• About Air & Space
  • Email Updates
  • Member Services
  • Shop
  • Archive
airspacemag.com
  • Smithsonian Institution
  • Smithsonian Channel
  • goSmithsonian
  • Smithsonian magazine
  • Home
  • History of Flight
  • Flight Today
  • Military Aviation
  • Space Exploration
  • Photos & Videos
  • Subscribe
A group of astronauts and flight controllers monitor the action in Mission Control during the Apollo 13 mission. A group of astronauts and flight controllers monitor the action in Mission Control during the Apollo 13 mission.
(NASA)
  • Need to Know

Did Ron Howard exaggerate the reentry scene in the movie Apollo 13?

A little bit, maybe, but not much.

  • By Joe Pappalardo
  • Air & Space Magazine, May 01, 2007

Article Tools

 
  • Font
  • Share/Save/Bookmark Share
     
  • Email
  •  
  • Print
  • Digg Digg
     
  • Comments
  • StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
     
  • RSS
  • Reddit Reddit
     

    Most Popular

    • Viewed
    • Emailed
    1. Welcome to Cyberairspace
    2. Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?
    3. Unconventional Weapon
    4. Air America's Black Helicopter
    5. The First Photo From Space
    6. Live and Let Fly
    7. Tuning In
    8. Red and The Robots
    9. Top NASA Photos of All Time
    10. How Things Work: Ground Resonance
    1. Ravens of Long Tieng
    2. Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?
    3. Welcome to Cyberairspace
    4. How Things Work: Ground Resonance
    5. Oldies & Oddities: The Alraigo Incident
    6. Rough Ride Home
    7. Why do airline seats have to be in an upright position during takeoff?
    8. Above & Beyond: I Have a Flameout
    9. What the Red Baron Never Knew

    History is sometimes a tricky thing. And when you mix history with Hollywood, the truth can become a casualty—even in cases where movies take pains to be accurate.

    The 1995 film Apollo 13 has been praised for its accuracy, but many people still wonder if director Ron Howard played up the tension among the astronauts and inside mission control to heighten the movie’s emotional impact. Bill Parkinson, an attorney working for the U.S. Department of Justice in Dallas, is one of the wonderers. “Apollo 13 portrayed the capsule’s reentry as protracted beyond all expectations,” he writes. “As a teenage junkie for all things aeronautical, I followed that flight and seem to recall that the flight’s descent path was shallower than ideal, and that the blackout period was indeed much longer than it should have been. [But] I’m certain the movie embellished the scenario for dramatic effect. Can you help before I tear out what little is left of my hair when the movie is on?”

    We turned to someone who should be able to give us the straight scoop: Apollo 13 flight director Gene Kranz, now retired in Texas. (For those who don’t know, Kranz was the well-dressed character in the film played by Ed Harris.)

    After an onboard oxygen tank exploded en route to the moon on April 13, 1970, the Apollo 13 crew had to abort their mission and return to Earth. The final ordeal of the flight was a radio silence, or blackout, caused by ionized air surrounding the command module during its superheated reentry through the atmosphere. With no radio signal, there was “no way to tell” how the crew and ship were faring, Kranz says. “There was no telemetry from Odyssey until the end of blackout,” he recalls. “Take a look at the picture of the flight directors during blackout....There was some distress, but nothing we could do about it.” To make matters worse, the blackout went on longer than usual because the reentry path for Apollo 13 was longer and shallower than normal. “Per my mission log it started at 142:39 and ended at 142:45— a total of six minutes,” Kranz relates. “Blackout was 1:27 longer than predicted…. Toughest minute and a half we ever had.”

    Henry Cooper’s 1973 book Thirteen: The Flight That Failed describes the tension: “After three minutes of blackout, Kranz put through a call to [lead retro-fire officer Chuck] Deiterich to find out how much longer they had to wait. Deiterich said it should be over in another thirty seconds. At the end of thirty seconds, there was still no word from the astronauts, and Deiterich began to get concerned. Thirty seconds later, the astronauts still hadn’t reported in, and Deiterich was alarmed.”

    Even when they finally heard astronaut Jack Swigert’s voice over the radio, confirming that the crew had survived, the controllers didn’t say a word, just kept silent until the capsule splashed down in the Pacific nine minutes later, according to Cooper’s account. (In the movie, as soon as the astronauts are proven to be alive, the cheering starts.) At 12:07 p.m. Houston time on April 17, Odyssey hit water and the flight controllers finally cheered.

