Children of Apollo - Mark R. Whittington

Children of Apollo - mini-review

Mikey said:
Sounds like an interesting book about a continued Apollo Space program. Has anybody read it?


I read it recently - I was about to write a review about it for a
Bulgarian SF magazine. Alas, I was disappointed, perhaps because
I had false expectations.

The blurbs led me to believe that this is "just" an AH novel,
however, this is more of a political pamphlet for the extreme
right. Perhaps it was just me - growing up in the East had thought
me to filter out the propaganda, especially the most obvious one.
The book is missing subtlety - that would have made the anti-soviet
message much stronger. For example, "Red Moon" by Cassut is
more convincing as a political statement because the
disappointment in the communism comes from within.

Aside from that - I find the story highly implausible. Everything goes
right for the good guys (and I didn't find them very appealing). There
are some plot holes enforced on the story in order to make political
statements - i.e. (MINOR SPOILER!) the extra stopover at the private
station to get food that couldn't be loaded on the ground because of
weight constraints. The problem is that the stop over requires fuel for
the docking (at least!) that is probably orders of magnitude heavier
than the food.

There is one idea I liked and I find original - in comparison with the
other books on alternative space exploration - the early privatization
of the space program, the opening of space for business, the
entering of "small" companies in the space market, etc.

A special note on the ability of the author to create suspense - it is
not quite "The Da Vinci Code" or Deception Point", but it is certainly
there and the books is hard to put aside.

How does the book compares with the other space-AH books?
- Baxter's "Voyager" was more accurate technically, i.e. compare
the description of Apollo launches
- Allen's "Tranquility Alternative" had by far better characterization,
I found myself genuinely caring for the characters
- Cassut's "Red Moon" is a better political statement (do not be
confused by the title - this is not some kind of pro-Soviet nostalgic
book!)
- Caidin's "Marooned" is the most dramatic of them all.

I also found some typos toward the end of the book, which was
surprising considering my own spelling abilities. :) Most people
would probably ignore this but it bother me a bit.

I hope I have been of some help.

P.S. Mark R. Whittington occasionally appears on this forum.

P.P.S. I am very interested in space-AH, I will be thankful for any
recommendations.
 
Ordinarily I don't make these kind of replies. However.

"Extreme right wing pamplet."

I'm not sure where the poster got that one. While the book does take the position that the Soviet Union was evil and prone to do evil things, I'm certain that view is widely shared by many of most political persuasions. I'm not sure how one can depict that with subtlety. Also, there are a number of symphathetic charecters in the book whose politics are on the left.

More fuel required to dock with a space station than to achieve low Earth orbit.

I'm sure that's not true and the source I used for most technical questions agree. If there is anyone out there with a technical background who can prove that wrong, I'd like to hear from them.

Accurate description of Apollo launches.

I borrowed most of that from actual accounts of real Apollo missions. If the poster can point out where I went wrong, I invite him to do so.
 
I am sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive.
Perhaps, I have to explain a few things:

...take the position that the Soviet Union was evil and prone to do evil things, I'm certain that view is widely shared by many of
most political persuasions. I'm not sure how one can depict that with subtlety...

There is no argument about that but I insist that the ending of books like "Red Moon" have much stronger impact - this is a spoiler: instead of stating how evil is the communism, the protagonist there has this old Russian, battling cancer, barely alive, to say that he was disappointed by his own people. I can't do justice of the emotional strength of the situation. Sorry, but saying that the communism -- or any other true statement -- has the same effect on my as the old banners we used to carry as kids during the parades back then.

You seem to appeal to the logic of the reader, while I think a book should appeal to the emotions. This is why I used the word "pamphlet".


... More fuel required to dock with a space station than to achieve low Earth orbit....

Correct me if I am wrong: the young engineer (I am sorry, I forgot the name and the book is not with me) told his boss that they can not launch the ship from Earth with the food because it would have exceeded the weight limitations. Yet, the ship could carry the extra fuel necessary to maneuver and dock with the station?

As for the launches - a few things such as the shock after the first stage runs out wasn't mentioned.
 
I can't argue about your first assessment, since that is an asthetic opinion. I disagree with it, though. The book is not a political document. It is a story set against a background that includes politics (among other things.)

I double checked with one of my sources and he confirms that the fuel cost of docking with a space station and picking up the cargo of food is less than the fuel cost of lifting that food from the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit. How much depends on such things as orbital angles and other things, but since it is my story I'll give myself as many breaks as possible (g).
 
Agreed, let's not argue about tastes.

MarkWhittington said:
I double checked with one of my sources and he confirms that the fuel cost of docking with a space station and picking up the cargo of food is less than the fuel cost of lifting that food from the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit. How much depends on such things as orbital angles and other things, but since it is my story I'll give myself as many breaks as possible (g).

OK. :)
This is interesting - I though that the docking alone takes a few tens of kg of fuel/oxydized but I can imagine a situation when the orbits a re close that it could be less.

