The Challenger Disaster (2013 TV Movie) User Reviews (32)

Riveting

[johnmcc150 · 8/10 · 18 March 2013]

How times flies when watching a good film! The story is compelling because it is based on real events, though the sets, script and acting also all contributed. The result is not only moving but you get a great insight into the dilemmas and vested interests that can exist at top of government and management.

The film is based on the last of Feynman's autobiographical works "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" so it is told from his perspective. The film shows how Feynman was pointed in the right direction. However the story is more complicated. For example there was not time to mention the role of Roger Boisjoly of Morton Thiokol who wrote a damning report about the O-rings six months before the disaster. The report was ignored. He lectured on work-place ethics.

William Hurt is physically similar Richard Feynman and did incredibly well with his impersonation. You can see Feynman in action in videos of him lecturing to a lay audience in Auckland and judge for yourself. Feynman died one year and nine months after the publication of the Rogers Commission Report with his appendix, and sadly his wife Gweneth also died the following year.

Finely Crafted Film About How Science and Facts Clash with Insider Politics Through the Eyes of Physics Genius Richard Feynman

[classicalsteve · 8/10 · 23 November 2013]

In 1986, the United States experienced possibly the worst space flight disaster in NASA's history up until that time. (The fire which occurred during the testing of Apollo 1 in 1967 was probably the worst before Challenger.) With a disaster of this magnitude, then President Reagan formed a board of inquiry to determine the cause of the Challenger's untimely explosion which occurred less than 1.5 minutes into its launch. Most of the members of the commission were government, military, and NASA insiders such as astronauts Neil Armonstrong and Sally Ride, Air Force General Donald Kutyna, and William P. Rogers, former cabinet member of presidents and adviser to President Reagan. However, one board member was not only NOT an insider but a Nobel Laureate in Physics: Dr Richard Feynman. The present film chronicles the investigation through the eyes of Feynman, played convincingly by William Hurt, regarded as a bit of a maverick who did not understand the magnitude of consequences if the full and possibly ugly truth were ever laid bare before public scrutiny.

At the time of the disaster, Feynman was teaching physics at the California Institute of Technology. One of his former students, a NASA insider, recommends the professor become involved with the commission. From the first, Feynman clashes with the Director of the commission Rogers (Brian Dennehy), who is at first more worried about NASA's reputation than finding the cause of the Challenger disaster. Feynman begins a bit of rogue investigative work which frustrates other members of the commission, who are worried that reputations and business contracts could be be jeopardized by the findings.

Feynman then befriends General Donald Kutyna (Bruce Greenwood), who turns out to be an invaluable ally in the investigation. Kutyna explains to Feynman that the politics surrounding such an investigation often becomes messy, even ugly. People try to veil the truth, often with lots of scientific jargon, fearing that reputations, positions, and even careers might be compromised if unflattering facts come into the spotlight. At the same time, since Feynman is an outsider, he is much more free to ascertain the truth than other members. Then the physics professor receives a strange message which says "it's just ivory soap". Late in the film, Feynman makes a fascinating presentation of his findings to the other commission members. After the credits, video footage of the real Feynman making the identical presentation is shown as a kind of epilogue or coda.

A compelling and thoroughly entertaining insiders' look into a commission of inquiry appointed by the US Government. While the need to find the truth is what the public expects, they don't often see the political shenanigans which often occur when such an investigation embarks on its task. The Warren Commission, the mishandled board of inquiry formed to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, made decisions which were above and beyond the goal of finding the truth, such as shielding crucial pieces of evidence from other board members for fear that such exposure would embarrass and/or infuriate the Kennedy family. (The Warren Commission's failures would fuel conspiracy theories for decades.) The Challenger Commission (or Rogers Commission) could have fallen into the same trap. However, because of the integrity of several of the members of the board, the truth of the Challenger disaster was finally revealed. And as a result, NASA made far-reaching improvements in its shuttle technology. Sadly, the Shuttle Disaster Commission was Feynman's last undertaking which received national attention. Feynman would die of cancer in 1988 at the age of 69.

Probability Never Achieves Unity.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 17 November 2013]

Admirably done story of physicist Richard Feynman's involvement in figuring out the reasons for the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1988.

Three agencies were involved in deciding to launch that freezing morning -- NASA, Raytheon, and Morton-Thiokol. This isn't made clear in the film, because the film is about Richard Feynman. But a New Yorker feature article years ago described what the agencies did about their doubts. Calls were made back and forth between the experts at each agency, each anxious to "check its six o'clock", and the question being asked gradually underwent evolution -- from "Should we launch?" to "Why SHOULDN'T we launch?" The results were disastrous.

A committee was formed to investigate the causes of the failure, with Feynman being the only independent members, all the others tied up with the military or with political considerations. But this isn't one of those dumb and oversimplified stories in which there is some sort of military/industrial conspiracy against the whistleblower. It belongs to the genre but is a pretty good example of it. So was the more commercially oriented "The Pentagon Wars." An example of a dumbed-down rendition is "The Insider," which really has little to say and shamelessly invents incidents to hype the drama.

