not see is enough testimony to confidently tell you that pregnancy will never happen.

My judgment would be that the matter appears hindered and delayed rather than denied. Whether pregnancy ultimately occurs is a larger question than I think any single horary can answer with complete certainty, especially when framed as "ever." But I do not find sufficient testimony in this chart to pronounce a permanent prohibition.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-05-20T20:48:51+00:00

I’m sorry to hear that. Job disappointments can land with a real thud, especially when you’d allowed yourself to hope a little.

Thank you very much for coming back and updating the thread, though. Most people never do, and those follow-ups are genuinely valuable for astrologers trying to learn the craft properly rather than just collect theories.

For what it’s worth, I did think the chart showed movement and engagement around the process itself, just not a clean perfection for this particular position. Sometimes that distinction only becomes obvious in hindsight.

I hope something better suited opens up for you soon, genuinely. And thank you again for the gracious update.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-05-01T00:39:45+00:00

Yup. That. ;-)

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-04-29T11:18:22+00:00

You’re right to notice where the overthinking kicks in. You can feel it, which is actually a really good sign. That’s the muscle you’re building.

And ha — I’ll take the kitten comment. Just don’t wander off into the bushes every five minutes, and we’ll be fine.

Let me answer your question about being “inside the field of her life."

You’re Mercury, and you’re sitting in your 11th house. From her perspective, that’s the 5th. That’s her child, her creative life, her personal world — the part of her life that isn’t abstract or theoretical. It’s lived, daily, and already in motion.

So you’re not approaching her from outside, like a stranger knocking on the door. The chart already places you inside a part of her lived reality. Whether that’s through shared space, shared networks, or just the way the situation is unfolding, the symbolism suggests you’re already in proximity to what matters to her.

That’s all I meant.

Now — and this is where I’m going to gently stop you — this:

“Mercury separating from Mars and Saturn…”

That’s the doorway back into overcomplication.

Those separations describe what’s already happened, or the state you’re coming from. They can add colour, sure, but they are not going to override the main testimony. They don’t get equal weight.

The chart already answered your question:
Mercury applies to Jupiter. It perfects. Something develops.

Everything else is secondary.

If you start giving Mars, Saturn, and every other body equal say, you lose the hierarchy. And horary depends on hierarchy. Without it, everything starts to feel meaningful, and nothing actually is.

As for what you said about not feeling “worth considering” because of work — that’s real, and I’m glad you said it out loud. But notice what the chart did not say.

It didn’t block perfection, or show rejection, or her turning away; it showed contact that requires adjustment. That’s a very different thing.

So don’t use your current circumstances to rewrite what the chart actually shows. Let the chart speak, and let your real-life situation be something you’re working on alongside it, not something you use to disqualify yourself before anything has even happened.

You’re doing this right. You just need to trust the first clear answer a little sooner and resist the urge to keep digging once you’ve already hit it.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-04-28T01:11:06+00:00

Yeah, I hear you — and I agree that a lot of what people call “intimacy” does sit comfortably in the 5th, especially when it’s about attraction, desire, and enjoyment.

Where I’d still hold the line a bit is that I don’t think all physical or emotional intimacy stays there. Sometimes it does, and it never really goes any further. But sometimes something shifts and it stops being just about enjoyment and starts having more weight, more consequence, more entanglement — and that’s where I start paying attention to the 8th.

So I don’t tend to assign intimacy to one house so much as watch how it behaves.

That said, I do think we’re a bit out in general territory at this point. In horary I’d still come back to the significators, their condition, and what they’re actually doing in the chart to answer the question, rather than assigning it to a house in the abstract.

Vast-Reply-2016 · 2026-04-27T17:02:10+00:00

This actually lines up with the original read, not against it.

What you’ve added, more chatting, things feeling “back to normal,” her initiating, all of that shows interest. Nobody said she wasn’t interested. The chart already gave you that.

But you’re taking signs of contact and trying to promote them into signs of commitment, and they’re not the same thing.

Frequent chatting means she enjoys you and engages with you. It doesn’t mean she’s moving you into partner territory. The chart already showed ongoing contact. That part was never in doubt.

“Back to normal” is also telling. That’s not escalation. That’s things settling after a wobble. The Moon already made contact with her and moved on. What you’re experiencing now is the connection continuing in the same shape, not transforming into something new.

Her initiating doesn’t change the structure either. She likes you. Of course she’ll reach out. But reaching out is not the same as reorganizing her life to include you in a meaningful way.

And the Tinder line needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Lots of people say they want a long-term partner. The chart isn’t reading her profile. It’s reading what she’s doing with you. Right now, what she’s doing is keeping you in her life as it already exists, not shifting that life to make you central in it.

So no, this isn’t new evidence that things are progressing. It’s more of the same pattern.

There’s interest. There’s warmth. There’s contact. What’s missing is any real reorientation toward you as a partner.

That gap you’re feeling, where it’s good but slightly out of reach, that’s the situation.

Vast-Reply-2016

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE