Talk:Apollo 13

Template:WPSpace Template:HSF Project This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Apollo 13 was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 6, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 13, 2004, April 17, 2004, April 14, 2005, April 14, 2006, April 14, 2007, and April 14, 2008.

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)[reply]

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

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)

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)

The CSM as a whole had the mission callsign "Odyssey", and once they jettison the service module, the callsign obviously sticks with the command module. Equally, the LM callsign "Aquarius" denotes the entire craft, but after launching from the lunar surface (which of course didn't happen on A13), the callsign goes with the ascent stage as that's the part of the vehicle that is relevant then. To say the "command module" was damage wouldn't be accurate since it actually was the service module, but to say the CSM was damaged would be fine and merely requiring further clarification as to which part. 91.33.223.228 05:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Needs a complete copyedit.
- Probably not complete, but I did some copyediting. --Nate 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No link to Apollo spacecraft which is needed to understand the article.
- Added link. --Nate 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds extremely apocryphal to me--good call. --MLilburne 09:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

yes, but what was the chemical reaction? Oxygen + something + sparks = exposion. PeterGrecian 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's in the references: "Report of the Apollo 13 review board". MLilburne 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Didn't notice the footnote. Is the transcript in error, then? --Achurch 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nothing wrong with spamming talk for a legitimate question!

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This would be one: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Academy/History/APOLLO-13/mission-report.html

Other sources should be not too hard to find, considering it's a comparably widely known fact. 91.33.223.228 05:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of the SM

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)[reply]

Apollo Service Modules burnt up during re-entry, so at best you'd find pieces of it on the bottom of the Pacific. I've seen at least one photo of an SM burning up taken from an airliner. Mark Grant 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. Do you have a copy of the airplane picture? Must have been a cool flight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Quertee (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Aha, found it. I guess we should add a link to the article: [1]. Mark Grant 22:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Highest altitude"

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)

I would have to say you are definitely correct that the numbers must have been calculated somewhere at sometime for the mission. But I'm not sure where they would be. So I did a bit of my own calculations. I went a bit overboard investigating this question, spending over an hour looking at numbers. JPL have a high-precision ephemerides that gives the distance from the centre of the Earth to the centre of the Moon. When we look at maximum Earth-Moon distance during the time the spacecraft was close to the Moon, the clear winners are Apollo 10, 13

Apollo 10: 404380 km
Apollo 13: 404459 km

So during Apollo 13's time behind the Moon, the Earth-Moon distance was about 80 km greater than at the time of LOI of Apollo 10. (As an aside for the size of the variation, during Apollo 8 the Earth-Moon distance was only 374,000 km).

Since I don't have access precise positions of the spacecraft, it is difficult to take this analysis any further. It would be naive to assume that the spacecraft were on the exact opposite side of the Moon to the Earth. There is also the fact that during Apollo 10, the Moon was past apogee, while during Apollo 13, the Moon was still approaching apogee (though the change in Earth-Moon distance while Apollo 13 was behind the Moon was only about 4 km). All I could say at this point is that Apollo 13 definitely reached a greater distance from the Earth than every other mission (the next closest is Apollo 15 at LOI, which was 1300 km closer to the Earth).

Now looking at the article, this number I have found is different "400,171 km from Earth" given in the article. This doesn't make much sense to me, since 404459-(radius of earth)+(radius of the Moon)+(highest point)=404459-6300+1370+245=399774. Of course my number is assuming naively that the spacecraft was on the exact opposite side of the Moon from the Earth. Meh, I've spent too much time on this problem now. Evil Monkey - Hello 07:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really expect such a long response to the questions. Thanks for the clarifications and all the time you put into it. It just seemed that the vagueness of the altitude assertion was a bit odd. 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.132.76 (talk)

The problem is that there are a lot of websites out there and they all have different numbers. Even NASA websites seem to be inconsistent. I guess part of the problem is people converting from km to nautical miles to miles, and not being careful about the precision of the numbers. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

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)[reply]

This is a known problem that appears every so often randomly. It isn't a specific problem with the page markup, just something at the mediawiki end. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit diagram

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)[reply]

That sounds like a great idea. Below are some figures that I obtained from the NASA Apollo 13 Mission Report, which should help you in constructing a diagram.

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)[reply]

Thanks Sidhekin, for your help with formatting this table. I have added a note to clarify that the distances are in Nautical Miles, and corrected the distance figure for the "incident" (which was in Statute Miles). Logicman1966 (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is my first attempt at a diagram. The horizontal dimension should be to scale however the vertical dimension could very well be inaccurate. It would be good if someone could add the vehicle in as it looked during the various segments of flight (I am not that much of an artist). Let me know if you would like to see any other changes made. -AndrewBuck (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is looking good, can I suggest a few changes? - (1) thicken the line representing the flight path (2) add direction arrows to the flight path, ie. lower path is out-bound, upper path is in-bound. Logicman1966 (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That looks fine to me; good work! Logicman1966 (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good diagram - now put it in the article! It should be nice and wide, spanning the whole width, so the little letters might be at least minimally legible in the article itself. Tempshill (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOX evaporation time

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?

Good question, I was wondering the same thing: if a single technician turned on the heater then drove off to party in Palm Springs for a couple days, drove back, noticed the LOX was gone, and patted himself on the back. Tempshill (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Grissum in this mission?

Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.114.209 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

O2 Tank Rupture Was Not An Explosion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Flight directors?

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)[reply]

According to this source http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/13index.htm (quite reliable I believe) the 4 flight directors were - Glynn S. Lunney, Eugene F. Kranz, Gerald Griffin and Milton L. Windler. Logicman1966 (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jim Lovell & Jeffrey Kluger's "Apollo 13" (Lost Moon), Milt Windler was the "Maroon Team leader". Exact quote from page 207 (Mariner Books edition 2006, paperback) is "With Lunney on console and Kranz closeted with his Tiger Team, Gold Team Flight Director Gerald Griffin and Maroon Team leader Milt Windler had overseen the effort..." Gene Kranz's "Failure is not an option" also gives Windler, Kranz, Griffin, Lunney as the four flight directors (page 307-8, Berkley Books trade paperback edition May 2001). Thomas Mullen isn't mentioned in either book, and Pete Frank gets several mentions in Kranz's book although none as a flight director on Apollo 13. --Whoosher (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some more information on the other two people mentioned previously (listed as Thomas Mullen, Silver Team; Pete Frank, Orange Team) - [1] Thomas Mullen was not a flight director at NASA [2] Neil Hutchinson was Team Leader of Silver Team, which first saw action on Apollo 17 [3] Pete Frank was indeed Team Leader of Orange Team, and was flight director on Apollo flights 9, 10, 12, and 14 [4] Frank provided assistance to the flight directors of Apollo 13 after the incident. Logicman1966 (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old scrapbook of newspaper articles

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)[reply]

Why keep the SM?

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)[reply]

From memory (based on having read Jim Lovell's book a few years ago), the SM was not jettisoned because the controllers were worried about damage to the heat shield. If the heat shield had sustained minor (survivable) damage in the explosion, there was a risk that the trip through space without the physical protection provided by the SM could make things worse. The extra speed that the LEM would generate would have only moved splashdown forward by 24 hours or so, and it was felt that the other problems were rather more surmountable.

I also remember some issues regarding splashdown location (they didn't want it to land in an ocean where the US Navy didn't have any ships) and fuel supply (in case they needed to correct their course half way to Earth).

I think it could be explained in the article - referencing that book. I can't find it now to give a page number, but I'm sure it's in there. Pfainuk talk 17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When was Mattingly replaced?

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)[reply]