Jump to content

Talk:Apollo 13/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.9.135 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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...
  • During second stage burn the center engine shut down prematurely. : was that the catastrophic malfunction?
  • Needs a complete copyedit.
  • 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.
  • No link to Apollo spacecraft which is needed to understand the article.
  • ...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)

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)


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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
yes, but what was the chemical reaction? Oxygen + something + sparks = exposion. PeterGrecian 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
It's in the references: "Report of the Apollo 13 review board". MLilburne 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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

See also http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch8-3.html --Lionel.Mandrake 22:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.52.206.186 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

"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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Version 2

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)

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

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)

Wasn't Grissum in this mission?

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

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cleanup suggestions

I moved the images in the Explosion section to avoid text and the Listen box crashing over the first left aligned image, and I also moved excess images to a temporary gallery.

But the article seems to need even more cleanup than just that section: it appears listy, disjoint and incomplete. I am no writer but I stole the German article structure for this suggestion:

  1. Crew
  2. Preparation
  3. Mission
    1. Launch
    2. Saturn stage lunar impact (completely missing from the English article)
    3. "Houston, we’ve had a problem."
    4. Landing
  4. Cause of explosion
    1. Oxygen tanks
    2. Failings (starting from the 1965 specification change)
    3. The accident
  5. Impact on the Apollo program
  6. Trivia

I am sure there are other better structures, so I will leave it to others to decide what is best. 84user (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Duke

Was there a replacement assigned for Charlie Duke on the backup crew? Whichever way, that should be added to the article, to add to the fact that Swiggert had no replacement. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

WRONG SENTENCE STRUCTURE

This sentence structure is wrong:

The command module shell was formerly at the Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace, in Paris. The interior components were removed during the investigation of the accident and reassembled into BP-1102A, the water egress training module, and were subsequently on display at the Museum of Natural History and Science in Louisville, Kentucky, until 2000.

Please rephrase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.95.31 (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Added the following text to the Popular culture section detailing the interactive theater production APOLLO 13: Mission Control

In 2008, an interactive theatrical show entitled APOLLO 13: Mission Control premiered at BATS Theatre in Wellington, New Zealand. The production faithfully recreated the mission control consoles and audience members became part of the storyline. The show also featured a 'guest' astronaut each night - a member of the public who suited up and amongst other duties, stirred the oxygen tanks and said the line "Houston, we've had a problem". This 'replacement' astronaut was a nod to Jack Swigert, who replaced Ken Mattingly shortly before the actual launch in 1970. The production toured to other cities in New Zealand in 2009 and an Australian tour is scheduled for 2010-2011.

References include: http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/production.php?id=916 Theatreview media release and subsequent reviews of the production http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/002329.html Collect Space forum listing of BATS Theatre production of APOLLO 13: Mission Control http://www.nzfestival.nzpost.co.nz/theatre/apollo-13-mission-control Details on NZ Festival website http://www.apollo13.co.nz The official website of the production Markwesterby (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


Capitalisation of "Earth" and "Moon"

Hi, it seems that this article uses inconsistant capitalisation of Earth and Moon, contrary to the manual of style. Might be worth fixing -93.97.122.93 (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Swigert said "We've had a problem," not Lovell.

Jim Lovell is usually credited, wrongly, with reporting to Houston, "We've had a problem," but he was repeating what Swigert said just beforehand, upon the Capsule Communicator's request for repetition. Lovell himself wrote an account attributing "We've had a problem" to Swigert.

Unfortunately, the notion that the quote is originally Lovell's is encouraged by an error in the official record, the Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription. However, a handwritten note visible on the transcript points out the error, as follows:

Per Jack Riley* - Swigert reported trouble.
Per Ivan - Swigert first transmission, Lovell second.

[* NASA Public Affairs Official.]


NASA has itself produced, at the very least, three official documents with differing quotes attributed to different speakers.

The Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription says:

Commander: I believe we've had a problem here.

The Apollo 13 Mission Commentary has this version:

Spacecraft: Okay, Houston. Hey, we've got a problem here.

To confuse matters further, a now out-of-print document was produced by NASA's Public Affairs Office called EP-76 Apollo 13 "Houston, we've got a problem." This not only perpetuated a misquotation (got a problem instead of had a problem) but attributed it wrongly to Lovell instead of Swigert.


It is recognised by NASA that official mission transcripts contain many errors because the lay typists misheard weak and dirty communications, poor quality recordings, or difficult and unfamiliar engineering jargon.

"Houston, we've had a problem."
Swigert and Lovell reporting the explosion on 14 April 1970
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Ignoring the official transcript and listening to the actual mission audio yields this exchange:

Swigert: Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here.
Capcom: This is Houston. Say again, please.
Lovell: Ah, Houston, we've had a problem. [Pause] We've had a main B bus undervolt.
Capcom: Roger, main B undervolt. [Pause] Okay, stand by, 13, we're lookin' at it.

Anyone familiar with the crewmembers' voices can easily hear the vocal differences between Swigert's and Lovell's statements. The recording supplied opposite is loud and clear, the voice differences are easy to hear, and the audio supports Jim Lovell's own account.

odea (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Major reversion. I thought I had found an error, but now I see that the reference I was going by is not even consistent, even on the same page. In the Crew Debriefing Report, Swigert is quoted as saying, "Then you called Houston about our problem", but reading just a bit further he is quoted saying that he was the one who made the radio call. I need to make reversions on other pages now.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


LOX evaporation time

(Below question/response reposted vebatim from the archive because I am still curious, and it goes unanswered.)
Perhaps this detail was covered in the Report of Apollo 13 Review Board, (PDF) NASA June 1970 and not written in the article to preserve clarity?

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? Wingman4l7 (talk)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk)
As I understand it, it would have taken several days to bleed of the LOX without the heaters, but only would have taken a few hours with the heaters on. As the temperature gauge in the control room could not go above 100C, the only indication of a problem would have been the heaters cycling on/off. --Gamerk2 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

O2 Tank Rupture Was Not An Explosion

Here is a footnote that has existed on this article for many moons:

Note that NASA's offical report (REPORT OF APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD) does not itself use the word "explosion" in describing the tank rupture. Rupture disks and other safety measures were present to prevent a catastrophic explosion, and analysis of pressure readings and subsequent ground-testing determined that these safety measures worked as designed. See findings 26 and 27 on page 195 (5-22) of the NASA report.

There will be many who will want to revert the change I just made to the article. But the most accurate information we have tells us it was not an explosion. I suggest that it is high time that Wikipedia relates this story accurately without embellishment. Today we are one month away from the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 13 launch. The best tribute we can make here is to scrutinize movies, books, personal accounts, etc and do our best to filter out any sensationalism.

There is a significant difference between "an explosion" versus the tank failure described in the official report. If anyone has an argument for invalidating that extremely detailed report, please make it here.

But it is clear to me that just because "everyone says it was an explosion" does not invalidate what the report says. It is a very interesting read, and I expect anyone who takes the time to poke through it will see how thorough they were.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your edits, and the section reads well now. Certainly 'rupture' is the correct word to use, my only suggestion is to use the word 'combustion' instead of 'fire'. Logicman1966 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, Tdadamemd, and I think that every reference to this in other articles should also be revised. It could be fairly described as a "violent rupture" (especially in light of Lovell's description as a "rather large bang".) I'd recommend warning first on the discussion pages though, just to cover yourself and to try to avoid edit wars.
I notice in the Wiki that great pains are taken to refer to the Challenger accident as a "disintegration" or "breakup" since NASA similarly determined scientifically that's what happened, despite everyone's perception of it (including my own) as an an explosion, which I'm sure most people commonly refer to it as also. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The strongest wording I remember finding in the reports was that the rupture was "possibly violent", so unless we can find a solid reference stronger than that, I'd say that calling it a "violent rupture" would be inconsistent with the official report's findings. It was also documented that the loud bang was comparable to the noise of that repress switch that Haise had been pranking his crew with. And I seem to remember from Lovell's Lost Moon that this was the first thought that went through his mind. A stark contrast to Ron Howard's dramatization!
As for cleaning up other articles, that will eventually happen as this story meme-shifts toward greater historical accuracy. It is an amazing report that Cortright's team gave to us. If only people would read it!--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a glaring omission not to mention the contribution of the engineers at the University of Toronto Aerospace Studies. I don't think there's ever been any recognition in official or pop culture circles. See the story in Canadian Press "A team of University of Toronto engineers helped save ill-fated Apollo 13 crew" April 10, 2010.Consulzephyr (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

O2 Tank Rupture Was Not An Explosion (continued)

I seem to have accidentally posted concerns about the assertion there was no explosion on JustinTime's and my talk page instead of here. We're going to need a reliable source that says there was no explosion in order to justify saying so. Explanations that amount to definitions of "explosion" will not suffice; we'll need one that says there was no explosion, or we cannot say that here. For example, I found just such a one regarding the break-up of the Challenger. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11031097/ns/technology_and_science-space// Yopienso (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You should try reading the talk page first; this belongs under the thread "O2 Tank Rupture Was Not An Explosion" above. The source is repeated there, and is also given in the main article. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
When comments are posted higher up on a page they are often missed; editors generally add new information at the bottom.
What you are doing is overturning a long held and widely documented assertion, and to do so, you need a reliable source. I initially gave you one, from NASA, which you rejected because it was "for the public." I don't think your rejection is valid; WP is likewise "for the public." Just google "apollo 13 explosion."
Here are a few--note that Jim Lovell just yesterday said, "After the explosion, I kept counting the crew: one, two, three,..." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700018962/Apollo-13-commander-speaks-at-BYU-on-successful-failure.html
"An explosion on board forced Apollo 13 to circle the moon without landing." http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-13/apollo-13.html
"The Apollo 13 malfunction was caused by an explosion and rupture of oxygen tank number 2 in the service module about 56 hours into the mission. The explosion also ruptured a line or damaged a valve in oxygen tank number 1, causing it to lose oxygen rapidly. Within about 3 hours, all oxygen stores were lost, along with water, electrical power, and use of the service module propulsion system. Visual assessment of the damage could not be made until the end of the mission, when the service module was jettisoned in preparation to reentry. Then it could be seen that the cover of service module bay number 4 had blown off and the equipment inside was badly mangled." http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_13/return/
http://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+13+explosion&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=M8R&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=RyGqS__6EZOMswPXs5HLBQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=13&ved=0CDkQ5wIwDA
There are literally hundreds of sources, including NASA, a number of universities, and the news media...as well as hobbyists and cranks, of course.
You realize that quoting the WP article you are editing is not a reliable source, right?
I loved the Apollo program, and had the privilege of standing across the Banana River to witness the ascent of Apollo 11. I share your care for detail and accuracy, and suggest changing your tack on the article from refuting the notion there was an explosion to explaining the nature of it. Ex.: "While the event is widely described as an "explosion," and rightly so called by the layman, it was more technically a "rupture." Although I still see no reason to go into all that. Maybe you could ask another editor for comment. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
By ignoring the original thread at the top, you have missed a very important fact: I am not the one who added the Review Board report finding to this article; that was Tdadamemd. so your arguments are rightfully directed to him, particularly "suggest changing your tack on the article from refuting the notion there was an explosion to explaining the nature of it". If you take the time to read this article, I think you will see that he did that in essence. I will leave it to him (and whoever else determines the consensus) to decide how to handle this article.
I want to clarify a point: I did not "[reject your NASA source] because it was for the public;" I didn't express myself clearly, and simply meant that NASA employs public relations people as well as engineers, and that that source doesn't reflect the technical assessment.
And therefore, in the Jim Lovell article, I was not "quoting the WP article I was editing." Discussion of that article belongs on its own talk page, so I'm signing off here. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience with my blunder, Justin, on top of my goofs of writing on your and my talk page. Good grief, and saying you were editing here and using your own words as a source. :O I apologize for my awkwardness. It's to be hoped that Tdadamemd has been following this thread and will take my comments under consideration.
I understood that you meant the NASA publication was from the PR dept.; my point was that since WP isn't a technical journal we should stick with layman's terms, allowing for a section that goes into technical detail. My main objection is the bold statement, "There was no tank explosion," with no reliable source to substantiate it. Less important but also objectionable is the attempt to expunge the word "explosion" from the article. Bottom line, if Jim Lovell still calls it an explosion, along with NASA, universities, and news media, WP should at most explain the nature of the explosion rather than deny it took place. Imho, that is.  :-) I gather Tdadamemd may be trying to combat a false idea of a large bomb-like explosion that may have been suggested by the movie. (I've watched it at least twice but not recently and don't remember that detail.) That's a worthy goal.
Again, thank you for working with me, and particularly for bearing with me. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, dear. Just please understand, no one is trying to expunge, deny or hide anything. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hola. I've followed the discussion above, along with both your Talk pages. Yop, I totally understand where you are coming from. We have very knowledgeable first-hand accounts from people like Jim Lovell, Gene Kranz, Sy Liebergot and many others who say in no uncertain terms that the O2 tank exploded. If there was an absence of conflicting data, I would see little reason to question their story.
...but the fly in the ointment here is that we have an excruciatingly detailed report that tells a distinctly different story.
So the obvious crux of this matter is arriving at a decision as to which version of the story is more accurate. One method for deciding this is by majority rule...
I just googled ["apollo 13" explosion site:nasa.gov] and saw that there were 42,500 hits. (Narrowing the TopLevelDomain down to official NASA pages should be a decent first cut toward reliable sources.)
Now googling ["apollo 13" "not an explosion"] yields a whopping 8 hits. One is this article. A second is the Answers.com mirror of this article. And the other six appear to be pages where the two search terms are not directly associated.
But it can be a gross mistake to override a dissenting opinion simply because it is held by a minority. There is that poignant cautionary saying...
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
This means to tell us that better decisions can be made when minority opinions are given healthy consideration. I do not know of anyone who has direct access to truth. And I have learned to be wary of those who claim that they do. The best we have, given our human condition of limited awareness, is pointers toward the truth. In this particular case, we have thousands of pointers aimed at one version of the story (people repeatedly saying that the tank exploded), and then there's this other pointer aimed at a distinctly different version of the story (that the investigation did not find any conclusive evidence that the tank exploded). So we could make a simple judgement that this one pointer should be ignored because it does not fit with the truth being indicated by the overwhelming majority. But a more thorough evaluation is gained by going a level deeper and examining the basis for why these pointers are indicating two different versions of truth.
...and it is upon this examination where the quality of evidence, and abundance of evidence, provided in the report makes for a clear tipping of the scales.
So all of this is a long way to reiterate what I stated in my first post at the top of this page:
If anyone has an argument for invalidating that extremely detailed report, please make it here.
But it is clear to me that just because "everyone says it was an explosion" does not invalidate what the report says.
For us to have meaningful progress in debate here, I consider it to be necessary for us to get familiar with key statements from the report that have been referenced and quoted. I would be glad to discuss pertinent sections of the report. I can offer my understanding as to what certain parts of it mean.
Yop, I do agree with your criticism that the word "explosion" had been swept away with that first edit I had made earlier this month (the word remained only in the note). I myself had come to see that as a mistake and in my next edit, I added back in an explanation of the popular view that the tank had exploded. As Justin is saying, we don't see anyone trying to hide anything. On the contrary, it's clear to me that these are efforts motivated by the desire to shed light on the topic.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, in case there is any lingering question regarding the persistent notion that the O2 tank exploded, I just scoured the entire Mission Operations Report that was published at the end of April 1970 (separate from the Cortright Report). This is a 345-page document that is a compilation of different reports submitted by various groups within Mission Control, from the Flight Directors on down. I read through the entire report and found these totals for how the O2 tank 2 event was described:

