Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Apollo 13

Apollo 13 was the seventh crewed mission in NASA's Apollo space program and the third intended to achieve a lunar landing, launched on April 11, 1970, from Kennedy Space Center in Florida aboard a Saturn V rocket.^[1] The primary objective was to explore the Fra Mauro formation on the Moon, a geologically significant site, by landing astronauts James A. Lovell Jr. as commander, John L. Swigert Jr. as command module pilot, and Fred W. Haise Jr. as lunar module pilot.^[2] However, approximately 56 hours into the flight, at a distance of about 200,000 miles from Earth, an explosion in the service module's No. 2 oxygen tank—caused by damaged internal heating elements that had overheated during a pre-launch test—crippled the spacecraft, leading to the loss of cabin oxygen, electrical power, and other critical systems.^[2] The crew, prompted by the iconic report "Houston, we've had a problem," quickly transferred to the lunar module Aquarius as a makeshift lifeboat to survive the crisis, while mission control in Houston devised innovative solutions to conserve resources and plot a trajectory back to Earth.^[1] Key engineering improvisations included adapting command module lithium hydroxide canisters with plastic bags, tape, and cardboard to scrub carbon dioxide from the lunar module's atmosphere, preventing a buildup that could have been fatal.^[2] The astronauts endured severe challenges, including dehydration (limited to about 6 ounces of water per day), weight loss totaling 31.5 pounds among the crew, and cabin temperatures dropping to 38°F (3°C), which disrupted sleep and exacerbated health issues like Haise's urinary tract infection.^[2] Using the lunar module's descent engine for course-correction burns, the crew looped around the Moon without landing and reentered Earth's atmosphere after a tense four-day ordeal, splashing down safely in the Pacific Ocean on April 17, 1970, about 4 miles from the recovery ship USS Iwo Jima.^[1] Dubbed a "successful failure" by NASA, the mission highlighted extraordinary teamwork between the crew and ground control, demonstrating resilience in the face of near-disaster and averting what could have been the program's greatest tragedy.^[3] Its legacy profoundly influenced NASA's safety protocols, enhancing mission assurance for future Apollo flights and underscoring the inherent risks of space exploration, while reigniting global public interest in the program during a time of waning enthusiasm.^[3]

Background and Context

Historical Significance

Apollo 13 represented a critical phase in the Apollo program, which sought to build on the successes of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 by conducting additional lunar landings to expand scientific exploration and demonstrate sustained U.S. capabilities in human spaceflight.^[4] Following the historic first Moon landing in July 1969 and the precise touchdown of Apollo 12 in November 1969, NASA accelerated its schedule to achieve multiple missions within the decade, aiming to gather diverse geological samples and deploy scientific instruments across varied lunar terrains. This progression was essential to fulfilling President Kennedy's 1961 commitment to land humans on the Moon before 1970 while advancing broader goals of technological preeminence and national prestige.^[5] Launched on April 11, 1970, and concluding with a safe return on April 17, 1970, Apollo 13 was designated as the third lunar landing attempt, targeting the Fra Mauro highlands for its potential to yield ancient lunar materials.^[1] The site's geological significance lay in its exposure of ejecta from the massive Imbrium Basin impact, offering scientists opportunities to study the Moon's early bombardment history and formation processes dating back over 3.8 billion years.^[6] Samples from this region were expected to provide insights into the solar system's violent origins, complementing the basaltic rocks collected from previous mare sites.^[7] Within the geopolitical framework of the U.S.-Soviet Space Race, Apollo 13 underscored the intense Cold War competition for space dominance, where each mission served as a symbol of technological superiority amid escalating tensions. The mission's near-disaster—an oxygen tank explosion that aborted the landing—initially raised doubts about NASA's reliability, yet the successful rescue effort transformed it into a "successful failure" that restored public confidence in the agency's ingenuity and crisis management.^[6] This event rekindled global interest in the Apollo program, with millions tuning in and ultimately bolstering support for future U.S. space endeavors during a period of waning enthusiasm.^[8]

Crew and Personnel Selection

The prime crew for Apollo 13 was selected based on NASA's standard rotation policy, where backup crew members from previous missions often advanced to prime roles to leverage their familiarity with spacecraft systems and procedures. Commander James A. Lovell Jr., a veteran astronaut selected by NASA in 1962, brought extensive experience from Gemini 7 (1965), Gemini 12 (1966), and Apollo 8 (1968), the first crewed lunar orbital mission.^[9] Command Module Pilot (CMP) Thomas K. Mattingly II, chosen as part of the 1966 astronaut class, had served on the support crew for Apollo 11, providing him with detailed knowledge of command module operations.^[10] Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) Fred W. Haise Jr., also from the 1966 class, had acted as backup LMP for both Apollo 8 and Apollo 11, ensuring the crew's collective expertise in lunar landing preparations.^[11]^[12] The backup crew comprised Commander John W. Young, CMP John L. Swigert Jr., and LMP Charles M. Duke Jr., mirroring the rotation system to maintain continuity and cross-training. Young, a Gemini veteran and prime commander of Apollo 10, was positioned to lead the next mission if needed. Swigert, selected in 1966 and part of the Apollo 7 support crew, offered strong technical skills in spacecraft systems. Duke, who had served as capsule communicator (CAPCOM) for Apollo 11, provided recent mission insights as backup LMP.^[11]^[13] Just days before launch on April 11, 1970, a crew change occurred due to a health risk: backup LMP Duke had contracted rubella (German measles) from his child, exposing the prime crew during a training simulation on April 1. While Lovell and Haise had childhood immunity, Mattingly did not and faced quarantine risks that could jeopardize reentry operations. NASA thus replaced Mattingly with his backup, Swigert, who had immunity and recent simulator time, ensuring minimal disruption despite the tight timeline.^[14]^[2] Mission Control personnel were chosen for their specialized expertise in flight operations, with shifts structured to provide 24-hour coverage across teams led by experienced flight directors. Gene Kranz, chief of the Flight Operations Directorate, led the White Team and was on duty during the critical explosion on April 13, directing initial crisis response with his emphasis on disciplined teamwork. Glynn Lunney, a veteran flight director since Gemini, headed the Black Team and assumed lead during the subsequent shift, overseeing key adaptations like power conservation and trajectory corrections through reentry. Other directors, including M.P. "Pete" Frank (Gold Team) and Gerry Griffin (Orange Team), rotated to maintain focus on crew safety and mission recovery.^[15]^[16]^[17]

