Talk:Apollo 13

Apollo 13 was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

An event on this page is a April 17 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

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)

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)

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) --

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]