Wernher Von Braun and The History of the V-2 Rocket

Rockets and missiles can serve as weapons systems that  deliver explosive warheads to targets by means of rocket propulsion. Rocket is a general term that describes any jet-propelled missile which is thrust forward from the rearward ejection of matter like hot gases. Rocketry was originally developed in China when firework displays and gunpowder were invented. Hyder Ali, prince of Mysore, India, developed the first war rockets in the 18th century, using metal cylinders to hold the combustion powder needed for propulsion. The First A-4 Rocket Then, eventually, came the A-4 rocket. Later called the  V-2, the A-4 was a single-stage rocket developed by the Germans and  fueled by alcohol and liquid oxygen. It stood 46.1 feet high and had a thrust of 56,000 pounds. The A-4 had a payload capacity of 2,200 pounds and could reach a velocity of 3,500 miles per hour. The first A-4 was launched from Peenemunde, Germany on October 3, 1942. It reached an altitude of 60 miles, breaking the sound barrier. It was the worlds first launch of a ballistic missile and the first rocket ever to go into the fringes of space. The Rockets Beginnings Rocket clubs were springing up all over Germany in the early 1930s. A young engineer named Wernher von Braun joined one of them, the Verein fur Raumschiffarht or Rocket Society. The German military was searching for a weapon at the time that would not violate the Versailles Treaty of World War I but would defend its country. Artillery captain  Walter Dornberger  was assigned to investigate the feasibility of using rockets. Dornberger visited the Rocket Society. Impressed with the club’s enthusiasm, he offered its members the equivalent of $400 to build a rocket.   Von Braun worked on the project through the spring and summer of 1932 only to have the rocket fail when it was tested by the military. But Dornberger was impressed with von Braun and hired him to lead the militarys rocket artillery unit. Von Brauns natural talents as a leader shined, as well as his ability to assimilate great quantities of data while keeping the big picture in mind.  By 1934, von Braun and Dornberger had a team of 80 engineers in place, building rockets in Kummersdorf, about 60 miles south of Berlin.   A New Facility With the successful launch of two rockets, Max and Moritz, in 1934, von Brauns proposal to work on a jet-assisted take-off device for heavy bombers and all-rocket fighters was granted. But Kummersdorf was too small for the task. A new facility had to be built. Peenemunde, located on the Baltic coast, was chosen as the new site. Peenemunde was large enough to launch and monitor rockets over ranges up to about 200 miles with optical and electric observing instruments along the trajectory. Its location posed no risk of harming people or property. The A-4 Becomes the A-2 By now, Hitler had taken over Germany and  Herman Goering ruled the Luftwaffe. Dornberger held a public test of the A-2 and it was successful. Funding continued to flow in to von Brauns team, and they went on to develop the A-3 and, finally, the A-4. Hitler decided to use the A-4 as a vengeance weapon in 1943, and the group found themselves developing the A-4 to rain explosives on London. Fourteen months after Hitler ordered it into production, on September 7, 1944, the first combat A-4 -- now called the V-2 -- was launched toward Western Europe. When the first V-2 hit London, von Braun remarked to his colleagues, The rocket worked perfectly except for landing on the wrong planet. The Teams Fate The SS and the Gestapo ultimately arrested von Braun for crimes against the state because he persisted in talking about building rockets that would orbit the earth and perhaps even go to the moon. His crime was indulging in frivolous dreams when he should have been concentrating on building bigger rocket bombs for the Nazi war machine. Dornberger convinced the SS and the Gestapo to release von Braun because there would be no V-2 without him and Hitler would have them all shot. When he arrived back at Peenemunde, von Braun immediately assembled his planning staff. He asked them  to decide how and to whom they should surrender. Most of the scientists were frightened of the Russians. They felt the French would treat them like slaves, and the British did not have enough money to fund a rocket program. That left the Americans. Von Braun stole a train with forged papers and ultimately led 500 people through war-torn Germany to surrender to the Americans. The SS was issued orders to kill the German engineers, who hid their notes in a mine shaft and evaded their own army while searching for the Americans. Finally, the team found an American private and surrendered to him. The Americans immediately went to Peenemunde and Nordhausen and captured all the remaining V-2s and V-2 parts.  They destroyed both places with explosives. The Americans brought over 300 train cars loaded with spare V-2 parts to the U.S. Many of von Brauns production team were captured by the Russians.

