Apollo 13
Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
13th November 2020
Apollo 13
Apollo 13 is one of the major astronomic events that has ever been witnessed in the planet. In April 11, 1970 a craft that was meant to land in the moon was launched from the Kennedy Space Centre. This move was otherwise not successful and had to be aborted before the destination was reached for safety reasons. It was reported that two days into the mission, a critical failure was noted in the oxygen tank in the service module. The crew managed to return safely to earth six days later that is on 17th of April after looping around the moon. Oxygen is an integral element in these kinds of events and any shortage of it can be disastrous to the crew. This event was so important as it would help in the discovery of many astronomic events in the moon that would be so helpful for the space travellers and scientists.
This mission was conducted under the command of the Jim Lovell and Jack Swigert who was the command module pilot. Fred Haise was also part of the team as a lunar module pilot. There was some replacement as Swigert got exposed to rubella and Ken Mattingly had to come in. The lunar module was designed primarily to support two men although there were later adjustments to make it accommodate or support three men for up to four days. This event was important as further investigations indicated that there were some failures in the pre-launching testing process. This would change the general protocols followed before the similar events were initiated. Various media houses covered the Apollo 13, quite a number giving different reports on the subject (Chang, p.1)
The New York Times is one of the most trusted media companies globally, and the audience would give their coverage of any event substantial consideration. The Atlantic is another renown company that would be trusted by society to give concrete information. A comparison of the articles of these two companies about the same event, there are some clear lines of difference and some level of similarities. The headline that was given by the New York Times was a little scaring to the audience. The article was mainly trying to point out the event and stating clearly that the astronauts survived the disaster in that year and asking whether it could actually happen again. This article was mainly trying to outline the mistakes on what actually went wrong in the mission and the possibilities of a similar event. The Atlantic, on the other hand, was mainly focusing on the chronology of events that transpired before the disaster that almost led to deaths occurred (Taylor, p.3)
These two articles cover the same event, but there is some level of difference or variation in the storyline. The New York Times Seem to be subjective will the others are objective on explaining the various incidences in the Apollo 13. Both articles have mentioned clearly that the incident could have been avoided and similar occurrences would be prevented in future. Despite the conflict in the subjective and objective dimension that have been taken by the writers of these articles, they seem to hold a similar opinion on the test process that would help avoid such a tragedy in future. The New York Times has been a little comprehensive as it focuses on the events and what went wrong. The Atlantic on the other hand was mainly focusing on the specific process that was conducted by the stakeholders in the mission. The further researchers on this subject should try and come up with a more defined and concrete information from what has been given by the two articles. They have provided useful information about the study despite the difference in the approach taken.
Work Cited
Chang, K. “Apollo 13’s Astronauts Survived Disaster 50 Years Ago. Could It Happen Again? The New York Times. Retrieved From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/science/apollo-13-anniversary.html
Taylor, A. The 50th Anniversary of Apollo 13. The Atlantic. Retrieved: https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2020/04/photos-50th-anniversary-apollo-13/609658/