Talk:Apollo 7

Picture of the crew with Edens, Hope and Haney is reversed

The picture is reversed. Compare to the original linked in the media summary (the source file from which this was extracted.) Also note that men's clothing buttons left-over-right, not right-over-left. In the image their suits appear buttoned right-over-left. (Asking someone good at changing pictures to fix this. Thanks!)--MirelesJ (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Exaggeration

Subtitle "Mutiny" in space has been described as "exaggerated". Is there anything to it? --Mortense (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

One user on another website described it as exaggerated. Yes, it can probably be worded more neutrally, but I won't lose sleep if it is left as-is. I mean, they flat out refused to follow NASA's instructions. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This "Munity" is ridiculous as the final authority on any flight is the one in the commanders seat. It's his mission and his life. The people at mission control are there to advise and assist. If the commander decides to ignore the controller's judgement he should be expected to explain his actions. Also he should not be surprised if it effects future assignments. That said if a crewman disobeyed the commanders orders then that would be "mutiny".Corumplex (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No mention of the cold-turkey nicotine withdrawal of those crew who were smokers & its effect on the "mutiny". This was mentioned in some books covering the flight108.28.184.79 (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you let me know which books and page numbers? I have or can access most books on the Apollo program. Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Compared to what happened on Skylab getting testy with Houston barely rates. Was "mutiny" a contemporaneous description or did wiki editors add it?141.156.187.235 (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012111046/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo7.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo7.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609153256/https://mira.hq.nasa.gov/history/ws/hdmshrc/all/main/DDD/17969.PDF to https://mira.hq.nasa.gov/history/ws/hdmshrc/all/main/DDD/17969.PDF

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)

Pre-launch incident

An incident described in this NASA document may be relevant to this article and fit for inclusion. Kees08 (Talk) 20:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please give a summary, or proposed language? thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The basic summary is they spilled propellant on the vehicle, which caused a several week delay. I can give a stab at it later, just found it while researching for work. Kees08 (Talk) 22:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Conflict section

Sorry for swooping in after the FAC here, but just read this and wanted to note two things about the section. First, it comes off as a little unbalanced toward the astronauts, since it's only quoting them, not the ground people, and the ground perspective is communicated through the astronauts saying "this is what they thought of us". This is somewhat remedied by the aftermath section, which has more of their perspective, so some rearranging and an added quote from someone on ground would probably be enough. Second, regarding the particular question of whether or not the crew ended up wearing their helmets during reentry, the prose does not make that clear. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added something. Let me know if you think more is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No such thing as "Apollo 2" (unless an informal usage was made in the sources...?)

I've struck all four invocations of "Apollo 2" which were in the article, as officially there was no such thing—a topic which has previously been taken up by JustinTime55 in the talk pages for AS-201, AS-202 and AS-203.

Having said that, the surrounding sources and language make clear that a second earth orbital test flight was planned at some point, which might make "Apollo 2" a natural (informal) usage among the actors as things were being done at the time. Perhaps more precise citation could warrant adding mention of "Apollo 2" back, but it would need qualification IMO about how things changed, especially around the Apollo 1 disaster (where the label Apollo 1 was itself an after-the-fact commemoration). We have here a fairly recent FA (thanks to the good efforts of Wehwalt among others) and so it needs to be held to FA standards on these sorts of details. Do the surrounding sources/memoirs explicitly speak of "Apollo 2"? If so, I think we might add the phrase back, but with qualification. MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly the sources speak of it or it would not be in there. See here (Cunningham's book) and here (Stafford). See also Shayler's book here. I will restore language such as "dubbed Apollo 2" because of course it would have been AS-205 until it flew. I also disagree with your change of description of the CAPCOM from "the person in Mission Control" responsible for spacecraft communications to "people". There was, on Apollo 7, only one CAPCOM at a time. He did not work 24 hours a day so there were multiple CAPCOMs but I think the reader is smart enough to figure that out.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)