Talk:Apollo 13/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Citation error

There's an error in the hyperlink to the Mission Report (reference 4). The document this points to is simply a compilation of 13 random, revised pages, not the entire report. This makes verification of the abort option issue impossible. Can someone look into fixing this? Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I must have not waited for the entire PDF to download. Though it starts with the 13 revised pages, the entire document seems to be there. My bad. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Splashdown video

Can someone upload a video of the apollo 13 splashdown thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.82.1 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 May 2012

From: |launch_date = April 11, 1970
19:13:00 UTC |lunar_landing = Planned for Fra Mauro. Cancelled due to onboard explosion. |lunar_orbits = 0 |landing = April 17, 1970
18:07:41 UTC
South Pacific Ocean
21°38′24″S 165°21′42″W

Could the day of the week be added to the mission dates?

Launch - Saturday, April 11, 1970

Landing - Friday, April 17, 1970

|launch_date = Saturday, April 11, 1970
19:13:00 UTC |lunar_landing = Planned for Fra Mauro. Cancelled due to onboard explosion. |lunar_orbits = 0 |landing = Friday, April 17, 1970
18:07:41 UTC
South Pacific Ocean
21°38′24″S 165°21′42″W

It would help readers place the event within their own lives, i.e., "Where was I when...".

Thanks!

John

Jschilberg (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: While a good suggestion, Wikipedia has style guidelines that specify how to format dates. Use of weekdays is discouraged in favor of keeping to one of two standardised date formats. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What's wiki's policy if someone else agrees with the proposed edits? I agree, adding the day of the week lends an additional sense of connection to the events described. Is there an appeal? Can exceptions be made? Can the policy be change, or ignored?Jonny Quick (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Significant help by an MIT student?

During an IAmA on reddit.com a former NASA employee claimed that a former MIT student played a significant role in the Apollo 13 rescue. He also states, that NASA initially wanted to present the grad student to the President and the public, but withdrew the invitation to the student once they found him and "he was a real hippy type - long hair and facial hair", contrasting NASA's than "straight-laced" culture.

I'm aware this is no valid source, but if there is any truth to it it would be a significant archivement that should be included in the article. Are there any valid sources about this? Nemissimo (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There were huge discussions about this on reddit[1] and slashdot.[2] My take on the matter is that while there are some true elements to the story, the old guy must have gotten a couple of different incidents confused. This is probably about the best explanation: the "hippy" guy is Don Eyles, who worked on the LM software at the MIT instrumentation lab. The mission he saved was Apollo 14 not Apollo 13, and the drama was somewhat less intense. Basically some switch aboard the Apollo 14 spacecraft failed, the NASA guys located Eyles and he coded up a software workaround that was communicated by voice radio to the astronauts orbiting the moon, and the astronauts were able to key in the patch and go ahead with the landing. Without the patch, my impression is that they would have had to cancel the lunar descent and return to earth without landing on the moon, a mission failure but not a fatal disaster. Eyles was properly credited, his picture (complete with hippie moustache) appears in the relevant NASA publications, there was apparently a TV show about it, etc. There is a little more info here and here. The notion that somebody thought of the lunar slingshot maneuver during the Apollo 13 emergency is absurd--the lunar slingshot was part of mission planning at least as far back as Apollo 8. 67.122.211.84 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The "First" Crew is Largely Irrelevant

While reading the article I stumble over the tedious and irrelevant details given to the scheduling issues of the crews, particularly since these details appear so early in the article. They are better buried near the end of the article, if they are to be included at all. It feels "wrong" somehow, almost as if someone has artificially injected the presence of the crew that DIDN'T fly into space, into an article about the crew that did. I also do not need to know about the interpersonal conflicts within NASA that caused the crew that went into space to apparently replace the one that did not. I do not need to know about someone's "extra-marital affairs", nor their exposure to pathogens. These are isolated little factoids that do nothing but distract attention away from a significant part of history, and focus instead on irrelevant (and uninteresting) details.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Source

What's the source of this statement "Jim Lovell, Gene Kranz, and other principals have stated that this film depicted the events of the mission with reasonable accuracy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.191.30 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. This is the kind of statement we need a source for. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

According to this article [3], Gene Kranz says the blackout lasted 1:27 longer than normal. This is 3 times as long as is mentioned in the wikipedia page. 42engineer (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done [4] TJRC (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Countdown Demonstration (esp. emptying and refilling tank) strictly a ground test issue?

For All Mankind, Harry Hurt III, interviews by Al Reinert, Atlantic Monthly Press: New York, 1988:

[pages 204-205]
"the Apollo 13 launch was already a month behind schedule . . .

"Following the final prelaunch 'countdown demonstration' at the Cape, the pad techs were supposed to drain the liquid oxygen tanks supplying breathing air to the command module with a series of high-pressure oxygen gas injections. But instead of flushing out LOX, one of the tanks merely recirculated the gas injections back out its drainage pipes.

"Rather than postponing the Apollo 13 launch, the space agency’s top brass assigned a special team of engineers and technicians to correct the mysterious LOX tank malfunction in less than seventy-two hours so the astronauts could lift off on schedule. According to Lowell, 'They went into the history of the tank just to see what the story was, and they found out that it was originally scheduled for Apollo 10, but that it had been dropped at the factory, so it had been recycled, refurbished, and set up for Apollo 13. They looked at the schematics and saw that there was a tube that guides this gaseous oxygen in, and that if the tube was broken or moved away somehow, it would not guide the gases down to force the liquid out, but it would bypass the liquid and just let the gas go out the vent line.

“ 'Well, the engineers all sat around to philosophize on what to do. They could order a new tank, or take one out of another vehicle down the line. But by the time they did all that, several weeks would go by, and they’d have to slip the launch . . . The tank worked perfectly for all the flight aspects--it fit all the systems, it pressurized the spacecraft, it fit the fuel cells, it was good for breathing . . . The only thing that didn’t work was the fact that we couldn’t get the doggone oxygen out of it, which in a normal flight we would never do. In other words, that was something that was strictly a ground test device.' [Emphasis added]

"Under the pressure of their [hasty and ill-conceived (POV)] official mandate to get Apollo 13 launched on schedule, the engineers then proposed what seemed like an ingenious ad hoc solution to the LOX tank’s drainage problem. 'There was a heater system,' Lovell explains, 'a long tubelike affair with regular wires in it submerged in the liquid oxygen. And they said, "Why don’t we turn on the heater system and boil the oxygen out?" They took a poll, and everyone said, "Gee, that’s a good idea, didn’t think of that." So they turned on the switch for about eight hours, and by gosh, they were absolutely right. All the oxygen boiled out. The tank was absolutely dry. Everything was in good shape. The tank was loaded again a day or so before the launch . . . then we took off.'

[Irrelevant, cherry-picked quotes of fact redacted]

(Interviewer Al Reinert also produced and directed the film entitled For All Mankind.)

Now, Jim Lowell is an awfully smart guy and an awfully dedicated guy, but it doesn't mean that every single thing he says is correct.

And this is an interview with Jim. This is essentially oral history. And that has both it's advantages and disadvantages. Cool Nerd (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Er - maybe I'm a bit obtuse, but I'm having a problem figuring out exactly what is the point of the rants in this section and the last? What do you find incorrect in what Lovell said in the interview? Even the part you emphasize is 100% correct: the part damaged in the tank drop was only used to drain the tank between the ground test and the flight (as opposed to the normal in-flight outflow of oxygen). If that were the only damage, the remaing tank hardware would have been perfectly fine for a normal flight. It was the action taken to empty the tank (higher than usual voltage applied to the heaters) that damaged the hardware (stir-fan wiring) that caused the problem in flight. And the KSC engineers made the decision to take this action in good faith thinking it was safe, expecting the tank parts (thermo switches) to conform to spec. All this is already covered in the article. Are you advocating adding the interview to the article?

