Walter Hohmann’s Roads In Space

William I. McLaughlin

Abstract
Walter Hohmann (1880–1945) was a professional
engineer who eventually became the city architect of
Essen, Germany. In 1925 he published his master-
piece, Die Erreichbarkeit der Himmelskörper ( The
Attainability of Celestial Bodies), in which he demon-
strated that the interplanetary trajectory requiring the
least expenditure of energy is an ellipse tangent to the
orbits of both the departure and the arrival planets.
The “Hohmann transfer ellipse” has endured, but his
investigations in interplanetary mission design go far
beyond that result and represent a milestone in the
development of space travel. Hohmann was a leading
member of Verein für Raumschiffahrt (Society for
Space Travel), the first important entrant in the genre
of “space society.” He died as the result of an Allied
bombing raid on Germany near the end of the war.

I. INTRODUCTION. Isaac Newton (1642–1727), building on the work of

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) and Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), created
the modern science of celestial mechanics. The progress of the discipline
in the eighteenth century is crystallized in the Traité de Mécanique de
Céleste of Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), while that of the nine-
teenth century is represented by Francois Felix Tisserand’s (1845–1896)
work of the same name.
Two significant branches have grown from this trunk.
1. In the late nineteenth century, Henri Poincaré (1854–1912) initiated an alli-
ance between celestial mechanics and newly developing areas of mathe-
matics such as topology. (Poincaré also played an important part in the
founding of topology.) This branch has flourished throughout the twentieth
century; see, for example, a critical edition in English (Poincaré 1993) of
Les Méthodes Nouvelles de la Mécanique Céleste and Arnol’d et al. 1997.
2. At about the same time, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857–1935) started the
analytical study of the flight-path arts necessary for space travel, forging a
second alliance for celestial mechanics, this time with engineering. New
topics and new emphases were established in order to accommodate, for
example, propulsive events and close encounters with the Moon and plan-
ets. This branch grew rapidly after the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and has
subspecialties in trajectory mechanics, orbit determination, and maneuver
analysis (e.g., Fortescue and Stark 1992).

WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE 1

 Walter Hohmann in his seminal Die Erreichbarkeit der Himmel-
skörper (Hohmann 1925) created a work in the second category, show-
ing how to travel from Earth to the Moon and planets and return. The
Attainability of Heavenly Bodies (Hohmann 1960) is a translation into
English of the 1925 book. The trajectory that realizes minimum energy,
he demonstrated, is an ellipse tangent to the orbits of both planets. As a
principle of mechanics, the “Hohmann transfer ellipse” is not restricted
to interplanetary flight and applies, for example, to transfer from a cir-
cular low Earth orbit to a higher circular orbit.
The interest in minimum-energy trajectories continues to the present
time—energy is a prized resource—but this class was especially impor-
tant in the eyes of early researchers in astronautics. Many obstacles to
space travel were apparent to these pioneers, but none more formidable
than the requirement for large amounts of energy; therefore, the signifi-
cance of Hohmann’s discovery was immediately apparent to those who
were technically versed in the mechanics of space flight.
Walter Hohmann’s great contribution to astronautical progress was
the discovery of a new use for an old object, the ellipse. However, his
involvement in the development of concepts for space travel extended
well beyond that discovery: energy and mass requirements; spacecraft
design; atmospheric modeling; maneuver analysis; crew safety; extrater-
restrial in-situ propellant production, and more. In addition to conduct-
ing research, Hohmann belonged to Verein für Raumschiffahrt (Society
for Space Travel), or VfR, and participated in its work. VfR activities in
education presented reasoned views of an undertaking which appeared
fantastic to most people. The society also carried out a series of experi-
ments with rockets.

II. LIFE. Walter Hohmann was born March 18, 1880 in Hardheim, a
small town 40 kilometers southwest of Würzburg, in Germany.
Rudolph, his father, was a physician and surgeon in the local hospital.
Hohmann’s mother, Emma, gave birth to two children prior to Walter:
Eleonore in 1875 and Caroline in 1876. The family moved to Port Eliz-
abeth, South Africa in 1885, staying until 1891; during this time young
Walter went to an English elementary school. The young man resumed
his education in Germany, attending high school in Würzburg and pre-
paring for college entrance examinations, which he successfully passed
in 1900. He studied at the Technical University in Munich and in 1904
became a certified civil engineer ( Diplom-Bauingenieur ).
Until shortly before the onset of World War I, Hohmann was em-
ployed as an engineer in various companies in Vienna, Berlin, Hanover,
and Breslau. In 1912, he began a long association with the city of Essen
as “Baurat und Leiter der statischen Abteilung der Baubehörde und
Material-prüfstelle der Stadt Essen ” or, as encapsulated by Ley 1957,
p. 113, “city architect,” and by Burrows (1998, 54), “the city engineer.”

2 WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE [FALL

 He was not a soldier during the 1914–1918 war, filling, instead, a
war-service position for eight months in 1915.
In 1916, Hohmann submitted a civil-engineering dissertation on the
subject of concrete structures, but it was not accepted until 1919 (Tech-
nical University of Aachen), due to wartime priorities. Now he was enti-
tled to represent himself as “Dr.-Ing. Walter Hohmann.” After the war
he sought to become a professor at a technical institute in Karlsruhe and,
unsuccessful in obtaining this position, remained in Essen for the rest of
his life.
Walter Hohmann and Luise Juenemann were married in 1915 and had
two children, Rudolf in 1916 and Ernst in 1918.
The engineer’s interest in space flight began in 1912 when he read a
book on astronomy (Ley 1969, 18). His son, Rudolf, recalls that during
the 1920s this hobby of his father was a part of everyday life within the
Hohmann family: poems, bookmarks decorated with rockets, and even
birthday celebrations were infused with extraterrestrial enthusiasm.
The coming to power of the Nazis in 1933 began Hohmann’s isola-
tion from German space and rocket activity; he did not participate in
developing rockets for military applications, such as the work done at
Peenemünde.
Walter Hohmann died on March 11, 1945 as a result of an Allied
bombing raid on Essen, a week before his 65th birthday and less than
two months before the end of the war in Europe. He was preceded in
death by Ernst, a soldier.

III. WORK. The category “work” refers, here, to Hohmann’s efforts in

furtherance of space travel, not his professional work in civil engineer-
ing. There are two divisions within this category: (1) membership in the
VfR and (2) published research.
Many factors fostered the spurt of space activity within Germany
after World War I. Three are of importance to the setting in which
Hohmann did his work: the Lebensphilosophie of the period; science fic-
tion as a cultural force; and the wizardry of Hermann Oberth (1894–
1989).
While Tsiolkovsky was affected by the nineteenth-century Russian
doctrine of “Cosmism,” with its mystical connotations (McLaughlin
1999, 43–48), the influence of the more rationalistic “ Lebensphiloso-
phie” (“Philosophy of Life”) colored the Weimar period (1919–1933).
This set of attitudes had a romantic core in common with Cosmism, but
also had sunk deep roots into technology and science (Winter 1983, 15).
Walter Gropius (1883–1963) and his modernist Bauhaus school pro-
foundly affected the development of twentieth-century architecture and
exemplify, like the concepts of Hohmann and his colleagues, a tradition-
breaking tendency within Weimar culture. One component of Lebens-
philosophie was expressed through science fiction. Within that genre,