Mission Planning and Preparation

Spacecraft Configuration

The Apollo 13 spacecraft consisted of the Command and Service Module (CSM) designated as CSM-109, with the Command Module named Odyssey, and the Lunar Module (LM-7) named Aquarius, launched atop a Saturn V rocket (SA-508). The CSM measured approximately 45 feet in length and 12.8 feet in diameter, with a combined launch mass of about 63,500 pounds for the Block II configuration used in Apollo 13.^[18] The Command Module Odyssey, serving as the crew's reentry vehicle, had a conical shape with a base diameter of 12.8 feet and a height of 11.4 feet, enclosing a habitable volume of 210 cubic feet for three astronauts. Its launch mass was around 12,250 pounds, including crew, equipment, and consumables, reducing to approximately 11,000 pounds by reentry after jettisoning the Service Module. The Environmental Control System maintained a 5 psia pure oxygen atmosphere, with temperature control averaging 64°F, CO2 removal via lithium hydroxide canisters, and water supply from fuel cell byproducts, designed to support the crew for up to 14 days in shirtsleeve conditions. For reentry, Odyssey featured an ablative heat shield capable of withstanding velocities up to 36,200 feet per second, enduring peak decelerations of about 6.5 g over roughly 14 minutes, enabling safe splashdown in the Pacific Ocean.^[18]^[19] The Service Module provided propulsion, power, and consumables, with a cylindrical structure 24.8 feet tall and 12.8 feet in diameter, weighing about 54,000 pounds fully loaded at launch. Its Service Propulsion System (SPS) delivered 20,500 pounds of thrust using Aerozine 50 fuel and nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer for major trajectory corrections and lunar orbit insertion. Electrical power came from three hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells generating 1.4 kilowatts each at 28 volts DC, also producing up to 1.8 pounds of potable water per hour as a byproduct. Oxygen was stored in two cryogenic tanks in Bay 4, each holding about 326 cubic feet of liquid oxygen at -297°F, with Tank 2 featuring Teflon-coated internal wiring and heaters rated for 65 volts— an upgrade from earlier 28-volt designs implemented in 1965 to improve thermal efficiency, though the thermostatic switches were not recalibrated accordingly.^[18]^[20]^[21] Aquarius, the Lunar Module, was configured as a two-stage vehicle with a total launch mass of 36,218 pounds, designed primarily for lunar landing but adapted as a lifeboat during the mission. The descent stage, 10.6 feet tall and 14.1 feet wide, weighed 22,300 pounds dry and housed the descent propulsion engine providing 9,870 pounds of thrust, along with four 400-amp-hour silver-zinc batteries for initial power. Resource capacities included 152 pounds of water in two tanks, sufficient oxygen for about 140 hours from the descent stage tank alone, and environmental controls for two astronauts over 75 hours, which were extended to support three for nearly four days. The ascent stage, 13.8 feet tall and 13.4 feet wide, weighed 10,300 pounds dry and featured an ascent engine with 3,500 pounds of thrust for liftoff from the Moon, powered by two 400-amp-hour batteries.^[18]^[2]^[22] The Saturn V launch vehicle, standing 363 feet tall with a maximum diameter of 33 feet, had a total launch mass of 6.5 million pounds and propelled the spacecraft to translunar injection using three stages. The first stage (S-IC) was 138 feet long, fueled by 815,000 liters of RP-1 kerosene and 1,319,000 liters of liquid oxygen, generating 7.5 million pounds of thrust from five F-1 engines over 168 seconds to reach 42 miles altitude. The second stage (S-II), 81.5 feet long, used 1,031,000 liters of liquid hydrogen and 334,000 liters of liquid oxygen to produce 1 million pounds of thrust from five J-2 engines for 384 seconds, accelerating to 15,647 miles per hour. The third stage (S-IVB), 58.6 feet long and 21.7 feet in diameter, burned 236,000 pounds of liquid hydrogen and 79,000 pounds of liquid oxygen in its single J-2 engine for 147 seconds initially, achieving 24,200 miles per hour for translunar coast.^[18]^[23] A key modification for Apollo 13's Service Module involved the cryogenic oxygen tanks, stemming from issues during Apollo 12 preparations. Tank 2, originally built for Apollo 10, was removed from that vehicle during modifications and reassigned to Apollo 13 after sustaining damage; during ground testing for Apollo 13, technicians opted to deplete its contents using the internal heaters for eight hours instead of replacing the tank, exposing the Teflon-insulated wiring to excessive heat beyond design limits and creating a latent vulnerability. This tank also incorporated the 1965 heater voltage increase to 65 volts without updated thermostats, exacerbating potential overheating risks during flight operations.^[20]^[21]^[2]

Training Regimen

The Apollo 13 crew underwent an intensive training cycle beginning with their prime crew assignment in August 1969, structured in phases that encompassed technical proficiency, geological expertise, and operational simulations to ensure readiness for lunar landing and surface exploration. Initial phases focused on spacecraft systems familiarization and basic flight procedures at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC, now Johnson Space Center) in Houston, transitioning to site-specific preparations after the Fra Mauro landing site selection in October 1969. This regimen, typical for later Apollo missions, allocated approximately 100 hours per month per crew member, emphasizing hands-on practice over theoretical instruction to build instinctive responses during mission execution.^[24] Geological training formed a core component, simulating lunar surface operations through field trips to volcanic and cratered terrains that mimicked the Moon's geology. The crew participated in exercises at sites including the Orocopia Mountains in California for crystalline rock sampling, Mono Crater in California for volcanic features, Meteor Crater in Arizona for impact structures, Kilbourne Hole in New Mexico for basaltic volcanism, Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii for active lava flows and traverse planning, and the Black Mesa Crater Field near Flagstaff, Arizona, where artificial craters were created with explosives to replicate lunar landing zones. Earlier in their careers, crew members like Fred Haise and Jack Swigert had joined geology trips to Iceland in 1967 to study barren volcanic landscapes devoid of vegetation, enhancing their ability to identify and document extraterrestrial samples under simulated low-gravity conditions using tools such as the Modularized Equipment Transporter (MET) and core tubes. These outings, led by U.S. Geological Survey experts like Lee Silver and Gene Shoemaker, involved multi-day traverses, verbal descriptions, photography, and post-trip critiques to refine sampling strategies for the Fra Mauro highlands.^[24]^[25]^[26] Key simulations replicated the physical and environmental stresses of spaceflight, including centrifuge runs at Ellington Air Force Base to train for the high-g forces of launch and reentry, where the Command Module Pilot practiced deceleration maneuvers with replicated controls and displays. Vacuum chamber tests in Building 9 at MSC assessed space suit performance and equipment functionality under near-vacuum conditions, ensuring crew comfort and mobility during extravehicular activities. Integrated mission rehearsals, conducted in the Command Module Simulator and Lunar Module Simulator linked to a real-time Mission Control Center, simulated full mission timelines from liftoff to splashdown, incorporating dynamic interactions between crew and ground teams to hone communication and procedural efficiency.^[25] Contingency drills emphasized rapid response to critical failures, with scenarios rehearsed in simulators that included oxygen system leaks and power outages, using printed checklists to guide crew actions like switching to backup systems or conserving resources. These exercises, drawn from prior Apollo lessons, covered partial or total loss of service module oxygen or electrical power but did not anticipate the specific oxygen tank explosion that occurred; instead, they focused on abort procedures, manual navigation, and life support redistribution to maintain crew safety during trans-lunar injection or return trajectories.^[25]^[27] Support team training paralleled the crew's regimen, with flight controllers undergoing parallel simulations to master their roles in real-time decision-making. Capsule Communicators (CAPCOMs), such as Jack R. Lousma and Joseph P. Kerwin, practiced concise voice interactions with the crew during integrated exercises, while support crews like Vance Brand ran parallel drills to provide seamless shift handovers. Mission Control teams, divided into color-coded shifts (e.g., Gene Kranz's White Team), utilized computer-driven consoles to simulate anomalies, fostering a unified response framework that integrated engineering, guidance, and telemetry data for contingency support.^[25]^[28]

