Talk:Apollo 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Space
Portal:Space
 Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Space exploration WikiProject Space exploration Space exploration-Importance: High

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Apollo 13 was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 20060606

Contents

[edit] Mission Objectives

There is nowhere in the article that states the purpose of Apollo 13's spaceflight. Could someone add something relevant to my suggestion to the article please? Dyamantese 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted and fixed. Strangely, it was mentioned in the Apollo 14 article but not here.DrBear 22:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

An event on this page is a April 17 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment) I didnt know where to put this, but in the dramatization section: Apollo 13 was an important plot point in a Wonder Years episode. -psy1123eu

There is a number in parenthesis after each crewman's name. I deduce this is the number of missions counting Apollo 13. It should say for sure. RJFJR 00:51, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Also, there are some numbers in Mission parameters but there there is a statistics section at the bottom. Can these be merged? RJFJR 00:51, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Command/service module "Odyssey"

The article says Since their command module "Odyssey" was severely damaged. It was the service module part which was actually damaged. The command module (the top part of the CSM, containing the crew) was called Odyssey. But was the whole CSM referred to by this name? Anyway, it seems this phrase as it stands is inaccurate. Richard W.M. Jones 16:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24 volt current

What is a 24 volt current, as referred to in the section on the Cause of the Accident? I can't decide if this should be 24 volt supply, or if its more complicated. I had a look at this page: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ap13acc.html It doesn't mention these figures, but does have some different DC voltages. --John 15:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the Apollo CSM operated on 23v DC, but since the generators at Kennedy Space Center operate at 60v DC, and that NASA made changes to the specifications that the Apollo CSM would be on the higher voltage on the ground and the lower voltage in-flight, the crucial mistake was made by the oxygen tank manufactuers (Beech Aircraft) when the failed to change the thermostats from the 23v DC operation to that of the 60v DC operation.Rwboa22 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect time?

The article says "mission began at 13:13" but according to NASA the launch was at 19:13 (14:13 EST). If I had sufficient english skills I would edit the article instead of writing here. Another thing: the paragraph is not totally incorrect, because one timezone more east it was 13:13 at launch time.

The mission starts, ends, etc. were usually listed as Houston time (U.S. Central) and thus it would have been at 13:13 Houston time. (Houston is west, not east, by the way, of the Cape) --


Never mind the time, the article does not even tell us the year, let alone the date.

[edit] GA failed

  • The Apollo 13 mission began with a lesser known malfunction which could have been equally catastrophic. : equally catastrophic to what?
    • To the catastrophe that eventually did occur...
      • If so, it should be mentioned in the text. Lincher 19:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        PS: sign your comments, please.
  • During second stage burn the center engine shut down prematurely. : was that the catastrophic malfunction?
    • Reworded the whole "lesser-known malfunction" part. It seemed out of place. --Nate 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs a complete copyedit.
    • Probably not complete, but I did some copyediting. --Nate 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs to be reviewed by experts to be explained to neophytes because it is harsh to understand.
    • I wouldn't call myself an expert (although I have read Lost Moon), but I did attempt to make this article more readable.
  • A bit of rephrasing is needed here : At the time of the explosion, however, the true cause was not known; one conjecture was a meteoroid impact.
    • Rephrased. --Nate 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No link to Apollo spacecraft which is needed to understand the article.
    • Added link. --Nate 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ...they were still extremely lucky... : there is no need for the word extremely, pov.
  • The text that follows shouldn't be in the mission highlight section since it didn't occur during the flight (it was movie information); Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger's book about the mission, Lost Moon, was later turned into a successful movie, Apollo 13, starring Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon as the Apollo crewmen.
  • Thanks to detailed manufacturing records... should be changed for NPOV statement.
  • ...was a marvel of engineering... is another example of pov.

Lincher 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing up the article (Trying to get it up to GA status)

I sort of stumbled upon this article and saw that it (sadly) did not achieve Good Article status. As such, I did what I could to help edit and improve this article. The suggestions above (under "GA Failed") were addressed individually (see notes above). Here are some other small changes I made.

  • Removed "cislunar". Cis-lunar means within the lunar orbit, which is clearly not the case for this mission.
  • Moved reference to "LEM 'lifeboat' procedure" being created to right after first mention of the "lifeboat" scenario.
  • Fixed inconsistencies between referring to the Lunar Excursion Module as both LEM and LM.
  • Free Return Trajectory was mentioned in two disjoint places - They are now combined.
  • Made many other small corrections/copyedits

--Nate 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


++----------------------------------------++

I added correction to Crew, and gave NASA page as source. The Crew name needs to be actual name, not "nickname", as it gives off the impression of incorrect data, as which I thought it was. Just a suggestion is all.

  • I took out the word "Correction" on the page. It gives the feel of incorrect and conflicting data, which I think you were trying to avoid. Sources go at the bottom of the page.--Nate 13:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done some additional cleanup and copyediting:

  • Standardized on US English (double quotes for quotations, -ize rather than -ise).
  • Consistently capitalized Command/Service/Lunar Module.
  • Replaced "Lunar Excursion Module" and "LEM" with "Lunar Module" and "LM", respectively, to match the article summary.
  • Eliminated several POV terms.
  • Clarified a couple of explanations, particularly the cause of the oxygen tank explosion (making it clear that the fire did not ignite the oxygen, it merely heated it up).
  • Various minor copyedits (punctuation etc.)

