New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Why Two Moonships Were Better Than One

Engineer John Houbolt pushed for a smaller ship to land on the lunar surface while the command module stayed in orbit around the moon.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Eagle has landed.”>

July 20 marks 50 years since human beings first landed on the moon. That momentous day in 1969 made astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin household names. But years before that, a lesser-known figure was on a mission to make that first moon landing possible.

His name was John Houbolt. The son of Dutch immigrants, Houbolt grew up on a farm in Joliet, Ill. He studied engineering at the University of Illinois and eventually worked his way to NASA. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It was there, in the early 1960s, that he put his career on the line to champion what was, at the time, an unpopular idea—but would ultimately be critical to getting Apollo 11 to the moon and safely back. 

“John faced a mixture of indifference, at times, abuse and, at times, ridicule that he never forgot until things started to change, and engineers started to realize his data might be right.” Todd Zwillich, author of the new Audible Original spoken-word book about Houbolt’s life. It’s called The Man Who Knew the Way to the Moon

So what was Houbolt’s unpopular idea? He championed what’s called lunar orbit rendezvous. The concept involves sending a spacecraft into orbit around the moon—and from there, sending only a small, lightweight craft down to the moon’s surface, instead of the entire ship.

Zwillich says while Houbolt didn’t invent the idea, he was the one who started to apply it to the technologies that were within NASA’s grasp at the time.

“Most of the people who know the most about this mission feel that without lunar orbit rendezvous, Apollo couldn’t have succeeded. And without John Houbolt, you probably would not have had lunar orbit rendezvous.”

Zwillich’s book also explores the kinds of challenges NASA engineers face today, as they make plans to get back to the moon and, ultimately, to Mars.

“When you talk about Mars, gosh, 150 million miles, orders of magnitude of a bigger problem. Do we do some form of Martian orbit rendezvous? Do we build a station in Martian orbit that we can stage down to the surface to manage all that mass? A lot of problems to think about.”

Those problems, he says, create plenty of debates today. With the story of John Houbolt as an example, something considered highly unlikely now might be the key to eventually putting people on the Red Planet.

—Christine Herman

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

[A version of this story originally ran on Illinois Public Media, the NPR member station serving east-central Illinois.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe