The Echoes of Apollo

Last week, people flew around the Moon. It feels surreal to be able to type those words.

When I talk to people who witnessed the Apollo program, I like to ask them what they remember. Most were children at the time, and their answer is often some version of: “Oh, I wanted to be an astronaut.”

Some of the children who witnessed Apollo did become astronauts, while others became engineers and scientists. But the power of Apollo transcended generations, the stories and images from the missions creating new witnesses decades after Apollo 17.

There is Artemis II astronaut Christina Koch, who experienced Apollo as a poster of Earthrise on her wall–and then brought back her own spectacular imagery from the Moon. There is the director of Artemis landing and recovery, Liliana Villarreal, who experienced Apollo at a museum–and then brought astronauts home from the Moon.

They are the echoes of Apollo. They will create echoes of their own.


“Welcome to my old neighborhood.” – Jim Lovell

On the morning of their lunar flyby, the crew of Artemis II was greeted by the voice of Apollo 8 astronaut Jim Lovell, giving them words of welcome. Lovell had passed away the year before, but had recorded this message for the crew. “So, Reid, and Victor, and Christina, and Jeremy,” he said, “and all the great teams supporting you–good luck and godspeed from all of us here on the good Earth.”

The Lovell family had also sent them an artifact from Apollo 8: Jim Lovell’s mission patch from 1968.

As they approached the Moon, I was glued to the stream. I will always remember the Moon getting larger and larger, seeing more and more detail revealing itself on the lunar surface. Hearing them talk about the craters that mark the westward limit of what we can see from Earth, like Grimaldi, getting larger and more detailed. And slowly, the far side of the Moon becoming the dominant view from the capsule.


There were other types of echoes. Not ones that came from inspiration, but echoes that were more structural, part of the share nature of their missions.They were a consequence of the fact that achieving something of that magnitude entails certain values and qualities in the people involved: curiosity, kindness, and a drive to collaborate.

Some of the most memorable things from both Apollo and Artemis were the conversations between the teams on the ground and the teams at the Moon. It was connection. It was Moon joy.

In fact, some of the first words spoken on the surface of the Moon in 1969 were reports back to home: “Contact Light. Okay, engine stop…Houston…”

On Artemis II, the conversations between the Moon and Earth were fascinating to listen to. The astronauts had been trained to give vivid descriptions of what they saw: the textures, the details, the aspects that different from what they had see in photographs.

The astronauts discussed these observations amongst themselves before making calls back home, which we got to listen in on. Victor Glover gave the first of their situation reports directly from the Moon, a part of the mission that was his idea:

“…from Integrity, we have a sit-rep. The targets that are being discussed right now, it’s the farside-nearside comparison, and hearing some great discussion of browns and greens in the Aristarchus plateau, and how those disappear as you go toward the north pole, and then over to the far side, you lose the color…”

And later

“I also heard a discussion about the albedo of Grimaldi being a 10, and how many of us, when we were a little farther away, saw that as the darkest albedo, and that the bigger mare of to the west, sorry–to the east–was still dark, but maybe a 7-8. We still think that, but you are seeing color variation, albedo variation, inside of Grimaldi as well. And that even on the west side, there’s still a very dark part of it. But it is still the darkest, it is just not as uniform as it looked when we were farther away…”

Victor Glover, near the Moon. From NASA Broadcast.

And the reply from Earth, NASA scientist Kelsey Young maintained a dialogue with them in real time.

“Copy all, Victor, and you read our minds. Superlatives like ‘darkest,’ ‘biggest,’ are really helpful for us, so keep those coming.”

Kelsey Young, in Houston. From NASA Broadcast.

There were moments that captured their rapidly changing views from the capsule.

“When I went back to the window just now, the view has completely changed. Our trajectory is taking us to a new view, and I’m looking more into Vavilov, so I’ve got a nice great view into Vavilov…wow, yeah, I wish I had some more time to just sit here and describe what I’m seeing, but the terminator right now is just fantastic. It is the most rugged that I’ve seen it. From a lighting perspective, there are little islands, there are islands of terrain out there that are completely surrounded by darkness…”

Victor Glover. From NASA Broadcast.

