Space Exploration Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for spacecraft operators, scientists, engineers, and enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
On 11/15/1961, John Houbolt, an engineer at the Langley Research Center, wrote a nine-page letter to Robert Seamans, associate administrator of NASA. (Referenced in this NASA retrospective.) This letter is considered instrumental in promoting the lunar orbit rendezvous mode for the Apollo missions.
Is the text of this letter available online?
Yes, the original letter is available on NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) on page 55 of the Key Documents section to the Enchanted Rendezvous, John C. Houbolt and the Genesis of the Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous Concept, Monographs in Aerospace History #4, NASA History Office, NASA-TM-111236 (PDF).
from the document referred to in TidalWave's answer:
Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
Associate Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1520 K Street, N.W.
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Dr. Seamans :
Somewhat as a voice in the wilderness, I would like to pass on a few thoughts on matters that have been of deep concern to me over recent months. This concern may be phrased in terms of two questions:
If you were told that we can put men on the moon with safe return with a single C-3, its equivalent or something less, would you judge this statement with the critical skepticism that others have?
Is the establishment of a sound booster program really so difficult?
I would like to comment on both these questions, and more, would like to forward as attachments condensed versions of plans which embody ideas and suggestions which I believe are so fundamentally sound and important that we cannot afford to overlook them. You will recall I wrote to you on a previous occasion. I fully realize that contacting you in this manner is somewhat unorthodox; but the issues at stake are crucial enough to us all that an unusual course is warranted.
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.
The plan.- The first attachment outlines in brief the plan by which we may accomplish a manned lunar landing through use of a lunar rendezvous, and shows a number of schemes for doing this by means of a single C-3, its equivalent, or even something less. The basic ideas of the plan were presented before various NASA people well over a year ago, and were since repeated at numerous interlaboratory meetings. A lunar landing program utilizing rendezvous concepts was even suggested back In April. Essentially, it had three basic points:
It was indicated then that two C-2's could do the job, C-2 being referred to simply because NASA booster plans did not go beyond the C-2 at that time; it was mentioned, however, that with a C-3 the number of boosters required would be cut in half, specifically only one.
Regrettably, there was little interest shown in the idea - indeed, if any, it was negative.
Also (for the record), the scheme was presented before the Lundin Committee. It received only bare mention in the final report and was not discussed further (see comments below in section entitled "Grandiose Plans ").
It was presented before the Heaton Committee, accepted as a good idea, then dropped, mainly on the irrelevant basis that it did not conform to the ground rules. I even argued against presenting the main plan considered by the Heaton Committee, largely because it would only bring harm to the rendezvous cause, and further argued that if the committee did not want to consider lunar rendezvous, at least they should make a strong recommendation that it looks promising enough that it deserves a separate treatment by itself - but to no avail. In fact, it was mentioned that if I felt sufficiently strong about the matter, I should make a minority report. This is essentially what I am doing.
We have given the plan to the presently meeting Golovin Committee on several occasions.
In a rehearsal of a talk on rendezvous for the recent Apollo Conference, I gave a brief reference to the plan, indicating the benefit derivable therefrom, knowing full well that the reviewing committee would ask me to withdraw any reference to this idea. As expected, this was the only item I was asked to delete.
The plan has been presented to the Space Task Group personnel several times, dating back to more than a year ago. The interest expressed has been completely negative.
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 we 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: ground 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?
Three ground rules in particular are worthy of mention: three men, direct landing, and storable return. These are very restrictive requirements. If two men can do the job, and if the use of only two men allows the job to be done, then why not do it this way? If relaxing the direct requirements allows the job to be done with a C-3, then why not relax it? Further, when a hard objective look is taken at the use of storables, then it is soon realized that perhaps they aren't so desirable or advantageous after all in comparison with some other fuels.
Grandiose plans, one-sided objections, and bias.- For some inexplicable reason, everyone seems to want to avoid simple schemes. The majority always seems to be thinking in terms of grandiose plans, giving all sort of argents for long-range plans, etc. Why is there not more thinking in the direction of developing the simplest scheme possible? Figuratively, why not go buy a Chevrolet instead of a Cadillac? Surely a Chevrolet gets one from one place to another just as well as a Cadillac, and in many respects with marked advantages.
