Talk:AS-203

Untitled
"Objectives" section was accidentally duplicated; I deleted one of the sections. -- Randomcritic.

Formatting problem
There seems to be a formatting problem here (at least when viewed in Firefox 2.0.0.5 - not checked in IE) - the infobox has pushed all the section edit links down to the final section. I have no idea how to fix this. Anyone? --ukexpat 14:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try an idea.LanceBarber (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed
"Fragments of the first stage supposedly hit a German fishing vessel." This claim needs to be cited, or the text should be removed from the last section. Memetics (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's gone. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No such thing as Apollo 2
No citation has ever been given for the allegation that AS-203 was "sometimes informally called Apollo 2" or that AS-202 was "sometimes informally called Apollo 3". I think we are contributing to the perpetuation of an urban myth, and also jeapordizing the credibility of Wikipedia. I just Googled "Apollo 2", which turned up us, some confusion with SA-2, and a lot of confused kids with school assignments on Yahoo Answers, plus some who thought they knew the answers based on us. But one referenced the only official NASA statement I could find, a history.nasa.gov page, "Manned Apollo Missions".

It says that the first two unmanned CSM flights, AS-201 and AS-202, had been unoffically called Apollo 1 and Apollo 2 (this must have been at the time they were launched, before the ill-fated first manned flight (AS-204) became Apollo 1.) It makes no sense to call AS-203 "Apollo - anything" because it carried no Apollo spacecraft at all (as the NASA page points out); its payload was the S-IVB stage for the purpose of verifying the design assumptions being made for the Saturn V third stage. There is also a quite explicit statement: "no missions or flights were ever designated Apollo 2 and 3".

I will wait about a week to see if anyone can provide an authoritative source for this, before removing this here and in AS-203. There is also a dubious, unsourced paragraph in Apollo 1 that should be removed.