This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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 they failed to change the thermostats from the 23v DC operation to that of the 60v DC operation. Rwboa22 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.9.135 ( talk) 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
Lincher 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
-- 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've done some additional cleanup and copyediting:
Further corrections (or reverts of anything I did that made it worse!) welcome. -- Achurch 08:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I just snipped:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.52.206.186 ( talk) 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 08:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know where the service module is now? Did it re-enter the atmosphere, enter orbit, or just float off in space? Have there been any attempts to rescue it? QWERTY | Dvorak 17:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The article states, "As a result of following the free return trajectory, the altitude of Apollo 13 over the lunar far side was approximately 100 km greater than the corresponding orbital altitude on the remaining Apollo lunar missions. This could mean an all-time altitude record for human spaceflight, not even superseded as of 2007; however, the variation in distance between Earth and the Moon, owing to the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit about Earth, is much larger than 100 km, so it is not certain whether the actual distance from Earth was greater than that of all other Apollo missions."
How could this not be known? How is it possible to fly to or around the moon without knowing exactly where it is and how far away it is, if only to avoid questions of "Are we there yet?"? Aren't there records or calculations or something that would give the distances? Or is there something missing in my reasoning here? 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Could someone explain why some of the thumbnails are broken, and perhaps how to fix them? I looked for syntax for the thumbnails independent of the image itself, but they seem tied together. So since the image itself works, I'm not sure how to fix the thumbnails. Thanks. goodeye 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to add a diagram to the article demonstrating the flight path from Earth, around the moon, and back to Earth, with various points indicated on it. Things like where they were when the explosion happened, when various burns took place, etc. I would be willing to create one if someone could point me to the information required to create such a diagram. Most of the dates, etc should already be in the article so those are no problem, but I would like to see the orbit be as accurate as possible. - AndrewBuck 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Event Mission Time Distance from Earth (hr:min:sec) (Nautical Miles) Lift-off, 19:13:00.65 G.M.T., April 11 1970. S-II engine ignition 00:02:45 S-IVB engine ignition 00:09:54 S-IVB engine cutoff 00:12:30 Translunar injection maneuver 02:35:46 182 S-IVB/command and service module separation 03:06:39 3,778 Docking 03:19:09 5,934 First midcourse correction 30:40:50 121,381 Cryogenic oxygen tank incident 55:54:53 173,790 Second midcourse correction 61:29:43 188,371 Trans-earth injection 79:27:39 5,465 (from moon) Third midcourse correction 105:18:28 152,224 Fourth midcourse correction 137:39:52 37,808 Command module/service module separation 138:01:48 35,694 Undocking 141:30:00 11,257 Entry interface 142:40:46 Landing 142:54:41
Logicman1966 ( talk) 02:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here is another version with the changes you suggested and a couple others as well. Let me know if you think anything else should be changed, added, etc. - AndrewBuck ( talk) 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This is what I don't understand (an explanation is missing but to me is pertinent): if they expected the evaporation of the LOX from the tank to take several days and it only took a few hours, why didn't they realize that something was wrong (i.e. the internal temperature of the tank was way too high) and inspect the tank? Was this fact just ignored or mentally written off by the same people who ignored the voltage limitations of the thermostat? Did they just not check the tank to see if it was empty until several days had already passed, and then assume it took the normal length of time for the LOX to evaporate?
Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.114.209 ( talk) 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Gus Grissom died on January 27, 1967 in the Apollo 1 fire. The launch of Apollo 13 was in April, 1970 - nearly three years later. So, no - Gus was not on the Apollo 13 mission. Dwtno ( talk) 16:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I see a major fault in this article. Popular wisdom accepts without question that the oxygen tank failure was an "explosion". But the official NASA report does not use that word. It details the incident as far less catastrophic than if the tank had actually exploded.
I just posted an addition to the "explosion" section in hopes that these facts will come to light. I expect that there will be a rash of resistance to this information, as I have experienced in extensive debate on this subject on the Usenet forum sci.space.history. Instead of repeating the debate here on Wikipedia, I will leave this article alone to let other readers decide how to best incorporate this alternate perspective (ironically, the official perspective).
For those interested in the sci.space.history discussion, you may find it especially interesting in that Sy Liebergot himself was involved. More of my comments on this topic can be found by doing a GoogleGroups search on (explosion stuf4).
I will check back after a stretch of time to see how this article has evolved in light of the plethora of facts that are detailed in the official NASA report on this incident. I hope you all find it as illuminating as I have. Tdadamemd ( talk) 14:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Would kind of depend on your definition of an explosion. To say the tank exploded is different then say there was an explosion in the tank.
74.33.170.222 (
talk) 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement on the list of flight directors. See edits from July 15, 25, and 29.
Kranz, Griffin, and Lunney are not in doubt. I have it on good authority that there were four flight directors (speech by Gerry Griffin). So who was the fourth?
Anybody have a good source for this? Milt Windler, Thomas Mullen, and now Pete Frank are currently listed. That sounds like two too many to me. -- ScottJ ( talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI - I kept a scrapbook of the Apollo 13 flight from 5 Feb 1970 through 26 April 1970. www.rajordan.com/apollo13 [2] Rajordan 22:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Apollo 13 was scheduled to take off in March. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.185.73 ( talk) 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
One question that I have been asked, and have never found an answer for, is: why, upon determining that the SM was damaged to the point of uselessness, did they not jettison it, making far less mass for the LM's engines to push back to Earth? Could/should this be explained? I'm sure others have wondered as well. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article states two different dates for when Mattingley was replaced - under Crew it says "he was replaced by Swigert eight days before launch", and then under backup crew about Swigert it states "was moved to the prime crew three days before launch" - which was it? 91.197.34.188 ( talk) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I moved the images in the Explosion section to avoid text and the Listen box crashing over the first left aligned image, and I also moved excess images to a temporary gallery.
