0
1

[–] Dominus_Stercae 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I put my comment here to respond once to a few of yours in your post.

Here's what I take from my reading. Robert Goddard developed the first working bipropellant, single combustion chamber liquid fueled rocket. He also built the first regeneratively cooled combustion chamber, albeit not following through with the idea. Independent of Wernher von Braun's team he developed turbopumps - much like the British and Germans independently developed turbojets.

As a young man von Braun studied Goddard's work, first matching his achievements and then building upon them. There's no question the Germans grabbed the concept with both hands and took it to new heights (no pun intended). I'm sure in even his wildest dreams Goddard would not have imagined a Saturn V!

So while von Braun and his team advanced the techniques beyond recognition, IMO there's little doubt that Robert Goddard can be considered the father of modern practical rocketry. To back up my opinion, I'll leave here this homage of von Braun's to his boyhood hero. Who am I to argue with that?

0
1

[–] HuginnOgMuninn [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Goddard laid the important groundwork for further development, he was a significant contributor towards rocketry, and cleared many stepping stones. I do not want to deny that.

Perhaps it is best to honor his contributions towards rocketry by giving him the status of inventor, even though Tsiolkovsky was the first to describe it, and Goddards rockets never flew correctly. But I feel like the first true rocket, by the modern standards and definitions, is the A4/V2. This is not an unreasonable viewpoint. The difference is the same as between Da Vinci's flying machine, and the Wright brothers, though the comparison might seem a bit hyperbolic.

As I say, it's debatable. But I feel strongly, that the inventor of the first true actual rocket, should have the title of inventor.

Give him the title of 'father of rocketry', whatever needs to be said. But the inventor is either Tsiolkovsky or Von Braun.

I can very much understand the American claim from a patriots standpoint, and I can understand the hesitation to award Von Braun such stature, considering the history. But I don't agree with it.

0
0

[–] Dominus_Stercae ago 

We're clearly in the same ball park and perhaps splitting hairs, but I feel the need to respond on one of your points.

It's not a matter of American pride! Lass mich dir 'was sagen. Ich hab' absolut kein Problem ;-) honoring the role Wernher von Braun and his team had in the advance. My goodness, look at the Saturn V! In my opinion, he's in history's topmost echelon of engineers and innovators. But it's a statement of fact that the very first liquid fueled rockets to fly were designed and built by Robert Goddard. Not Tsiolkovsky. Not Oberth. And not von Braun. I know you're not claiming otherwise on that, but I do believe you're devaluing Goddard's achievement.

Wernher von Braun himself deferred to Goddard. His word is more than good enough for me!

PS: Thank you for your civility. All too rare - especially hereabouts.