Let's finish on a positive note - I liked the idea of eary introduction of the "small" companies into the space exploration. I have read a lot of space AH and I think it is original. Too bad the things didn't go this way.

A thought on imposing a space race on the Soviet Union. A major reason why the SU lost the mMoon race was the lack of interest among the millitary - this led to reduction of funds and to such short cuts as not builging e test stand to fire simultaneosly all engines for the first stage of N-1.

At the time the SU was much like a short-treck runner, compeeting in marathon - they could pass everybody in the first few hundred meteres but then...

So, to keep the SU in the space race: they had to show to the world that they are committed. Some early success in the race would do it - i.e. if "Apollo-8" flies around the Earth, as originally planned. So the SU sends a "Zond" around the moon. This will have no effect on the outcome from the moon race because N-1 still will suffer the same problems but the political repercautions will be significant. In the OTL they could deny thet they ever tried to send a man on the Moon but not in this ATL. I imagine thet they would either go with the Lunar Base program or with the Mars sample return mission (wich almost happened in OTL in mid-70's).

Another alterntive is to forego the treaty for non-proliferation of the nuclear weapons in space (it was singed in 1963-4?, I don't remember). This will keep the millitary interested, the Moon is an excellent site for a retaliation base, I imagine the having US and SU bases with atomic weapons there in mid-70's. Now, this - I expect - will bring the SU to economic collapse appr. 10 yr earlier. But I would not want to live in sich OLT. :(
 
There were several other reasons the Soviets lost the Moon race, including bureaucratic infighting and lack of coordination among various entities involved in the Soviet space program, as well as the untimely death of the Soviets' Chief Designer.

Getting the Soviet military more interested in space exploration would be an interesting problem. I doubt that nuclear bases on the Moon would be very useful. A nuclear attack that takes three days to reach its target would hardly be a useful first strike.

Cancelling the Test Ban Treaty would have another interesting effect. It would remove a diplomatic impediment to Orion. (For those who don't know, Orion was a concept developed in the fifties for space craft propelled with the explosive power of nuclear bombs.) The US military, of course, was not interested at the time in space going battleships, so I wonder if the Soviets would have been.
 
> There were several other reasons the Soviets lost the Moon race, including bureaucratic infighting and lack of coordination among various entities involved in the Soviet space program, as well as the untimely death of the Soviets' Chief Designer.

Agrred.
For those interested: there is a excellent analysis of the Moon race on astronautix.com

> Getting the Soviet military more interested in space exploration would be an interesting problem. I doubt that nuclear bases on the Moon would be very useful. A nuclear attack that takes three days to reach its target would hardly be a useful first strike.

A nuclear Moon base is not a first strike weapon - it is an insurance policy, retaliation tool - "do not attack us ot else you will get nuked three days later". I wonder if it won't be actually cheaper than the mass deplyment of nuclear sub-marines in OTL. The pattern of the arm race coud change drastically. Also, the ultimate weapon against a nuclear Moon base is another Moon base.


> Cancelling the Test Ban Treaty would have another interesting effect. It would remove a diplomatic impediment to Orion. (For those who don't know, Orion was a concept developed in the fifties for space craft propelled with the explosive power of nuclear bombs.) The US military, of course, was not interested at the time in space going battleships, so I wonder if the Soviets would have been.

I have read a few articles claiming thet Orion is not practical, unless one wants to take to orbit hundreds of tons which corresponds to a _very_ agressive space program, much more agressive than in the OTL.

I doubt the Soviets would be interested in Orion-like project. They had an early nuclear engine project (probably more like NERVA rathat than an Orion analog) that got cancelled after 1-2 yrs of development.

A Soviet Moon base - even a long-term - is not likely to provide sufficient demand for ORION: I expect 4 N-1 launches a year would do to build and maintain a permanent base with 6 month crue rotation: 2 crued flights and 2 for supplies and/or new modules. In fact, perhaps a smaller rocket - i.e. Proton - can launch the supply flights.

ORION would requre some other incentive - i.e. if we _knew_ that there is life in the Jupiter system in the 50-60's, and we needed to send people there because at the time the computers weren't good enough to allow sending reliable automatic probes. But this is clearly ASB.

Instead of ORION I would have my bet on NERVA and whatever was the later Soviet analog.
 
I'm not sure that a missile base on the Moon would be all that useful even as a second strike weapon. The other country would likely build their own base on the Moon with weapons directed at the first country's base. Also, I think the problem of defense against a strike that takes three days to reach its target would be far easier to solve than against one that takes thirty minutes or less.

You are likely right about Orion--baring some overriding reason to build it (say, a planet killer rock on the way.) But I think the one impediment to building such a vehicle would be the question: Would a neat way to move large amounts of people and cargo to--say--Mars be worth the extra cancer deaths involved? I suspect that the answer, at least in America, would be likely not.
 
Top