Talk:Apollo 13 (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

The final manual burn of the LEM's engine, done to put Apollo 13 back in course, lasted 14 seconds, not 39, and was done with the engine pointed perpendicular to the Earth instead of towards the Earth as depicted in the film
So uh, what's the difference between towards and perpendicular in the this senario? 22:55, 25 October 2006

In the film, the burn was incorrectly shown as being towards the earth. In the actual mission, this burn was at right-angles to the earth to change their entry angle. However, it is a little confusing because there were three burns, with one pointed at the earth to pick up speed just after coming round the moon. (Ajkgordon 11:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC))

I was not aware that the 'worm' logo was seen in Apollo 13. Can someone tell me where? Father Rob Lyons 21:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes - in the "Whiter Room" where the astros are suiting up (with James Horner's magnificent music in the background), you can just see the worm logo if you look carefully on the window behind them. It looks like they tried to hide it, so my guess is that they borrowed a current NASA room for the scene.Johno 12:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what song is playing on the spaceship at the beginning of the broadcast on the way to the moon? They're playing it on the tape player. I can't find the name of it anywhere. March 20, 2006, 7:54 PM.

• You mean "Spirit in the Sky"? It's the title track from a Norman Greenbaum album. At the very least, it's on the Apollo 13 Soundtrack, as is "Honky Tonkin" and "Blue Moon", the other two taped songs.Dangerdan97 10:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• No, I don't think that's it, it's a rock song, all you really hear is the intro, but I've heard it before and it sounds good. It's on the broadcast that was never broadcasted, I'm guessing the song wouldn't be on the soundtrack. 18:50, 15 April 2006
  • "Spirit in the Sky" IS a rock song, if you're not aware. Check out the BG music on this site: http://www.spiritinthesky.com/, tell me if that's it.Dangerdan97 11:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you're right! I looked up that song on iTunes but they didn't have the Norman Greenbaum version, and none of the other ones really sounded like it. Well cool, thanks for the help. 21:12, 20 May 2006

Contents 1 The Launch 2 Beer Cans Didn't Exist? 3 LET motor 4 "Schoolday physics" and "slightly aerodynamic" 5 Accuracy 6 Gene Krantz 7 DVD Commentary 8 1974 TV movie 9 Mistake 10 Fair use rationale for Image:Apollo 13 1.jpg 11 Fair use rationale for Image:Apollo 13 2.jpg 12 Fair use rationale for Image:Apollo 13 2.jpg 13 Slide rule usage comments 14 La Grange(song) by Zz top played during "first show". 15 Technical accuracy section

[edit] The Launch

What's all the stuff that falls off the rocket when it launches?

It's a while since I've seen the movie, but it's probably ice... The Saturn V didn't use foam insulation like the space shuttle and if you watch the real Apollo footage you'll see a fair amount of ice fall off as it's shaken free by the launch. Mark Grant 01:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's paint, I think. My class watched it not too long agho and my teacher said it's paint falling off by the hea t or pressure or spmething Leosj 22:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It was ice. The fuels the rocket used are kept at very cold temperatures. Ice builds up before launch and falls away as it launches. Andy120290 04:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Any and Grant are completely right, it's ice. Inside the body of the Saturn V are the fuel tanks containing liquid hydrogen, oxygen, and propane at very low temperatures. The skin of the rocket is therefore cooler than the surronding atmosphere causing condensation (think glass of ice water in a steamy room). The temperature is so low that the condensation freezes. The vibrations during launch then shake off all the ice.

This same frozen condensation is what pulled off the chunk of foam that caused the Columbia disaster. --Matthew 18:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Cans Didn't Exist?

I removed the text " with beer cans which didn't exist in 1970." from the section "Technical Accuracy". Beer "Cans" have existed since 1935 and aluminuim pop-top beer cans as featured in the movie were invented in 1959 and first implemented by Coors in that same year ([1]). So it's entirely possible that Ken Mattingly was drinking from beer cans, which certainly did exist at the time. --Matthew 04:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LET motor

Technically speaking, pressing motor ignition was a measure to jettision LET in case motor didn't ignite automatically, but separation bolts fired (as per http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/csmlc/a16L4-2.gif). If you find it too technical/unprobable, please disregard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.29.211.59 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

If you read the article you'll notice that's already covered :). Mark Grant 01:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Schoolday physics" and "slightly aerodynamic"

The following text from the article raises some questions for me:

Schoolday physics makes clear that the returning craft, coasting towards the Earth, cannot drift off course by being too light. The capsule's mass was important however to the calculations regarding the path made during re-entry (the capsule was slightly aerodynamic), but irrelevant in terms of coasting spacecraft.

First off, what is "schoolday physics"? I can't find anything relevant about it on Google or wikipedia.

Second, the statement "the capsule was slightly aerodynamic" bothers me, the capsule was designed with airflow in mind, the shape of the capsule being dictated by the aerodynamic requirements of reentry. (See Atmospheric reentry)

Anyways, please give me some feedback on whether I'm way off base or legitimately confused. Thanks.--Matthew 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, that section seems very strangely worded, confused, and uncited. It definitely needs to either be removed or heavily rewritten. MLilburne 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like someone was trying to display their aptitude in the field of physics. I just watched the commentary of Apollo 13 where Jim Lovell stated that the fact that they weren't carrying moon rocks did affect their trajectory due to it being underweight. This was in addition to the leaking water vapor.