But the article seems to need even more cleanup than just that section: it appears listy, disjoint and incomplete. I am no writer but I stole the German article structure for this suggestion:
I am sure there are other better structures, so I will leave it to others to decide what is best. 84user ( talk) 20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Was there a replacement assigned for Charlie Duke on the backup crew? Whichever way, that should be added to the article, to add to the fact that Swiggert had no replacement. 76.66.196.139 ( talk) 06:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This sentence structure is wrong:
The command module shell was formerly at the Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace, in Paris. The interior components were removed during the investigation of the accident and reassembled into BP-1102A, the water egress training module, and were subsequently on display at the Museum of Natural History and Science in Louisville, Kentucky, until 2000.
Please rephrase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.95.31 ( talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Added the following text to the Popular culture section detailing the interactive theater production APOLLO 13: Mission Control
In 2008, an interactive theatrical show entitled APOLLO 13: Mission Control premiered at BATS Theatre in Wellington, New Zealand. The production faithfully recreated the mission control consoles and audience members became part of the storyline. The show also featured a 'guest' astronaut each night - a member of the public who suited up and amongst other duties, stirred the oxygen tanks and said the line "Houston, we've had a problem". This 'replacement' astronaut was a nod to Jack Swigert, who replaced Ken Mattingly shortly before the actual launch in 1970. The production toured to other cities in New Zealand in 2009 and an Australian tour is scheduled for 2010-2011.
References include: http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/production.php?id=916 Theatreview media release and subsequent reviews of the production http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/002329.html Collect Space forum listing of BATS Theatre production of APOLLO 13: Mission Control http://www.nzfestival.nzpost.co.nz/theatre/apollo-13-mission-control Details on NZ Festival website http://www.apollo13.co.nz The official website of the production Markwesterby ( talk) 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that this article uses inconsistant capitalisation of Earth and Moon, contrary to the manual of style. Might be worth fixing - 93.97.122.93 ( talk) 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Jim Lovell is usually credited, wrongly, with reporting to Houston, "We've had a problem," but he was repeating what Swigert said just beforehand, upon the Capsule Communicator's request for repetition. Lovell himself wrote an account attributing "We've had a problem" to Swigert.
Unfortunately, the notion that the quote is originally Lovell's is encouraged by an error in the official record, the Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription. However, a handwritten note visible on the transcript points out the error, as follows:
[* NASA Public Affairs Official.]
NASA has itself produced, at the very least, three official documents with differing quotes attributed to different speakers.
The Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription says:
The Apollo 13 Mission Commentary has this version:
To confuse matters further, a now out-of-print document was produced by NASA's Public Affairs Office called EP-76 Apollo 13 "Houston, we've got a problem." This not only perpetuated a misquotation (got a problem instead of had a problem) but attributed it wrongly to Lovell instead of Swigert.
It is recognised by NASA that official mission transcripts contain many errors because the lay typists misheard weak and dirty communications, poor quality recordings, or difficult and unfamiliar engineering jargon.
Ignoring the official transcript and listening to the actual mission audio yields this exchange:
Anyone familiar with the crewmembers' voices can easily hear the vocal differences between Swigert's and Lovell's statements. The recording supplied opposite is loud and clear, the voice differences are easy to hear, and the audio supports Jim Lovell's own account.
odea ( talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Major reversion. I thought I had found an error, but now I see that the reference I was going by is not even consistent, even on the same page. In the Crew Debriefing Report, Swigert is quoted as saying, "Then you called Houston about our problem", but reading just a bit further he is quoted saying that he was the one who made the radio call. I need to make reversions on other pages now.--
Tdadamemd (
talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(Below question/response reposted vebatim from the
archive because I am still curious, and it goes unanswered.)
Perhaps this detail was covered in the
Report of Apollo 13 Review Board, (PDF) NASA June 1970 and not written in the article to preserve clarity?
This is what I don't understand (an explanation is missing but to me is pertinent): if they expected the evaporation of the LOX from the tank to take several days and it only took a few hours, why didn't they realize that something was wrong (i.e. the internal temperature of the tank was way too high) and inspect the tank? Was this fact just ignored or mentally written off by the same people who ignored the voltage limitations of the thermostat? Did they just not check the tank to see if it was empty until several days had already passed, and then assume it took the normal length of time for the LOX to evaporate? Wingman4l7 ( talk)
Here is a footnote that has existed on this article for many moons:
Note that NASA's offical report ( REPORT OF APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD) does not itself use the word "explosion" in describing the tank rupture. Rupture disks and other safety measures were present to prevent a catastrophic explosion, and analysis of pressure readings and subsequent ground-testing determined that these safety measures worked as designed. See findings 26 and 27 on page 195 (5-22) of the NASA report.
There will be many who will want to revert the change I just made to the article. But the most accurate information we have tells us it was not an explosion. I suggest that it is high time that Wikipedia relates this story accurately without embellishment. Today we are one month away from the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 13 launch. The best tribute we can make here is to scrutinize movies, books, personal accounts, etc and do our best to filter out any sensationalism.
There is a significant difference between "an explosion" versus the tank failure described in the official report. If anyone has an argument for invalidating that extremely detailed report, please make it here.
