≡ Menu

Ken Mattingly Explains How the Apollo 13 Movie Differed From Real Life

The original Apollo 13 crew, from left to right: Jim Lovell, Thomas "Ken" Mattingly, Fred Haise. Credit: NASA

The original Apollo 13 crew, from left to right: Jim Lovell, Thomas “Ken” Mattingly, Fred Haise. Credit: NASA

Many astronauts seem to like the Apollo 13 movie, but being technically minded folk they also enjoy pointing out what actually happened during that so-called “successful failure” that landed safely on this day in 1970.

Thomas “Ken” Mattingly was supposed to be on that crew, but was yanked at the last minute because he was exposed to the German measles. The movie shows him wallowing on the couch with a can of beer before hearing of an oxygen tank explosion on board. He then spends most of the movie stuck in a simulator, helping to save the three men on board the spacecraft.

Real life wasn’t quite the same as the movie portrayed, the real Mattingly said in a 2001 interview with NASA.

For one thing, Mattingly had no assigned role in the rescue as he was a backup crew member. He ended up working in a lot of teams rather than a single project or two. There also were some technical differences between the movie and real life. Some examples:

The “lifeboat” procedures: In the movie, mission controllers huddle in a side room and try to figure out how to stretch the resources of the lunar module — designed to carry only two men for a couple of days — into a four-day lifeboat to support three men. While this is somewhat true, NASA already had a preliminary lifeboat procedure simulated, Mattingly pointed out. The movie made it appear as though, he said, “we invented a lot of stuff”.

Somewhere in an earlier sim [simulation], there had been an occasion to do what they call LM lifeboat, which meant you had to get the crew out of the command module and into the lunar module, and they stayed there. I vaguely remember—when you have a really exciting sim, why, generally everybody knows about it. I vaguely remember that they had come up with a thing that contaminated the atmosphere in the command module, and they had to vent it, and they put the crew into the—there’s some reason that instead of staying in their suits in the command module, they put them in the lunar module while they did this.

Apollo 13's original crew of Jim Lovell, Ken Mattingly and Fred Haise with an unidentified person. Credit: NASA

Apollo 13’s original crew of Jim Lovell, Ken Mattingly and Fred Haise with an unidentified person. Credit: NASA

The carbon dioxide filter: In the movie, as the crew faces a deadly buildup of carbon dioxide, a team in mission control builds a new system on the spot that adapts an originally incompatible filter. “Well, the real world is better than that,” Mattingly explained, saying there was a simulation for the Apollo 8 mission where a cabin fan was jammed due to a loose screw.

The solution that they came up with was that they could make a way to use the vacuum cleaner in the command module with some plastic bags cut up and taped to the lithium hydroxide cartridges and blow through it with a vacuum cleaner. So, having discovered it, they said, “Okay, it’s time for beer.” Well, on 13, someone says, “You remember what we did on that sim? Who did that?” So in nothing short, Joe [Joseph P.] Kerwin showed up, and we talked about “How did you build that bag and what did you do?” … Of course it worked like a gem.

Simulating the startup: In the movie, Mattingly spends hours in a simulator putting together the procedures for starting up the cold, dead command module in time to bring the astronauts safely back to Earth. While that is a good way of conveying the mission’s aim to the public, the simulation runs (done by other astronauts, Mattingly said) were more of a verification of already written procedures.

We said, “Let’s get somebody cold to go run the procedures.” So I think it was [Thomas P.] Stafford, [Joe H.] Engle — I don’t know who was the third person, might have been [Stuart A.] Roosa. But anyhow, they went to the simulator there at JSC [Johnson Space Center], and we handed them these big written procedures and said, “Here. We’re going to call these out to you, and we want you to go through, just like Jack will. We’ll read it up to you. See if there are nomenclatures that we have made confusing or whatever. Just wring it out. See if there’s anything in the process that doesn’t work.”

For more on what Mattingly thinks of the Apollo 13 movie, check out the entire transcript of his interview on NASA’s website. We’re sure there are other technical details the movie simplified or got wrong, so feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

About 

Elizabeth Howell is the senior writer at Universe Today. She also works for Space.com, Space Exploration Network, the NASA Lunar Science Institute, NASA Astrobiology Magazine and LiveScience, among others. Career highlights include watching three shuttle launches, and going on a two-week simulated Mars expedition in rural Utah. You can follow her on Twitter @howellspace or contact her at her website.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • "Me" April 17, 2013, 5:07 PM

    Hollywood is Hollywood. This is why I am a complete 100% a pure documentary man. Of course you must have the correct producer etc… . & PBS is one such production I admire fully for their truthfulness.
    Hollywood is in the “drama dream world” 95% of the time. Rocky 1 & 2 were 2 of my favorites.. Rocky 3, 4, & etc’s… were awful. Hollywood was in the ‘punch drunk comatose world’ w/those others. Bless PBS!

    • Jerry Alez Jerry Alez April 18, 2013, 12:45 AM

      Well then your missing out on a really good movie despite the subtle differences in the actual mission.

      • "Me" April 18, 2013, 5:44 PM

        Jerry-Jerry..if you mean Apollo-13. I was making the point how Hollywood over extends/steps its boundaries w/exaggerations.., that is all. Rocky is not even a good match to be in the same cutting room floor as Apollo-13. …take care.

  • Zoutsteen from Holland April 17, 2013, 5:32 PM

    Great to see the transcript of his interview went much farther than just the Apollo 13.
    And missing my proper timing for my Bridge evening, so rush rush :-(

    • "Me" April 17, 2013, 6:16 PM

      Bridge? Really? Never played it before.

      • Zoutsteen from Holland April 17, 2013, 9:18 PM

        Don’t ever start with it then. its addictive. Good thing it takes about 40 hours to grasp the basics and than more for the finesses of the game. And yet more when you figure out that SAYC is just one of many possible systems, with each their variations, of which I play the ACOL variant slightly resembling Biedermeyer rood with a couple of variations added (and removed).
        That’s one of the reason you’ll most often see seniors play it. Before that age, its not called bridge yet.

        • "Me" April 18, 2013, 3:22 AM

          Thanks for the warning Zou. Your fine assessment gives me fair warning. I enjoy poker, pitch(hi-low-jack-game)& others. When I was in my youth, I’d see older couples going to one another’s home taking turns each week.& overhearing them say things about a bridge club. They were over 65 & mainly retired. Again, thanks for the fair warning ;-)…take can Zou.

          • Zoutsteen from Holland April 18, 2013, 11:24 AM

            :-)

          • Andrew Thomas April 18, 2013, 11:46 AM

            Since we’re way off topic here I’m just going to take the chance to put in a word for backgammon :o)

          • "Me" April 18, 2013, 3:59 PM

            lol…yes…way way off subject. Backgammon is another game I seen played but never took the time to learn. Poker is in my bone-marrow. Pin ball Andy?…;-).

  • Kevin Frushour April 17, 2013, 7:22 PM

    If you get the chance, watch the DVD – Jim and Marylin Lovell do one of the commentaries. Jim points out a lot of the inaccuracies but acknowledges the parts that simply made for a good film.

hide