Talk:Apollo 13/Archive 3

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Apologies in advance if I have done something incorrectly in this post...it's my first-ever edit request. Please change this text: Lovell's lunar space suit helmet is located at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, Illinois.

to the following:

Lovell's lunar space suit helmet and gloves are located at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, Illinois.

I am a staff member at the Adler. The gloves and helmet have been on display here since 2006 in our Shoot for the Moon exhibit gallery. You can see an image of the helmet and one of the gloves on our website: ^[1]. If you go to the link to see for yourself, just scroll through the images one by one...there is an image of the helmet and gloves in a case with a girl dressed in pink standing in front of the case. Thanks so much, Wikipedia friends! Nichols520 (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done TJRC (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello everybody, I hope I'm using the correct format. I wanted to bring a typo to your attention: In the text under the heading/subheading "Mission highlights - Oxygen tank explosion" it says "electricical", I believe this should be "electrical."

Thank you very much! 178.191.132.51 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 16:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! 178.191.132.51 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

FROM:

Ken Mattingly was originally intended as the Command Module Pilot. Seven days before launch, the Backup Lunar Module Pilot, Charlie Duke, contracted rubella from one of his children. This exposed both the prime and backup crews, who trained together. Mattingly was found to be the only one of the other five who had not had rubella as a child and thus was not immune. Three days before launch, at the insistence of the Flight Surgeon, Swigert was moved to the prime crew.[3]

Mattingly never contracted rubella, and was assigned after the flight as Command Module Pilot to Young's crew, which later flew Apollo 16, the fifth mission to land on the Moon.

TO:

Ken Mattingly was originally intended as the Command Module Pilot. Seven days before launch, the Backup Lunar Module Pilot, Charlie Duke, contracted the German Measles from one of his children. This exposed both the prime and backup crews, who trained together. Mattingly was found to be the only one of the other five who had not had German Measles as a child and thus was not immune. Three days before launch, at the insistence of the Flight Surgeon, Swigert was moved to the prime crew.[3]

Mattingly never contracted German Measles, and was assigned after the flight as Command Module Pilot to Young's crew, which later flew Apollo 16, the fifth mission to land on the Moon.

REASON:

Higher up in the article it says it was the german measles, and both the Duke and Mattingley articles state that it was german measles.

Redstar766 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: There is no error. German measles is simply another name for Rubella. Cannolis (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a huge NPOV issue that has been plaguing this article: the popular notion that the Apollo 13 incident was an explosion. My post on 06:07, 24 January 2012 lists the wealth of facts from official NASA reports that indicate that the event was not an explosion. This point goes well beyond semantics, as the level of expected damage between the two distinct scenarios is very different, and this means that the abort options available are very different (Direct Abort versus going around the Moon, as was done).

Nowhere in the lede nor the body of the article is it stated that these official NASA reports do not call the incident an explosion. It is clearly apparent that these extremely detailed reports arrive at the conclusion that it was not an explosion. Yet our article here, as it stands today, presents the standard unquestioned story that it was an explosion. I have maintained here that it is improper for us to present an article to the public that stands in stark contrast to the official word that NASA had released.

This leads to the other major deficiency in the article in the Crew survival and return journey section, where no indication is given that there was major objection by Kraft and others to Kranz's decision to continue around the Moon instead of performing a Direct Abort.

My purpose today in re-highlighting these topics is to reiterate my hope that other interested editors will have educated themselves to the point where an informed consensus can be reached so as to have the highest quality article. In past years, I had presented all of my arguments in detail and these are available in the archives. Unless some new facts are brought to light, I consider those arguments to stand as valid and complete.

If for no other purpose, this post today may serve to give a general reader a pointer of this view from the official NASA reports without needing to dig through archives in order to find it.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Tdadamend, your statement, "I consider those arguments to stand as valid and complete" is fallacious; silence doesn't indicate consent or concession. The burden of proof is still on you. And also, your bundling of both topics together in one post doesn't add any weight to the validity of either one. These are separate topics, each of which must be discussed on its own merits (or lack thereof.) Therefore, I have taken the liberty of splitting them into subtopics. Editors, please place your responses appropriately. Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that my position has been in the minority. But being in the minority does not inherently make it wrong. As far as evidence goes, I have painstakingly posted a wealth. And that is well documented in the archives. I created this section to serve as a pointer to all of that, for anyone interested and may have missed it by just looking at the current Talk page without searching the archived pages. As for my reason for bundling both issues into one post, I saw that as the most efficient means of creating this pointer.

While I would agree that these are two issues are distinct, I myself hold short of calling them separate, as they are obviously related. The facts of the first have a major impact on the second. I do agree with your primary point on that. If and when any different editors consider it to be important to pursue either of those issues, it would be good to pursue them in different sections. Thank you for splitting.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Apollo 13 Mailbox at Mission Control.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 8, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-06-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Deke Slayton (center) shows the adapter improvised by Ed Smylie so that carbon dioxide accumulating in Apollo 13's Lunar Module (LM) cabin could be removed using the Command Module's (CM) differently shaped lithium hydroxide canisters. After the spacecraft's oxygen tank exploded on April 13, 1970, the crew – Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise – faced severely limited power, a loss of cabin heat, a shortage of potable water, and a critical excess of carbon dioxide. They spent four days in the "two-person" LM, then returned to the CM and splashed down safely in the Pacific Ocean.

From left to right, members of Slayton's audience are Milton Windler, Bill Tindall, Sigurd Sjoberg, Christopher Kraft, and Robert Gilruth.Photograph: NASA

Archive – More featured pictures...

One thing we don't seem to mention, is the fixes made after the investigation. (We hint at this with the section title "Analysis and response". They removed the stirring fans from the tanks (but kept the heaters), and added a third tank. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

How did they find out what the damage was ? This is important but the article doesn't say how but goes into a lot of detail. So how was all this detail obtained ? Rcbutcher (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean "how did they find the cause of the damage". They formed a theory of the cause, by examining the well-documented history of the tank and the spacecraft, as we mention in the article. What we don't seem to say here, but should, is that they then tested (and confirmed) the theory by recreating the accident with a fuel cell sector rig inside a vacuum chamber. (I remember seeing a video showing the door blowing off.) They also confirmed the thermostats welding themselves shut when given the over-voltage. This must be documented, with a photo, in the Cortwright report. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No. I mean how did they find out, at the time, what the extent and impact of the damage was. They needed to know how much stuff they had lost and what they still had if anything. The article reads as if they magically knew all this right away. In an emergency you're interested primarily in effect, not cause. Would sensors have told them they had lost all the oxygen in the service module ? Could they do a spacewalk to inspect it ? Seems an anlaysis of the communications at the time would give this information. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've been reading the communications log. Seems a combination of visual sighting of gas venting, thrust detected from the venting, and gauges indicating that they were losing, or had already lost, all the oxygen, quickly led them to realise they had lost the service module's power, oxygen and water. "LM lifeboat" is first mentioned at 57:24:12 i.e. 1½ hours after the bang. So it seems by then they had enough information to believe the SM was effectively useless for power, oxygen and water. Why or how the oxygen was lost I assume would have been irrelevant at the time. To me this indicates a structural flaw in the article. It needs to separate out what was known and done at the time, and what was figured out later. I.e. separate the flight from the post-flight investigation. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. We'll try to move some of the details from the accident description down to the investigation section, and say a little more about the telemetry which told the flight controllers of the oxygen loss and the impending death of the electrical system. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reads better now ! It would be good to also have some stuff about what the guys on the ground were doing and discussing, as it appears that's where the mission was saved.Rcbutcher (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace the links following in the category multimedia:

Multimedia

Apollo 13 "Houston, We've Got a Problem" - NASA Space Program & Moon Landings Documentary on YouTube

Complete post-flight press conference, April 21, 1970: Part 1 - Part 2 THESE VIDEOS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ANYMORE ON YOUTUBE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DELETED: THE YOUTUBE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR COPYRIGHT ISSUES AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.

By the correct links:

Apollo 13 "Houston, We've Got a Problem" - Official NASA Documentary from the National Archives of the United Stated of America

Complete Official Post-Flight Press Conference from the National Archives of the United States of America: Part 1 Part 2

THIS SEMI-PROTECTED EDIT REQUEST IS NOT PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL AND HAS BEEN COPIED FOR THE PUBLIC ATTENTION ON INTERNET IN THE CASE OF A LEGAL CONFLICT: A COPY OF THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN SENT TODAY NOVEMBER 19TH 2015 TO NASA HEADQUARTERS' MEDIA DEPARTMENT AND TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU FOR COPYRIGHTS IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE POSITION OF WIKIPEDIA TO TOLERATE USERS WITH PRETENDING OFFICIAL LINKS TO DIRECT THE VIEWERS ON THEIR YOUTUBE CHANNEL. THESE MOVIES AND DOCUMENTS ARE OFFICIAL NASA ARCHIVES AND LIKE THE OTHER APOLLO MISSIONS ON WIKIPEDIA THEY SHOULD BE RE ORIENTATED CORRECTLY. YOUTUBE CHANNELS LIKE "wdtvlive42 - Archive Footage" REPRESENT LEGALLY AN USURPATION OF IDENTITY IF THEY PRETEND TO BE THE OFFICIAL ARCHIVES OF NASA OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. WIKIPEDIA IS RESPONSIBLE OF ANY USURPATION OR FRAUDE IF THESE USERS (AND/OR AMONG THEM, ADMINISTRATORS ON WIKIPEDIA OWNING THESE YOUTUBE CHANNELS TOO!) CONTINUE TO ACCEPT THEIR IMPLICITE USURPATION. SpaceOfficial (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Declined. All NASA publications are public domain, there is no copyright conflict here. And the links you say have been deleted off YouTube for copyright violations are still there and are not copyright violations. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE FROM SPACEOFFICIAL TO CANTERBURY TAIL

THESE NASA ARCHIVES ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN THIS IS WHY WE SENT OFFICIALLY A REQUEST TO NASA HEADQUARTERS' MEDIA DEPARTMENT AND TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU FOR COPYRIGHT. IT IS WORRYING FOR AN ADMIN OF WIKIPEDIA NOT TO READ PROPERLY A MESSAGE. WE NEVER SAID THAT WE ARE NASA.

BECAUSE THESE VIDEOS ARE PÜBLIC DOMAIN THEY SHOULD BE ORIENTED CORRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND NOT TO A PERSONAL YOUTUBE ACCOUNT WHICH, THIS ONE, PRETENDS TO BE OFFICIAL.