Victor and the crew continued their collaboration with the science team. Trying to get on the same page with the team back at home, they described the position of a feature they were seeing by drawing intersecting lines from other prominent craters.

Glover at one point described the texture the astronauts saw in Hertzprung and the surrounding area.

“Christina described it earlier, around Hertzprung, and then from Hertzprung toward Ohm, I’m sorry, toward Orientale, There appears to be a frozen, a rippling pond, but frozen, or like choppy waves, when it’s windy out, choppy water, and then it freezes instantly. That’s the texture. If you walk down there barefoot, it looks like it would be hard on your feet, like hot lava after its cooled…except for right there in the center of Hertzprung, it looks paved, like a paved road, nice and smooth.”

Victor Glover. From NASA Broadcast.

It reminded me of reports from the Apollo 8 astronauts. One of Jim Lovell’s first reports was that the texture he saw from the capsule looked like “plaster-of-paris.” And in the photographic report written by Lovell, Frank Borman, and Bill Anders, they wrote this:

“The surface of the mare materials in the southern part of the Sea of Tranquility on the approach to landing site 1 and the terminator resembled the surface of a frozen sea with a broad, but irregular, swell.”

Jim Lovell, Frank Borman, and Bill Anders. From Analysis of Apollo 8 Photography and Visual Observations.

Christina Koch described their efforts to discuss and evaluate what they saw, along with an intense moment she experienced.

“We really enjoyed our discussion time…we sort of were able to bounce ideas off of each other and come to new conclusions.”

and then

“I just had an overwhelming sense of being moved by looking at the Moon…something just drew me in suddenly to the lunar landscape, and it became real. And the truth is, the Moon really is its own body in the universe, it’s not just a poster in the sky that goes by. It is a real place. And when we have that perspective, and we compare it to our home of the Earth, it reminds us of how much we have in common…”

Christina Koch. From NASA Broadcast.

Then Victor Glover re-emphasized the value of teamwork.

“Science, Integrity…it was hard to speak, looking through the zoom, because I went straight where Christina went. And I was walking around down there on the surface, climbing and off-roading on an amazing terrain.

I also want to underscore something that she said. As we continue to explore, when we actually do go down there on the surface, I know for safety reasons that we would never send someone alone. But I just want to really emphasize how important the discussion time was. When we started to talk, we not only got better science discussion, we got better human connection. And so, doing this as a pair, we just learn and grow together, and that’s just super important, so thank you for adding that to this plan.”

From NASA Broadcast.

Back on Earth, you could see the scale of the teamwork involved in making something like this happen. We got to watch the teamwork in the science room, as they talked directly with people flying around the Moon. On display were some of the best moments that come from exploration. Like the moment the science officers heard reports of impact flashes on the dark portion of the lunar surface as the passed through an eclipse.

The teamwork involved goes far beyond the people in those rooms. Another theme that comes up in my conversations with people who witnessed Apollo: someone in their family worked on some aspect of the program. That isn’t surprising, given the sheer number of people involved in making missions like this into reality. My grandmother told me that someone in our family worked on one of the scoops used to pick up samples on the lunar surface.

Projects like these are, by necessity, massive collaborations. They may be, on some level, signals of economic and military strength that serve geopolitical purposes. But they are also much more than that. They are signals of the ability to muster the enthusiasm and effort of untold numbers of like-minded people toward a common goal. Underscoring this was the fact that Artemis II, unlike Apollo, was an international mission. The European Space Agency built the service module that carried the Orion capsule to the Moon, and one of the crew was Canadian.

The people in that capsule were connected to their friends and colleagues back on Earth through tenuous radio signals. And from their conversations, it was clear that geopolitical competition was the farthest thing from their minds. They were thinking about science, about our place in the universe, about each other, and about us.

When Christina Koch returned safely, she had a message she wanted to convey to all of us:

Planet Earth, you are a crew.