  • "Anomaly" (/anomalies) - used 19 times.
  • "Rupture" (/tank rupture, etc) - used 6 times: pgs F-1, F-4 (x2), F-7 (x2), and E-17 in the EECOM report signed by Sy Liebergot.
  • "Accident" - used 6 times.
  • "Incident" - used 5 times: all on pg 7-3.
  • "Loss/lost" - used 5 times.
  • "Failure" (/near catastrophic failure) - used 3 times.
  • "Problem" - used 3 times.
  • "Contingency" - used 3 times.
  • "Shock" - used 1 time: on pg F-1.
  • "Systems situation" - used 1 time: on pg II-1.
  • "Explosion" (Exploded/Explosive/etc) - used ZERO times.

Now it is certainly possible that my count is off. Anyone can check it for themselves. But the pattern is clear.

Note that this report is written in part by Kranz and Liebergot, and is signed by them. Both have been prolific users of the word 'explosion' in subsequent years describing the event. Yet in this official document that was published when the event was fresh, they never use the word 'explosion' a single time. What remains for the historian is to explain why the story changed. I have my own understanding. But there are many people who were inside Mission Control who wrote and signed off on that report. It might be good to ask them directly to help get a complete and accurate history of this amazing mission.

The graph in the EECOM report with the word 'RUPTURE' appears to be a fold-out that has been photocopied in the folded position. If anyone has access to the original paper version, I'd be very interested to see what appears in the full graph.