BESIDES IF YOU DID CHECK CORRECTLY THE LINKS Part 1 AND Part 2 THERE ARE NO YOUTUBE VIDEOS INDEED BECAUSE THE YOUTUBE ACCOUNT IS CLOSED FOR COPYRIGHTS ISSUS.

THANKS

MESSAGE COPIED REF. WIKIOF2139B2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceOfficial (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Apollo 13. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/articles/pogo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't 21°38′24″S 165°21′42″W southeast of American Samoa? Sure looks like that on maps. 2001:470:8142:1:29E0:B16:FB8F:8AB2 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell from the maps readily available in Wikipedia, but since the longitude for American Samoa is given as 170.7°W, it would appear you are correct. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Did the Service modul also burn in Earth's atmosphere? --RicHard-59 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes; this was the case for all Apollo spacecraft missions. VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Both the Service Module and the Lunar Module burned. The Lunar Module carried a sample of Plutonium which was to have been a power supply for experiments on the Moon. Since they never landed the Plutonium came back to Earth. There was some concern about assuring that the Plutonium wouldn't fall onto a region where it could cause contamination. Measures were taken to direct the Lunar Module to come down over a deep part of the Pacific Ocean. The Plutonium is presumably at the ocean bottom today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The article says "Three days before launch, at the insistence of the Flight Surgeon, Swigert was moved to the prime crew" and cites reference #3. However, the reference doesn't say anything about the flight surgeon making the swap. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed two usages of the proper adjective "American" from the article since the Apollo program is widely known to have been a project of the United States. Clicking on the blue links would inform the rare reader who wouldn't already know that. YoPienso (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request that the article for flight controller Milton Windler be added to the article. 184.166.187.64 (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Nihlus 09:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done The intent of the non-expert request is easily understood, substituting the verb "wikilinked" for "added". JustinTime55 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 13. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040104212104/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo13.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo13.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Apollo 13. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518094130/http://drushel.cwru.edu/apollo13/ to http://drushel.cwru.edu/apollo13/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518094130/http://drushel.cwru.edu/apollo13/ to http://drushel.cwru.edu/apollo13/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518094130/http://drushel.cwru.edu/apollo13/ to http://drushel.cwru.edu/apollo13/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122030124/http://www.apollo13live.com/ to http://www.apollo13live.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609154021/https://mira.hq.nasa.gov/history/ws/hdmshrc/all/main/DDD/17976.PDF to https://mira.hq.nasa.gov/history/ws/hdmshrc/all/main/DDD/17976.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Apollo 13. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606113947/http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ap13index.htm to https://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ap13index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015015612/http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ch5.pdf to https://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ch5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606113947/http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ap13index.htm to https://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ap13index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409192033/http://www.cgpublishing.com/Rpdf/Apollo%20EECOM%20Boeing%20News%201(FL)1.pdf to http://www.cgpublishing.com/Rpdf/Apollo%20EECOM%20Boeing%20News%201(FL)1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

In January 2012, Heritage stated that the sale had been placed on hold after NASA launched an investigation into whether it was the astronaut’s property to sell.[59]

59 Klotz, Irene (January 6, 2012). "NASA Inquiry Stops Apollo 13 Notebook Sale". Discovery News. Silver Spring, MD: Discovery Communications. Retrieved December 31, 2012.

The current link redirects to a page about "RebelMouse vs. WordPress VIP"

current link: http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-inquiry-stops-apollo-13-notebook-sale-120106.html

new link: https://www.seeker.com/nasa-inquiry-stops-apollo-13-notebook-sale-1765582609.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.123.222 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Launch time was 1:13 CST i.e. 1813 UTC not 1913 UTC

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo13.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.131.58 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like the correct conversion to me, but NASA says "Apollo 13 was launched from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39, Pad A, at a Range Zero time of 19:13:00 GMT (02:13:00 p.m. EST) on 11 April 1970". I am unable to explain the apparent discrepancy. Anyone? TJRC (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice it says "Central Standard Time"; CST = UTC - 6 agrees with our Central Time Zone article. Are you assuming Daylight Saving time? I think I remember reading somewhere the switch was made later than April 11 in 1970. Our Daylight saving time article doesn't make it too clear when the change in time switch was made, but says "the first Sunday in April" started in 1987. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't made that mistake, but the site I checked for conversion automatically overrode CST to CDT, apparently because it "knew better". Un-accounting for DST, it works out. (In 1970, DST began on April 20, a week after launch.) TJRC (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Apollo 13 Service Module - AS13-59-8500.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 17, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-04-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The jettisoned Service Module of the Apollo 13 spacecraft, photographed as the beleaguered Command Module was preparing for reentry. The seventh manned mission in the Apollo space program, Apollo 13 was launched on April 11, 1970. It was commanded by James A. Lovell, with John L. "Jack" Swigert and Fred W. Haise as crew. After an oxygen tank exploded on April 13, the Service Module was crippled and a planned lunar landing was aborted. Despite great hardship caused by limited power, loss of cabin heat, shortage of potable water, and the critical need to make makeshift repairs to the carbon dioxide removal system, the crew returned safely to Earth on April 17, 1970.Photograph: NASA

Archive – More featured pictures...

Does the order of sections of this article make a lot of sense? I don't think that people come to the "Apollo 13" article to learn about the backup crew. Obviously it matters, but the crew switch just doesn't seem like the most important thing to talk about first. 128.138.65.108 (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: The merger is complete; let me know if I need to complete any other steps to merge Apollo 13 Mission Operations Team. Kees08 (Talk) 18:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you still need to redirect to the target article. See WP:MERGETEXT. Sandstein 19:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I thought the closer did that. I have finished the merger. Kees08 (Talk) 23:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are some potential additional refs I had found for this, with comments:

• Granath, Bob (17 April 2015). "Members of Apollo 13 Team Reflect on 'NASA's Finest Hour'". NASA.
• Lunsford, Christine (4 April 2017). "Failure Was Not An Option: NASA's Apollo 13 Mission of Survival in Pictures". Space.com.- In addition to the few mentions of the team, at least some of the pictures seem to have been taken during the spaceflight, and they could therefore probably be uploaded to Commons and re-used here if appropriate
• Hollingham, Richard (20 April 2017). "The unsung heroes who prevented the Apollo 13 disaster". www.bbc.com. BBC.- About a movie on the subject.

These should still be of use even if this is merged with Apollo 13. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think an account of Mission Control is necessary to meet reader's expectations in the wake of the film. Lovell's book is helpful there, and I suppose Gene Kranz's.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"A full-dress meeting of NASA brass". No idea what it is meant to convey. NASA is a civilian organisation. The reference to full-dress and and NASA brass certainly implies a military involvement. Can this be reworded, please? WP:FLOWERY. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Fine. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI I am working on taking this article to GA. Doing some serious research. Just letting folks know in case someone was planning the same. Don't want to duplicate work. TarkusAB^talk 18:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: Wehwalt and I plan to pitch in as well; I will begin working on it more towards the end of the month. We will likely format it similar to recently promoted FA articles (Apollo 15 for example) unless you have any issues with that. Kees08 (Talk) 18:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I just read it over. I think while there are sourcing and various other issues, there is a big need for discussion of the launch vehicle, spacecraft, training, and site selection.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: @Kees08: Sorry friends, I'm currently on a Wikibreak. I read through the chapter on Apollo 13 in Kranz's book and I also read maybe half of Lovell's book and took WAYYYY too many notes. You can view them at User:TarkusAB/sandbox/Apollo13. I had to put this project on hold and I'm not sure when I'll be able to tackle it again. I've been busy with real life stuff. Please feel free to take the helm in the meantime. TarkusAB^talk 16:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I looked over your notes. I think they will be a big help.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: It looks like you are starting the rewrite. As you finish sections, let me know and I will go through and copy edit, and add in any information I may have in my notes. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I will. I've got Kranz's book but haven't had time to read it yet. Next week probably before I'm really ready to go through things a bit more. I tried to fill the holes I pointed to above. The real lack now is a public reaction section.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

OK cool! I think there's only one chapter in Kranz's book that goes over 13 so it should be a quick read. I'm going to order Lovell's book so I can read the rest and finish my note taking. I agree on a public reaction section. There's a lot missing there. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I read it recently, I bookmarked a few pages on my Kindle. The series of articles starting with this should also be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the call sign for the LM, Aquarius, I had been avoiding mentioning the Egyptian connection because I did not find any article I could link to to confirm that Aquarius stemmed from Egyptian mythology. Does anyone have any ideas on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I was having the same concern. I'm OK with that. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've got a problem with this. We should stress that Lovell says the name came from Egyptian mythology. If that were really true, there should be a "reliable source" saying where the idea came from. Maybe the best solution is a direct quote from Lost Moon? According to Aquarius (astrology), there is no mention at all of Egyptian mythology; it is attributed to the Greek. I wish that article were better researched, but I'm no expert in the Zodiac. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I would simply refer to "Aquarius, the bringer of water" without attributing it re mythology.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In this section, I've changed:

Finally, the crew jettisoned the lunar module Aquarius using the above procedure worked out at the University of Toronto, leaving the command module Odyssey to begin its lone reentry through the atmosphere.

To:

The command module Odyssey was the only part of the spacecraft capable of reentry through the atmosphere. All three crew were therefore inside it when they jettisoned the lunar module Aquarius using the above procedure worked out at the University of Toronto, in final preparation for reentry.

The reason for my change is that I have a friend who was mistakenly convinced by the original sentence that it was lunar module Aquarius that landed the astronauts in the sea. She was mislead because of the words 'leaving' and 'lone' in the original sentence. They can be taken to suggest that the astronauts left (i.e. exited) Odyssey, rather than the intended meaning (that Odyssey was the only remaining operational portion of the spacecraft.)

--Peter Ells (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I added File:Universal Studios Hollywood 2012 58.jpg to the article, but it seems like it should be copyrighted per the same rationale we had at the Spiderman page. Or would this fall more under cosplay..? Not sure how models of real hardware that were used in movies are considered for copyright. Kees08 (Talk) 15:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Movie_props - nonfunctional replicas are typically copyrightable. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, seems pretty cut and dry. I removed it from the article and nominated it for deletion. Kees08 (Talk) 18:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sp 'substituded' should be 'substituted' 4th paragraph under 'Review Board'. 87.242.252.18 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Under successful experiments, we have:

Apollo 13's S-IVB third stage was the first to be purposely crashed into the lunar surface, as an active seismic experiment which measured its impact with a seismometer left on the lunar surface by the crew of Apollo 12. (The S-IVBs from the previous four lunar missions were sent into solar orbit by ground control after use.)

Under spacecraft location, we have:

The Apollo 13 S-IVB with its Instrument Unit was guided to crash onto the lunar surface on April 14, providing a signal for the Apollo 12 Passive Seismic Experiment.