Again, I'm confused by the long rants. Your cherry-picking of fragmentary quotes from several sources makes it appear like just more NASA-bashing (or Lovell-bashing). JustinTime55 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: I see there might be a piece missing in what you quote. Part way through the design cycle, it was decided to make the system compatible with the higher voltage, but the spec change wasn't communicated to the tank manufacturer. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll take credit for a "rant," although that really was not my intention. It's been a couple of years since I've looked at Apollo 13, and I'm trying to take a fresh look. And from Jim Lowell's interview with Al Reinert, I take two things:

1) Maybe the uncomfortable feeling of being behind schedule led to risk taking, and not the good kind of risks.

2) And maybe Jim is right and NASA should have just stood pat. Since the tank was good for all flight operations, maybe they should not have performed---what on reflection---is the mere ritual of emptying and refilling the tank. Cool Nerd (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

After my own reflection, I see my mistake was in entertaining your waste of this talk page space. It has nothing at all to do with improving the article, and you keep digging yourself in deeper. They probably had very good reason not to unnecessarily keep cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen in the tanks until launch (typically a week or longer); for one thing, cold temperatures affect the properties of metal and other materials. Please make your personal musings in some other venue than Wikipedia. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your energy and interest in the topic of Apollo 13, even if you and I don't agree on a single thing. A lot of people just aren't interested in this topic at all, I guess thinking it's too long ago. Well, you and I are interested and that puts us ahead of the curve. And then, the part with "something that was strictly a ground test device," that's not me, that is Jim Lowell saying this. And I am all in favor of taking the analysis a step further, such as the effects of cryogens on metals, provided we can find the references.

The part with the low-pegged thermometer, I probably did overpost, getting sidetrack by the fact that one source said 100 degrees whereas others said 80. Okay, 80 degrees Fahrenheit is the clear majority view, I'm going to go with that. And I'm probably going to go with the best three references. And I definitely think we should include this in our article as one contributing factor among others. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

low-pegged thermometer, three good sources

Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13, Jim Lovell & Jeffrey Kluger, Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston, New York, 1994, pages 349-50.

" . . . Unfortunately, the readout on the instrument panel wasn’t able to climb above 80 degrees. With so little chance that the temperature inside the tank would ever rise that far, and with 80 degrees representing the bottom of the danger zone, the men who designed the instrument panel saw no reason to peg the gauge any higher, designating 80 as its upper limit. What the engineer on duty that night didn’t know—-couldn’t know—-was that with the thermostat fused shut, the temperature inside this particular tank was climbing indeed, up to a kiln-like 1,000 degrees. . . "

---

Lunar Exploration: Human Pioneers and Robotic Surveyors, Paolo Ulivi with David Harland, Springer-Verlag, 2004, page 149.

“An external thermometer, which could have alerted pad engineers, had a scale extending to only 28 C.”

---

Inviting Disaster: Lessons From The Edge Of Technology, An Inside Look At Catastrophes And Why They Happen (As seen on The History Channel), James Chiles, HarperCollins, 2001, page 188.

"A technician at Kennedy was watching over the improvised detanking setup, and he had a gauge to show the temperature inside the tank. But his thermometer only read up to 80 F because that was as high as the temperature was ever supposed to go."

This is relevant as one contributing factor to the accident and should be included in our article. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware we already say in the article that no higher temperature than 80 deg could be read? (It's located in the "Review board accident analysis" section, not in-stream with the tank incident.) There was some uncited contradiction, quoting 100 degrees, which the NASA page used to reference it did not say. We could probably add the Lost Moon citation; more than that would be overkill. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Launch Time

"April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida," ?? Florida is in Eastern time which would be 14:13. Is it 13:13 because Houston is in Central time? 68.148.93.15 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The Johnson Space Center in Houston took control of Apollo missions as soon as the vehicle was clear of the launch tower. (Shuttle missions had this KSC-to-JSC transfer of mission control at the instant of SRB ignition.) For whatever reason, this question went unanswered when asked by JamesMadison in 2011. In answer to him... Yes, A13 was launched at 14:13EST.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Houston, we've had a problem" revisited

The article claimed that the filmmakers not only changed the famous line to present tense (which they did) but also changed who spoke it. According to available audio, they did not. Here are transcripts:

From the official recording:

Swigert: Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here.

Capcom: This is Houston. Say again please.

Lovell: Uh, Houston, we've had a problem. We've had a main B bus undervolt.

From the movie:

Swigert: Hey, we've got a problem here.

...

Capcom: Uh, this is Houston. Uh, say again please.

Lovell: Houston, we have a problem. We have a main bus B undervolt.

The official audio is available there on the right, and here's a link to the movie scene. The movie obviously takes dramatic license with the scene, but as far as the three key lines go, it doesn't change who said what or the gist of what they said. I have corrected the article. — $wgUser 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Good on ya. The movie does have a lot of problems, but they're not very close to this scene. The only significant problem with this scene is that the movie doesn't accurately depict exactly how the bus was behaving. At the time the short occurred, AC Bus 2 was operating on Inverter 3, which was on Main B. The fan shorted, crashing AC Bus 2, and indirectly, Main B, causing the Master Alarm to trip and lit up the warning lights. Either the short burned out or the explosion tore it apart before any breakers tripped (an hour later, when they turned on the fan to try to repressurize the tank, not 100% certain it was in little pieces, the current on the spacecraft didn't increase according to any of the dialogue on the Flight loop audio, meaning the fan circuit was probably open.) Once that happened, the voltages went back up but the warning lights didn't go out. This was because the damaged fuel cells 1 and 3 were burning through the reactants they already had in them, which lasted three minutes. At that time, Main B crashed permanently, setting off another round of alarms. The movie has the second round of alarms, but doesn't clearly tell us why (Lost Moon does, by the way, but I'm relying on the tapes.) The reason why Jack and Jim used the past tense is because they were saying their historic lines (I bet they had no idea how historic!!) after the electrical system had a momentary glitch, very likely wondering more about the bang than the alarms. One other thing that happened is that there was either a data drop or the short happened between samples because right after Jim reported the undervolt alarm (like five seconds), Liebergot and Kranz were discussing how it was not showing on his console. Featherwinglove (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Citing audio

How do I cite audio? For example, the astronauts took some Dexedrine to stay awake during reentry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bxGrDdwcjw ...all sorts of problems, no? Youtube link, flight audio is stored on https://archive.org/details/Apollo13Audio (i.e. not NASA) and it's not very easy to get METs on some of the things said. There is a {{cn}} tag on the distance from Earth the spacecraft was when the fateful cryo fan call was made. I can get you six sig digs on that, maybe even seven!! (Why it has a {{cn}} tag in the first place, I have no idea.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Featherwinglove (talk • contribs) 00:06, 19 February 2014

I generally prefer non-audio and non-video sources, where available; but will {{Cite AV media}} work for you? TJRC (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is the space age (lol). When understanding stuff that happens in space missions (in my case typically far better than a Wikipedia article requires), the gold standard is generally an audio or film recording (more often film than video, although that changed in just the last few years.) In some cases, it is telemetry stuff. Also, the transcripts are harder to find. The strongest point for A/V sources on NASA missions is that it is nearly impossible to hit copyvio, since it is all in the public domain. Featherwinglove (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no issue with citing a copyrighted work as a reference.

My preference for non-AV sources is only my preference, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline (as far as I know). It's just that written references are easier to skim and faster to read than listening to or watching an AV piece. if you do cite to an AV resource, please be specific as to the position in the source that supports the point. It's very frustrating to see a claim supported by a lengthy AV piece; it makes it onerous and time-consuming for another editor to verify.