Also, to describe the SHe Supercritical Helium tank situation on the LM, this report uses the word "rupture" (/disc rupture/ruptured, etc) another 6 times. And likewise, it never uses the word 'explosion' to describe that tank failure event either. The SHe tank rupture event was so solidly predicted that it isn't even described as an anomaly (an occurrence that goes against the nominal stated schedule of events).--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the term 'explosion' as it is usually understood, covers what happened to this tank. For example, many bombs consist of gun powder or similar in a sealed vessel; the gun powder burns and fills the vessel with hot gas at high pressure; this then causes the vessel to explode. A similar thing happened with the tank, the remains of the PTFE insulation combusted in the oxygen in the tank and this raised the pressure to the point that the tank exploded. Specifically, it's a Explosion#Mechanical.- Wolfkeeper 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
A firecracker explodes. But you can also break the firecracker in half before you light it, and then it does not explode. It fizzles. That is because the combusting gunpowder has an outlet - the open area created when you broke it in half. If the Apollo spacecraft pressure vessels did not have the designed-in safeties of the pressure relief valves and rupture discs, then they would explode. But what the Cortright Report concluded, essentially, was that the tank overpressure "fizzled", per design.
But there will be those who won't bother to read the info in that report, and this legend of Apollo 13 experiencing "an explosion" will persist. The question I would ask of those people is, "Why don't people talk about there having been TWO explosions?" When the Supercritical Helium (SHe) Tank ruptured, it was basically the same type of event as the O2 Tank 2 rupture. The pressure vessels exceeded their design limit and the contents vented into space.
I find it particularly illuminating to read how casual Mission Control was about the SHe tank rupture. It was predicted well in advance. They had the choice of doing a short DPS burn to relieve the pressure (what they called a 'burp' of the SHe tank). They decided that it was more of a problem to deal with the trajectory deviation from the thrust delta-v of that little burn than it was to simply let the tank pressure continue to rise until it ruptured.
They were well aware that the tank would not explode. There were multiple ground tests that proved the pressure relieving safeties would work as designed. And the same types of safeties that were designed into the SHe tank were also designed into the O2 tank.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's the info on the "multiple ground tests" that were done on the O2 tanks, long before the flight...
This is from the Cortright Report's Appendix D, the section from those tasked with investigating the design issues. On page D-20, it talks about the qualification program where four tanks were burst tested, listing the test articles as PV-1, PV-2, PV-3 and PV-4. The first two were done with cryogenic liquid and the second two were done at ambient temperature. Quote: "All ruptures were similar; the failures apparently started about 2 or 3 inches from the pole of the tank on the top at the transition from the heavier section to the membrane section. The fractures progressed around the boss area, proceeded essentially perpendicular to the girth weld, and then crossed the girth weld in both ambient tests and in one of the cryogenic tests. In the other cryogenic temperature test vessel, a large fragment came out of the upper hemisphere. In no case was there violent fragmentation." (my emphasis added) --Tdadamemd (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the official report doesn't uses neither the word "explode" or "explosion" but the author of the report does elsewhere confirms my stance: this is a highly technical point not suitable to a general encyclopedia. When I have time I will edit the article to explain what is meant and remove the dogmatic assertion that there was no explosion. It's a simple matter of semantics. The NASA site for laymen http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-13/apollo-13.html uses the words 8 times, going so far as to call the tank a bomb. This argument would be like forbidding the phrase "heart attack" in our biography of LBJ. Yet his autopsy undoubtedly says he died of a "myocardial infarction" because it's a technical report written by and for experts. Yopienso (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't simply a routine valve opening or a burst disk activating then, the tank actually mechanically failed, and bits flew off in the test. That's an explosion; a mechanical explosion.- Wolfkeeper 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the renowned Adler Planetarium, basically recycling the NASA report given to the public, notes the "swarm of debris" caused by the explosion.
"Ordinarily the alignment procedure used an onboard sextant device, called the Alignment Optical Telescope, to find a suitable navigation star. However, due to the explosion, a swarm of debris from the ruptured service module made it impossible to sight real stars."
Also, just look at the black and white photo of the damaged service module in our article--it clearly shows the rupture was no simple slit that leaked gas; it was a crippling explosion. Yopienso (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Check out this photo: CSM with Panel Blown Away
You want to know how crippling this event was? The LM undocked and landed on the Moon. The same thing happened on the last two Moon landings as with that Apollo 15 CSM. After their moonwalks, all three of those CSMs brought their crews back safely. No crippling emergency situation whatsoever.
For Apollo 13, the blown panel is proof that the pressure was relieved. It was the ultimate overboard venting. Let's be clear that the panel coming off helped the overpressure situation.
Now regarding this notion that "explosion" versus "rupture" is some kind of distinction that only matters to technical experts, I've already given the layperson analogy. Is it dogmatic to say that a firecracker split in half fizzled when it did not "BANG" like an unbroken (unvented) firecracker that explodes? Not at all. The difference is huge. The difference is the expected damage to be done. It's been thoroughly covered already that these pressure vessels are potential bombs. That is exactly why the safety reliefs are designed in from the start: so that they DO NOT explode.
As for that NASA reference, it has also been previously covered that you can easily find thousands of nasa.gov references that say it was an explosion. But a majority-held belief is not proof of accuracy of the belief. It is not rare that there are times when a majority is simply mistaken. And this particular reference shows exactly why it is so important to avoid such inaccuracies. That quote is such a gross exaggeration. "...the tank...was a potential bomb... That bomb exploded on April 13, 1970 -- 200,000 miles from Earth." I am not aware of any major difference that was observed in the Apollo 13 Service Module with its blown panel versus the blown-panel Service Modules of Apollos 15, 16 or 17.
I have never seen any evidence that confirms that Apollo 13's SPS engine was not usable. A blown SM panel certainly doesn't prove it (ref A15-A17). Loss of O2 cryo does not prove it. Loss of fuel cells does not prove it. And that is the HUGE distinction between calling it "an explosion" versus a solid understanding of what actually happened. With a good SPS engine, you could abort by simply turning around and returning directly home. That course of action would avoid lots of the drama that followed. But if instead you are exceptionally motivated to see the Moon upclose, then that's a decision that introduces a heap of drama, like consumables running short, etc.
One easy way to justify your decision that may have introduced more risk than it mitigated is to rewrite history and sell it as "an explosion" - even though your official report had already been submitted expressing a solid understanding of what actually happened. The designed-in safeties worked to relieve the tank overpressure.
Now for all of those who refuse to let go of the ever-popular view that the tank exploded, I have yet to hear anyone explain why the Supercritical Helium tank in the LM descent stage is not referred to as "an explosion" (let alone another "bomb that exploded"). You are all trying to have it both ways:
- Call the SM O2 tank rupture "an explosion", while
- Refusing to question the LM SHe tank rupture as anything but the overpressure relief functioning per design.
Such a position cannot escape the obvious conclusion that it is either:
- Ignorant (unaware that there was a second rupture due to a tank overpressure), or
- Deceptive (aware, but selling one as "an explosion", while selling the other as "per design").
I expect that a lot of this debate can be cleared up if we could simply get on the same page by reading the key areas of the reports that have already been highlighted.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
"You want to know how crippling this event was? The LM undocked and landed on the Moon." Tdadamemd, I have no idea what you meant by that. I'm not going to take the time to answer every point you've brought up since you have revealed that what you have been doing is pushing a fringe view that the history of Apollo 13 has been rewritten to justify the decision to loop around the Moon. Please see WP:OR[[3]], WP:SYN[[4]], WP:V[[5]], and WP:FRINGE[[6]]. I will undo your editing of March 11 to restore the proper use of the words "explode" and "explosion" since reliable sources overwhelmingly report the rupture as an explosion. If I have misunderstood your words or intentions, let's please discuss how. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Curious decision you have made, Yop. You are taking speculative info I have posted in one comment here on this Talk Page [edit: Yop, you may have been referring to something I posted over on Usenet], and used that as your basis for reverting thoroughly referenced facts from official NASA reports. I would hope that as a bare minimum we could all agree that the Cortright report is not some Fringe Theory. And anyone who has taken the time to read the references provided can see that I have not injected my own speculations into what I've posted in the article (unlike what I just did above, here in this Talk Page). I have no agenda for promoting any of my own theories here. What I do strive for in Wikipedia is accurate and clear communication of facts. To demonstrate that I have no fringe theory to push, I will take a break from posting in any Wikipedia article or talk page about Apollo 13 for at least one year. After the 41st anniversary of "the explosion", I'll consider taking an active role here once again.
This isn't to say that I want to leave any questions for me unanswered. If you'd like me to explain what I meant by that "crippling" quote, or to answer any other questions or have some other discussion, I'd be glad to do that. If anyone wants a response from me, just ping me over on my User Page and we can discuss it over there. Catch you later, y'all.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref 18

