Apollo 13 storyform, with help from Narrova

[mlucas]

Working with Narrova, I’m pretty sure I (we) managed to figure out the storyform for Apollo 13! With all the illustrations we came up with, I’m pretty confident this is correct.

Note I did start out with two candidate storyforms, and this was one of them. But I was particularly impressed with how at certain points Narrova came to the same conclusion on elements as me, since I hadn’t shared my storyform with it. For example, when we got to Issues, Narrova went through and tested each quad against the story material, and each time came up with the same Issue I had! I can’t even usually do this – I often need to look at the Issues and Problem quads together to find potential fits.

Here is the storyform with illustrations (I asked for 1-2 bullet points for each storypoint, based on our discussion which did cover all these items). Need to split this in two due to post length.

---

Objective Story (OS) – Universe / Progress

Storypoint	Choice	Illustration(s)
Domain	Universe (fixed situation)	Everyone is stuck in the external situation of a crippled spacecraft in deep space; they cannot simply “get off” or reset the mission. The whole world also watches from the fixed external state of “this may become NASA’s worst disaster.”
Concern	Progress	Conflict hinges on how things are going: CO₂ levels rising, power draining, temperature dropping, and trajectory/reentry angles constantly shifting for better or worse. Mission control obsessively tracks graphs and readouts charting the mission’s deterioration or stabilization.
Issue / CP	Threat / Security	The story continually foregrounds Threat—explosion, suffocation, freezing, missing the corridor, heat-shield failure—punctuated by Gene Kranz’s speeches about the dangers ahead. Security is the counterpoint: safe margins, conservative procedures, and jury‑rigged safeguards that try to keep the crew within survivable limits.
Problem	Expectation	Apollo 13 is treated as a routine mission expected to succeed, leading to complacency (no live TV coverage, everyone assumes “this one will go fine”); no one expects a tank stir to blow up the ship. Later, many expect the crew cannot possibly make it home, clashing with those who refuse to accept that outcome.
Solution	Determination	The OS resolves when NASA and the team embrace collective determination: “Failure is not an option,” “We’re going to bring them home.” Each new crisis is met by an unwavering resolve to find a configuration that works, culminating in the successful reentry.
Symptom	Hunch	People keep treating guesses, odds, and gut fears as problematic: Kranz warns against “guessing,” the president and media demand intuition-based odds, and the crew’s conspiracy hunch (“there are no reentry procedures”) eats at them.
Response	Theory	The system answers by insisting on structured, testable theories: engineers build models for power-up, reentry, and CO₂ solutions; Kranz demands they “work the problem,” and even Marilyn counters reporter hunches with her own “theory” that they can ask her husband themselves when he gets home.
Goal	Improve/Stabilize Conditions (Progress)	The objective effort is to arrest the deterioration of the crew’s conditions and bring them home safely: every action (power-downs, course corrections, jury-rig devices) serves to improve or stabilize the mission’s progress toward a safe splashdown.
Requirements	Present	To achieve the Goal, they must keep critical present conditions within safe ranges—CO₂ values, power levels, angles, etc.—and maintain everyone “on station” mentally and physically in Houston and in the spacecraft.
Preconditions	Learning	Before many solutions can work, people must learn new information or procedures: engineers have to understand the crippled system’s behavior, learn to make the “square peg” CO₂ filters work, and then teach the crew; Mattingly has to learn which power-up sequences are viable.
Costs	Doing	The price of success is “not doing” the mission as planned: no lunar landing, no surface EVA, no televised moonwalk. The mission’s original Doing is sacrificed so that all effort can be redirected to survival.
Outcome	Success	The crew survives and returns safely; the mission is ultimately reframed as a triumph of ingenuity rather than a failure.
Judgment	Good	At the end, Lovell is personally at peace: he smiles warmly on the carrier deck and, in voiceover, accepts never walking on the moon without bitterness or lingering angst.
Driver	Action	Key turning points are driven by physical events (the tank explosion, hardware failures, course burns, jettisoning modules), with decisions following from those Actions.
Limit	Options	The story tightens as NASA and the crew exhaust viable options: losing modules, power configurations, jury-rig possibilities, and ending with essentially one workable reentry gambit.