Also, be cautious when citing primary sources. That's an excellent practice when writing something for external publication, but Wikipedia intentionally wishes to publish only information that has already been published, i.e., in secondary sources. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia strives to distill already-published information, not to be a forum for original publication itself. So for Wikipedia purposes, the official films and tapes are not the gold standard at all. When you use primary sources, it's quite easy to slide over into the forbidden area of original research.

I generally double-cite in cases like this: once to a secondary source to satisfy Wikipedia requirements for a secondary source, and again to the primary source, allowing the reader to explore that. TJRC (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam

@TJRC: See brief and friendly discussion here. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think removal of the vandalism is inconsistent w/ WP:DENY, though. TJRC (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015

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: . 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 [5] TJRC (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

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)

Persistent problems with the "explosion" story and abort mode decision

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)

Was there an "explosion"?

Tdadamemd, I think it's way past time to give this crusade up. You had me persuaded at the beginning, but I've since come to see that it's just not worth it.

I am not on any crusade. My interest is in accurate facts. I have made no change to the article, and I by myself am not suggesting any change to the article. What I have done here this month is create a pointer for the benefit of others who share an interest in accurate facts and may not have any idea about this HUGE disagreement.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"It is clearly apparent that these extremely detailed reports arrive at the conclusion that it was not an explosion." Ah, no, it isn't. Unless you can find the explicit words "there was not an explosion", the failure to use the word doesn't prove they formed that conclusion. Objection to explosion is mainly over its connotation (emotional meaning); it implies something fragmenting into shrapnel, which as you correctly point out, it was designed not to do at its pressure burst limit. The word increases the level of scariness (though the accident aboard a spacecraft thousands of miles from Earth wasn't a very non-scary situation any way you look at it.) If this had happened within the past couple of years, I would probably agree with you that the word's use needs to be challenged. But it was over 40 years ago; it can't do that much more damage to NASA's reputation at this point.

As for denotation, the word is neither significantly more nor less accurate than whatever other word one might use instead (burst, rupture, ?) There was a significant degree of violence associated with it (a measurable intense accelleration for a brief instant; "a rather large bang associated with the caution and warning" (Lovell); and damage to either the remaining tank or its plumbing as the oxygen leaked quickly out of that tank as well.) Many people in the real world (including Lovell himself) have described it as an "explosion", so by Wikipedia's standards, that's what we have to go with. This is not the time or place to fight for a change.

"... the level of expected damage between the two distinct scenarios is very different, and this means that the abort options available are very different ..." Are you seriously contending this is what they said in the report? The damage was what it was; the CSM was crippled and unusable; it "died" (ceased to produce electrical power) in about two hours. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Tdadamemd, please give up this quest of yours to make Wikipedia say there was no explosion during the Apollo XIII mission. Here's a full page of arguments about it. The question is settled. Yopienso (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The question has been settled as a matter of consensus with dissenting opinions noted. I hope everyone is clear that the purpose for me posting this section is not to initiate any change at all to the article. Others may come along and see that need, but I am not here doing that in 2013.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

To illustrate why NASA engineers deliberately avoided using the word "explosion" in official reports, I'm putting a link in here that shows a very recent example of officials using scientific jargon instead of plain English. Wrt to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 being shot out of the sky, "It tells us that MH17 was brought down by 'high energy objects' which were of 'external causes' and never once uses the word missile." Yopienso (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant, as today's "NASA engineers" are not the same ones who worked on Apollo in 1970; also, NASA administrators, not engineers, would be the ones who set PR policy and thus would be responsible for such a "coverup". Yopienso, you're starting to sound a bit like Tdadamemd (who incidentally has since been blocked for sockpuppetry). I think your "myocardial infarction" analogy is flawed; phrases like "rupture" and "high energy objects" might be euphamisms, but they are commonly understood euphamisms, thus don't qualify as "jargon". Let's assume a little good faith on the part of the engineers. Since we've settled the matter, let's not continue to beat the dead horse. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is irrefutable fact that the official NASA report avoids the use of the word 'explosion'. Where in the article is this fact communicated to the reader?

Instead, what the article does is unequivocally present the incident as having been an explosion, which is NOT what the official NASA report concluded.

Therefore the article is BROKEN.

Yopienso's attempt at explanation constitutes unsupported speculation. My point on this matter comes from a straight read of the report.

Here we are more than 45 years later, and no one beside me seems to care about this fact.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

When you find yourself writing phrases like "no one beside me seems to care about this fact", that might be a good time to re-read WP:CONCENSUS. TJRC (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Tdadmemd sioz, please read WP:PSTS, which instructs on the use of sources:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

Contrary to WP policy, you wish to base the treatment of the issue on your novel interpretation of one primary source. Reliable secondary sources--as well as other reliable primary sources--call the incident an explosion, so this article must use that term.

Footnote 14 informs the close reader that NASA's official report does not use the word "explosion" in describing the tank rupture. YoPienso (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso, I just now re-read the sourcing policy you linked to. Here again is one more example...

You call the NASA report a primary source, and I just went along with your assessment. But now that I've looked more closely, it is clear to me that the final report is not a primary source. It clearly fits the definition of a secondary source.

And for the article to not clearly present what that report did and did not conclude, we are discarding one of the BEST secondary sources that we have on this event.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

======

Right here on this Talk page is an excellent example of a HUGE problem with Secondary and Tertiary sources...

Direct quote: "Tdadamemd (who incidentally has since been blocked for sockpuppetry)".

Someone, somewhere invents a statement. Then people pile on repeating the info as though it were a fact. A generation later, no one cares enough to look back into the source, and they all just take the false info as well established fact, to which they can all support with dozens of (secondary & tertiary) references that clearly state this "fact".

There is not one single place where anyone can source where I have done any sockpuppetry. Not one. And I have publicly done many thousands of posts over the course of the better part of two decades. Yet if an article were to be written about me, it would contain the "fact" that Tdadamemd is a sockpuppet.

Our Apollo 13 article contains the well established "fact" that the incident was caused by an explosion.

What is the basis for this? Look all the way back, and you'll find people who invented this, with absolutely no basis in the extremely well-tested evidence.

The extremely well-tested evidence is quite thoroughly documented in the original NASA reports.

Yop, you appear to be satisfied with this info being stated in footnote (Footnote 14). I see this to be a total disservice to the reader who is seeking accurate info about the mission, and what actually happened. The policy on NPOV informs us that it is our duty to tell BOTH sides of the story - that many people call it an explosion, but that the official NASA report does not. A footnote is a way to bury the info. NPOV would guide us toward a solution like giving a subsection title along the lines of "Official NASA Report Did Not Determine The Cause To Be An Explosion", or some such prominent display, followed by an explanation.

THIS is the change that I see to be sorely needed in the article ...45 years after the mission.

There are many examples from history where fabricated stories end up in the factual record. But here is one case that was so well documented that we have the opportunity, and the responsibility, to fix it.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Also...

Regarding first-hand sources, the problem with those is that often times it is the person who experienced the event who is doing the fabricating.

But in the case of the report from the Apollo 13 Review Board, there is detailed accounting of scientifically sound experimentation. We know the failure modes of the oxygen tank, because they were thoroughly tested before they flew and catastrophic failures were designed against.

As for primary sources that tend to be lacking in accuracy, the earliest description of the event being an explosion (that I know of) was given by Lovell that April, prior to the final report.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I can't believe you have a more accurate understanding of the event than Jim Lovell.

Footnote 3 at WP:PSTS reads, "Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports ..." (emphasis added). Should you not recognize the Cortright document as an investigative report, see page 1-8 of said document.

