Talk:Robert H. Goddard/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Clue game"

Clue Game I've snipped the following material which is entertaining but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Write down these questions and read them to a friend to make them guess who you're talking about." Hint: They all link together :D

He was born 63 years before he died.

He made discoveries that were only fully appreciated until after 1945.

15 years before he stopped rocket motor researche he launched liquid fueled rockets.

From 1939 to 1945 he researched rocket motors.

He died 10 days after the last of July in the year that he stopped researching rocket motors.

He stopped research in the year that WWII ended.

Joined the physics faculty in the school he recieved his Ph.D. from 5 years before his report entailing the kind of rocket flight necessary to reach the moon was published.

Got a Ph.D. 29 years after he was born.

Finished Clark University in 1911.

His report about what type of rocket flight is needed to reach the moon was published 26 years before he died.

Bazooka references?

I can't find any references on Goddard being the "inventor" of the bazooka, where the bazooka article itself tells a different story. Can someone confirm either story? --Anthony Liekens 14:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Goddard developed and demonstrated the basic idea of the 'bazooka' two days before the Armistice in 1918 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground" [1] and "In addition, his research efforts included work on solar energy, vacuum tubes, railroad transportation, radio tube oscillators, and the prototype of the bazooka" [2]. -- Jacob1207 18:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

One word added to a quotation

In the following quotation about Goddard's moon-rocket ideas, I added the word "large" which seemed most likely to be the missing word (emphasis added):

• But it also mentioned a proposal "to [send] to the dark part of the new moon a sufficiently large amount of the most brilliant flash powder ..." ChrisWinter 16:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Tsiolkovsky

24.171.142.93 wrote in a comment, "Removed editorial commentary -- Tsiolkovsky's work does not need defending here. If Tsiolkovsky needs to be mentioned with Goddard, there are less clumsy ways of doing so." Please do find a less clumsy way to do so! The relevance of Tsiolkovsky's work is clear. The question is whether the article can be WP:NPOV without mentioning it. I personally don't believe it can be. Sdsds 23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether Tsiolkovsky's work is worthy of mention in reference to Goddard. It is relevant and indeed worthy. Rather, the issue is how to present the point of Tsiolkovsky's precedence without appearing to be defensive in tone or a discredit, as it does in its current form. One would not want to show a particular bias toward one or the other subject. The previous edit did not make false or improper claims of Goddard's precedence, and certainly did not require such remediation in the first sentence. I will suggest that a more neutral reference to Tsiolkovsky can be made in its own sentence and placed somewhere else in the section. I would be glad to make the edit myself, if necessary, but the first opportunity should be with the prior editor. 24.171.142.93 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your assessment here seems right on the mark! I recommend you continue being WP:BOLD and rework that material in the way you suggest. As a side note, perhaps the current use of "groundbreaking work" to describe A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes is part of the difficulty? Sdsds 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "groundbreaking work" to cause difficulty. When discussing Goddard's work, words such as "groundbreaking" and "pioneering" are generally accepted, appropriate and unbiased, as the later work of von Braun and Korolev can be described likewise. In the cases of these men, and Tsiolkovsky too, all broke new ground and were pioneering in their own ways. A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes was just such a document, as Tsiolkovsky's work was before him. Describing Goddard's work as "groundbreaking" takes nothing away from Tsiolkovsky, nor should Tsiolkovsky's work detract from Goddard's achievements. We should be careful to avoid a competitive atmosphere where the achievements of both men are weighed against each other. The tone of the disputed edit -- "In 1919 (16 years after the publication of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices). . .", is not neutral, and a change was necessary to reflect a more neutral spirit. 24.171.142.93 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thank-you! Sdsds 03:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The footnote [1] in the section about his inspiration day links to a spam website. I was going to revert it back but could not figure it out. Please some one fix this.

I've added a link to a NASA source for the quotation used there. (Sdsds - Talk) 17:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Middle School

There is another middle school based on him. Goddard Middle School in Littleton, Colorado. I know because I go there. I think it should be mentioned in the article somewhere to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.66.198 (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

I was pleasantly surprised to see the content and accuracy at such a high level on RHG's entry. Good work team! FYI, RHG is a distant ancestor of mine (many cousins removed), and my mother always thought my interest in space and electronics keyed into RHG somehow. She didn't know about his electronics work. She always said that RHG was a bit of a dreamer and his Mass. relatives were still embarrassed by the NYT article on the burning of (his; my great aunt x-removed))Aunt Effie's farm(land)...that was 40 years ago she said this, so these yankees didn't forget easily!

