The problem with writing about a personal passion is that, perhaps inevitably, I can be swayed by bias. I am constantly on the watch for this seeping in to my writing here, especially after I observed my pre-me-non-NASA-obsessive husband talking about missions with the same views I hold. As I am writing about something very personal, I don’t have that clinical separation from the subject that I do in my professional writing – and as my husband has demonstrated, I’m clearly liable to spreading my own bias to others.

Yet I can’t help but feel there is also an inevitability that some of my personal feelings come in to play. I’m only human, and I’ve never masked the fact that I come at Apollo from an emotive rather than scientific level. I do have favourite missions. While I won’t let my personal feelings play with facts and figures and overall feeling, at some point it is going to out.

A family member asked me, a few weeks ago, a question that made me look all the more into the issue of bias and favouritism. “Do you,” she asked, “have a favourite Apollo astronaut?”

My answer was a fairly blase “I respect them all” or something similar, which is absolutely true – but it did make me wonder. Do I have a “favourite”? Could it be a problem for the way I write this site? What the heck is a favourite anyway? Surely it’s not possible to quantify a human being like that?

I mused this in an email to a friend, who responded with a very basic: “well, do you have a favourite wrestler?” (Yes, for my sins, I’m a WWE fan). Of course, I do… but he’s a human being too, yet here I am, quantifying him. So does that extend to astronauts?

The answer, of course, is yes – although perhaps not in the singular. I have what I would describe several astronauts I am always keen to hear from. I mean the guys that, when they pop up on a documentary, I pay a little bit more attention. This doesn’t mean I dislike any of the other Apollo astronauts, it’s just an observation that lead to this post – because, when I’d a list of my favourites, I began wondering if I could see any uniting factors.

I can’t continue without listing those favourites, because it rules out the point of the post. So, in no particular order, the astronauts I am particularly interested in are:

• John Young.
• Charlie Duke.
• Jim Lovell.
• Al Bean.
• Michael Collins.

I have plenty others – a huge affection for Pete Conrad, and my respect for Neil Armstrong knows no bounds – but these are the five who never fail to capture my attention. With the list made, I started looking for things that bound them together.

What did I find? Well, nothing.

My first inkling was to check and see if they were all “moonwalkers”. Nope, I’ve got Lovell and Collins in there. Fine, moving on… maybe they’re all from the same armed force? No, not that either. Same missions? No. Same crew positions? Uh-uh. On and on it went, until I was halfway to calculating their astrological signs in trying to find something.

What I was looking for is something that would make this “favouritism” easily explainable, because then – in a rather scattergun manner – I could be aware of it. If, for example, I found a bias towards Naval-aviators-cum-astronauts, I would know to take extra care when writing about Air Force crew. Yet I didn’t find a thing.

I see, however, that I was doing it incorrectly. I was looking for statistical similarities, when in fact I should have been looking at it from an emotive point of view. Probably for the first time in my entire existence, I was being too scientific.

The reason the five appeal to me is fairly simple. I would say, of the Apollo astronauts I have seen interviewed, they are the best at displaying their feelings – or, they’ve made me laugh. John Young is as dry as they come, but I cracked up laughing when he, talking of Apollo 13, said simply: “Jim called down that they had a problem. And he was right”. They are, in essence, the astronauts I find the most entertaining.

Bean and Duke are natural born storytellers, naturally funny, and quite wise. Collins, both in his book and in interview, comes across as somewhat with a unique perspective on the world and humanity itself. Lovell has a tragic-but-triumphant story that appeals to the dire romantic in me, while Young makes me laugh.

So, I do have favourites – but the great thing is, I don’t think such an emotional reason for it will effect my writing in any way. Sure, it may make me a little more likely to wax lyrical about them, but that’s no bad thing.

This, of course, leaves only one question to be answered: do I, your diligent yet unbiased writer, have a favourite astronaut? Sure I do. Even in that small grouping taken from another small grouping, there’s one man that stands out to me above them all. As for who, well, that’s for me to know and the blog to never reveal.

Not so the New Nine. First and foremost, the second group of astronauts does not quite have the same pull in media terms as those who were picked first. Yet the New Nine are often referred to as the best group of astronauts that NASA ever selected, and when one scans the list of names, it’s easy to see why.

Officially known as “Astronaut Group 2″, the New Nine included two would-be astronauts who had tried out and been rejected during the Original Seven recruitment process. Jim Lovell had been ruled out due to bizarre liver enzyme which was later ruled unimportant, and Pete Conrad had struggled with the invasive testing in the original procedures – and only returned when reassured the second recruitment process would be less fraught. Conrad and Lovell began a “if at first you don’t succeed” mentality that would go on to dominate astronaut selections.

The New Nine are sometimes referred to as the "Gemini astronauts".