But it is clear to me that just because "everyone says it was an explosion" does not invalidate what the report says. It is a very interesting read, and I expect anyone who takes the time to poke through it will see how thorough they were.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a glaring omission not to mention the contribution of the engineers at the University of Toronto Aerospace Studies. I don't think there's ever been any recognition in official or pop culture circles. See the story in Canadian Press "A team of University of Toronto engineers helped save ill-fated Apollo 13 crew" April 10, 2010. Consulzephyr ( talk) 01:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have accidentally posted concerns about the assertion there was no explosion on JustinTime's and my talk page instead of here. We're going to need a reliable source that says there was no explosion in order to justify saying so. Explanations that amount to definitions of "explosion" will not suffice; we'll need one that says there was no explosion, or we cannot say that here. For example, I found just such a one regarding the break-up of the Challenger. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11031097/ns/technology_and_science-space// Yopienso ( talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, in case there is any lingering question regarding the persistent notion that the O2 tank exploded, I just scoured the entire Mission Operations Report that was published at the end of April 1970 (separate from the Cortright Report). This is a 345-page document that is a compilation of different reports submitted by various groups within Mission Control, from the Flight Directors on down. I read through the entire report and found these totals for how the O2 tank 2 event was described:
Now it is certainly possible that my count is off. Anyone can check it for themselves. But the pattern is clear.
Note that this report is written in part by Kranz and Liebergot, and is signed by them. Both have been prolific users of the word 'explosion' in subsequent years describing the event. Yet in this official document that was published when the event was fresh, they never use the word 'explosion' a single time. What remains for the historian is to explain why the story changed. I have my own understanding. But there are many people who were inside Mission Control who wrote and signed off on that report. It might be good to ask them directly to help get a complete and accurate history of this amazing mission.
The graph in the EECOM report with the word 'RUPTURE' appears to be a fold-out that has been photocopied in the folded position. If anyone has access to the original paper version, I'd be very interested to see what appears in the full graph.
Also, to describe the SHe Supercritical Helium tank situation on the LM, this report uses the word "rupture" (/disc rupture/ruptured, etc) another 6 times. And likewise, it never uses the word 'explosion' to describe that tank failure event either. The SHe tank rupture event was so solidly predicted that it isn't even described as an anomaly (an occurrence that goes against the nominal stated schedule of events).-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 23:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Ordinarily the alignment procedure used an onboard sextant device, called the Alignment Optical Telescope, to find a suitable navigation star. However, due to the explosion, a swarm of debris from the ruptured service module made it impossible to sight real stars."
The ref associated with "18" is pretty poor [7] - not really suitable for this article. What do others think? Sophia ♫ 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
> Do you think the timing of the stir had anything to do with the
> explosion, or was it likely to happen whenever the next stir took
> place?
The tank stir was normally performed once a day, after sleep, but I
requested an extra stir before sleep because the Oxygen Tank 2’s
quantity instrumentation reading had failed earlier and I wanted a more
frequent quantity reading of Oxygen Tank 1. The explosion would likely
have occurred during the scheduled post-sleep stir, eight hours later.
There’s an old saying : “No good deed goes unpunished.”
Sy Liebergot
“Apollo EECOM: Journey of A Lifetime”
www.apolloeecom.com
I removed the whole section as there was nothing else that wasn't said better earlier in the article. Sophia ♫ 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've just figured out Tdadamemd's misunderstanding about the valve on oxygen tank #2.
I was reexamining the
Cortright Rpt., p. 195, Secs. 26-27 and see that:
refers to
In other words, 8/100's of a second before the tank exploded, the valve caused the pressure to drop 12 psi. -- Yopienso ( talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, the Lovell report that Tdadamemd discredits is part of a larger work edited by Edwin Cortright. -- Yopienso ( talk) 04:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there are a couple of issues with the Analysis section:
The Cortright report is an important, authoritative source for the known facts of the incident, and its alternate form in the weblink of this section is probably the best one to use as the cited source. (Note it also is redundantly used in the "explosion" footnote and for citations in the Explosion section.)
What say you all? JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I appreciate all the touch-ups you've been doing. I'm reverted this one, though, because I don't think we should clutter the lede with the detail of Mattingly's measles and resulting swap-out. It's still there as asterisked information, as well as in the boxes. What do you think? Regards, Yopienso ( talk) 03:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
[Outdent.] After ignoring this article as per my suggestion and now reconsidering, I'm going to change the lede. I've checked the other Apollo article ledes (8-17) to find some kind of consistency. There is none. Some don't mention the crew at all, some give all three, one gives two. Including the swap-out just seems like way too much information up front, so I'm getting rid of it, leaving it for the asterisked section, which still may not be best, but is considerably better, imho. Also, although the film shows Mattingly as the main solver of the power problem, according to Jim Lovell on a DVD bonus section, he was a composite of John Aaron and other engineers. See our article on the film as well as this review Yopienso ( talk) 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Socheid, for your refiguring of the crew lists. -- Yopienso ( talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I just added the "Citation needed" template to the cost of the mission. ($4.4 billion.) I've never done this before, and hope I did it right. Apparently a bot will come along later and date it. -- Yopienso ( talk) 22:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
GENE KRANZ ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW - PART 2, C-SPAN, 1999.
