Talk:Apollo 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good article nomineeApollo 13 was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Support crew?[edit]

Can someone find something authoritative on this? Some sources seem to say that William R. Pogue was a member of the support crew along with Lousma and Brand (for example Orloff & Harland, p. 362).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(if you want a tl;dr, look at the last bullet point) A newspaper article from that time specifically names the other two, but not Pogue. He is mentioned earlier as attending a geology trip.
  • Brand and Lousma
  • has Pogue on 7, 11, and 14
  • has Pogue on 7, 13, and 14
  • (page 271) has Pogue on 7, 11, 13, and 14
  • Oral history Page 12-15 has Apollo 7, 12-22 he talks about Apollo 11 and Apollo 14. About 14, he says "Eventually I was taken off of 14, the support crew, and put on a phantom backup crew, they called it, for 16." (page 12-25). At the bottom of page 12-25 the interviewer asks Pogue if he was involved in Apollo 13, and Pogue replied: "POGUE: No, except I did a couple of sims, I think, before I was displaced by some of the people that had more experience than I did. I was going through simulations. But eventually Ken got involved in it, of course."
Looks like based on his own oral history that he was definitively not on the Apollo 13 support crew. Sorry for overcommunicating, when doing something like this I try to include every source I look at in case anyone has the same question in the future, they can look at the same information I did. Kees08 (Talk) 22:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. What's the best source to use?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
SP-4029 should be the definitive source, but since it contains that inaccuracy, I would use it with a footnote saying something like 'Sources indicate Pogue was a member of the support crew, however in his oral history he states he was not a member of the support crew' (wow I phrased that terribly), and source that to the oral history. Kees08 (Talk) 22:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If you want to copy/paste the citation, I made an edit containing it at Apollo 7 diff. Kees08 (Talk) 06:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I will. I'll also work up a game plan of what I think needs doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering if Pogue meant that he was not involved much in the Apollo 13 recovery effort in that quote. His statement about being displaced after a couple of simulations seems to speak to that, as does his mention of Mattingly, who very famously was doing simulations. Because he's mentioned in the press release as assigned to the support crew and I don't see a change later than that.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Page 251 of Deke! has the support crew for 13 as Brand, Lousma, and Kerwin. The support team of Apollo 14 as Chapman, McCandless, Pogue. Kees08 (Talk) 19:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This reference which is fairly official only lists Lousma and Brand. But then, they list only two members of the Apollo 15 support crew, omitting Joe Allen.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I would love to find the real answer to this, but as an encyclopedia, I think all we can do is awkwardly explain that some sources say Kerwin and some say Pogue. I will do that tonight or tomorrow if you have no issues with it. Kees08 (Talk) 02:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture section[edit]

Almost done fixing up what is already there. For the BBC show, I would like to find more TV shows it was featured in, and say something along the lines of Apollo 13 was featured in a range of television shows, including [notable TV show] and [notable TV show]. Then we can keep the fact it was featured in TV shows without generating a giant list of them. Other things we can possible include:

Note, these are just my notes on things that can be included in the article. I am not saying all of them should be (or that none should be).

There are also countless podcasts on it. I don't think we have podcasts listed in any other mission article, not to say that we should not. If Wehwalt or anyone else wants to weigh in, feel free. Probably working on this later today. Kees08 (Talk) 18:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, overlooked this. My thought on the matter is we are not there to be a complete catalog of programs that have featured Apollo 13. If we touch on the high spots, that's enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Repetition[edit]

Under successful experiments, we have:

Apollo 13's S-IVB third stage was the first to be purposely crashed into the lunar surface, as an active seismic experiment which measured its impact with a seismometer left on the lunar surface by the crew of Apollo 12. (The S-IVBs from the previous four lunar missions were sent into solar orbit by ground control after use.)

Under spacecraft location, we have:

The Apollo 13 S-IVB with its Instrument Unit was guided to crash onto the lunar surface on April 14, providing a signal for the Apollo 12 Passive Seismic Experiment.