Selected in 1962, Astronaut Group 2 dubbed themselves the “New Nine” as a nod to the “Original Seven”. They would not fly the on-going Mercury missions, but would instead focus on the upcoming Gemini flights – and beyond that lay Apollo, and the moon. For this reason, the New Nine are sometimes referred to as the “Gemini astronauts” (just like the Original Seven are often called the “Mercury astronauts”), though the New Nine would go on to be Commanders of several Apollo flights too.

Without further ado, the New Nine were as follows:

Neil Armstrong

An ex-Navy aviator, Armstrong was a civilian at the time of his recruitment. He had been working for NACA (the forerunner to NASA) and had flown the X-15 “space plane”.

Missions Flown: Commander Gemini 8, Commander Apollo 11. The “first man on the moon”.

Frank Borman

Borman, a US Air Force pilot, would fly two missions during his space career. He would also serve on the investigatory board following the Apollo 1 fire.

Missions Flown: Commander Gemini 7, Commander Apollo 8

Charles “Pete” Conrad

Though talented, Conrad had found the medical invasive procedures of screening for the “Original Seven” too much to handle, and he had been rejected on the basis of his attitude. The relatively relaxed procedures of the New Nine meant the Naval Aviator and test pilot tried again, and this time he was successful.

Missions Flown: Pilot Gemini 5, Commander Gemini 11, Commander Apollo 12, Commander Skylab 2

James “Jim” Lovell

Like his close friend Conrad, Lovell had also tried out for the Original Seven – though a medical abnormality had discounted him, it was later ruled unimportant. A Naval aviator and test pilot, Lovell was given the horrid nickname of “Shaky” by Conrad. He, however, would get the last laugh – at the time of his Gemini 12 flight, he became the most travelled man in history.

Missions Flown: Pilot Gemini 7, Commander Gemini 12, Command Module Pilot Apollo 8, Commander Apollo 13

James “Jim” McDivitt

Another Naval aviator, McDivitt would secure a place in history as Commander of Gemini 4 – the first ever American space walk. Though he would leave the astronaut group before the Apollo landing missions began, his contribution and ability is widely recognised.

Missions Flown: Commander Gemini 4 (spacewalk), Commander Apollo 9

Elliot See

See, a US Naval Aviator, was scheduled to be the Commander of Gemini 9. However, he died in a plane crash prior to the mission alongside Charles Bassett – an astronaut in the next recruitment group. He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Thomas “Tom” Stafford

A member of the US Air Force, Stafford would become would not only fly Gemini and Apollo Missions, but also the subsequent Apollo-Soyuz joint project with Russia.

Missions Flown: Pilot Gemini 6A, Commander Gemini 9A, Commander Apollo 10, Apollo-Soyuz

Edward “Ed” White

White became a national hero when, as Pilot of Gemini 4, he became the first American to partake in an EVA – that is, to space walk. He was on the prime crew of Apollo 1, but perished in a fire on the launch pad during a test that also killed his two crewmates. He is buried at West Point, a traditional cemetery for Air Force pilots.

John Young

John Young is the perfect example of how the New Nine were more than the “Gemini astronauts”. Not only would he fly Apollo, but he would also fly two shuttle missions, including STS-1 – the maiden flight. He would also become the ninth person on the moon, and would work for NASA for over 40 years.

Missions Flown: (deep breath!) Gemini 3, Gemini 10, Apollo 10, Apollo 16, STS-1, STS-9

Photographs of the New Nine

[View with PicLens]

New Nine Accomplishments

The New Nine scored a lot of “firsts”, including:

• First man on the moon (Neil Armstrong – Apollo 11)
• First rendezvous of two space craft in space (Tom Stafford, Jim Lovell & Frank Borman – Gemini 6A and Gemini 7 respectively)
• First mission to orbit the moon (Jim Lovell, Frank Borman – Apollo
• First person to travel to the moon twice (Jim Lovell – Apollo 8, Apollo 13)
• First American EVA (Ed White – Gemini 4)
• First docking of two space craft (Neil Armstrong – Gemini

As well as these notable “firsts”, the New Nine contributed:

• Three moonwalkers (Neil Armstrong – Apollo 11, Pete Conrad – Apollo 12, John Young – Apollo 16)
• Two men to travel to the moon twice (Jim Lovell – Apollo 8 and Apollo 13, John Young – Apollo 10 and Apollo 16)
• 178 days, between the whole group, spent in space.
• Participation in five NASA programmes (Gemini, Apollo, Apollo-Soyuz, Skylab and the Space Shuttle)

Other New Nine Trivia:

