ESD.30J Engineering Apollo Hudson Graham 02 April 2007 Book Review on Chris Kraft’s Flight Chris Kraft’s Flight is his story of being “part of the crowd, then part of the leadership that opened space travel to human beings” (Kraft 355). The author worked in key operational positions at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to integrate technology and policy in the 1960’s to put a man on the moon. The following paper provides a brief summary, a critical review of Flight, analyzes Kraft as a source, evaluates the relevance of his topic to the overall Apollo story, and examines an engineering decision that was driven by the politics of the era. Brief summary Kraft recounts his journey from his boyhood in Phoebus, Virginia, to becoming an engineer at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, then one of the original thirty-six members of the Space Task Group. He shares how he became “Flight” for NASA. “Flight” has complete authority “while the mission is under way…Flight is God” (Kraft 2). He served in this capacity for all the Mercury flights and through Gemini 6 and 7. Following these Gemini flights, he moved to a higher management position to help the Apollo program along, while continuing to play an active role as the man who developed the Mission Control room and groomed and mentored his “men called Flight” (Kraft 316)—Gene Kranz, Cliff Charlesworth, Glynn Lunney, and Gerry Griffin. This is Kraft’s story of how he “was lucky to be part of” a team “from NASA, industry, science, and academe who brilliantly sent Americans” (Kraft 355) to the moon. Critical examination The space story in Flight leaves the reader feeling nostalgic over the events that Kraft describes, including times of high drama and inspiration, such as when Ed White took a space walk from Gemini IV or when Neil Armstrong stepped out on the moon. Kraft remembers that “euphoria held us and the moment never seemed to end” (Kraft 324). His involvement with the Apollo project dominated his life. Having invested so much in the space program, Kraft understandably has an interest in conveying the Apollo project in a positive light that will leave 1the reader in awe over what he and the other men accomplished. He credits Time magazine writer James Schefter for helping him “[create] a compelling memoir” (Kraft X). The author has had thirty years to create a story based on how he wants to shape his legacy. He includes a critique of Apollo 13, a nod to the influence of this popular movie in forming Americans’ perceptions of the program. He focuses on the benefits to society today, such as the furtherance of communication satellites, digital computers and “remote sensing in medicine” (Kraft 354). Looking forward, he believes “this nation can find no better investment in the health, safety, security, education, and overall well-being of the American public than for a visionary president to declare that Americans will land on Mars. And then make it happen” (Kraft 355). In line with this thinking, his book concentrates on the advantages that the Apollo program provided America in “health, safety, security, education, and overall well-being,” which reinforces his legacy as a patriotic American and is also an argument for further space exploration and the continuation of the space program. Sources This memoir revolves around the eyewitness accounts of Kraft himself. Flight is convincing and appears valid, as it aligns with other accounts of that time, and Kraft is open and honest, even showing some of his negative moments or decisions. However, Kraft does have his own unique perspective through which he views the events of the Apollo program. Growing up in a small town that no longer exists, his family was hit hard by the Great Depression and did not have a lot of money or luxuries. An active participant in Virginia Polytechnic Institute’s Corps of Cadets, Kraft tried to gain a commission to fly during World War II. He was disqualified because of a childhood accident that burned his hand and chose to serve as an engineer developing airplanes to combat the Germans. An all-American type, this background contributed to Kraft’s strongly patriotic understanding of why they were working so feverishly to meet the challenge of the Apollo program. His operations mentality is evident in his perspective of the astronaut corps. For instance, he does not hide his dislike for Scott Carpenter, which he grounds in his perception that Carpenter was incompetent. Competency is a life and death trait for someone in operations. With Grissom, he accepts his blown hatch story because of “Grissom’s professionalism” (Kraft 147). 2Relevance to larger Apollo project Flight is a secondary piece of literature in the study of the Apollo project; it is a firsthand account of a key eyewitness who was involved with the project but is not a source document or manuscript. It is a memoir written thirty years after the fact with the influence of thirty years of living and popular culture to refine Kraft’s memories. From “Interpreting the Moon Landings: Project Apollo and the Historians,” Roger Launius’s five categories are useful in pointing to some areas to be cautious of in Kraft’s story. Flight is Kraft’s memoir account, which is like Launius’s third category; as such, the book should be read with the understanding that this is his limited “nosecone” (Launius 237) perspective as one individual in a program. Kraft is probably not as limited in scope as a single astronaut, but is still limited. Kraft’s book shows a NASA operations insider’s emphasis on the development of procedures for executing the mission. Many of the sources covered in the Engineering Apollo course focus on the Apollo project individually, disregarding the other NASA projects of the time period. Kraft’s story helps shed light on how both Mercury and “Gemini bridged the technology gaps that made Apollo possible” (Kraft 265). Without these two predecessor programs, “the Kennedy goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth by the end of that marvelous decade would not have been accomplished” (Kraft 265). Flight contributes to the understanding that Apollo was not something that occurred overnight but was the integration of years of preparation work. Another important link to the larger Apollo