William Hurt captures Feynman's personality with accuracy. Not his speech or his gestures. It's not an impression. But he has a grasp on Feyman's inner character -- devoted to science and outspoken. Feynman was actually quite a guy and might be described as abrasive. He didn't hesitate to demolish the ideas of others, whether they were equals or subordinates. He didn't do it viciously. He simply pointed out how stupid the notions were and then went on about his business.

The climactic scene is unforgettable. All the engineers (who generally hate physicists for having their heads in the clouds) are testifying before the committee and throwing up a blizzard of jargon about "ambient temperatures" and "Kelvin coefficients" and directions to "the Wheatstone Bridge" and other unfathomable cant in order to keep the water so murky that no one can detect their own part in the catastrophe. I won't give away the climax except to say that Feynman pulls a "Bill Nye, The Science Guy" stunt that shuts all the connivers up and embarrasses the experts.

The BBC put this out. I suppose they could afford to be a little less careful with American political sensibilities. William Hurt and his scowl of amazement is about perfect. Feynman's illness isn't dwelt on for sympathetic effect but it was real enough; he died a short time later.

Uncovering the man, uncovering the truth.

[tgooderson · 7/10 · 21 March 2013]

On January 28th 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger broke up 73 seconds after the twenty-fifth Space Shuttle launch, killing all seven of its crew members. The disaster was, at the time, the most catastrophic loss in NASA history and is still remembered as one of the most disastrous and heartbreaking days in human space exploration. Following the tragedy a Commission was set up to get to the bottom of the disaster and uncover the cause of shuttle failure. On the Commission was perhaps the most famous of the twentieth century, Richard Feynman.

The Challenger (formerly titled Feynman and the Challenger) is a made for TV movie which first aired on the BBC on March 18th 2013. The film focuses on the role Richard Feynman (William Hurt) played in the Commission and the lengths that he went to; to prove what was really behind the Shuttle's failure that January morning. The film intersperses real footage, including that of the actual event with dramatisations of Feynman's quest for answers which are taken from Feynman's autobiographical book What Do You Care What Other People Think? The movie is well researched and generally very well made and features a terrific central performance and compelling story.

I was born just under a month after the Challenger disaster but it was a part of my childhood. My parents had a huge poster on the stairs of one of the houses I grew up in of the crew and the Shuttle which used to intrigue and haunt me. As I got older I became very interested in Space exploration and in my twenties threw off the horrors of High School Physics lessons to become interested in physics. I am to physics what a football fan is to football. I'm fascinated by it and get engrossed in small details but put me on the field and I'd lose the ball faster than the speed of light. I am an enthusiastic amateur. All of the above is a very long and drawn out way of saying that the plot of The Challenger is of great interest to me. Its principle character Richard Feynman is a man who I have some but not much knowledge of and most of my knowledge comes from the odd popular science book, YouTube clips and occasional popular science lecture delivered by the likes of Prof. Brian Cox, Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre as well as the comedy of Robin Ince. I was fascinated then to learn more.

The film introduced me to a Feynman I wasn't expecting to meet. The Feynman I've seen footage of was controlled and firm and had a distinguishable but refined Queens accent. William Hurt's Feynman is much more 'Californian'. His accent is slightly different and his portrayal is more agitated and messy. I don't mean any of this in a bad way though and think it matches the state that the man was in both mentally and physically. Although slightly dishevelled, Hurt has more than a passing resemblance to the scientist he is portraying. What is obvious from the film is that the budget doesn't match that of an average theatrical film. There are corners cut in various places which sometimes detracts slightly from the movie as a whole but luckily the story is strong enough that it rarely gets in the way.

The plot is deeply fascinating and encompasses physics, ethics, finance and politics. All four combine in a tense and agitated melting pot which forms the Commission and it soon becomes apparent that Feynman is coming at the case from a different angle to the majority of the Commissioners. Early on he is frustrated by a lack of pace in the meetings and then he is stifled by the rigours step by step process. Feynman takes it upon himself to dig around and visits various NASA facilities in which he is viewed with suspicion by scientists and technicians scared to be held accountable. This sets up more conflict in the Commission and Feynman finds himself short of allies. He does however find a friend in Air force General Kutyna (Bruce Greenwood) who, like the audience by now, is sympathetic to the Physicist's cause. What follows is a slow unravelling of the facts which without Feynman may never have come to light.

The film treads a thin line between telling the truth and attacking the likes of NASA and Solid Rocket manufacturer Morton Thiokol much as Feynman did himself. Although my limited knowledge gave me some insight into the disaster and subsequent findings I was fascinated to be taken on the journey towards the discovery and felt that the film blended this with Feynman's health issues very well. It was clear from the outset that this was about Challenger first and his health second, something which again mirrors Feynman himself. Even the title of the movie can refer to the craft and the man. Occasionally I found myself questioning cover-ups and discoveries which seemed a little too dramatic and possibly exaggerated but my knowledge doesn't extend far enough to know what was real and what was invented. It is my belief and hope though that the vast majority of what I saw on screen was real. The actual footage certainly was and despite having seen it numerous times, it's still heartbreakingly sad.

Overall The Challenger manages to get to the heart of the disaster and uncovers a man who deserves to be better known than he is. William Hurt is superb and the plot is fascinating in every detail. I had a few problems with realism and dramatic licence and the budget caused some issues but overall I'd recommend the movie to anyone with a passing interest in NASA, the disaster, Richard Feynman or just good detective thrillers. Like most good true stories it made me want to learn more for myself which on its own proves the movie was a success.

www.attheback.blogspot.com

Mesmerizing performance by William Hurt

[jegpad · 9/10 · 19 March 2013]

Recent revelations of the Lyndon Johnson taped conversations exposing the sabotage by Nixon of the Vietnam peace talks in 1968 had me reeling at the extent to which the pursuit of power and money causes politicians to cover up the facts, even if it costs lives.

Feynman was the critical independent factor which foiled such attempts when the Challenger exploded during take off in January 1986.

This factual account reveals Feynman was by chance adopted onto the investigative commission over the Challenger disaster at a time when he was critically ill. Unlike the rest of the commission members who had other agendas, Feynman approached the problem objectively and, through his popular demonstrations of physics for which he'd become famous, had the skill and passionate commitment to reveal the truth to the public. As he wrote in his report, 'For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled' Throughout this gripping drama you are taking the part of the underdog, frustrated at the increasing knowledge that the commission members, bar one or two, were driven by political agendas which meant the truth was trying to be covered up. Feynman represents the common man, and as such makes you part of the battle to foil the exasperating corruption.

William Hurt is magnificent playing Feynman, depicting non-conformist behaviour which is only tolerated because of his brilliance. I found his nuances of expression fascinating and wonderfully representative of how we, the public, would have reacted when faced with pompous authority attempting to control our behaviour. Brilliant stuff, and all the more telling because it is true.

Very Good Thriller with a Great Lead Performance

[Michael_Elliott · 7 December 2013]

The Challenger Disaster (2013)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Made-for-TV drama based on the investigation by Dr. Richard Feynman (William Hurt) in regards to the Challenger disaster that took place on January 28, 1986. THE CHALLENGER DISASTER is about as good as a movie produced for television can get. It features an amazing performance by Hurt, a story that is quite gripping and it all plays out like a well structured thriller that will have you on the edge of your seat even if the findings of the report are all well-known by this point. What really shocked me about this film is simply how terrific Hurt is. Hurt, at one time, was considered to be one of the greatest actors working but things in his personal life pretty much took all the spotlight and the attention on his skill went away. Watching him perform here was simply amazing because he really does give one of the best performances of the year and if this thing had been made for the theater then an Oscar-nomination would be guaranteed. I thought the performance was downright flawless as this character was so well-rounded and detailed that the actor simply took everything and nailed it. Feynman was battling cancer while also having to deal with the pressure of this case and watching Hurt play both things was simply divine. The supporting players are also extremely good with Bruce Greenwood, Brian Dennehy and Joanne Whalley all delivering strong work. Director James Hawes does a very good job at keeping the viewer on the edge of their seats as he really turns this into a strong thriller. I liked the way that he managed to make you understand the need for certain people to cover up what really happened and I think the film is fair in showing why many feared that the truth might lead to no more space missions. The entire film treats everyone with the highest amount of respect, which makes for a much better movie. THE CHALLENGER DISASTER is without question a highly entertaining film and it contains one of the best performances that you're going to see.

The story of O

[Prismark10 · 7/10 · 6 October 2013]

This is a drama-documentary that has been co produced by the BBC and they managed to attract a starry cast with Oscar winner William Hurt playing distinguished scientist Feynman and Bruce Greenwood continuing his mini run of playing nice guys as General Kutyna.

The drama is based on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster of 1986 and the Presidential commission set up to investigate the accident.

There are various factions, some with their own self interests who wanted to hinder the investigation or put it down to human error.

The film had to summarise these investigations and sell it to the viewer in an easy to understand way. Feynman is the vehicle who was famous for making science accessible.

Hurt portrays Feynman as dogged but he was also very ill at the time of the investigations.

Kutyna gives him clues along the way. Eve Best who plays Sally Ride was rather sidelined. In real life she was more outspoken about the deficiencies of NASA when it came to safety.

It all came down to 'O' rings and how they reacted in sub zero temperatures. The reveal at a press conference was exactly how it happened in real life.

A good well acted drama but a little bit too neatly packaged to make it digestible for the viewing audience.

Absorbing, Entertaining, Factual. A must see to understand one of 20th Century's defining moments.