We could easily include all the information in one section or the other, but that would leave one of the sections incomplete. Not sure what to do with this, is it fine as it is? Kees08 (Talk) 14:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

We can shorten it and just mention it in passing. We also mention the S-IVB crash a couple of times earlier on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, I have the impact coordinates from NSSDC that we can include as well. Kees08 (Talk) 06:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

S-IVB Impact[edit]

We used UTC dates in the Apollo 11 article. Here we say it impacted on April 14, but it is actually April 15 UTC time. Suppose we should change it to that? Kees08 (Talk) 07:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I take it this is consistent with the other Apollo articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know. There is some RfC somewhere in the WikiProject Spaceflight archives (with a pretty low turnout, and it was awhile ago, but meh). Kees08 (Talk) 14:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
We should possibly say both use UT and either US Eastern or Central time, but it's not something I greatly care about.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
It's generally been our policy throughout spaceflight to set times by UTC. We can add local times when/where relevant (e.g. ET for a launch) or Central (Houston) for other mission events, but I don't see any point in giving a US time zone for the S-IVB crash, since it happened probably without most Americans noticing it.

"This test confirmed the theory when a similar explosion was created, which blew off the outer panel exactly as happened in the flight."[edit]

This is sourced to the entire accident report. I've been looking a lot at the report and I'm having some trouble finding this. Can anyone pin it down?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I know darned well it's there; I remember a still frame from a movie of the test door blowing off (published in Popular Science). We ought to be able to use the photo for illustration. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The test is documented in Appendix F: Part F3.7 FULL-SCALE SIMULATED OXYGEN TANK FIRE, pages F-48–F-49. That should satisfy the citation for now, at least. Unfortunately the photos in this section are all of tank hardware, and don't show the door blowing off. Not sure where we can find the high-speed film, or a still frame. I'll dig a bit more for the dorr blow-off photo when I get a chance. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the good stuff starts on F-70. I'm not sure "confirmed the theory" is the proper language though, nor is "exactly as happened in the flight", because no one saw what happened in the flight.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I found the door blowing off image and have inserted it. A better copy would be good, and I'll keep looking for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts?[edit]

Generally, I'm beginning to hope that the article is starting to be in good shape for review. There's a few things need citing, and something could be said about Apollo 14 going to Far Mauro, but I'm thinking we could start to think about putting it on the path to TFA next April.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Still probably some good sources to include, like SP-4801. Maybe list it at peer review? I will keep prodding at the article as time allows. Kees08 (Talk) 01:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I did some flying this week and managed to get past the Apollo 13 portion of Deke!, which should have good information to include as well. I will try to get those two sources incorporated this weekend. Kees08 (Talk) 01:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, swell. That sounds good. No immediate hurry. Hope you enjoyed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Been a very enjoyable read so far. What do you think of citation 132, any better we can do than that? Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I found this version of the towing bill. I expect that the close-up is behind a paywall. Cheers, Overjive (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
A second attempt at a link to the towing bill. Overjive (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I got the bill from NYT. If I'm gonna upload it, what would the licensing be? EEng 00:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Either pre-1978 no copyright, or that it is so simple that no copyright attaches to it. After all, in the final analysis, it's an invoice. Some of the prose needs to be cited, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Is it OK now? I figure once the flurry of editing dies down it will be time to nom for peer review. I suspect it will get a fair amount of interest there and at FAC. The article gets a lot of hits on a daily basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Was it you that had the note that Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13 page numbers lined up with the 2000 version of the book? Because I am not seeing that version on Worldcat, I see a 1997 version. Kees08 (Talk) 21:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

On that note, the ISBN for Kranz matches up with the 2009 version, do you know what version our page numbers match? Kees08 (Talk) 21:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I have the Kindle edition of Lovell's book but it lacks page numbers so I've been holding off on using it. It just has location numbers. As for Kranz, mine just says "copyright 2000", it does have page numbers. It's also for Kindle.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the first one I am having trouble with because they changed the name of the book. Also I just found an interesting source on astronaut science training, it may be applicable to this mission, otherwise might be useful for David Scott or related articles. Kees08 (Talk) 00:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
THere's more that can be said about the geology training. Lovell and Haise were the first, as I recall, to use Lee Silver (some of that's in the article on 15) but I'm wary of straining the reader's patience. The discussion may be better in 15 because that's where they actually used it effectively.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I've read part of the source and it seems worth including a paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It was me that added that citation. There is a 2000 version, but it was just titled Apollo 13 not Lost Moon. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Swinging around the Moon[edit]

Did it, in fact "swing" around the Moon? Isn't there a preferable alternative using a slightly more Newtonian slant? Leaky caldron (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There's far too much general impression (not this article) that Apollo went to the Moon in some sort of straight line, then the lunar injection burn converted that into an orbit. But in fact it was in an orbit already, one encompassing both Earth and Moon. Although that's not a long-term stable orbit (the Moon is moving, for one thing) it is an orbit. It also offers the possibility for an immediate abort return based on a free-return trajectory. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it wasn't in an "orbit" as commonly understood by most people (two-body problem). It was actually in a three-body figure-eight path (like our illustration) which people don't commonly call an "orbit". And the "lunar injection burn" (? that term was never used by NASA in this context; and I think you're conflating the course correction burn with translunar injection, which occurred without incident earlier in the flight) did not change the fact it was in a figure 8; it just changed the plane of the eight so that when it swung back, it would be on the proper path to reentry when it got back to Earth. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I will admit that subsection title gave me some thought and if anyone has a better idea, I suggest they simply go ahead with it. As for the direct abort, it was considered and rejected and I think we're OK on explaining that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe looped? [1] About half way in. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't know if I came to the party too late, but I don't think there's anything at all wrong with "swing" as it stands. That's a commonly used word in this context, and it's not at all technically inaccurate. One of our desdirata is accessibility, and "swing" is accessible. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
"Looping" has been substituted per the NASA source and is technically more correct. Ultimately a loop - 360 degrees - was performed, albeit not in the form of a full lunar orbit. "Swing", to me, implies a too and fro, back & forth motion. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "to swing by" a location is commonly used (at least on this side of The Pond), without invoking the playground equipment. The verb is also defined (Merriam Webster) as "to cause to move vigorously through a wide arc or circle" (transitive) or "to move in or describe a circle or arc" (intransitive). JustinTime55 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

AS13-62-8990[edit]

"Haise tries to rest in the frigid spacecraft" ...I think that's Lovell, no? TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So it seems. I've changed it. I've also asked the graphics lab to look at the image to see if they can brighten it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not a good editor and have rudimentary software, but I tried two versions File:AS13-62-8990 (21985492451) (edited V1).png (basic crop, auto-adjusted colors and sharpened), File:AS13-62-8990 (21985492451) (edited V2).png (reduced red, lower brightness, lower gamma, higher contrast). I won't be offended if you keep the graphics lab request in. Kees08 (Talk) 23:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
They did it before I had a chance to decide ... which is preferred now?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I am biased towards my version, but I imagine the argument would be that I made the contrast too high. I am indifferent though, select whichever you feel is best! Kees08 (Talk) 05:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually I am just confused at this point, the thumbnail version on the page looks nice, but it looks different than the full-screen version, and no amount of ctrl+f5 and purging cache seems to fix it. So I really leave it up to you, since I am having trouble even comparing the figures properly.. Kees08 (Talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I like your version 1 the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Kees08 - your confusion is mostly because you used png. There is a known issue with Mediawiki and 'blurring' photographic thumbnails of png images. See [2] and phab:T192744. I put a different version by Hohum (which I think is the best to date) in the article. You can crop that, or make a jpg of yours for thumbnailing purposes - whichever you prefer. Incidentally, I think yours is good, but you've gone just a little far with the "brightening" and washed it out a bit, increasing the noise - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder... If you'd like me to do anything with any of that you can just ping me and I'd be happy to. -- Begoon 02:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Raumfahrer?[edit]

