Wernher von Braun 1912 - 1977 
Posted on 02/07/2004 5:41:19 PM PST by bondserv
Wernher von Braun 1912 - 1977
“It’s not exactly rocket science, you know.” The cliche implies that rocket science is the epitome of something that is difficult, obscure, and abstruse; something comprehensible only by the brainiest of the smart. Names that qualify for the title “father of rocket science” include Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, and von Braun. But Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was mostly a visionary and chalkboard theorist, and Robert Goddard only targeted the upper atmosphere for his projects; he was also secretive and suspicious of others to a fault. Of the three, and any others that could be listed, Wernher von Braun has the prestige of actually taking mankind from the simple beginnings of rocketry all the way to the moon and the planets. His name is almost synonymous with rocket science. He is an icon of the space age. As we will see, he should be remembered for much more than that.
Von Braun (pronounced fon BROWN – and roll the R) is important in this series because he was recent enough to be in the living memory of many, and we have a great deal of documentation, photographs and motion pictures of him. Even young people (that is, anyone under 40) who did not live through the glory days of Apollo are all familiar with three of von Braun’s last great projects he took from vision to reality: the Space Shuttle, orbiting space stations and interplanetary travel. Unquestionably, he had a great deal of help. One does not do rocket science alone! At the height of the Apollo program, some 600,000 employees were involved in tasks from machining parts to managing large flight operations centers. Yet by wide consensus and by results achieved, Wernher von Braun was a giant among giants: highly regarded by his peers, respected by all who worked with him, a celebrity to the public, showered with honors, and unquestionably responsible for much of the success of the space program. Few have ever personally taken a dream of epic proportions to reality. The peaceful exploration of space! It was the stuff of dreams — dreams by Kepler, Jules Verne, science fiction novels and countless childhood imaginations, yet today it is almost too commonplace. Von Braun dreamed, but made it happen. He was the right man with the right stuff at the right time.
What kind of person was he? Many great scientists are quirkish or aloof in their personal lives, but we’re going to reveal a lesser-known side of von Braun, a spiritual side that kept him humble, grateful, unselfish, and strong. We’ll see a remarkably well-rounded individual, a family man who loved swimming and travel and popularizing science for children; a man who loved life, had charisma and energy and dignity and integrity, handled huge projects yet kept a winning smile and a sense of humor even in the most stressful of project deadlines. We’ll see a model of leadership that success-bound corporate heads would do well to emulate. Maybe you didn’t know (incidentally) that he was also a Christian and creationist. But first, a review of his record.
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Wow ... ever see the periodic "Table of the Elements"?
EVER wonder how that was arrived at, how the various atoms arrange themselves, interact with each other to form the myriad of compounds that make life possible?
The 'Creationists' simply astound me at how little they seem to understand the very world they live and interact with around them. It's as if they *still* think the world is 'composed' of four basic 'substances': Earth, fire, water and air.
That would be like asking me my opinions on cosmology (or rocket science), since I am a nominally brilliant scientist in my own field. I may have a detailed opinion on cosmology, but it isn't worth much more than the opinion of Joe Moron down the street because I don't have any particular expertise in cosmology. Being smart isn't enough, you also have to have detailed technical knowledge in the field of question as well. Being scientifically smart doesn't seamlessly translate across fields. And history is replete with brilliant scientists and mathematicians who made fools of themselves by trying to cross over into fields in which they were technically incompetent (e.g. Penrose).
If W. Von Braun was a creationist, who cares? His specialty was rocket science, and he was completely clueless in many important fields. Being an expert in one area does not make you an expert in all areas. People so afflicted with Carl Sagan Syndrome eventually make asses of themselves sooner than later.
I don't know where or how life started, nor does anyone else. Are you aware of any species with only one or two individuals? Other than the ones headed for extinction?
Throw this sentence out; it does not belong in my discussion.
Just what is this 'frequency' thing you are trying to introduce??
Information and AI stuff.. Cool!! I know just enough to look really dumb when compared to someone who DOES know something :)
Let me tap into your expertise, if I may....
I'ver heard that the DNA structure is merely a chemical way to encode information.
Is that a pretty good layman's definition?
I'm not introducing anything. It's the definition of evolution.
Really? I gave you a quote from Hitler's own book, in which he professes to be a creationist. I know of nothing he ever wrote to indicate he ever knew anything about evolution, much less that he admired Darwin. There is nothing in his background which indicates that he ever studied biology. Hitler's only known intellectual interests were art and architecture.
Further, not that I would expect a creationist to be aware of this, there is nothing in evolution theory to suggest that one race should go out and deliberately kill off another. Competition, sure. Genocide, no. Sorry. Hitler's views were entirely his own invention.
I'm at a loss to think of any species other than our own that has systematically set out to eliminate another species.
Certainly this happens inadvertently when a species is transported across a natural geographical barrier, but generally speaking, ecosystems are balanced. The existence of living creatures is irrefutable testimony that they have not been wiped out.
And mass extinctions seem to be tied to physical catastrophes.
Given that Evolutionists insist we "evolved" from the Ape, surely there exists in the fossil record numerous examples of the translational species between Ape and Homo Erectus.
Or... is all this Evolution crap just a kind of Faith without any historical substantiation?
;-/
Why, since you didn't look at it last time?
For layman purposes, instead of the word "information", replace it with the word "pattern" when you read it. It will give you a more intuitive sense of the mathematical usage.
Since everything is information, your question as stated doesn't quite make sense. I would say that DNA is a functional and semi-stable form of algorithmic information for the kinds of chemistries found on this planet. All non-trivial patterns can function as algorithmic machines, but the expression of such in an obvious functional manner is environment dependent. There is nothing special about DNA per se, and a multitude of other chemical systems would express equivalent functionality and form in similar environments.
BTW, "Social Darwinism" has been most closely linked to laissez faire capitalism, not socialism (which, along with communism, if you actually think about it, are at odds with "survival of the fittest" and are, indeed, reactions to that concept).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.