[mlucas]

Main Character (MC) – Jim Lovell – Psychology / Being

Storypoint	Choice	Illustration(s)
Domain	Psychology	Lovell’s personal trouble lies in how he thinks about himself and reframes his identity—as commander, moonwalker, husband, father, and public hero.
Concern	Being	Conflict centers on the roles he plays: the senior astronaut handling PR, the responsible commander grounding Mattingly, and the man who imagines “being the next Neil Armstrong.”
Issue / CP	Desire / Ability	His intense Desire to walk on the moon and to be the ideal commander/husband drives much of his emotional strain, especially when that dream is taken away. Ability sits underneath as a counterpoint: questions of whether he can actually do everything those roles require under extreme conditions.
Problem	Expectation	Lovell is weighed down by expectations—his own expectation of a moonwalk, NASA’s and his family’s expectations of him as a flawless hero and leader—leaving him adrift when those expectations are shattered.
Solution	Determination	On the far side of the moon, he abandons those expectations and embraces Determination: he decides he’s “ready to go home,” reorients his identity around bringing his crew back alive, and that resolve carries him through the rest of the crisis.
Symptom	Test	He experiences life as a series of Tests: NASA selection, simulations, PR events, family fears, and the mission itself all feel like ongoing evaluations of his worth and identity.
Response	Trust	Lovell responds by leaning into Trust—projecting himself as someone others can rely on and choosing to trust NASA, the spacecraft, and his crew even when the situation is dire. He reassures his son and wife by asking them to trust the program and, implicitly, him.
Resolve	Change	Lovell ultimately changes his internal stance: he no longer defines himself by the expectation of being a moonwalker and adopts a new, determined self-concept centered on bringing his crew home.
Growth	Start	His growth is about starting to live by Determination (and a new identity) rather than continuing to live by old expectations; the dark-side-of-the-moon moment marks the start of this new way of being.
Judgment	Good	Personally, he ends in a place of peace and acceptance, with no lingering psychological baggage about the lost moonwalk.

---

Influence Character (IC) – Mattingly & Swigert – Physics / Doing

Storypoint	Choice	Illustration(s)
Domain	Physics	The IC perspective is defined by what Mattingly and Swigert do—simulating, flying, testing, and executing procedures. Their influence flows through activity and performance.
Concern	Doing	Conflict arises from their doing: Mattingly’s relentless simulator runs, his later work in mission control, and Swigert’s piloting and cockpit habits all pressurize Lovell and the OS.
Issue / CP	Experience / Skill	Mattingly embodies Experience—months of mission-specific training in the sims—while Swigert must demonstrate Skill to compensate for his lack of shared experience with the crew. Lovell is caught between loyalty to Mattingly’s experience and reliance on Swigert’s in-the-moment skill.
Problem	Proven	The IC is driven by the need for things to be Proven: Mattingly wants more runs to prove they can handle any scenario; in mission control he refuses to send up a power-up sequence until it’s proven in the simulator; Swigert feels compelled to prove he belongs in the seat and is not at fault.
Solution	Unproven	The alternative (which the IC never truly embraces) would be accepting Unproven—working with partially tested configurations or trusting people before they have fully proven themselves—but the IC remains rooted in the Proven orientation.
Symptom	Hunch	The IC sees trouble in mere hunches: Mattingly’s misgivings about performance push him back into the sim; Swigert suffers under others’ hunches that he might be to blame for the accident.
Response	Theory	They respond by turning hunches into solid Theory—articulating specific explanations and procedures, then running them until they are proven. Lovell even voices an IC-style Theory when he argues that any of them would have stirred the tanks the same way with the same result.
Resolve	Steadfast	Mattingly/Swigert do not change their fundamental orientation; they remain driven by proving things and behaving according to their Doing/Experience perspective, challenging Lovell to adjust instead.

