Community > Forum > Astronomy > Hubble Service Prize

Hubble Service Prize

Posted by: rpspeck - Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:33 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 57 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Hubble Service Prize 
Author Message
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Von Braun’s accomplishments don’t negate Goddard’s work   Posted on: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:10 pm
“The most famous VfR member was Werner Von Braun.” (Re developing the V2 systems). Von Braun is quoted as recognizing that Goddard successfully pioneered many of the systems used in the V2, although on a far different scale, and that his reports were published before the war. Goddard’s work includes the first liquid fuel rocket flight, turbopumped fuel systems, regenerative cooling and gyroscopic guidance (using thrust deflector vanes).

Von Braun’s work includes development of a far larger vehicle, high volume production of a reliable form of that vehicle and a hundred times greater altitude and range than Goddard’s efforts. Personally I also credit Von Braun with spearheading the first satellite launch in the western hemisphere, and the Moon landings. None of which negates the value of the pioneering work (done without government funding) by Goddard. Yes, some of his early money came from the Smithsonian. Most of the later funds, I believe, came from the Gugenheim Foundation, which also funded GALCIT (Gugenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at California Institute of Technology) - now JPL!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:38 am
In between I had a look into Dornberger's book "Peenemünde". The department that developed the A4 - called V2 near the end of WWII - was the "Heereswaffenamt" (Army's Office of Weapons) and Peenemünde was the "Heeresversuchsstelle" (Army's Bureau of Tests and Experiments).

publiusr,

the Soviets did as the Americans did - they took to the Soviet Union german rockets and equipment used in development, they took paperwork and german engineers and made them develop russian rockets. As far as I am informed they did that much earlier than the Americans who first let the Germans around Wernherr von Braun and Walter Dornberger watch only but didn't let them work on the technology. The Americans never had a successful flight. like von Braun and Dornberger in Peenemünde until they changed their mind and involved Wernherr von Braun and his colleages as consultants and chiefs. I don't know precisely but the reason for changing their minds may have been that the Soviets had a successful flight before the Americans. The Cold War began, the Russians could build intercontinental rockets and missiles and they had the atomic bomb too in between

So botth neither America nor the Soviet Union achieved their successes without the work of german engineers - Dornberger, von Braun and their colleages were ahead of them concerning real flights like those of the A4/V2.



Hello, rbspeck,

you are right by far and have been before the topic "Wernherr von Braun" came up here. Your post is most complete and most correct of all here - Thank You Very Much for it.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:55 pm
publiusr wrote:
The anti-human spacecraft people love to tout robots. But they forget that the two bomb-disposal robots on Mars are delayed action, limited autonomy RC toys that use programs instead of live movements due to time delay.

The last real robotic missions on land was the Darpa challenge--and not one of those Cray-euipped Sport-utes or massively parallel HUMVEES got anywhere near the end.

And then there is the DART debacle.


Beautiful quote, man! Let's face it: robots (at least so far) are no more than souped-up toasters (plagiarized from Ad Astra). And whatever happened to DART? I heard they were going to launch it, and then it kinda disappeared.... Or maybe I just haven't been listenening......

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:09 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Post    Posted on: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:06 pm
spacecowboy wrote:

Beautiful quote, man! Let's face it: robots (at least so far) are no more than souped-up toasters (plagiarized from Ad Astra). And whatever happened to DART? I heard they were going to launch it, and then it kinda disappeared.... Or maybe I just haven't been listenening......


No, NASA simply miscalculated the fuel load. It run out ouf fuel 'unexpectedly'. A silly way to loose 100 million.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:09 pm
D'oh!

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:09 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:46 am
Goodmorning to you too :wink: :D :mrgreen:


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Stefan Sigwarth wrote:
spacecowboy wrote:

Beautiful quote, man! Let's face it: robots (at least so far) are no more than souped-up toasters (plagiarized from Ad Astra). And whatever happened to DART? I heard they were going to launch it, and then it kinda disappeared.... Or maybe I just haven't been listenening......


No, NASA simply miscalculated the fuel load. It run out ouf fuel 'unexpectedly'. A silly way to loose 100 million.


That is what happens when you try to do too much with too small a rocket.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:06 am
publiusr wrote:
The anti-human spacecraft people love to tout robots. But they forget that the two bomb-disposal robots on Mars are delayed action, limited autonomy RC toys that use programs instead of live movements due to time delay.

The last real robotic missions on land was the Darpa challenge--and not one of those Cray-euipped Sport-utes or massively parallel HUMVEES got anywhere near the end.

And then there is the DART debacle.