We could easily include all the information in one section or the other, but that would leave one of the sections incomplete. Not sure what to do with this, is it fine as it is? Kees08 (Talk) 14:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

We can shorten it and just mention it in passing. We also mention the S-IVB crash a couple of times earlier on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, I have the impact coordinates from NSSDC that we can include as well. Kees08 (Talk) 06:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We used UTC dates in the Apollo 11 article. Here we say it impacted on April 14, but it is actually April 15 UTC time. Suppose we should change it to that? Kees08 (Talk) 07:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I take it this is consistent with the other Apollo articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know. There is some RfC somewhere in the WikiProject Spaceflight archives (with a pretty low turnout, and it was awhile ago, but meh). Kees08 (Talk) 14:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

We should possibly say both use UT and either US Eastern or Central time, but it's not something I greatly care about.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It's generally been our policy throughout spaceflight to set times by UTC. We can add local times when/where relevant (e.g. ET for a launch) or Central (Houston) for other mission events, but I don't see any point in giving a US time zone for the S-IVB crash, since it happened probably without most Americans noticing it.

This is sourced to the entire accident report. I've been looking a lot at the report and I'm having some trouble finding this. Can anyone pin it down?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I know darned well it's there; I remember a still frame from a movie of the test door blowing off (published in Popular Science). We ought to be able to use the photo for illustration. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The test is documented in Appendix F: Part F3.7 FULL-SCALE SIMULATED OXYGEN TANK FIRE, pages F-48–F-49. That should satisfy the citation for now, at least. Unfortunately the photos in this section are all of tank hardware, and don't show the door blowing off. Not sure where we can find the high-speed film, or a still frame. I'll dig a bit more for the dorr blow-off photo when I get a chance. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the good stuff starts on F-70. I'm not sure "confirmed the theory" is the proper language though, nor is "exactly as happened in the flight", because no one saw what happened in the flight.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I found the door blowing off image and have inserted it. A better copy would be good, and I'll keep looking for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Almost done fixing up what is already there. For the BBC show, I would like to find more TV shows it was featured in, and say something along the lines of Apollo 13 was featured in a range of television shows, including [notable TV show] and [notable TV show]. Then we can keep the fact it was featured in TV shows without generating a giant list of them. Other things we can possible include:

• Movie
  • Apollo 13:To the Edge and Back
  • 13 Factors That Saved Apollo 13
• TV
  • The True Story, Apollo 13 (on the film, so should be in that article)
  • Apollo 13 (National Geographic)
  • Highway through Hell (History Channel)
  • The Lost Tapes (Smithsonian Channel)
  • Mysteries of Apollo (Science Channel)
  • Apollo 13: The Real Story (Dateline)

Note, these are just my notes on things that can be included in the article. I am not saying all of them should be (or that none should be).

There are also countless podcasts on it. I don't think we have podcasts listed in any other mission article, not to say that we should not. If Wehwalt or anyone else wants to weigh in, feel free. Probably working on this later today. Kees08 (Talk) 18:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, overlooked this. My thought on the matter is we are not there to be a complete catalog of programs that have featured Apollo 13. If we touch on the high spots, that's enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Can someone find something authoritative on this? Some sources seem to say that William R. Pogue was a member of the support crew along with Lousma and Brand (for example Orloff & Harland, p. 362).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(if you want a tl;dr, look at the last bullet point) A newspaper article from that time specifically names the other two, but not Pogue. He is mentioned earlier as attending a geology trip.

• Brand and Lousma
• has Pogue on 7, 11, and 14
• has Pogue on 7, 13, and 14
• (page 271) has Pogue on 7, 11, 13, and 14
• Oral history Page 12-15 has Apollo 7, 12-22 he talks about Apollo 11 and Apollo 14. About 14, he says "Eventually I was taken off of 14, the support crew, and put on a phantom backup crew, they called it, for 16." (page 12-25). At the bottom of page 12-25 the interviewer asks Pogue if he was involved in Apollo 13, and Pogue replied: "POGUE: No, except I did a couple of sims, I think, before I was displaced by some of the people that had more experience than I did. I was going through simulations. But eventually Ken got involved in it, of course."

Looks like based on his own oral history that he was definitively not on the Apollo 13 support crew. Sorry for overcommunicating, when doing something like this I try to include every source I look at in case anyone has the same question in the future, they can look at the same information I did. Kees08 (Talk) 22:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. What's the best source to use?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

SP-4029 should be the definitive source, but since it contains that inaccuracy, I would use it with a footnote saying something like 'Sources indicate Pogue was a member of the support crew, however in his oral history he states he was not a member of the support crew' (wow I phrased that terribly), and source that to the oral history. Kees08 (Talk) 22:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to copy/paste the citation, I made an edit containing it at Apollo 7 diff. Kees08 (Talk) 06:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I will. I'll also work up a game plan of what I think needs doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Pogue meant that he was not involved much in the Apollo 13 recovery effort in that quote. His statement about being displaced after a couple of simulations seems to speak to that, as does his mention of Mattingly, who very famously was doing simulations. Because he's mentioned in the press release as assigned to the support crew and I don't see a change later than that.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Page 251 of Deke! has the support crew for 13 as Brand, Lousma, and Kerwin. The support team of Apollo 14 as Chapman, McCandless, Pogue. Kees08 (Talk) 19:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This reference which is fairly official only lists Lousma and Brand. But then, they list only two members of the Apollo 15 support crew, omitting Joe Allen.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I would love to find the real answer to this, but as an encyclopedia, I think all we can do is awkwardly explain that some sources say Kerwin and some say Pogue. I will do that tonight or tomorrow if you have no issues with it. Kees08 (Talk) 02:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Generally, I'm beginning to hope that the article is starting to be in good shape for review. There's a few things need citing, and something could be said about Apollo 14 going to Far Mauro, but I'm thinking we could start to think about putting it on the path to TFA next April.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Still probably some good sources to include, like SP-4801. Maybe list it at peer review? I will keep prodding at the article as time allows. Kees08 (Talk) 01:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I did some flying this week and managed to get past the Apollo 13 portion of Deke!, which should have good information to include as well. I will try to get those two sources incorporated this weekend. Kees08 (Talk) 01:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, swell. That sounds good. No immediate hurry. Hope you enjoyed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Been a very enjoyable read so far. What do you think of citation 132, any better we can do than that? Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I found this version of the towing bill. I expect that the close-up is behind a paywall. Cheers, Overjive (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A second attempt at a link to the towing bill. Overjive (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I got the bill from NYT. If I'm gonna upload it, what would the licensing be? EEng 00:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Either pre-1978 no copyright, or that it is so simple that no copyright attaches to it. After all, in the final analysis, it's an invoice. Some of the prose needs to be cited, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK now? I figure once the flurry of editing dies down it will be time to nom for peer review. I suspect it will get a fair amount of interest there and at FAC. The article gets a lot of hits on a daily basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Was it you that had the note that Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13 page numbers lined up with the 2000 version of the book? Because I am not seeing that version on Worldcat, I see a 1997 version. Kees08 (Talk) 21:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

On that note, the ISBN for Kranz matches up with the 2009 version, do you know what version our page numbers match? Kees08 (Talk) 21:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have the Kindle edition of Lovell's book but it lacks page numbers so I've been holding off on using it. It just has location numbers. As for Kranz, mine just says "copyright 2000", it does have page numbers. It's also for Kindle.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the first one I am having trouble with because they changed the name of the book. Also I just found an interesting source on astronaut science training, it may be applicable to this mission, otherwise might be useful for David Scott or related articles. Kees08 (Talk) 00:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

THere's more that can be said about the geology training. Lovell and Haise were the first, as I recall, to use Lee Silver (some of that's in the article on 15) but I'm wary of straining the reader's patience. The discussion may be better in 15 because that's where they actually used it effectively.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I've read part of the source and it seems worth including a paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It was me that added that citation. There is a 2000 version, but it was just titled Apollo 13 not Lost Moon. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Ref 147 will pass muster. It is a forum.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked at this in more depth today, and did not find any satisfying answers. A source says that they paraded the invoice around the office, delirious from all the hours awake, and made many copies. Also said that NASA didn't think it was funny. Was having issues finding RS'es that didn't just parrot the often-heard portions of the story. If you would like a good version of the invoice, there are two that were up on Heritage Auctions (they both looked different..) version 1 and version 2. I think we give it undue weight; it is a cute story, but there is a lot to talk about in the article already. If we keep it though, this newspaper source should help. Heck, have more one two three four. Interesting how the perpetrator of the prank changed with time. This clipping might be far enough from the date, but not too far, to be accurate. Who knows, maybe they both sent a copy, one later at an anniversary or something... last clipping. Anyways I am tired and not thinking straight, let me know what you think we should do with that paragraph. Kees08 (Talk) 06:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd cut the whole thing really but I'll cut it back a bit for now. The copy in The New York Times does not mention the confidentiality bit by the way so my guess is that came on later.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the April 18, 1970, articles, so I think it was in the original. I suppose it is best we keep it in the article, but well sourced, otherwise someone will add it back later with cruddy sources. Kees08 (Talk) 06:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The NYT is also from that date and illustrates part of it if you go to the actual reproduction of the page (which you may not be able to do, I have subscriber access). Possibly multiple versions were circulated. If that's the most we have to discuss, I think we're ready for peer review and unless there is objection I'll start the process going.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I was looking at the preview but do not have access to the large version, almost finally subscribed to see it..not today though. I have a little bit more reference work to do, and also could you respond to my Pogue suggestion above (to just say the situation that some sources say one astronaut while other sources say the other). Maybe aim for nominating for peer review Saturday? I have started requests for higher quality and color photos to JSC by the way, but the contact I have is on vacation. Hopefully that pulls through. Kees08 (Talk) 07:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I sent you a screenshot including the invoice. Saturday is fine. I haucve no objection to the Pogue thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the invoice. Sounds good on Pogue, although it is annoying, not sure how else to deal with it as an encyclopedia. For the tank test image, I am seeing about creating a gif out of the three frames we have. That might make the sequence more clear. Otherwise, there exists a nice image of a fused thermal switch. Kees08 (Talk) 07:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Re the thermal switch, I don't think it would mean much to the ordinary reader, tanks and exploding panels are probably better.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I didn’t notice all this discussion. I uploaded the invoice and added it to the article. Maybe we should have a separate article re tax returns, towing bills, golf swings, etc. EEng 17:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to firm up that bit near the end. Do we know how this originated? In the film, Kranz says, "With all due respect, sir, I believe this is gonna be our finest hour." Did he say that in real life? Does it come from there?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Could be when Lovell was complaining about the (original) Apollo 13 movie? Clipping. Will keep digging. Seems to be plenty of hits on newspapers.com prior to 1995 though. Kees08 (Talk) 17:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 11 as finest hour, Apollo 13, barely mentioned. That's all I am really seeing. Looks like after his comment on the movie was when it was repeated more often. Which is obviously OR, but meh. Kees08 (Talk) 17:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Did it, in fact "swing" around the Moon? Isn't there a preferable alternative using a slightly more Newtonian slant? Leaky caldron (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Translunar orbit