The ref associated with "18" is pretty poor [7] - not really suitable for this article. What do others think? Sophia ♫ 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll offer my take on that: I find it to be a relevant fact that the original timeline was deviated from. As for that particular reference, the author has an entire website of theories based heavily on his religious beliefs. While I question the title of that particular page ("THE STIR THAT SAVED THE LIVES OF APOLLO 13's CREW"), the statement in the wiki-article holds short of that conclusion. The error I see in the current version is that it talks of an alternate history presuming the overpressure is again missed by all of those monitoring at Mission Control (both in the MOCR front room as well as all the back room MER personnel). Here's a suggestion for improvement:
Change "the stir that ruptured the tank" to "the stir that initiated the short circuit combustion", or something to that effect. Because if the article starts to delve into alternate histories, one of the first that I'd want to see explored is where Mission Control catches the pressure rise, runs the O2 tank de-energize/vent procedure and the Cryo/Fuel Cell system integrity is preserved. THAT action would not only 'save the lives of the crew', but would have prevented the need for aborting the mission.
I'll add that even if this procedure did not prevent the tank rupture, it would certainly have taken away significant energy from the event which might have resulted in a healthier condition of O2 Tank 1 and the Fuel Cells. But I wouldn't want to add this to the article because of the speculative unsourced nature. If we ever learn that the investigation team did conduct such tests, then it would make for an excellent addition to the article. And since the hardware still exists, someone in the future may decide to conduct such a test. It could be attempted in a non-destructive 'ramp-up' manner where the hardware could be returned to the museum after testing.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
More info... I just dug up a USENET post from 2006. It was from Sy Liebergot, the Apollo 13 EECOM, and he wrote this:

> Do you think the timing of the stir had anything to do with the
> explosion, or was it likely to happen whenever the next stir took
> place?

The tank stir was normally performed once a day, after sleep, but I
requested an extra stir before sleep because the Oxygen Tank 2’s
quantity instrumentation reading had failed earlier and I wanted a more
frequent quantity reading of Oxygen Tank 1. The explosion would likely
have occurred during the scheduled post-sleep stir, eight hours later.

There’s an old saying : “No good deed goes unpunished.”
Sy Liebergot
“Apollo EECOM: Journey of A Lifetime”
www.apolloeecom.com

--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The point is that the quote does not support the claim that the next stir would have been after the LEM was detached. Stirs seem to have happened as required, at least once a day so it seems like supposition on the part of the link author. Sophia ♫ 13:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that last reference I posted from Sy Liebergot appears to support exactly what you are saying. I am thinking that it will improve the article to have that statement removed.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the whole section as there was nothing else that wasn't said better earlier in the article. Sophia ♫ 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Functioning or non-functioning valves

I believe I've just figured out Tdadamemd's misunderstanding about the valve on oxygen tank #2.
I was reexamining the Cortright Rpt., p. 195, Secs. 26-27 and see that:

Determination
This drop resulted from the normal operation of the pressure relief valve as verified in subsequent tests.

refers to

Oxygen tank no. 2 telemetry showed a pressure drop from 1008 psia at 55:54:45 to 996 psia at 55:54:53, at which time telemetry data were lost.

In other words, 8/100's of a second before the tank exploded, the valve caused the pressure to drop 12 psi. --Yopienso (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Lovell report that Tdadamemd discredits is part of a larger work edited by Edwin Cortright. --Yopienso (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Analysis section

I think there are a couple of issues with the Analysis section:

  • The very last sentence (Cortright and Low frat brothers) is irrelevant and seems to be heavily biased POV, (which I find surprising since it seems to be designed to discredit the Cortright (Review Board) report, which Tdadamemd uses to support the "no-explosion" theory.) I don't see any way it's relevant; Cortright started at Langley in the old NACA days and rose to be its director. Is the implication that he didn't merit heading the Review Board?
It's also dirty pool to disingenuously title the supporting source (a NASA history article) as "Head investigator Cortright was frat brothers at RPI with NASA Deputy Administrator". I think this definitely needs to be removed.
  • The thrust of the section almost seems to be second-guessing that, if only the tank pressure alarms hadn't been turned off, the crew could have prevented the burst and saved the mission. This is highly speculative; is it original research? Their attention was focused elsewhere (LM checkout and the TV broadcast); would there have been enough time between the first O2 pressure rise and the onset of combustion to prevent it; etc.
  • The paragraph about the direct return option also seems like second-guessing (though maybe that's not the intent.)
  • Is the LM disk burst really relevant (beyond the pressure concern moving the LM checkout up)? Again, pointless speculation, and does it rise to the level of OR?

The Cortright report is an important, authoritative source for the known facts of the incident, and its alternate form in the weblink of this section is probably the best one to use as the cited source. (Note it also is redundantly used in the "explosion" footnote and for citations in the Explosion section.)