And he talks some about Apollo 13. I have added this to our External Links. Cool Nerd ( talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
" . . . Two days later, en route to the Moon, a fault in electrical equipment inside one of the Service Module's oxygen tanks produced an explosion which caused the loss of both tanks' oxygen, depriving the Service Module of electrical power. . . "
Well, there was nothing wrong with the electrical system initially. There was nothing wrong with the thermostats either, they were just under-rated. They were rated for 28 volts, and when the change order came to upgrade the entire CM to 65 volts, in layers of sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors, they weren't upgraded and this oversight wasn't caught. That combined with a heating procedure to empty an 02 tank for the prelaunch "countdown demostration." Those two situations combined to set up the circumstances where an arc and fire, and pressure build-up and explosion could easily happen. Cool Nerd ( talk) 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion (at least on my part) regarding whether or not Apollo 13 marked the first flight and intended use of the more developed form of the LEVA (Lunar Extravehicular Visor Assembly). This source http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LEVA.html says that Apollo 13 marked the last flight of the original LEVA, while others (including other NASA based sites) say that Apollo 13 was the first flight to include both the newer LEVA and the use of so-called "commander's stripes". Which is it? 172.190.79.108 ( talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is intended to discuss edits of the Apollo 13 article. If you have a general question you would like researched, may I suggest the Wikipedia:Reference Desk, also linked on the main page. Spaceflight questions would probably fall under the Science category, or else Miscellaneous. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I don't know where to put this, but I noticed a mistake and am unable to edit this article because it's semi-protected. Under "Backup crew" it lists Jack Swigert as John L. Swigert, presumably a mistake since John W. Young is listed right above him. Hope someone can remedy this. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jproxima ( talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no error; that's his real name. There's a style issue I've never seen discussed, whether / when / where it's appropriate to use the astronauts' nicknames; there's a question of appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. The closest thing I've seen in the style manual is the recommendation to use a person's last name everywhere after the first time and not the first name, because that implies an unwarranted familiarity.
Also, please put new topics at the end of the talk page. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
A comment rather than an edit. I have just watched Apollo 13 (the movie). Did the crew have to pass navigation control from the CM to the LM computer? The movie seemed to make a big deal of this. I would be interested in reading the facts.
Also, although it would seem obvious, did the LiOH canisters stay in different configurations or were they standardized for the two modules? Were there any changes made to docking to allow the CM and LM to share power, communications, data, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.27.164 ( talk) 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to revert the good faith edit made that simplified a fault in electrical equipment inside one of the Service Module's oxygen tanks produced an explosion which caused the loss of both tanks' oxygen, to the accident. My understanding of the way to write an article--and I can't find a page that says this--is that the lead summarizes and introduces the whole article. It doesn't replace information; that information needs to be repeated in its proper place, although it's hardly considered repeating. The lead is an introduction, while the article should be complete in itself without the lead. -- Yopienso ( talk) 18:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Jim Lovell is usually credited, wrongly, with reporting to Houston, "We've had a problem," but he was repeating what Swigert said just beforehand, upon the Capsule Communicator's request for repetition. Lovell himself wrote an account attributing "We've had a problem" to Swigert.
Unfortunately, the notion that the quote is originally Lovell's is encouraged by an error in the official record, the Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription. However, a handwritten note visible on the transcript points out the error, as follows:
[* NASA Public Affairs Official.]
NASA has itself produced, at the very least, three official documents with differing quotes attributed to different speakers.
The Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription says:
The Apollo 13 Mission Commentary has this version:
To confuse matters further, a now out-of-print document was produced by NASA's Public Affairs Office called EP-76 Apollo 13 "Houston, we've got a problem." This not only perpetuated a misquotation (got a problem instead of had a problem) but attributed it wrongly to Lovell instead of Swigert.
It is recognised by NASA that official mission transcripts contain many errors because the lay typists misheard weak and dirty communications, poor quality recordings, or difficult and unfamiliar engineering jargon.
Ignoring the official transcript and listening to the actual mission audio yields this exchange:
Anyone familiar with the crewmembers' voices can easily hear the vocal differences between Swigert's and Lovell's statements. The recording supplied opposite is loud and clear, the voice differences are easy to hear, and the audio supports Jim Lovell's own account.
odea ( talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Major reversion. I thought I had found an error, but now I see that the reference I was going by is not even consistent, even on the same page. In the Crew Debriefing Report, Swigert is quoted as saying, "Then you called Houston about our problem", but reading just a bit further he is quoted saying that he was the one who made the radio call. I need to make reversions on other pages now.--
Tdadamemd (
talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
APPENDIX B REPORT OF MISSION EVENTS PANEL http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/appBpt.1.pdf (page B-5)
" . . . the Guidance Officer (GUIDO) noted on his console display that there had been a momentary interruption of the spacecraft computer. He told the Flight Director, "We've had a hardware restart. I don't know what it was." At almost the same time, CDR Lovell, talking to Mission Control, said, "I believe we've had a problem here." Also at about the same time, the Electrical, Environmental, and Communications Engineer (EECOM) in Mission Control noticed on his console display the sudden appearance of limit sensing lights indicating that a few of the telemetered quantities relating to the spacecraft's cryogenic, fuel cell, and electrical system had suddenly gone beyond pre-set limits. Astronaut Swigert in the command module, noting a master alarm about 2 seconds after the bang, moved from the left seat to the right seat where he could see the instruments indicating conditions of the electrical system, and noticed a caution light indicating low voltage on main bus B, one of the two busses supplying electrical power for the command module. At that time, he reported to Mission Control, 'We've had a problem. We've had a main B bus undervolt." At the same time, however, he reported the voltage on fuel cell 3, which supplied power to main bus B, looked good and assumed that the main bus B undervolt condition had been a transient one. However, 2 or 3 minutes later, when another master alarm sounded, LMP Haise moved into the right-hand seat to recheck the fuel cells and noted that two of the three fuel cells (no. 1 and no. 3) were showing no hydrogen or oxygen flow and no electrical output and that fuel cell 2 was carrying the command module's total electrical load through bus A. . . "
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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 they failed to change the thermostats from the 23v DC operation to that of the 60v DC operation. Rwboa22 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.9.135 ( talk) 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
Lincher 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
-- 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've done some additional cleanup and copyediting:
Further corrections (or reverts of anything I did that made it worse!) welcome. -- Achurch 08:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I just snipped:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.52.206.186 ( talk) 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 08:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know where the service module is now? Did it re-enter the atmosphere, enter orbit, or just float off in space? Have there been any attempts to rescue it? QWERTY | Dvorak 17:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The article states, "As a result of following the free return trajectory, the altitude of Apollo 13 over the lunar far side was approximately 100 km greater than the corresponding orbital altitude on the remaining Apollo lunar missions. This could mean an all-time altitude record for human spaceflight, not even superseded as of 2007; however, the variation in distance between Earth and the Moon, owing to the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit about Earth, is much larger than 100 km, so it is not certain whether the actual distance from Earth was greater than that of all other Apollo missions."