There's far too much general impression (not this article) that Apollo went to the Moon in some sort of straight line, then the lunar injection burn converted that into an orbit. But in fact it was in an orbit already, one encompassing both Earth and Moon. Although that's not a long-term stable orbit (the Moon is moving, for one thing) it is an orbit. It also offers the possibility for an immediate abort return based on a free-return trajectory. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it wasn't in an "orbit" as commonly understood by most people (two-body problem). It was actually in a three-body figure-eight path (like our illustration) which people don't commonly call an "orbit". And the "lunar injection burn" (? that term was never used by NASA in this context; and I think you're conflating the course correction burn with translunar injection, which occurred without incident earlier in the flight) did not change the fact it was in a figure 8; it just changed the plane of the eight so that when it swung back, it would be on the proper path to reentry when it got back to Earth. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I will admit that subsection title gave me some thought and if anyone has a better idea, I suggest they simply go ahead with it. As for the direct abort, it was considered and rejected and I think we're OK on explaining that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe looped? About half way in. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't know if I came to the party too late, but I don't think there's anything at all wrong with "swing" as it stands. That's a commonly used word in this context, and it's not at all technically inaccurate. One of our desdirata is accessibility, and "swing" is accessible. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Looping" has been substituted per the NASA source and is technically more correct. Ultimately a loop - 360 degrees - was performed, albeit not in the form of a full lunar orbit. "Swing", to me, implies a too and fro, back & forth motion. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "to swing by" a location is commonly used (at least on this side of The Pond), without invoking the playground equipment. The verb is also defined (Merriam Webster) as "to cause to move vigorously through a wide arc or circle" (transitive) or "to move in or describe a circle or arc" (intransitive). JustinTime55 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Haise tries to rest in the frigid spacecraft" ...I think that's Lovell, no? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So it seems. I've changed it. I've also asked the graphics lab to look at the image to see if they can brighten it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not a good editor and have rudimentary software, but I tried two versions File:AS13-62-8990 (21985492451) (edited V1).png (basic crop, auto-adjusted colors and sharpened), File:AS13-62-8990 (21985492451) (edited V2).png (reduced red, lower brightness, lower gamma, higher contrast). I won't be offended if you keep the graphics lab request in. Kees08 (Talk) 23:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

They did it before I had a chance to decide ... which is preferred now?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am biased towards my version, but I imagine the argument would be that I made the contrast too high. I am indifferent though, select whichever you feel is best! Kees08 (Talk) 05:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually I am just confused at this point, the thumbnail version on the page looks nice, but it looks different than the full-screen version, and no amount of ctrl+f5 and purging cache seems to fix it. So I really leave it up to you, since I am having trouble even comparing the figures properly.. Kees08 (Talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I like your version 1 the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Kees08 - your confusion is mostly because you used png. There is a known issue with Mediawiki and 'blurring' photographic thumbnails of png images. See and phab:T192744. I put a different version by Hohum (which I think is the best to date) in the article. You can crop that, or make a jpg of yours for thumbnailing purposes - whichever you prefer. Incidentally, I think yours is good, but you've gone just a little far with the "brightening" and washed it out a bit, increasing the noise - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder... If you'd like me to do anything with any of that you can just ping me and I'd be happy to. -- Begoon 02:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The editing seems to have died down. Someone I saw wanted to discuss image format, but that seems easy enough to resolve. I was thinking maybe we should open this to peer review. Yes, we have almost 7 months until the anniversary but better sooner than later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well if you found my recent edits agreeable (can't remember how I even wandered into this article, and I've just been poking around at random) and you'd like me to do one of my patented cut, squeeze, and trims top to bottom, I'll be happy to do that but I'll be mostly tied up through Saturday 9/28. If you don't want it, that's fine too. EEng 01:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course, your editing would be very welcome. The peer review can wait a bit. It was you, I see, who mentioned image formatting.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, I have been busy lately but will try to address comments at peer review and still work on the article as time allows. Great work on the article by all parties so far. Kees08 (Talk) 07:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on switching the mailbox photo for this one? I think the one we have is a quality photo of the astronaut, but we might want to show off the mailbox more. Kees08 (Talk) 17:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I would consider keeping it if only because we have very little that focuses on Swigert.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Getting back to peer review, perhaps after this weekend? We're six months from the anniversary, and that isn't much more than time for a peer review, a FAC, and a second if the first one fails, plus enough time to nominate at TFA. The processes are working slow these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Kees08 (Talk) 04:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Want me to keep going? EEng 18:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there has to be some sort of chronological order to things and that we have to give attention in its place to what happens before liftoff.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying. Chronological order is the most obvious order for any narrative, but not always best one. Naturally I'll understand if people don't find my reorganization ideal; I got more into it than I'd meant to before waiting for reaction from my esteemed fellow editors. EEng 04:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see your recent edits. EEng 04:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've stopped now. Give me a chance to read it over as it stands now. I agree there should not be too many previews before we get to the movie, lol, but I think some of it is necessary background to the flight.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to what we have now. A more artful place for the flight directors would be nice, though. I think Kranz, especially, should be introduced fairly early on. And maybe the landing site could be compacted into a paragraph and inserted elsewhere. Probably other things too. Don't take the fact I moved some above the flight as a reflection on what you've done. Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There's going to be some continuity issues and some need for moving links to what is now first usage but let's see where this settles down. Done for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

We can revisit this later, but I still feel there's too much detailed material about training and experiments and such before the article gets off the ground, so to speak -- in other words before the takeoff and accident. Think of it this way, at least with respect to the experiments: if the mission had gone as planned, we'd probably describe the trip to the moon, then the descent and landing, and then discuss the experiments in the context of their being put in place; we probably wouldn't talk about them before takeoff. Sometimes I think, Well, the reader can use the TOC to jump to the part they want, but other times I think that many or most readers won't think to do that, will simply start reading, and lose interest. The "logical", chronological order isn't always the best. But maybe I'll feel differently later.

Thanks for your kind compliments. I'll keep working forward as time permits (and there may be interruptions -- I have to be in the mood and there will be distractions for the next several days) and by the time I get to the end I'll have a better feel for things overall. EEng 21:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is something of a conflict. Many of the things in those sections are referenced in the flight section, they were going to Fra Mauro, the S-IVB impact, etc, and if they aren't mentioned until later, it leads to issues.. But I also see the importance of getting to the point quickly. Well, you've heard my concerns, I'll wait and see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Quick facts External image ...

External image

S70-17646 Apollo 13 Service Module and Lunar Module as entering Earth's atmosphere ("An unidentified airline passenger snapped these bright objects, believed to be the Apollo 13 Service Module (SM) and Lunar Module (LM) as they entered Earth's atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean on April 18, 1970. The aircraft, an Air New Zealand DC-8 was midway between the Fiji Islands (Nandi Island to be specific) and Auckland, New Zealand, when the photograph was taken.")

Close

NASA has this image, taken from a passenger jet, of what is believed to be the LM and SM reentering. It might be worth adding (not the sort of image you see a lot of), but the reentry section already has a couple images; adding another may overcrowd it. TJRC (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What you see in the image is so nondescript that I think this borders on fancruftiness. I doubt we can get licensing/copyright issues cleared up enough to actually include it in the article (assuming we'd even want to), and readers clicking an External Image box will, I think, be disappointed. EEng 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify; I only used {{external media}} as a convenience on this talk page, because it's not yet on Wikipedia or Commons; I don't proposed using the template in the article. I propose uploading and including the image. TJRC (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It already has been uploaded, as File:Apollo 13 Service Module and Lunar Module as entering Earth's atmosphere Download.jpg. It was in the gallery and I've removed it. There is plainly an issue with the copyright as stated, as NASA did not take it, a passenger did. Even if the passenger is truly unknown (rather than just "we can't find it on a web search"), 49 years is a short time for the image to fall into the public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hate to be a Grinch but... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Apollo_13_Service_Module_and_Lunar_Module_as_entering_Earth%27s_atmosphere_Download.jpg . BTW, I'll respond to your Talk comments in the next day or two -- traveling and don't have much brain focus available. Though I think you probably get exasperated sometimes I think together you and I (and others, of course) are making the article much better. EEng 03:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably, but it would help to not be stepping on toes. I was working on this article for months, and it's annoying to see text choices I made (I hope) carefully, cast aside as "ce" with a gap of two minutes since the previous edit, if that. Different isn't necessarily better, and when text that no one has expressed any fault with is cast aside, and more detail on the LiOH canisters is added, and detail is taken away on the decision on the PC+2 burn, and there's no explanations, and there's a constant need to deal with tags and it goes on for weeks and no end in sight, then I do question the manner in which it is being carried out. I feel the article at worst needs polishing, not the semi-rewrite that is going on without adequate reference to the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. No fault need be expressed in order for text to bear improvement, I'm startled at an experienced editor talking of "stepping on toes", and I have no idea who wrote what. Most changes are meant to simply sharpen the exposition, usually by re-presenting no more and no fewer facts in more economical wording, though occasionally dropping details here and there. (For an important part of my writing philosophy, see WP:Principle of Some Astonishment.) None of that requires reference to the sources, though I should repeat that I've obtained essentially all the sources, and plan to use them for any factual issues that arise which you're unable to resolve. (I have read Lovell's book, and there are problems with using it as a fact source -- more on that another day.)

If you don't feel something's an improvement, change it back, and you should certainly do that where (as happened recently) I accidentally did change the meaning instead of just the exposition. But surely you know that few are the writers whose prose isn't much improved by a look-over by someone else, and there has never been a writer (except perhaps George Orwell) whose work isn't at least somewhat improved thereby.

If I add an {explain} or {clarify} tag, it's because as a reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-informed nonspecialist (me) thinks that further explanation or clarification either is really necessary, or at would benefit the typical reader. Someone steeped in the subject sometimes loses that perspective, but by the same token I assume that in most cases you'll be able to address such things; we've had several rounds of this as I've been working my way through and I think it's worked quite well.

