... an excellent article Peter! More than a touch humourous!
All I want to know is: how the heck did the Apollo folks pull off the TLI
burn with nothing to react against ?! Maybe it was all a hoax and it was
a case of its "aiming taking into account all the many factors deflecting
flight"! Still, all hindsight is 20/20. I can just see it now: the year
2096, Peter Alway's great-great-great-great grandson posts something in a
similar vein about 20th century scientists thinking faster-than-light travel
was impossible ...
:-)
Andy
--
Andy J. Broderick | Giving the power to interfere in people's lives to a
Leeds, UK | government is like giving a three-year-old a hammer; they
an...@mft.co.uk | soon discover that everything they encounter requires
| pounding.
> ("New York Times," 13 January, 1920, p. 12, col. 5)
>
> A Severe Strain on Credulity
>
> for such a device must be--well, controlled. Still, to be filled
> with uneasy wonder and express it will be safe enough, for after
> the rocket quits our air and and really starts on its longer
> journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by
> the explosion of the charges it then might have left. To claim
> that it would be is to deny a fundamental law of dynamics, and
> only Dr. Einstein and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are
> licensed to do that.
>
> His Plan Is Not Original
>
> That Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and the
> countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the
> relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something
> better than a vacuum against which to react--to say that would be
> absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out
> daily in high schools.
> In 1969, the Times retracted this editorial.
Took a while, eh?
Just Jerry
Good job Peter "Goddardized" Alway
--
Jerry Irvine - jjir...@cyberg8t.com
Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing.
: > In 1969, the Times retracted this editorial.
: Took a while, eh?
Quite a bit less time than the Vatican took regarding Galileo...
--
Mike Vande Bunt (N9KHZ) Mike.Va...@mixcom.com <*> TRA:4537 NAR:65174
and well so, Goddard refuted this slam by mounting a revolver
onto the arm of a stand which allowed the arm to freely spin around
vertical axis of the stand. He covered the apparatus with a bell jar
and pumped out air - producing a vacuum. He then fired the pistol by
remote control and the blast produced enough thrust to make the arm
spin violently in the opposite direction.
tlg
--
Tom Grice Don't ask me, I'm only visiting this planet.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!tg14
Internet: tg...@prism.gatech.edu or tg...@ibid.library.gatech.edu
> : > In 1969, the Times retracted this editorial.
> : Took a while, eh?
> Quite a bit less time than the Vatican took regarding Galileo...
It least the church did not demand an actual moon landing and
return by way of proof... =)
Mayhap not -- but they waited until it had been done, anyway...
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There's no such thing as gravity -- the Earth sucks. -- unknown |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| sil...@ix.netcom.com http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/home.htm |
| TableTop Publications http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/ttop_pub.htm |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken |
| for those of anyone but a rabid libertarian. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+