Talk:Robert H. Goddard

New York Times, patents, early work

At present (13 May 2006), there is too much coverage of the New York Times' criticism of Goddard's work, too little coverage of the major patents Goddard was awarded (and their importance), and too little on Goddard's early research (esp. his groundbreaking work A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes).

The New York Times section currently takes up as much as 20 percent of the writeup of this article. While the lack of vision by the New York Times is important to understand in viewing Goddard's legacy, it is still only an amusing anecdote in Goddard's life. Therefore, it needs to be viewed in the larger context of Goddard's career, and that should mean giving greater emphasis to what he accomplished.

It is important to understand Goddard's major patents, which are hardly mentioned at all in this article, and his pioneering book, which until recently had not even been mentioned in the body of the article. Clearly, there are a number of improvements to be made to bring up the quality of this article. -- Christopher Nieman 19:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent; everybody looks forward to seeing what you add! - DavidWBrooks 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed much of the Times quotation and the point is still made. This article had a large part in causing his "secrecy" and labeling him "mad scientist"-far from an amusing anecdote. Orbitnut (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"Religious Beliefs"

Does anyone have any information on what Goddard's view on religion was, if any? - JyL 28 February 2007

Goddard and the V-2

I hate to write speculative information into an article, and the quotation from the wolfram site about the A-1 and A-2 being based on Goddard's work is questionable. So I will make a few comments here.

Goddard's work was well known in the 1920s and 1930s. He was somewhat mysterious, but it was known that he performed experiments and built rockets -- he was not, like dozens of others, just writing articles that theorized and fantasized about spacetravel. In the mid 1930s, German intelligence supplied von Braun with information about Goddard's work, but it may not have been much more than what was available in American publications and newspapers.

The A-1 and A-2 were built in 1933 and 34, and used an internal spin-table to stabilize the rocket. It's an unusual idea, and Goddard had done the same thing in 1927. This was before German spying in the USA, but perhaps von Braun knew of it from other sources. The A-3, built in 1936 contained a gyroscopic guidance system and was steered by vanes in the exhaust, the same as Goddard's 1932 rocket. Did von Braun know that? The concept of gyroscopic guidance may have independently occured to the Germans (and also GIRD in 1936 in Russia for their cruise missiles), because people were aware that underwater torpedos used gyroscopes.

Goddard had difficulty with engine burn-through and although he built a regeneratively cooled engine in 1923, he abandoned the idea. In this regard, Klaus Reidel's engines and later work was much superior. Reidel attempted Oberth's idea of immersing the engine in the fuel tank (the Kegelduese) which caused an explosion. Then they tried encasing the engine in standing water. And eventually Reidel had the idea of regenerative cooling by fuel.

Goddard's work was sophsticated, much more so than VfR or even GIRD, but he could not compete with the massive effort that Germany began in the late 1930s, with military funding and teams of professional engineers. It's not the case that something like the V-2 comes about from a single genius or some stolen secrets, it is a massive effort and the real secret is systems management, which is what von Braun did. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By this edit a new user has "[d]eleted the oft-repeated myth that the German rocketeers stole their technical advances from Goddard." The new user has also deleted at least one reference. This is not Wikipedia style. If the importance of Goddard's work in the development of the German rockets is a matter of some controversy, then we don't decide which side is right and which is wrong, adopting one view and suppressing the other. We present both, as fairly as possible, with attribution. See WP:NPOV. We need to integrate the information added by the new user so that it doesn't simply displace what was there before -- even if one Wikipedian considers the former text a "myth". JamesMLane t c 10:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Goddard was so secretive that beyond the revolutionary nature of actually flying a liquid fuelled rocket, he hardly influenced even the US efforts with hard-engineering innovations. Of course he "inspired" everyone from Von Braun to Dan Dare onwards, and that's reported as such in the two refs removed (one of which is interesting as it's in period, but neither is a good WP:RS). The real evidence for inspiration from Goddard to the V2 rests on two aspects: regenerative cooling with fuel - was this inspired by Goddard and do German sources support this? and Goddard's own claims after inspecting a V2. I don't have to WP:AGF in regards to Goddard, so I'd have to suspect, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?". The notion of "being the inspiration for the V2" is the second-biggest myth around Goddard, and there's an absence of support for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF doesn't apply here. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions. If Goddard expressed the opinion that his work was the basis for the V-2, we should report that -- not by saying his work was the basis for the V-2, but by saying that he expressed that opinion. We should also, of course, report any notable contrary opinion, along with all the important facts cited by both sides in support of their argument. JamesMLane t c 14:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Goddard had a very important impact, despite his later secrecy. His use the de Laval nozzle was widely noted and was a critical invention. His publication influenced the first big public movement for space exploration, which was in the Soviet Union in the early 1920s (Society for Studies of Interplanetary Travel). The historian Asif Siddiqi discusses this in his paper "Deep Impact: Robert Goddard and the Soviet 'Space Fad' of the 1920s". In terms of technological sophistication, I believe Goddard was not surpassed until the German A-3 rocket. 24.16.88.14 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC) DonPMitchell (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

