Starship Asterisk*

You've done so many amazing things !

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap081001.html

kovil wrote:You've done so many amazing things !

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news ... ntPage=all

Congratulation.

In the begining it was very risky to lauch rocket that way. They were what? A mere 100 meter from that bomb? Other time other mentality.

50 years that moved the world 1,000 years ahead.

What gives with the shadow on the planet???
[I.e., where are the cusps?]

Was this image faked!!!
-----------------------------------------------
Meatball v. Worm : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_logo

<<The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) logo has three official designs, although one of them (the "worm") has been retired from official use since 1992. The three logos include the NASA insignia (also known as the meatball), the NASA logo (also known as the worm), and the NASA seal.
.
The NASA logo dates back to 1959, when the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) metamorphosed into an agency that would advance both space and aeronautics: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

After a NASA Lewis Research Center illustrator's design was chosen for the new agency's official seal, the head of Lewis' Research Reports Division, James Modarelli, was asked by the executive secretary of NASA to design a logo that could be used for less formal purposes. Modarelli simplified the seal, leaving only the white stars and orbital path on a round field of blue with a red vector. Then he added white N-A-S-A lettering.

In the NASA insignia (meatball) design, the sphere represents a planet, the stars represent space, the red chevron, in the alternate shape of the constellation Andromeda, is a wing representing aeronautics (the latest design in hypersonic wings at the time the logo was developed). Then there is the orbiting spacecraft going around the wing. Although known officially as the insignia, NASA's round logo was not nicknamed the "meatball" until 1975, when NASA decided a more modern logo was in order and switched to the NASA logo, nicknamed the "worm," a red, stylized rendering of the letters N-A-S-A.
.
The NASA logo (worm) has been retired from official use since 1992 and the design is now reserved for special use (such as for commercial merchandising purposes) and must be approved by the Visual Identity Coordinator at NASA Headquarters.
.
In 1992, Administrator Daniel Goldin brought NASA's insignia back from retirement to invoke memories of the one-giant-leap-for-mankind glory days of Apollo and to show that "the magic is back at NASA."
.
The original design and now official NASA Seal is to be reserved for use in connection with the NASA Administrator, such as for award presentations, formal events and activities which are ceremonial or traditional in nature. According to NASA Headquarters, the Seal should never be used with the NASA Insignia, since the two elements are intended for different purposes and are visually incompatible when seen side by side.>>

Happy 50th from me, too.

However, I must say I got a jolt this morning when I saw the APOD showing a V2 being launched. For those of us in London during 1944/5, the after-effects of those things was pretty horrific.

More horrific, however, is the apparent closeness of those observers to the launch-pad. Brave--or just plain foolhardy

neufer wrote:

What gives with the shadow on the planet???
[I.e., where are the cusps?]

Was this image faked!!!
-----------------------------------------------
Meatball v. Worm : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_logo

Depends on what you mean by "fake"... for example, I believe the “yellow” earth is a metaphor for happy people dancing on planet earth… Yellow is often associated with happiness… kids usually color the sun yellow even though it appears white in space… And happy days are associated with “sunny” days. So painting the Earth yellow depicts a “happy” earth… and I think it is fair to say many of us are happy to have NASA working on ways for us to leave.

The “white” moon is a metaphor for the purity of unspoiled nature that used to be found in space until we began to distribute pieces of manufactured earth out and about. The distributed pieces are represented by the little blip with a launch tail originating from the yellow Earth.

The shadow on the earth sphere is representing a handle of how I, Ed of planet Earth, grasp the essence of the NASA seal Moon and Earth colors… at least in my own mind. Hence it is a mental cusp.

Many folks I am sure will say that the seal is a fake and disagree with me saying that Earth is not a "happy" place and would be better represented with a different color. I don't think science can solve this "fake or not fake" issue sense the seal's interpretation is based in subjectivity and ambiguity.

BTW - I like their art piece (below) designating their anniversary... In my mind it depicts a black hole inside the zero and probably an eclipse to others. Very cool. 8)



I can't wait to see what the next 50 bring! ... wait a minute... I will likely be dead by then... say... that adds depth to my "I can't wait" statement, doesn't it.

It looks as though there's a pretty good sized rocket blast crater in the foreground. Perhaps what we're seeing in the photo is the first "successful" launch.

bluegreenheart wrote:It looks as though there's a pretty good sized rocket blast crater in the foreground. Perhaps what we're seeing in the photo is the first "successful" launch.

Interesting point bluegreenheart!

