Jump to content

Talk:Apollo 7/Archive 1

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

Emmy award?

Didn't Apollo 7 get a special Emmy for its TV coverage? Trekphiler 09:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Passed over for future missions"

I click on the link presumably supporting this claim and all I get is a reference to another website. Whether true or not, it's not at all a scholarly, verifiable method of supporting such a sweeping statement about the careers of the three men. Encyclopedia Astronautica is entertainment. 68Kustom (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some better references that could be used for this claim; I will try to add them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lunar Module Pilot flying what?

How could Walter Cunningham be a Lunar Module Pilot, since there was no Lunar Module involved in Apollo 7?? Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was because they wanted to keep the names of the flight positions consistent throughout the program. Andy120290 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly: Apollo 7 and 8 (and then 9 with the LM) were basically test flights and intended to simulate as much of the lunar-landing missions as possible, so the same position names were used. "Lunar module pilot" was a bit of a misnomer anyway, as the lunar module pilot didn't actually pilot the LM, the mission commander did. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's odd, more than Apollo-Soyuz Test Project's Deke Slayton - Docking Module Pilot. The Docking Module at least existed although it wasn't equipped with thrusters and couldn't be piloted at all. Why not co-pilot and third pilot - it makes more sense? Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does, but that wasn't NASA's official designations. In Gemini, they had the "command pilot" and "pilot," while in Apollo, you had the "commander," "command module pilot" and "lunar module pilot." The basic reason was that the astronauts, egotists that they were, weren't about to go up there as any co-pilot or third pilot or crew member. Goodness knows, a lot of people have job titles that have nothing to do with their jobs... DrBear (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll buy that explanation, it's ridiculous enough to be true! Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
According to Furniss Guinness Space Flight: The Records and Jane's Manned Spaceflight Log, Eisele and Cunningham were "senior pilot" and "pilot", respectively.Catiline63 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
But according to the NASA Web site's page on Apollo 7 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-7/apollo-7.html the CMP and LMP terms were used. I believe they would be a more authoritative source.DrBear (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just checked the Mission Report and it says:
The Apollo 7 flight crew members were: Commander, W. Schirra; Command Module Pilot, D. Eisele; and Lunar Module Pilot, W. Cunningham.
This was published December 1968. The press kit, produced before the flight in October 1968, used the same terminology, though it did explain as soon as it mentioned Cunningham that there'd be no LM. I think we can safely take these as accurate over Guinness! Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering that the error is carried by both Jane's and Guinness (both reputable sources), might it be worth noting their incorrect terminology in order to prevent similar edits? Cheers. Catiline63 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It'd certainly be worth explaining the oddity (both here and in the A8 article), but it probably should go hand-in-hand with expanding the crew section anyway. I'll think about how best to do it...

This is all easy to explain and not mysterious at all, if one is not ignorant of how the Apollo program was conducted. The terms command pilot, senior pilot and pilot used by Jane's and Guinness are easily explained: those were the "block I" program terms in use for the Apollo 1 crew. Schirra's crew were the backup for them (and once were scheduled to fly an "Apollo 2" mission which was cancelled), so at one time (before the fire) they would have carried those designations. This phase of the program was really a concept demo, and not the actual spacecraft that would fly to the Moon. This must be what Jane's and Guinness got ahold of; the only question is, when were they published?)

After the Apollo fire, NASA chose only to fly the "block II" spacecraft which was the "real" spacecraft used for the lunar flights, and at that time they converted to the new terminology, not worrying about the absence of a Lunar Module on Apollo 7, which was supposed to be the only such mission. (By accident, the LM wasn't ready to fly on Apollo 8.) Skylab and ASTP were completely different programs (only the spacecraft happened to be common) which obviously didn't go to the Moon, so there was obviously no reason at all to use the same terminology. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this confusion's gone on long enough. I went ahead and put that title in quotes, with a short explanation. Someone else may think up a cleaner way to do the fix. I also made a similar change to the A8 article.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed

http://www.apollotv.net

as there was no such Apollo 7 content listed at that URL as cuh. If they have a page error or if you can find such a page, please restore.