What say you all? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, here you are! I was looking in the article. Yes, I'd noticed that frat brother thing. I agree with all your points and would welcome your improvements. With all due respect to Tdadamend, he seems to have a theory and uses whatever sources support it. You can see some discussion on his and my talk pages. I greatly appreciate his cooperativeness and the fact that we've had no edit warring. (I would like to smoke out those vandals, though. I asked Slim Virgin to protect the article, but as soon as it expired, they're back at it.)--Yopienso (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your work here; imo you could be bolder and just delete what you tagged OR, and even the preceding paragraph about the helium tank. I don't see how that detail is necessary. Deletion might necessitate realignment of images, which is way past my pay grade. Yopienso (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning crew swap in the lede

Justin, I appreciate all the touch-ups you've been doing. I'm reverted this one, though, because I don't think we should clutter the lede with the detail of Mattingly's measles and resulting swap-out. It's still there as asterisked information, as well as in the boxes. What do you think? Regards, Yopienso (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and think it's worthy of summarization, especially combined with the fact that Mattingly helped get them home (by working out the CM power-up procedure.) And if you're worried about redundancy, there happens to be another one inside the main body itself; read down through Mission notes.
I also have a question: why does everybody seem to spell it "lede" instead of "lead"?
I don't want to spend too much time on this relatively small issue, since there is a much more serious one; see my next section entry. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm interested in seeing your next edit--hasn't shown up yet.
  • I respectfully but strongly disagree with including the measles bit. The public didn't care who was there or who was supposed to have been there or who might have been there; they knew 3 Americans were in mortal peril and were anxiously following the developing drama, hoping and, in many cases, praying for survival. In other words, the swap-out didn't make the headlines. This is thoroughly covered in the main body; why clutter the lede? ::http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/04/dayintech_0413
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/news13.html
  • Wrt "lede"--I've adopted what I've seen other editors use.
News_style#Lead_or_intro
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001128
--Yopienso (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to keep rabbiting on....How does telling about the swap-out make a "better summary of the failure"? The same crisis would have occurred whether Mattingly or Swigert went--the swap-out was incidental, not significant, although Mattingly on the ground was key to the rescue operation.--Yopienso (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't; Besides putting back the swap-out, I bundled another revision (see the next paragraph down) which slightly re-worded the sentence describing the tank failure. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Then why did you summarize the edit as, "Restored Swigert/Mattingly swap in the lead; it is significant and worthy of summarization; also a better summary of the failure? I'm refraining from reverting that only out of respect for you and aversion to edit warring; I think being right up there at the top it substantially weakens the article. Suggestion: After you complete your very fine copy-editing job, why don't we both stay away for a week and come back and look at it with fresh eyes? Ideally, another editor will have dropped in by then and left a comment. Yopienso (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no involvement with this article, I was just passing by to read it and decided to look at the talk page. I would put the Mattingly information in the second paragraph, you can have one sentence combining the fact that he got replaced due to the German measles and his significant role on the ground. Really, you should consider expanding the lede to a third paragraph in my opinion if you have ambitions for this article, I think it would be a no brainer for the main page, there are so few space travel related articles, if you got it to FA. It would need sourcing and some restructuring of the article but I think it could be gotten there. I would break up the "Mission notes" section, though, which seems to be very close to a catchall/trivia section which is not favored, and put much of the information from Slayton's memoirs into a background section.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent.] After ignoring this article as per my suggestion and now reconsidering, I'm going to change the lede. I've checked the other Apollo article ledes (8-17) to find some kind of consistency. There is none. Some don't mention the crew at all, some give all three, one gives two. Including the swap-out just seems like way too much information up front, so I'm getting rid of it, leaving it for the asterisked section, which still may not be best, but is considerably better, imho. Also, although the film shows Mattingly as the main solver of the power problem, according to Jim Lovell on a DVD bonus section, he was a composite of John Aaron and other engineers. See our article on the film as well as this review Yopienso (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I went back to Lost Moon as a sanity check and, son-of-a-gun, Mattingly is never mentioned in context of helping Aaron work out the power-up protocol (Ron Howard strikes again!) Therefore, I'm going to fix that in the article body, and of course it doesn't belong in the lead.
However, a brief mention of the crew swap is appropriate there and does not clutter or otherwise hurt the lead. Comparison with the other missions is not relevant or fair, because this type of last-minute replacement never happened before or since in Gemini or Apollo (which makes it noteworthy.) There are no hard-and-fast rules on how long or short the introduction should be, just not too short nor too long and should "adequately summarize" the article. You don't have any more consensus for deleting it than I do for keeping it (did you miss Wehwalt's response above?) We also can't make the judgement that it was of no interest to anybody.
And to clarify another thing you apparently never got straight:
(Y): How does telling about the swap-out make a "better summary of the failure"?
(J): It doesn't; Besides putting back the swap-out, I bundled another revision (see the next paragraph down) which slightly re-worded the sentence describing the tank failure.
(Y): Then why did you summarize the edit as, "Restored Swigert/Mattingly swap in the lead; it is significant and worthy of summarization; also a better summary of the failure"? I'm refraining from reverting that only out of respect for you and aversion to edit warring ...
I never intended to say the swap was "a better summary of the failure"; I was talking about two separate things, and that phrase refers to the second one (re-worded sentence describing the tank failure.) Better punctuation, or slightly less terse wording might have made it clearer. I'm sorry I'm not perfect at writing edit summaries clearly the first time, and I'm sorry if you got angry based on your misunderstanding. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the "better summary..." which you correctly saw I never got straight. Now I get it. I was never angry, though.  :) You're a fine editor; I've sprinkled this page with sincere plaudits.
Yes, I read Wehwalt's suggestions; I see you didn't follow them, either! (He suggested a total of three paragraphs, with Mattingly's measles in the second.) After mulling over this all afternoon, I'm temporarily dropping my strong preference for keeping measles and swaps out of the lede. I don't see your point, but it's better than it was.
I'm restoring credit to Mattingly for his role in helping solve the power problem.
I want to be an asset rather than a hindrance to making this article as good as possible. Yopienso (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Crew lists

Thank you, Socheid, for your refiguring of the crew lists. --Yopienso (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

I just added the "Citation needed" template to the cost of the mission. ($4.4 billion.) I've never done this before, and hope I did it right. Apparently a bot will come along later and date it. --Yopienso (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gene Kranz interview on C-SPAN, 1999

GENE KRANZ ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW - PART 2, C-SPAN, 1999.

And he talks some about Apollo 13. I have added this to our External Links. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

under-rated thermostats, heating procedure . . . --> seeking good brief description of accident.

