John Houbolt – He figured out how to go to the moon
npr.org
npr.org
> "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...
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?