Talk:Apollo 9/Archive 1

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

Semi-automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


What's In A Name? (or, Job Titles for Apollo Command & Control)

Back over on the Apollo 7 Talk page, there's an interesting discussion regarding the crewmember titles, in particular about how a "Lunar Module Pilot" was named on both 7 & 8, even though those missions did not have a Lunar Module. The consensus seems to be that NASA did that because they wanted to be consistent in their naming convention throughout the Apollo series of missions up to the final Moon landing mission. The fix to both of those articles was to put the title "Lunar Module Pilot" in quotes, then add an explanation.

Now... For Apollo 9 thru 17, there's another interesting topic here regarding what crew members were called versus the roles they performed. An important fact has been overlooked here: These missions flew with TWO commanders. The suggestion I'm making here is for all of these articles (9-17) to add an asterisk to the title of "Command Module Pilot" with a note explaining that this person also serves the function of Commander when flying solo in the CSM. The most basic analysis is that each mission had two spacecraft in which to command. The accurate analysis of command & control of Apollo missions identifies these separate rolls:

Overall Mission Commander,
Commander of the Command Module,
Commander of the Lunar Module.

The person who was given the NASA title "Commander" (CDR) served as all three. He was the overall Mission Commander throughout the flight, and when the modules were docked he was both the Commander of the Command Module and the Commander of the Lunar Module. When all three astronauts were in the CSM and undocked from the LM, he was the Commander of the Command Module. And when he undocked his LM from the CSM, he was the Commander of the Lunar Module. It is straightforward to aggregate all of that and slap the blanket label "Commander", which is accurately and consistently done through articles and sources.

Now the part that gets overlooked, is that after the two crewmembers in the LM undock from the CSM, the lone pilot given the NASA title "Command Module Pilot" (CMP) has assumed command of that vehicle. He's now the Commander of the Command Module. Any solo pilot is the commander of the vehicle. When flying a T-38, you're the Pilot In Command. When flying a Mercury capsule, you're the Commander of that spacecraft. This is no different for solo flight in the CSM. Do any of our Wikipedia articles point this out? Not at all, that I've seen.

In the event of a tragic contingency where the LM was not able, for whatever reason, to get back together with the CSM, then the CMP (who has been the Commander of the Command Module) would then be handed the role of Overall Mission Commander for the lonely return to Earth.

An even more thorough analysis will identify the Command & Control structure with the flight crew versus Mission Control. The "Commander" (CDR) serving as overall Mission Commander only had that complete authority when in a CommOut situation. The on-board "Commander" was subservient to the Flight Director, as demonstrated so blatantly on the Apollo 7 mission. It was said that Wally Schirra and his crew were in a state of mutiny after they had refused an order from the Flight Director. Wally was obviously not in command, because a person in command cannot conduct a mutiny. If Wally had actually been in command, his decision would simply constitute leadership.

So all of this is to make the point that the CMP was a commander himself during those times when flying the CSM solo. My suggestion here is that the articles for Apollo 9 through 17 add an asterisk to the job title "Command Module Pilot" with a note explaining that they also served as Commander of the CSM during solo flight (with Swigert's case being a planned, not actual, command of the CSM).--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree This is all original research when we start second-guessing NASA, something being a Wikipedia editor does not give us license to do. This isn't Star Trek; when Neil Armstong crawled through the tunnel to land on the Moon with Aldrin, he wasn't "passing the conn" to Collins. When NASA invented the terms, they meant nothing more or less than this:
  • Commander -- the guy in charge of the crew of three; "boss" responsible for command decisions when necessary (based on contingency) during the flight, but again always responsible to the Flight Director. Their working definition of commander implied authority over others on board.
  • Command Module Pilot -- the guy who stays in the CSM while the other two land on the Moon (not a "commander" because he has no one else to command.) When the vehicles were undocked, he reported to the Flight Directory (as did the Commander in the LM.)
  • Lunar Module Pilot -- the guy who lands on the Moon with the Commander.
I'm sure the above must be documented somewhere. And as for the unthinkable (one or two disabled, injured or killed), any planning they might have done for this certainly would not include the triviality of who gets the title of "commander". And this is the key: we don't yet know verifiably how much planning they might have done for transfer of command.
They certainly weren't thinking in terms of "mutiny" on board, and the term doesn't strictly apply in the case of rebellion against the Flight Director. While a clever reporter might have used it, its use in the Apollo 7 article should maybe be reviewed. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This is one of the most inane, intellectually deficient things I've ever read when it comes to spaceflight. This is up there with the moon landing hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.233.221 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, this is sheer IDIOCY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

