General > General Technical Chat
Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
themadhippy:
wonder how many of the early nasa explosions was down to there head honchos previous job were making things go bang was the final goal
Sal Ammoniac:
--- Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 05:43:25 pm ---
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 05:32:24 pm ---The Russians had a policy of only publicizing successful missions. Who knows how many failed and were swept under the rug? NASA (and SpaceX) do things completely out in the open, so the failures are there for all to see.
--- End quote ---
In the 60s NASA was only as open as it was pushed to be (i.e. not very open except for actual launches, which didn't occur deep in deserted areas, like Kazakhstan, so they were hard to hide), and things seemed to go quite well. Now its almost as open as SpaceX and its performance looks quite poor. Coincidence? I doubt it. Look under the surface of most development work and it looks pretty messy.
--- End quote ---
Please explain what you mean by your assertion that NASA was only as open as they had to be in the 1960s. I've extensively studied the history of the space program in the 1960s, including reviewing primary sources, and I don't see any trend to secrecy at all. Yes, the military had their own parallel space programs (such as the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the various spy satellite programs), but these weren't connected with NASA, except in very peripheral ways. NASA published almost everything relating to their programs and it was available in book form from the very beginning (I've got copies of a lot of it).
As to messy, yes, some of it may have seemed messy, and that's understandable because a lot of what they were doing had never been done before. As an example, I suggest people read a series of memos written by Howard "Bill" Tindall known as Tindallgrams -- they give a good flavor for the types of internal discussions that took place at NASA in the 1960s.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-Tindallgrams.html
coppice:
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 06:01:41 pm ---
--- Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 05:43:25 pm ---
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 05:32:24 pm ---The Russians had a policy of only publicizing successful missions. Who knows how many failed and were swept under the rug? NASA (and SpaceX) do things completely out in the open, so the failures are there for all to see.
--- End quote ---
In the 60s NASA was only as open as it was pushed to be (i.e. not very open except for actual launches, which didn't occur deep in deserted areas, like Kazakhstan, so they were hard to hide), and things seemed to go quite well. Now its almost as open as SpaceX and its performance looks quite poor. Coincidence? I doubt it. Look under the surface of most development work and it looks pretty messy.
--- End quote ---
Please explain what you mean by your assertion that NASA was only as open as they had to be in the 1960s. I've extensively studied the history of the space program in the 1960s, including reviewing primary sources, and I don't see any trend to secrecy at all. Yes, the military had their own parallel space programs (such as the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the various spy satellite programs), but these weren't connected with NASA, except in very peripheral ways. NASA published almost everything relating to their programs and it was available in book form from the very beginning (I've got copies of a lot of it).
As to messy, yes, some of it may have seemed messy, and that's understandable because a lot of what they were doing had never been done before. As an example, I suggest people read a series of memos written by Howard "Bill" Tindall known as Tindallgrams -- they give a good flavor for the types of internal discussions that took place at NASA in the 1960s.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-Tindallgrams.html
--- End quote ---
Take an example. Everyone knows Neil Armstrong, and pilot David Scott nearly died on Gemini 8, when things got out of hand in a docking manoeuvre with an Agena craft, and had to return immediately to Earth. In 1966 you wouldn't have been aware that anything serious had taken place. I was one of those watching the news about anything to do with space travel at that time.
Sal Ammoniac:
--- Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 06:40:09 pm ---
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 06:01:41 pm ---
--- Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 05:43:25 pm ---
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 05:32:24 pm ---The Russians had a policy of only publicizing successful missions. Who knows how many failed and were swept under the rug? NASA (and SpaceX) do things completely out in the open, so the failures are there for all to see.
--- End quote ---
In the 60s NASA was only as open as it was pushed to be (i.e. not very open except for actual launches, which didn't occur deep in deserted areas, like Kazakhstan, so they were hard to hide), and things seemed to go quite well. Now its almost as open as SpaceX and its performance looks quite poor. Coincidence? I doubt it. Look under the surface of most development work and it looks pretty messy.
--- End quote ---
Please explain what you mean by your assertion that NASA was only as open as they had to be in the 1960s. I've extensively studied the history of the space program in the 1960s, including reviewing primary sources, and I don't see any trend to secrecy at all. Yes, the military had their own parallel space programs (such as the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the various spy satellite programs), but these weren't connected with NASA, except in very peripheral ways. NASA published almost everything relating to their programs and it was available in book form from the very beginning (I've got copies of a lot of it).
As to messy, yes, some of it may have seemed messy, and that's understandable because a lot of what they were doing had never been done before. As an example, I suggest people read a series of memos written by Howard "Bill" Tindall known as Tindallgrams -- they give a good flavor for the types of internal discussions that took place at NASA in the 1960s.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-Tindallgrams.html
--- End quote ---
Take an example. Everyone knows Neil Armstrong, and pilot David Scott nearly died on Gemini 8, when things got out of hand in a docking manoeuvre with an Agena craft, and had to return immediately to Earth. In 1966 you wouldn't have been aware that anything serious had taken place. I was one of those watching the news about anything to do with space travel at that time.
--- End quote ---
I've watched the news coverage of all NASA flights starting with Gemini III in 1965 and I distinctly remember the coverage of Gemini VIII and the stuck thruster issue. It received prominent coverage on the US TV networks.
What the news shows is up to them, not NASA. If the news didn't show the docking and the stuck thruster problem, that's not NASA's fault.
NASA themselves published a documentary on the flight of Gemini VIII in 1966 and they certainly didn't hide anything. In fact, this video is on YouTube and you can see for yourself:
coppice:
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 07:40:49 pm ---
--- Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 06:40:09 pm ---Take an example. Everyone knows Neil Armstrong, and pilot David Scott nearly died on Gemini 8, when things got out of hand in a docking manoeuvre with an Agena craft, and had to return immediately to Earth. In 1966 you wouldn't have been aware that anything serious had taken place. I was one of those watching the news about anything to do with space travel at that time.
--- End quote ---
I've watched the news coverage of all NASA flights starting with Gemini III in 1965 and I distinctly remember the coverage of Gemini VIII and the stuck thruster issue. It received prominent coverage on the US TV networks.
What the news shows is up to them, not NASA. If the news didn't show the docking and the stuck thruster problem, that's not NASA's fault.
NASA themselves published a documentary on the flight of Gemini VIII in 1966 and they certainly didn't hide anything. In fact, this video is on YouTube and you can see for yourself:
--- End quote ---
Yep, just as I said. That's the story we got, saying nothing the Russian couldn't figure out for themselves. It describes a modest problem, handled smoothly. No big deal, and protection against a recurrence was added afterwards. Only much later did we find out that the astronauts came within seconds of blacking out in a ship spinning out of control, which would certainly have killed them.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version