Scientific Objectives

The primary scientific objective of Apollo 13 was to achieve a precise lunar landing in the Fra Mauro highlands, a region interpreted as ejecta from the ancient Imbrium basin impact, to enable detailed selenological inspection, survey, and sampling of deep-rooted lunar materials.^[27] This site was selected for its potential to provide insights into the Moon's geological history, including subsurface structures up to several kilometers deep, through the collection and analysis of representative samples.^[29] The mission planned to deploy the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP), a suite of automated instruments designed to operate for at least one year, transmitting data back to Earth via radio signals to study the lunar environment continuously.^[30] Key experiments within the ALSEP focused on fundamental aspects of lunar geophysics and plasma physics. The Passive Seismic Experiment (PSE) aimed to detect and record moonquakes, meteoroid impacts, and tidal deformations using a network of seismometers, including three long-period and one short-period sensor capable of measuring vibrations as small as 0.3 millimicrons, to infer the Moon's internal structure.^[30] The Charged Particle Lunar Environment Experiment (CPLEE) was intended to measure the energy spectra of protons and electrons (ranging from 50 eV to 15 keV) interacting with the lunar surface, using two detector packages to assess plasma dynamics and radiation hazards.^[30] Complementing these, the Solar Wind Composition Experiment (SWC) planned to expose a 4-square-foot aluminum foil collector to solar wind particles for approximately 100 minutes, capturing noble gases to analyze the Sun's isotopic composition and flux.^[30] Additionally, soil mechanics investigations would evaluate lunar regolith properties through observations of the lunar module's landing dynamics, extravehicular activity (EVA) trenches at least 2 feet deep, and ALSEP deployment interactions, providing data on soil cohesion, bearing strength, and excavation behavior.^[30] Geological sample collection targeted 30–40 kg of lunar rocks, soil, and core samples from the Fra Mauro site, emphasizing ejecta breccias and subsurface materials to study impact processes and volcanic history, with tools like core tubes and tongs for preservation in sample return containers.^[29] These samples would undergo preliminary examination at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory for composition, mineralogy, and potential biological contamination before distribution to scientists.^[27] The crew, with primary members trained in field geology, was prepared to document collection sites verbally and photographically for contextual analysis.^[27] To support public engagement and scientific documentation, the mission incorporated advanced television and photography capabilities, including a color TV camera mounted on the lunar module to provide live broadcasts of EVAs from approximately 50 feet away, capturing wide-angle views (up to 43 degrees) of surface activities in real time.^[30] Supplementary still photography using the Lunar Surface Close-Up Camera would produce 100 stereo pairs of high-resolution images (covering 9 square inches per frame) for detailed mapping, while Hasselblad cameras and a 16mm data acquisition system recorded panoramas, close-ups, and orbital phenomena like the solar corona.^[30]

Mission Execution

Launch and Early Flight

Apollo 13 launched successfully on April 11, 1970, at 2:13 p.m. EST (19:13 UTC) from Launch Complex 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.^[23] The countdown proceeded nominally, with the crew—Commander James A. Lovell Jr., Command Module Pilot John L. Swigert Jr., and Lunar Module Pilot Fred W. Haise Jr.—consuming breakfast at 9:58 a.m. EST, departing their quarters at 11:07 a.m. EST, and boarding the command module Odyssey by 11:44 a.m. EST.^[23] Weather conditions were favorable, featuring a temperature of 80°F (27°C), southeast winds at 12 knots, scattered cloud layers between 3,500 and 25,000 feet, and no precipitation in the forecast.^[23] Liftoff occurred within the planned window of 2:13 p.m. to 5:37 p.m. EST, with the Saturn V rocket's first stage igniting on schedule.^[23] The ascent trajectory followed a launch azimuth of 72 degrees, directing the vehicle toward a low Earth parking orbit.^[23] The Saturn V performed as expected, with the S-IC first stage providing approximately 34,025 kN of thrust and separating at 000:02:48 ground elapsed time (GET), when the vehicle had reached an altitude of 36.7 nautical miles.^[23] The S-II second stage ignited immediately after, accelerating the stack to separate at 000:09:50 GET, followed by the S-IVB third stage ignition at 000:09:57 GET and shutdown at 000:12:31 GET, achieving an initial orbit of 102.6 by 106.3 nautical miles at an inclination of 32.5 degrees.^[23] Maximum dynamic pressure (Max Q) occurred at 000:01:26 GET, and the vehicle experienced peak acceleration of 3.83 g at 000:02:42 GET, all within nominal parameters.^[23] After establishing Earth orbit, the crew conducted initial systems checks and prepared for translunar injection (TLI).^[31] The TLI burn, using the S-IVB stage's J-2 engine, ignited at 002:35:46.4 GET—slightly later than the planned 002:35:43 GET due to a minor guidance adjustment—and lasted 5 minutes and 47 seconds, imparting a velocity change of 10,416.9 feet per second to place the spacecraft on a free-return trajectory to the Moon.^[31] Engine shutdown occurred at 002:41:37 GET, with post-burn telemetry confirming a velocity of 35,560 feet per second and all propulsion systems stable.^[31] The S-IVB stage was then jettisoned, and the crew performed a separation maneuver using the command and service module's reaction control system.^[31] Early flight operations transitioned smoothly into the translunar coast phase, with the crew conducting spacecraft checkouts and routine activities.^[31] During the initial Earth orbit at approximately 001:37:22 GET, the crew activated a television transmission to demonstrate zero-gravity conditions, with Commander Lovell appearing on camera and providing commentary on views of Earth, including cloud formations over the Gulf of Mexico.^[31] Communications with Mission Control in Houston remained clear, with signal reacquisition over tracking stations such as Carnarvon at 000:52:16 GET and Hawaii post-TLI at 002:45:30 GET; Lovell reported a "very nominal" ride with minor vibrations during the burn.^[31] Telemetry data indicated normal performance across key systems: fuel cells and batteries supplied stable power, the service propulsion system and reaction control thrusters functioned without issues, and life support parameters—including cabin pressure at 5 psi, suit pressure at 5 psi, and oxygen flow—remained within limits throughout the first 55 hours of the mission.^[31]