I don't think Ref 147 will pass muster. It is a forum.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked at this in more depth today, and did not find any satisfying answers. A source says that they paraded the invoice around the office, delirious from all the hours awake, and made many copies. Also said that NASA didn't think it was funny. Was having issues finding RS'es that didn't just parrot the often-heard portions of the story. If you would like a good version of the invoice, there are two that were up on Heritage Auctions (they both looked different..) version 1 and version 2. I think we give it undue weight; it is a cute story, but there is a lot to talk about in the article already. If we keep it though, this newspaper source should help. Heck, have more one two three four. Interesting how the perpetrator of the prank changed with time. This clipping might be far enough from the date, but not too far, to be accurate. Who knows, maybe they both sent a copy, one later at an anniversary or something... last clipping. Anyways I am tired and not thinking straight, let me know what you think we should do with that paragraph. Kees08 (Talk) 06:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd cut the whole thing really but I'll cut it back a bit for now. The copy in The New York Times does not mention the confidentiality bit by the way so my guess is that came on later.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the April 18, 1970, articles, so I think it was in the original. I suppose it is best we keep it in the article, but well sourced, otherwise someone will add it back later with cruddy sources. Kees08 (Talk) 06:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The NYT is also from that date and illustrates part of it if you go to the actual reproduction of the page (which you may not be able to do, I have subscriber access). Possibly multiple versions were circulated. If that's the most we have to discuss, I think we're ready for peer review and unless there is objection I'll start the process going.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at the preview but do not have access to the large version, almost finally subscribed to see it..not today though. I have a little bit more reference work to do, and also could you respond to my Pogue suggestion above (to just say the situation that some sources say one astronaut while other sources say the other). Maybe aim for nominating for peer review Saturday? I have started requests for higher quality and color photos to JSC by the way, but the contact I have is on vacation. Hopefully that pulls through. Kees08 (Talk) 07:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I sent you a screenshot including the invoice. Saturday is fine. I haucve no objection to the Pogue thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the invoice. Sounds good on Pogue, although it is annoying, not sure how else to deal with it as an encyclopedia. For the tank test image, I am seeing about creating a gif out of the three frames we have. That might make the sequence more clear. Otherwise, there exists a nice image of a fused thermal switch. Kees08 (Talk) 07:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Re the thermal switch, I don't think it would mean much to the ordinary reader, tanks and exploding panels are probably better.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn’t notice all this discussion. I uploaded the invoice and added it to the article. Maybe we should have a separate article re tax returns, towing bills, golf swings, etc. EEng 17:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

NASA's finest hour[edit]

I'd like to firm up that bit near the end. Do we know how this originated? In the film, Kranz says, "With all due respect, sir, I believe this is gonna be our finest hour." Did he say that in real life? Does it come from there?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Could be when Lovell was complaining about the (original) Apollo 13 movie? Clipping. Will keep digging. Seems to be plenty of hits on newspapers.com prior to 1995 though. Kees08 (Talk) 17:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Apollo 11 as finest hour, Apollo 13, barely mentioned. That's all I am really seeing. Looks like after his comment on the movie was when it was repeated more often. Which is obviously OR, but meh. Kees08 (Talk) 17:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Peer review?[edit]