I have been appalled at the thinking of individuals and committees on these matters. For example, comments of the following type have been made: "Houbolt has a scheme that has a 50 percent chance of getting a man to the moon, and a 1 percent chance of getting him back." This comment was made by a Headquarters individual at 'high level who never really has taken the time to hear about the scheme, never has had the scheme explained to him fully, or possible even correctly, and yet he feels free to pass judgement on the work. I am bothered by stupidity of this type being displayed by individuals who are in a position to make decisions which affect not only the NASA, but the fate of the nation as well. I have even grown to be concerned about the merits of all the committees that have been considering the problem. Because of bias, the intent of the committee is destroyed even before it starts and, further, the outcome is usually obvious from the beginning. We knew what the Fleming Committee results would be before it started. After one day it was clear what decisions the Lundin Committee would reach. After a couple days it was obvious what the main decision of the Heaton Committee would be. In connection with the Lundin Committee, I would like to cite a specific example. Considered by this committee was one of the most hair-brained ideas I have ever heard, and yet it received one first place vote. in contrast, our lunar rendezvous scheme, which I am positive is a much more workable idea, received only bare mention in a negative vein, as was mentioned earlier. Thus, committees are no better than the bias of the men composing them. We might then ask, why are men who are not competent to judge ideas, allowed to judge them?
Perhaps the substance of this section might be summarized this way. Why is NOVA, with its ponderous ideas, whether in size, manufacturing, erection, site location, etc., simply just accepted, and why is a much less grandiose scheme involving rendezvous ostracized or put on the defensive?
PERT chart folly.- When one examines the various program schedules that have been advanced, he cannot help from being impressed by the optimism shown. The remarkable aspect is that the more remote the year, the bolder the schedule becomes. This is, in large measure, due to the PERT chart craze. It has become the vogue to subject practically everything to a PERT chart analysis, whether it means anything or not. Those who apply or make use of it seen to be overcome by a form of self-hypnosis, more or less accepting the point of view, "Because the PERT chart says so, it is so." Somehow, perhaps unfortunately, the year 1967 was mentioned as the target year for putting a man on the moon. The Fleming report through extensive PERT chart analysis then "proved" this could be done. One cannot help but get the feeling that if the year 1966 had been mentioned, then this would have been the date proven; likewise, if 1968 had been the year mentioned.
My quarrel is not with the basic theory of PERT chart analysis; I am fully aware of its usefulness, when properly applied. I have been nominally in charge of a facility development and know the merits, utility, and succinctness by which it is helpful in keeping a going job moving, uncovering bottlenecks, and so forth. But when it is used in the nature of a crystal ball, then I begin to object. Thus, when we scrutinize various schedules and programs, we have to be very careful to ask how realistic the plan really is. often simple common sense tells us much more than all the machines in the world.
I make the above points because, as you will see, we have a very strong point to make about the possibility of coming up with a realistic schedule; the plan we offer is exceptionally clean and simple in vehicle and booster requirements relative to other plans.
Booster is pacing item.- In working out a paper schedule we have adopted the C-3 development schedule used by Fleming and Eeaton, not necessarily because we feel the schedule is realistic, but simply to make a comparison on a parallel basis. But whether the date is right, or not, doesn't matter. Here, I just want to point out that for the lunar rendezvous scheme the C-3 booster is the pacing item. Thus, we can phrase our lunar landing date this way. We can put a man on the moon as soon as the C-3 is developed and the number of C-3's required is very small. (In fact, as I mentioned earlier, I would not be surprised to have the plan criticized on the basis that it is not grandiose enough.)
Abort.- An item which perhaps deserves special attention is abort. People have leveled criticism, again erroneously and with no knowledge of the situation, that the lunar rendezvous scheme offers no abort possibilities. Along with our many technical studies we have also studied the abort problem quite thoroughly. We find that there is no problem in executing an abort maneuver at any point in the mission. In fact, a very striking result comes out, just the reverse of the impression many people try to create. When one compares, for example, the lunar rendezvous scheme with a direct approach, he finds that on every count the lunar rendezvous method offers a degree of safety and reliability far greater then that possible by the direct approach. These items are touched upon to a limted extent in the attached plan.