• As of January 21st 2010, six of the New Nine are still alive. Only one, Pete Conrad (in 1999) died outside of the NASA programme.
• When assembled for the first time at a hotel in Houston, the secrecy surrounding the new astronaut group meant each man had to name himself at the desk as “Max Peck”. The nine “Max Peck”’s were then directed to a conference room, where they met for the first time.
• It was not until that moment that close friends Jim Lovell and Pete Conrad discovered they had both been selected. They had known each other since their Navy days.
• Despite this, Conrad and Lovell never flew a NASA mission together.
• The first of the New Nine to fly was John Young, on Gemini 3. He replaced Al Shepard (an Original Seven astronaut) when Shepard was declared medically grounded due to an inner ear condition.
• The last flight of a New Nine astronaut was December 8th 1983, when John Young returned to earth above the shuttle Columbia.
• The time between Young’s flights is an incredible 18 years.

Further Information

This video is from a documentary series called NASA: The Greatest Missions. It details the selection and roles of the New Nine.

The first mistake, as ringed.

Let’s start with the most obvious. The lining of the suits are blue, and the clamp on the helmet disconnect is missing altogether. In the actual photo, you can see the white liner and the clamp.

The actual crew of Apollo 13. Note the white suit lining.

It’s a bit hard to see, but on the clasp of the helmet disconnect there are two small details. First is the end of an aluminium pin, and the second is a white Airlock trademark AL. These are also missing.

A still from the movie showing the zipper.

In the “suit up” section of the movie, they show an ILC tech closing the zipper on one of the suits. Note: the zipper; there are actually two on the original suits. An inner zipper, a rubber seal, and then an outer zipper.

No pressure.

The pressure was on to dock with the LEM, and as you can see in this still, there was no pressure relief valve. Also another clear view of the missing clamp.

A close up from the movie on a leg pocket.

During the walk to the Saturn V for launch (one of my favourite parts of the movie), you can see the UDC cover is too low. It is almost on Hank’s knee, and the shape is not quite right.

How it should look, much higher up the leg.

Finally…

The real Jim Lovell.

I have marked in the photo above the shoulders. The shoulders on the real A7L are a complicated arrangement of bearings, convolutes and cables. This makes for a distinctive shape that is lacking in the prop suits.

There are other small “nit picky” details that I will let go, because all of these small things are set aside when I watch this movie. It’s one of my favourites.

Editor’s Note: Many thanks to David for pointing these errors out. You can read more from David, and follow his suit-rebuilding efforts, on ApolloSpacesuits.com.

David Scott: Apollo 15 CDR

Book: “Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race”

Who? The book is written from two sides of the Space Race. The NASA chapters are covered by David Scott, Commander of Apollo 15, while Alexei Leonov – the first man to perform an EVA in space (space walk) covers the Russian side.

Written By: There is no ghost writer included on the cover, and the differences between the two men’s styles makes it easy to believe it was written by them alone. Neil Armstrong and Tom Hanks contribute very moving forewords.

Style: Scott and Leonov have very different styles, but both are in the first person.

Covers Period: Previous life biographies and space careers for both, as well as ponderances on the future of space flight.

Review

The idea behind this book is an excellent one. Scott and Leonov were at the forefront of their respective countries space programmes, and are thus ideally placed to give their contrasting views of what is now dubbed “the space race”. Both stress that while political differences were rife, when they met post-Apollo, they discovered they had a lot in common and became friends.

The chapters do not combine their recollections; instead, there is a “Leonov” passage, and then a “Scott” passage covering the same period of time or events. If the passages for each man were combined together, they could easily provide a stand-alone autobiography for each man, so there is a real sense of each personality and experience.

The first thing that strikes the reader is how contrasting the two men are in personality. Leonov is the romantic, the artist, and his sections are very moving to read. He talks of his friendship with the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, and his own wonder at being the first man to go EVA. He also mentions his artistic talent and, beautifully, how he will never be able to capture the wonders he saw during his EVA on a canvass. His attitude to the Russian space programme in general is very positive, very optimistic – but that isn’t to say he skips out on acknowledging their failures. I knew relatively little of Leonov before this book, but when finished he leapt right to the top of list of people I’d like to sit down and have a chat with.

Scott’s sections, on the other hand, are a little more what one expects from an astronaut biography. He is the Air Force cadet, the dedicated pilot and his writing is a little more clinical. He does, however, explain in detail his original reluctance to join NASA at all, and when he writes of his discovered love of geology (during preparation for his Apollo 15 mission) he is more comparable to Leonov in tone and style. I feel had I not had the contrast with Leonov’s very distinctive voice, Scott would have struck me as one of the more “open” biographies I had read.

The wonderful thing about this book is how their careers contrasted. While Leonov was floating above the earth aboard Voskhod-2, Scott was a rookie. As the Russian space programme declined, Scott was flying his three NASA missions – which eventually concluded with Apollo 15, a walk on the moon and the important geological discovery of what is now known as the “Genesis Rock”. As a result, the book is full of impact and information from the start. If the men had written their experiences separately, Leonov would have struggled to talk beyond his early years and Scott would have struggled for creating a compelling read for the early 1960s. However, in the time line, one of them is always in training or on a mission – and that works very well.

Also interesting are their recollections of the other, and their first meeting. Both describe the meeting, and the rather tense argument that followed, and the same story is told in very different ways. Their respect for each other comes across well, and both admit to the enjoyment of while perhaps not agreeing with the other’s politics and way of life, they found that some things – such as flying in space – are forever bonding.

All in all, a very emotional and intelligent read which packs in facts, details and information. I did worry that by combining two stories, I would get neither story properly discussed – in fact, the opposite is true. This genuinely is both sides of the moon, and neither space traveller has pulled punches or covered their words. It’s open, honest and a heck of a good read: congratulations to both for such a project, I enjoyed it immensely.

Rating: * * * * * (Five out of five)

LLH is a labour of love for me, and sometimes it has to take a backseat to my “actual” work. This blog is a one-woman band in both writing and design, and it’s extremely time-consuming. I appreciate that people enjoy the blog – and it has been heartening to see how the hits, visits and contacts have held up during the low period – and I hope you’ll have the patience to stick around. Posts for this site take a long time to put together, and hope those that have shown some annoyance in the lack of updates understand why I would rather give the time to put a full, detailed post together rather than just stick anything up for the sake of it.

I have, however, thought long and hard about what to do with this blog. Although originally dedicated purely to hoax busting, it’s become more of a tribute to Apollo. To this end, I’ve assigned a new tag line, ripped directly from Gene Kranz (with the greatest respect): “celebrating and defending NASA’s finest hours”. So the direction from now on will be more generally based on Apollo, as it seems that 40 years on the story of Apollo still has much to say. I’ll still be hoax busting, but also focusing on the missions themselves and the men that flew them.

To that end, I have started to put together a set of profiles and backgrounds. Eventually, these profiles will cover the major players in Apollo. At the moment there is only one, Neil Armstrong’s, which you can view here – but hopefully this rather mammouth undertaking will help me get back in the swing of things. These profiles are useful to link to during other posts as they save text clutter, and crucially, are relatively easy to put together for me. As well as people profiles, I intend to write background information for things like the machines, the astronaut selection groups and beyond.

I know it’s been awhile since there was a substantial update (and I’m off to work on that now, I promise!) but things should improve in 2010. I am dedicated to keeping this blog alive, and look forward to planning and detailing the 40th anniversary of Apollo 13 in April.

Thanks for the messages and support, and I hope you’ll stick around! If you have any suggestions, comments, queries or critiques of the blog, the email is: editor@lunarlandinghoax.com – feel free to drop a message in.

Toni (editor)

It became apparent early on with this post that it was going to be something of a monster, so I have reduced it down in to various sections. The first focuses on so-called “deliberate mistakes” – those made knowingly and deliberately, in order to make the film more enjoyable to watch.

I consider these changes largely unimportant, and of mere interest to Apollo obsessives. Whether they even come under the category of “mistake” is questionable, as they are intentional. Nevertheless, worth mentioning…

(Please note the quality on some of the below images is not fantastic. For the purpose of this post, I watched the movie online and screen-capped as best as possible to actually show the mistakes – while the overall purpose is usually clear, sometimes the quality is… not.)

Artistic Licence “Mistakes”

1. “Houston, We Have A Problem”

Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell.

Perhaps the most notable factual error in the movie is the infamous quote. In the film, Tom Hanks (as Jim Lovell) messages Mission Control with: “Houston, we have a problem”.

During the mission, Lovell did not actually say this.

The moment following the "problem".

As you can see (images taken from the mission transcript, which is a .PDF file), Jim Lovell (the Commander = CDR) actually says “we’ve had a problem”.

This was a deliberate change by the film makers, as Lovell’s actual words are in the past tense – making it sound like the problem had been dealt with, rather than an ongoing (and actually, just emerging) situation.

This is not the only such change of dialogue for dramatic or storytelling effect. For example, while looking for the above snippet, I came across this:

Fred Haise double-checking.

Having seen the film several thousand times (or so it feels), I know the dialogue backwards – in the film, Tom Hanks as Lovell says “did I hear you right?” in response to being asked to close the valves on the fuel cells. In the actual transcript, the words are attributed to the LMP, Fred Haise.

(It should be noted that the above is a pasted together section of transcript rather than a direct copy, as Haise’s actual words spread across two pages and are thus divided by Adobe Reader).