When I was in college, the United States had no way to send human beings into space. The Space Shuttle had just been canceled, and the prospect of a replacement was speculative and far off. Looking back on the Apollo program during that liminal period, I got the strange feeling that the past seemed more futuristic than the present.

I wanted to know why.

I wanted to understand how space travel began, why we lost our ability, and how we might one day get it back. This isn’t the usual sort of way that Apollo inspires a passion for space exploration. But in my own way, I am an echo of Apollo.

One of the things I realized very early is that we never really lost our ability to travel into space. In the decades after Apollo, intrepid explorers using robotic spacecraft revealed our solar system to us, in staggering image after staggering image. And in the data they collected that increased our awareness and understanding of the other worlds in our neighborhood.

I will continue to repeat, as often as people will listen, Oran Nicks‘ sentiment that there is no such thing as uncrewed space mission–only a difference in where the crew is standing to conduct them.1 I still believe in the magic of robotic space missions, and I will continue trying to get others to see that magic. Robotic space exploration is human space exploration.

But Artemis reaffirms that there is something truly special about humans sitting inside the spacecraft itself. Telepresence is not presence. Our eyes capture things that cameras cannot, and they create subjective experiences impossible by other means. And it is worth doing, in part because it inspires entire generations of people to create, and collaborate, and dare mighty things.

I look forward to the echoes of Artemis.

  1. Full quote: “The truth is that there were no such thing as unmanned mission; it was merely a question of where man stood to conduct them.” From his book Far Travelers, pg 245 ↩︎

“Standing By”: Science Communication on Apollo 8

This morning, as I sipped my coffee, I took in the view of a crescent Earth from the perspective of astronauts heading toward the Moon. It’s the first time this has been possible in over 50 years. Yesterday, as I awaited the launch of Artemis II, I watched the CBS broadcast of Apollo 8, in which Walter Cronkite guided America through the very first journey around the Moon in 1968.

Throughout the broadcast, Cronkite regularly broke away from the action to talk to leading scientists. Viewers were taken to Jodrell Bank observatory in England, where the eminent astronomer Bernard Lovell sat with a CBS reporter, a radio telescope looming behind them. Then to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where American geologist Eugene Shoemaker sat beside a giant lunar globe, excitedly answering questions.

Scientists had a complex relationship with Apollo. Many scientists at the time looked at the price tag for the “man-in-space” program, and couldn’t help but imagine how many scientific robots could have been constructed and sent across the solar system with those dollars. Some were extremely vocal about this, to the frustration of NASA officials. Many scientists were concerned that science was being misused to legitimize missions that had dubious scientific value. But others agreed with NASA’s arguments that Apollo was an important part of selling a space program and enabling long-term access to space. And others still were genuinely excited about the possibility of doing field work on the Moon.

Apollo 8 in particular had limited scientific value, but science featured heavily in the broadcast nevertheless. This may have been exactly the sort of “science-washing” that worried so many scientists. But Lovell and Shoemaker had the opportunity to explain the exact limitations of Apollo 8 to the CBS audience themselves. In doing so, they highlighted the work of lunar robotics teams that preceded the Apollo missions, and explained the questions that future Apollo missions might help to answer. Missions that Apollo 8 would enable.

Below, you will find quotes from these interviews, with my quick analysis. To keep this post short(ish), I have tried to limit my descriptions to things I find most interesting or relevant. If you’re interested, I highly recommend watching the entire clips. They are a fascinating look back at science communication during our first trip around the Moon.

Note: Many thanks you to the anonymous person who uploaded all this archival footage. I’m not linking all of it in this post–in part to avoid clutter and limit length, but you can find the clips by a search (for CBS Apollo 8 footage), or find the links here: https://bsky.app/profile/inverting-vision.bsky.social/post/3mihebmpves23


Being interested in lunar robotics, I was looking to see how the robots would show up, especially Lunar Orbiter. Not long after the launch, Cronkite cut to Terry Drinkwater reporting from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California, which built and operated some of the robots.