I have no response to your other comments which, frankly, are tiresome. YoPienso (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What I have been highlighting here is not my understanding of events. The vast majority of my effort here has been calling attention to the official board's understanding. This also answers TJRC's criticism. Every single member of that board cared about a very accurate telling of the facts of what happened. At least they did in 1970. Not a single one of them concluded it was an explosion.

As for whether their report qualifies as a primary source or a secondary source, I myself don't care all that much. If you step back for a big picture look at what that Wikipedia policy is telling us, it boils down to 'how much can we trust the accuracy of this source'. Well, anyone who takes the time to read the report and see all the details they provide with how extensively the O2 tanks were tested, etc, can readily see for themselves how thorough and exacting it is.

You complain about my comments being tiresome. What I myself will never tire of is my frustration with people's willingness to outright ignore the info presented in the most thorough source that we have on this event.

It is totally understandable for those who don't care enough to read what the report actually says. Most people take Ron Howard's version as gospel. That takes two hours, and no more effort than keeping your eyes propped open during that time.

The frustration level goes up much higher with those who do care enough to look into the actual facts. And with you, on top of that, your continual message is "Yo-Pienso". Clearly you and I have different understandings of what that entails.--Tdadamemd (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I will leave this again for now. Again, maintaining the hope that others will choose to educate themselves on the issue. Will we have to wait until the 50th anniversary for facts to get straightened out? The ideal would be that members of the Board who are still alive would be questioned directly. What this conversation would look like is:

- "So, can you explain why you chose to not refer to the event as an explosion?"

- "Sure. If you look at all the test data we provided in the report, you can clearly see all of the evidence that told us it wasn't a violent explosion."

...or

- "Well, we all knew that it was an explosion, but that word is so scary that we decided to use all of those other euphemisms instead."

I am not here with any goal of aggravating anyone. I know that everyone posting to this Talk page has the common intention of wanting the best quality article that we can provide. Everyone comes here from a position of 'Yo Pienso'. While I'm away this time, I will continue to invite people to do that, and maybe some will choose to look a little deeper.--Tdadamemd (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Food for thought while I'm away...

Here is a cut&paste from Archive 2:

Yopienso, I have to disagree with you on a number of points here. You are correct to refer to the event as a "rupture that occurred due to over-pressurization", but INCORRECT to call it "an explosion". 'Rupture' and 'explosion' are two completely different things. If I over-inflate a rubber balloon and it bursts, could I say that the balloon exploded? No of course not - and that is the same as what happened to the O2 tank on Apollo 13.

It's simply factually wrong to call the event an explosion. The only words that are appropriate are 'rupture', 'burst', etc., just as other editors above have also said. These are everyday and commonly understood words, not technical terms that only academics understand, therefore WP:NOTMANUAL doesn't apply to this issue. Can I suggest that we add a comment to the article along the lines of "although the incident is often refered to as an explosion, it was actually a rupture caused by over-pressurization" Logicman1966 (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should make edits to the article based on Tdadamemd sioz's guesses on what a hypothetical conversation with the Board would look like. Obviously, that's simply speculation and guesswork. I'm willing to rely on NASA's many characterizations of it. Here are a few:

• "An explosion on board forced Apollo 13 to circle the moon without landing." [6]
• "...the Apollo 13 astronauts got their first view of the damage that had been caused by the explosion." [7]
• "Two days later, with the spacecraft well on its way to the Moon, an oxygen tank exploded..." [8]
• "Due to debris from the explosion, the navigation system was unreliable." [9]
• "I did, of course, occasionally think of the possibility that the spacecraft explosion might maroon us in an enormous orbit about the Earth" [10] (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..." [11]
• "...no one knew whether the service module had been structurally weakened by the explosion." [12]

TJRC (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. This has been discussed for several years now; we really should take steps to ban Tdadmemd from this article. He's one of many socks of User:ChrisfromHouston. YoPienso (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Abort decision controversy?

What reliable sources do you have for your allegation there was a controversy? I believe it qualifies as a fringe theory (on your part, I mean. I don't think it's a notable one.) Jeffry Kluger mentions in Lost Moon that Kraft and Kranz discussed it, but he doesn't say anything about Kraft objecting strenuously. (As a matter of fact, I just reread the Kraft/Kranz discussion last night and it says just the opposite: they both agreed they couldn't trust the SPS engine as far as they could throw it, and were in essential agreement about the loop-around return using the LM propulsion. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC))

The direct-return argument only seems to be made in the minds of laymen, who fail to grasp that it was too late for a direct abort; Apollo 13 had already entered the Moon's sphere of influence (gravity well) (the article makes this clear), and a very large impulse (thrust times time, which translates into rocket fuel) would have been required for direct abort. It was not considered safe to fire the Service Module engine, and the CSM's power was quickly running out. (This is documented and cited in the article in the final (not Cortright) mission report. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)) There was no time to rig a way to get the power from the LM. The impulse required would probably have exceeded the LM descent stage's fuel, so they would have had to jettison it to use the ascent stage's engine, and maybe they would have accomplished the required velocity change. But now there goes their life boat, as most of the battery power was in the descent stage. With their experience, both Kranz and Kraft must have had an intuitive grasp of this. (Funny, I can remember having the same intuitive grasp at the time it happened, when I was just a dumb, 15-year-old kid.) What sources state the contrary? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed your post in Talk:Apollo 13/Archive 2, and you apparently base this solely on Kraft saying in an intervew, "The thing that I wanted to do ASAP was fire that damn [SPS] engine. If we had been able to do that (emphasis added) we could have turned around and had them landed in about 15 hours." He probably also wanted hot and cold running topless readheads, but that wasn't going to happen either. This in no way proves that was his considered, professional opinion, or that he argued with Kranz about it. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am comfortable with all of the evidence I had provided that's now in the archives. If I find anything further, I will bring that here. And if different editors would like to pick up this discussion, then I would see that to have potential for a productive continuation. But for now, I hope you are ok with my stated intention of this section serving as a pointer for "them", whoever these other potential editors might be.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You have not convinced me you have a great wealth of evidence for the abort decision. You still don't seem to get that fear of SPS damage was not the only reason for not doing the direct abort. It simply was not physically possible, given the spacecraft weights, amount of fuel in the SPS tanks, and specific impulse, to achieve the required delta v without dumping (all or part of) the LM, not at all a smart thing to do with the Service Module electrical power system gone ("explosion" or not.) There is no reliable source in evidence to contradict this. And it would have taken 58 hours (from the Mission Operations Report) to get home, not "about 15". All you have is Kraft's YouTube video; the bulk of your Archive2 arguments are devoted to flogging the "explosion" controversy. I think that by fusing the two together in your mind, you have convinced yourself you have more evidence than you actually do. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The page I linked to above (this one) also covers your conspiracy theory of Kraft's alleged rescue plan. Please stop this, Tdadamemd. Yopienso (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The archives are intact, and anyone can read what I had stated to see for themselves what type of argument that was.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@Justin- I am not here to debate what I see to be mistakes in what you just posted, as both sides here are in perfect agreement that this topic has been thoroughly covered. If and when a new editor may choose to weigh in on the matter, then I will follow that discussion.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Abort mode decision: Kranz testimony makes it clear that Direct Abort was viable

(The following is posted to this new subsection as a clean continuation of previous Talk discussions regarding the abort mode decision.)