In-Flight Anomaly

Approximately 56 hours into the mission on April 13, 1970, at 55:54:53 mission elapsed time (MET), the routine activation of fans to stir the cryogenic oxygen tanks in the service module triggered a catastrophic rupture in oxygen tank No. 2.^[32] This event followed a power surge and pressure fluctuations in the tank, which had reached a peak of 1008.3 psia just prior to the explosion.^[32] The rupture produced a loud bang and vibration felt throughout the spacecraft, accompanied by a master alarm, low-pressure warnings for oxygen and hydrogen, and a visible flash observed from the lunar module window.^[27] Command Module Pilot Jack Swigert immediately reported the issue to Mission Control, stating, "Okay, Houston, I've had a problem here," followed seconds later by Commander Jim Lovell confirming, "Houston, we've had a problem."^[32] The crew conducted initial checks, noting a main bus B undervoltage and the rapid decay of oxygen tank No. 2 pressure to zero, while also verifying stable cabin pressure and conducting an external visual inspection through the lunar module's window, which revealed gas venting from the service module.^[27] On the ground, Mission Control detected the anomaly through the sudden loss of telemetry from the fuel cells and oxygen supply systems, with oxygen tank No. 2 quantity readings becoming erratic before dropping off-scale low.^[32] Seismic data from the Apollo 12 passive seismometer on the lunar surface confirmed the planned impact of the Saturn V S-IVB third stage at approximately 194 hours MET, with no additional lunar impacts detected from the in-flight event itself.^[27]

Crisis Response and Adaptation

Following the explosion in the Service Module's oxygen tank at 55 hours and 55 minutes into the mission, flight controllers at NASA's Mission Control Center in Houston directed the crew to power down the Command Module Odyssey to minimal levels, preserving its limited battery capacity—approximately 120 amp-hours—for the critical reentry phase. Non-essential systems, including the S-band power amplifier (which drew about 2.57 amps), biomedical telemetry, and the S-band transmitter/receiver, were sequentially shut off starting around 64 hours ground elapsed time (GET), reducing overall power draw to around 17 amps. This procedure, drawn from pre-mission contingency planning, conserved electrical power and the water used for cooling electronics, as the Command Module's fuel cells were no longer operational due to the loss of oxygen supply.^[33] With the Service Module uninhabitable and the lunar landing aborted—a decision confirmed by Flight Director Gene Kranz's team within minutes of the anomaly to prioritize crew safety—the astronauts transferred to the Lunar Module Aquarius, repurposing it as a lifeboat for the duration of the return journey. This shift relied on the crew's prior training for emergency scenarios, enabling Commander James Lovell, Lunar Module Pilot Fred Haise, and Command Module Pilot Jack Swigert to move essential equipment through the tunnel connecting the modules by approximately 57 hours GET. Aquarius's systems provided propulsion, life support, and navigation, though designed for two astronauts on a short lunar stay, now sustaining three for nearly four days. Kranz rallied his teams across multiple shifts—rotating controllers like the White, Black, and Gold teams—with a directive to methodically "work the problem," fostering collaborative problem-solving under intense pressure.^[15]^[2] A pressing challenge emerged from rising carbon dioxide levels in Aquarius, as its round lithium hydroxide (LiOH) canister ports were incompatible with the square canisters from Odyssey, which were the only remaining supply sufficient for the extended mission. Ground engineers, led by Ed Smylie in Mission Control's Crew Systems Division, devised a makeshift adapter using onboard materials: two Odyssey LiOH canisters, plastic bags from the astronauts' liquid-cooled garments, a spacesuit oxygen hose, a piece of cardboard from a procedure cue card, and duct tape. The fabrication steps, relayed to the crew via voice and photographs at around 90 hours GET, involved wrapping the canister with tape belts (sticky side out), forming an arch with the cardboard and securing it with tape, slipping the plastic bag over the canister to align its circular "ears" with the LM's ports, cutting a hole in the bag for the hose insertion, and sealing everything airtight with additional tape. Swigert and Haise assembled the first "mailbox" adapter in about an hour, installing it to route airflow through the canister via the suit circuit fan; a second unit was added later for redundancy, successfully stabilizing CO2 levels below 15 mmHg partial pressure.^[34]^[27] Resource constraints demanded stringent management to extend Aquarius's supplies. Water was rationed to six ounces per astronaut per day—about one-fifth of normal intake—primarily to limit the potable water used in the module's electrical cooling system, resulting in severe dehydration; the crew lost an average of 5 to 10 pounds each, with Haise developing a urinary tract infection from the cold, damp conditions. Lithium hydroxide cartridges, now adapted via the jury-rigged system, were monitored closely, with the two Odyssey units providing the bulk of CO2 scrubbing capacity after Aquarius's limited stock depleted. For navigation, the crew used Aquarius's sextant to sight stars and the Moon, manually aligning the inertial platform every few hours to maintain the direct abort trajectory, compensating for the powered-down guidance computer in Odyssey. These adaptations, executed under Kranz's oversight, ensured the crew's survival despite the cascading failures.^[35]^[27]^[36]^[2]

Trans-Lunar and Lunar Trajectory

Following the explosion in the service module's oxygen tank at 56 hours into the mission, the Apollo 13 crew and ground control opted for a free-return trajectory, a pre-planned backup path that would use the Moon's gravity to slingshot the spacecraft back toward Earth without additional major propulsion burns. This circumlunar route was established through a critical midcourse correction (MCC-2) at 61 hours and 30 minutes ground elapsed time (GET) on April 13, 1970, utilizing the lunar module's descent propulsion system (DPS) engine for a burn of 37.8 feet per second (11.5 m/s) delta-V, restoring the trajectory to loop around the Moon's far side. Subsequent corrections refined the path: MCC-3 at 105 hours and 18 minutes GET delivered 7.8 feet per second (2.4 m/s) delta-V using the DPS, while MCC-4 at 137 hours and 40 minutes GET applied a smaller 3.0 feet per second (0.9 m/s) adjustment via the lunar module's reaction control system thrusters.^[27] These maneuvers accounted for the spacecraft's altered mass and propulsion constraints, ensuring a safe lunar flyby without relying on the damaged command module's service propulsion system.^[37] The spacecraft reached its closest approach to the Moon on April 15, 1970, at 76 hours and 19 minutes GET, passing 137 nautical miles (254 km) above the lunar surface over the far side, where direct communication with Earth was impossible during the approximately 30-minute period of signal loss. During this flyby, the crew captured photographs of prominent farside features, including craters such as Chaplygin and the uneven terrain visible through the lunar module's windows, providing valuable imagery despite the mission's abbreviated timeline. The pericynthion altitude was precisely tracked from ground stations, confirming the free-return path's stability and projecting an Earth return in about 142 hours total mission time.^[38]^[33] Navigation during the trans-lunar coast posed significant challenges due to the command module's instrument failures and power-down state, forcing reliance on the lunar module's guidance systems for manual sightings. The crew used the alignment optical telescope to perform star and Sun checks, such as aligning on Nunki and Antares, but floating debris from the explosion obscured some views, prompting shifts to Earth horizon and Sun sightings for platform alignment verification within a ±1-degree tolerance. These manual techniques, supported by ground-computed updates, ensured accurate attitude control for the burns.^[38]^[27] Mission controllers evaluated abort options shortly after the incident, comparing a direct abort—which would require an immediate high-thrust burn of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet per second (457 to 610 m/s) delta-V using the lunar module's DPS to reverse course toward Earth in under 100 hours—against the circumlunar free-return, which demanded far less propulsion (around 860 feet per second or 262 m/s for the later PC+2 trans-Earth injection burn). The direct option was discarded due to its excessive propellant demands, potential risks to the damaged service module, and limited time for precise calculations, favoring the more conservative lunar gravity-assisted path that conserved resources for the return. The PC+2 burn, executed at 79 hours and 28 minutes GET on April 14 using the DPS for 263.8 seconds at full throttle after an initial idle phase, accelerated the spacecraft by 860.5 feet per second (262 m/s) delta-V, shortening the Earth transit by about 9 hours and targeting a South Pacific splashdown.^[39]^[40]^[27]