Schoolday physics sounds like an attempt by a non-native English speaker to transfer an expression from a different language into English (high school physics is likely the equivalent phrase). Anyway the remark is very muddled. Whilst it's nominally true that mass wouldn't affect trajectory through a gravitational field during an unaccelerated coast through a perfect vacuum, the heavier a spacecraft, the less it "skims" or "skips" along the atmosphere during re-entry. Gwen Gale 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the mass discrepancy had an effect on the course corrections, which is why they were shallowing up before re-entry. In other words, they calculated thrust, angle and duration of the corrections without taking into account of having "not landed on the moon". The shallowing was as a result of there having been too much correction for less mass. Or have I got that arse-about-face? --AJKGordon 10:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

Regarding the technical innacuracy "In reality, there was no one single source of the problem. The explosion wasn't caused by a bad coil, but by a sequence of events which led to bare wires and (flammable) insulation in a tank of oxygen" - While a series of oversights led to this problem being created and remaining undiscovered, in the context of the mission events, wouldn't this be considered a "single" initial problem? In that case, how is this a technical innaccuracy on the part of the movie? — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the ãbove remark may be OR... the movies shows a brief shot of some electrical part sparking and the comment may be a bash at saying, "there was more to it than that". Gwen Gale 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it feasible to add that the moon is shown in an incorrect phase and wrong position in the sky during the Apollo 11 timeframe (Lovell's thumb scene), or would that be too nitty picky? 91.33.223.228 05:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, it amazes me how people can pick out "Mystakes" in a film both very big, and also the very little. As to answer the above question, I think that pointing out the moon was not in its correct phase for the time of events... way to nitty picky. MattyC3350 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Krantz

Can anyone provide any backing to the assertion that Gene Krantz did a cameo in the movie? I've seen a photograph circling someone that looks nothing like him, but this doesn't get mentioned in the 10th anniversary commentary, and you'd think Jim Lovell might say something about it.Johno 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SwordBrother777 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DVD Commentary

The article makes several references to the "2005 DVD Commentary" by the Lovells. This commentary was also included with the original DVD. The only real additions of the 10th anniversary release are a remastered picture and the inclusion of the inferior Imax cut on the second disc.

[edit] 1974 TV movie

Is there an appropriate place in the article to note that a 1974 TV movie, "Houston, We've Got a Problem", exists? There is a Wikipedia article about it, so it can be linked. The 1974 movie was made of concocted personal crises among the ground crew, and used TV archival footage of the astronauts such as when they assembled the CO2 device. Jim Lovell wrote to TV Guide to comment that it was safer aboard the spaceship than at Mission Control, if the movie resembled reality at all. GBC 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

I noticed when the Apollo 13 crew is coming back through the atmosephere, the condensation droplets start falling because of the heat. In real life, the droplets wouldn't fall. They hadn't gone through the atomsphere yet, so the droplets would fly around, not fall! They were still in space, so there is no gravity yet.

Nick 18:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Eragon13. September 29, 2007

The condensation droplets fall not because of heat, but because of the slow buildup of gravity as the spacecraft decelerates on its cruise through the increasingly thickening atmosphere layers. That's the whole point of that scene too - they're feeling gravity again, they're "coming home", symbolized by the condensation that has been present throughout the days before now falling off the instruments. The heat effect is only of secondary importance, and isn't felt like that inside the craft during reentry anyway (they'd be in real trouble if it was...). 91.33.223.228 05:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As the craft rips through the atmosphere the air around it acts like a break. Slowing down the craft at an amazing rate. Thus the accoring G-forces would basicly pull everything from the top of the craft down MattyC3350 (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Apollo 13 1.jpg

Image:Apollo 13 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Apollo 13 2.jpg

Image:Apollo 13 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Apollo 13 2.jpg

Image:Apollo 13 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slide rule usage comments

The comments at the end of the article regarding the use of slide rules are incorrect. It's true that you can't easily add numbers with a slide rule. So you multiply, divide, perform trig functions, etc, on the slide rule, then transfer the results to paper for any additions or subtractions. Any paper with the results of calculations would only show the additions and subtractions - which is exactly what is shown in the movie. And in fact the calculations being performed at the time would have been the calculations of direction cosine matrices and coordinate conversions, which requires a combination of trig, multiplication and division, and addition and subtractions. So the comments about this calculation in the article are not correct. Brett Buck (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] La Grange(song) by Zz top played during "first show".

I think it should be added that during the "first show" the astronauts HAD IN THE 'FILM THE song La Grange by Zz Top is played in the background. I pretty sure its the one though.--Rio de oro (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the broadcast that had been canceled by all networks but the astronauts weren't aware of it, that song was "Spirit in the Sky" by Norman Greenbaum. La Grange was released in 1973, so its inclusion would have been a major error in the movie. I don't think it's notable enough for "Spirit in the Sky" to be mentioned in this article, but the fact that it's in this movie is already on that song's page.--Rehcsif (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was La Grange becuase of the opening CHORD sounded the same.--Rio de oro (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad, it sounds like La Grange in the begining if you compare the first 5 seconds of it.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The first couple seconds did sound like La Grange. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical accuracy section

I've started to trim this section, which has ballooned well beyond the point of providing useful information about the film. To start, I removed some items that were about dramatic license rather than technical accuracy, and information about continuity gaffes etc. (these do not provide any insight to the film itself unless it is somehow notable for them).

There is a general problem in that the section states that the film is notable for its technical accuracy (undoubtedly true in a large sense vs. other films, given the zero-g filming, verbatim transcripts, etc.) and then spends most of its time picking minor nits that seem to imply otherwise. Not sure how to gain some perspective here but my thought is that the details of each particular inaccuracy aren't relevant and could be covered with a general mention that many minor details (such as external markings on the craft and the duration and order of some events) were technically imperfect. Jgm (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the Technical Accuracy section is way to detailed and long. Fair enough some of the major changes from the film compared to the real life events can be left. But all the little/minor items that were either changed to make the film easier to follow, film and incorect information should be removed. MattyC3350 (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)