2000] WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE 3

the influence of Kurd Lasswitz (1848–1910), writer and philosopher,
was felt by the nascent space community within Germany (Ley 1957,
45–48; Clute and Nichols 1993, 692). In Ley’s estimation, “German sci-
entists [were] preconditioned by Lasswitz to taking space-travel seri-
ously” (Ley 1957, 114). This writer’s ideas have continued to be
suggestive: Johnnie Driver, a JPL engineer, adapted Lasswitz’s arctic
space-station concept to a contemporary setting (McLaughlin 1984,
306–307). Finally, Hermann Oberth, one of the greatest of the space
pioneers, published his Die Raketen zu den Planetenträumen (The
Rocket Into Planetary Space ) in 1923, two years prior to Hohmann’s
treatise. Oberth achieved international recognition for his ideas about
space travel and was a leading figure in the VfR.
Hohmann conducted research in this fertile setting and became one of
the luminaries of his time and, indeed, of astronautical history.
The VfR, founded in Breslau in July 1927, was not the first of that
new species, the rocket society, but it was the first one of importance
(Winter 1983, 35–37). It included Hohmann, Oberth, Willy Ley (1906–
1969), who was a founding member, Wernher von Braun (1912–1977)
and, indeed, most in Germany who were involved in early space and
rocket work. Hohmann and Oberth were inducted not long after the
founding of the VfR when, in the November 15, 1927 edition of the soci-
ety’s publication, Die Rakete ( The Rocket ), they were announced as
members of the directorship of the organization (Winter 1983, 37).
In 1929, the society ceased publication of Die Rakete in order to
focus its resources on rocketry experiments; its membership decreased
as a result, but the series of designs and tests served to advance the dis-
cipline from infancy to a credible branch of engineering. See Chapter 6
of Ley 1957 for a description of this work. Hohmann was offered the
presidency of the VfR after Oberth left the post, but turned it down on
the grounds that it would conflict with his professional duties in Essen
(Winter 1983, 40).
What can be said of the consequence of Hohmann’s association with
the VfR? His engineering responsibilities in Essen certainly differed
from the challenges posed by the new field of rocketry, but there would
be common ground. An engineer of his experience would have acquired
judgment about the vagaries of mechanisms, materials, and budgets. (In
our time, judgment as to the traps and pitfalls of computers and com-
puter code is a complementary virtue.) Second, Hohmann was a member
of the Verein deutscher Ingenieure (Society of German Engineers) (Ley
1957, 118), held a responsible position with the city of Essen, and had
published an important work in astronautics. That is, Walter Hohmann
was in the mainstream of German engineering and had done important
work within rocketry; his presence in the VfR constituted an endorse-
ment of that organization and of the ambitions of rocketry in general.

4 WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE [FALL

Thus, the program of the VfR was advanced by his mind and by the fact
of his membership.
Two monographs contain Hohmann’s basic results. The first, as men-
tioned above, is his book, Die Erreichbarkheit der Himmelskörper,
while the second is a chapter (Hohmann 1928) in an anthology compiled
by Willy Ley, featuring contributions from Hohmann, Oberth, and oth-
ers. The 1928 article is summarized in Ley 1957, pp. 389–396, in
English.
In order to show the wide-ranging nature of Hohmann’s work, which
is usually telescoped into a statement about the “Hohmann-transfer prin-
ciple,” a synopsis of Die Erreichbarkheit der Himmelskörper is given.
Two preliminary comments are appropriate: 1) most of the 88 pages (104
pages for the 1960 translation) are filled with mathematical calculations,
a point not apparent from the synopsis, and 2) his mathematical
approach is not sophisticated, using simple calculus, simplifying
assumptions, and numerical experimentation. As Hohmann says in the
preface: “Since the writer is an engineer, not a mathematician, clumsy
approximations in place of mathematical formulas occasionally appear
in the calculations; this should not affect the results.” Despite Hohm-
ann’s modesty, his style of analysis is well fitted to the subject at hand: it
allows the main ideas to be seen with clarity, without having to pierce a
veil of mathematical formalism.
The English headings for the five sections of the treatise are taken
from Hohmann 1960, followed by the headings in German, and the
(original) page on which it appears. The cover and title page are repro-
duced as Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

Synopsis of Die Erreichbarkeit der Himmelskörper

Preface
Hohmann alludes to a version he wrote ten years earlier and says that
at the time he believed the highest exhaust velocity obtainable from a
rocket engine would be 2 km/sec. However, work by Robert H. Goddard
(1882–1945), Oberth, and Max Valier (1895–1930) have convinced him
that higher velocities might eventually be possible and he has extended
the numerical range of his calculations accordingly. See Ley (1964, 39)
and Ley (1969, 19) for a few notes on the development of Hohmann’s
book.
He thanks Valier and Oberth “concerning intersecting ellipses at the
end of Section V,” which indicates they may deserve some credit for the
proof of his optimization result.
The preface is dated October 1925, at Essen.

