I hadn’t talked to him in years, and am a little surprised that he was still alive; he had life-threatening health problems for a long time (liver, if I recall correctly). I’m glad he got as long as he did. He was a great historian and advocate for space and human spaceflight.
The Space Studies Institute is offering it free on Kindle this week, to celebrate the Apollo anniversary. If you haven’t read it, it’s a classic. Actually, it is even if you have read it.
[Update a few minutes later]
Sort of related: Our discussion of Evoloterra last night on The Space Show is now archived.
During the anniversary week of the first human moon landing, Eric Hedman reminds is that we know practically nothing about the effects of partial gravity on human (or any animal) health. This is a sign of how unserious we remain about human spaceflight.
Did he save it? And if so, why? An interesting bit of history of which I’d been unaware. Mondale wanted to kill it, and did manage to reduce the fleet size from seven to five (including Enterprise, which never flew). Which was economically stupid, because it saved very little money. If we’d had six vehicles, we’d have still had four after the losses of Challenger and Columbia (assuming that we hadn’t built Endeavour from spares after Challenger, and those two events would have occurred in that alternate universe). A four- or five-ship fleet would have made for a slightly different calculus after the loss of the latter, because part of the reason the program was ended was that three was too small a fleet to continue to operate for long.
Donald Robertson has an op-ed at Space News that reflects many of the themes of my monograph (which, by the way, I have updated with feedback from the past couple days).
Roger Launius has reviewed it over at Quest, but for subscribers only (I think it will become available when the next issue comes out). It was interesting, in that it was more of a good summary, with no value judgments, though in an email he did say it was “thought provoking.” And he had no criticism of facts or history, so that’s a good thing. It may be the first “peer reviewed” review I’ve gotten. FWIW