2. Mattingly Watches The Launch

Ken Mattingly did not watch the launch of Apollo 13, the flight he should have been on, from the Cape. In the film, he is depicted as having parked his car somewhere near the launch site, willing the Saturn V on. In reality, Mattingly watched the launch from Mission Control.

Again, this can be put down to a switch for artistic effect. Mattingly’s role in the film overall is altered (as discussed in my previous post) and having the man left behind watch the launch, willing it on nevertheless, a solitary figure… well, it’s a cute bit of film making.

Ken Mattingly (Gary Sinise) watches the launch.

It is also worth noting that Mattingly seems to be too close for safety to the launch. The Saturn V was a ridiculously powerful rocket and the zone around the launch site was strictly enclosed during launches. However, it is impossible whether to say this is an actual verifiable “mistake” as we do not know how close Mattingly actually is.

3. The Final Goodbyes

The night before the launch, the astronauts say farewell to their families from opposite sides of a road. In actuality, this infection-precaution was not introduced until the post-Apollo era of NASA.

The "farewell" scene from the movie.

4. LEM Extraction

Around 40 minutes into the movie, the time comes for the lunar module extraction – whereby the Command Module Pilot, Jack Swigert, is required to “pick up” the lunar module by docking the two vehicles together.

The scene is a fraught one, with pressure applied seemingly from all corners on Swigert – the man who has only been on the prime crew for two days. Deke Slayton, in Mission Control, says: “come on rookie, park that thing”, while Haise and Lovell watch nervously as Swigert attempts the docking. Someone at Mission Control (it’s hard to identify who due the camera angle) supposedly says: “if Swigert can’t dock this thing, we don’t have a mission.”

Haise and Lovell watch on anxiously during the LM extraction and docking.

In reality, if Swigert couldn’t successfully make the dock, Lovell or Haise also could have done it. LEM extraction was always a tense moment (one needs a lunar module to land on the lunar surface, you see) but it was always a tense moment; the movie makes out that the concern is over Swigert, not the procedure.

This was added to create a little dramatic tension, and works extremely well.

5. Chit Chat Alongside The ‘Crawler’

The ‘crawler’, the vehicle used to move the assembled Saturn V rocket and accompanying spacecraft, was a huge piece of machinery that generated an awful lot of noise. Really not the best thing to be having a conversation next to, don’t you think?

Lovell gets the bad news, alongside the crawler.

Yet in the movie, Jim Lovell does just that. In fact, it’s a crucial moment of the movie, as Deke Slayton gives the news that Charlie Duke has the measles – and Ken Mattingly is also infected.

Of course, that’s exactly why the movie has Lovell have the conversation next to this ear-bleedingly loud piece of machinery. It’s nice imagery; the rocket on the way to the launch pad, only uh-oh! One of the astronauts can’t go with it. This is the brilliance of Ron Howard.

It is also a mistake within a mistake. Ken Mattingly was removed from the crew two days prior to launch, so we can assume Lovell is meant to be having this unpleasant conversation with Slayton at most three days prior to launch. In reality, the Saturn V would be moved to the launch pad long before then. I cannot find an exact example for Apollo 13, but for Apollo 11, the “roll out” to the pad took place in May – and the mission launched in July.

6. Course Correcting Burn

In the movie (and in reality), the lunar module Aquarius performs a course correction burn towards the end of the mission, the second it has been required to do. The length of the burn, in the movie, is 39 seconds.

Aquarius during the burn.

During the actual mission, the burn was only 14 seconds. The time was extended for dramatic effect.

7. What CMP?

In the opening section of the film, Fred Haise and Ken Mattingly talk about their fortune at being on a crew with Jim Lovell as they watch the Apollo 11 landing at Jim’s house*. Later on, Pete Conrad raises a toast to the back up crew of Apollo 11, which Mattingly accepts.

This is a somewhat erroneous mistake, as technically Ken Mattingly was only on the support crew of Apollo 11 – the original CMP was Bill Anders. Anders, however, was due to leave NASA in August 1969. That meant if Apollo 11 was somehow delayed from its July launch window, Mattingly would be elevated from support crew to back up crew – and he duly trained for that role. However, as Apollo 11 was not delayed, Anders was the official back up Command Module Pilot for the mission.

It’s a confusing mess, and one can see why Howard chose to omit the whole “Apollo 11 technically had two back up CMPs” truth for what was a small section of the film.

* I have always had a thing about Conrad being at the Apollo 11 party at all. During the Apollo 11 landing descent, Conrad was at Mission Control – he is noted as having helped with an antenna problem. The first EVA, which is the focal point of the Lovell’s party, was only a few hours after this moment. Technically, Conrad could have travelled to the party, but it’s always bugged me. Unfortunately, finding out exactly who was hanging with the Lovell’s in July 1969 is a bit of a tricky one – though Conrad and Lovell were very good friends.

8. Tranquility Base? Not quite…

During a poignant section of the film, the three astronauts gaze down at the lunar surface wistfully as they pass by the “dark” side. As they do so, Fred Haise says he can see the Sea of Tranquility, which he refers to as “Neil and Buzz’s old stomping grounds”.

Not so much. Firstly, this section takes place while Apollo 13 is on the far side of the moon: Tranquility Base, or Mare Tranquilititas, is on the near side of the moon – and would therefore not have been visible.

The camera also “shows” what the astronauts are seeing. Rather than a shot of the Sea of Tranquility, viewers are shown a section of the moon known as Hadley Rille (this too is on the near side). This is easily identifiable, as it was the landing site for Apollo 15. So, perhaps “there’s Dave and Jim’s future stomping grounds” might have been more apposite.

The shot from the film of the "Sea of Tranquility".

For comparison:

Hadley Rille as photographed by Apollo 15.

It’s easy to see why the former reference to the Sea of Tranquility was done, under artistic licence – it added to the poignancy of the moment, viewing a part of the moon where men had walked. The shot of Hadley Rille is a little harder to put down to “filmic effect”, though!

9. Crew Arguments

Around the 1h20m mark of the film, the astronauts begin to argue. This mainly involves Fred Haise shouting at Jack Swigert while Jim Lovell referees.

Firstly, the crew of Apollo 13 insist they did not argue during their time in space. Jim Lovell points out, at length, that there was no point. However, it was added for dramatic tension.

The crew arguing.

Secondly, during Haise’s semi-attack on Swigert, he asks if Swigert checked the levels of the oxygen tanks before he stirred them. The cryo stir was what triggered the explosion, so the implication is that Swigert was somehow remiss.

However, the exact reason for the cryo oxygen tank stir was because of slightly bizarre data being read from the oxygen tanks. The EECOM controller was seeing slightly odd readings, and suggested the stir to try and fix what he assumed was a small glitch. So there is no reason why Haise, who would doubtless have been aware of this issue, would assume checking the oxygen tanks would have made any difference whatsoever – as the tanks giving slightly odd readings was the entire reason for the stir that triggered the explosion.

Lastly, even if Swigert had checked the levels on the tank, it would not have stopped the explosion that crippled the Odyssey.

Oh, And…

I realise that in one breath (or post, if you will) saying that Apollo 13 is a spectacular film, and then in a second breath / post choosing to highlight its inaccuracies is a somewhat bizarre decision. I also see how, given the name of this blog, it may appear I am attempt to “debunk” the film. So I’ll begin with a little disclaimer: I believe Apollo 13 is the greatest film ever made, and it sparked my Apollo interest when I was 13 years old. I feel I owe it a lot. This post is more about meeting fact with fiction, and is also a celebration of the movie, which by and large, got it spot on.

For example, here’s a couple of nice things that really did happen that found their way into the movie:

Cabin Valve High Jinks

Before the explosion, Fred Haise is shown scaring his crew mates by fiddling with the cabin repress valve – which produced a satisfying thud without actually causing any damage. Haise actually did this, as shown here on the transcript:

Playful LMP.

Farewell Aquarius

One of the most touching moments of the movie is when the lunar module “lifeboat” Aquarius is jettisoned. Even though re-entry is imminent, everyone in the film takes a moment to thank Aquarius for saving the astronaut’s lives. Well, they did in reality too:

See you, lunar lifeboat.

Those familiar with the film will know this is actually directly quoted.

** NOTE ** This blog is due for a database and plugin upgrade, so at some point over the next 48 hours there may be intermittent periods of down time while I go through the boring technical stuff. Apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.

“apollo 10 command module”

The CM for Apollo 10 was named Charlie Brown by the crew, to go with the LM Snoopy. Following these overly lighthearted names, NASA decided more appropriate names should be used in future – leading to the raft of grand sounding, but rather lacking in personality, spacecraft names of subsequent missions.

“are any of the men from Apollo 8 still alive”

Yes, all of them.

Commander: Frank Borman, now 81.

Command Module Pilot: Jim Lovell, now 81.

Lunar Module Pilot: Bill Anders, now 76.

The Apollo 8 crew celebrate the 40th anniversary of their mission in 2008.

“apollo space suit spec”

For everything you could ever possibly need to know, visit ApolloSpacesuits.com – a wonderful blog written by a “frustrated wannabe astronaut” as he attempts to reproduce the spacesuits (and succeeds!)

“how bad were the apollo 1 astronauts burned”

Well, how very macabre.

• Gus Grissom suffered third degree burns on a third of his body.
• Ed White suffered third degree burns to a quarter of his body.
• Roger Chaffee suffered third degree burns to a quarter of his body.

The fire had melted most of Grissom and White’s spacesuits and had caused substantial damage to Chaffee’s. The cause of death, however, was asphixiation.

The remnants of the Apollo 1 Command Module following the fire.

“bart sibrel comment on lro photos”

As yet, I am not aware of any comment from Bart Sibrel on the LRO photographs – and nor do I hold my breath for another round of his nonsense. When he does decide to speak out, I’ll write everything up here.

“wally schirra astronaut”

Wally Schirra was one of the Original 7, who also flew on Apollo 7 as Commander. I don’t usually select actual astronaut names from the search terms to use for these posts, as they are simply too vague to account for, but in this case it is worth mentioning Wally’s own website: wallyschirra.com, which covers everything one could need to know on Schirra’s astronaut career and life.

(I am working on finding space on the main page for a links section; part of the aforementioned database and tech upgrade will include looking at this.)

“why did the apollo 1 fire spread so quickly”

The atmosphere was pressurised for space flight, using 100% oxygen. In these conditions, the metal inside the Command Module can burn like kindling. Velcro was also used excessively in the spacecraft (intended as a method of securing objects when weightless), and Velcro is a particularly flammable substance. Add these two issues together, and you’ve got one of the most explosive environments for a fire imaginable.

“lro ocean of storms”

The Ocean of Storms, the landing site for Apollo 12, was photographed slightly later than the original LRO photographs due to the location of the site. Here is one of the shots of Pete’s Parking Lot, 2009:

LRo photograph of the Apollo 12 landing site, the Ocean of Storms.

“why do people believe the moon hoax”

Isn’t that the key question? Something to which I can only guess, but from time spent reading forums and the like discussing the lunar landing hoax, the following reasons seem to circulate:

• People believe the theories, such as the flag waving and the C rock, promoted by of Bart Sibrel, Jack White et al.
• There is a natural distrust of the US Government and all associated with it, therefore NASA are grounds for suspicion.
• Misplaced scientific belief.
• Lack of continuation in the space programme, in terms of landings on other planets, following Apollo 17.

I am a huge fan of Apollo 13, as it is the film that sparked my Apollo obsession – leaving me with an unquenchable desire to know more. Yet I acknowledge it is not perfect, so what follows are an Apollo fans’ eye view musings on the casting and characterisation of the film. All opinions are that and nothing more, and are entirely subjective.

Tom Hanks and the real Jim Lovell.

Character: Jim Lovell, Commander.
Played by: Tom Hanks

I am a huge fan of Hanks even outside of his space-related ventures, an admiration that began with this very movie.

From what I know of Lovell, through reading many books and watching many documentaries, Hanks’ portrayal is close to the mark. Lovell was one of the more amiable astronauts in terms of personality, and was extremely good at the PR side of astronaut life. Hanks managed to capture this without making Lovell appear as a gentle and witty buffoon, which would have been an easy mistake to make. Instead, Lovell comes across as a man with a good heart as well as professional capability.

Looks wise, Lovell and Hanks have little in common – everything from their hair to their body types differs, but I consider this largely unimportant. This was Hanks’ pet project, and he naturally wanted to play the Commander.

The only slight error, if you can call it that, is during a section in the film where Lovell yells at his two crewmates to calm down. All of the Apollo 13 crew kept very cool heads during their mission, despite the danger, and it is difficult to imagine Lovell snapping like this. However, the words used – something to the effect of “we can go bouncing off the walls for 10 minutes and end up in exactly the same place” – are extremely similar to those I have heard Lovell himself say when asked about crew morale during the mission. The only difference is the context; Lovell says it to explain the lack of tension between the crew, whereas the movie uses it as something Lovell actively said and yelled during the mission. I consider this a deliberate mistake for film effect, and therefore easily forgive it.

Gary Sinise and the real Ken Mattingly.

Character: Ken Mattingly, one-time CMP of the mission.
Played By: Gary Sinise

In terms of looks, there are definitive similarities between Sinise and Mattingly himself – both are dark haired (though Sinise does have more of it!), and are of a similar height and build.

For me, Sinise gives the outstanding performance of the movie – yet, bizarrely, it is the one I struggle the most with in terms of squaring it to the actual man himself. Everything I ever read or see about Mattingly talks of his quiet efficacy and dedication to his job. While stung by the decision to remove him from the crew, I have yet to see anything that portrays such bitterness as the film character does – however, that isn’t to say it does not exist, only that the real Mattingly is as good an actor as his on-screen counterpart.

Mattingly’s role in the film is elevated, again for dramatic effect. While he did play a huge part in the effort to bring the astronauts home, he was not the sole participant working in simulators – something I am sure the film makers were aware of, but it made more sense, a bitter sense of irony laced with sweetness, to elevate Mattingly to the role of sole savior. It is a palatable change, however, and one that does not excessively bother me. Mattingly was a dedicated and capable astronaut, and he was involved in the attempts to bring Apollo 13 home – the rest is trivial, surely?