The editing seems to have died down. Someone I saw wanted to discuss image format, but that seems easy enough to resolve. I was thinking maybe we should open this to peer review. Yes, we have almost 7 months until the anniversary but better sooner than later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well if you found my recent edits agreeable (can't remember how I even wandered into this article, and I've just been poking around at random) and you'd like me to do one of my patented cut, squeeze, and trims top to bottom, I'll be happy to do that but I'll be mostly tied up through Saturday 9/28. If you don't want it, that's fine too. EEng 01:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course, your editing would be very welcome. The peer review can wait a bit. It was you, I see, who mentioned image formatting.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, I have been busy lately but will try to address comments at peer review and still work on the article as time allows. Great work on the article by all parties so far. Kees08 (Talk) 07:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on switching the mailbox photo for this one? I think the one we have is a quality photo of the astronaut, but we might want to show off the mailbox more. Kees08 (Talk) 17:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I would consider keeping it if only because we have very little that focuses on Swigert.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Getting back to peer review, perhaps after this weekend? We're six months from the anniversary, and that isn't much more than time for a peer review, a FAC, and a second if the first one fails, plus enough time to nominate at TFA. The processes are working slow these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Kees08 (Talk) 04:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Want me to keep going? EEng 18:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
My plan is working perfectly!-EEng
I think there has to be some sort of chronological order to things and that we have to give attention in its place to what happens before liftoff.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you're saying. Chronological order is the most obvious order for any narrative, but not always best one. Naturally I'll understand if people don't find my reorganization ideal; I got more into it than I'd meant to before waiting for reaction from my esteemed fellow editors. EEng 04:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh wait, I see your recent edits. EEng 04:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I've stopped now. Give me a chance to read it over as it stands now. I agree there should not be too many previews before we get to the movie, lol, but I think some of it is necessary background to the flight.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to what we have now. A more artful place for the flight directors would be nice, though. I think Kranz, especially, should be introduced fairly early on. And maybe the landing site could be compacted into a paragraph and inserted elsewhere. Probably other things too. Don't take the fact I moved some above the flight as a reflection on what you've done. Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
There's going to be some continuity issues and some need for moving links to what is now first usage but let's see where this settles down. Done for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
We can revisit this later, but I still feel there's too much detailed material about training and experiments and such before the article gets off the ground, so to speak -- in other words before the takeoff and accident. Think of it this way, at least with respect to the experiments: if the mission had gone as planned, we'd probably describe the trip to the moon, then the descent and landing, and then discuss the experiments in the context of their being put in place; we probably wouldn't talk about them before takeoff. Sometimes I think, Well, the reader can use the TOC to jump to the part they want, but other times I think that many or most readers won't think to do that, will simply start reading, and lose interest. The "logical", chronological order isn't always the best. But maybe I'll feel differently later.
Thanks for your kind compliments. I'll keep working forward as time permits (and there may be interruptions -- I have to be in the mood and there will be distractions for the next several days) and by the time I get to the end I'll have a better feel for things overall. EEng 21:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
It is something of a conflict. Many of the things in those sections are referenced in the flight section, they were going to Fra Mauro, the S-IVB impact, etc, and if they aren't mentioned until later, it leads to issues.. But I also see the importance of getting to the point quickly. Well, you've heard my concerns, I'll wait and see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Issues list from copyediting[edit]

Little things we might want to revisit:

  • Section order -- defer experiments etc. to later? EEng
    The section is by its nature introductory to the flown mission, and throughout the Apollo FAs we tend to put such sections before the flight. I think the fact that the early part of the article has been shortened is a good thing but the reader, if they care to read the whole article, has to understand that there are some shorts before the main feature. I think the preparation for the mission that did not happen that way will hold the reader's interest enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    I was looking again at the Experiments section and I think I could agree with most of that being put near the end, with possibly some of the info about the S-IVB being kept up front.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • When was formal determination that mission was aborted? EEng
    I've not been able to discover this, and I've looked.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    This was one of the things Ron Howard essentially got right: the mission (i.e. the landing) was aborted at the time they were ordered to shut down the two failing fuel cells (in the futile hope it would stop the O2 leak), as mission rules strictly prohibited landing w/o redundant fuel cells. I'm sure this is borne out in RS such as Lovell/Kluger and Chaikin. I would also expect it to be mentioned in NASA sources such as the Mission Report and the accident Review Board report. (Actually, I'm surprised that's not already covered in the article.) JustinTime55 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    You're talking about the fuel cell reactant valves which once closed could not be opened again without ground support equipment, and the mission rules forbade going into lunar orbit without having three operative fuel cells. I've read that too, but it's not in the accident report, which says (p. 3-26) "