My comments on a booster program will be relatively short, since the second attachment more or less speaks for itself. There are, however, a few points worthy of embellishment.
Booster design.- In the course of participating in meetings dealing with vehicle design, I have sometimes had to sit back completely awed mud astonished at what I was seeing take place. I have seen the course of an entire meeting change because of an individual not connected with the meeting walking in, looking over shoulders, shaking his head in a negative sense, and then walking out without uttering a word. I have seen people agree on velocity increments, engine performance, and structural data, and after a booster design was made to these figures, have seen some of the people then derate the vehicle simply because they couldn't believe the numbers. I just cannot cater to proceedings of this type. The situation is very much akin to a civil engineer who knows full well that the material he is using will withstand 60,000 psi. He then applies a factor of safety of 2.5, makes a design, then after looking at the results, arbitrarily doubles the size of every member because he isn't quite sure that the design is strong enough. A case in point is the C-3. In my initial contacts with this vehicle, we were assured that it had a payload capability in the neighborhood of ll0,000-120,000 lbs. Then it was derated. The value used by the Heaton Committee was 105,000 lbs. By the time the vehicle had reached the Golovin Committee I was amazed to find that it had a capability of only 82,570 lbs. Perhaps the only comment that can be made to this is that if we can't do any better on making elementary computations of this type, then we deserve to be in the pathetic situation we are. I also wonder where we will stand after NOVA is derated similarly.
"Quantizing" bad.- One of the reasons our booster situation is in such a sad state is the lack of appropriate engines, more specifically the lack of an orderly stepping in engine sizes. Booster progress is virtually at a standstill because there are no engines available, Just as engines were the major pacing item in the development of aircraft. Aside from the engines on our smaller boosters and the H-1 being used on the C-1, the only engines we have in development are:
\begin{array} { r|r } \text{Capability} &\text{Ratio} \\ \hline 15,000 \\ &13.3 \\ 200,000 \\ &7.5 \\ 1,500,000 \\ \end{array}
The attempt to make boosters out of this stock of engines, having very large ratios in capability, can only result in boosters of grotesque and unwieldy configurations, and which require many, many in-flight engine starts. What is needed are engines which step up in size at a lower ratio. Consideration of the staging of an "ideal" rocket system indicates that whether accelerating to orbit speed or to escape speed, the ratio of engine sizes needed is in the order of 3. Logically then we ought to have engines that step in capability by a factor of around 2, 3, or 4. An every-day analog that can be mentioned is outboard motors. There is a motor to serve nearly every need, and in the extreme cases the process of doubling up is even used.
Booster program.- In light of the preceding paragraph, and taking into account the engines under development, we should add the following two:
\begin{array} { r r } 80,000 - 100,000 &\textrm{H}_2 - \textrm{O}_2 \\ 400,000 - 500,000 &\textrm{H}_2 - \textrm{O}_2 \\ \end{array}
This would then give a line-up as follows:
\begin{array} { r r r } 15,000 & &\textrm{H}/\textrm{O} \\ 80,000 &- 100,000 &\textrm{H}/\textrm{O} \\ 200,000 & &\textrm{H}/\textrm{O} \\ 400,000 &- 500,000 &\textrm{H}/\textrm{O} \\ 1500,000 & &\textrm{RP}/\textrm{O} \\ \end{array}
with the 15,000-lb. engine really not needed. This array (plus those mentioned immediately below) would allow the construction of almost all types of boosters conceivable. For example, a single 80,000-100,000 engine would take the place of the six L-115 engines being used on S-IV; not only is the arrangement of six engines on this vehicle bad, but these engines have very poor starting characteristics. The 400_000-500,000 would be used to replace the four J-2's on the S-II. Thus, C-3 would change from a messy 12-engined vehicle requiring 10 in-flight engine starts to a fairly simple 5-engine vehicle with only 3 in-flight engine starts.