I'm guessing the hole is more of a cheap and dirty "fall out" shelter kind of like the fox holes soldiers use to keep from getting hit.

I'm also guessing those guys behind the instruments are not the engineers.

emc wrote:I can't wait to see what the next 50 bring! ... wait a minute... I will likely be dead by then... say... that adds depth to my "I can't wait" statement, doesn't it.

I will be 78... or may as well join you at the cemetery

humm this is post #1111... cool.

Why would Sputnik be considered the first artificial satellite if the upper stage of the Bumper V2 "was able to reach then-record altitudes of almost 400 kilometers, higher than even modern Space Shuttles fly today."?

clarencedonath wrote:Why would Sputnik be considered the first artificial satellite if the upper stage of the Bumper V2 "was able to reach then-record altitudes of almost 400 kilometers, higher than even modern Space Shuttles fly today."?

Apparently you need to be in orbit to be a satellite. It is possible to launch an object steeply to great altitude without attaining orbit. What goes up (1) must come down unless it (2) goes up fast enough to escape or (3) goes up fast enough at a flat enough angle to achieve orbit.

apodman wrote:Apparently you need to be in orbit to be a satellite. It is possible to launch an object steeply to great altitude without attaining orbit. What goes up (1) must come down unless it (2) goes up fast enough to escape or (3) goes up fast enough at a flat enough angle to achieve orbit.

Thank you for that explanation. That makes a lot more sense now. Though, I still feel like we might have gotten gyped.

Then again, it wasn't really our technology to begin with, this V-2.

Then again, it wasn't really our technology to begin with, this V-2. Laughing

To inject some residual controversy:

Let's all give Hitler a big Thank You!

http://hitlerapod.site90.com/apod/ap090420.html

Then again, it wasn't really our technology to begin with, this V-2. Laughing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
<<Germany was highly interested in American physicist Robert H. Goddard's research. Before 1939, German scientists occasionally contacted Goddard directly with technical questions. Wernher von Braun used Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into the building of the Aggregat 4 (A-4) series of rockets. One of the A-4 rockets is the well known V-2. In 1963, von Braun reflected on the history of rocketry, and said of Goddard's work: "His rockets ... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles." Goddard confirmed his work was used by von Braun when, after the war ended, Goddard inspected captured German V-2s, and recognized many components which he had invented.>>

Dr. Skeptic wrote:To inject some residual controversy:
Let's all give Hitler a big Thank You!

I just happen to walk by this grave site about 4 times a week with very mixed emotions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Von_ ... _grave.jpg

Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro

http://www.youtube.com/v/tT_AWx7dgjg

bluegreenheart wrote:It looks as though there's a pretty good sized rocket blast crater in the foreground. Perhaps what we're seeing in the photo is the first "successful" launch.

Ha! In which case the photographers were in a very safe spot. Everyone knows lightning never strikes in the same place twice..


As for the V2 having 'horrific after-effects' it's been quoted as the only weapon made where more people died making it than were killed by it in action. The manufacturing / concentration camps during the war were disgracingly horrible.

Wadsworth wrote:As for the V2 having 'horrific after-effects' it's been quoted as the only weapon made where more people died making it than were killed by it in action. The manufacturing / concentration camps during the war were disgracingly horrible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket

<<An estimated 2,754 civilians were killed in London by V-2 attacks with another 6,523 injured, which is just two people killed per V-2 rocket.
.
The V2 lacked a proximity fuse, so it could not be set for air burst; it buried itself in the target area before or just as the warhead detonated. This reduced its effectiveness. Furthermore its guidance systems were too primitive to hit specific targets, and its costs were approximately equivalent to four-engined bombers, which were more accurate (though only in a relative sense), had longer ranges, carried many more warheads, and were reusable. Moreover, it diverted resources from other, more effective programs.
.
The V2 program was the single most expensive development project of the Third Reich. 6048 were built, at a cost of approximately 100,000 Reichsmarks each; 3225 were launched. Despite being one of the most advanced weapons in WWII, it had virtually no effect on the outcome of the war. According to Freeman Dyson, who was working with RAF Bomber Command, "Those of us who were seriously engaged in the war were grateful to Wernher von Braun....Each V2 cost as much to produce as a high-performance fighter....German forces were in desperate need of airplanes, and the V2 rockets were doing us no damage....From our point of view, the V2 program was almost as good as if Hitler had adopted a policy of unilateral disarmament." Others say it is fortunate for the Allies that Germany chose not to pursue development of the Wasserfall antiaircraft rocket, which, deployed in large numbers, could have devastated the bomber fleets.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------