At approximately 55:55 g.e.t. (10:08 p.m.e.s.t.), the crew reported an undervoltage alarm on the CSM main bus B. Pressure was rapid- ly lost in SM oxygen tank no. 2 and fuel cells 1 and 3 current dropped to zero due to loss of their oxygen supply. A decision was made to abort the mission. The increased load on fuel cell 2 and decaying pressure in the remaining oxygen tank led to the decision to activate the LM, power down the CSM, and use the LM systems for life support." It looks to me (and I'm not technical) that they would not have asked the crew to shut them down except if an abort decision had already been made.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I've again tried to make it clear that it was 95 seconds from the time the fans were turned on until the bang. I can see no purpose in fuzzing the issue. I don't know how long the fans were turned on for, and the 95 seconds runs from the time it was turned on, which was probably the point of no return. I would ask for talk page discussion on this point if it is still felt that "95 seconds later" with the last event mentioned being turning the fans off serves the reader well.--01:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the 95 seconds, I am reluctant to revert, but I do feel fairly strongly that is an important figure we should have before the reader, as the amount of time between the event that triggered the explosion, and the explosion, and that we should not fuzz it with "later", which introduces an unnecessary ambiguity..--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely agree--I say go for it. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Similarly, I don't understand why it is necessary it is necessary to delete the explanation of why Liebergot missed the worrying signs (the electrical readings until they were deleted were in the passage about Haise coming out of the LM). To delete it leaves him with the mistake about the instrumentation and while that is closer to the way he was portrayed in the film, he and the backroom had valid reasons to be focusing on Tank #1. Since the article on Apollo 13 Mission Operations Team was merged into this one, I think we need to include some focus on what was going on downstairs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding the computer resetting, I'm still looking for info on whether this was the AGC or something else.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    You've resolved that now. EEng 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    Not as cleanly as I would like. I'd also like to resolve the other issues. I feel I took some care with the phrasing there, and I do feel strongly about those matters. If we are trying to remove ambiguity, it seems needless to introduce some.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    Luckily I don't feel strongly on these issues so no violence will be needed to resolve them. I need to go nighty-night soon so I may have to come back to the 95 seconds and Liebergot, but first let's do the computer. Why is the resolution less clean than you'd like? EEng 03:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    As you've raised the question I'd prefer a source to say the AGC just to make sure we aren't missing something. I've restored the substance of what I objected to being omitted, pending any discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, I thought you said it was definitely the AGC. If you have access to [3] I would expect it would tell us what other digital devices, if any, were in the Apollo mix. If not, help me remember to pick it up at the library.
    As to the other stuff, let's just let the list accumulate, I'll press on, and we can come back to the list later. OK? EEng 19:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    I don't have access to that right now but am outside the US at present so that may be it. Yes, please go ahead and we can return to whatever needs resolving. Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    I have access to a different AGC book, someone is bringing it in tomorrow. Kees08 (Talk) 19:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── From page III-8 of the Mission Operations Report, "At 55+55, the Guidance Officer indicated that he had observed a Command Module Computer hardware restart."--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

But that doesn't tell us whether that's just another name for the AGC. At Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Operation there's talk of a "Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) on the Saturn V booster instrumentation ring" and an "Abort Guidance System", but these don't sound like what's being referred to in the quote. (For one thing, from their descriptions one guesses they'd be inactive at this point in the mission.) EEng 19:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We jump between references to the LM, CM, SM, and CSM without doing much to help the reader understand what these are and their relationships. (Let’s leave this to later.) EEng 11:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the incident with Mission Control checking the math is worth keeping if only because it's in the film, and it speaks to the care the astronauts took to avoid mistakes. What is the difficulty with the surge tank?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    As usual I don't feel strongly on the checking, and we'll review this list before it's all done. Parking a diff here: [4] (this doesn't actually address the concerns in the removed notes)
    I've looked at that and hopefully answered the question.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    The difficulty with the surge tank is... what's a surge tank? I have a general idea, actually, but most readers won't. EEng 16:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    I have a source that explains it but is it worth the explanation in an article where I gather we're trying to focus on the essentials? The reader may be satisfied with "it's a tank that they'll need at the end".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    I envisioned something simple like blah blah surge tank (a small intermediate tank in the craft's oxygen delivery system) or something like that. However, following your link I see there's more to all this tank stuff than meets the eye, so let's leave this on the giant pile for now with everything else.
    I should say that I spent an evening at the library earlier in the week and I've now got copies of all the key sources used in the article that aren't on line, plus some new ones. On the other hand, I'll be traveling for a few weeks without those sources, so for now I'll just continue copyediting without the sources. EEng 03:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In this version [5] the seismometer experiment is mentioned four times (search seismometer and something) and I think these should be trimmed/consolidated somehow. EEng 00:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    I would agree but right now we need to see where "Experiments" winds up then can play with consolidating.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. Remember, this list is primarily meant to be a place to park issues for later consideration (unless of course you feel particularly moved to engage a particular issue now). EEng 02:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019[edit]

Sp 'substituded' should be 'substituted' 4th paragraph under 'Review Board'. 87.242.252.18 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)