there are 4 questions that need to be solved on this Goddard vs V-2: (1) the same base theories that made Goddard create his rocketry fundaments were avaliable to other phsyics? If yes, it is very likely that similar theories would arise - like Oberth; (2) How Dr. Goddard answered the "techincal questions" from the germans? If he adopted secrecy it would be more likely that he misinformed or not even answered such questions (heck he didnt even talked about his work with fellow americans); (3) Why the US military chose to import nazi cientist instead using the technicians who worked with Goddard and Caltech? Goddard died August 1945 (3 month after Germany surrender) and Cold War only started 1947; and (4) how it is possible that in 1934 the germans already had a better rocket that any proposed or made be Dr. Goddard? If the germans had copied Goddard work, how they could have made a "copy" better than the "original"? One thing is to draw a rocket and write it will go to the moon, other completely diferent is to actually make a rocket able to go to the moon. I think that Dr. Goddard work without doubt influenced the birth of Rocket Science, but i doubt he was alone in it.201.79.40.54

It is easy to overestimate the importance of Nazi scientists on the US missile program. The Army employed Von Braun and a hundred or two of his people at MSFC, where their Redstone missile represented a continuation of the V-2 technology. Meanwhile the Navy built the Vanguard rocket (not especially great work), and the Air Force built America's most successful rockets, like Karel Bossart's innovative Atlas. Work on rocket engine design quickly abandoned the large but not very good engine in the V-2, replacing them with light-weight tubular cooled high-pressure engines. The most important and lasting technical contribution from Germany was probaby the gyro stabilized platform.

As for Von Braun calling Goddard's rockets "crude", that is not really a fair description of his concurrent work in the 1930s. 1937 Rocket Goddard's work was comparable or superior to the A-3, and only really surpassed with the A-4 (V-2). This is not a magic property of German scientists, it is about professional engineers, experienced corporations like Siemens, and money. The V-2 was developed in Germany (and not England or America) for ironic reasons, because in fact it was a bad decision to build it. An expensive inaccurate missile to deliver conventional warheads was just not a good weapon system. When the US military refused to build Goddard's proposed rocket weapons, they were actually right. It was the advent of the atomic bomb that changed the game completely and made long-range missiles important. DonPMitchell (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Peenemünde rocket group led by Wernher von Braun may have benefited from the pre-1939 contacts [with Goddard] to a limited extent, but had also started from the work of their own space pioneer, Hermann Oberth"

Oberth was not an engineer and offered little if any sound practical advice about how to build a working rocket. George Sutton discusses the serious problems with Oberth's "kegelduese" engine, with its fuel injectors placed near the outlet of the nozzle. It must necessarily have expelled most of its fuel before it had a chance to burn in the combustion chamber. He also had no good ideas about cooling, the kegelduese was immersed in a bucket of water while operated. The engines used in the A-3 and A-4 evolved from design concepts of Heylandt engineers, not from the extremely ineffcient Oberth and the VfR engines.

