Talk:Apollo 5

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apollo 5 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 730 days

Apollo 5 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2022.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 15, 2021	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 22, 2024.

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Untitled[edit]

Somone placed inappropriate information into this article. If possible, please locate IP address of offender. Hardcopy of editted material available, contact jastin@srsd.org for more information.

Aluminum windows?[edit]

From the article: "On 28 December 1967 a decision was made to replace the glass windows in LM-1 with aluminum windows, as a precaution against a failure in flight similar to the one that occurred on LM-5 in testing."

Am I safe to assume that these were opaque windows, seeing as the craft was unmanned? The concept of transparent aluminum windows on a spacecraft hearkens to Star Trek.

It looks like a citation from NASA supports that aluminum windows were used. See https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/v4p2g.htm. I am curious what this looks like. I found this additional article that talks about windows used in space craft and that it is a triple-pane window to withstand heat and has a "aluminosilicate glass pane, called the pressure pane, is designed to withstand the shuttle's cabin pressure in the vacuum of space. See https://www.stargazette.com/story/news/local/2019/07/18/corning-built-windows-for-moon-landing-apollo-11-nasa/1733366001/ Jurisdicta (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With a safe return to Earth[edit]

"...with a safe return to Earth" is in the very first sentence of the article body. It's unnecessary (and clunky) to have it also in the last sentence of the lead. It's not as though readers will think they weren't going to be brought back if it doesn't say so in the lead. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:E46C:68C6:E37D:204E (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Details of tests? Aftermath?[edit]

Hello. Interesting article, thanks for writing it and bringing it to FA. Two areas I think it could possibly touch on more are 1) technical details of what they were testing and what the outcomes were, and 2) aftermath in general (aftermath of the tests, and detailed effects on and how it set the stage for the next Apollo missions). Looks like you already passed FA so folks judge this article to be complete, but just some ideas. These areas are a bit fuzzy to me after reading the article. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That fast?[edit]

According to the Background section, in "late 1962" (whatever that means), NASA did all of the following:

decided on a mission plan that required a lunar module,
formulated requirements sufficiently to invite bids on a type of crewed space craft no none had ever built, much less flown,
formulated a request for proposal,
selected 11 contractors to bid,
[the deadline for submitting bids passed],
evaluated all the proposals
selected the winning bidder, and
announced the contract award on November 7, 1962, arguably during the 5th or 6th week of "late 1962"

That does not sound probable to me.—Finell 22:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read the book, or some other description of the early portion of the Apollo program.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A voice recording for Apollo 5 article[edit]

I created a voice recording which can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:En-Apollo_5-article.ogg

It was suggested I create an entry on the talk article for this. Please let me know if there are any improvements that should be made if possible. Indochina2 (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was an error in formatting but on review it looks fine. I've reverted myself. Well done. Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If anything else comes up, let me know. Indochina2 (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]