How could this not be known? How is it possible to fly to or around the moon without knowing exactly where it is and how far away it is, if only to avoid questions of "Are we there yet?"? Aren't there records or calculations or something that would give the distances? Or is there something missing in my reasoning here? 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Could someone explain why some of the thumbnails are broken, and perhaps how to fix them? I looked for syntax for the thumbnails independent of the image itself, but they seem tied together. So since the image itself works, I'm not sure how to fix the thumbnails. Thanks. goodeye 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to add a diagram to the article demonstrating the flight path from Earth, around the moon, and back to Earth, with various points indicated on it. Things like where they were when the explosion happened, when various burns took place, etc. I would be willing to create one if someone could point me to the information required to create such a diagram. Most of the dates, etc should already be in the article so those are no problem, but I would like to see the orbit be as accurate as possible. - AndrewBuck 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Event Mission Time Distance from Earth (hr:min:sec) (Nautical Miles) Lift-off, 19:13:00.65 G.M.T., April 11 1970. S-II engine ignition 00:02:45 S-IVB engine ignition 00:09:54 S-IVB engine cutoff 00:12:30 Translunar injection maneuver 02:35:46 182 S-IVB/command and service module separation 03:06:39 3,778 Docking 03:19:09 5,934 First midcourse correction 30:40:50 121,381 Cryogenic oxygen tank incident 55:54:53 173,790 Second midcourse correction 61:29:43 188,371 Trans-earth injection 79:27:39 5,465 (from moon) Third midcourse correction 105:18:28 152,224 Fourth midcourse correction 137:39:52 37,808 Command module/service module separation 138:01:48 35,694 Undocking 141:30:00 11,257 Entry interface 142:40:46 Landing 142:54:41
Logicman1966 ( talk) 02:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here is another version with the changes you suggested and a couple others as well. Let me know if you think anything else should be changed, added, etc. - AndrewBuck ( talk) 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This is what I don't understand (an explanation is missing but to me is pertinent): if they expected the evaporation of the LOX from the tank to take several days and it only took a few hours, why didn't they realize that something was wrong (i.e. the internal temperature of the tank was way too high) and inspect the tank? Was this fact just ignored or mentally written off by the same people who ignored the voltage limitations of the thermostat? Did they just not check the tank to see if it was empty until several days had already passed, and then assume it took the normal length of time for the LOX to evaporate?
Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.114.209 ( talk) 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Gus Grissom died on January 27, 1967 in the Apollo 1 fire. The launch of Apollo 13 was in April, 1970 - nearly three years later. So, no - Gus was not on the Apollo 13 mission. Dwtno ( talk) 16:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I see a major fault in this article. Popular wisdom accepts without question that the oxygen tank failure was an "explosion". But the official NASA report does not use that word. It details the incident as far less catastrophic than if the tank had actually exploded.
I just posted an addition to the "explosion" section in hopes that these facts will come to light. I expect that there will be a rash of resistance to this information, as I have experienced in extensive debate on this subject on the Usenet forum sci.space.history. Instead of repeating the debate here on Wikipedia, I will leave this article alone to let other readers decide how to best incorporate this alternate perspective (ironically, the official perspective).
For those interested in the sci.space.history discussion, you may find it especially interesting in that Sy Liebergot himself was involved. More of my comments on this topic can be found by doing a GoogleGroups search on (explosion stuf4).
I will check back after a stretch of time to see how this article has evolved in light of the plethora of facts that are detailed in the official NASA report on this incident. I hope you all find it as illuminating as I have. Tdadamemd ( talk) 14:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Would kind of depend on your definition of an explosion. To say the tank exploded is different then say there was an explosion in the tank.
74.33.170.222 (
talk) 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement on the list of flight directors. See edits from July 15, 25, and 29.
Kranz, Griffin, and Lunney are not in doubt. I have it on good authority that there were four flight directors (speech by Gerry Griffin). So who was the fourth?
Anybody have a good source for this? Milt Windler, Thomas Mullen, and now Pete Frank are currently listed. That sounds like two too many to me. -- ScottJ ( talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI - I kept a scrapbook of the Apollo 13 flight from 5 Feb 1970 through 26 April 1970. www.rajordan.com/apollo13 [2] Rajordan 22:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Apollo 13 was scheduled to take off in March. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.185.73 ( talk) 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
One question that I have been asked, and have never found an answer for, is: why, upon determining that the SM was damaged to the point of uselessness, did they not jettison it, making far less mass for the LM's engines to push back to Earth? Could/should this be explained? I'm sure others have wondered as well. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article states two different dates for when Mattingley was replaced - under Crew it says "he was replaced by Swigert eight days before launch", and then under backup crew about Swigert it states "was moved to the prime crew three days before launch" - which was it? 91.197.34.188 ( talk) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I moved the images in the Explosion section to avoid text and the Listen box crashing over the first left aligned image, and I also moved excess images to a temporary gallery.