2000] WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE 5

 Figure 1. The design of the cover for this 1925 book exemplifies modernist
culture within the Weimar Republic. The paper cover is approximately
17.6 cm × 25.4 cm, with white figures on a dark blue background

6 WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE [FALL

 Figure 2. Title page

2000] WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE 7

Chapter 1. Leaving Earth ( Loslösung von der Erde , p. 1)
The analysis begins with consideration of a spacecraft moving in
empty space, subject only to the thrusting of its rocket motor. The gravi-
tational attraction of Earth is introduced into this scenario, and basic
dynamical results are summarized in the following table (taken from Die
Erreichbarkheit der Himmelskörper) for various values of engineering
parameters: 1) exhaust velocity, 2) acceleration of the vehicle, and 3) the
“mass ratio” (the ratio of the total system mass before launch to the mass
of the payload that is delivered to space). The results are not conducive
to optimism. In fact, Ley (1957, 394) writing 30 years later asserted
“Hohmann proved here, without quite realizing it himself, that space

The entries in the lower-right block of the table are mass ratios (prelaunch
mass of the system divided by mass of the payload delivered to space). These
mass ratios are functions of the (engine) exhaust velocities, c, at left, and
launch vehicle accelerations (assumed to be constant throughout powered
flight), ca, top line. (Hohmann, 1925, p. 6, Table 1)

Legend:
r1 distance from center of Earth to g0 acceleration at sea level due to
point where powered flight ends gravity (9.8 m/s used)
v1 velocity of vehicle at r1 (escape m0 mass of system before launch
velocity is 11.2 km/s) m1 mass of payload delivered to
t1 time corresponding to r1 and v1 space
r0 radius of Earth (6,380 km used) b approximate total acceleration
c exhaust velocity from propulsion and gravity
a a constant such that ac equals
the acceleration of the launch
vehicle

Figure 3. This table summarizes a parametric case study of launch

(with no atmospheric modeling)

8 WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE [FALL

travel without a space station cannot be realized with chemical fuels.”
Ley was, of course, wrong: multistage chemical rockets serve quite nicely
for access to the Moon and planets. More likely, considering Hohmann’s
lack of angst, is that he had faith in the progress of technology and the
advent of new concepts to erase obstacles. (In Section V, Hohmann does
call out the utility of the Moon as an intermediate base for planetary
exploration.) Such confidence was common among the space pioneers:
Arthur C. Clarke (1950, 38) says “Much of technological progress con-
sists of pincer movements around insoluble problems which eventually
become left so far behind that their very existence is forgotten.”
The effects of air resistance on the ascending vehicle are added to
those of thrusting and gravity. (The analysis will serve later when it
comes time for him to consider landing on planets with atmospheres,
including Earth.) This development requires a model of the atmosphere;
Hohmann builds a simple one that is appropriate to the task. The pres-
sure is assumed to decrease from its mean value at sea-level to zero at an
altitude of 400 km by a polynomial law. (This model is developed in full
in Section II; elements needed in Section I are imported from there.)
At the close of Section I, Hohmann invokes precedents for the con-
cept of a rocket-in-space in science fiction (e.g., Verne and Lasswitz),
engineering (e.g., Oberth, Tsiolkovsky, Hermann Ganswindt, and
Valier), and science (e.g., Newton).

