Customer Reviews

For All Mankind

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

When this book came out late in 1988, the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing was approaching. As you might expect, many books were published to commemorate--or capitalize on--this anniversary. Some of the books were quite good (Murray and Cox's excellent "Apollo The Race to the Moon," for example, which came out at about the same time). "For All Mankind," however, is not one of the good ones.

The number and magnitude of errors in this book is nothing short of astounding. Like other reviewers, I wonder where the fact checkers were. I actually kept a list of errors as I slogged through this book, until the list got too long and I got tired of the exercise in frustration. It is obvious that the writer knew absolutely nothing about the technology that got us to the moon. It is beyond me why someone with so little knowledge of rocketry and spaceflight would undertake a book of this nature.

Don't believe me? Here's a little sample (as Dave Barry would say, "I swear I'm not making this up"):

On the technique used to ignite the Saturn V's five first-stage F-1 rocket engines: "A five-hundred-volt charge was shot through the ground cable on the launchpad, and into the trunk of the Saturn 5, where its spark ignited a mixture of highly flammable turboprop gases."

That is so wrong that I don't know where to start to correct it. Or how about this one, explaining why rockets work in space (where there is no air to "push against"): "The theory of jet propulsion...was a method for tapping the power of the entire universe...[t]he rocket got its power by exchanging the finite momentum generated by its own motors for the infinite momentum generated by the gravitational forces of the solar system."

That should make anyone who even slept through a high school science class cringe. And where are the astronauts while all this "momentum exchanging" is going on? "They literally had to hang upside down from the rafters with their feet locked in titanium clamps bolted to a crossbeam directly above their heads." Does this conjure up images of the intrepid Apollo astronauts blasting into orbit like so many bats in a church steeple?

It's hard to describe just how bad "For All Mankind" is. It's inconceivable to me that such a massively flawed, scientifically and technically inaccurate book could find its way to print as the purported story of perhaps the most significant scientific achievement in history. If you have a morbid fascination to see how badly an author who clearly knows nothing about his subject can mangle the facts, check "For All Mankind" out of a library. Otherwise, don't waste your time.

First, the three biggest mistakes, most specific to the book's theme (not the Steve Wozniak/Apple/floppy disk mistakes).

And, contrary to one reviewer who complained about negativity, the three mistakes I cite do NOT require "geekness" to recognize as mistakes.

1. The brightest star in the sky? It's "Sirius," not "Cereus."

2. The astronaut on Apollo 16 is "Charlie" Duke, not "Charley."

3. Jack Schmitt never flew on Gemini. He wasn't even selected as an astronaut in time for it to have been POSSIBLE for him to fly on Gemini.

The first mistake makes me wonder just how much Hurt knows about astronomy. The second and third make me wonder just how much he knows about the astronauts he supposedly interviewed as the core of this book.

That is seconded by things such as his unsupported claim that astronauts hated their geology courses here on earth. Totally untrue. Early astronauts may not have liked boring, chalkboard lectures, but ALL the astronauts who went on the last three, "scientific" missions, LOVED the field geology classes they took before flight and were gung-ho about applying this to lunar geology upon landing.

Throw in the fact that this book doesn't have an index, has only citation footnotes, not explanatory ones, and also has a fairly thin bibliography, and you get the impression this was some stream-of-consciousness type writing.

A MUCH better book is Andrew Chaikin's "A Man on the Moon."

I was torn between one and two stars for this book. I finally gave it 1 because the tidbits of learning in here just can't offset a poor style of writing and an uninformed one to boot; it might actually be worth two stars, but people rating it unnecessarily high had to be offset.

It's an enjoyable read, full of interesting tidbits I haven't found elsewhere. But be prepared for errors. Among author Harry Hunt's gaffes: --Chuck Yeager travels at Mach 1 in the X-15. --Neil Armstrong exits the LM via the top hatch. --the Challenger is destroyed by a ruptured oxygen tank.

You'll roll your eyes from time to time wondering how an otherwise smart reporter can't get his facts straight. But if you check it out from the library, what do you have to lose?

This book is written from a different point of view than most books about the Apollo program. Taking the readers through the trip to the moon and comparing the experiences of the various flights at each step of the way from lift-off to splashdown to life afterward for the astronauts. Usually most books describe each flight one at a time. The idea works quite well.

The problem is that sprinkled throughout the book are atrocious factual errors. These are not little errors but gigantic whoppers to anyone who knows anything about space travel and technology. Besides the things mentioned by other reviews the author seems to think jet propulsion and rocket propulsion are the same thing and I'm sure Steve Wozniak would be astounded to know that he invented the floppy disk and that that was the key to inventing the Apple. The original Apple didn't even have a floppy disk. Where were the editors and fact checkers? I was actually surprised that the author got right the fact that Velcro and Tang were NOT created for the space program.

Even with all the mistakes I did enjoy the book. But realizing that I recognized so many errors I have to wonder how many I did not pick up on. To me those mistakes make this book on the verge of fiction since I don't know what facts to trust.

I would give the book 3 stars based on the text, but I have to take away 2 stars for the errors.

This book, written on the twentieth anniversery of the Apollo 11 mission, is without a doubt the most inaccurate, overblown, and poorly researched book I've ever read. The author has no understanding of the technical aspects of space flight, and this shows up time and time again. Chock full of technical errors, the book also suffers from a writing style that dries to pump up the Apollo adventure (as if it needed it) with the use of far too much hyperbole. Everything in the book is "unbelievably, stupendously awesome". One can easily imagine the author writing the book with a thesaurus next to him, determined to use every word in it.

Don't buy this book. Murray and Cox's "Apollo: The Race to the Moon" is good in every way that "For All Mankind" is bad.

OK, Chuck Yeager didn't break the sound barrier in the X-15. It was the X-1. They made a movie about it called "The Right Stuff."

After reading "For All Mankind" a couple of times right after Chaikin's "A Man on the Moon" and Murray's "Apollo", I'm really disappointed by the number of obvious errors. Some have already been pointed out above (including a couple that I missed in casual readings). This isn't like a Star Trek convention -- some of these things are blatant and easily corrected. And we're talking about common things that anyone can look up in an encyclopedia.

I actually like the style of the book, and the perspective from which he writes. I'm just not sure I can trust the facts in it when I know so many of them to be wrong. I believe though that all space fans that know the difference need to read this book, just to make sure they'll appreciate the others.

Although there were obvious factual, technical, and mechanicalerrors... I liked how it looked into the minds and lives of theastronauts... that part was accurate and well-researched. One examle of an obvious error was when Hurt was quoting the plaque that Apollo 11 placed on the moon, he said "July 1960."

Terrible, terrible disregard for facts, understanding, and accuracy. There are far better and more interesting histories.

I agree with some of the other reviews. It does have many errors, and some descriptions are overdone. However, I thought it an easy read, giving a decent overview of a "typical" mission.

More mistakes per chapter than any non-fiction book I have ever read. Glaring stuff: Yeager flew an X-15; Glenn flew 5 orbits of the Earth. Were either the author or publisher sober when they published this?

Bill Yancey, Author: The Last Day