EEng 06:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with words being edited, whoever first inserted them. You will note that I have preferred reinserting text to reversions (although I have done some) thus accepting much of what you have done, though I have not always agreed with them. But due to the pace of "ce" edit summaries. I am saying that not enough care is being taken to see if they are improvements, or if it's just "playing telephone" with the words. Can you not at least use hidden comments rather than maintenance tags?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I realize you've accepted most of what I've done, which is why I was somewhat startled by your, er, outburst. I assure you I take great care, and the pace has nothing to do with it -- some people make a large number of small edits, while others make a smaller number of larger edits, at a more stately pace. (It is my experience that whichever approach one employs , there's always someone saying that the other is the more civilized one.) I'm happy to use hidden comments if you'll be sure to keep an eye out for them so you can resolve them where possible. EEng 07:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not say "most of". I said "much of". I am glad to hear you will take care to avoid further discrepancies. Regarding Lovell's book, I'll wait and hear what you have to say, but probably you are right, there are mistakes in it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've always taken care to avoid discrepancies. What I said I'd do is start using <! --> comments instead of tags, if you'll be on the alert for them for potential resolution. EEng 07:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I try always to look at diffs of articles on my watchlist. There was some mention of wrapping this up in a timely fashion, and also the question of instances like the Gilruth one.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Little things we might want to revisit:

• Section order -- defer experiments etc. to later? EEng

  The section is by its nature introductory to the flown mission, and throughout the Apollo FAs we tend to put such sections before the flight. I think the fact that the early part of the article has been shortened is a good thing but the reader, if they care to read the whole article, has to understand that there are some shorts before the main feature. I think the preparation for the mission that did not happen that way will hold the reader's interest enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  I was looking again at the Experiments section and I think I could agree with most of that being put near the end, with possibly some of the info about the S-IVB being kept up front.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• When was formal determination that mission was aborted? EEng

  I've not been able to discover this, and I've looked.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  This was one of the things Ron Howard essentially got right: the mission (i.e. the landing) was aborted at the time they were ordered to shut down the two failing fuel cells (in the futile hope it would stop the O2 leak), as mission rules strictly prohibited landing w/o redundant fuel cells. I'm sure this is borne out in RS such as Lovell/Kluger and Chaikin. I would also expect it to be mentioned in NASA sources such as the Mission Report and the accident Review Board report. (Actually, I'm surprised that's not already covered in the article.) JustinTime55 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  You're talking about the fuel cell reactant valves which once closed could not be opened again without ground support equipment, and the mission rules forbade going into lunar orbit without having three operative fuel cells. I've read that too, but it's not in the accident report, which says (p. 3-26) "

At approximately 55:55 g.e.t. (10:08 p.m.e.s.t.), the crew reported an undervoltage alarm on the CSM main bus B. Pressure was rapid- ly lost in SM oxygen tank no. 2 and fuel cells 1 and 3 current dropped to zero due to loss of their oxygen supply. A decision was made to abort the mission. The increased load on fuel cell 2 and decaying pressure in the remaining oxygen tank led to the decision to activate the LM, power down the CSM, and use the LM systems for life support." It looks to me (and I'm not technical) that they would not have asked the crew to shut them down except if an abort decision had already been made.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've again tried to make it clear that it was 95 seconds from the time the fans were turned on until the bang. I can see no purpose in fuzzing the issue. I don't know how long the fans were turned on for, and the 95 seconds runs from the time it was turned on, which was probably the point of no return. I would ask for talk page discussion on this point if it is still felt that "95 seconds later" with the last event mentioned being turning the fans off serves the reader well.--01:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the 95 seconds, I am reluctant to revert, but I do feel fairly strongly that is an important figure we should have before the reader, as the amount of time between the event that triggered the explosion, and the explosion, and that we should not fuzz it with "later", which introduces an unnecessary ambiguity..--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree--I say go for it. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Similarly, I don't understand why it is necessary it is necessary to delete the explanation of why Liebergot missed the worrying signs (the electrical readings until they were deleted were in the passage about Haise coming out of the LM). To delete it leaves him with the mistake about the instrumentation and while that is closer to the way he was portrayed in the film, he and the backroom had valid reasons to be focusing on Tank #1. Since the article on Apollo 13 Mission Operations Team was merged into this one, I think we need to include some focus on what was going on downstairs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Regarding the computer resetting, I'm still looking for info on whether this was the AGC or something else.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  You've resolved that now. EEng 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not as cleanly as I would like. I'd also like to resolve the other issues. I feel I took some care with the phrasing there, and I do feel strongly about those matters. If we are trying to remove ambiguity, it seems needless to introduce some.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Luckily I don't feel strongly on these issues so no violence will be needed to resolve them. I need to go nighty-night soon so I may have to come back to the 95 seconds and Liebergot, but first let's do the computer. Why is the resolution less clean than you'd like? EEng 03:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  As you've raised the question I'd prefer a source to say the AGC just to make sure we aren't missing something. I've restored the substance of what I objected to being omitted, pending any discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, I thought you said it was definitely the AGC. If you have access to I would expect it would tell us what other digital devices, if any, were in the Apollo mix. If not, help me remember to pick it up at the library.

  As to the other stuff, let's just let the list accumulate, I'll press on, and we can come back to the list later. OK? EEng 19:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't have access to that right now but am outside the US at present so that may be it. Yes, please go ahead and we can return to whatever needs resolving. Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I have access to a different AGC book, someone is bringing it in tomorrow. Kees08 (Talk) 19:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

From page III-8 of the Mission Operations Report, "At 55+55, the Guidance Officer indicated that he had observed a Command Module Computer hardware restart."--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

But that doesn't tell us whether that's just another name for the AGC. At Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Operation there's talk of a "Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) on the Saturn V booster instrumentation ring" and an "Abort Guidance System", but these don't sound like what's being referred to in the quote. (For one thing, from their descriptions one guesses they'd be inactive at this point in the mission.) EEng 19:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@EEng and Wehwalt: Did some reading of the book that I have and some other sources, and it seems like there was a computer in the command module and a computer in the lunar module. Text from our own AGC page says Each Moon flight carried two AGCs, one each in the command module and the lunar module. So it seems it was definitely the AGC, and based on their location would be the one in the command module, but that is probably too much detail. Kees08 (Talk) 06:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

But are you seeing something that says these were the only two "computers". Computer is a fluid term. Just by chance (for unrelated reasons) I was reading some material from the period on space vehicle telemetry; the equipment that took all the voltage levels, tank pressures, and whatnot, then multiplexed them and encoded them for transmission -- I wouldn't be at all surprised if they referred to that gizmo as a computer. We need something definite telling us that this thing that reset was the (an) AGC, or something else.

I apologize for my inactivity recently but I've been in California which, you know, is now a third-world country with power available only some of the time. Going home this week, I think. EEng 11:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems a relatively minor point and it should not impact other things going forward.. If it is necessarily I will ask the Apollo experts on Quora, where I sometimes participate. Given that the GUIDO reported it, it seems likely. It is my thought that this only needs to be mentioned as evidence of the profound effects that the accident had on the CSM, but if you feel more is needed, I will wait for you to review sources (I already looked at mine and they didn't nail it down.)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• We jump between references to the LM, CM, SM, and CSM without doing much to help the reader understand what these are and their relationships. (Let’s leave this to later.) Also, I think I'm going to propose that we say LM, CM, etc instead of Odyssey and Aquarius. EEng 11:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think the incident with Mission Control checking the math is worth keeping if only because it's in the film, and it speaks to the care the astronauts took to avoid mistakes. What is the difficulty with the surge tank?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  As usual I don't feel strongly on the checking, and we'll review this list before it's all done. Parking a diff here: (this doesn't actually address the concerns in the removed notes)

  I've looked at that and hopefully answered the question.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  The difficulty with the surge tank is... what's a surge tank? I have a general idea, actually, but most readers won't. EEng 16:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  I have a source that explains it but is it worth the explanation in an article where I gather we're trying to focus on the essentials? The reader may be satisfied with "it's a tank that they'll need at the end".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  I envisioned something simple like blah blah surge tank (a small intermediate tank in the craft's oxygen delivery system) or something like that. However, following your link I see there's more to all this tank stuff than meets the eye, so let's leave this on the giant pile for now with everything else.

  I should say that I spent an evening at the library earlier in the week and I've now got copies of all the key sources used in the article that aren't on line, plus some new ones. On the other hand, I'll be traveling for a few weeks without those sources, so for now I'll just continue copyediting without the sources. EEng 03:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• In this version the seismometer experiment is mentioned four times (search seismometer and something) and I think these should be trimmed/consolidated somehow. EEng 00:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  I would agree but right now we need to see where "Experiments" winds up then can play with consolidating.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. Remember, this list is primarily meant to be a place to park issues for later consideration (unless of course you feel particularly moved to engage a particular issue now). EEng 02:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Confused about the temporal relationship between PC+2 and alignment check -- check that paragraph later. EEng 06:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Added a bit to the parts list of the LiOH canisters, need to check and source that. EEng 07:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of adding unsourced material and then adding cn tags. I'd like to see the use of maintenance tags entirely avoided, it's ill-advised for an article that gets thousands of hits a day. Also, after adding by request information to justify inclusion of the meeting over what PC+2 burn should be used, it's a bit disheartening to see the article edited to remove any mention of the meeting. Is there much further that really needs to be done? I felt the article was in very good shape and was ready for general review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Further, I would caution to take care to have fidelity to the sources. I use as an example the alignment technique used prior to the MCC on the way back from the Moon. The source, here, says "All during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Earth-orbit programs, that was a technique we had used, but never on a return from the Moon." The language we had, "a technique used on NASA's earth-orbit missions but never on the way back from the Moon." was changed here to "a technique used on NASA's earth-orbit missions but not Moon missions." I see a change of meaning, since the technique could have been used on the way to the Moon (yes, it probably wasn't, but that's not the point).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the article is in good enough shape to go through FAC. Unless there are significant objections, I'll start the nomination over the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

With continuing apologies for being largely MIA for the past few weeks, I suggest you start with some other form of peer review, or maybe GA as a dry run. My major concerns are balance and organization, but I've been away from it too long to say more than that. EEng 06:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Haven't been paying as much attention to this as I should and trust your judgment on the path forward, regardless of what it is. Kees08 (Talk) 07:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of seeking a path forward, given the circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

We are a month and a half since we put asking for reviews on hold, and I don't know how far ahead we are.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Apollo 13#Training and preparation section, please correct the wiki-link for "Lee Silver". Currently it is wiki-linked to Lee Silver, which is just a redirect to the article Lee M. Silver; that article is about a biologist at Princeton University, which we do not want. What we really want is a link to the article about the Caltech geologist Leon Silver (who also goes by the name "Lee"), so please change [[Lee Silver]] to [[Leon Silver|Lee Silver]]. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. On it now. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

“Apollo 13 was the seventh crewed mission in the Apollo space program and the third meant to land on the Moon. The craft was launched...” Should we clarify here that Apollo 13 is the name of both the mission and craft. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Well, it was the call sign when they were all in the CM anyway. I'd have to check to see if it was when they were all in the LM.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought the craft were called Odyssey and Aquarius. VQuakr (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the craft as a whole.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on promotion to FA!

