With no disparagement, I would call this a "Cliff Notes" or "Hallmark Movie" version of the corporate culture of mismanagement, corruption, and intimidation that led to the Challenger, and, in some sense also the Columbia disasters. As @Deleted opined, much of this is now a KNOWN known. What was new, at least for me, is the impetus BEHIND the pressure NASA felt to launch in the face of unfavorable circumstances, and their seeming reliance on the crossing of fingers in the face of some rather questionable design choices.
In Challengers case the reliance on a couple of inch thick RUBBER O-rings to stop the solid boosters flames from torching a hole in fuel tank holding 535,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen in freezing temperatures, and in Columbias case, the unknown ASSUMPTION that it would be impossible for the insulating foam on the Main Fuel Tank to shatter Reinforced Carbon Carbon panels, EVEN THOUGH, on a previous launch, a (smaller) piece of said foam had broken off and seriously DENTED one of the METAL solid rocket boosters. In BOTH cases, rather than calling for "all hands to man the pumps" in order to find and fix the problem(s), it was a culture of CYDA so as to not generate any bad press, rather than honoring the sacrifice of the 14 people who thought they would get to see their families again, but, never got the chance to.
NASA sold the government a pig in a poke with the promise that it was a prize winning sow. Cal Worthington and his dog spot would have been proud of the tall tail NASA had spun, of being able to launch month after month after month, regardless of weather, not just for "science", but to deploy some of Uncle Sam's finest top secret toys much more efficiently, (and with a built in cover story) than those obsolete old fashion rockets that put men on the moon and brought them back home. Sadder still is the lies by omission that had those crews thinking that "the odds were in their favor" which, while not COMPLETELY untrue, like the Ivory Soap metaphor mentioned in the film, were 99 and 44/100% in favor that things wouldn't go "BOOM".
Posthumous Kudos to William Hurt (RIP) as protagonist Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist with A Bomb creds, brought in BECAUSE he WAS outside the system, and could get to the bottom of the issue without political risk, and also Bruce Greenwood who more often than not is "that guy" from that thing you enjoyed but can't remember the title of. Honorable posthumous mention to Brian Dennehy, another actor that, from Rambo to Ratatouille, you were never quite sure if he was the good guy or the bad guy.
Worth the watch, especially if you are in to Space Exploration history.
Review by Paladin5150BlockedParent2024-04-17T10:32:52Z
With no disparagement, I would call this a "Cliff Notes" or "Hallmark Movie" version of the corporate culture of mismanagement, corruption, and intimidation that led to the Challenger, and, in some sense also the Columbia disasters. As @Deleted opined, much of this is now a KNOWN known. What was new, at least for me, is the impetus BEHIND the pressure NASA felt to launch in the face of unfavorable circumstances, and their seeming reliance on the crossing of fingers in the face of some rather questionable design choices.
In Challengers case the reliance on a couple of inch thick RUBBER O-rings to stop the solid boosters flames from torching a hole in fuel tank holding 535,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen in freezing temperatures, and in Columbias case, the unknown ASSUMPTION that it would be impossible for the insulating foam on the Main Fuel Tank to shatter Reinforced Carbon Carbon panels, EVEN THOUGH, on a previous launch, a (smaller) piece of said foam had broken off and seriously DENTED one of the METAL solid rocket boosters. In BOTH cases, rather than calling for "all hands to man the pumps" in order to find and fix the problem(s), it was a culture of CYDA so as to not generate any bad press, rather than honoring the sacrifice of the 14 people who thought they would get to see their families again, but, never got the chance to.
NASA sold the government a pig in a poke with the promise that it was a prize winning sow. Cal Worthington and his dog spot would have been proud of the tall tail NASA had spun, of being able to launch month after month after month, regardless of weather, not just for "science", but to deploy some of Uncle Sam's finest top secret toys much more efficiently, (and with a built in cover story) than those obsolete old fashion rockets that put men on the moon and brought them back home. Sadder still is the lies by omission that had those crews thinking that "the odds were in their favor" which, while not COMPLETELY untrue, like the Ivory Soap metaphor mentioned in the film, were 99 and 44/100% in favor that things wouldn't go "BOOM".
Posthumous Kudos to William Hurt (RIP) as protagonist Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist with A Bomb creds, brought in BECAUSE he WAS outside the system, and could get to the bottom of the issue without political risk, and also Bruce Greenwood who more often than not is "that guy" from that thing you enjoyed but can't remember the title of. Honorable posthumous mention to Brian Dennehy, another actor that, from Rambo to Ratatouille, you were never quite sure if he was the good guy or the bad guy.
Worth the watch, especially if you are in to Space Exploration history.