I just watched the Dateline NBC Newsmakers program titled "Apollo 13: The Real Story" (from 2010, for the 40th anniversary). In it, Kranz gives an accounting of his options with the abort mode decision:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69LDSL-9--g&t=23m26s

He discusses the Direct Abort option as fully viable, and then summarizes by saying, "And it was purely in a gut feeling..." that he decided to go around the Moon instead of doing a Direct Abort. He goes so far as to call the circumlunar trajectory "the other option" (the one he selected). This is very different from the accounting that is presented in the article. In blatant contradiction of what Kranz is saying here, the current edit of our article makes statements like:

"A Direct Abort return ... was not viable by the time of the accident".

This issue is by far the most important decision of the entire mission, as I see it. Yet the process of making this decision is given very little coverage by sources (primary, secondary and tertiary). So I take finds like these to be gems.

And Kranz's telling of his assessment gives greater context to that gem that had been added to the article back in January 2012 (and promptly deleted) where Chris Kraft firmly asserts that he thought that the smarter choice was a Direct Abort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNY3xgyzNYA&t=28s
(see Talk Archive 2: Direct Abort Option Preferred by Chris Kraft)

This makes it very clear that Kraft was in disagreement with Kranz's decision. This new video of Kranz (new to me, at least) along with points made in previous Talk discussion now constitute what I consider to be overwhelming evidence that important changes to the article are needed.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are quotes from the archives, in the very next section, that warrant reposting:

---

Page 318 of Kranz's book: "I believed that the systems controllers thought I had made the wrong decision. They favored the fastest way home, a direct abort." This is exactly the same sentiment Kraft expressed in that video I had posted. It is totally obvious that they were able to do a Direct Abort if that had been their choice, particularly in Kranz's own words immediately following Kraft in that video. Had there been any physical impossibility that would have prevented a Direct Abort, then there would be no reason for Kranz to explain that it was his "gut feeling" that led him to not do a Direct Abort.

---

---

...back to Kranz's book. On page 324 he says, "The last thing we wanted to do was let the brass think there was any real disagreement in our group or uncertainty about our recommendations." He's explicitly stating how the story that a person presents does not always match the actual facts of the story. Historians are well aware of this, which is why there are historians - to help get to the bottom of things by weeding out the bogus info from the verified facts.

---

--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The man talking on the video is Kranz. I never heard Kraft's name mentioned. Kranz explained the direct abort was dangerous because any error would send the spacecraft plummeting into the moon. The host explains it would involve firing the main engine, which might cause another explosion. Yopienso (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It is in that other video link where Chris Kraft explains that the abort option he wanted to do was the Direct Abort. Both videos discuss the Direct Abort as viable. And granted, there was potential for fatality with any option that was selected.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a simple, verifiable fact which you consistently ignore: the Service Module did not carry enough fuel to make an infinitely large delta v maneuver, with an infinitely large payload; this was limited. The statements in the article are based on these cited references from the Mission Operations report; I quote here the relevant passages:

"The crew had an abort pad onboard which required an SPS burn of 6079 fps at 60+00 to land in the Pacific Ocean at 118 hours." Page III-14, Flight Directors' Report, signed by Krantz and the other three shift team Flight Directors, including Lunney, Milton Lindler and Gerald Griffin.

"The current status was that the spacecraft was on a nonfree return trajectory which would require a significant maneuver to change to satisfactory entry conditions. A direct return to earth with landing time of 118 hours GET was possible only by using the Service Module propulsion system and jettisoning the LM." Page II-1, Summary, approved by Sigurd Sjoberg, Director of Flight Operations, NASA-MSC.

The propulsive capability of the SPS is also scientifically verifiable from the spacecraft masses and SPS propellant mass and specific impulse using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Without the LM as payload mass, the capability exceeds the 6079 requirement, but with the LM attached the capability reduces to about 2/3 of the required value. If they had dumped the LM (their only source of power, oxygen and water beyond a couple of hours) before making the maneuver, they would have been dead by the time they got back to Earth; if not, they would have burned the SPS fuel to depletion and still not have made it back to reentry; still dead. These facts remain true despite Kraft's or Kranz's recollections in filmed interviews 40 years later. (Surely you don't believe Kranz perjured himself when he signed the report?) Kranz's "gut feel" was ultimately correct. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Everybody was well aware that the LM was necessary as a lifeboat. Kranz, Kraft and the others were also well aware of the physics of the rocket equation, as it was their job to repeatedly exercise a working knowledge of it. Yet you still hear (in the videos) Kranz and Kraft both discussing the Direct Abort option as viable, with Kraft going so far as preferring it over an around-the-Moon abort.

Yes, 6079 fps delta-V was required. And this was easily doable! From the Retro Section of the Mission Ops Report, pB-5 (pdf p101of345):

"The [delta-]V capability of the docked DPS with the SM was 1994 fps and 4830 fps without the SM."

Notice that absolutely no one is talking about an LM jett in any of the options discussed in the report. So just with the lower stage of the Lunar Module, it gets:

6079 fps - 1994 fps = 4085 fps still needed

...and you are maintaining that the SPS was incapable of providing that 4085 unless they jettisoned the LM ascent stage? If this were true, why would Kranz say that he chose the around-the-Moon abort based upon a "gut feeling"? If this were true, he could simply say that his brain reasoned that Direct Abort was not physically possible. No gut instincts necessary at all. Perfectly clear and rational. Also, if the Direct Abort were not possible without LM jett, then why would Kraft say that that's the option he wanted to do? It would have been a stupid and suicidal option. Neither of them are saying that. They are both discussing the Direct Abort option as viable. How can we know that Kranz and Kraft were correct in speaking of Direct Abort as viable? The most obvious is that they are both competent, reliable sources. But you can also verify this for yourself...

On page 7-5 of the Mission Report (not MissionOpsReport) it states that the LM DPS was loaded with:

18,434.5 lbs of propellant (Fuel + Oxidizer)

And this DPS propellant is what provided one-third of the required delta-V for Direct Abort (eqn above).

Now scroll up to page 7-1 where the SPS propellant is listed:

40,529.7 lbs of propellant (Fuel + Oxidizer)

The SPS is a huge engine with huge thrust capability compared to the DPS. The SPS produces 20,500 pounds of thrust, compared to the DPS with 9,870 pounds of thrust (these numbers are from Cortright-Chap3). And you want to maintain that with more than twice as much propellant, the SPS was incapable of generating the remaining two-thirds of that DA delta-V? Note that the mass being moved by the SPS is significantly reduced. It is not pushing the DPS prop that's been burned off. The SPS was easily capable of doing the remaining two-thirds delta-V, and that's with keeping both the ascent and descent stages of the LM (empty DPS).

(Thrust is irrelevant to how much delta v a rocket stage can deliver; what counts is specific impulse, and the ratio of available propellant to gross weight.JustinTime55 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC))

On top of everything that's been discussed here, there is also the delta-V capability that was provided by the RCS system in both the LM and the CSM. ALL of it could have been used to get them home faster. A LOT faster than the option that Kranz chose, based on his "gut" instinct.

(Nobody would responsibly advocate using up all available propellant; that would leave nothing for course corrections, necessary because of navigation inaccuracies.JustinTime55 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC))

That Page II-1 quote you've highlighted is disturbing, in that the statement is fully contrary to what Kranz and Kraft are saying in their video statements, and it is contrary to a logical cursory assessment of SPS actual capability (presented here), and it is contrary to how other sections of the report discuss the viability of the Direct Abort option. This points toward a conclusion that the reports communicated a major lie (a fact known to be erroneous, yet presented as truth). And Page II-1 is not the only place where that story is officially stated. Here is a quote from Cortright-Appendix B, page B-114:

The direct abort was ruled out for Apollo 13 because the propellant requirements were so large. It would have been necessary to jettison the LM in order to reduce the spacecraft weight so that the service propulsion system (SPS) engine could make the necessary velocity change. The LM was essential to the crew's survival, and must not be jettisoned. Therefore, the choice was narrowed to the circumlunar abort which could be executed with the LM descent proplusion system (DPS), but there were still some decisions to be made.