However, I'm sorry I never noticed back in September the systematic removal of the words "exploded" and "explosion." See this edit and the following; I didn't find them all. This whitewashes the event, which is what NASA originally attempted to do in a prudent effort to avoid alarming the public. Maintaining that stiff upper lip, however, creates an inaccurate rendering of the event. There was a loud bang and the door blew off; this pallid little sentence doesn't fully describe the severity of the event: "Accidental ignition of damaged wire insulation inside the oxygen tank as it was being routinely stirred caused it to fail, venting its contents to space."

The good-faith edit that changed "exploded" to "failed" carries the edit summary, NASA doesn't use this term, I understand. But NASA does, often and repeatedly. Here are 6 of many official NASA publications that use the words:

• "...the Apollo 13 astronauts got their first view of the damage that had been caused by the explosion."
• "Two days later, with the spacecraft well on its way to the Moon, an oxygen tank exploded..."
• "Due to debris from the explosion, the navigation system was unreliable."
• "I did, of course, occasionally think of the possibility that the spacecraft explosion might maroon us in an enormous orbit about the Earth" (Lovell's words)
• "a fault in the electrical system of one of the Service Module's oxygen tanks produced an explosion that caused both oxygen tanks to fail and also led to a loss of electrical power..."
• "...no one knew whether the service module had been structurally weakened by the explosion." \
  

YoPienso (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Changed after some thought to "explosively failed". Page 4-40 of the review report says that there was most likely a failure at the pressure vessel closure, which flooded the tank dome, which failed (as designed) through a rupture disk. The review report never uses the word "explosion" That's really what I'm relying on. I certainly don't want to contradict Lovell about his own spacecraft, but can you show what you said about NASA not using the term at first to avoid alarming the public?.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

See page 21 of Henry S. F. Cooper Jr.'s 1995 book, Thirteen: The Apollo Flight That Failed, from Johns Hopkins UP.

Also, a dialog between Spacecraft Project Engineer Don Arabian and a man from Grumman about a minor explosion in a battery in the Aquarius a couple of days after the crippling explosion of the oxygen tank reveals the public relations mindset that governed official word choices. The story starts on p. 266 of Apollo 13 by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger; I've copied this from p. 269:

"Then there wasn't an explosion?" the Grumman man asked.

"Oh, there was an explosion," Arabian said.

"But nothing actually . . . blew up," the Grumman man amended.

"Sure it did," Arabian said, chewing pizza. "The battery blew up."

"But do we have to actually use that term? I mean, the battery's still operating. People get awfully excited when you say something blew up."

"What term would you suggest?"

The Grumman man said nothing.

You can peek inside to read it for yourself at Amazon or as a Google book. Also, in the prologue on p. 5 is a discussion about how NASA at first down-played the danger faced by the astronauts and how they typically avoided using the word "emergency," preferring "glitch."

Regarding "explosively failed," I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but find the words infelicitous.

I would caution against relying mainly on one primary source; Wikipedia prefers multiple reliable secondary sources, all of which (I think, but certainly most of which) call a spade a spade and an explosion an explosion. YoPienso (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

At a hasty grab, Orloff and Harland, in their book, avoid calling it an explosion. I do have the book you cite and remember the passage, but it's at least WP:SYNTH for us to say that because NASA did this public relations word choice for other things, that therefore the Review Board refrained from calling it an explosion. I did not find, otherwise, that the Review Board minced words.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As a general comment without looking into this closely, I have never liked the word exploded. What does the term exploded mean? How violently does it need to rupture? Detonated and deflagrated are precise terms, ruptured/burst is a precise(ish) term, but exploded could mean just about anything. I work with things that can explode in my day job regularly, for reference. Though just about anything can explode...but I am not going into that tangent right now :). Kees08 (Talk) 15:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt, it's explicit, not synthesis, because Cooper says so in so many words:

"The . . . Mylar insulation . . . probably caught fire, and the resulting gases blew out the bay's cover . . . Later, in describing what happened, NASA engineers avoided using the word "explosion;" [sic, wrt punctuation] they preferred the more delicate and less dramatic term "tank failure," and in a sense it was the more accurate expression, inasmuch as the tank did not explode in the way a bomb does but broke open under pressure. ¶ "Whether called an explosion or a tank failure . . . each of them [the astronauts] was instantly made aware . . . that there had been an untoward event."

My point is that, except for in official, carefully parsed statements by engineers and investigators, the word "explosion" was in general use at the time by people involved, and that fact should be reflected in our article. Note that on page 10 of Appendix H of the Cortright Report, Ed Cortright himself calls the incident an "apparent explosion":

"Tom Ballard, from Langley Research Center, will handle the events of the incident in detail--the short period of time in which the apparent explosion took place;"

Nor did Cortright correct or object to 3 queries calling the event an explosion; see pp. 23, 35, 37 of Appendix H. (Appendix H holds board releases and press statements; the part I refer to is the transcript of the Apollo 13 Investigation Board Report No. 1 April 24, 1970.)

I offered the other examples merely to establish a pattern. YoPienso (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Kees08, I respect your dislike of the word "exploded," and understand that it's a layman's term, not a physicist's. Nonetheless, Wikipedia follows the sources, which overwhelmingly called and call the rupture an explosion. The front page of our preeminent national newspaper of record stated in 1970, "An American lunar landing in 1970 became doubtful today after an official investigation blamed the space agency and two aerospace companies for errors that led to an oxygen tank explosion that endangered the Apollo 13 crew." (Lyons, Richard D., "NASA and 2 Companies Blamed for Apollo Blast," The New York Times, 16 June 1970.) The article uses "explosion" or "exploded" 6 times.

If you want a definition of the Apollo 13 explosion, here it is, from Orloff and Harland, p. 375:

"The rapid expulsion of high-pressure oxygen that followed, possibly augmented by combusion of insulation in the space surrounding the tank, blew off the outer panel into bay 4 of the SM, caused a leak in the high-pressure system of oxygen tank 1, damaged the high-gain antenna, caused other miscellaneous damage, and aborted the mission."

Wow! That sounds pretty violent, yes? "Accidental ignition of damaged wire insulation inside the oxygen tank as it was being routinely stirred caused it to fail, venting its contents to space" really doesn't accurately portray the force of the energy released or the damage wreaked by the "failure."

I'm hoping my fellow editors will follow the sources and use the words "explosion" and "exploded" like nearly every source does. At the very, very, least, we should use "blew" and "blown" to convey to our readers a sense of released energy. YoPienso (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Blew" sounds reasonable. Where would you use it? I would have no objection to a footnote saying it's been described as an explosion and giving some of these sources. Thank you for your congratulations, I should have long ago said--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Hope this threading is OK. One of several possible places to use it would be, "Accidental ignition of damaged wire insulation inside the oxygen tank as it was being routinely stirred caused it to blow, forcefully venting its contents into space."

I suggest changing "explosively failed" to "exploded," "ruptured," or "burst."

The footnote could be a compromise. I would prefer using "exploded" with a footnote saying NASA studiously avoided using the word "explosion."

And, you're welcome, and thanks for your diligent work. YoPienso (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• But isn't that the point? It "exploded" because it's a vague term, and so we can use it. It didn't detonate (not fast enough). It didn't deflagrate (wrong process). But we can say "exploded", as it was violent enough to justify that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but also because it's used so often by a multitude of reliable sources, including NASA and the crew. YoPienso (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: Hey now, don't group me with those pedantic scientists! :P. I dislike the term because my pop can exploding is a lot less violent but gets the same term. However Chaikin's book calls it an explosion, so I suppose it is fine here. Could be worth a footnote that NASA did not use the term, but pretty indifferent about that. Kees08 (Talk) 23:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I saw that too. Cortright called it an "apparent explosion" on April 24. That's in Appendix H (the same volume as Appendix F with all the fun tests). The full-scale oxygen tank test showed that the gas would have been expelled through a half-inch aperture. That may not be what the reader thinks of when he reads that the oxygen tank exploded, but let it pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I certainly don't want to contradict Lovell about his own spacecraft – I read Lovell's book carefully a few months ago and it's clear that his telling needs to be taken with a grain of salt sometimes. I would take him as generally reliable for who did what on board; keep in mind that the dialog he narrates among those on board (except maybe that transmitted to earth and recorded there) is reconstructed for the reader's benefit; and I'd be wary of his narratives of things that happened on the ground or "under the hood" on the spacecraft, which he can only know second- or third-hand. If other sources contradict in that last group, I suggest going with those other sources. EEng 19:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you credit Lovell as reliable concerning the fact that the oxygen tank exploded? Lovell used the word in some form repeatedly throughout the book and elsewhere, including as recently as an Oct. 24, 2019 interview.

Can you credit Haise as reliable concerning the fact that the oxygen tank exploded? "My biggest emotion on Apollo 13 after the oxygen tank explosion was disappointment that we had lost the landing," he said in this 2014 interview. At about 5:50 in this interview he said, "At the time of the explosion . . ."

Can you credit The New York Times concerning the fact that the oxygen tank exploded? I linked above to a 1970s article using "exploded" or "explosion" 6 times; here's an earlier one by the same author on April 25, 1970, using "explosion" 7 times.

How about Encylopedia Britannica and the BBC? And nearly every print and online source.

Hope that doesn't sound snippy. Just trying to put the facts out here. YoPienso (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You talkin' to me? EEng 09:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was. You were telling us to take Lovell with a grain of salt and saying what he's reliable for. YoPienso (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, well then if you put it that way ... On a technical point like this, I would rely only on very high-quality sources explicitly citing the basis for what they say. The astronauts themselves are, perhaps, the least well positioned of anyone involved to describe what happened technically, and that goes double when they're reminiscing 50 years later. EEng 23:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

But in most cases, there is no significance if the term is not used. Here there is. Some sources refrain from using the term, including the immediate investigation. Just saying "explosion" would not buy the whole picture.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You probably wish I wrote fewer words. Here you've written so few I don't understand what you mean. YoPienso (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Orloff and Harland did not avoid the word by chance. The accident report did not avoid the word by chance. The answer to some sources choosing not to use it is not to blithely override it and pretend it was by chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Why do you give more weight to two sources than to hundreds (or thousands) of sources? Doesn't that contravene WP:UNDUE? YoPienso (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You ignore my point and go straight to another. And note that I've given you two because you've asked for two. The question is why those sources refrain from using the term.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I already covered that twice on this page, and even typed out an excerpt: See page 21 of Henry S. F. Cooper Jr.'s 1995 book, Thirteen: The Apollo Flight That Failed, from Johns Hopkins UP. . . . they preferred the more delicate and less dramatic term "tank failure," . . . And I somewhat tediously showed their pattern of making such word choices. There's nothing nefarious about that, btw--officials typically and wisely avoid alarming people. Wikipedia, though, needs to be more straightforward.