Earth Return and Reentry

The Trans-Earth Injection (TEI) burn was performed on April 14, 1970, at 79 hours, 27 minutes, and 39 seconds of mission elapsed time, utilizing the Lunar Module's Descent Propulsion System (DPS) engine to accelerate the spacecraft and shorten the return trajectory to Earth while shifting the splashdown site to the South Pacific Ocean.^[27] This maneuver, lasting 4 minutes and 24 seconds, achieved a velocity change of 861 feet per second, establishing a direct return path after the earlier trajectory corrections.^[41] Roughly 62 hours later, at 141 hours and 30 minutes into the mission, the Lunar Module's descent stage was jettisoned to reduce mass and ensure stability during the final approach, with the ascent stage serving as a temporary lifeboat until separation.^[27] Approximately 6.5 hours prior to reentry, the crew initiated reactivation of the Command Module Odyssey by powering up its systems using entry batteries that had been charged via the Lunar Module's power supply—Battery A for 15 hours and Battery B for 3 hours—to conserve resources.^[27] Critical systems checks followed, including alignment of the Command Module's guidance and navigation platform to that of the Lunar Module, verification of the inertial measurement unit, and tests of the reaction control system thrusters to confirm operational integrity for the impending atmospheric entry.^[27] About 4 hours before reentry, the crew transferred from the Lunar Module Aquarius back to Odyssey, undocking at 142 hours and 40 minutes and 46 seconds of mission elapsed time to prepare for separation and final maneuvers.^[27] Reentry commenced at entry interface—when the spacecraft crossed the 400,000-foot altitude mark—at 142 hours, 40 minutes, and 47 seconds, with the Command Module enduring peak heating loads on its ablative heat shield reaching approximately 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit due to atmospheric friction.^[42] The descent profile remained nominal, experiencing peak deceleration forces of about 5 g's, followed by deployment of drogue parachutes at around 25,000 feet and main parachutes at 19,000 feet to slow the capsule for splashdown.^[27] The spacecraft splashed down safely in the South Pacific Ocean at 142 hours, 54 minutes, and 41 seconds of mission elapsed time, at coordinates 21 degrees 38 minutes 24 seconds south latitude and 165 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds west longitude, on April 17, 1970.^[27] Recovery operations were promptly executed by the prime recovery ship USS Iwo Jima, which retrieved the Command Module and crew within 45 minutes of splashdown, with helicopters airlifting the astronauts aboard shortly after to undergo initial medical evaluations.^[27] The crew was placed in medical quarantine upon return to prevent potential transmission of any lunar contaminants, though primary health concerns included severe dehydration affecting all members and a urinary tract infection developed by Lunar Module Pilot Fred Haise, exacerbated by the mission's stressful conditions and limited fluid intake.^[28] Haise's condition, which included fever and discomfort, required post-mission treatment but did not compromise the overall success of the recovery.^[43]

Immediate Reactions and Investigation

Public and Media Response

The Apollo 13 crisis transformed what had been anticipated as a routine lunar mission into a gripping national drama, captivating American television audiences through extensive live coverage. CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, known for his authoritative reporting on space missions, led the network's marathon broadcasts, providing real-time updates from mission control in Houston.^[44] Estimates indicate that up to 70 million viewers tuned in for key moments, such as the splashdown on April 17, 1970, marking one of the largest television audiences for a non-landing space event.^[45] This coverage, spanning networks like ABC and NBC as well, shifted public attention dramatically, with many Americans gathering around radios and televisions to follow the astronauts' plight. Public sentiment evolved rapidly from indifference to widespread concern and solidarity, as the explosion aboard the spacecraft on April 13 galvanized national unity. Churches, synagogues, and public gatherings held prayers for the safe return of astronauts James Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise, with reports of interfaith services across the United States and vigils at landmarks like Jerusalem's Wailing Wall.^[46] Schoolchildren participated in classroom watches and prayer sessions, reflecting the crisis's permeation into everyday life.^[47] Media outlets faced significant challenges in reporting the unfolding events, including managing rampant rumors and coordinating with official sources amid high uncertainty. False reports of the crew's death circulated briefly during communication blackouts, exacerbating public anxiety before NASA clarifications.^[48] President Richard Nixon engaged directly, placing a congratulatory phone call to the astronauts aboard the recovery ship USS Iwo Jima and issuing a proclamation for a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving upon their safe return.^[49]^[50] NASA conducted frequent press briefings from Houston to provide accurate updates, helping to counter misinformation while maintaining transparency during the four-day ordeal.^[46] Internationally, the crisis elicited offers of assistance and expressions of global solidarity, transcending Cold War tensions. The Soviet Union, through Premier Alexei Kosygin, extended help for potential recovery efforts and relayed messages of support via radio to the astronauts.^[51] At least 12 nations, including Britain, France, and Japan, volunteered resources such as ships or tracking stations to aid in the crew's return.^[52] News of the drama dominated headlines worldwide, fostering a sense of shared human endeavor as millions followed the mission's resolution with relief and admiration.^[48]

Official Inquiry Process

Following the Apollo 13 mission's safe return on April 17, 1970, NASA Administrator Thomas O. Paine and Deputy Administrator George M. Low established the Apollo 13 Review Board to formally investigate the causes of the in-flight explosion and the subsequent recovery efforts.^[21] Chaired by Edgar M. Cortright, Director of the Langley Research Center, the board included eight core members—such as Neil A. Armstrong, John F. Clark, and Hans M. Mark—along with over 20 additional experts drawn from NASA centers, aerospace industry contractors like North American Rockwell, and military representatives.^[53] These experts were organized into four specialized panels examining mission events, manufacturing and testing operations, spacecraft design, and overall project management, conducting a seven-week inquiry guided by NASA Management Instruction 8621.1.^[21] The board's investigation employed multiple rigorous methods to determine the failure's root causes, including physical examination of the recovered service module debris—which showed shrapnel damage consistent with an internal explosion in the cryogenic oxygen system—and detailed review of onboard telemetry data recording pressure drops, temperature anomalies, and electrical surges.^[53] Post-mission interviews with the crew, conducted after their 21-day quarantine, provided firsthand accounts of the anomaly, while supplementary tests replicated conditions in ground-based oxygen tanks to validate hypotheses.^[21] This comprehensive approach confirmed the explosion occurred at 55 hours, 54 minutes, and 53 seconds ground elapsed time, shortly after the activation of fans to stir Oxygen Tank 2's contents.^[53] The board's key findings pinpointed the explosion to structural and electrical damage in Oxygen Tank 2, originating from design modifications made between 1965 and 1967 that switched the system to 65-volt DC power without fully updating internal components, leaving Teflon-insulated wires vulnerable to overheating.^[53] During pre-launch detanking at Kennedy Space Center in March 1970, exposed wiring suffered further degradation from temperatures exceeding 1,000°F, leading to a short circuit and ignition when the tank was stirred in flight.^[21] Released on June 15, 1970, the final report comprised a main volume and 11 appendices detailing data analyses, test results, and chronologies, ultimately concluding no evidence of criminal negligence but emphasizing systemic quality control lapses in manufacturing, testing, and oversight.^[53]