[iwhoknows · 9/10 · 14 April 2013]

After the dramatic opening scenes where realism is achieved by using actual footage of the "Challenger disaster", the movie slowly develops as the audience begins to realize that what they are experiencing is not merely a factual drama/documentary about an unfortunate malfunction, but rather a thriller with "Good Guys" and "Villains" The choice of William Hurt to play Richard Feynman was brilliant. Hurt is acknowledged as a character actor who lives and breathes every role that he accepts and as the movie progresses it is remarkable that the viewer becomes so involved with the character that they actually forget that it is an impersonation. Hurt who in real life is a complex, some say awkward person, brings aspects of his own complexity to the role.

Joanne Whalley is supportive as his wife, but the story is very much that of theoretical physicist Richard Feynman.

Bruce Greenwood is a vital link in the whole drama. He deserves a lot of credit for his strong portrayal of General Kutyna a disciplined loyal military man who acts as the catalyst for the truth to prevail. Greenwood looks like he was born in a uniform. He assumes the role as naturally as if he'd taken leave from the battlefield to make the movie.

Eve Best provides a solid and sensitive performance as Sally Ride (First woman in space). Her role in the Rogers Commission remains a mystery and we only learn of it just before the credits roll.

Brian Dennehy as William P. Rogers (Chairman and, former secretary of state) exudes the physical appearance of a persuasive man who has his own agenda and delivers a powerful performance. Dennehy is a master at conveying meaning in a story merely through the raising of an eyebrow, a glint in his eye or a subtle shift of body position.

One needs to make special mention of the good performance by many of the South Africans who were used in supporting roles. In particular Robert Hobbs who plays Allan J Macdonald a man torn between doing what is right whilst realizing the personal cost that might result.

There is no mention of the members who made up the "Rogers Commission". (Not even in the credits). The commission was comprised of some of the most influential members of the military and should surely be identified.

James Hawes directs with firmness and allows the story to flow and develop with fascinating insights into Feynman the scientist, but also Feynman the man and husband who had to fight his own person battles as a subplot.

Lukas Strebel camera shots are interesting. I feel the use of camera positioning where half the frame is blocked was at first novel, but maybe repeated too often and in some scenes it would have been better to allow the subject to take up the full frame.

The ending comes suddenly almost as if the editor had to condense the material into exactly 90 TV minutes. It is rumored that there might be a movie release where the running time will increase to 120 minutes. The Challenger is scheduled for the Discovery channel in the USA in November. Most probably renamed "73" – (Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight).

The Challenger

[henry8-3 · 7/10 · 6 April 2022]

William Hurt plays Richard Feynman, the Nobel prize winning physicist who was asked to sit on the committee that was to determine the cause of the Challenger disaster.

There is nothing better than watching a likeable rogue with the brain the size of a planet take on Washington. Feynman was the only independent committee member and he bypassed the committee processes, general bureaucracy and cover ups and the political desire to not really find an airtight cause. Hurt is terrific and whilst they may have played a little fast and loose with the story (NASA later sued them and lost) it still makes for a fascinating and exciting 'thriller'.

Surprisingly accurate account of reality.

[PHASEDK · 10/10 · 18 March 2013]

I remember where I was at work when the disaster happened, I've read everything there is, and early on knew.. so watching this apparently first airing of this sensitive event on UK TV tonight.Firstly, who was brave enough to do it.. BBC? I guess its time and the facts have been in the public eye for years. Yes, this seems to be a very accurate depiction of what must have happened as it happened. This TV airing has lasted an hour and a half.. not two hours, so what was dropped I wonder. Enough to make me want to buy a DVD if released? Maybe.

William Hurt was so good as the knowing he was up against authority physics expert. One feels for him, and know the usual reactions of, oh no, what will he stir up. Everything about this 90 min version worked, I hope the 120 min version works too.

Couldn't take my eyes off the screen

[Mr-Fusion · 7/10 · 19 November 2013]

The tragic demise of the Challenger shuttle and her crew is subject matter that will always have my attention. Which I guess kinda sounds perverse, but it's also a moment in time that always grabs me. So you know I'm in for a TV movie based on the inquiry into the disaster. Throw in heavyweight actors William Hurt, Brian Dennehy and Bruce Greenwood? That's some sweet icing on that cake.

And as much as I love watching (indeed, listening to) Greenwood and Dennehy, William Hurt is nothing short of phenomenal as Richard Feynman, the man who eventually brings forth the answer of what happened to the doomed shuttle. He completely inhabits this role.

All in all, this is a captivating TV movie. Small-scale and intimate, though not lacking in hard-hitting story as the physicist butts heads with D.C. bureaucracy and NASA politics. The shot of the charred remains of Shuttle Challenger strewn about the Vehicle Assembly Building was particular haunting. Feynman's job is a heroic venture, and as he said, it was "a good use of science".

And surprisingly, "The Challenger Disaster" manages to even have a feel-good ending.