But the article seems to need even more cleanup than just that section: it appears listy, disjoint and incomplete. I am no writer but I stole the German article structure for this suggestion:
I am sure there are other better structures, so I will leave it to others to decide what is best. 84user ( talk) 20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Was there a replacement assigned for Charlie Duke on the backup crew? Whichever way, that should be added to the article, to add to the fact that Swiggert had no replacement. 76.66.196.139 ( talk) 06:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This sentence structure is wrong:
The command module shell was formerly at the Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace, in Paris. The interior components were removed during the investigation of the accident and reassembled into BP-1102A, the water egress training module, and were subsequently on display at the Museum of Natural History and Science in Louisville, Kentucky, until 2000.
Please rephrase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.95.31 ( talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Added the following text to the Popular culture section detailing the interactive theater production APOLLO 13: Mission Control
In 2008, an interactive theatrical show entitled APOLLO 13: Mission Control premiered at BATS Theatre in Wellington, New Zealand. The production faithfully recreated the mission control consoles and audience members became part of the storyline. The show also featured a 'guest' astronaut each night - a member of the public who suited up and amongst other duties, stirred the oxygen tanks and said the line "Houston, we've had a problem". This 'replacement' astronaut was a nod to Jack Swigert, who replaced Ken Mattingly shortly before the actual launch in 1970. The production toured to other cities in New Zealand in 2009 and an Australian tour is scheduled for 2010-2011.
References include: http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/production.php?id=916 Theatreview media release and subsequent reviews of the production http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/002329.html Collect Space forum listing of BATS Theatre production of APOLLO 13: Mission Control http://www.nzfestival.nzpost.co.nz/theatre/apollo-13-mission-control Details on NZ Festival website http://www.apollo13.co.nz The official website of the production Markwesterby ( talk) 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that this article uses inconsistant capitalisation of Earth and Moon, contrary to the manual of style. Might be worth fixing - 93.97.122.93 ( talk) 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Jim Lovell is usually credited, wrongly, with reporting to Houston, "We've had a problem," but he was repeating what Swigert said just beforehand, upon the Capsule Communicator's request for repetition. Lovell himself wrote an account attributing "We've had a problem" to Swigert.
Unfortunately, the notion that the quote is originally Lovell's is encouraged by an error in the official record, the Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription. However, a handwritten note visible on the transcript points out the error, as follows:
[* NASA Public Affairs Official.]
NASA has itself produced, at the very least, three official documents with differing quotes attributed to different speakers.
The Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription says:
The Apollo 13 Mission Commentary has this version:
To confuse matters further, a now out-of-print document was produced by NASA's Public Affairs Office called EP-76 Apollo 13 "Houston, we've got a problem." This not only perpetuated a misquotation (got a problem instead of had a problem) but attributed it wrongly to Lovell instead of Swigert.
It is recognised by NASA that official mission transcripts contain many errors because the lay typists misheard weak and dirty communications, poor quality recordings, or difficult and unfamiliar engineering jargon.
Ignoring the official transcript and listening to the actual mission audio yields this exchange:
Anyone familiar with the crewmembers' voices can easily hear the vocal differences between Swigert's and Lovell's statements. The recording supplied opposite is loud and clear, the voice differences are easy to hear, and the audio supports Jim Lovell's own account.
odea ( talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Major reversion. I thought I had found an error, but now I see that the reference I was going by is not even consistent, even on the same page. In the Crew Debriefing Report, Swigert is quoted as saying, "Then you called Houston about our problem", but reading just a bit further he is quoted saying that he was the one who made the radio call. I need to make reversions on other pages now.--
Tdadamemd (
talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(Below question/response reposted vebatim from the
archive because I am still curious, and it goes unanswered.)
Perhaps this detail was covered in the
Report of Apollo 13 Review Board, (PDF) NASA June 1970 and not written in the article to preserve clarity?
This is what I don't understand (an explanation is missing but to me is pertinent): if they expected the evaporation of the LOX from the tank to take several days and it only took a few hours, why didn't they realize that something was wrong (i.e. the internal temperature of the tank was way too high) and inspect the tank? Was this fact just ignored or mentally written off by the same people who ignored the voltage limitations of the thermostat? Did they just not check the tank to see if it was empty until several days had already passed, and then assume it took the normal length of time for the LOX to evaporate? Wingman4l7 ( talk)
Here is a footnote that has existed on this article for many moons:
Note that NASA's offical report ( REPORT OF APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD) does not itself use the word "explosion" in describing the tank rupture. Rupture disks and other safety measures were present to prevent a catastrophic explosion, and analysis of pressure readings and subsequent ground-testing determined that these safety measures worked as designed. See findings 26 and 27 on page 195 (5-22) of the NASA report.
There will be many who will want to revert the change I just made to the article. But the most accurate information we have tells us it was not an explosion. I suggest that it is high time that Wikipedia relates this story accurately without embellishment. Today we are one month away from the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 13 launch. The best tribute we can make here is to scrutinize movies, books, personal accounts, etc and do our best to filter out any sensationalism.
There is a significant difference between "an explosion" versus the tank failure described in the official report. If anyone has an argument for invalidating that extremely detailed report, please make it here.