Further corrections (or reverts of anything I did that made it worse!) welcome. --Achurch 08:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parachute claim

I just snipped:

  • When the Apollo 13 Command Module was examined after its return, it was found that the crew had tried to wire up a manual deployment switch for the recovery parachutes. However - they had in fact wired the switch to the parachute jettison control. If they had decided to use their jury-rigged manual override they would have in reality released the parachutes from the command module and plunged to their deaths in the ocean below.

from the list of mission factoids as I've never heard of that before and it strikes me as quite staggeringly improbable that the crew of 13 would have attempted to rewire the ship's systems without at least a little chat with Houston. Wikipedia's the only place I've ever seen this claim mentioned, so if someone can come up with a cite for it in the reams of NASA documentation available, fine, otherwise, no. --Mike 19:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, they already had manual parachute deployment buttons right there on the control panel, so it seems very unlikely. Mark Grant 10:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds extremely apocryphal to me--good call. --MLilburne 09:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, Sy Liebergot mentioned this claim recently as untrue, and said he checked with Fred Haise to make sure! Mark Grant 16:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sparks Causing Explosion

How did the sparks cause the explosion in the oxygen tank? Pure oxygen is not explosive without a source of fuel. PeterGrecian 11:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I gather from the article that the sparks caused a fire which heated up the tank and overpressurized it or something attached to it. -- KarlHallowell 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, but what was the chemical reaction? Oxygen + something + sparks = exposion. PeterGrecian 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, it was not a chemical explosion. As explained (perhaps poorly) in the article, an electrical short-circuit caused a fire which fed on the electrical insulation and heated up the oxygen until the pressure exceeded the limits of the tank. If you want more detail, it's on page 1 of the accident investigation report: maybe that section of the article should be expanded to clarify exactly what happened. Mark Grant 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
ahh, a short-circuit, an arc, a fire inside the tank, oxygen and the remaining teflon insulator. I can't find the 'accident investigation report' I'm having a look at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/challenger/index.html The Apollo 13 Accident - (Hearing) U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics. Date: 91st Congress, 2nd Session, June 16, 1970 to see if I can work it out. It would be great if the article did as you say 'clarify exactly what happened'. Page 49 of the reference suggests it took about 90 seconds from the fans going on to the pannel blowing out. Page 51 suggests that the heat also weakened the tank. Cheers. PeterGrecian 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It's in the references: "Report of the Apollo 13 review board". MLilburne 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who said the famous quote?

The article currently lists Swigert (CMP) as uttering the initial "I believe we've had a problem here", but the PDF transcript lists CDR (Lovell) as the speaker, at 02:07:55:20. Is there a source for naming Swigert instead? If not, it should be corrected to Lovell. --Achurch 15:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice the footnote. Is the transcript in error, then? --Achurch 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What I read is that Swigert said the initial, differently-worded quote, which Lovell then repeated in more-or-less the form that has been popularised by media. BigNate37(T) 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
According to Lovell's own book, "Lost Moon," Swigert said the first line, and then Lovell said the second. It is very likely that the transcript is in error, as they were prepared very quickly after the event by teams of typists who might not have been expert at recognising astronauts' voices. MLilburne 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it looks like you're right--there are some scribbles on the side of that page in the transcript, which look like they read read "5/9/70: Per Jack (something) - Swigert reported trouble. Per (something) - Swigert first transmission, Lovell second." Sorry for spamming the talk page! --Achurch 06:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with spamming talk for a legitimate question!

[edit] S-II Engine Configuration

Gentlemen, the second stage of the Saturn V had 3 "J2" engines arranged in a single row. The portion of the article about the pogo occillations of the center engine refers to the "other four" being run longer to compensate for the early shutdown of the center engine. This is incorrect as there were only three engines. I edited the page and it was deleted. Please check the engine configuration of the second stage to confirm.

From the Apollo 15 Flight Journal:
[The second, or S-II, stage of Apollo 15's Saturn V vehicle is 24.9 metres tall and is powered by the combustion of LH2 (liquid hydrogen) and LOX in a cluster of five J-2 rocket motors which generate a total thrust of 5,115kN (1.15 million pounds). A million litres of LH2, cooled to -253°C to get it into a liquid state, is loaded into the large, upper tank of the stage while 331,000 litres of LOX is loaded into the smaller, squat tank below. These tanks share a single insulated structure with only an insulated, common bulkhead between them. With both propellants being so cold - LH2 is only 20 degrees above absolute zero - the tanks must be prepared and chilled down before they can be filled.]
I built plenty of Saturn V models as a kid, and there are 5 J-2's on the S-II arranged in the same configuration as the F-1's on the S-I --Mycroft.Holmes 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This photo clearly shows the arrangement of the 5 J-2 engines of the S-II. --Mycroft.Holmes 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See also http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch8-3.html --Lionel.Mandrake 22:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky 13

In the beginning, there was talk that something would go wrong with the shuttle because it had the "unlucky" number 13. Yet it was lucky because even though something did go wrong, the astronauts got home safely. -Ashleigh Bombatch

[edit] Backup Crew

Removed reference to "Whitney Simmons, gay, lozer, crusty". --Chrisa 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I don't think we need to list all the vandalism that's been removed-space flight articles are heavy targets because students are assigned the topic and decide to leave their mark.DrBear 13:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Sentence

It it Just me or does: Apollo 13 was the third manned lunar-landing mission, part of the foundation of the American Apollo program. not make complete sense. DTGardner 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right; it's nonsensical. Removed. Joema 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splashdown

I read on some NASA website that Apollo 13's splashdown was the most accurate of all the Apollo missions. If someone could help me located that source, I think it'd be a wonderful addition to the article. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 08:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/p/o/Talk%7EApollo_13_8c68.html"