7/10

A very well done piece of history...

[tv-striker · 10/10 · 17 November 2013]

This is an extremely well done telling of the investigation surrounding the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986. Despite the fact that we all know the outcome of the findings, there are constantly rising stakes here which help keep you glued to the story.

William Hurt is exceptional as physicist Richard Feynman, a member of the fact-finding commission, who almost single-handedly recognized the cause of the disaster and pushed the commission in the right direction. I did find his failing health issues to be important but overdone. The "peeing blood" and dialysis tended to take me out of the story when I'd already gotten and understood his health problems with the "x-ray" scene.

Brian Dennehy also did a remarkable job of channeling William Rogers (as head of the Challenger fact-finding commission) who from the beginning wants to whitewash the whole the thing. Rogers was the Secretary of State under Richard Nixon which is hardly a vote of confidence for the man and any real neutrality.

Overall, it would seem that history is not going to be kind to the Reagan Administration. The film does bring out facts that were never a part of any official commission findings implying those were repressed for apparently legitimate national security issues of the time. In a nutshell, the Reagan budget cuts caused NASA to promise the military the ability to launch military spy satellites via the shuttles almost on demand instead of the military developing their own new missile. Decidedly, putting temperature restrictions on such shuttle launches would not be something to tell the Soviets about. However, maybe in future years someone will realize that even this was a false concern because the launches would have been from the California coast where freezing temperatures would be almost non-existent.

I highly recommend this film to relive this piece of recent history.

The Challenger Disaster

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 16 November 2013]

I don't think there isn't anything more infuriating than knowing that simply postponing a launch could have prevented death; that brilliant astronauts would die on the Challenger when it could have been delayed for another time (cold weather and o-rings; it'd seem like a joke if it weren't for the fact that astronauts perished). Physicist Richard Feynman (played in the film by William Hurt in a wig), dying of cancer (possibly related to his days on the Manhattan Project, assisting in mathematic computation, responsible for developing the A-bomb), is brought into the "Rogers Commission" as an independent analyst (while the rest of this group have allegiances and ties to various political/scientific associates/associations, his voice is undeterred by such influences) and he discovers answers that led to the supposed necessity of launching the Challenger that dark day in 1986. With heavy emphasis on Feynman's prospective (it is all from his point of view and through his experiences on the Rogers Commission) during the search for truth (and ability to explain to an audience that can understand and listen to such truth), The Challenger Disaster is an absorbing docudrama that can explain to a cable/television audience the unfortunate mistakes by NASA management to launch a flight that was doomed to be a tragedy. Arranged like a difficult pursuit for the truth, this docudrama, through Hurt's performance, essays Feynman's frustrations and roadblocks that often interrupt and interfere informing others of NASA management's miscalculations when their own scientists had differing analysis/calculations regarding the launch of Challenger and its "resilient" rubber o-ring capability. While Hurt adds pauses when reciting the words of Feynman (when the real Feynman is shown describing the miscalculation in the o-ring, he's more assertive and delivers authoritatively), he provides insight into the anguish behind the scenes when cancer was taking away time he could spend with family while giving him incentive to get to the truth (and out there to the masses) before it runs out. I really found the film informative and the results haunting. I think it was the right idea to follow the one man with no outside influences to hide secrets for. There's even a Deep Throat who provided the information about the o-ring and an Air Force general (Bruce Greenwood) behind a spy-satellite project (Titan) both of whom just might assist Feynman in his pursuit. Directed like an unfolding mystery, The Challenger Disaster is worth checking out if you are familiar with that sad bit of American space program history (I was a kid when it happened and I have never forgotten that moment). Playing currently on "Science" & "Discovery" channels, if it's on give it a watch. Also starring Brian Dennehy as the head of the Rogers Commission and Joanne Whalley as Feynman's wife. Good cast, and the obvious discomfort of many people involved in a possible cover up is a major component in Feynman's agony and ecstasy when the final results come out and expose serious logic errors…logic errors that sent astronauts to their deaths.

Inaccurate account with many Distortions

[jud-lovingood · 1/10 · 18 November 2013]