Drinkwater reports that people watching the launch at JPL are “thinking back to all that has gone on here in unmanned exploration of the Moon.” Then he takes the audience on a whirlwind tour of the Pioneer, Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar Orbiter spacecraft. They show models of each vehicle, and images they produced, discussing how each contributed to science and Apollo planning.

An illustration of the three major lunar robots sent to the Moon by NASA. From a 1966 NASA press kit (PDF)

Later, they cut to an interview with Bernard Lovell. Lovell was director of the Jodrell Bank observatory in England, which had a fascinating role in early lunar exploration. They used their telescope to track the first robotic lunar missions, even intercepting image transmissions from Soviet lunar probes. Lovell was very straightforward about the limited scientific value of Apollo 8. “The orbiters and the landers have already given us a very great deal of scientific information about the nature of the lunar terrain and the constitution of the surface,” he said, explaining that “for a really significant addition to that knowledge, we will have to wait until the Apollo ship actually lands men on the Moon, and that really would be terribly exciting…”


When Apollo 8 arrived at the Moon, astronaut Jim Lovell began narrating what he saw from the spacecraft. He described a grey lunar surface that looked like plaster-of-paris. After their report, Cronkite brought in “Doc Shoemaker,” who sat in JPL next to a massive lunar globe, wearing his bolo tie. Shoemaker was one of the foremost of the new generation of geologists interested in taking their field work to the Moon.

Cronkite replayed Lovell’s description, inviting Shoemaker to “point to those spots on the Moon” as Lovell described them. Shoemaker silently points to the Sea of Tranquility as Lovell says that the mare “doesn’t stand out as well here as it does back on Earth.” Doc Shoemaker then points to the surrounding craters as Lovell begins talking about them. It’s really delightful, and having a human expert directly point out these features on a map adds something that animations don’t quite capture. I know that there were people watching at the time who still remember Shoemaker’s appearance, and it influenced their career direction.

“You did that one so well, you won your audition,” Cronkite says to Shoemaker. Then he starts asking Shoemaker about orbits, discussing gravitational pull and its relationship to orbital speeds. They introduce the ideas of “pericynthion”–the part of a lunar orbit passing closest to the Moon–and “apocynthion,” the point of an orbit farthest from the Moon. Cronkite mentions that the “Cynthus” part of those terms refers to an old name for the Moon. Shoemaker corrects him, claiming that those terms are actually more generalized, for the orbit of any smaller body around a larger body.

Today, the generalized terms usually used are periapsis and apoapsis. But Cynthus is an interesting Greek term. Appropriately, it was sometimes used as a name for Artemis, because the Greek goddess was by legend born on Mount Cynthus. Artemis was very much associated with Selene, goddess of the Moon. Any satellite of another body can be considered a “moon,” and the term “moon” was used that way even into the 60s, so its usage as a general term is also plausible. But Shoemaker was a geologist who was relatively new to spaceflight, so he could have been mistaken. My understanding is that these terms did in fact primarily refer to lunar orbits during Apollo, and that Cronkite was right here.

Regardless, Cronkite concedes. “Well I had one correct fact out of four there, that’s not bad, batting .250 on the apo…pericynthion.”


As the astronauts flew around the Moon, they cut back to Bernard Lovell again. This interview is particularly charming. While Lovell, a very distinguished scientist, was fairly even-keeled in earlier interviews, he is now visibly excited. Or at least, I think, as visibly excited as an old English astronomer can get.

He was apparently repeating “fantastic, utterly fantastic,” according to CBS reporter Morley Safer. Then Lovell gives his reflection:

“I must confess this is really one of the great moments…it’s very hard to believe that there are human beings actually flying around the Moon and giving this description of what they see. I don’t know if other people are like I am over this, but although as a scientist I have seen the photographs of the Moon so often, through so many telescopes, and more recently, these marvelous photographs sent back by the cameras. It still really almost bewilders me to try to understand that now at this moment we’ve been listening to a human being there giving these descriptions of what the volcanoes look like…”


There are several points at which Shoemaker talks Cronkite and the audience through things that the astronauts are seeing. At one point, they get confused by the fact that astronauts are talking about craters with names that are suspiciously familiar.