In addition, the following engines should be included in a program: \begin{array} { l r r r } 1,000,000 &- 1,500,000 &\textrm{lb.} &\textrm{Solid} \\ &5,000,000 &&\textrm{Solid} \\ \textrm{and/or} &5,000,000 &&\textrm{Storable}\\ \end{array}
The 1,000,000 lb. solid would in itself be a good building block and would probably work in nicely to extend the capabilities of vehicles, such as Titan. The 5,000,000 solid and/or storable would also be good building blocks and specifically would serve as alternate first-stage boosters for C-3, aiming at simplicity and reliability.
It may be said that there is nothing new here and that all of the above is obvious. Indeed, it seems so obvious that one wonders why such a program has not started 5 years ago. But the fact that it may be obvious doesn't help us; what is necessary is putting the obvious into effect. In this connection, there may be some who ask, "But are the plans optimum and the best?". This question is really not pertinent. There will never be an optimized booster or program. We might have an optimum booster for a given situation, but there is none that is optimum for all situations. To seek one, would just cause deliberation to string out indefinitely with little, if any, progress being made. The Dyna-Soar case is a good example of this.
A criticism that undoubtedly will be leveled at the above suggestions is that I'm not being realistic in that there is just not enough money around to do all these things. If this is the situation, then the answer is simply that's why we have Webb and his staff. That's why he was chosen to head the organization, this is one of his major functions, to ask the question, do we want to do a job or not?, and, if so, then to find out where the gaps or holes are, and then to go about doing what is necessary to fill the gaps to make sure the job gets done. Further, the load doesn't have to be carried by the NASA alone. The Air Force and NASA can work together and share the load, and I'm sure that if this is done, the necessary money can be found. Even if some project, say, for example, the 5,000,000-lb. storable engine has to be dropped for some reason after it gets started; no harm will be done. This happens every day. On the contrary, some good, some new knowledge, will have been uncovered, even if it turns out to be the discovery of the next obstacle which prevents such a booster from being built.
Nuclear booster and booster size.- Although not 'mentioned in the previous section, work on nuclear engines should, of course, continue. Any progress made here will integrate very nicely into the booster plans indicated in the attachment.
As regards booster size, the following comment is offered. Excluding for the moment NOVA type vehicles, we should strive for boosters which make use of the engines mentioned in the preceding section and which are the biggest that can be made and yet still be commensurate with existing test-stand sites and with the use of launch sites that are composed of an array of assembly buildings and multiple launch pads. The idea behind launch sites of this type is an excellent one. It keeps real estate demands to a minimum, allows for ease in vehicle assembly and check-out, end greatly eases the launch rate problem. Thus, C-3 or C-4, should be designed accordingly. We would then have a nice work-horse type vehicle having relative ease of handling, and which would permit a lunar landing mission, as indicated earlier in the lunar rendezvous write-up section. From my point of view, I would much rather confine my spending to a single versatile launch site of the type mentioned, save money in real estate acquisition and launch site development necessary for the huge vehicles, and put the money saved into an engine development program.
It is one thing to gripe, another to offer constructive criticism. Thus, in making a few final remarks I would like to offer what I feel would be a sonud integrated overall program. I think we should:
Get a rearmed rendezvous experiment going with the Mark II Mercury.
Firm up the engine program suggested in this letter and attachment; converting the booster to these engines as soon as possible.
Establish the concept of using a C-3 and lunar rendezvous to accomplish the manned lunar landing as a firm program.
Naturally, in discussing matters of the type touched upon herein, one cannot make comments without having them smack somewhat against NOVA. I want to assure you, however, I'm not trying to say NOVA should not be built, i'm simply trying to establish that our scheme deserves a parallel front-line position. As a matter of fact, because the lunar rendezvous approach is easier, quicker, less costly, requires less development, less new sites and facilities, it would appear more appropriate to say that this is the way to go, and that we will use NOVA as a follow on. Give us the go-ahead, and a C-3, and we will put men on the moon in very short order - and we don't need any Houston empire to do it.
In closing, Dr. Seamens, let me say that should you desire to discuss the points covered in this letter in more detail, I would welcome the opportunity to come up to Headquarters to discuss them with you.
Respectfully yours,
John C. Houbolt