But it is clear to me that just because "everyone says it was an explosion" does not invalidate what the report says. It is a very interesting read, and I expect anyone who takes the time to poke through it will see how thorough they were.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a glaring omission not to mention the contribution of the engineers at the University of Toronto Aerospace Studies. I don't think there's ever been any recognition in official or pop culture circles. See the story in Canadian Press "A team of University of Toronto engineers helped save ill-fated Apollo 13 crew" April 10, 2010. Consulzephyr ( talk) 01:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have accidentally posted concerns about the assertion there was no explosion on JustinTime's and my talk page instead of here. We're going to need a reliable source that says there was no explosion in order to justify saying so. Explanations that amount to definitions of "explosion" will not suffice; we'll need one that says there was no explosion, or we cannot say that here. For example, I found just such a one regarding the break-up of the Challenger. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11031097/ns/technology_and_science-space// Yopienso ( talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, in case there is any lingering question regarding the persistent notion that the O2 tank exploded, I just scoured the entire Mission Operations Report that was published at the end of April 1970 (separate from the Cortright Report). This is a 345-page document that is a compilation of different reports submitted by various groups within Mission Control, from the Flight Directors on down. I read through the entire report and found these totals for how the O2 tank 2 event was described:
Now it is certainly possible that my count is off. Anyone can check it for themselves. But the pattern is clear.
Note that this report is written in part by Kranz and Liebergot, and is signed by them. Both have been prolific users of the word 'explosion' in subsequent years describing the event. Yet in this official document that was published when the event was fresh, they never use the word 'explosion' a single time. What remains for the historian is to explain why the story changed. I have my own understanding. But there are many people who were inside Mission Control who wrote and signed off on that report. It might be good to ask them directly to help get a complete and accurate history of this amazing mission.
The graph in the EECOM report with the word 'RUPTURE' appears to be a fold-out that has been photocopied in the folded position. If anyone has access to the original paper version, I'd be very interested to see what appears in the full graph.
Also, to describe the SHe Supercritical Helium tank situation on the LM, this report uses the word "rupture" (/disc rupture/ruptured, etc) another 6 times. And likewise, it never uses the word 'explosion' to describe that tank failure event either. The SHe tank rupture event was so solidly predicted that it isn't even described as an anomaly (an occurrence that goes against the nominal stated schedule of events).-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 23:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Ordinarily the alignment procedure used an onboard sextant device, called the Alignment Optical Telescope, to find a suitable navigation star. However, due to the explosion, a swarm of debris from the ruptured service module made it impossible to sight real stars."
The ref associated with "18" is pretty poor [7] - not really suitable for this article. What do others think? Sophia ♫ 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
> Do you think the timing of the stir had anything to do with the
> explosion, or was it likely to happen whenever the next stir took
> place?
The tank stir was normally performed once a day, after sleep, but I
requested an extra stir before sleep because the Oxygen Tank 2’s
quantity instrumentation reading had failed earlier and I wanted a more
frequent quantity reading of Oxygen Tank 1. The explosion would likely
have occurred during the scheduled post-sleep stir, eight hours later.
There’s an old saying : “No good deed goes unpunished.”
Sy Liebergot
“Apollo EECOM: Journey of A Lifetime”
www.apolloeecom.com
I removed the whole section as there was nothing else that wasn't said better earlier in the article. Sophia ♫ 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've just figured out Tdadamemd's misunderstanding about the valve on oxygen tank #2.
I was reexamining the
Cortright Rpt., p. 195, Secs. 26-27 and see that:
refers to
In other words, 8/100's of a second before the tank exploded, the valve caused the pressure to drop 12 psi. -- Yopienso ( talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, the Lovell report that Tdadamemd discredits is part of a larger work edited by Edwin Cortright. -- Yopienso ( talk) 04:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there are a couple of issues with the Analysis section:
The Cortright report is an important, authoritative source for the known facts of the incident, and its alternate form in the weblink of this section is probably the best one to use as the cited source. (Note it also is redundantly used in the "explosion" footnote and for citations in the Explosion section.)
What say you all? JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I appreciate all the touch-ups you've been doing. I'm reverted this one, though, because I don't think we should clutter the lede with the detail of Mattingly's measles and resulting swap-out. It's still there as asterisked information, as well as in the boxes. What do you think? Regards, Yopienso ( talk) 03:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
[Outdent.] After ignoring this article as per my suggestion and now reconsidering, I'm going to change the lede. I've checked the other Apollo article ledes (8-17) to find some kind of consistency. There is none. Some don't mention the crew at all, some give all three, one gives two. Including the swap-out just seems like way too much information up front, so I'm getting rid of it, leaving it for the asterisked section, which still may not be best, but is considerably better, imho. Also, although the film shows Mattingly as the main solver of the power problem, according to Jim Lovell on a DVD bonus section, he was a composite of John Aaron and other engineers. See our article on the film as well as this review Yopienso ( talk) 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Socheid, for your refiguring of the crew lists. -- Yopienso ( talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I just added the "Citation needed" template to the cost of the mission. ($4.4 billion.) I've never done this before, and hope I did it right. Apparently a bot will come along later and date it. -- Yopienso ( talk) 22:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
GENE KRANZ ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW - PART 2, C-SPAN, 1999.