" . . . Two days later, en route to the Moon, a fault in electrical equipment inside one of the Service Module's oxygen tanks produced an explosion which caused the loss of both tanks' oxygen, depriving the Service Module of electrical power. . . "

Well, there was nothing wrong with the electrical system initially. There was nothing wrong with the thermostats either, they were just under-rated. They were rated for 28 volts, and when the change order came to upgrade the entire CM to 65 volts, in layers of sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors, they weren't upgraded and this oversight wasn't caught. That combined with a heating procedure to empty an 02 tank for the prelaunch "countdown demostration." Those two situations combined to set up the circumstances where an arc and fire, and pressure build-up and explosion could easily happen. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please fix it then, Cool Nerd. It looks like you've made improvements here; the one I most appreciate is getting rid of "Suddenly..." for a specific time span. Don't know how that one got by me! (The technical ones would, naturally.) Thanks for your contributions--please continue! --Yopienso (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "fault in electrical equipment" was intended to refer to the damage done to the Teflon wire insulation, which was the proximate cause of the accident. It wasn't meant to refer to the thermostats or any other components. If you can think of a better way to word it simply without going into the chain of events (this is the introduction, remember), then go for it. The chain of events is explained in the article under Root cause analysis. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Yopienso. Yeah, that's the advantage of all of us working together. We can catch different things. And the delay I think is significant, 93 seconds between Swigert stirring the tanks and the crew hearing the bang. Yeah, that 93 seconds makes it a lot harder to follow the thread of what is happening, esp when it involves something as seemingly routine as a tank stir. And this is something the Ron Howard film basically gets wrong, with the film implying that it was significantly closer in time and more obviously connected. Well, it was connected, just not obviously and transparently. Cool Nerd (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
JustinTime55, good point, and the Root cause analysis section looks good to me. I'm just thinking if we can hold accident cause/consequences to two sentences in the intro, that might make for a more across-the-board and informative summary. Perhaps. And it will take some work, I'll dive in when I can. Cool Nerd (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

LEVA Question

There seems to be some confusion (at least on my part) regarding whether or not Apollo 13 marked the first flight and intended use of the more developed form of the LEVA (Lunar Extravehicular Visor Assembly). This source http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LEVA.html says that Apollo 13 marked the last flight of the original LEVA, while others (including other NASA based sites) say that Apollo 13 was the first flight to include both the newer LEVA and the use of so-called "commander's stripes". Which is it?172.190.79.108 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think on the basis of these two sites: 1 2 you can safely assume Apollo 13 used the old ones. Lovell's helmet does have a stripe of sorts. But I'm no expert, just a good Wikipedian who lives by WP:V. --Yopienso (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the second link, though the LEVA shown as Lovell's is indeed the later incarnation.172.191.162.117 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is intended to discuss edits of the Apollo 13 article. If you have a general question you would like researched, may I suggest the Wikipedia:Reference Desk, also linked on the main page. Spaceflight questions would probably fall under the Science category, or else Miscellaneous. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, though because the article actually makes the point of mentioning that Apollo 13 marked the first use of the so-called "commander's stripe" (in the Mission notes section) on, among other places, the LEVA, you must forgive me for thinking my question was somehow appropriate for a talk page.172.191.162.117 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor Error

Resolved

Sorry guys, I don't know where to put this, but I noticed a mistake and am unable to edit this article because it's semi-protected. Under "Backup crew" it lists Jack Swigert as John L. Swigert, presumably a mistake since John W. Young is listed right above him. Hope someone can remedy this. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jproxima (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no error; that's his real name. There's a style issue I've never seen discussed, whether / when / where it's appropriate to use the astronauts' nicknames; there's a question of appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. The closest thing I've seen in the style manual is the recommendation to use a person's last name everywhere after the first time and not the first name, because that implies an unwarranted familiarity.

Also, please put new topics at the end of the talk page. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My personal practice is never to use a first name alone for anyone above the age of 20.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Lifeboat questions

A comment rather than an edit. I have just watched Apollo 13 (the movie). Did the crew have to pass navigation control from the CM to the LM computer? The movie seemed to make a big deal of this. I would be interested in reading the facts.

Also, although it would seem obvious, did the LiOH canisters stay in different configurations or were they standardized for the two modules? Were there any changes made to docking to allow the CM and LM to share power, communications, data, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.27.164 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

These seem more like WP:reference desk type questions, but I can probably answer most of them.
First about navigation: this is one of the things the movie got technically accurate. Each craft had its own complete navigation system (since they were intended to fly independently, obviously.) They couldn't use the Command Module at all and had to shut it down completely, because it only had a very limited amount of battery power without the Service Module fuel cells; this meant shutting off the CM computer and all navigation had to be done using the LM.
Both systems were very similar; the computers were hooked up to gyroscopes intended to keep an absolute system of height, width, and depth axes that didn't move, in order to tell what direction the ship was moving in. What they had to do in essence was calculate a set of angles that would tell the LM's computer to move its gyroscope axes so they would be in the same position the Command Module's axes had been (since the CM and LM were in slightly different positions.)
As for the second question, I believe redesigning the LiOH systems would have been too hard, so I don't think they addressed this (beyond perhaps carrying lots of spares?) And there was really no need to make radical changes to the electrical connections between the two spacecraft. They addressed the problem by fixing the oxygen tanks to eliminate the chance they would explode again, thus avoiding this type of situation. The last three LM's got bigger anyway (designed for longer lunar stays), with more battery power and water, so these wouldn't be quite so tight in another lifeboat-situation.
I hope this helps. You can also find the book on which the film was based (not the other way around); it has the facts. In paperback it's now called Apollo 13 (or else Lost Moon in its original edition) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"The accident"