Legacy and Impact

Procedural and Technological Changes

Following the Apollo 13 incident, NASA implemented significant hardware modifications to the Command and Service Module (CSM) oxygen tanks to address vulnerabilities identified in the cryogenic storage system. The redesigned tanks for Apollo 14 and subsequent missions incorporated upgraded thermostats capable of handling higher voltages (up to 65 V DC) to prevent overheating during ground tests, and the removal of internal stirring fans that had contributed to electrical faults.^[54] Fill tubes were reinforced with tighter tolerances to avoid dislodgment during handling or operations.^[54] These changes, along with stronger materials for tank components to mitigate over-pressurization and structural failure risks, aimed to enhance overall safety.^[54] Wiring insulation in the oxygen tanks was upgraded from vulnerable Teflon, which had degraded under heat and sparked combustion, to stainless steel sheathing for better thermal and mechanical resistance.^[21] Additionally, service module panels received reinforced shielding to protect against burn-through from potential oxygen fires, including evaluations of Mylar compatibility and conduit reinforcements.^[54] A third oxygen tank was added in a separate bay to provide redundancy and reduce single-point failure risks.^[21] Procedural updates emphasized comprehensive contingency planning for oxygen system anomalies, including detailed checklists for rapid Lunar Module activation as a lifeboat and power reconfiguration in emergencies.^[54] Redundant systems checks were expanded, such as pre-installation inspections of tank internals and verification of thermostat load-interrupting capabilities.^[54] Crew training was intensified with additional simulations for abort scenarios, focusing on Lunar Module lifeboat operations and abnormal events like electrical malfunctions in cryogenic systems.^[54] These reforms influenced Apollo 14 through 17 by incorporating enhanced consumables management and abort drills into mission protocols, delaying Apollo 14's launch from October 1970 to January 1971 to allow implementation.^[21] Quality assurance measures were strengthened through stricter vendor oversight of contractors like North American Rockwell and Beech Aircraft, including expanded reviews of manufacturing processes and material compatibility.^[54] The Apollo 13 Review Board, in its June 1970 report, directly informed these changes to enhance overall mission safety.^[54]

Cultural Representations and Commemorations

The mission's dramatic narrative has been extensively depicted in popular media, most notably through the 1994 book Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13 by astronaut Jim Lovell and co-author Jeffrey Kluger, which provides a firsthand account of the crisis and crew's ingenuity.^[55] This book served as the basis for the 1995 feature film Apollo 13, directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks as Lovell, Bill Paxton as Fred Haise, and Kevin Bacon as Jack Swigert, which dramatized the explosion, adaptations, and safe return while emphasizing themes of teamwork and resilience.^[56] The film, nominated for nine Academy Awards including Best Picture, grossed over $355 million worldwide and introduced the mission to broader audiences, reinforcing its status as a cornerstone of space exploration storytelling. Key artifacts from the mission are preserved in major space museums, including the command module Odyssey, which underwent restoration from 1995 to 1997 and is now on permanent display at the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center in Hutchinson, Kansas, allowing visitors to view the scorched heat shield and interior modifications made during the crisis.^[57] At NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, Space Center Houston features interactive exhibits and replicas related to the lunar module Aquarius, including a replica of the mission plaque intended for the Moon and hardware used in the carbon dioxide adapter improvisation, highlighting the lifeboat role of the LM.^[58] These displays serve as tangible links to the mission's engineering triumphs and are integrated into visitor experiences that recount the crew's survival strategies. Apollo 13 has profoundly influenced STEM education, serving as a case study in curricula to illustrate problem-solving, systems engineering, and scientific method under constraints. For instance, educators use the mission's CO2 scrubber adaptation to teach chemistry and design thinking, with hands-on activities where students construct similar devices from everyday materials to demonstrate interdisciplinary collaboration.^[59] Virtual reality simulations have extended this impact, enabling immersive recreations of the spacecraft environment; programs like EON Reality's augmented reality lessons allow students to explore the command module's interior and simulate crisis decision-making, enhancing engagement and retention in aerospace topics.^[60] Commemorative events have marked key anniversaries, underscoring the mission's enduring symbolism. In 2020, for the 50th anniversary, NASA hosted virtual livestreams, panel discussions with mission participants, and released archival footage to celebrate the "successful failure," while international philatelic issues, such as the Isle of Man's "One Giant Leap" stamp set featuring the mission control room, honored the achievement.^[61]^[62] By 2025, the 55th anniversary prompted events including a weekend celebration at the Tulsa Air and Space Museum on April 12 with historical talks and artifact viewings, trading card sets at Kennedy Space Center starting April 11, and a special IMAX screening of the Apollo 13 film at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum on September 18, featuring expert remarks on space history.^[63]^[64]^[65] The ongoing legacy of Apollo 13 centers on its "successful failure" narrative, a term coined by Lovell to describe the mission's failure to land on the Moon yet triumphant safe return, which exemplifies human resilience and adaptive innovation in space exploration.^[3] This story continues to inspire discourse on perseverance, influencing modern programs like Artemis by highlighting the value of contingency planning and crew-ground teamwork in high-stakes environments.