Wow, for an Alabama boy you sure are pretty nasty about it. Bomb-disposal robots indeed. Those toys you mention are still working out pretty good, doing real first-sight geology and doing a sufficient amount of unaided navigation. Clearly you know next to nothing about them. Let me help.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/

Check it out, they even have an animation of a dust-devil in action now. Pretty interesting stuff for a toaster if you ask me. They are WAAAAY over their use-by date too. Talk about value for money.

The Darpa challenge you mention was not the last robotic mission on earth ... again allow me to edify you on that particular score ...

http://www.primidi.com/2005/04/20.html

Neat huh?

And the DART debacle ... well, it accomplished it's primary mission ... do you even know what that was?

In any event all of these things ... indeed all of everything at the edge of technological progress (whether or not it includes humans at the wheel) ... are merely stepping stones. They are the measured steps that scientist engineers take towards a deeper understanding of what they are trying to accomplish. Learning while doing.

Which is better than just bitching while bitching.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:09 pm
Oh, I'm all in favor of the twin Mars Rovers -- they've performed outstandingly well. But I simply enjoy pointing out that they still need human control.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:48 pm
spacecowboy wrote:
Oh, I'm all in favor of the twin Mars Rovers -- they've performed outstandingly well. But I simply enjoy pointing out that they still need human control.

As do humans. (But I see your point)

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:26 pm
I don't call running out of fuel a success. As far as the long life of the rovers--that is just one reason not to keep using the Delta II critch and to cancel the Discovery Mars missions to pay for HLLVs that can put sample return missions. As long as you keep playing with toasters--that is all you will ever have.

And I doubt that crutch of a Delta II will put anything useful on Europa--which should be a destination--even if the Mars-bots-- only crowd doesn't like it.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:02 am
publiusr wrote:
I don't call running out of fuel a success. As far as the long life of the rovers--that is just one reason not to keep using the Delta II critch and to cancel the Discovery Mars missions to pay for HLLVs that can put sample return missions. As long as you keep playing with toasters--that is all you will ever have.

And I doubt that crutch of a Delta II will put anything useful on Europa--which should be a destination--even if the Mars-bots-- only crowd doesn't like it.

Man you sure are a nasty piece of work Jeff, nastier than me even. It's a pity that while you do genuinely know a lot about this arena you have this evil skew about you.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:38 pm
publiusr wrote:
And I doubt that crutch of a Delta II will put anything useful on Europa--which should be a destination--even if the Mars-bots-- only crowd doesn't like it.

This is sort of interesting. Wanna tell the rest of the class why you think Europa "should be a destination" (presumably before any other body currently under consideration)?

DKH

(Personally, I think the heavenly body that we really have to check out next is Monica Bellucci ... but that's just an opinion).

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:58 pm
I'm not evil--I just have a mean streak that is needed to go up against the powers that be who are even worse.

Europa is thought to have life in smokers like the ones with tubeworms on our ocean floor. Chemosynthesis, extremeophiles, etc.

The Delta II Mars missions 'cheated.' They thump aeroshells out to Mars and let the planet run into it--aerobrake and pop a chute. Europa is farther away--has no atmosphere, and any automated lander will have to burn its way down--deploy a melter and deposit a cryobot not much bigger than the current Mars rover. So it would take an HLLV to do that and do it right.

The lunar rover the Soviets had needed a bigger rocket than Delta III--the 20 ton to LEO Proton, because the rover's lander also had to burn on the way down. But with no atmosphere--sample returns were a breeze--easy due to lack of drag--and distance.

Mars sample returns will also need HLLV's--to do them right that is--and not the turn around and touch your nose and dock 50-11 times nonsense the EELV crowd is selling us--especially since their Delta IV Atlas V Albatross' AREN'T selling.

So they will try to undermine HLLV's even thought our new NASA Chief Admin--who IS a Rocket Scientist-- understands the need for Heavy-Lift.

Sadly, he works for a President in the pocket of big contractors. ATK is a big contractor--and they support SDV HLLV's So perhaps he will listen to them.

I don't really care about that myself--so long as I get an HLLV out of the deal.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Mon May 02, 2005 9:49 am
publiusr wrote:
Europa is thought to have life in smokers like the ones with tubeworms on our ocean floor. Chemosynthesis, extremeophiles, etc.

Ok, I found the answer to my question (phew), and thanks! I don't have a lot of time because I've just managed to get a bunch of new posters in a frappe elsewhere here in the space cafe ... but I do have an additional question for you.

Where is the evidence that prompts people to think that Europa has life?

Thanks,

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use