[mlucas]

Relationship Story (RS) – Team – Mind / Preconscious

Storypoint	Choice	Illustration(s)
Domain	Mind	The RS is the shared attitude of the team (crew + Mattingly at points): their mental/emotional stance toward each other as a “we,” particularly how they view and judge one another.
Concern	Preconscious	Conflict arises from their impulsive, gut-level reactions: split-second tones, glances, and snaps that occur before thought, especially around Swigert’s insertion and questions of fault.
Issue / CP	Worry / Confidence	The relationship is driven by Worry about whether they can truly rely on each other—Haise’s semi-accusatory jab about the pressure gauge, concerns about looking like a lightweight, worries about whether Swigert can fill Mattingly’s shoes.
Problem	Trust	The relationship’s trouble centers on where and how Trust is placed: they like each other, but don’t yet trust each other’s instincts at the level a moon crew must, and the break in trust with Mattingly’s grounding ripples through the team.
Solution	Test	The RS heals as they Test themselves together: building the CO₂ contraption, executing burns, surviving conflicts, and finally letting Swigert fly reentry while Lovell steps aside—all tests that validate the relationship can function and that trust is warranted.

[mlucas]

Throughline Summaries

Objective Story – Universe / Progress (Threat, Expectation, Hunch vs Theory)

In the Objective Story, everyone is trapped in the fixed external situation (Universe) of a crippled spacecraft; the central concern is how the mission’s Progress is going—CO₂ levels, power, trajectory, and reentry corridor constantly improving or deteriorating. Conflict grows from Expectation: Apollo 13 is treated as a routine mission expected to succeed; the crew, NASA, media, and families all presume things will go “as they always do” until that assumption blows up—literally—when a routine tank stir causes a catastrophic failure. Once the crisis hits, people treat Hunches (gut fears, guesses, odds-making) as dangerous noise and respond with Theory, building and refining models for power usage, trajectories, and procedures in order to determine a way to get the crew home. Ultimately, the OS resolves when collective Determination (“Failure is not an option”) replaces complacent and defeatist expectations, and everyone commits to seeing the crew safely back on Earth.

---

Main Character – Jim Lovell: Psychology / Being (Desire, Expectation, Test vs Trust)

Jim Lovell’s personal conflict comes from his internal processing and self-concept (Psychology), specifically his role-playing and self-image (Being) as the veteran commander and future moonwalker. His intense Desire to “be the next Neil Armstrong”—and to be the perfect NASA hero, husband, and father—feeds an Expectation problem: he’s weighed down by what he’s supposed to be and what the mission “should” give him, leaving him emotionally hobbled when Apollo 13 is aborted. Lovell experiences life as a series of Tests of his worth—NASA selection, simulator runs, PR appearances, family questions, and the crisis itself—and responds by leaning into Trust, projecting reliability (“you can count on me”) and trusting NASA, the ship, and his crew. On the far side of the moon, when he lets go of his lunar ambitions and declares he’s “ready to go home,” he adopts Determination as a new guiding stance and undergoes a Change/Start arc, personally resolving his identity conflict by committing to bringing his crew home rather than needing to fulfill his original expectations.

---

Influence Character – Mattingly/Swigert: Physics / Doing (Experience, Proven, Hunch vs Theory)

The Influence Character perspective is shared between Ken Mattingly and Jack Swigert, both defined by their approach to Physics / Doing—how they act, simulate, fly, and operate. Their pressure on Lovell centers on Experience and Proven: Mattingly insists on more simulator runs to build experience and won’t rest until procedures are proven to work; Swigert lives with the need to prove he belongs in Mattingly’s seat and that he isn’t at fault for the explosion. This IC perspective treats Hunches (misgivings about performance, suspicions about fault) as unreliable and responds with Theory, transforming gut concerns into concrete models and procedures they can run, refine, and ultimately prove in the simulator or in flight. As a Steadfast IC, they never abandon this Proven-driven approach, challenging Lovell’s expectation-based justifications and embodying the Determination the larger story ultimately adopts.

---

Relationship Story – Team: Mind / Preconscious (Worry, Trust/Test)

The Relationship Story centers on the emotional “we” of the Apollo 13 team—primarily Lovell, Haise, and Swigert, with Mattingly included at key points—as a shared attitude (Mind) whose trouble lies in their Preconscious knee-jerk reactions. Their Issue of Worry shows up as reflexive anxiety about whether they can truly rely on each other as a crew: they like and respect one another, but with Swigert’s last-minute insertion and Mattingly’s removal, there’s an undercurrent of worry about who might screw up, who really belongs, and whether anyone is quietly blaming someone else for the accident. The relationship’s Problem is Trust—not in the “we think you’re a liar” sense, but in the high-stakes sense of “can I rely on your instincts when my life depends on them?”—and it heals through Test, as they repeatedly test themselves and their collaboration (building the CO₂ contraption, executing burns, enduring conflicts) and prove the relationship’s resilience. This culminates in moments like Lovell instinctively taking the pilot’s seat at reentry, then stepping aside and letting Swigert fly—showing that the worries and trust issues have been tested and resolved.