It is clear that Cortright is telling a story that is incompatible with the story that Kranz, Kraft and others are recorded as telling. It is our job as Wikipedia editors to incorporate these aspects into the article, showing that the story is told one way by certain sources and another way by other sources.

(It is possible the MOR summary isn't a fair statement of all available options, and the Cortright commission probably just parroted that. But it was their job to investigate the causes of the oxygen tank failure and recommend fixes, period; not to evaluate abort options and second-guess the Flight Director. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC))

And this is parallel to the other issue that has been re-raised here in this Talk section, and that is how there are two distinct stories regarding the character of the O2 Tank 2 failure: one story that's been written in the official reports, and the different story that's been told verbally and popularized in subsequent books and movies and such. It has been suggested in the past that the best way for we as editors to handle inconsistencies of these types is to have the article present both versions of the story.

The people involved in this event are still living, and I am certain that accurate data is available. So some day there may be space historians or other researchers who will provide definitive answers to settle these inconsistencies. But that is well outside of what our role here as article editors is. Our job is to examine the materiel that we are provided by such sources, and then put together the best article that we can. The condition of the article as it stands right now, in light of the wealth of info that the sources are providing us right now (albeit inconsistent) is an article that is in need of being fixed.--Tdadamemd (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• First, you are putting words in my mouth: "...and you are maintaining that the SPS was incapable of providing that 4085 unless they jettisoned the LM ascent stage?" I maintained no such thing; I found no reference to a hybrid option firing both engines; I simply said the SPS engine was incapable of making the entire 6079, period. (For the record, I get 10,281 fps without the LM, and only 5,468 fps with it.) After I wrote my response, I saw that there were several options listed elsewhere, one of which said the entire 6079 could be done with the DPS after jettisoning the useless SM. The delta v numbers you got from the Mission Report show that wasn't possible either. And as a sanity check, I did my own calculation of the DPS using your LM fuel level (thanks for finding that; I didn't have the Mission Report available) and I got a bit more: 5,193 fps without SM, and 2,130 with SM.

I could not find reference to an option using both engines in the MOR. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I just re-watched that video, and here is an exact quote of what Kranz said:

"I had a very fundamental decision I had to make: We could execute what we call a Direct Abort and come around the front side of the Moon and be home in a day and a half."

Looking back at the Mission Ops Report, pB-5 (pdf p101of345), it is clear that Kranz is saying that the faster Direct Abort was viable. There are two listed on that page, and we've only been discussing the slower one. But TIG 60 + "a day and a half" = 60 + 36 = 96 hours. This corresponds closely to the fast option that gets Apollo 13 back at GETLC 94:15. The delta-V required here is 10,395 fps. And that appears to be reasonable, considering the rocket equation and how when mass decreases substantially because of the propellant that's been burned off, the change in velocity increases significantly for a given thrust level. Kranz's statement (along with Kraft's) shows how wrong those two quotes from these reports are (highlighted above). The Abort Trajectory diagram that's shown in the article lists these two types of Direct Abort options as "Fuel Critical" (slow) and "Time Critical" (fast). According to what Kranz is saying, they had both available to them as viable options.--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Secondly, you are quoting only part of what Kranz said, out of context. What does "viable" mean -- possible for consideration, or practical given all considerations and risks? Regardless, we can't put the word viable in his mouth. The fact remains, the call of which option to use was exclusively Kranz's (in consultation with his peer Flight Directors on the other shifts), and no one else's; not the flight controllers under his command, or even his boss/mentor Kraft's (ironically, by the very rule Kraft instituted in the Gemini program: the Flight Director is the boss.) He did not consider it a safe risk to use the SPS ("except as a last-ditch effort"), period. End of story.

We certainly can, and should present all the abort options laid out in the reports, with the statement of what Kranz ultimately chose and why (which we already have), in a neutral POV, with no spin or agenda. That's as much of a concession as you're going to get from me; it is out of order to make implications of what they should have done, or purvey fringe theories. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Where does Kranz ever definitively conclude that using the SPS was not safe?

What he does say is that he based his decision on his gut instinct. VERY different. So on the topic of putting words into Kranz's mouth, I myself have never suggested that Kranz has stated that the Direct Abort option was viable. (While he certainly may have, I myself have never seen this.) What I have been doing here is using the word 'viable' as an accurate description regarding the options that were available to them, and as an accurate description regarding the manner in which Kranz and Kraft both are discussing this option in those videos. If a Direct Abort required jettisoning the LM and this would mean certain death of the crew, then there's no reason to discuss Direct Abort. But we have here clear cut instances of Kranz & Kraft both discussing Direct Abort as viable.

As for the meaning of the word 'viable' itself, this indicates that it pertains to sustaining life. A 'viable option', in this usage indicates that there is a decision to follow a path where death is not a necessary result of that decision. Jettisoning the LM is not a viable option, because its life support and power consumables were needed for crew survival. Once that fact is established, no LM jett options need be discussed, because they are not viable.

So what we have here is a situation where the Direct Abort was discussed as viable, and far more than that... It was what Kraft thought was the smartest call.

Kranz's words are not being taken out of context. He says he "had a very fundamental decision I had to make".

If an option being looked at is not viable, that option gets dropped off the list of choices being considered. It isn't part of the decision.

Tonight, Wikipedia's policy on giving Undue Weight was pointed out to me. In reading through that, it quickly became apparent that this policy is what needs to be scrutinized here in our article. Here is a quote:

Balancing aspects

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

A huge problem that has persisted in this article is that it has failed to give due weight to the official NASA reports that were published. On top of that, we are not giving due weight to the significance of the Direct Abort option. These problems need to be fixed.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Apollo 13 Mailbox at Mission Control.jpg to appear as POTD