Glossary of Visual Basic Terms

Native American Treaties Free Essays

America requested that the Nation cede certain races of land, beneficial to the US, and with the agreement that the United States could establish garrisons where they desired In order to protect the frontiers. In exchange for the considerations and the permanent relinquishment of those lands and claims, the United States agreed to pay the nation several types of compensation. First was an annual monetary sum of $3000. We will write a custom essay sample on Native American Treaties or any similar topic only for you Order Now 00 every year indefinitely to the Creek Nation, with an additional $1000. 00 per year to the chiefs who administer the governmental services to the tribe. Also provided In the treaty was the sum of $25,000. 00, to be distributed in parts as merchandise and goods, the distraction of debts the Nation owed, and the satisfaction of individual loss of property claims against the tribe by citizens of the united States. In addition, the united States agreed to furnish two sets of Blacksmiths tools and the men to work them for a period of three years. K State Creek 1802 1 felt as though, while I still disagree with the idea that these â€Å"treaty agreements† were in any way fair or a true â€Å"option† to the tribes on these lands, this particular treaty wasn’t any crueler than other treaties. The land descriptions of what was to be ceded to the united States Is official for me to comprehend in any Value’ aspect. I am not certain of the acreage, nor would I begin to know the land value. Secondly, only part of that value was direct compensation. I find the breakdown of the larger compensation package suspect, since It virtually â€Å"forgives† â€Å"debts† that the United States government purports the Creek Indians acquired and/or for acts the government purports the Creek Indians committed against the citizens of America. If the land, property, or other purported to have been taken was in actuality the Creek Indian’s to begin with, then it would be unfair to use land compensation as â€Å"payment of a debt† that never occurred. The second treaty I chose was signed August 9, 1814, (also called the Treaty of Ft. Jackson) following the events surrounding the War of 1812. Andrew Jackson was both the 1 OFF the Creek Indian tribes that culminated with the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in Alabama on March 27, 1814, and killed 800 Indian warriors and imprisoned over 500 women and children in the Ft Aims Massacre. Britannica – Creek Indian War) The agreement was in response to â€Å"†¦ Unprovoked, inhuman, and sanguinary war, waged y the hostile Creeks against us† and for basically violating the 1790 treaty, â€Å"disregarding the previous genuine spirit of existing treaties†. (K State Creek 1814) This treaty had many more provisions, and heavily favored the United States, wh ile laying blame to the Creek Indians for the events that lead to the massacre, and hence, this â€Å"treaty’ which reads more as a list of spoils. The United States demanded the equivalent to all expenses for seeing out the entirety of the war to its end. Not being specifically written, I can only assume that they â€Å"entirety’ included the Creek Indian War AND the majority of the War of 1812. The United States was penalizing the Creek Indians for affording assistance and aid to the British during the War of 1812. This equated to over 23,000,000 acres of land, minus a few â€Å"reservations† of 1 mile tracts per person who had remained friendly to the United States during the conflict. The US also demanded that the Creeks abandon all communications and relations with the British and the Spanish, the rights to establish military posts and trading houses on roads in territories still occupied by the Indian tribe, the right to completely free navigation of all waters, the surrender of al persons or property gained by the Creeks during the conflicts, the capture and surrender of all instigators, and permanent peace between the Creek Indians and the United States, as well as among the Creek Indians and the Cherokee, Chickasaws, and Choctaw Indian tribes. In â€Å"return† for the demands, the Americans guaranteed the integrity of the Northern and North eastern aspects of their territory, as well as a â€Å"Humanitarian† gesture of continuing to â€Å"furnish the necessaries of life†¦ Until crops are competent to yield; and will establish trading houses in the Nation to enable the Nation to procure clothes†¦ By industry or economy’. (K State Creek 1814) The benefit of this treaty was quite obviously in favor of the United States. There was little concession to the Indians for what amounts to half of the state of Alabama and the entire South portion of Georgia in land mass. Britannica – Creek Indian War) While the wording tends to validate the demands of the US, it does not address that the War of 1812 was an occurrence during the intertribal wars that were going on at the time. Some tribes saw an opportunity to show a loyalty to the US, which further incited the opposing tribes who felt that the i ntrusion of the US was not permissible to act against the US, but supporting the opposition in the war, or actually attacking American citizens themselves. Encore of Alabama) The actions of the tribes had not started as actions against the United States for the sake of war against America. Had this been the case, Jackson’s generalization of â€Å"unprovoked, inhuman war† might be more accurate. However, at a time in history where the United States was systematically striping land, rights, and humanity from the indigenous people who ere in actual possession of it upon the American’s arrival is hypocritical at best. The drastic change between the style and manner of the treaties of 1802 and 1814 show the turn America took from being a participant in a mutual, albeit selfish, exchange to a punishing political power using treaties and government backed Americans was, ironically, to become President and initiate Indian Removal as formal policy. With the â€Å"concession as a gesture of humanity’ America made the Creek Tribe both more dependent on the US government for necessities they could not themselves generate – now for lack of the territory they once had to farm, herd, and ark on – but also began a culture of resentment with the tribe. I am not convinced this wasn’t the exact objective of the ‘humanitarian help’ written into the agreement. It is clear to see that while in the beginning, there was a more conservative tactic with the treaties to maintain a certain amount of control over the native tribes, there was a more concerted effort as time passed and the United States desired to take more and give less. The power differential is shown most vividly in the sheer volume of land taken in the 1814 treaty as â€Å"equivalent to expenses†. How to cite Native American Treaties, Papers