The best I could find with google against that site was

http://www.apollotv.net/index2.html

which could be better replaced with any number of other Apollo 7 resources on the web


G. Robert Shiplett 20:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mission insignia and dueling infoboxes

An IP user replaced the mission insignia with the launch photo; I reverted this, and then user NASA whiz (possibly the same IP user?) reverted my change, invoking User:WDGraham's name. Then Huntster put it back again. I agree with Huntster, but WD has created a new Template:Infobox spaceflight intended to replace the Template:Infobox space mission currently used. His new template has a place for the insignia, but he feels it should not go at top, so his template places it a bit farther down. (Check the early Gemini missions, which he calls a "phase 1" transition.) I think conversion to the new template (WD is doing this in phases, as I understand his template isn't finalized yet) will ultimately settle this. So until then, can we please leave the existing style (insignia at top) alone? Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

STS-135 might be a better example - the Shuttle articles are all Phase 2 and most (if not all) have photos, crew images and patches. Phase 1 was an aborted attempt to deploy using AWB and I haven't got round to cleaning up those Gemini articles yet. The new infobox is an attempt to standardise all of the spaceflight infoboxes - the more widely format led with an image of/from the spacecraft/mission so I went with that, but I didn't want to remove the patch so I moved it lower down, above the crew photo. Following a brief discussion in which no objections were raised (I seem to recall one query about the template's name, but there was no followup so I left it as it was), rollout started. I'm trying to get Infobox spacecraft out of the way before I go over the early manned missions, unless someone else does it first. --W. D. Graham 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I admit I never saw a discussion about this, but if I had, I would have been very vociferous about having an image at the top and patch at the bottom. The top image in an infobox needs to be something easily recognisable which sets it apart from another similar article at first glance. Mission patches do this perfectly, and unless there was something truly iconic about a particular mission, then a photograph does not function well. This is especially true if the photograph is something ultimately generic in nature like a launch or landing (which I notice most seem to be under this new system). Mission patches are, in my opinion, far more eye catching than most photographs. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Huntster. I agree with you in principle that the top photograph should be iconic, i.e. the most memorable or significant image of the mission. But this may or may not be the mission patch. I agree these are visually impressive enough and should be included (and it's not always true that they don't "really show that much about the mission"), but the iconic image may or may not be the mission patch. Take a look at Gemini 4; the top photo is the one everyone remembers of Ed White's space walk, which certainly qualifies as iconic. I think WD's new template will handle of this.
There may be a lot still to be discussed on this issue, I think. Maybe we should take it to a better place; would that be back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight, or maybe Template talk:Infobox spaceflight? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Original research

Mstachowsky (talk · contribs)'s recent edit, adding the following, appears to be original research:

It has been suggested by Apollo astronaut Jim Lovell that the astronauts, and Schirra in particular, were deeply critical of the Apollo spacecraft, fearing that it had several design flaws that made it unsafe. This was underscored by the Apollo 1 tragedy, investigation, and subsequent redesign, during which Schirra was an outspoken critic of the spacecraft. Lovell indicated that the reason for the Apollo 7 crew's behaviour[1] was a mixture of anger at the loss of the first crew and frustration with a spacecraft that they felt was shoddily designed.<ref>Lovell, Jim; Kluger, Jeffrey (1994). Lost Moon: The Perilous Journey of Apollo 13. Houghton Mifflin Company.<ref>

— Mstachowsky

Notice no page number is given. While this book mentions that Schirra "still did not completely trust the ship he would be commanding, and he didn't give a damn who knew it" (page 30, paperback edition), Lovell (and Kluger) do not say anything at all about Eisele or Cunningham's opinions, or this having anything to do with their behavior on Apollo 7. I think you're "adding 2 and 2 and getting 5", drawing your own inference from what the source says. Was this in the original hardcover edition? If so, please give the page number. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words, WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." JustinTime55 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Article uses American English.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apollo 7. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_7/Archive_1&oldid=1238751939"