    At least one contemporary account did downplay the drama of that day. BBC reporter Reginald Turnill wrote that after Swigert, Jim Lovell, and Fred Haise moved into the command module in preparation for their return, “it was a familiar reentry procedure.” Kranz scoffs at this. “We had a 500-plus item checklist that had been written only hours before,” he says. “Power and water were critical, we did an emergency trajectory correction maneuver, and a battery was predicted to fail about the time the chutes came out. Nothing about the reentry was routine in mission control.”

    It seems, then, that the movie got the reentry scene mostly right. But that’s not to say Howard has a perfect record. On the tenth anniversary DVD of Apollo 13, Lovell and his wife Marilyn detail several inaccuracies, including the inflated role of astronaut Ken Mattingly (whose work is an amalgamation of efforts undertaken by several astronauts and engineers), exaggerated doubts about Swigert’s role in the mission, and the fact that the engine burn that corrected their course was not, as the movie showed, aimed in the direction of Earth.

    1 2

    History is sometimes a tricky thing. And when you mix history with Hollywood, the truth can become a casualty—even in cases where movies take pains to be accurate.

    The 1995 film Apollo 13 has been praised for its accuracy, but many people still wonder if director Ron Howard played up the tension among the astronauts and inside mission control to heighten the movie’s emotional impact. Bill Parkinson, an attorney working for the U.S. Department of Justice in Dallas, is one of the wonderers. “Apollo 13 portrayed the capsule’s reentry as protracted beyond all expectations,” he writes. “As a teenage junkie for all things aeronautical, I followed that flight and seem to recall that the flight’s descent path was shallower than ideal, and that the blackout period was indeed much longer than it should have been. [But] I’m certain the movie embellished the scenario for dramatic effect. Can you help before I tear out what little is left of my hair when the movie is on?”

    We turned to someone who should be able to give us the straight scoop: Apollo 13 flight director Gene Kranz, now retired in Texas. (For those who don’t know, Kranz was the well-dressed character in the film played by Ed Harris.)

    After an onboard oxygen tank exploded en route to the moon on April 13, 1970, the Apollo 13 crew had to abort their mission and return to Earth. The final ordeal of the flight was a radio silence, or blackout, caused by ionized air surrounding the command module during its superheated reentry through the atmosphere. With no radio signal, there was “no way to tell” how the crew and ship were faring, Kranz says. “There was no telemetry from Odyssey until the end of blackout,” he recalls. “Take a look at the picture of the flight directors during blackout....There was some distress, but nothing we could do about it.” To make matters worse, the blackout went on longer than usual because the reentry path for Apollo 13 was longer and shallower than normal. “Per my mission log it started at 142:39 and ended at 142:45— a total of six minutes,” Kranz relates. “Blackout was 1:27 longer than predicted…. Toughest minute and a half we ever had.”

    Henry Cooper’s 1973 book Thirteen: The Flight That Failed describes the tension: “After three minutes of blackout, Kranz put through a call to [lead retro-fire officer Chuck] Deiterich to find out how much longer they had to wait. Deiterich said it should be over in another thirty seconds. At the end of thirty seconds, there was still no word from the astronauts, and Deiterich began to get concerned. Thirty seconds later, the astronauts still hadn’t reported in, and Deiterich was alarmed.”

    Even when they finally heard astronaut Jack Swigert’s voice over the radio, confirming that the crew had survived, the controllers didn’t say a word, just kept silent until the capsule splashed down in the Pacific nine minutes later, according to Cooper’s account. (In the movie, as soon as the astronauts are proven to be alive, the cheering starts.) At 12:07 p.m. Houston time on April 17, Odyssey hit water and the flight controllers finally cheered.

    At least one contemporary account did downplay the drama of that day. BBC reporter Reginald Turnill wrote that after Swigert, Jim Lovell, and Fred Haise moved into the command module in preparation for their return, “it was a familiar reentry procedure.” Kranz scoffs at this. “We had a 500-plus item checklist that had been written only hours before,” he says. “Power and water were critical, we did an emergency trajectory correction maneuver, and a battery was predicted to fail about the time the chutes came out. Nothing about the reentry was routine in mission control.”

    It seems, then, that the movie got the reentry scene mostly right. But that’s not to say Howard has a perfect record. On the tenth anniversary DVD of Apollo 13, Lovell and his wife Marilyn detail several inaccuracies, including the inflated role of astronaut Ken Mattingly (whose work is an amalgamation of efforts undertaken by several astronauts and engineers), exaggerated doubts about Swigert’s role in the mission, and the fact that the engine burn that corrected their course was not, as the movie showed, aimed in the direction of Earth.