Chapter 2. Return to Earth (Rückkehr zur Erde, p. 14)

Calculations similar to those in Section I show that decelerating a
spacecraft for the purpose of returning to the surface of Earth would be
costly in terms of fuel, so Hohmann uses the atmosphere as an agent of
retardation (i.e., aerobraking). At this point he develops a mathematical
model of the atmosphere. (See the synopsis of Section I.) By design, the
returning vehicle is required to enter the atmosphere tangentially (fig. 4).
Perigee is at an altitude of 75 km, a height at which, by his calculation,
the atmosphere is sufficiently dense to provide adequate drag for capture
but not enough to harm the vehicle or its passengers. The spacecraft,
after the initial parabola, orbits Earth in a sequence of braking ellipses.
The next phase of return to Earth is gliding to the landing site using a
variable-pitch wing for dynamic control. Extensive mathematical analy-
sis of this phase is carried out, including the effects of a braking para-
chute. The entire landing period, from entry to touchdown, is 22.6 hours.
Hohmann revisits the design, altering various assumptions, and pro-
duces a more direct entry, without braking ellipses, reducing the time
from 22.6 hours to only 40 minutes. He cautions:

“A landing without breaking [sic] ellipses is therefore

very well possible. However, the forced orbit, during which
the passengers, because of centrifugal force, are pressed
against the upper wall, represents an inverse flight, during

2000] WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE 9

 Figure 4. The parabolic trajectory of a spacecraft returning to Earth is
transformed by atmospheric drag into a series of braking eclipses prior to
landing (Hohmann 1925, 23, fig. 9)

which safety of maneuverability is perhaps impaired. The

pilot however will have to see to it that he does not get into
too low a strata, since this, according to Figure 11, could
lead to a crash. If he, however, remains too high, then he
will in the worst case bring his vehicle out of the atmo-
sphere temporarily and enter a smaller or larger elliptical
orbit, after which he can again, duly relaxed, attempt a land-
ing” (Hohmann 1960, 45).

The section finishes with a thermodynamical analysis addressing heat

generated during reentry. Hohmann concludes that spare parachutes (or
nose cones, a suggestion he credits to Valier) must be provided for safety
and that the vehicle should have cooling fins of metal, in addition to
wings.

Chapter 3. Free-Space Travel (Freie Fahrt im Raume, p. 41)

Entry into the domain of space affects the crew: “… the passengers
will with the sudden cessation of gravity first of all sense in all probabil-
ity the fear of a steady fall, which after some experience will go over
into the more pleasant feeling of floating” (Hohmann 1960, 49).
The emphasis of this section is not upon reaching other planets,
treated in the concluding sections, but rather upon the fundamentals of
motor burns in space: “maneuver analysis.”

10 WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE [FALL

 He envisages a vehicle departing radially from Earth and designs
maneuvers which will place it on a parabola (Section II) suitable for
reentry. (Here, he introduces the important concept of ∆V (“delta vee”):
change in velocity of a spacecraft by means of propulsion.)
Realizing that for various reasons a spacecraft can stray from its
planned course, Hohmann discusses trajectory-correction maneuvers.
He estimates the mass of the system through an inventory of its parts
and contents. A few items in the several-page exercise are:
• two crew members (2 × 100 kg)
• 4 kg/person/day of food and water
• oxygen for breathing (carried as a liquid), 0.6 kg /person/day
• a spacecraft shell with an interior volume of 4.5 m3
The total mass delivered to space is 3,000 kg; the mass at reentry is
estimated to be 1760 kg. (The habitable volume of the two-person,
Earth-orbiting Gemini spacecraft was 2.55 m 3. This vehicle had a mass
at launch of 3850 kg, of which 455 kg was propellant.)
The usual way to orient a spacecraft now is by means of thrusters that
expel hot or cold gas—little rocket engines—or, in Earth orbit, through
interaction with the planetary magnetic field. Hohmann devised a
method whereby the two crew members clamber about the walls of the
vehicle in order to cause it to rotate (fig. 5)!
Section III concludes with a long tutorial on celestial mechanics, for
subsequent use.

Chapter 4. Circumnavigation of Other Heavenly Bodies (Umfahrung

anderer Himmelskörper, p. 63)
For most of the analysis, the orbits of the planets are assumed to be
circular and situated in the plane of the ecliptic.
The first interplanetary trajectory to be designed carries the space-
craft from Earth to the vicinity of Venus using what we would now call a
Hohmann transfer ellipse. Similar calculations are done for a trip to
Mars.

