[FPSPACE] Rocket guidance to get into orbit...my comments...

[Peter Pesavento]

Hello Everyone...

I think that there might be some misinterpretations about what is needed to get into orbit....what you need is altitude, and angle.

If one is going to attempt to claim orbital altitude, one doesn't need guidance at all....ask the Good Boys at the Reaction Research Society out here in sunny southern California.....they reached orbital altitude from their temp launch site in Nevada back in 1997....they had a dart get up as high as a Space Shuttle....they had a video TV monitor which transmitted pictures, which were recorded on the ground...article appeared in one of the amateur rocket mags...like "Powered Rocketry" I think....

Rather than worrying about "guidance packages"....like using digital or even hydraulic logic, you don't need that to actually get into orbit (and stay there), either...I think Dwayne is making this more complicated than is necessary...

The Good Boys at NOTS in the late 1950s demonstrated you don't need hulking or even complex guidance platforms, etc. to get to orbit...they had this ingenious scheme...and it worked for two of their NOTS-nik satellites (and according to John Nicolaides, head of NOTS' space endeavors, whom I interviewed at length) a third as well that went through most of an orbit) which successfully orbited the Earth (you can go back to the Spaceflights from 1996, 1997 or so and look for articles and "Letters to the Editor" about this)....

The way it worked was this...(you have to think differently)....you cant the fins on the back of the rocket; and it spun up (the fins would bite the air, making the rocket have a "spin" along its longitdinal axis)....as all rockets do, there is something called "max altitude"...the maximum altitude that the rocket will reach....then like all rockets do, it will next do something called "trailing over".....that is, the rocket begins to lean over (because it is done spent the energy getting it to do the "up" part of its trajectory), and start to what they call "go nose down"....this is where the Ingenious Boys at NOTS did something quite clever...

There was a an infrared sensor looking out the side of the rocket....it was connected to a simple circuit that, when the infrared sensor saw equal amounts of light and dark as the rocket spun (as it began to "trail over" and saw the lighted  limb of the Earth, as well as the blackness of space for equal amounts of time), it would send a signal for the rocket engine to fire.....as like all Navy projects, this stuff was thoroughly tested prior to being put into the rocket for the actual orbital attempts....none of this was "jury-rigged" to get there....Navy Projects are conducted with great preciseness....

And it worked...of course...Until my article came out in Spaceflight in 1996, most didn't believe that the project succeeded....actual satelllites on board that actually reached space and actually transmitted signals...

But this goes back to the discussion about Top Secret projects being reported about on a lower level of security....some things are released (like the named of "Project Pilot," etc.) , while the obtained objectives are held dear.....and this also will affect how people report space events.....you have personal perceptions, and you also have the "men in gray suits looking over your shoulder" as the person puts down their recollections....

My personal point of view was--just maybe--Medaris was stating it right....maybe they had a quite simple scheme to have the upper most stage fire as the rocket was about to "trail over"....of course, I am not privy to the actual data or the scheme the guys down at Huntsville were thinking, but if NOTs guys were thinking this, perhaps the Army Boys were also thinking along similar lines....More research is needed to find out....Any takers?

This is where having some technical background and knowledge would aid immensely in the interprertation of whether things "could" or "could not" have taken place....and where a lot of historians who come directly and only out of the "Political Science" side of things may have some blind spots...the way those blind spots can be removed is for the "Political Science" guys to talk to the technical guys and ask direct questions....opinions expressed without some inputs from others with technical expertise will provide incorrect conclusions...

That's my commentary....