Talk:Apollo 5/Archive 1

Best line

 * It was well behind schedule. Some of the delay could be attributed to lack of experience scheduling to build a manned spacecraft to land on the Moon.

Define understated. One of my favorite lines in Wikipedia; may it never be edited! Tempshill 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First throttleable engine?
I am curious about how the "descent engine would become the first throttleable rocket engine fired in space". I believe that the Surveyor probes used throttleable vernier engines prior to the launch of Apollo 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.35 (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

End of mission

 * A date and time of Landing was given in the infobox. That's inappropriate since it implies a controlled touchdown, which the LM was incapable of making on Earth. Also the date and time given contradicts the dates of the (two separate) stage reentries given in the text (last paragraph of the Flight section). So I removed it.
 * The infobox still contradicts the text, which says the mission was over after four orbits, which at the 89.5 minute period given in the infobox would take about six hours. The infobox gives the mission duration as 11 hours, 10 minutes, which is just under seven and one-half orbits. Which is correct? (Otherwise, the period would be almost 61 hours, which can't be correct for the altitudes given.)

Also, a location isn't given for the ascent stage planet-fall. Does that mean that it completely burned up? If so, that should be mentioned. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006033925/https://usspaceobjectsregistry.state.gov/Pages/Home.aspx to http://usspaceobjectsregistry.state.gov/Pages/Home.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Fire in the hole?
Why did the abort scenario involve firing the ascent engine to abort a landing?

The descent engine has 1,000–10,000 lbf of thrust, the ascent engine is smaller at 3,500 lbf. Why wouldn't the more powerful descent engine be used for abort instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Was the ascent engine considered to be more reliable?
 * Was the advantage [sic] of shedding the descent stage and its mass considered to be useful?  Although this is somewhat more complex (hence the test) and abort systems tend to favour simplicity.
 * Was this because of expectations of a descent engine problem? I'd have expected the major risk though to be about difficulties in landing, not a failure as such. Or was a single abort plan considered more reliable than having to choose between two?
 * Is the thrust (in that low gravity) just not a big deal?
 * Without actually checking, thrust to weight ratio is an important variable. My guess is that the ratio was higher for the ascent stage than when the stages were coupled together.  Kees08  (Talk)   15:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * LM1 embr original.jpg

Same guy?
James C. Webb is an American politician from Derry, New Hampshire, and currently a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it should be James E. Webb. I've fixed it in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)