It was interesting to see the film post-Columbia: for example, the issue of telling the astronauts whether there was a particular problem came up as a small dramatic moment, and the flight commander (the Ed Harris figure) decided not to tell them because the astronauts could do nothing about it, anyway. Was it ethical for NASA to keep the astronauts in ignorance of their chances? There were lots of problems they >could< do something about, however. The representative from Grumman (the movie presents Grumman as the manufacturer of the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) that is the astronauts' shelter on the way back to earth) is featured 2 times asserting his ignorance of the LEM's ability to fire its rockets for any purpose other than landing on the moon. This concern with corporate liability stands in contrast to the other engineers' focusing on using available resources to make the craft do something that differs greatly from the original mission plan. One of the great subplots of the movie shows how a little duct tape, some spare parts, and a lot of ingenuity can compensate for unexpected demand on the air-cleaning system.

I think the movie intends to show that individuals display heroism and that great achievement entails great risk for some, but also that great technical achievements float on the collaborative work of thousands of people. The mass of engineers at NASA are white-shirted, sideburn-wearing, narrow-tie sporting problem-solvers, completely subsuming their individual egos to the collective task of "getting them home." It is compelling to see the astronauts turn off their computer and follow "Newton's laws" on their way back to Earth; from the perspective of 2004, their "computer" display looks less sophisticated than pong (that dates me!). In general, the showcasing of antique technology (31 years old) is really cool, from the TV-camera cockpits at launch to the bizarre analog gauges in the command module (like my mom's diet scale from the 1970s), to the computer displays with their elementary graphics.

My first memory of TV is watching the moon landing; near this anniversary of the Columbia disaster, it is bittersweet to watch this story of disaster averted. The romantic appeal of stepping on Mars aside, I'm relieved that amazing advances in computers and robotics permit us to explore the solar system "better, faster, cheaper" by keeping people here at home.

This movie would be a 5, except the depiction of women was so lousy as to be irritating. Did the mom really let a 5 year old watch what might have been his dad's incineration on re-entry to the earth's atmosphere? Did moms really let their kids listen to the TV pundits who emphasized the long odds? I applaud any woman engineer making her way in the world.