God Bless the one-dream man :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.123.210 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Goddard vs. Oberth

I'm surprised there is no mention of the antipathy that Goddard had for Oberth. Goddard believed that Oberth plagarized his 1919 work and was furious, even paranoid, about Oberth's claims to have independantly invented the same ideas several years later. This one of reason that historians cite for why Goddard became so secretive. See for example: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4211/ch3-1.htm or take a look around page 110 of "Rocket Man" by David Clary. The Russian professor of aeronautics at Leningrad, Nicolai Rynin, openly accused Oberth of plagiarizing Goddard's work. This is a delicate topic, but should be noted in some way in the article. DonPMitchell (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

extraneous information - courtship

Eventually, she and Goddard were engaged, but they drifted apart and ended the engagement around 1909.

This information seems more for a biographical book than a biographical encyclopaedia article.

The entire article seems to be written as a Goddard autobiography instead of as a detached biographical sketch of the man, but I thought I would point out this one instance as particularly out of place (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

While overall, this article reads well (there is a bit of a cheerleading tone to some of it), there is a distinct lack of specific citations in large passages, as if they were lifted in large part from a single source (possibly a magazine article). Does anybody know if this is the case? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Death

It should be listed that he died from throat cancer.--Craigboy (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

doesn't seem that important to include --Samoojas (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Goddard and von Braun

“Wernher von Braun did most of his work from Goddard's theories. The V-2 was extremely similar to Goddard's designs.”

I am sorry, but von Braun could fool naive Americans of using as own advertising the propaganda of ideas of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Kondratyuk-Shargei, but forgetting to inform about authorship only. So the source for plagiarism of ideas for the Lunar program there was a book - "Conquest of interplanetary spaces"/Yuri Kondratyuk, Sibkraysouz, Novosibirsk, 1929! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.6.38 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous.

Those are obviously politically motivated statements… probably because people are sensitive to von Braun’s Nazi connection and one of America’s crowning achievements has its roots in grey morality.

Lets look at the facts….

Goddard is credited with creating the first successful liquid-fuelled rocket. 2.4 seconds of flight. Check out the nice picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Goddard_%28scientist%29

Among well known von Braun designs….the V-2 , Redstone, and Saturn V rockets. Man on the moon. Check out von Braun’s projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstone_%28rocket%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

“EXTREMELY” similar to Goddard’s design?

• Yes. just so: The design of the V-2 was extremely similar to that of the rockets Goddard was firing at Roswell in 1934-36. What you are doing is comparing the design of Goddard's very first rocket (1926) to the V-2 and von Braun's later designs. ChrisWinter 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Although there are historical connections… notably liquid-propellent and nozzle technology (based on a Swede’s design)…this is analogous to saying Charles Babbage’s difference engine is the extremely similar to a modern supercomputer. Or Einstein's 1905 work is mostly based on Newton because they both use calculus.

• Nope. Either you completely miss the point of the original statement, or for some reason you are ignoring it (the relevant phrase is "straw man argument".)

Pah-lease.

As I see it…. American’s first choice would have been to not use a former Nazi for rocket research… however because the Soviet Union was so far ahead (because of other Nazi German scientists)…. they really had no choice. (First Man in space, first Satellite in space, etc….)

• But at the end of WW II the Soviets were not ahead (except in a theoretical sense, because of Tsiolkovsky's work.) The point is that Germany's V-2, although similar in design, was far more advanced in capability than Goddard's and had forcibly brought home the military utility of rockets as guided missiles. ChrisWinter 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise why not rely on Goddard’s work and avoid the political scandal of using von Braun’s work?

• The sad truth, as G. Edward Pendray has noted, is that the U.S. military paid no attention to Goddard's ideas before World War II. ChrisWinter 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Goddard’s achievements are truly notable… but please no propaganda or revisionist history. Unfortunately, because rocket technology contains a special propaganda value (even today) this myth will sadly likely continue to propagate.