image

Could someone upload a picture of the command module on display in San Diego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.187.220 (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Star for Williams on the Apollo 12 patch

I completely agree with TJRC's removal of this reference from the footnote on Clifton C. William's death. The Apollo 12 patch is really out of scope here, and the fact Conrad's crew chose to comemmorate (sp?) him is duly noted there. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

First song in space?

Under "Mission Highlights", article states:

The crew sang "Happy Birthday" on March 8, 1969, recorded in the Guiness Book of World Records as the first song sung in space.

I have removed the words "recorded in the Guiness Book of Records as the first song sung in space". This is incorrect. See the "First song sung in space?" discussion in the Yuri Gagarin entry for more detail. --Ya mikew 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Who did they sing it for? I've not found anyone as listed in the article. Someone's wife perhaps? AMCKen (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Happy Birthday" was sung to Christopher C. Kraft, Manned Spaceflight Center Director of Flight Operations[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:0:22E:CC8B:7D58:5F01:C4CB (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/Apollo9Highlights

Image of the space capsule

There isn't a good stand-alone image of the Apollo 9 space capsule on commons, and a good image can be used here and on the page of its present exhibit location. If someone can find and upload one that might round out the collection of images of Apollo spacecraft. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"...first flight of a crewed spacecraft that was not equipped to reenter..."

Here is a statement that appeared in this article back in March:

"This test flight represented the first flight of a crewed spacecraft that was not equipped to reenter the Earth's atmosphere."

I had inserted a note (here) which focused on the definition of "spacecraft", to explain that Apollo 9 was not the first time that a person had been in space separated from their independent ability to return. That edit got promptly deleted an hour later with a claim that I had introduced OR. But it is clear to me that the quote being highlighted here requires further explanation, seeing how neither Alexei Leonov nor Ed White had an independent means for de-orbiting and returning to Earth. They had left the vehicle that would provide that for them.

In the current edit of this article, this statement no longer appears. However, it is still a defining fact from the Apollo 9 mission in how it was unique. So I recommend that this statement gets re-added to the article. And I suggest that it include the further point which I had noted. Now if it is the specifics regarding the definition of "spacecraft" which was seen to not be proper in my contribution, it is fully possible to point out Leonov's & White's situation without mentioning the word "spacecraft". -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I've run across that fact in sources. I need to go looking for it. While Leonov, White, the later space walkers had left their vehicle, they were not independent of it, of course. The article is being renovated, thus a lot of stuff has been added or deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I've added something on that to the discussion of Day 5. Language such as "flown in" should make it clear that we are not discussing Leonov/White.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Couple clarifications

@Wehwalt: I have kept a tab open for weeks meaning to clarify a couple things, but have been distracted with other articles. It looked like one source said the ascent stage of spider would reenter in five years and another said it would not reenter for 19 years. Am I reading that right? I can try to untangle what is going on, just want to make sure I understand the situation right.

Is this still applicable? Maybe put back the carrier photo, and put the one of the CM interior in place of the one showing the LM on the S-IVB? That one isn't so wonderful at thumbnail size.

Good job on linking qualify!