In the preface to your movie Challenger Disaster you state, "This is a true story." Well not completely. I happen to be part of the story, so I want to correct the record. The scene in which I, Dr. Judson Lovingood, am sworn in at the Presidential Commission hearing and I am asked about the failure probability of a Space Shuttle Mission, did not occur. First the discussion between Feynman and me regarding failure probabilities occurred in a conference room at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Second, the issue discussed concerned the failure probability of the Space Shuttle Main Engine, not the entire mission. Third I appeared before the Commission on February 6, 1986 and February 26, 1986, and none of my testimony involved failure probabilities. (Mission failure probability was a Johnson Space Center responsibility, and JSC would have addressed that issue to the Commission.)These points can be verified by referring to Feynman's book, What do I care what other people think? and the Commission Final Report. On p. 180 of Feynman's book Feynman has a discussion with Louis J. Ullian, Range Safety Officer at Cape Canaveral. After Uliian told Feynman that NASA, not Judson Lovingood and not in Commission Testimony the failure probability of the shuttle solid rocket was 1 in 100,000, Feynman stated to Ullian, "That means you could fly the shuttle every day for an average of 300 years between accidents –every day, one flight, one flight, for 300 years—which is obviously crazy. Ullian attributed the number to the "man in charge, Mr. Kingsbury." The movie attributes Feynman's remarks as being made to me regarding mission failure at a Commission hearing, which is a lie. Also you fail to present in the movie as Feynman states in his book that I provided him a document giving the 1 in 100,000 failure probability number for the main engine. The document was approved by the same James E. Kingsbury, noted above, who was Marshall Director of Engineering; so the number I gave him (1 in 100,000) was an engineering number. The title of the document is Space Shuttle Data for Planetary Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) Safety Analysis, NASA/Johnson Space Center Report JSC 08116, February 15, 1985. JSC Shuttle Program Documentation stated that shuttle success probability is necessarily close to one and "the approach of determining when a vehicle is safe to fly based on a well evaluated and documented program with attention to details is superior to relying on a reliability number derived from an insufficient data base." I had told Feynman this, but he chose to ignore it. The main engine had a program involving rigorous manufacturing, quality control, development acceptance tests, qualification tests, between-flight x-ray, fiber optics scope inspections plus individual flight computers which monitored pressures and temperatures to shut off the engines if red lines were exceeded and redundant components. In addition there were Abort modes involving Return to Launch Site, Overseas landing in Spain and Africa, and Abort to Orbit mission modes which avoided loss of mission. No Shuttle mission ever failed because of engine failure; so I say I am correct. The solid rocket did not have these features because they could not be monitored for in-flight shutdown (once ignited, they could only burn out.) Feynman did not know of these mitigating circumstances that lowered the failure probability of the engine and then lowered the probability that an engine failure would cause mission failure. He jumped to his precipitous conclusion and dared not study the report I provided. In fact Feyman was so caught up in calling me a manager and in celebrating the guy who gave him the 1 in 200 number, he never knew that the 1 in 200 number guy was the top manager of the Space Shuttle Main Engine Project. Yes, you got it; he was a manager. An engineer never gives "'99-44/100% pure' (copying the Ivory soap slogan)". This is Feynman's 1 in 200 number, which he made such an issue of, and it came, not from a Marshall engineer, but from Marshall's top main engine manager. Marshall's top engineer, James E. Kingsbury, signed the official NASA report stating the number was 1 in 100,000. This was in the report I gave Feynman and was the number I cited.

Feynman knew all about the NASA failure probability numbers racket. He had an agenda to make the point that NASA management was not listening to its engineers. And ironically he picked me as the manager. And I was the manager/engineer who tried to get Marshall management to notify headquarters and Houston that Thiokol wanted to delay the launch, and we needed to have a meeting to discuss a launch delay (See Commission Testimony.) And the engineer (the 1 in 200 guy) was the Main Engine Project Manager. Finally, in the Commission scene with George Hardy, Judson Lovingood and Larry Mulloy as sworn witnesses, the actors have Hardy stating that the o-rings were good from -40F to -50F, then the Mulloy actor confirms this and then a commissioner actor states just to be sure that Hardy is saying that the o-rings will be resilient at 80 degrees F below freezing. The Hardy actor confirms this. This is a lie. Hardy's and my testimony was that the booster had been qualified to +40F mean propellant bulk temperature. No one ever testified that o-rings would function properly below zero degrees F. This movie is all about Feynman's egotistical and narcissistic character, and it is infested with lies and defamatory distortions and reflect on my integrity. Its purpose is unclear. Feynman was a University professor in a multifaceted multi-billion dollar government/industry space program that he could not grasp the complexities of. That is why Rogers kept him on a short leash. The Feynman actor repeatedly refers to B.S. B.S. accurately summarizes the movie.

Judson Lovingood, PhD

I have NOT seen the movie but have a cautionary comment, so I presume to review the other reviews

[Peteryoung_37 · 17 May 2014]

