Talk:Apollo 13

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)

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Abort_Guidance_System) will reveal the significance of the omission. The Astronauts had to stop using the Primary Guidance System because it consumed too much water. The Abort Guidance System was made by TRW in El Segundo, CA and it was located inside the Lunar Module. It navigated the LM around the moon. The Apollo 13 movie minimized the Grumman role and omitted the TRW role. That should not be replicated here.--Xamalek (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Image panorama

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)