I don't know why Orloff and Harland avoided the word, but they are not less more reliable than the other sources I've amply provided. Why do you think they avoided it? What's your actual point here that causes you to ignore so many RSs? YoPienso (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Review Board's reservation may have something to do with this passage on p. 4-40 of their report, "Data are not adequate to determine precisely the way in which the oxygen tank no. 2 system lost its integrity." If they can't dot the I and cross the t on it being an explosion, they won't call it an explosion. However, looking at the technical debriefing, the astronauts were casually calling it an "explosion", so we may as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Cortright knew the tank went out with a sudden loud, shocking, destructive, possibly violent BANG! (pp. 4-43 and 4-44) YoPienso (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

An explosion by any other name ... Although except in the movie, the bang does not appear to have been that loud or shocking though it was the other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The crew portrait on the side-panel is described as having been taken '12 days after their return', but I think this is almost certainly not the case. Crew portraits were taken pre-mission, not post. Also, they're posed in front of a model of the Moon, which would be a bit bizarre if the photo was taken following their return.

I realise NASA archives list the 'date created' for this photo as 1970-04-29, but that's not necessarily the date the photo was taken.

Unfortunately I can't find anything air-tight to say the photo was taken pre-mission, other than this section in a Discovery Channel documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJCDbHW94IM (at 6.24)

I'd suggest removing the description - the page is locked for me so I can't do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRosendale (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The original caption just has "April" (which makes sense, as Swigert didn't join the crew until a few days before launch) and says "Apollo 13 will be the United States' third lunar landing mission", which definitely supports a pre-launch timing. I'll change it. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This fine resource shows the image as taken on April 10. (for easy searching, the image number is S70-36485 ). I've modified the image page accordingly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your attention to detail on this. Kees08 (Talk) 21:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Think we should make a section on commemorating the 50th anniversary? Not sure how many notable items there will be, just happened to see a collectSPACE article. Kees08 (Talk) 19:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait and see. I don't think this is notable. The Isle of Man has often issued stamps with a dubious connection to there. Let's see what NASA does, Smithsonian, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

an SVG, language-neutral version of Apollo diagram now exists:

-- Wesha (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Taylor2646 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought that the current series of the BBC World Service "13 minutes to the moon" podcast - "Season 2: The Apollo 13 story" is worth adding somewhere: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p083wp70 . Nigej (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps as an external link?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change: was powered by silver-zinc batteries, that did not. so...to: ...that did not. So... 87.180.44.203 (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to be a bit clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It was changed in this edit. Kees08 (Talk) 17:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What I am struck by, in reading the coverage of the 50th anniversary, how many of the sources seem to be by people who have obviously read this article and are reproducing wording or thoughts in the same order.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You get used to that real quick. I've been watching that for 10 years with Phineas Gage -- when they're not taking whole phrases and sentences they're at least following the outline. There's no higher form of flattery. EEng 18:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly used to it in numismatics, but it's fun to see here, even in first-rate publications.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A good sign of the high-quality work you performed. Kees08 (Talk) 21:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That we all did.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought I could easily find a higher quality reference than the Smithsonian page that looks like it was published in 2002, but struggled more than I thought. I think the 1990 Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program is higher quality, but it is all subjective. A better source, though even older, could be On the Shoulders of Titans, page 382. The next chapter has more specific comparisons, but that page has the same context as what we are trying to cite. Any issues with switching the ref for NASA worked towards this goal incrementally, sending astronauts into space during Project Mercury and Project Gemini, leading up to the Apollo program from the current source to that page in On the Shoulders of Titans? Kees08 (Talk) 23:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Grumman is mentioned twice in the article and TRW is not mentioned at all. Grumman should be discussed in more detail given that they had studied concepts of the Lunar Module being used as a life boat. TRW not being mentioned is a glaring omission. A quick read on the Apollo Abort Guidance System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Abort_Guidance_System) will reveal the significance of the omission. The Astronauts had to stop using the Primary Guidance System because it consumed too much water. The Abort Guidance System was made by TRW in El Segundo, CA and it was located inside the Lunar Module. It navigated the LM around the moon. The Apollo 13 movie minimized the Grumman role and omitted the TRW role. That should not be replicated here.--Xamalek (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a book you could recommend on the subject, specifically pointing to Apollo 13?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There are several books that one could reference however the fact remains that the Grumman Lunar Module brought the Astronaut back and within that, the two critical subsystems made by TRW - The Lunar Descent Engine and the Abort Guidance System which are the two subsystems that enabled a return are not mentioned.--Xamalek (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we use the image shown here?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I am real sure that the image could be copyrighted by Andy Saunders. Unfortunately the last time I delved into this I didn't write down why it was not allowed, so not a help there. The folks over at ALSJ and AFJ are generally quick to reply and can clarify copyright on the image. If I had to guess Saunders would release the image under a free license but keep the text at AFJ copyrighted. I know that image is not on that page, but after looking at everywhere the image you are hoping to include is online, the best sources are Fox News and Twitter, neither of which clarify the copyright. You should send an email to him asking and CC OTRS. If anyone thinks I am wrong about the panorama and other editing work affecting the copyright status, let me know why, thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 23:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The caption of the photo of the damaged service module currently reads:

"Odyssey's damaged service module, as seen from the lunar module Aquarius, hours before reentry"

This is not correct; the photo was taken by the crew after the command module detached from the service module in preparation for reentry. The lunar module was jettisoned earlier, and the crew was never in the lunar module when it was disconnected from the command module.

Thank you for catching this; I just fixed it. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: Not so. The service module was discarded first, at 138:02:06, and the lunar module three hours later at 141:29:56. As PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs) pointed out in his edit summary, the foreground of the full version of photo 8500 shows that it was taken from the lunar module. I've never seen that full version before today. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've come to that conclusion. The SM was definitely jettisoned before the LM; I couldn't get a clear reading from the crew transcripts and the Apollo 13 Lunar Journal whether the pictures were taken by Swigert in the CM or Haise in the LM, but it was probably the latter, as Swigert would have been too busy with the power-up procedure to take photographs. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: Just as a note going forward, you shouldn't immediately accept an editor's claims when they don't have any sources to verify them with. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't normally do that; I must have been having a brain freeze. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

We're calling the mission-diverting oxygen-tank explosion an "accident". Isn't an event of this kind normally called an "incident"? The words are nearly synonymous, except that "accident" carries the added implication that it wasn't anybody's fault and couldn't have been avoided. I don't want to pile on, but it was certainly somebody's fault (namely, the people at Beech who installed a switch that couldn't handle the 65-volt power that was applied during ground testing). More to the point, even in a case where nobody is at fault, it's bad practice to use terminology that stipulates this.

We could call it "an explosion". The crew called it "a problem". Standard practice is to call it "an incident". We shouldn't call it "an accident" TypoBoy (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Accident doesn't mean no one's at fault, it means no one set out to purposefully cause some bad thing to happen. Almost all road accidents are... well, accidents, but at the same time almsot all of them are someone's fault. EEng 16:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point, also the term "accident" is what is used by many sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. And here's a page on the web site of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association that agrees:

"The NTSB defines a reportable “accident” as “an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft that takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.”

So I see my objection above was mistaken. TypoBoy (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does the NTSB investigate accidents in outer space? BTW, I'll bet you guys didn't know that the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems includes Diagnosis Code V95.42, "Forced landing of spacecraft injuring occupant". Handy for insurance paperwork and such. And of cource we mustn't forget V97.33 "Sucked into jet engine". EEng 02:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is a great article and I enjoyed reading it. Lots of people with expertise here. I just had one question of vocabulary, sparked by the TFA post yesterday. The lead article says that the mission was aborted "after an oxygen tank in the service module (SM) failed". I appreciate we don't want hyperbole, but "failed" really seems to me to understate the situation. Failed could be a slow leak, a broken communication cable, all sorts of things. It burst open after an explosion. Shouldn't there be more detail in the lead as to the cause and extent of the failure? Just a minor comment; not meant to detract from the excellent work on this article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, the term is used early in the second paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  Then why not in the very first paragraph, to give a better, more specific explanation for the failure? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Because "exploded" is a very dramatic word. The tank probably did not fragment. It all blew out the opening. I'm concerned it will give the reader the wrong impression. The key is that it failed, thus depriving them of oxygen.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to mess with Today's Featured Article, but I'd like to suggest Apollo in Real Time as a "see also" link. (Especially interesting is that the Apollo 13 in real-time site includes 4 audio tapes not heard since the accident investigation.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds useful.--Twilight Tinker (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Do you have thoughts? I generally dislike links in See also that are not intended to be incorporated into the article at some point. I think we left it as an external link during the Apollo 11 anniversary, seems like a potential solution here? Kees08 (Talk) 23:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Apollo in Real Time has an article, so a See also link seems fine as well as a direct link to the Apollo 13 'Apollo in Real Time' website in External links. Best of both worlds? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have strong views on the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The direct link in external links is probably more informative to the reader interested in Apollo-13.--Twilight Tinker (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the 50th anniversary logo, seen for example here, is PD?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If created by NASA it would be PD, who published it first? It might also be free in that it is a trivial adaptation of the original insignia. All they did is add a 50 in the sun, 1970-2020 on the moon, and "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION" on the bottom.Twilight Tinker (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It's nicely done. I'll look into it some more.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add at the end of Paragraph 6 under "Aftermath," the following: "Given how the astronauts and mission control worked to avoid disaster and control a severely damaged craft on the long, dangerous mission, praise for the astronauts grew in the years that followed. In 2020, historian Ken Bridges called the Apollo 13 mission "one of the greatest feats of navigation in history."" ^[1] 04:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and I don't think the person making it is notable. I'm not thrilled about the idea of including such a statement, certainly not in such a prominent position.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

THE APOLLO 13 ACCIDENT Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics - U.S. House of Representatives: Ninety-First Congress, Second Session, June 16, 1970 [No. 191) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CHRG-91hhrg47591/pdf/GPO-CHRG-91hhrg47591.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A80D:9100:F4B4:F1AA:9541:4FDC (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

One could add an information that the three people of Apollo 13 were those men who were the farthest away from Earth ever- because of the wider route behind the moon. - AxelKing (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Appolo 13. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Appolo 13 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I dispute the accuracy of the opening sentence of this article which states "Apollo 13 was the seventh crewed mission in the Apollo space program ..."

