Talk:Apollo 4

Star Trek reference

I'm just curious how deletion of the word "even" in the Cameras section ("Footage from Apollo 4 is even seen in the Star Trek episode...") qualifies as a minor grammar edit when "even" was used as an intensifier to indicate the unexpected, since in this case the use of the footage was not in a documentary. As the original author of that word, I think its deletion changes the meaning of the sentence. Without "even" the sentence is flat and I would expect to see a more extensive list of uses of the footage than just that one instance. I do admit that the whole paragraph (and the original paragraph in the Apollo 6 article) could be rewritten for better clarity.... Jaydro 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I finally came back and took care of what I discussed above. Jaydro (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Composite launch photo

The full caption of the Saturn-V photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap4-s67-50531.jpg acknowledges that it is an artistic composite of a full moon picture with a Saturn-V. I would add that the full moon never appears in the sunset or sunrise glow, making the photo not just a subtle fake but an obvious fake. This only fuels speculation that the entire Apollo program was faked, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest replacing the stock photo with one that will not fuel the controversy or misrepresent the facts. There's got to be better Saturn-V photos in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.157.120 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Launch picture error

There is an error in the launch photo (not the composite one mentioned above): if you click on it and look at it in full resolution, you will see that it must have been scanned from a backwards print (negative or transparency). (Look at the USA and United States lettering.) This type of thing occasionally happened before the days of digital photography (more often than one would expect) and can be easily fixed by digitally reversing it. Can someone who knows how to update photos fix this please? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Earth images section problems

The quote attributed to The Whole Earth Catalogue does not represent the cresent Earth photo. The first whole Earth photo was actually taken in by geosynchronous satellite ATSIII, on 10 November 1967, a day after Apollo 4. See a version of it and also see NASA's description of ATS-3 here. Unless this part of the section is improved shortly, it will be removed, because the photo in this article wasn't the photo that inspired the Whole Earth Catalogue.--Abebenjoe (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Apogee and Perigee

"After two orbits, the S-IVB reignited for the first time, putting the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit with an apogee of 9,297 nautical miles (17,218 km) and a perigee that would deliberately take it 45.7 nautical miles (84.6 km) below the Earth's surface; this would ensure both a high-speed reentry of the Command Module, and atmospheric reentry and destruction of the S-IVB. The CSM then separated from the S-IVB and fired its Service Module engine to raise the apogee to 9,769 nautical miles (18,092 km) and a perigee of −40 nautical miles (−74 km). "

According to the definition at apsis, the apogee and perigee represent the maximum and minimum distance of the orbit from the focus of the ellipse which the orbit makes. For a spaceship orbiting a planet, the focus of the elliptical orbit is at the centre of the planet. The perigee of a spaceship orbit which is going to crash into the planet is not "-40 nautical miles" (measured with respect to sea level presumably), the perigee is some distance more in the ballpark of 6000 km or 4000 miles from the focus of the elliptical orbit at the center of the planet.Eregli bob (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity in the definition of apsis. The strict definition is the total distance to the focus, as you point out. However, there is a less formal convention, followed by NASA and here in the Wikipedia, to define the "apoapsis" and "periapsis" as just the altitude above the (mean) radius of the central body. They are used here (and in all similar spaceflight articles) in the sense of altitude. The numbers here are as NASA presented them in the mission report. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source warning

I just want to be proactive here, in case something bizarre I recently read should somehow end up here.

I'm in the process of reading Craig Nelson's Rocket Men, a generally good retelling of the Apollo program history. Nelson obviously isn't technically educated, as is obvious from a few humorous misstatements of technical fact. But I really found his brief description of the Apollo 4 flight disturbing.

He writes, on page 194:

"Two F-1 rockets abruptly quit during liftoff, at which the stack pulled a U-turn and headed screaming toward the ground. But the guidance system righted the vehicle, and the CM dummy capsule was successfully put into orbit."

He doesn't cite a source for this (though he generally provides copious citations, many per page.) I'm tempted to wonder what he was smoking when he researched this? :-) I know of no report of any such F-1 (first stage engine) failure on any Saturn V flight. I assume he must have this confused with the two J-2, second stage engine failures on Apollo 6, which did initially cause a slight veering off course ("U-turn" is a severe exaggeration) for which the guidance did in fact correct, considered proof of the quality of the system.

He also reports the many problems KSC actually had with the countdown demonstration test, as if they happened on the countdown for the actual launch; he probably doesn't appreciate the difference. He makes Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 both sound like failures (and in the process makes yet another mistake, referring to Apollo 6 as Apollo 5,) while Apollo 4 is universally regarded as a resounding success. Though I guess he probably meant well, intending to make a sympathetic account of how Apollo overcame technical obstacles.