I think we need to revert the good faith edit made that simplified a fault in electrical equipment inside one of the Service Module's oxygen tanks produced an explosion which caused the loss of both tanks' oxygen, to the accident. My understanding of the way to write an article--and I can't find a page that says this--is that the lead summarizes and introduces the whole article. It doesn't replace information; that information needs to be repeated in its proper place, although it's hardly considered repeating. The lead is an introduction, while the article should be complete in itself without the lead. --Yopienso (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better summary than the phrase "the accident." Okay, I agree with that. Or perhaps no summary at all is needed in the second paragraph, for in the first paragraph we have " . . . was successfully launched toward the Moon, but the landing had to be aborted after an oxygen tank ruptured, severely damaging the spacecraft's electrical system . . . " And I think that's a pretty good summary. A person can then go backwards, okay, what caused the oxygen tank rupture. And a person can go forward, okay, how did the crew and mission control respond to the severe damage to the electrical system. And both of these aspects are included in the body of the article. Cool Nerd (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right--I didn't look closely enough and thought the paragraph you were editing came later in the article. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for your reasoned response. --Yopienso (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
And Yopienso, you're right, too! The phrase "the accident" is pretty vague, and I say that even though I wrote it myself! And, it sure seems to me that it could be improved upon, but nothing comes to me yet. I tend to work slow, and tend to need time to mull things over. So, open invitation, if you or anyone else wants to jump in and improve this passage, please have at it. In addition, currently, I'm mostly involved in what caused the tank rupture. That is, the different small oversights that interacted and crossed, producing this very serious, near-fatal situation. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Swigert said "We've had a problem," not Lovell.

Jim Lovell is usually credited, wrongly, with reporting to Houston, "We've had a problem," but he was repeating what Swigert said just beforehand, upon the Capsule Communicator's request for repetition. Lovell himself wrote an account attributing "We've had a problem" to Swigert.

Unfortunately, the notion that the quote is originally Lovell's is encouraged by an error in the official record, the Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription. However, a handwritten note visible on the transcript points out the error, as follows:

Per Jack Riley* - Swigert reported trouble.
Per Ivan - Swigert first transmission, Lovell second.

[* NASA Public Affairs Official.]


NASA has itself produced, at the very least, three official documents with differing quotes attributed to different speakers.

The Apollo 13 Technical Air-To-Ground Voice Transcription says:

Commander: I believe we've had a problem here.

The Apollo 13 Mission Commentary has this version:

Spacecraft: Okay, Houston. Hey, we've got a problem here.

To confuse matters further, a now out-of-print document was produced by NASA's Public Affairs Office called EP-76 Apollo 13 "Houston, we've got a problem." This not only perpetuated a misquotation (got a problem instead of had a problem) but attributed it wrongly to Lovell instead of Swigert.


It is recognised by NASA that official mission transcripts contain many errors because the lay typists misheard weak and dirty communications, poor quality recordings, or difficult and unfamiliar engineering jargon.

"Houston, we've had a problem."
Swigert and Lovell reporting the explosion on 14 April 1970
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Ignoring the official transcript and listening to the actual mission audio yields this exchange:

Swigert: Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here.
Capcom: This is Houston. Say again, please.
Lovell: Ah, Houston, we've had a problem. [Pause] We've had a main B bus undervolt.
Capcom: Roger, main B undervolt. [Pause] Okay, stand by, 13, we're lookin' at it.

Anyone familiar with the crewmembers' voices can easily hear the vocal differences between Swigert's and Lovell's statements. The recording supplied opposite is loud and clear, the voice differences are easy to hear, and the audio supports Jim Lovell's own account.

odea (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Major reversion. I thought I had found an error, but now I see that the reference I was going by is not even consistent, even on the same page. In the Crew Debriefing Report, Swigert is quoted as saying, "Then you called Houston about our problem", but reading just a bit further he is quoted saying that he was the one who made the radio call. I need to make reversions on other pages now.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am re-adding the above from archive. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Did they both say it?

APPENDIX B REPORT OF MISSION EVENTS PANEL http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/appBpt.1.pdf (page B-5)

" . . . the Guidance Officer (GUIDO) noted on his console display that there had been a momentary interruption of the spacecraft computer. He told the Flight Director, "We've had a hardware restart. I don't know what it was." At almost the same time, CDR Lovell, talking to Mission Control, said, "I believe we've had a problem here." Also at about the same time, the Electrical, Environmental, and Communications Engineer (EECOM) in Mission Control noticed on his console display the sudden appearance of limit sensing lights indicating that a few of the telemetered quantities relating to the spacecraft's cryogenic, fuel cell, and electrical system had suddenly gone beyond pre-set limits. Astronaut Swigert in the command module, noting a master alarm about 2 seconds after the bang, moved from the left seat to the right seat where he could see the instruments indicating conditions of the electrical system, and noticed a caution light indicating low voltage on main bus B, one of the two busses supplying electrical power for the command module. At that time, he reported to Mission Control, 'We've had a problem. We've had a main B bus undervolt." At the same time, however, he reported the voltage on fuel cell 3, which supplied power to main bus B, looked good and assumed that the main bus B undervolt condition had been a transient one. However, 2 or 3 minutes later, when another master alarm sounded, LMP Haise moved into the right-hand seat to recheck the fuel cells and noted that two of the three fuel cells (no. 1 and no. 3) were showing no hydrogen or oxygen flow and no electrical output and that fuel cell 2 was carrying the command module's total electrical load through bus A. . . "

Okay, the above writer states that the typed transcripts contain known errors since the tapes had poor audio quality, engineering jargon, etc. Furthermore, that from the audio itself, you can easily tell who's talking.
So, a couple of questions. If something is obvious, can we go ahead and put it down? That one, I'm going to need to mull over. I feel more certain that we don't need to clean up the narrative. In fact, including the messy details, and if there's a disagreement let's lay the details of that disagreement on the table, to me that adds richness to an article.
I am primarily working on reviewing the timeline of the accident (the loosely-fitting tube assembly, the incident in which this tube was jarred, the Countdown Demonstration and the standard procedures following this and the preceived need to stay with procedure and drain the tank below 50%, the under-rated thermostats, the low-pegged thermometer). and perhaps more, or perhaps that is it. So, what I'm trying to say, if someone has the time and wants to jump in and help, with any or all of these aspects, please.  :>) Cool Nerd (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't ever see a need to try and clean up messiness from the narrative, I've done enough research to know that "cleanups" often stir even more mistakes into the brew and besides, readers like messiness in details, so long as it's keenly written messiness. Typed transcripts of voice transmissions often will have errors. On en.WP, the pith is verifiability of the source (not truth). If an editor has meaningful worries, one might qualify the text (keeping what might be an error out of the article's narrative voice), but without a secondary source to cite, one can easily fall into the trap of WP:OR. Not sayin' it's easy to handle this kind of thing when it comes up in a glaring way. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_13/Archive_1&oldid=1146033728"