FEmales Essay Example For Students

FEmales Essay MIDDLETOWN , N.J. An increasing number of women are being arrested for domestic assaults, and the response to this news shows just how pervasive sexist attitudes still are in our culture. But this time the sexism is coming from feminists and their allies, who insist that most women arrested must have acted in self-defense. This sentimental insistence on female innocence does no service to women, who should be treated as human beings with a capacity for aggression and held equally accountable for their actions. In many states, women now account for a quarter to a third of all domestic violence arrests, up from less than 10 percent a decade ago. The new statistics reflect a reality documented in research: women are perpetrators as well as victims of family violence. A review of 70 studies of domestic violence in which both men and women were interviewed was published in 1998 by Martin Fiebert, a psychologist at California State University at Long Beach. Usually the violence was recipr ocal, the research found, with women not only fighting back but initiating attacks; when only one partner was abusive, it was at least as often the woman as the man. And while differences in strength put women at higher risk of serious injury or death, men are hardly invulnerable. According to an article to be published next year in Psychological Bulletin, analyzing data from dozens of studies, men incur a third of injuries in domestic combat. Shouldnt the growth in female arrests, then, be seen as representing a fairer, more realistic attitude toward gender and aggression? Not according to feminist and other advocacy groups whose ideology equates battering with male oppression of women. They cry backlash and claim that women are being penalized for defending themselves. Assertions that female abusers are really victims can be based on rather tortured logic. A 1991 paper by researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin classified a woman as abused if she said that her partner had been the first to use violence in their relationship, even if she was usually the aggressor later on. Womens advocates also point out that most female offenders are arrested for minor, non-injurious acts like pushing, grabbing or hair-pulling. But the same is true of most men swept up in the net of strict domestic-violence laws passed by many states in the last 10 years. Many women who are arrested for domestic assault say they were striking back. But so do many male defendants. The truth in these situations can be hard to sort out. Unfortunately, many public officials have been swayed by extreme woman-as-victim arguments. Some jurisdictions have tried to reduce female arrests by training the police to see violence in context. Often, the guidelines instruct officers to decide who is in control and who is in fear vague terms likely to be used as code words for arrest the man. Measures intended to get women off the hook violate not only the constitutional principle of equal protectio n but true feminist principles. The slogan There is no excuse for domestic violence should not end with the exemption unless you are female. ___________________________________________________Katie Roiphe is a brave woman. She counters the Take Back the Night ideology with what might be tagged Take Back the Mind. Specifically, she urges young women to think twice or three times about what they are being urged to endorse in the name of victim feminism. Is there an epidemic of rape on college campuses? Are all young men sexual predators just waiting to pounce? Are all women helpless before the vulgar jokes, the sexual metaphors, the unsolicited ogling (an actionable offense on many campuses, by the way), the sexual innuendo, the ride alone with a man on a first date, the many subtle and egregious ways, so the ideology claims, men make their power felt, yea even irresistible, in each and every encounter that involves what used to be called the sexes before we started talking about cons tructed genders? (One shudders, by the way, to recall that reckless eyeballing got black men lynched in the Jim Crow South if their eyes wandered the wrong way toward a white woman.) Perhaps the best way for me to introduce Roiphes text is to recall a recent experience of my own. I was in Colorado, visiting family, and I picked up the Welcome Back to Campus edition of the newspaper of a large state institution in Northern Colorado. There were the usual greetings to students from all the local merchants; the usual upbeat message from the college president; the usual detailed information about registration and the rest. But there was also a full page, put out under the auspices of something called the Equal Opportunity Developmental Office, listing some twenty pointers about sexual harassment and date rape. The one that caught my eye read: Do not believe that if you dress provocatively, drink to excess, and go to a boys room you are asking for sex or to blame if sex occurs. Say what? Let me see if I get this straight. I dress provocatively. I drink, not a few drinks, but to excess. I go to a boys room. Then I wake up the next morning and accuse him of rape? Is that the plot line? You bet it is. What is pernicious about this sort of business is that it constructs the young woman as a wholly irresponsible agent whose one act of agency consists in accusingBibliography: .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db , .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db .postImageUrl , .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db , .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db:hover , .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db:visited , .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db:active { border:0!important; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db:active , .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ubaff0b93924c2c72b79dcbb3f33da5db:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Weathering, Erosion, and Deposition.