Oberth receives are too much credit, while engineers like Walter Riedel should get much more credit. DonPMitchell (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk) 17:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

With regard to German information about Goddard, I suspect his patents were more important than any of the dodgy spying activity. Take a look at the fuel-curtain cooling system on the V-2 engine, and then look at the diagram in Goddard's 1939 patent 2,217,649. The similarity is dramatic. But I do not think it is appropriate to insert that sort of speculation into this Wikipedia article. It's just something to take note of. DonPMitchell (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

See the Viking (rocket) article. Rosen credits the V-2, ARS,Goddard for contributions to its design. Von Braun praised it as the most advanced at the time. Goddard and navy lab at Annapolis had some influence on RMI. Germans had access to Goddard's early patents. People keep saying he had no or lttle influence. Not so. Orbitnut (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Pedro Paulet

Does anyone have any good evidence that this guy made a liquid rocket first? My understanding is that there's no good evidence that he did get there first. It might be worth mentioning that this is the case though, but at some points in its history the article has stated that Pedro Paulet definitely invented it first; it's not my understanding that, overall, the literature on liquid rockets states this, and hence I intend to remove any such claim, unless somebody can come up with really solid references.- Wolfkeeper 21:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no evidence for Paulet's claim. He simply stated, long after this was well known technology, that he had invented it first. Personally, I think it is risky to admit such claims. It is simply not fair to people who have done proven work, because there is the very real possibility that Paulet is a fraud. 24.16.88.14 (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• false, werner von braun had already said the same about paulet be pioneer and not goddard..já tinha dito o mesmo sobre paulet ser o pioneiro e não goddard.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.48.117.116 (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a pretty good discussion of Paulet in Sutton's book on the history of Liquid Fuel Rocket Engines. DonPMitchell (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Today historians discount this claim because it was not published until 25 years after the event, because there were no witnesses or substantiating documentation and no identification of the test location."

Seems to me that thinking up some idea, and actually getting it to work, are two different things. Many people might have thought about, or even made drawings of, liquid fueled rockets. Goddard actually built and flew them. Gah4 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Brother

I found a page from Clark University that mentions his brother. Is this good enough to cite?

http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faqs.cfm 99.156.135.206 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

His brother died young. Orbitnut (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Was he first

I think that sentence:

He was the first not only to recognize the scientific potential of missiles and space travel but also to bring about the design and construction of the rockets needed to implement those ideas.[12]

should be changed, because clearly Tsiolkovski was first in this field. Goddard was first only in america. I haven't read the related bibliographical possition. Can anyone comment on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.46.186 (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sentence changed. Good catch. Orbitnut (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

filed

Recent edits relate to filing patents after death. As far as I know, there is no rule against it, being filed by his estate (or wife, as it says in the article). But presumably also, some filed before death were awarded after death. We should get this right. Gah4 (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Prove vacuum by static test?

This line is confusing, and needs some clarification:

• First to prove, by actual static test (emphasis added), that rocket propulsion operates in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against, which was doubted by physicists of the time. (1915–1916)

Even though the cited NASA source says: "It was during this period that he proved his theory, by static laboratory test, that a rocket would perform in a vacuum and was therefore capable of operating in space."

A static test means by definition, that the rocket is tested by firing it while held down on a test stand (see the several references to static testing in this article). Most such test stands are outdoors (certainly the one Goddard used had to be, as rockets were in their infancy at the time). I doubt that Goddard tested his engine in a vacuum chamber in 1915. He must have used mathematics to deduce the vacuum thrust, possibly based on measurements, but certainly the claim was not empirically proved until the first rocket reached space (which proably would have been von Braun's V2?) JustinTime55 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, according to Goddard's article in September 1924 Popular Science, Goddard did fire a very small rocket in a vacuum chamber, but it is exremely misleading to call this a "static rocket test" as it is commonly understood. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Goddard did test in a near vacuum in an evacuated tube in the lab at Clark. The small rocket engine barely moved so he could measure the thrust and prove that it would be propelled in a vacuum, so it was a static test in every sense. Call it a lab test if you want. Orbitnut (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A recent edit removed (which was doubted by physicists of the time) from the article, with a summary that no physicist since Newton questioned it. Do we have a WP:RS one way or the other? But more, even if no physicist questioned it, it seems that many others did. How about scientists and engineers that were not physicists? How about newspaper reporters? Gah4 (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinates of launch location at Roswell

Can someone please add the coordinates of the site where Goddard launched rockets at Roswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F25:4667:396A:FCC3:9106:2B8B (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Founding Fathers of the United States

Some time ago, I was third opinion for Founding Fathers of the United States, as it seems that there is some question about who, exactly qualifies as a founding father. Different sources say different things. Most publications don't have room for all, so report on a select few. It seems the exact same problem here. Who, exactly, should be the Founding Fathers of rocketry. (Now there is a link, so someone can write the article.) Gah4 (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)