References

[1]
Apollo 13 - NASA
Apollo 13, intended for a lunar landing, launched April 11, 1970, but the mission did not go as planned, and the crew splashed down April 17, 1970.Mission Details · The Successful Failure · Houston, We’ve Had a Problem
[2]
Apollo 13: Mission Details - NASA
### Summary of Apollo 13 Mission Details
[3]
Apollo 13: The Successful Failure - NASA
Apr 6, 2020 · The Apollo 13 mission was to be the third lunar landing in the program before an on board explosion forced the mission to circle the Moon without landing.
[4]
Apollo program | National Air and Space Museum
The Apollo program, from 1961 to 1972, included six missions where humans landed on the moon, including Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.Missing: post | Show results with:post
[5]
The Apollo Program - NASA
Oct 31, 2024 · Apollo's Goals · Establishing the technology to meet other national interests in space. · Achieving preeminence in space for the United States.Apollo 1 · Apollo 11 · Apollo 13 · Apollo 12Missing: post | Show results with:post
[6]
Apollo 13 | The Planetary Society
Apollo 13 was the 3rd attempt to land on the Moon, but an explosion forced the crew to return to Earth, a "successful failure" that engaged worldwide interest.
[7]
Lessons from Apollo 14 | National Air and Space Museum
Feb 12, 2021 · Scientists hoped that rocks collected in this region would yield clues about the early history of the Moon and the formation of the solar system ...
[8]
From Apollo to the ISS: The Televisual Image in Human Spaceflight
Jun 3, 2023 · NASA's public and stakeholder communication during the Apollo 13 crisis was open and honest (Kauffman 2001). This approach “bolstered the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[9]
Former Astronaut James A. Lovell - NASA
Haise Jr. Lovell's Apollo 13 crew included John L. "Jack" Swigert Jr. and Fred. Lovell has logged more than 7,000 hours in a variety of aircraft, including ...Gemini Xii · Apollo 8 · Apollo 13
[10]
50 Years Ago: NASA Names Apollo 13 and 14 Crews
Aug 6, 2019 · ... Apollo 11 backup crew. The Apollo 13 backup crew consisted of Commander John W. Young, CMP John L. Swigert, and LMP Charles M. Duke. Young ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[11]
Former Astronaut Fred Haise - NASA
Jun 18, 2024 · Haise was lunar module pilot for Apollo 13. Haise was one of the 19 astronauts selected by NASA in April 1966. He served as backup lunar module ...
[12]
[PDF] Charles Duke Jr - NASA
He was CAPCOM for Apollo 11, the first landing on the Moon and he served as backup lunar module pilot on Apollo 13. Duke served as lunar module pilot of Apollo ...
[13]
50 Years Ago: Apollo 13 and German Measles - NASA
Apr 2, 2020 · Haise and backups John W. Young, John L. “Jack” Swigert, and Charles M. Duke finished training, one astronaut's illness exposed the rest to ...
[14]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Day 3, part 2: 'Houston, we've had a problem'
Aug 21, 2023 · Flight Director Gene Kranz has gone around the Mission Control stations, asking if they have any business they would like to put forward to the ...
[15]
NASA Remembers Legendary Flight Director Glynn Lunney
Mar 19, 2021 · Legendary NASA Flight Director Glynn Lunney, 84, died Friday, March 19. Lunney was a flight director for the Apollo 11 Moon landing mission.
[16]
13 MORE Things That Saved Apollo 13, part 2 - Universe Today
Apr 9, 2015 · By chance, at the time of the explosion, two Flight Directors -- Gene Kranz and Glynn Lunney -- were present in Mission Control. NASA ...<|separator|>
[17]
[PDF] Apollo by the Numbers - NASA
This book provides a comprehensive reference for facts about Project Apollo, including narratives, data tables, and a timeline, with over 50 tables.
[18]
[PDF] CHAPTER 5 APOLLO COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE AND ...
Oxygen atmosphere in the pressurized cabin of 34.5 kN/m 2 (5 psia). Normal shirtsleeve mode except for critical mission phases. Cabin pressure maintained at ...
[19]
[PDF] A Case Study of the Failure on Apollo 13
The oxygen tank of the Apollo Service Module (SM) is constructed of concentric inner and outer shells, containing a vacuum between shells to reduce heat leak. ...
[20]
50 Years Ago: Apollo 13 Review Board Report - NASA
Jun 15, 2020 · The high temperatures very likely damaged Teflon insulation around nearby wiring. The engineers did not know this at the time, and decided it ...
[21]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Day 3, part 3: Aquarius Becomes a Lifeboat
Jun 10, 2020 · The Command Module, while performing the Earth landing, is powered by three batteries, A through C. These batteries are recharged from the spare ...<|separator|>
[22]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Day 1, part 1: Launch and Reaching Earth ...
Mar 12, 2024 · Two of the crew, Commander Jim Lovell and Lunar Module Pilot Fred Haise, plan to bring their Lunar Module Aquarius down to a precision landing ...Missing: James | Show results with:James
[23]
[PDF] Science Training History of the Apollo Astronauts
This report details the science training history of Apollo astronauts, created to document lessons learned for future programs. It was compiled with interviews ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[24]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Pre-Launch Activities and Crewman Change
Apr 6, 2020 · For Apollo 13, the prime crew assignments were: CDR - Jim Lovell ... Fred Haise and Jim Lovell. The flight of Apollo 12 took place during ...Apollo 13 Mission Plan · Flight Crew Training · Manned Spaceflight Network...<|separator|>
[25]
[PDF] Science Training History of the Apollo Astronauts - NASA
... Apollo 13 Commander (CDR) James Lovell, left, and Lunar Module Pilot (LMP). Fred Haise during a geologic training trip to Kilbourne Hole, NM, November 1969 ...
[26]
[PDF] APOLLO 13 MISSION REPORT SEPTEMBER 1970 - NASA
The Apollo 13 mission, planned as a lunar landing in the Fra Mauro area, was aborted because of an abrupt loss of service module cryogenic.
[27]
50 Years Ago: Apollo 13 Crew Returns Safely to Earth - NASA
Apr 17, 2020 · To help warm the spacecraft and make the crew more comfortable, Mission Control gave the GO to activate the LM three hours early and orient it ...
[28]
[PDF] Apollo 13 Press Kit - NASA
Apr 2, 1970 · Apollo 13 crewmen are commander James A. Lovell, Jr.; command module pilot momas K. MBttingly 111, and lunar module pilot Fred W. Haise, Jr.
[29]
[PDF] APOLLO13 LUNAREXPLORATION EXPERIMENTS ... - NASA
Feb 1, 1970 · This publication describes the Apollo. 13 mission lunar exploration experiments and photographic equipment. The document contains technical.
[30]
Earth Orbit and Translunar Injection - Apollo 13 Flight Journal - NASA
Nov 14, 2023 · The final part of Step 1 gives the indications on how to determine the safety of the S-IVB fuel tanks. ... S-II - Saturn second stage - center ...
[31]
Detailed Chronology of Events Surrounding the Apollo 13 Accident
Mar 7, 2024 · 55:56:38 – Oxygen tank No. 2 quantity becomes erratic for 69 seconds before assuming an off-scale low state, indicating a failed sensor. 55:56: ...
[32]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Day 3, part 5: Minimising Power - NASA
Nov 6, 2023 · The Service Module is severely damaged and the Command Module has been powered down to preserve its scarce consumables for re-entry.Missing: response | Show results with:response
[33]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Day 4, part 4: Building The CO2 Adapter