NASA at 50: The Shuttle, Space Station and Beyond

http://www.space.com/news/081002-nasa50-beyond.html

Very informative, and appropriate, postings neufer. Thank you.

clarencedonath wrote:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081001.html

Why would Sputnik be considered the first artificial satellite if the upper stage of the Bumper V2 "was able to reach then-record altitudes of almost 400 kilometers, higher than even modern Space Shuttles fly today."?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusr ... v-g-1.html

<<In 1944, the Army Ordnance Department began funding a rocket development program by the California Institute of Technology (CIT). The ORDCIT (for "Ordnance" and CIT) project's first product was the Private A, a small solid-propellant rocket to test basic principles of launch operations and flight stability. 24 Private A rockets were flown during December 1944. The ultimate goal of ORDCIT was the development of the Corporal, a liquid-fueled surface-to-surface missile (which eventually became the SSM-A-17/MGM-5), and by late 1944, enough progess had been made to initiate the development of a small sounding (high-altitude research) rocket based on Corporal propulsion technology.

The planned sounding rocket was called WAC Corporal, and was to carry 11 kg (25 lb) of instrumentation to an altitude of at least 30 km (100000 ft). The origin of the WAC label are a bit unclear, but some sources state it stood for "Without Attitude Control", referring to the fact that the simple rocket had no stabilization and guidance system. The WAC Corporal was boosted into the air by a Tiny Tim 11.75" solid-fueled rocket (a heavy air-to-surface rocket of the U.S. Navy), and powered by a liquid-fueled sustainer engine. After it had left the high three-rail launch tower, the missile was stabilized in flight by its three tailfins only. The nose cone was designed to separate near the end of the flight, releasing a parachute for instrument recovery. >>
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wac_Corporal

<<The WAC Corporal was the first sounding rocket developed in the United States. Begun as a spinoff of the Corporal program, the WAC was a "little sister" to the larger Corporal. It was designed and built jointly by the Douglas Aircraft Company and the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory. In a NASA oral history group interview, William Hayward Pickering indicated the WAC "was named after the Women's Army Corps". In the same group interview, Dick Jones suggested it might have been an acronym for "Without Attitude Control" (the rocket lacked a guidance system and relied on three fins for stability).

The WAC Corporal was a liquid-fuel rocket, with fuming nitric acid and aniline used as oxidizers and furfuryl alcohol as fuel. For the first few seconds of launch, the Wac used a cluster of solid fuel Tiny Tim engines.

The first WAC Corporal dummy round was launched on September 16, 1945 from White Sands Missile Range near Las Cruces, New Mexico. After a White Sands V-2 rocket had reached 69 miles on May 10, a White Sands WAC Corporal reached 80 km (49 mi) on May 22, 1946 -- the first U.S.-designed rocket to reach the edge of space (under the U.S. definition of space at the time). On February 24, 1949, a Bumper WAC Corporal at White Sands accelerated to 5150 mph to became the first flight of more than five times the speed of sound.

A few WAC Corporals survive in museums, including one at the National Air and Space Museum and another in the White Sands Missile Range Museum.>>
------------------------------------------
WAC image of Mercury

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sci ... age_id=214

<<Yesterday, at 4:40 am EDT, MESSENGER successfully completed its second flyby of Mercury. Today, at about 1:50 am EDT, the images taken during the flyby encounter began to be received back on Earth. The spectacular image shown here is one of the first to be returned and shows a WAC image of the departing planet taken about 90 minutes after the spacecraft’s closest approach to Mercury. The bright crater just south of the center of the image is Kuiper, identified on images from the Mariner 10 mission in the 1970s. For most of the terrain east of Kuiper, toward the limb (edge) of the planet, the departing images are the first spacecraft views of that portion of Mercury’s surface. A striking characteristic of this newly imaged area is the large pattern of rays that extend from the northern region of Mercury to regions south of Kuiper. This extensive ray system appears to emanate from a relatively young crater newly imaged by MESSENGER, providing a view of the planet distinctly unique from that obtained during MESSENGER’s first flyby. This young, extensively rayed crater, along with the prominent rayed crater to the southeast of Kuiper, near the limb of the planet, were both seen in Earth-based radar images of Mercury but not previously imaged by spacecraft. As the MESSENGER team is busy examining this newly obtained view that is only a few hours old, data from the flyby continue to stream down to Earth, including higher resolution close-up images of this previously unseen terrain.>>