Figure 5. Rotation, for the purpose of reorienting the spacecraft, was to be

achieved through crew motion along the walls, using a series of hand holds!
(Hohmann 1925, 55, fig. 17)

2000] WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE 11

 Hohmann remarks that, after a flyby of Venus, the spacecraft, in its
elliptical orbit about the Sun, would return very nearly to the point of
departure except, of course, Earth would have moved on. He considers
two remedies: (1) maneuver into a holding orbit about Venus and, wait-
ing until Earth is suitably positioned, thrust out of Venusian orbit and
rendezvous with Earth or (2) conduct a space maneuver and return to
Earth without going into orbit about Venus. Detailed calculations are
done in support of these two options.
A trip to Mars is similar in principle, but he notes that the greater
eccentricity (compared to Earth and Venus) of the Martian orbit must be
taken into account.
A single trajectory, departing Earth and passing by Venus and Mars
before returning home, is possible when the three planets are suitably
configured: the length of the journey is 580 days. Hohmann adapts his
previous estimate of spacecraft mass and arrives at a figure of 16,720 kg,
not including fuel.

Chapter V. Landing on Other Celestial Objects (Landung auf

anderen Himmelskörpern, p. 76)
Venus, once again, draws Hohmann’s attention. He judges its atmo-
sphere to be similar, in terms of density, to that of Earth, and that gravi-
tational conditions are also similar. Thus, the earlier analysis of landing
on Earth can be readily adapted to apply to landing on Venus. Concerned
about onerous requirements with regard to mass for landing and return to
Earth (humans are aboard), Hohmann specifies, “The fuel necessary for a
return [should] be manufactured by simple means of raw materials avail-
able [on Venus]” (Hohmann 1960, 91). This technique of “in-situ pro-
pellant production” is under consideration for certain NASA missions.
Landing on Mars is analyzed, but without aerobraking: the engine is
used to decelerate the vehicle and place it on the surface. The results, in
terms of mass and energy requirements for the system are, of course,
less favorable than for landing on Venus. Again, in-situ propellant pro-
duction is prescribed for powering the return to Earth.
The Moon is the third body beyond Earth to be considered as a land-
ing site, and Hohmann, as with Venus and Mars, prepares mass estimates
for the spacecraft under various sets of assumptions (achievable exhaust
velocity, etc.). The relative ease of departing from the Moon leads him
to propose its use as an intermediate station for exploration of the plan-
ets (Ley’s “space station” of sorts). En passant, Hohmann touches upon
lunar infrastructure in general and, in particular, a factory for producing
fuel.
Both Hohmann and Oberth proposed use of a lander that would be
detached from the planetary orbiter and sent to the surface (Ley 1957,
396); presumably Hohmann’s proposal is contained in his 1928 paper.
This has proved to be a fruitful concept, being employed on numerous

12 WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE [FALL

robotic missions and, notably, in the form of the Lunar Excursion Mod-
ule, central to the Apollo program.
Only toward the end of this final section does Hohmann address the
problem of optimal transfer orbits between planets: “For simplicity, we
have up to now only discussed those connecting elliptic segments
between planets, which touch the two planets, which are to be con-
nected…It is not obvious that these tangential ellipses constitute the
most favorable connection. Rather it is conceivable that other ellipses,
intersecting planetary orbits, would be more expeditious, since without
doubt they would provide shorter connections.” (Hohmann 1960, 98)
By comparing tangential transfer orbits with ellipses that cross one or
both of the planetary orbits, he establishes his famous result that the
smallest ∆V is required for the tangential case.