“I don’t find [those craters] on my Moon map here: Carr, Miller, Borman, Houston, Collins,” Cronkite reports. “They sound like they’re named after a bunch of people at the Houston manned space center to me, and I wonder how they do get these names, and how long they’ve been named that, and whether or not these fellas are going to name a few for the first time…”

Shoemaker was also befuddled. The astronauts were near the far side of the Moon, and he realizes what happened:

“[they] actually were just off the edge…of the globe…this is Mare Smythii, which was mentioned…a number of the craters they mentioned have no formal names yet–they’re back around the edge of this model, and cannot be seen from the Earth. They have been recorded on the unmanned Lunar Orbiter photographs, but no formal names have been attached. Since they have to have some kind of handle to be talked about, the astronauts have just given them names, and of course it’s fun to use the names that are most familiar, the names of your comrades in this kind of work. So I was a little puzzled too, I didn’t know what those names were, but it soon became apparent that these were the ones that had just been adopted for the mission.”

Mare Smythii and surrounding craters, as seen from Apollo 16. From Wikimedia.

Then he gets to describe the International Astronomical Union, and their naming processes, to the audience, bringing them into the world of space nomenclature.

He mentioned the Lunar Orbiter photographs there, which get a lot of air time. In other portions of the broadcast, they cut back to pre-recorded videos with the astronauts talking about their mission. In one, Bill Anders, the primary photographer on the mission, talks about their photographic objectives.

“The Orbiter photography was very good,” he explains, “but where the Orbiter photography was not so good, because the Orbiter was in  highly elliptical orbit…we hope to improve on that…”

Then Shoemaker talks Lunar Orbiter, holding up a far-side image. Unfortunately, the recording on Youtube cuts out here.

But my favorite part is a recording of Jim Lovell talking about their flight path, using a Lunar Orbiter photograph of the Sea of Tranquility. He describes landmarks in detail, making analogies to explain the scale to the audience, like the length of the runway at Ellington Air Force base. 

Jim Lovell holds up a Lunar Orbiter photograph

“You already talk like you’ve flown it and seen it,” the reporter interviewing him says.

“Yeah, this area has become quite familiar to me…I know it quite well,” Lovell replies.

Then Cronkite cuts in: “Jim Lovell, who ‘knows it quite well.’ He hadn’t been to it before, but such is the study and the training of these astronauts that he felt he did.”

To me it speaks to the power of the Lunar Orbiter images. I think a lot about the telepresence sometimes created by the use of remote sensing technology for exploration. While a visceral sense of telepresence was fairly limited in early lunar robotics, there are often little moments where you catch a glimmer of it. This is one of them. 

Lunar Orbiter V, Frame 52M. From LOIRP in National Archives.

I am reasonably certain that Lovell is holding a cropped and annotated annotated version of the Lunar Orbiter photograph above, taken on Lunar Orbiter V. If so, he gets some of the details wrong. For example, he mentions a “half-hidden” crater that he refers to as “Maskelyne B” off the edge of the picture. It’s really Maskelyne F, seen just to the right of the rectangular artifact in the middle of the full image. Maskelyne B is actually visible in the image he’s holding (in the upper central portion of the frame, behind the large crater, which is Maskelyne).

Honestly, I don’t fault him for making mistakes. The astronauts spent time under the guidance of scientists studying these images, but it was a pretty wild crash course. For Apollo 8, the goal was for them to be able to identify photographic targets. It was more important to visually recognize targets than to be able to accurately name them. But this was all part of the show–using science to convey a sense of exploration and to legitimize the project. The astronauts had to become something like amateur science communicators themselves.

And in fact, the Apollo 8 astronauts produced many spectacular images, like this one showing the central peak of the far side crater Tsiolkovsky:

The central peak of Tsiolkovsky from Apollo 8. From Wikimedia.

Later in the clip, they cut to Shoemaker again, who describes their flight path and some of these photographic objectives. There was real science to be done here, however limited. Science communication like this, even if it is flawed, can often serve very important ends for a community hoping to create excitement and support for their research.