On the other hand though…. even von Braun couldn’t do it alone. He was financed by America money and assistance. America would have eventually got there on its own... but the propaganda value of achieving “firsts” before the Soviet Union solidified his importance to their space program.

If someone wants to make a connection between von Braun and Goddard it should only be made in a history of rocket article where it would be appropriate and the details of connections could be properly argued and backed up with evidence.

• An article about Goddard is a "history of rocket article". But I agree there should be better documentation of the similarity. I'll add it soon. (And speaking of documentation: I assume your comments were made in early 2005; but because you didn't bother to sign them, there's no way to tell.) ChrisWinter 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

History can be ugly, but we should never rewrite or else we’ll fail to learn lessons. Not to mention it is an abandonment of rationalism.

Sources:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/sputnik/braun.html http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/von_Braun/DI119.htm

I've removed the "extremely similar" phrase that you objected to and replaced it with an objective assessment from another chronicle and with a quotation from von Braun himself, both with citations. JamesMLane 02:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the early work by VfR, it is remarkably primitive compared to the contemporary work by Goddard or the Soviet GIRD organization. The Mirak rocket was stabilized by a stick, like fireworks, for example. A major step forward is seen in the late 1930s, after money and engineering talent was added, thanks to military backing. The A-3 missile (1937) looks very much like the rockets that Goddard described and pictured in his 1936 publication "Liquid Propellant Rocket Development". It is also kown that Abwehr (German intelligence) had a spy in Goddard's inner circle, passing technical information to von Braun's group during the war. DonPMitchell (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I indented my comment so people would not get the false impression taht I wrote the text starting this section. DonPMitchell (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Goddard, 1924

The picture of Goddard claimed to be from 1924 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_Goddard_1924.jpg) is obviously not from the '20s (note the color in the background and poor photoshopping on Goddard). I doubt someone is trying to fool us all with this picture, so what's the deal here? I removed the photo pending the result of this discussion. - Why Americans very often get in the trap of primitive ignorance? so even naive Robert Goddard did not know in 1926, about, as In 1916, colonel Ivan Grave invented a missile powered by smokeless powder and launched from mobile launchers, and started first experiments of primitive a liquid-fueled rockets! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.6.38 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The picture of the brass plaque that says Robert H Goddard park is just that, a picture of the plaque in the park (behind Auburn FD HQ) dedicated to him. His first launch was on the farm that became Pakachoag Golf course. I hear there is a marker there as well, but I've yet to stop by and see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssquire (talk • contribs) 13:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Image Problem

Is anyone sure that the photograph of the scientist with a rocket is of Goddard? It said on the Library of Congress's site that it was possibly Robert H. Goddard. 74.4.205.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC).

Please supply the actual ref/link which states that the image may not be Goddard. Ckruschke (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

He seems to be referring to this at LoC. The Library staff titled the photo "Scientist, possibly Dr. Robert H. Goddard, posed with a rocket". -R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

paulet

vc´s americanos são muito fdp´s..pra roubar o sulamericano paulet ja dizem que precisa de comprovações, mas quando é pra roubar outro sulamericano dumont não precisa por que só basta o testemunho vosso dos irmãos wright ou o caralho a 4.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.48.117.116 (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Paulet claimed in 1920 that he had built a rocket engine 25 years before. No witnesses. No documents. Test site never identified. He claimed to use nitrogen peroxide, which was probably not obtainable in Peru in 1895. He claimed it worked by explosive pulses at 300/minute, which is a difficult and unusual way to operate a rocket engine. George Sutton concludes this in his _History of Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines_, "It is doubtful that a single individual could accomplish all this, when talented investigators in other countries took years to come up with such an advanced pulsing thrust chamber, with the claimed relatively high trust level and firing duration, and a fancy ignition system. The consensus among historians is that Goddard was the first to fire and launch a LPRE" DonPMitchell (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Robert H. Goddard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080814042611/http://astronautix.com/lvs/goddard.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/goddard.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091103060910/http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faqs.cfm to http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faqs.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091103060910/http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faqs.cfm to http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faqs.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert H. Goddard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527221503/http://dln.nasa.gov/media/storage/DNY9-12activities.pdf to http://dln.nasa.gov/media/storage/DNY9-12activities.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211172129/http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Library/Archives/EAD_Finding_Guides/MS14.html to http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Library/Archives/EAD_Finding_Guides/MS14.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)