    Oh well. It should count for something that people take the movie’s accuracy so seriously. No one has these debates about Willow.

    Got a nagging question we can help you answer? Send an email to Joe Pappalardo at needtoknow@airspacemag.com

    Archived Questions

    How does the International Space Station dodge space junk?

    How did the Apollo astronauts toss their spacesuits overboard?

    Are there any photos of Japan’s World War II "invasion fleet?"

    How much is my Lindbergh photo worth?

    Why was the Voyager aircraft not symmetrical?

    How small can satellites get and still be functional?


     
    Comments

    There might be a few inaccuracies but it was (and still is) a bloody good movie.

    Posted by Ron Gibson on July 21,2008 | 10:02PM

    This is one of the most breathless true life films imaginable.It remains a story which really did, and still does, capture the spirit of adventure and innovation.

    Posted by Peter Lyons on July 26,2008 | 07:22AM

    I too followed that flight, and still am an incurable aviation enthusiast. The fact that I'm an aviator today is a direct result of watching the Apollo missions on our first t.v. In my humble opinion, I think Mr. Howard and his crew did a splendid job of portraying the tenacity and dedication of all those who turned a potential national tragedy, and maybe the end of the Apollo missions, into a heroic celebration of success! To this day when someone tells me "It can't be done" or "It's too hard" I say "Remember Apollo 13!" and if they don't know what I'm talking about I tell them to go rent the movie....It's close enough.

    Posted by Andy Bisceglia on September 12,2008 | 07:24AM

    When all is said and done, at the end of the day if a film can teach a new generatation about one of the most important times is hitory and the people who lived within that time and momment , it doesn't matter about the small details right or wrong, but the bigger picture and what where history has taken us and what it can teach us. ''Apollo 13'' will stand in years to come as a great film and a great survival story

    Posted by Andrew Thorne on October 18,2008 | 08:04AM

    While in high school I followed every Apollo flight from start to finish, at least as much as was shown on our old 23" black and white tv and written in the newspaper. I'm familiar with the technical inaccuracies in the movie, but I look past those to see the dramatic entertainment value to the general public. Drama and danger is what captured the imagination and excitement of our younger generation and made the move a success. They now know more about the Apollo program than they ever did before. It was not advertised as an accurate documentary of the actual moon shot, we'll leave that to the experts like Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel (Yawn, of course I'm kidding). I am very capable of watching this movie with my family and being very, very entertained. Well done, Ron Howard!

    Posted by Bob Barton on December 8,2008 | 11:25AM

    Post a Comment


    Name: (required)

    Email: (required)

    Comment:



    Advertisement

    Air & Space Videos

    PTQ: Put Together Quickly

    Watch Boeing technicians repair an airliner—in two minutes.


    Keep ’em Flying

    How mailplanes were maintained in the 1920s


    Build a Mailplane in 37 Seconds

    Time-lapse view of a Boeing 40C restoration


    Test Flying the XF-90

    Archival film of this rare bird in flight


    Operation Tumbler-Snapper

    Atomic bombs versus airplanes in the Nevada desert

    Advertisement

    In the Magazine

    January 2009

    • Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?
    • Red & The Robots
    • Welcome to Cyberairspace
    • You’ve Got Mailplanes
    • How Things Work: Ground Resonance
    • A Cameraman on Mars
    • One More Second

    View Table of Contents

    New Worlds

    Confidence Booster

    This little known Apollo artifact caused astronauts to rest a little easier.

    Need to Know

    What determines an airplane’s lifespan?

    Some keep flying for decades, while others end up on the scrap heap.



    View full archiveRecent Issues


    • Jan 2009


    • Nov 2008


    • Sep 2008

    Newsletter

    Sign up for regular email updates from Air & Space magazine, including free newsletters, special offers and current news updates.

    Subscribe Now

    About Us

    Air & Space/Smithsonian magazine has been delighting aerospace enthusiasts with the best writing about their favorite subject since April 1986. As an adjunct of the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, Air & Space matches the grand scope of the Museum, encompassing every era of aviation and space exploration. With stories that range from the Wright Brothers to the design of NASA's next lunar lander, Air & Space emphasizes the human stories as well as the technology of aviation and spaceflight.

    Explore our Brands

    • goSmithsonian.com
    • Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
    • Smithsonian Institution
    • Smithsonian Catalogue
    • Smithsonian Journeys
    • Smithsonian Channel
    • Site Map
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright
    • About Air & Space
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising
    • Reader Panel
    • Subscribe
    • RSS

    Smithsonian Institution

    Produced by Clickability