Robert Jastrow, an astronomer and NASA official, also makes a couple appearances. He does a good job of explaining some of the overall scientific objectives of lunar exploration, and the findings of the robotic missions thus far. One of the biggest questions that needed answering was the age and origin of the Moon.

“The information returned by spacecraft has answered some questions in that connection,” Jastrow explains, “but raised as many as it’s answered…”

Robert Jastrow. From Wikimedia.

They talk about the scientific return of Apollo 8, and Jastrow, like Bernard Lovell, frames it as a stepping stone towards the real scientific return expected from a landing.

Jastrow then talks through some Lunar Orbiter photographs with Cronkite.  “It’s a fairly new crater,” he says, holding up an Orbiter photo, “an expert like Gene Shoemaker would have to tell us exactly how old it is…” He mentions Meteor Crater in Arizona, talking about how scientists identify the difference between new and old craters. Shoemaker had done extensive work at Meteor Crater in his attempt to understand lunar cratering.

In one appearance with Jastrow, Cronkite asks jokingly whether the Moon is made out of green cheese, teeing up Jastrow to talk about Surveyor and its findings about lunar composition. 

At the beginning of the video after this one, Jastrow and Cronkite talk about the capabilities of astronauts vs. robots. Jastrow makes the claim that a robot would be more expensive, but I think this probably relies on the assumption of a robot that could match the generalized capabilities of a human. Certainly the capabilities of robots in the 60s meant that humans had a bigger advantage over robots than nowadays–but even then, a great deal could be done with robots for a relatively low cost, which is exactly the source of much Apollo skepticism in the scientific community.

At the end, Jastrow and Cronkite talk about Mars.


Of course, this was happening in 1968, amid a great deal of turmoil across the country and the world. In a special report summarizing Apollo 8, Cronkite framed the contrast with characteristic eloquence:

“A year of trouble and turbulence, anger and assassination, is now coming to an end in incandescent triumph…”

https://www.c-span.org/clip/reel-america/user-clip-cronkite-introduction-to-apollo-8/5198544


Many scientists weren’t above seeing Apollo’s significance beyond science, as seen in some of the videos above. In the special report, they included more interviews with Bernard Lovell, Harold Urey, and Eugene Shoemaker:

https://www.c-span.org/clip/reel-america/user-clip-scientific-perspectives-on-apollo-8/5198546

History Highlights 2: FLIP, Challenger, Demons, and Kepler

FLIP in vertical orientation for research on waves.

FLIP, Laboratory at Sea

Stefan Helmreich writes about FLIP (FLoating Instrument Platform), a  fascinating vessel designed for oceanographic research. First launched in 1962, it has the unique ability to change orientation, immersing most of its structure into the ocean to become a buoy. This provides a relatively stable platform for research, and the ability to do semi-controlled experiments on waves. It is an example of how the distinction between the laboratory and the field is sometimes blurred, in part due to technology.


You can read more of Helmreich’s analysis in Media+Environment and ISIS.

Looking Back on InSight and Phoenix on Mars

Mars InSIght is gathering dust on Mars, and its days are numbered. The robotic mission has been an enormous success, contributing to our understanding of Martian geology and natural history. NASA has an excellent retrospective on the major scientific achievements of the InSight lander.

Around this time of year in 2008, the last signals were received from the Phoenix lander. Like the InSight mission, Phoenix lasted beyond its mission parameters, and eventually succumbed to the elements. NASA also has a short history of the Phoenix lander. 

Photographs From the HMS Challenger

The HMS Challenger expedition helped kickstart the discipline of oceanography. The voyage is a monumental saga in the history of science and the history of exploration. It also played an important role in the history of photography. Not much is known about the photographers and the equipment they used. I was able to find a letter to the editor in an 1875 issue of Nature, referencing a new type of dry photographic plate. The letter was written by Henry Stuart Wortley, and seems to imply that a collodion process was used, including a combination of wet and dry plates. I want to investigate this further, but for now, here are a few of my favorite photographs from the official narrative of the expedition:

The Place of All the Demons

In the 1940s and 1950s, scholars were starting to think seriously about how to create artificial intelligence. They wrote papers and met regularly to discuss things like neural networks and machine learning. Oliver Selfridge was an important part of this conversation, and contributed to a number of early breakthroughs in thinking about artificial intelligence. One of these was a pattern recognition model that laid the foundations for computer image processing.