End of Synopsis

IV. AFTER HOHMANN. Walter Hohmann’s name appears frequently

within astronautical literature: (1) in technical contexts as a label for his
optimal, tangential ellipse and (2) in historical tracts, where the publica-
tion of his 1925 treatise is noted. In discussions of the historical devel-
opment of astronautics, though, little attention is usually paid to the full
range of his work.
He was honored by being in the first class of inductees, in 1976, into
the International Space Hall of Fame at the Space Center in Alamagordo,
New Mexico. A 16-km lunar crater is named for him, along with the
Walter Hohmann Sternwarte (observatory) in Essen. R. Oldenbourg lists
the publication of Hohmann’s 1925 book (and Oberth’s Die Rakete zu
den Planetenräumen of 1923) among the firm’s major milestones.
Hohmann’s achievements have been underestimated, perhaps
because of the absence of popular writings by him and because of the
hypnotic attraction of his optimization result. The breadth of his inter-
planetary mission designs plus foundational work in maneuver analysis
suggest that a reevaluation is in order. A proper assessment of Hohm-
ann’s place in the history of astronautics would be facilitated by reissue
of his 1925 and 1928 publications, preferably in a dual-language format
(German and English).

Acknowledgments

The Archives, California Institute of Technology, granted me access to their copy of

Die Erreichbarkheit der Himmelskörper. The website of the Erfatal Museum in Hard-
heim has an abundance of material on Hohmann, from which I obtained many bio-
graphical details. (Websites for Hardheim and the Walter Hohmann Sternwarte were
also useful.)

2000] WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE 13

 References

1. Arnol’d, V. I., V. V. Kozlov, and A. I. Neishtadt (1997), Mathematical Aspects of

Classical and Celestial Mechanics, Second Edition, Springer, Berlin.
2. Burrows, W. E. (1998), This New Ocean, Random House, New York.
3. Clarke, A. C. (1950), Interplanetary Flight, Temple Press, London.
4. Clute, J. and P. Nichols, editors (1993), The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction,
St. Martin’s Press, New York.
5. Fortescue, P. and J. Stark (1992), Spacecraft Systems Engineering, John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester and New York.
6. Hohmann, W. (1925), Die Erreichbarkeit der Himmelshkörper, R. Oldenbourg,
Munich and Berlin.
7. Hohmann, W. (1928), Fahrtrouten, fahrtzeiten, landungsmöglichkeiten künst-
licher raumflugkörper, in Die Möglichkeit der Weltraumfarht, Willy Ley, editor,
Hachmeister and Thal, Leipzig.
8. Hohmann, W. (1960), The Attainability of Heavenly Bodies (translation of Die
Erreichbarkeit der Himmelskörper), NASA Technical Translation F-44, Wash-
ington, D. C.
9. Ley, W. (1957), Rockets, Missiles, and Space Travel (revised and enlarged edi-
tion), Viking Press, New York.
10. Ley, W. (1964), Our Work In Space, MacMillan Company, New York.
11. Ley, W. (1969), Events In Space, Popular Library, New York.
12. McLaughlin, W. I. (1984), An Arctic Polesitter, Spaceflight 26:306–307 (July/
August).
13. McLaughlin, W. I. (1999), The first space mission architect: Tsiolkovsky, Journal
of Space Mission Architecture 1:43–48.
14. Poincaré, H. (1993), New Methods of Celestial Mechanics (annotated and trans-
lated edition of Les Méthodes Nouvelles de la Mécanique Céleste, D. L. Goroff,
editor), American Institute of Physics.
15. Winter, F. H. (1983), Prelude to the Space Age, The Rocket Societies: 1924–
1940, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

The Author

William I. McLaughlin received a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Cal-

ifornia at Berkeley in 1968. He participated, from 1968 through 1971, in the Apollo
lunar-landing program at Bellcomm, Inc., in Washington, D. C. From 1971 to his
first retirement in 1999, he worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, receiving
NASA’s Exceptional Service Medal (1984) for leading the mission design for the
Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS), and NASA’s Outstanding Leadership Medal
(1986) for services as engineering manager during the encounter of Voyager with
Uranus. He is a Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, a Member of the Interna-
tional Academy of Astronautics, and spends the off-season orbiting between Mars and
Jupiter as asteroid “4838 Billmclaughlin.” He originated the concept for JSMA and
conducted initial planning for the journal.

14 WALTER HOHMANN’S ROADS IN SPACE [FALL