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

Here Is What An Explosion Looks Like - See Vintage NASA Film

More tendentious, unsupported arguments that there was no explosion

For anyone who would like to understand the difference between an explosion versus a tank rupture, here is a vintage NASA film of Apollo cryogenic pressure vessel certification where the tank explodes (explosion happens 40 seconds in): Steps To Saturn (1966 NASA Documentary) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBZSqvIZC0w&t=10m18s Anyone who calls the Apollo 13 tank rupture an "explosion" just does not know what an explosion is. The distinction is basic fundamental science. There are many videos posted to YouTube demonstrating an explosion. The effect is exactly the same as a bomb. Bombs explode. Unvented cryogenic pressure vessels explode. Here is one video of Steve Spangler on the Ellen Show (explosion happens 50 seconds in): Liquid Nitrogen Explosion - Steve Spangler on The Ellen Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsnjvFy7aw8&t=5m33s Everyone talks about how Apollo 13 had an explosion. This is clearly ERRONEOUS. If the SM O2 Tank had exploded, the Command Module would have failed (cracked or worse) and all three astronauts would have immediately died. What is common in both videos is that the cryogenic pressure vessels were not properly vented. There was no mechanism for sufficient pressure relief. Anyone who takes the time to read the detailed official report on Apollo 13 can readily see that the O2 Tank DID HAVE multiple safeties built in. NASA was well aware of the failure modes of cryogenic tanks and knew well that they are potential bombs. We have excellent data to know that the designed-in safeties worked. This is readily shown on the pressure graph: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:TankRuptureParametersGraph_-_Apollo13_CortrightReport_pg_B-47_%28pg_A-209_inlay%29.png NASA knows that there was no explosion on Apollo 13. At least they knew it when that report was written. But the story changed. It got amplified, dramatized and fictionalized. Today we have a Wikipedia article that says plainly in Sentence #2 that Apollo 13 had an explosion. There are hundreds of references say this. Yet they are all utterly BOGUS. We have the facts. The official report spoke very clearly. It is high time that the story gets told properly. NPOV, with no embellishment. Wikipedia is about presenting the story as told by accurate sources. Not about Ron Howard's Hollywood version. Not about anyone else's "blown up" version. --Tdadamemd (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC) I would just comment that this article (and Wikipedia generally) is not intended to be a discussion ground for ideas such as this. If you know of sources which support this alternative version of events, perhaps they could be included, with an appropriate NPOV description of their contents (and I mean genuinely NPOV, not conspiracy-theory stuff). WP needs to give due weight to the content of its sources and not advocate a certain point of view or version of the truth which has (apparently) been suppressed. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC) The policy you are citing speaks against: - Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment - Opinion pieces - Scandal mongering - Self-promotion - Advertising, marketing or public relations If you've been following the extremely lengthy discussion at this article, you can clearly see that absolutely none of that applies. Anyone who carefully reads my post above, or any of my previous, can see that what I have been advocating here is that this article communicate the information that NASA published in their OFFICIAL REPORT. Sources have been extensively cited, and continually and deliberately and intentionally ignored. These sources are not scandal mongering opinion pieces. They're the official version of events as determined by a multi-million dollar US government investigation. My post above linked to just one graph from that. There's LOADS more posted in the archives, such as here: "Explosion", revisited once again I am baffled that people can look at the wealth of information that determined that it was not an explosion, and then outright ignore all of it.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Here is a more succinct reply: The strange irony is that the version of the story that does count as propaganda/marketing/public relations is the one that is currently reflected in the article! Hyperbolic version: Apollo 13 had some crazy-violent explosion. This is simply not accurate. But it does sell movie tickets.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixes to electrical power system

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 ascertain the nature of the damage ?

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

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)

External links modified

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)

Re-entry and splashdown

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)

Service modul re-entry?

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)

reference

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)

"American"

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)

Milt Windler link 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)

External links modified

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)

External links modified

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)

External links modified (January 2018)

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)

new link for reference 59

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)

Change to launch time

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". [13] 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,[14] a week after launch.) TJRC (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Apollo 13 Service Module - AS13-59-8500.jpg to appear as POTD soon

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

Order of sections

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)

Apollo 13 Mission Operations Team merger

@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)

Additional refs

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)

This is puffery

"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)

GA work

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)

Aquarius

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)

Reentry and splashdown

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)

Prop copyright

@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)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

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)

Repetition

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)

S-IVB Impact

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 test confirmed the theory when a similar explosion was created, which blew off the outer panel exactly as happened in the flight."

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)

In popular culture section

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)

Support crew?

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)

Thoughts?

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)

Raumfahrer?

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)

NASA's finest hour

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)

Swinging around the Moon

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? [15] 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)

AS13-62-8990

"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 [16] 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)

Peer review?

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)

My plan is working perfectly!

-EEng

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)

LM/SM reentry 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.")

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)

Issues list from copyediting

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 [17] 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: [18] (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 [19] 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)

FAC

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2019

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)

Title

“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)

No explosion!

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." [20]
• "Two days later, with the spacecraft well on its way to the Moon, an oxygen tank exploded..." [21]
• "Due to debris from the explosion, the navigation system was unreliable." [22]
• "I did, of course, occasionally think of the possibility that the spacecraft explosion might maroon us in an enormous orbit about the Earth" [23] (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..." [24]
• "...no one knew whether the service module had been structurally weakened by the explosion." [25] \
  

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?" – Line from the film Taxi dermist.

-EEng

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)

Incorporating "explosion" into the article

Thank you, Wehwalt, for your recent edits to the article. I tweaked the second one. I watched the movie too long ago to remember that detail, but writers say it was more dramatic in the movie than in real life, which makes sense. The Cortright report, p. 4-28, says "the crew heard a loud 'bang'." The "shocking" part is some valves being shocked close, p. 4-40. YoPienso (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My edit: Accidental ignition of damaged wire insulation inside the oxygen tank as it was being routinely stirred caused an explosion that vented the tank's contents, crippling the spacecraft. The SM soon lost all its oxygen, needed for breathing and for generating electrical power. Edit summary: Boldly tweaking sentence for style and to add content

Your edit: Accidental ignition of damaged wire insulation inside the oxygen tank as it was being routinely stirred caused an explosion that vented the tank's contents. The SM soon lost all its oxygen, needed for breathing and for generating electrical power, rendering the SM inoperative. Edit summary: Focus more on the SM. The CM had at least some capability

Comments: If the SM was inoperative and the CM had at least some capability, doesn't that mean that the spacecraft overall was crippled?

We're trying to concisely summarize a catastrophic chain of events. This is how Cortright summarized them, p. 5-3:

The rapid expulsion of high-pressure oxygen which followed, possibly augmented by combustion of insulation in the space surrounding the tank, blew off the outer panel to bay 4 of the SM, caused a leak in the high-pressure system of oxygen tank no. 1, damaged the high-gain antenna, caused other miscellaneous damage, and aborted the mission.

Somehow the article is missing the urgency of the situation. This info is tucked into "Reentry and splashdown," where it should be confirmed, not introduced.

Proposed narrative: Accidental ignition of damaged wire insulation inside the oxygen tank as it was being routinely stirred caused an explosion that vented the tank's contents and crippled the spacecraft. The SM soon lost all its oxygen, critical for breathing and for generating electrical power. YoPienso (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to be dramatic, which your version most certainly is. We do not need to say "crippled" (if the spacecraft truly was, they could not have returned home) or "critical". We are simply stating the facts in a neutral manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point, but believe my prose is concise and clear, conveying the urgency of the situation without undue drama.

You must not know the definition of "crippled." (Hint: it's not a synonym of "inoperative.")

I hope other people join this discussion. YoPienso (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Are there other issues that you see? Because it is not the best form to push such a lengthy discussion about a fresh FA. The discussion occurs in the FAC, which is open to all, and the article now carries a very strong community consensus, given the number of people who reviewed it (and the lede gets looked at more than anything else) at the PR and FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I haven't fully understood the comments you made here on 4 Jan. between 21:31 and 23:05. The one at 22:12 is particularly baffling.

The discussion is long because you wanted to use only two sources and ignore the many others, which is against policy and common sense. You cryptically kept saying the question was why those two avoid saying "explosion," but you didn't accept Cooper's reason, nor offer one of your own, nor explain why you thought those two outweighed all the others.

There may be other issues, but I'm at the end of Christmas break and won't be spending much time here now. I was busy and totally missed the FAC as well as the removal of "exploded" and "explosion." They appeared 5 times the last time I edited this article. Thank you for restoring "explosion" at least one token time; it helps. And have a very happy 2020! YoPienso (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorporating "crippled" and "critical" into the article

I'm just going to go ahead and improve a line despite Wehwalt's assertion that to do so is being dramatic instead of neutral. Want dramatic? Read Chaikin (p. 301, also quoted here.): "Even now, oxygen spewed from Odyssey’s side like blood from a harpooned whale." I'm not writing like that; I just want to convey to our readers that the tank explosion was destructive. Calling oxygen "critical" isn't being dramatic. Googling "Apollo 13 crippled" turned up dozens of RSs that matter-of-factly called the spacecraft "crippled." In a 2005 "On this Day," the staid BBC harked back to this story.

1970: Critical explosion cripples Apollo 13

An explosion on board Apollo 13 has caused one of the most critical situations in American space history and put the lives of the three astronauts on board in severe jeopardy. The explosion happened in the fuel cells of the spacecraft's service module approximately 56 hours after lift-off. This resulted in the loss of Apollo 13's main power supply which means oxygen and water reserves are now critically low.