[jhull]

WOAHHHH!! This is great! Thank you so much @mlucas — that Storyform looks 1000% correct. Did you write all these illustrations??

It’s so funny too because at the User Group meeting last week someone brought this up as a potential one to do. What a crazy coincidence!

[mlucas]

@jhull

What a crazy coincidence!

No kidding! It’s hard to find on streaming but was on TV here a couple weeks ago, maybe it was elsewhere as well? I watched it from my PVR recording, first time watching it in 25+ years, which is what inspired the analysis.

@jhull

WOAHHHH!! This is great! Thank you so much @mlucas — that Storyform looks 1000% correct. Did you write all these illustrations??

Thanks so much! The illustrations were totally a team effort. I would send some illustrations backing up an element choice, and it would comment on those, sometimes expand on them, and often add its own great illustrations. (It seemed to know the movie very well without me giving it a script or anything.)

Oh, the other impressive thing was that Narrova did challenge me on certain ideas that it thought were wrong … and it in hindsight it was spot on. Like initially I thought the marriage was part of the RS, but it didn’t really like that idea. In hindsight, although it’s possible the marriage represents a few RS beats here and there, it would have been counterproductive to focus on it.

[jhull]

Ok. The challenging is just too cool (and thinking back, I likely would have felt the same). Going to be adding this one today, and if ok the illustrations as well!

[mlucas]

Definitely okay to add the illustrations!

I will PM you the markdown file of our conversation too, in case you want to skim through it to see how things developed.

[mlucas]

@jhull

The challenging is just too cool

I should also have mentioned, I started with two candidate storyforms. I was definitely more sold on this one, but still considering the other, which had Learning as OS Concern. Narrova was VERY clear that it didn’t think the OS Learning one worked.

[jhull]

Hah! Can’t wait to read it.

I’m really glad it’s pushing back too, instead of the “Absolutely, Michael! You’re totally right about everything you said, and yes you can have an OS Concern in Learning and an MC Concern in Conceptualizing!” (inside Dramatica-joke )

[jhull]

Just adding the Storyform directly into Dramatica, and loved how the new Audience Experience appreciations just paint the exact picture of the film:

I mean, it is an “actual predicament”! And they have to step up, and they are pushed to act, and there are only a finite set of options, and they are all about the results, and its all about hope and triumph – incredible that we can get an emotional asseessment of how a story feels, just by plugging in its set of narrative Dynamics.

[mlucas]

Wow! You’re right, those all feel absolutely perfect for this film.

I particularly like the Stepping Up because on the surface Tom Hanks as Lovell seems like a stand-up guy already – accomplished, modest, does his best for everyone around him. But when the accident occurs you realize he’s lost in this dream of expecting everything to go right and getting to walk on the moon. That’s what he needs to step up from, or they’re never going to get home.

[jhull]

Tis official now - thanks!

[mlucas]

Awesome!
Oh, one correction – the co-ICs are Swigert and Ken Mattingly, not Fred Haise. (I didn’t really see any Doing/Experience/Proven conflict/influence coming from Haise – I think he’s an OS character.)

EDIT: checking the signposts they look great (definitely better than the standard Dramatica Pro ones). The OS is perfect:

1. Past - the Apollo 11 (Armstrong/Aldrin) moon landing setting up everyone’s expectations; the threat of the Apollo 1 fire
2. Present - the present danger immediately following the accident, alarms blaring etc.
3. Progress - worsening conditions (temperature, Haise’s illness), making progress toward Earth
4. Future - the looming danger of reentry, looking forward to the astronaut’s return (Marilyn to reporters: You can ask my husband when he gets back. On Tuesday. [or whatever day of week it was])

I didn’t touch on signposts with Narrova (was a bit unsure about which algorithm was in play)

[jhull]

@mlucas

Oh, one correction – the co-ICs are Swigert and Ken Mattingly, not Fred Haise. (I didn’t really see any Doing/Experience/Proven conflict/influence coming from Haise – I think he’s an OS character.)

Oh that would make more sense. I will fix!