Sinise’s portrayal makes the audience instantly sympathise with the rejected Mattingly. In the voiceover at the end, Tom Hanks – speaking as Lovell – mentions that Mattingly went on to be Command Module Pilot of Apollo 16 and flew the space shuttle. A nicely done end wrapping up the character storyline – how beautiful that it also happens to be true!

Bill Paxton and the real Fred Haise.

Character: Fred Haise, LMP
Played By: Bill Paxton

With Paxton’s portrayal, Haise comes across as the heart of the mission – the most lighthearted of the three astronauts, but also the most emotionally available. It is Haise (in film) alone who comes close to outright accusing Jack Swigert of causing the explosion.

Whether or not this is true…  almost no one can know. No one besides the two surviving men of Apollo 13 knows if they argued during the flight, though both Lovell and Haise state outright they did not. From the mission transcripts, it is easy to believe them.

In the film, Haise is used as a device, asking the questions the audience are naturally wondering; after all, if Swigert was the last to touch the controls, surely he caused the problem? It is easy to sympathise with the character, and from what I know of the man, nothing strays too far from the truth.

My only issue is that Haise expertise with the lunar module is overlooked somewhat. If an explosion was going to happen, and one needed to wring every last drop out of the lunar module, then Haise is the guy you would have wanted on board with you. The only mention in the film of Haise working the LM is when he miscalculates the oxygen supply for two men rather than three. While he did genuinely do this, he also worked around the clock to keep the LM healthy. I would have preferred a nod to his ability and contribution to saving the mission as well as the mention of this error.

The relationship between Haise and Lovell, in the film, is endearing – one almost feels awkward for Swigert, as he is clearly the outsider at some points. Whether this was actually the case is another that only a few men can answer, but it is nevertheless an enjoyable side plot which adds tension.

I also felt Paxton coped with Haise’s illness, a urinary tract infection, in the final days of the flight, very well.

Kevin Bacon and the real Jack Swigert.

Character: Jack Swigert, replacement CMP
Played by: Kevin Bacon

“A difficult role, acted brilliantly” is probably the best way to describe Bacon’s version of Swigert.

Unlike Paxton, Sinise and Hanks, Kevin Bacon did not have the luxury of being able to meet the man he was going to be attempting to portray (Swigert died of cancer in 1981). It is difficult for an outsider to garner much of an impression of Swigert’s character, but Bacon no doubt learnt from those who had known Swigert and there are no glaring errors in the overall perception. Swigert’s popularity with women, an absolute truth, is nodded to at several points in the film – a nice touch.

As it is Swigert who stirs the oxygen tanks which subsequently leads to the explosion, Bacon had the uneviable task of having to convince the audience he had not caused the problem without going overboard. He succeeds in this absolutely. The odd relationship that develops between Mattingly and Swigert in the film is mirrored somewhat in real life – with Swigert expressing that he wishes Mattingly were there – and is a human touch that the film benefits from.

Physically, Swigert and Bacon are the best match of the astronaut actors.

The Swigert that appears on film is somewhat nervous but remains competent – and most of the nerves were added for dramatic effect. Overall, an extremely good job.

Ed Harris and the real Gene Kranz.

Character: Gene Kranz, Flight Director
Played by: Ed Harris

There can be absolutely no critique or criticism here; everything is absolutely, 100% on the money.

For a start, Harris looks like Kranz – even going to the extent of cutting his hair into Kranz’s recognisable crew cut for the role. They are both well built, blonde and pale, and when looking for pictures for the above images it was easy to mistake one for the other at first glance.

Kranz himself has written a beautiful book, Failure Is Not An Option, based on his time in Mission Control. Many of the incidents, moments and personal reflections of Kranz as a character are taken straight from the words of Kranz the human being. Everything from Kranz’s steely determination that the service module engine should not be used following the explosion, right through to his tearful moments when Apollo 13 landed in the ocean – all are documented by Kranz in his autobiography, and portrayed effortlessly brilliantly by Harris.

It is difficult to enthuse any more. The acting, the characterisation is all so good, it’s impossible to say much beyond “this was a performance and a character worthy of the recognition achieved. Sublime.”

Other characters:

Marilyn Lovell (Kathleen Quinlan) – Scripted from many of Marilyn’s own reflections on the mission, a wonderful character played by a superb actress.

John Aaron (Loren Dean) – The engineering genius who saved the day on two different Apollo missions receives due care and attention. I particularly like how Kranz readily turns to Aaron for advice and accepts it without question. The character also has lines that are virtually identical to things I have seen the real John Aaron say in documentaries.