Nelson's book is used as a source in some articles, to good effect for historical or personal details. The upshot is, as WP:RS points out, reliability of a source has to be determined in context of what is being asserted. Care is sometimes indicated. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sound suppression

I removed the mention of the water sound suppression system, which LC-39 used on the Space Shuttle, not the Saturn V. NASA was concerned with protecting the space vehicle and its payload, which was mounted close to the engines' sound source. The system worked by spraying water on the horizontal Mobile Launcher surface, absorbing the sound waves which would othewise be reflected back up towards the vehicle. This was not a concern with the Apollo-Saturn V, because the spacecraft was safely located 280 feet (85 m) in the air. It wouldn't have protected Uncle Walter's broadcast booth anyway, because it did nothing to stop the sound waves radiated out horizontally. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Counting to 4

This article states: "Since the failed first manned flight had been designated Apollo 1 in honor of the crew widows' wishes, and three unmanned Apollo/Saturn IB flights had already occurred, Mueller resumed the numbering sequence at Apollo 4." It would appear that this should have been Apollo 5 from the logic of this description - Apollo 1 capsule fire, then three unmanned IB flights, would logically make 5 the next number in the sequence. Either this description is incorrect or incomplete and should be corrected or explained more fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.188 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017024441/http://www.zamiang.com/posts/2013/10/13/red-team/ to http://www.zamiang.com/posts/2013/10/13/red-team/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

maybe just me

ref name="photoAnal"... "photoAnal" came out wrong (wink wink).--Jarodalien (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No footnotes link to Benson & Faherty, Woods.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

On the first one, the reader will not see it. On the second, it's to provide an overall reference for the book, chapters of which are used as individual refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

How about Woods, W. David; MacTaggart, Kenneth D.; O'Brien, Frank. "Apollo 11, Day 1, part 1: Launch". Apollo Flight Journal. Washington, D.C.: NASA. Archived from the original on July 8, 2013. Retrieved July 8, 2013..--Jarodalien (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

"A Myriad Of"

@JustinTime55 Myriad (in this context) is a direct substitution for the word "many". Just as you cannot have a "many" of something, neither can you have a "myriad" of something. This is fairly basic grammar. I didn't want to revert you again before gaining consensus. As a noun, myriad means "10 000" precisely. As an adjective, it means many. It's obvious it's not being used to mean exactly ten thousand, so "a myriad of" is incorrect. MrAureliusR_Talk! 03:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You must use different "fairly basic grammar" in Canada. The most popular American dictionary, Merriam Webster, says the noun can be used to designate "a great number" as well as its original 10,000 definition. MW also gives this usage note:

"Is myriad a noun?: Usage Guide Noun Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it."

"Did you know? Noun In English, the "ten thousand" sense of myriad mostly appears in references to Ancient Greece, such as the following from English historian Connop Thirwall's History of Greece: "4000 men from Peloponnesus had fought at Thermopylae with 300 myriads." More often, English speakers use myriad in the broad sense—both as a singular noun ("a myriad of tiny particles") and a plural noun ("myriads of tiny particles"). Myriad can also serve as an adjective meaning "innumerable" ("myriad particles"). While some usage commentators criticize the noun use, it's been firmly established in English since the 16th century, and in fact is about 200 years older than the adjective. Myriad comes from Greek myrias, which in turn comes from myrioi, meaning "countless" or "ten thousand.""(unsigned by JustinTime55)

I agree with JustinTime55.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought this article was in English, not American. My bad. MrAureliusR_Talk! 17:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Where was the command module located at between 2012 and 2017?

The article says, "The CM was subsequently put on public display at NASA's Stennis Space Center, where it remained until early 2012. It is currently on display at Stennis Space Center's visitor center, the Infinity Science Center, in Pearlington, Mississippi.".

And according to the reference for the latter sentence, it was moved to Infinity Science Center in 2017. So the question is: where did it go between 2012 and 2017? From my impression reading the reference though, it never left Stennis Space Center before 2017 ("... [t]he spacecraft was moved from NASA's nearby Stennis Space Center on Sunday (Oct. 29) to join the displays at the space center's official visitor center").

And there is no reference for that 2012 number. I assume maybe it meant to say that it was at North Carolina Museum of Life and Science until 2012? -- fireattack (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It should have said moved to Infinity from Stennis in 2017. We don't know when it left North Carolina.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)