That's it. Sorry about not being there at the end of the review, got caught up in other things + carpal tunnel is coming back. Kees08 (Talk) 18:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we delete the prediction re when it would re-enter and just stick with when it actually did. I'm cool with the images as I said. Kudos to you too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. You did a great job with the article, I went to nitpick it at some point and came up surprisingly empty. Let me know if you would like to collaborate on any other Space Race articles. Kees08 (Talk) 04:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Ditto, I hope. I've played with the image, using a different carrier image. If you like it another way, feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Trim some from prime and backup crew information?

In the Crew and key Mission Control personnel subsection: is it really necessary to include the prime crew's birth dates and places, education, and combat experience? This seems to me to be an interruption of flow here; what really counts is their spaceflight (Gemini) experience. (The reader can always navigate the wikilinks to get complete biographical details.) I'd like to strike the following:

McDivitt was born June 10, 1929 in Chicago. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Michigan in 1951. That year, he joined the Air Force, flying 145 combat missions over Korea. [, s]elected as a member of the second group of astronauts in 1962, McDivitt was command pilot of Gemini 4 (1965).[24] Scott, born June 6, 1932 in San Antonio, Texas, earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the United States Military Academy at West Point,[25] and later received two advanced degrees from MIT.[26] Scott, selected as a Group 3 astronaut in 1963, he flew alongside Neil Armstrong in Gemini 8 (1966), on which the first spacecraft docking was performed.[27] Schweickart[,] was born October 25, 1935 in Neptune, New Jersey. He received undergraduate and graduate degrees in aeronautics from MIT, and served in the Air Force and Air National Guard from 1956 to 1963, when he was selected as a Group 3 astronaut[, was not assigned a Gemini flight and had no previous spaceflight experience]].[28]

Perhaps this was lengthened to provide more balance with the following paragraph about the backup crew, which doesn't contain this info but is inflated with info about how Conrad's crew aquired Alan Bean. This is interesting info, but again not really relevant to Apollo 9 and should be moved to Apollo 12 (which should also have similar Gemini spaceflight experience).

@Wehwalt: @Kees08: would it be acceptable if I made these changes? JustinTime55 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever people want.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not have strong feelings, your proposed change seems fine to me. Kees08 (Talk) 22:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I just wanted to discuss my changes before making them, in light of the fact this article just passed FAR. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Red helmets during EVA of Apollo 9

Don't know if this question was already asked and answered, perhaps by someone else on the web (??). Anyway, what was the purpose of the vivid red (or deep orange?) colored helmets of both David Scott and Rusty Schweickart during their Extra Vehicular Activities? DannyJ.Caes (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000596.html has some insight here: "They both wore red helmets, in fact all the Apollo astroanuts who performed EVA's wore red helmets, its just that only the Apollo 9 crew didn't have the white thermal covering on them." That's not a WP:RS, but may give some insight that would help track one down. TJRC (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!!! By the way, the movie Marooned (with Gregory Peck and others) also show red helmets during the EVA performances (it's still an interesting movie which shows the Apollo Applications Program, aka Skylab!). I also remember a painting from Don Davis of an early manned lunar landing, with Apollo-astronaut during LEVA, wearing a red helmet. DannyJ.Caes (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I confess to watching the MST3K version of Marooned recently. It really isn't a bad movie.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I found a more reliable source (a tech news website I think) that cited one of Pickering's photo books that says the same (did not have the thermal covering on it). I have since closed the tab, but you could probably find it if determined :). We could always put something about it in the article if we wanted I suppose. Kees08 (Talk) 21:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe say something in one of the image captions?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Was there a special meaning? (the color Red). It could have been Blue, or Green, or Yellow... or not? DannyJ.Caes (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
DannyJ.Caes, Given that the commander's stripes beginning on Apollo 13 were similarly red, I'd guess visibility. In the photo of Scott doing the stand-up EVA, the red helmet is striking. Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Mmmmm... I see... More-or-less related: the skyblue colored spacesuits of Chesley Bonestell's astronauts on the surface of rusty colored planet Mars (contrast-colors). DannyJ.Caes (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_9/Archive_1&oldid=1223501136"