
John Houbolt – He figured out how to go to the moon - senthil_rajasek
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/18/739934923/meet-john-houbolt-he-figured-out-how-to-go-to-the-moon-but-few-were-listening
======
js2
> In one meeting attended by NASA Associate Administrator Robert Seamans, von
> Braun and Faget, Houbolt pitched LOR. After the presentation, Faget rose
> from his seat to denounce Houbolt's plan.

> "His figures lie!" Faget proclaimed. Amid a stunned silence in the room,
> Faget added, "He doesn't know what he's talking about!"

...

> Frustrated with his inability to get anyone to listen, in November 1961,
> Houbolt wrote a letter to Seamans, essentially going straight to the top of
> the NASA hierarchy.

Letter from Houbolt to Seamans:

[https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/0/0d/John_Houbolt_LO...](https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/0/0d/John_Houbolt_LOR_Correspondence.pdf)

This is an interesting paragraph:

> Since we have had only occasional and limited contact, and because you
> therefore probably do not know me very well, it is conceivable that after
> reading this you may feel that you are dealing with a crank. Do not be
> afraid of this. The thoughts expressed here may not be stated in as
> diplomatic a fashion as they might be, or as I would normally try to do, but
> this is by choice and at the moment is not important. The important point is
> that you hear the ideas directly, not after they have filtered through a
> score or more of other people, with the attendant risk that they may not
> even reach you.

As is this:

> Ground rules. - The greatest objection that has been raised about our lunar
> rendezvous plan is that it does not conform to the "ground rules". This to
> me is nonsense; the important question is, "Do we want to get to the moon or
> not?", and, if so why do have to restrict our thinking along a certain
> narrow channel. I feel very fortunate that I do not have to confine my
> thinking to arbitrarily set up ground rules which only serve to constrain
> and preclude possible equally good or perhaps better approaches. Too often
> thinking goes along the following vein: gound rules are set up, and then the
> question is tacitly asked, "Now, with these ground rules what does it take,
> or what is necessary to do the job?". A design begins and shortly it is
> realized that a booster system way beyond present plans is necessary. Then a
> scare factor is thrown in; the proponents of the plan suddenly become afraid
> of the growth problem or that perhaps they haven't computed so well, and so
> they make the system even larger as an "insurance" that no matter what
> happens the booster will be large enough to meet the contingency. Somehow,
> the fact is completely ignored that they are now dealing with a ponderous
> development that goes far beyond the state-of-the-art.

> Why is there not more thinking along the following lines: Thus, with this
> given booster; or this one, is there anything we can do to do the job? In
> other words, why can't we also think along the lines of deriving a plan to
> fit a booster, rather than derive a booster to fit a plan?