He imagined each node in the network as a hierarchical group of “demons” each assigned to recognize certain patterns, and to shout out when they recognize something like their assigned pattern. He wrote that each demon might “be assigned one letter of the alphabet, so that the task of the A-demon is to shout as loud of the amount of ‘A-ness’ that he sees in the image.” Then a demon at the top of the hierarchy listens to all the shouting and picks out the loudest shout as the best interpretation of the image.

He called the model “Pandemonium.”

Additional Links:

The original paper.

The Quest for Artificial Intelligence, by Nils J. Nilsson

“A Waste Land of Famine and Despair”: Kepler’s Tortured Personal Life

I want to do a review of The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler at some point. Until then, here’s a short bit about Kepler. Kepler’s personal life was just so absurdly tragic that it stood out to me.

According to Koestler, we get this stuff from Kepler himself, who wrote an incredibly detailed family history. Koestler dwells on it at length, providing a detailed glimpse into the background and mindset of his subject. Here’s a brief outline of Kepler’s life. All quotes here are from Koestler, and I think some of them reveal his talent for colorful description.

  • “Johannes Kepler’s father was a mercenary adventurer who narrowly escaped the gallows. His mother, Katherine, … was brought up by an aunt who was burnt alive as a witch, and Katherine herself, accused in old age of consorting with the Devil, had as narrow an escape from the stake as the father had from the gallows.”
  • When Kepler was about three years old, his parents both left to fight Protestants in the Netherlands, despite being Protestant themselves. Kepler was left with his grandparents. His father went on two more trips, then disappeared.
  • He had six siblings, “of whom three..died in childhood, and two became normal, law-abiding citizens. But Heinrich, the next in age to Johannes, was an epileptic and a victim of the psychopathic streak running through the family.”
  • “Johannes was a sickly child, with thin limbs and a large, pasty face surrounded by dark curly hair. He was born with defective eyesight…his stomach and gallbladder gave constant trouble; he suffered from boils, rashes, and probably from piles, for he tells us that he could never sit still for any length of time and had to walk up and down.”
  • When he was four, he contracted smallpox and nearly died.
  • He compared himself to a dog constantly, even saying he had an aversion to bathing.
  • “Kepler belonged to the race of bleeders, the victims of emotional haemophilia, to whom every injury means multiplied danger, and who nevertheless must go on exposing himself to stabs and slashes. But one customary feature is conspicuously absent from his writings: the soothing drug of self-pity, which makes the sufferer spiritually impotent, and prevents his suffering from bearing fruit.”
  • Kepler’s first wife “resented her husband’s lowly position as a stargazer and understood nothing of his work.” He describes her in extremely bitter terms after she died at thirty-seven. Three of their five children died very young.
  • He had seven children with his second wife, “of whom three died in infancy.” Koestler presumes that his relationship with her was better than with his first wife, since he doesn’t write about her very much.
  • He was forced into virtual itinerancy in his last years, while trying to get some of his works printed. He spent ten months away from his family, and “was again plagued by rashes and boils; he was afraid that he would die before the printing of the Tables was finished; and the future was a waste land of famine and despair.”
  • After the struggles with publishing, he had difficulty obtaining payment for his work and accessing money owed to him. “He had money-deposits in various places, but he was unable to recover even the interests due to him. When he set out on that last journey across half of war-torn Europe, he took all the cash he had with him, leaving Susanna and the children penniless.”
  • He ended up in Ratisbon to try to get payment from the Emperor, but contracted a fever and died there in 1630.


And then there’s this quote from Kepler’s self-description that I quite identify with:

“In this man there are two opposite tendencies: always to regret any wasted time, and always to waste it willingly.”

Links:

The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe, by Arthur Koestler