Apr 21, 2020 · The ECS panel on the back of the LM cabin has the controls they are using now to configure the cabin air flow as they need it to be, for their new filtering ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[34]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Day 5, part 1: A Thump and Snowflakes in ...
Apr 27, 2020 · That's the ascent propulsion engine in the upper stage of the Lunar Module which likely won't even be used at all. Rather quiet now in the air ...Missing: specifications | Show results with:specifications
[35]
[PDF] Apollo 13 Guidance, Navigation, and Control Challenges
Sep 17, 2009 · This paper contains an overview of the Apollo 13 nominal mission plan followed by a chronological description of GNC performance and mission ...Missing: criteria policy
[36]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Day 3, part 4: Free Return - NASA
Apr 21, 2020 · And our latest data shows that your closest approach to the Moon is going to be 60 miles perigee. Over. Diagram of the different ...
[37]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Day 4, part 1: Approaching the Moon - NASA
Mar 14, 2020 · Apollo 13 now 421 nautical miles [780 km] above the Moon. Just a little over 1 minute now from time of Loss Of Signal with the spacecraft.Missing: specifications | Show results with:specifications
[38]
[PDF] Apollo experience report abort planning
This report describes the development of the Apollo abort plan, required for each mission phase, and the constraints and crew warning methods.
[39]
[PDF] MISSION OPERATIONS REPORT APOLLO 13 APRIL 28, 1970
Apr 28, 1970 · rather than performing a direct abort because the large AV:eould have ... N_FN site for all Apollo 13 premission support. This includes all.
[40]
[PDF] The Apollo flight test program up to September - NASA
severest conditions yet encountered by a spacecraft. (a velocity of 24,913 miles per hour and a heat shield temperature of about 5,000 degrees F). The Apollo ...
[41]
OCHMO-MTB-003 Urinary Health - NASA
Oct 6, 2020 · Fred Haise developed a serious UTI during Apollo 13. Haise became increasingly unwell during the last 4 days of the mission and was feverish ...
[42]
Today in Media History: Apollo 13 explosion placed crew in danger
“Apollo 13 was “successful failure”: commander” Reuters, April 11, 2010. CBS anchor Walter Cronkite delivers the news about Apollo 13: ...
[43]
TV: Millions of Viewers End Vigil for Apollo 13 - The New York Times
Apr 18, 1970 · Cronkite, who has covered space ad ventures virtually since the invention of the kite, showed ignorance of the differences between voltage, ...
[44]
[PDF] Houston, we've got a problem.
Apollo 13. We hope that at least their lives can be saved." Prolonged applause followed. Prayers were said at Jerusalem's Wailing. Wall and on the floor of ...
[45]
Plight of 3 Crewmen Stirs World Interest and Prayer
Apr 15, 1970 · During the Apollo 13 emergency, there was a surge of interest in the flight and there were prayers, and anguish also, for the three men who were fighting to ...Missing: sentiment | Show results with:sentiment
[46]
The Myth of America's Love Affair with the Moon - Space
Jan 13, 2011 · Public opinion in favor of continuing human lunar exploration almost never rose above 50 percent during NASA's Apollo program – but the lone ...
[47]
World watches Apollo with shock, concern - UPI Archives
Apr 13, 1970 · The world reacted today with a shocked "I knew it would have to happen sometime" to the Apollo 13 crisis. Some people were angry because ...
[48]
Apollo 13 Flight Journal - Postflight Activities - NASA
Apr 21, 2020 · Improved cryogenic oxygen tank for Apollo 14 and subsequent missions. Considering that the cryo tank for storing liquid oxygen was the cause ...
[49]
Proclamation 3979—Designating a National Day of Prayer and ...
Apr 17, 1970 · The imperiled flight and safe return of the crew of Apollo 13 were events that humbled and inspired people all over the world.
[50]
Behind the Scenes of Apollo 13 » Richard Nixon Foundation | Blog
Apr 11, 2016 · Perhaps the most intriguing support came from the Soviet Union. Below is the Russian-language original of the April 15 letter from Chairman ...
[51]
12 Countries Offer to Help In Recovery of Astronauts
Apr 16, 1970 · President Nixon today re ceived offers of assistance in recovering the Apollo 13 astronauts from a dozen nations, ranging from the Soviet Union to the small ...
[52]
[PDF] report of apollo 13 review board | nasa
Jun 15, 1970 · The Apollo 13 Review Board reviewed the accident, its causes, recovery, and made recommendations for corrective actions.
[53]
[PDF] REPORT OF APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD - NASA
Apollo. 13 was launched on schedule from. Kennedy. Space. Center at. 2:13:00 ... Details of this operation are covered below. During this time the. LM. SHe.
[54]
Lost Moon the Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13 Signed Edition
Lost Moon is the story of the failure and the incredible heroism of the three astronauts who brought their crippled vehicle back to earth. This account--written ...
[55]
Apollo 13 (1995) - IMDb
Rating 7.7/10 (331,242) Apollo 13: Directed by Ron Howard. With Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Kevin Bacon, Gary Sinise. NASA must devise a strategy to return Apollo 13 to Earth safely ...Full cast & crew · Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell · Trivia · Apollo 13Missing: book | Show results with:book
[56]
Restoration: The Apollo 13 Command Module, Odyssey
Images from 1995 to 1997 depicting the restoration of the Apollo 13 Command Module, Odyssey. Restoration took place in the Cosmosphere's Hall of Space Museum.
[57]
Apollo 13 - Space Center Houston
Apollo 13 was to be the third lunar landing, but the mission was aborted after the Service Module ruptured due to a malfunction in an oxygen tank.
[58]
Apollo 13: The Ultimate STEM Challenge - Feel Good Teaching
The Apollo 13 STEM challenge involved overcoming obstacles with scientific reasoning, especially the carbon dioxide filter fix, which was a high-stakes problem.Missing: curricula VR simulations
[59]
Remote Augmented Reality Lesson of the Command Module of ...
Remote Augmented Reality Lesson of the Command Module of Apollo 13 experienced by students at home. You can also experience and create your own augmented ...Missing: simulation | Show results with:simulation
[60]
NASA Commemorates 50th Anniversary of Apollo 13, 'A Successful ...
Apr 6, 2020 · NASA marks the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 13 mission – which has become known as “a successful failure” that saw the safe return of its crew in spite of a ...Missing: stamps | Show results with:stamps
[61]
Isle of Man marks Apollo 13 50th with new 'One Giant Leap' stamps
Feb 21, 2020 · The postage features a photo of the Apollo 13 mission control room and scenes from the four successful lunar landings that followed the ill- ...Missing: events | Show results with:events
[62]
Apollo 13 - 55th Anniversary Celebration - Tulsa Air and Space ...
Apr 12, 2025 · Embark on a journey through history as we honor the 55th anniversary of Apollo 13 with a weekend of unforgettable events at the Tulsa Air and Space Museum!
[63]
Apollo 13 - NASA's Successful Failure - Kennedy Space Center
Starting on April 11, the 55th anniversary of Apollo 13's launch, you can collect a commemorative set of Apollo 13 Astronaut Trading Cards. One ...
[64]
Member Only Events | National Air and Space Museum
National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. September 18, 2025 | 7 - 9:30pm. Special screening of Apollo 13 in IMAX featuring remarks by space history ...<|control11|><|separator|>