And he talks some about Apollo 13. I have added this to our External Links. Cool Nerd ( talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
" . . . Two days later, en route to the Moon, a fault in electrical equipment inside one of the Service Module's oxygen tanks produced an explosion which caused the loss of both tanks' oxygen, depriving the Service Module of electrical power. . . "
Well, there was nothing wrong with the electrical system initially. There was nothing wrong with the thermostats either, they were just under-rated. They were rated for 28 volts, and when the change order came to upgrade the entire CM to 65 volts, in layers of sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors, they weren't upgraded and this oversight wasn't caught. That combined with a heating procedure to empty an 02 tank for the prelaunch "countdown demostration." Those two situations combined to set up the circumstances where an arc and fire, and pressure build-up and explosion could easily happen. Cool Nerd ( talk) 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion (at least on my part) regarding whether or not Apollo 13 marked the first flight and intended use of the more developed form of the LEVA (Lunar Extravehicular Visor Assembly). This source http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LEVA.html says that Apollo 13 marked the last flight of the original LEVA, while others (including other NASA based sites) say that Apollo 13 was the first flight to include both the newer LEVA and the use of so-called "commander's stripes". Which is it? 172.190.79.108 ( talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is intended to discuss edits of the Apollo 13 article. If you have a general question you would like researched, may I suggest the Wikipedia:Reference Desk, also linked on the main page. Spaceflight questions would probably fall under the Science category, or else Miscellaneous. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I don't know where to put this, but I noticed a mistake and am unable to edit this article because it's semi-protected. Under "Backup crew" it lists Jack Swigert as John L. Swigert, presumably a mistake since John W. Young is listed right above him. Hope someone can remedy this. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jproxima ( talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no error; that's his real name. There's a style issue I've never seen discussed, whether / when / where it's appropriate to use the astronauts' nicknames; there's a question of appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. The closest thing I've seen in the style manual is the recommendation to use a person's last name everywhere after the first time and not the first name, because that implies an unwarranted familiarity.
Also, please put new topics at the end of the talk page. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
A comment rather than an edit. I have just watched Apollo 13 (the movie). Did the crew have to pass navigation control from the CM to the LM computer? The movie seemed to make a big deal of this. I would be interested in reading the facts.
Also, although it would seem obvious, did the LiOH canisters stay in different configurations or were they standardized for the two modules? Were there any changes made to docking to allow the CM and LM to share power, communications, data, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.27.164 ( talk) 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to revert the good faith edit made that simplified a fault in electrical equipment inside one of the Service Module's oxygen tanks produced an explosion which caused the loss of both tanks' oxygen, to the accident. My understanding of the way to write an article--and I can't find a page that says this--is that the lead summarizes and introduces the whole article. It doesn't replace information; that information needs to be repeated in its proper place, although it's hardly considered repeating. The lead is an introduction, while the article should be complete in itself without the lead. -- Yopienso ( talk) 18:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Jim Lovell is usually credited, wrongly, with reporting to Houston, "We've had a problem," but he was repeating what Swigert said just beforehand, upon the Capsule Communicator's request for repetition. Lovell himself wrote an account attributing "We've had a problem" to Swigert.
Unfortunately, the notion that the quote is originally Lovell's is encouraged by an error in the official record, the Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription. However, a handwritten note visible on the transcript points out the error, as follows:
[* NASA Public Affairs Official.]
NASA has itself produced, at the very least, three official documents with differing quotes attributed to different speakers.
The Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription says:
The Apollo 13 Mission Commentary has this version:
To confuse matters further, a now out-of-print document was produced by NASA's Public Affairs Office called EP-76 Apollo 13 "Houston, we've got a problem." This not only perpetuated a misquotation (got a problem instead of had a problem) but attributed it wrongly to Lovell instead of Swigert.
It is recognised by NASA that official mission transcripts contain many errors because the lay typists misheard weak and dirty communications, poor quality recordings, or difficult and unfamiliar engineering jargon.
Ignoring the official transcript and listening to the actual mission audio yields this exchange:
Anyone familiar with the crewmembers' voices can easily hear the vocal differences between Swigert's and Lovell's statements. The recording supplied opposite is loud and clear, the voice differences are easy to hear, and the audio supports Jim Lovell's own account.
odea ( talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Major reversion. I thought I had found an error, but now I see that the reference I was going by is not even consistent, even on the same page. In the Crew Debriefing Report, Swigert is quoted as saying, "Then you called Houston about our problem", but reading just a bit further he is quoted saying that he was the one who made the radio call. I need to make reversions on other pages now.--
Tdadamemd (
talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
APPENDIX B REPORT OF MISSION EVENTS PANEL http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/appBpt.1.pdf (page B-5)
" . . . the Guidance Officer (GUIDO) noted on his console display that there had been a momentary interruption of the spacecraft computer. He told the Flight Director, "We've had a hardware restart. I don't know what it was." At almost the same time, CDR Lovell, talking to Mission Control, said, "I believe we've had a problem here." Also at about the same time, the Electrical, Environmental, and Communications Engineer (EECOM) in Mission Control noticed on his console display the sudden appearance of limit sensing lights indicating that a few of the telemetered quantities relating to the spacecraft's cryogenic, fuel cell, and electrical system had suddenly gone beyond pre-set limits. Astronaut Swigert in the command module, noting a master alarm about 2 seconds after the bang, moved from the left seat to the right seat where he could see the instruments indicating conditions of the electrical system, and noticed a caution light indicating low voltage on main bus B, one of the two busses supplying electrical power for the command module. At that time, he reported to Mission Control, 'We've had a problem. We've had a main B bus undervolt." At the same time, however, he reported the voltage on fuel cell 3, which supplied power to main bus B, looked good and assumed that the main bus B undervolt condition had been a transient one. However, 2 or 3 minutes later, when another master alarm sounded, LMP Haise moved into the right-hand seat to recheck the fuel cells and noted that two of the three fuel cells (no. 1 and no. 3) were showing no hydrogen or oxygen flow and no electrical output and that fuel cell 2 was carrying the command module's total electrical load through bus A. . . "