Apollo 13 was the EIGHT crewed mission. Although Apollo 1 never left the launchpad and the crew died in the fire, it is considered a crewed Apollo mission. Therefore, the crewed Apollo missions up to and including 13 are:

• 1st - 1
• 2nd - 7
• 3rd - 8
• 4th - 9
• 5th - 10
• 6th - 11
• 7th - 12
• 8th - 13

Furthermore, it appears that this error has also been applied to the previous missions e.g. it is stated in the article for Apollo 9 that it was the 3rd crewed mission, when it was in fact the fourth. Please explain your reasoning as to why these articles say otherwise.

FOOTNOTE: I would like to point out that the article on Apollo 1 correctly states that it was the first crewed mission.

Blammy1 (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The mission of Apollo 1 (AS-204) never began. The disaster happened during pre-launch testing. Adding the words "to launch" or "to enter space" would be sufficient, if a change is necessary, but note that Orloff & Harland's Apollo: The Definitive Sourcebook refers to Apollo 7 as the first manned mission (p. 171) and the others sequentially.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

image in article is this image cropped to show SM only. This is clearly taken from LM. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just asking for a source per WP:V. And there's a lot of whitespace on either side of the crop.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article currently states that: "Damaged Teflon insulation on the wires to the stirring fan inside Oxygen Tank 2 allowed the wires to short circuit and ignite this insulation. ​The resulting fire quickly increased pressure inside the tank and the tank dome failed". However this is incorrect. According to the Review board report the tank pressure slowly rised from the Teflon fire from 900 to 1000 PSI over about 90 seconds. So the Teflon insulation fire did not quickly increase pressure inside the tank.

Since the explosion happend about 5 seconds after the overpressure valve opened it is more likely that the oxigen being sucked through the filter which was made from fine plates of stainless steel and Inconel X750 Nickel alloy together with sparks from the burning Teflon insulation brought the filter to rapid combustion which made the tank dome fail. ^[2] Kwinzman (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think our article used "quickly" to mean that the increase in pressure occurred shortly after the ignition, rather than at a high rate of increase. It is ambiguous though, so I've adjusted it. As for the rest of it, are you saying what we have is wrong? If so, we should cite to a written paper disputing the accident report, then we can say that the accident report indicated X and then that a later study says Y.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adjusting and clarifying the article. Am I saying the accident report is wrong? Not necessarily, I would argue that this is just a novel interpretation of the accident report findings. The video that I linked explaining the thought process behind this is less than 2 weeks old so it's a recent development. I am unsure if the author intends to publish it as a scientific paper. Kwinzman (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Some links to NASA documents in PDF form are dead. For example, "Apollo Expeditions to the Moon" edited by Edgar M. Cortright (1975). However, that document in web page form is at https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/cover.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:720b:d00:cca3:5bb2:b1e2:7fa8 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I changed The panel's departure . . . to The breakaway panel . . . @Wehwalt: reverted it with the edit summary, Rv. Better as was. Here is the complete sentence:

The panel's departure exposed the sector to space, snuffing out the fire, and it probably hit the nearby high-gain antenna, disrupting communications to Earth for 1.8 seconds.

For two reasons, I think my edit is better:
1. "The panel's departure" is an awkward phrase that doesn't really make a lot of sense. It overly personifies the panel as if it decided to leave. And it didn't simply "depart"--it was violently blown out.
2. It's poor grammar--the antecedent for "it" in it probably hit is "departure," which makes no sense because the departure didn't hit the antenna, the breakaway panel did.
I think this is better, as both clearer and more correct:

The breakaway panel exposed the sector to space, snuffing out the fire, and it probably hit the nearby high-gain antenna, disrupting communications to Earth for 1.8 seconds.

Even better is this proposal:

The breakaway panel exposed the sector to space, snuffing out the fire; it probably hit the nearby high-gain antenna, disrupting communications to Earth for 1.8 seconds.

YoPienso (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a change but I don't think "breakaway panel" is ideal. The panel didn't break, it was just expelled. Your objection could be addressed by the long form "The departure of the panel"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"The departure of the panel" would still make "departure" the antecedent of "it," which doesn't work. "Breakaway" doesn't imply that the panel broke, only that it separated. I really like "breakaway," but could compromise with "separated".

The separated panel exposed the sector to space, snuffing out the fire; it probably hit the nearby high-gain antenna, disrupting communications to Earth for 1.8 seconds.

Maybe someone else has a suggestion. YoPienso (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't sound bad to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't like "departure" or the adjective "breakaway panel". Why not keep it simple?

The panel breaking away exposed the sector to space, snuffing out the fire. It probably hit the nearby high-gain antenna, disrupting communications to Earth for 1.8 seconds.

I have a similar problem to "breaking away". How about "When the panel detached, it exposed the sector to space ..."?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that "breakaway panel" is the wrong term since a "breakaway" item usually is designed to detach intentionally. Overall concept seems good in that this section can stand to be improved. VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

While I was at it, I corrected what I consider to be some weasely wording on other points:

• Not necessary to speculate whether the pressure of the O2 alone or combined with insulation combustion products was enough to blow the panel off; it's really moot. I skimmed the review report and didn't find where they said this.
• We don't have to say the panel probably damaged the antenna on the way out; the board concluded this was what happened. The high-gain system had both wide-mode and narrow-mode parts; the primary system required more accurate aiming but resulted in clearer voice communication; this was what was damaged. The system automatically switched to the backup (wider range, but poorer voice quality). JustinTime55 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for improving that paragraph. YoPienso (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the start of the "Flight of Apollo 13" section, please add a link to the left "timeline" / "circumlunar trajectory" image.

Change the line:

| link1 =

To:

| link1 = [[:File:Apollo 13 timeline.svg]]

The line to be modified is one line below the only occurrence of the text "Apollo 13's complete circumlunar flight trajectory drawn to scale, showing its distance to the Moon when the accident occurred" in the source.

Thanks! 38.69.7.231 (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ref 11. states the cited article is "Cass, Stephen (April 1, 2005). "Houston, we have a solution". IEEE. Retrieved August 30, 2019." The article is actually titled "Apollo 13, we have a solution" as can be verified by following the link. So please change citation to "Cass, Stephen (April 1, 2005). "Apollo 13, we have a solution". IEEE. Retrieved October 13, 2022. 38.140.0.150 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for catching that.--agr (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In Section 7.4: Return to Earth,

Part 1: Grammatically incorrect - "Water condensed on the walls, though any condensation that may have been [there may have been] behind equipment panels caused no problems, partly because of the extensive electrical insulation improvements instituted after the Apollo 1 fire."

Part 2: I would personally remove "that/there may have been" entirely as it adds nothing and makes the sentence unnecessarily convoluted.

"Water condensed on the walls, though any condensation behind equipment panels caused no problems, partly due to the extensive electrical insulation improvements instituted after the Apollo 1 fire." PedroContipelli (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20230716005736/https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.18172-8/13071975_1124542834264064_7698044419323269259_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=2c4854&_nc_ohc=rWtgkE7pglEAX-fVaWx&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfDWDtMnmD7yY4HktG3VXXCapKJ8LlsrkmWDgPVFrAFCVw&oe=64DAB812 -- Wesha (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Now the cause of the infection is mentioned twice, and they slightly differ, because the first is more nuance. Leaving out the dehydration the second team avoids repetition and confusion Dajasj (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No need to leave it out as it adds an important historical descriptor of the astronaut's life within the capsule. Not clear on what you think causes confusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would leave it in to stress they dehydrated themselves. Which they didn't have to, they had been told there was sufficient water to drink. Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

But before we write: "This infection was probably caused by the reduced water intake, but microgravity and effects of cosmic radiation might have impaired his immune system's reaction to the pathogen." Which is more nuanced than the latter description. Dajasj (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Both mentions seem fine as descriptors. The microgravity and cosmic radiation seem a stretch in either case, he purposely dehydrated himself (never a wise move). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

But my point is, as a reader you have already read about the cause of the infection, with more context, shortly before. I makes sense that we mention the infection again, but why repeat the presumed cause? Dajasj (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not every reader (or most if not almost all) reads an entire article of this length. Many read sections which interest them. Besides, the mention is not disruptive but descriptive, and many things and events - even 'Apollo 13' itself - are mentioned numerous times. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Apollo 13 still holds the record for being the manned space flight which has been farthest from Earth. This is a record I think should be mentioned in the lead of the article, not least because it still stands, half a century later. Bandyman Desire (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

My thought is that the current lead, which is more or less in the form it passed FAC in, sticks to the essentials and avoids trivia. That Apollo 13 went the furthest from Earth had more to do with the position of the Moon than anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It's still a vital fact to add to the article. If you don't want it in the lead, where do you think it should be noted?

Bandyman Desire (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The record is already noted on the page, in the section ‘Looping around the Moon’:

_

“At pericynthion, Apollo 13 set the record (per the Guinness Book of World Records), which still stands, for the highest absolute altitude attained by a crewed spacecraft: 400,171 kilometers (248,655 mi) from Earth at 7:21 pm EST, April 14 (00:21:00 UTC April 15).” Voteins (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

And you think that is the best place for it? Is 'highest altitude [from something unnamed]' the best way of describing 'farthest from Earth'?

Bandyman Desire (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel it's the best place for it. It wasn't a goal of the mission, it happened as the result of other things, the lead section focuses on the events of the mission and how it is remembered and that is how it should be. Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

What caused the accident on Apollo 13 102.88.70.114 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

What the answer 102.88.70.114 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It's covered in the section "Investigation and response". TJRC (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Apollo 13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change 'was [35] years old' to 'was [36] years old'.

Under 'Astronauts and key Mission Control personnel' Fred Haisse is stated as being 35 years old (at the time of the spaceflight, April 11–17, 1970): "Fred Haise, the lunar module pilot (LMP), was 35 years old.". If he really was born on November 14, 1933 as his Wikipedia page mentions, he would have been 36 years old at that time (turning 37 later that year). 185.45.245.6 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done, good catch (assuming Haise's birthyear is correct at his page). Thanks. And Lunar Module is also supposed to be uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

That is the date of birth given in the press kit. Not sure why the error.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help. Just finished watching the documentary on NetFlix and got curious about the astronauts :-)

Have a great weekend all. 185.45.245.6 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)