No, I'm not being too dramatic. Just too deferential. YoPienso (talk)

I've rewritten slightly. I believe such edits would have been flagged at FAC for NPOV. Chaikin had editors he had to deal with; we have to write as part of a collective work, which means no harpooned whales. I remind you of WP:CONSENSUS--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Now I get it; you don't take the time to read what I write. Please go back and read it and notice I DON'T WANT ANY HARPOONED WHALES IN THIS ARTICLE! YoPienso (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant that to stand for dramatic language, rather than the words in particular. I have of course read what you said and have spent a considerable time this morning looking over the diffs and thinking what can satisfy us both. I am sorry if I gave the impression otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Wehwalt. I think we'd both like a happy medium between drab and dramatic language. Being boring's bears no bonus. YoPienso (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I really wouldn't advise trying to emulate the style of journalists in an encyclopaedia article - it is two entirely different styles of writing and the journalist will always pander to the reader and provide overly dramatic writing, as the above quote amply demonstrates. "one of the most critical situations in American space history and put the lives of the three astronauts on board in severe jeopardy" would be a red flag for poor writing for an encyclopaedic article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, I don't think anyone's trying to emulate journalists. I'm showing that many reliable secondary sources, often written by journalists, use the word "crippled." Encyclopedia Britannica uses "disabled," which would be a good compromise. YoPienso (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that the problem though? Secondary sources may well be 'sexing up' events to draw readers, but that doesn't mean we copy them. We should not be trying to introduce dramatic language here at all: this should written be in a neutral and encyclopaedic style. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The changes attempted so far by YoPienso do not strike me as in any way an improvement: quite the reverse. It is, if I may say so, neither prudent nor courteous to wade in and try to rewrite an article that has only two days ago successfully completed its passage through the FAC process, following a peer review. Can the dozen reviewers all be wrong and YoPienso right? I do not think so, and am glad to see YoPienso at least discussing his/her proposed changes here. Tim riley talk 10:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree with SchroCat on this point. Kees08 (Talk) 15:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (I tried to add this almost an hour ago; forgot it hadn't posted.) Changing "CM power" to "The CM's systems" is a nice improvement, Wehwalt; thanks.

I'll lay out the proposed texts to whosoever may look this way. Which is better?

Accidental ignition of damaged wire insulation inside the oxygen tank as it was being routinely stirred caused an explosion that vented the tank's contents and crippled the spacecraft. The SM soon lost all its oxygen, critical for breathing and for generating electrical power.

or

Accidental ignition of damaged wire insulation inside the oxygen tank as it was being routinely stirred caused an explosion that vented the tank's contents. Without oxygen, needed both for breathing and for generating electric power, the SM's systems could not operate.

If you google "crippled apollo 13" you'll find many RSs, including by NASA, the NYT, NPR, UPI, Spectrum IEEE, The Guardian, the BBC, NBC, and Jim Lovell, called Apollo 13--sometimes the mission, usually the spacecraft--crippled. It's the best word, imo, but "damaged" would be better than implying the only problem created by the explosion was the loss of oxygen. P.S. Or "disabled." YoPienso (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the spacecraft in fact got them home safely, "crippled" seems not the best word, to say nothing of the fact that someone may take offense at it in an era when the disabled list in baseball has become the injured list. What about adding "undamaged" before LM? That does the same thing by implication.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please look up the definition of "crippled." YoPienso (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, no one objects to calling a spacecraft crippled. I'm sorry but I don't understand where you suggest adding "undamaged". "LM" isn't in either version I posted. I don't understand your last sentence at all. YoPienso (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm proposing the following as a compromise: (additions in bold): "Without oxygen, needed both for breathing and for generating electric power, the SM's systems, including its main engine, could not operate. The CM's systems had to be shut down to conserve its remaining resources for reentry, forcing the crew to transfer to the undamaged LM as a lifeboat."--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems a very sound suggestion. Tim riley talk 11:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Works for me too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever works for you guys will have to work for me. I'm a little dismayed at the ownership displayed here.

Tim riley, I was never trying to rewrite the article, but to tweak a few places. FAs can be edited, you know. FA doesn't mean the article is perfect and unimprovable. Here is a line that is unclear. Maybe it's clear to you and your dozen reviewers, but it's not clear to me, and it's a safe bet it's not clear to the average reader, either. I'm bolding the confusing part: The escaping gas was probably enough by itself to blow out the aluminum exterior panel to Sector 4, but combustion products generated if nearby insulation ignited would have added to the pressure, until the departure of the panel exposed the sector to space, snuffing out the fire. It's been tweaked now to but combustion products generated by nearby insulation ignited would have added to the pressure, which is still unclear. What are combustion products? The if should probably be changed to had. Maybe the passage means, but even more pressure would have been generated had nearby insulation ignited. I truly don't know what it means.

Wehwalt, thank you for trying to work with me and for making compromises. I have pleasant memories of editing with you in the past. What frustrated me here was my inability to understand your comments, and the fact you didn't give me straight answers. (I still have no idea why you thought 2 sources outweighed 100s.) I realize you found me annoying, but I was trying my best to be collegial. I apologize for personal faults I can't see or correct. Your quibble over "crippled" and "critical" was offputting. I didn't realize, and apparently you didn't either, that before and after achieving FA status, the article uses "critical" twice in exactly the same way I was proposing. Since noticing that, I withdraw my request for a purely stylistic reason: the word appears too close to where I wanted to insert it. I feel you were resisting me, as a perceived interloper, rather than the word itself.

I would like to leave in a friendly manner as I return to my real-life teaching duties now after Christmas break. This wasn't my most successful Wikipedia endeavor. To any I have inadvertently offended, my sincerest apologies, and best wishes for this new year. YoPienso (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I gave that impression. You did not offend me, and I regret if I offended you. I am afraid we were talking at cross purposes. We were each trying to improve Wikipedia. I don't recall the prior occasion on which we edited together, but I'm sorry if I spoiled positive impressions from that time.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ownership? Wehwalt has made numerous tweaks and alterations based on some of your comments. Just because he disagrees with some of them does not mean there is any ownership at all: it just means that people have not accepted your argument. That is the way consensus is built here, and just because people have preferred one version over another (and have given solid reasons and rationales based on our policies and guidelines) does not mean there is any ownership. Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL before you start throwing names around please. - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I took look at the into and I think it fails to make clear to people not already familiar with the Apollo spacecraft the importance of the Service Module to astronaut survival. None of the words being debated, crippled, disabled, damaged, etc, make that point. I would propose replacing that clause in question with "rendering the SM unable to fulfill its role of providing propulsion and life support during most of the mission."--agr (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added "propulsion and life support" before "systems" in the second paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Crew Portrait - Surely this was not taken post-mission?

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)

50th anniversary events

@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)

Please note that

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

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

This article is being recorded for Project Spoken Wikipedia

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

BBC World Service podcast

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

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)

TFA

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)

Citation replacement

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)

A few more areas where this article could be improved

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

Image panorama

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)

Photo of damaged service module was not taken from the lunar module

Full photograph, clearly showing the command module of Odyssey in the foreground. Therefore, this had to have been a photograph from the docking window of Aquarius. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:38, 14 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)

"Accident"

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)

A "see also"

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)

Logo

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

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."" 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)

Hearing Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics

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)

Trivia Add?

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)

"Appolo 13" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Accuracy of opening sentence

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)

service module image

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)

Investigation and response - Review board - Tank rupture

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. 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)

References

Dead links to NASA documents

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)

"The panel's departure . . ."

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

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)

The alleged scan of the "invoice"

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)