I have NOT seen the movie but having read the book I have a cautionary comment,so I presume to review the other reviews. I am doing my damnedest to get access to the movie. Like many others, as is evident from most of the 17 preceding reviews, I have a great enthusiasm for the Feynman character and his books. I have read his book, "What Do YOU Care What Other People Think" (W.W. Norton & Company,2001) - twice, including recently. More than half of that book is devoted to Feynman's part in investigating the Challenger disaster. For that reason alone I'm mad keen to see the movie, which I only just heard about. BUT in one review a Doctor Judson A. Lovingood makes a spirited defence of what he sees as errors in the movie, including some that he believes are unfair to him. The only reason I'm writing this is because, as a retired engineer, like Dr Lovingood, and specialised in aeronautics, and particularly in Reliability, I implore readers to not let their no doubt well-founded enthusiasm for Feynman cause them to rush to judgement of Dr Lovingood. In spite of his genius (responsible for the basis of modern Quantum Theory, if I understand correctly - just ask Sheldon Cooper) Feynman was very human, and I believe at least one of the subject errors may be due to omission by Feynman from his investigations. Not to detract from the enormous credit due him for the result he and others achieved between them. The matters Lovingood complains of are very complex. I note that he is mentioned in several places through Feynman's book, as indicated in its Index. Because of this complexity, anyone wishing to judge the merit of Lovingood's complaints needs first to study them and Feynman's writings, and analyse very carefully. If you cannot spare the time and energy to do this, the only fair thing to do is to give Lovingood the benefit of the doubt, and accept his arguments as valid. Which is why I beg you, don't rush to judgement.

A review from the other side

[mugwamp-983 · 6/10 · 4 May 2014]

I remember exactly what I was doing when I heard challenger went down. It is one of those events in ones life that remains vivid so many years later. So this movie appealed to me.

The movie itself is not all that intriguing, in-fact it moves along quite slowly. There is a conspiracy element. But if you are expecting snipers, sabotage, or mayhem then you will have to find your entertainment elsewhere. This is just about plain old bureaucratic corporate subterfuge at work. But hey, 7 people died. Where is the fault? What went wrong? Someone knows what went wrong. The true cause for the disaster would likely have remained undisclosed, if it weren't for one Richard P. Feynman, played by William Hurt.

You basically follow Feynman, an outsider without affiliation, journey from hangar, to launchpad, to meeting, and repeat until he puts the pieces together. (oh and a trip to the Pentagon as well). You wonder if Feynman is ever going to have his day. Or, will he fall flat and fail. After all, this movie is as much about him and his frailties as well. As usual William Hurt gives a rock steady performance. We feel for this poor fellow and cheer him on.

The supporting cast is a good fit too. Brian Dennehy is the stereotypical grumpy chairman of the committee. Bruce Greenwood, the wooden Air Force General with all the Pentagon connections. His character serves also as a literary tool to fill us in on the corporate vs. military back story. This reveals to the viewers the motive of certain parties involved to attempt a cover-up. After all, why would anybody not want the truth to come out?

Anyways, if you have interest in the subject matter it is worth the watch.

Accurate Portrayal of Brilliance Applied to A Search For the Truth

[safarigirlinasia · 10/10 · 25 November 2013]

I stumbled across The Challenger Disaster late last night while watching Discovery. I was drawn into the film because it starts by depicting Feynmann, a legend in the physics world, teaching a class.

For those who, like I do, work with physicists on a daily basis, William Hurt's depiction of Feynmann is particularly satisfying because the actor has captured so accurately the unique characteristics of both the man himself and of the profession as a whole. While watching this film, I often found myself nodding in recognition as Hurt showed us the kind of single-minded drive for the truth that can seize hold of a scientist engrossed in an interesting problem. At the same time, the more human side of those with such blazing intellect is also movingly portrayed. In Hurt's Feynmann, I saw the same spirit that my colleagues exhibit every day.

The movie is also interesting for its historical aspects. In light of the recent cancelling of the shuttle program by the Obama administration, the revelations of NASA's attempt to justify costs and obtain continued funding by co-opting the Titan rocket program into their own payload have special significance. Likewise, the depiction of the pressurized, risk-accepting not-so-safe safety culture of the time will resonate in this post-Chernobyl, post-Fukushima, post-disaster era, where risk analysis and safety culture is growing in prominence.

I was in junior high when the Challenger disaster occurred. I remember the shock and the disbelief, and I also remember how quickly the whole thing was forgotten. But as this movie reminds us, thanks to Dr. Feynmann's brilliant work, and the help of other men and women of integrity who were on the commission, something useful and lasting came out of it.

A missed opportunity

[eladb573 · 6/10 · 12 September 2017]

On the surface, this movie should have been a great one. Here we have a great true story, involving a relentless search for truth, a government agency cover-up, a secret confidential source, and a tragedy that shook the nation. Coupled with a hero in the charismatic, eccentric and brilliant Richard Feynman, this could easily have been as good or better than say "Spotlight", or any other great movie of that genre. Yet, this movie, although OK, somehow misses. It's not great, has no great powerful moments, nor particularly funny or self deprecating. Something to watch when nothing else is on and no more.

Some of the blame must go to the portrayal of the main character, on which the entire story revolves - prof. Richard Feynman. One of the greatest physicists in history, with a crazy rich past and eccentricities that are legendary, and he is simply boring! It is clear to me that neither William hurt who plays him, nor the director has bothered to watch any of his many televised lectures ind interviews. First of all - the famous Brooklyn accent. Than the constant cocky smile and sharp humor. The many anecdotes and metaphors that are often his way of explaining. Non of it are present here. If it were up to me Alan Alda would play him as he is both sorta looks like him and is funny, serious and can do a great accent. Also the constant emphasis on his illness is over the top and distracting.

About the only really good thing I can attribute to this film is it's uncharacteristic accuracy. I didn't notice any factual errors, and that is rare in Hollywood.

In summation, this is a mediocre movie, that with a better cast and writing staff could have been a great one. Too bad!

A fine film

[russvet · 8/10 · 30 January 2018]

This gripping film focuses on the Rogers Commission investigation of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986, through the eyes of the late theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman. The lead role is acted brilliantly by William Hurt as his determination to uncover the truth is tested by political intrigue, denial of responsibility, and his own personal battle with illness. Hurt has a strong supporting cast including Brian Dennehy, Bruce Greenwood, Joanne Whalley, and Eve Best who all played their roles very well. The script was also of a very good quality, and this helped make this film all the more enjoyable to watch. I enjoyed such lines as (when talking with a lawyer) "How's your integrity?" although this is a small example. All in all I thought this was a very good film and a fitting tribute to Richard Feynman and his dogged struggle to bring the truth to light following an event that shocked the American public and changed their space program forever.

A well told observation of what really, truly happened

[battlebuckships · 10/10 · 27 March 2022]

This has got to be one the finest films I've enjoyed seeing. The actors were perfectly chosen to bring in a great cast. The story flows perfectly as well as can be told. Overall a great feature that will make you want to enjoy again. A 10 plus performance with a 10 plus told story....:) The fallen would be proud.

Outstanding

[ShippersAreEvil · 10/10 · 21 September 2020]

Perfect in concept and execution, with a mesmerising central performance from Willian Hurt, as a Richard Feynman on the edge of death but driven to do one last great thing. It also gives proper credit for role of General Donald Kutyna and the great Sally Ride, who really ought to get a space station named after her.

And a special mention of Brian Dennehy as Chairman Rogers, whose performance is much more subtle and nuanced than it might appear on first viewing.

Where the film takes liberties with history it does so wisely and with purpose, where it needs to explain it does it plainly and directly and it never, ever loses sight that this is a human story as it builds towards Feynman's legendary ice water demo.

The only Challenger film you need to watch. Flawless.

Meh

[room102 · 4/10 · 10 October 2015]

A TV movie about the true story of a physicist involved in the investigation of space shuttle Challenger's 1986 explosion. Like in "Devil's Knot", here too they chose to focus on fictionalized situations of the private life of the man, instead of focusing on the facts and the things that are really interesting about the disaster. Why would I care about the private life of this man? But that was expected, once you have a "dramatization" instead of a documentary.

William Hurt is pretty good as an aging physicist in an atypical role and he plays very differently from many other roles I've seen him.

With Brian Dennehy and Bruce Greenwood.

NATURE CANNOT BE FOOLED

[nogodnomasters · 10/10 · 22 October 2018]

This is an excellent made for TV docudrama concerning the investigation of the shutter disaster. Five minutes into the film, the space shutter blows up. Dr. Richard Feynman (William Hurt) is asked to be on a commission to find the cause of the disaster. He is the outsider of what is a NASA good ole boy commission.

The film was fascinating as one sees the importance of contacts and dollars. Eve Best did an excellent job as Sally Ride, the lone woman on the commission. While we all know the climax of the film with the ice water demonstration, I had no idea how we got to that point...and that is why the film is worth watching, a man struggling to find the truth while fighting a terminal disease

watchedl this on TV live

[kairingler · 10/10 · 28 December 2013]

i remember what I was doing when the Challenger blew up,, I was eating breakfast laying in bed,, home for school.. first time we got off for MLK day,, back when it was a federally mandated holiday,, William Hurt did an awesome job with this,, very good acting,, totally credible,, it was amazing to see just how much of a cover up there really was going on at NASA,,after all those accidents there for awhile,, people were saying that NASA stood for not another shuttle accident.. I know it's cruel,, but there was more than just that accident... also the company that NASA dealt with Morton Tyicol I believe they too were at fault and tried to cover the whole thing up,,, I enjoyed the movie very much, as was glad to see that the Challenger Disaster was finally put to the screen.

The Disaster I Missed.

[Moonbeam_87 · 10/10 · 8 July 2022]

Hey January 28, 1986 Started Out as a Normal Wednesday For Me. Going to School, Having No Idea That There was Even a Launch Scheduled That Day. So I was With Mrs. Peggy Aurthun working on Making Change with Fake Money. And Someone Comes in I here her say "I Wanted to See That." So I get sent Back to Mrs. Caye 3rd Grade Classroom When I here someone I think it was Sean Say "I Think it was a Bomb." He wasn't to far Off as The Rocket Boosters are Basically a Bomb. Reagan Gave His Speech, At Least I didn't Have to do his Job. And They Discovered The Cause of the Explosion was, To be a Faulty O-Ring. I Would Rate the Film My TM M for Moonbeam 87 Approved.