
Lebanon's forgotten space programme - jdmitch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24735423
======
anonu
This is a very heart-warming story from this little country that I am from.
Lebanese have long shown their ability to innovate and excel in the face of
adversity. Sadly, today, we are at the mercy of politicians and religious
extremists who just don't get it. Lebanon will always overcome.

~~~
recuter
It is a goddamn shame what happened to that country over the years and I
really do hope it will bounce back. My pet theory is that it is inevitable
because of the internet.

Do Lebanese nerds have an English hangout somewhere to conspire with nerds
from elsewhere?

~~~
zefhous
There's an English tech-forum here: [http://lebgeeks.com](http://lebgeeks.com)

~~~
moubarak
Leb geeks is a nice forum however it's very local.

------
ChuckMcM
It was certainly true that in the US and the Soviet Union that the space
program's primary "customer" was the military. It is an acceptable cover story
to be "exploring space" when you are working on technologies that make for
better ICBMs. And that was one of the interesting things about SpaceX to me,
here was a company that didn't have some defense "minder" in the back rooms
somewhere calling the shots.

The other thing that this reminded me of was that the history of the Arab
world early on is one of excellent science and discovery. It would be nice to
get back to that and away from what passes for state craft in the middle east.
Sadly that seems like a harder problem than sending someone to the moon.

~~~
mturmon
While I'm not a historian of NASA (but see:
[http://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm](http://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm)),
I think your summary in the first paragraph is way off. It's more accurate to
say that the military had rockets in development, and they were pressed into
service for the new space agency.

From 1945 to 1957, the US military (Army, and later, Air Force) was sponsoring
rocket development, e.g. von Braun's team in Huntsville. But after NASA was
created in 1958 following Sputnik, it was made a civilian agency, and the
crossover with the military was much less.

NASA doesn't have a genuine connection to ICBMs. There's a lot more to space
technology than rocketry, so there's little overlap between an ICBM (at the
whole system level) and an earth-orbiter (again, considered as a system). For
instance, one of the main ICBM design issues is target accuracy -- there's no
such counterpart for an orbiter.

Additionally, divergence between NASA goals and military goals is great enough
that, even when prompted from above, the technology does not mix well. I'm
thinking of the notion that the Shuttle would be used for
military/intelligence satellite launch, and the NPOESS combined NOAA/NASA/DoD
earth-observing satellite.

The notion that there is a DoD "minder" in the back room seems kind of
fanciful. In the late 1950s, maybe, but by the mid-60s -- I really doubt it --
except for some of the basic rocket engine technology.

~~~
jlgreco
The military's interest in rockets was not limited to lobbing warheads, they
took a very early interest in using rockets to put things into orbit.

The first US satellite, the Explorer 1, was kicked off by the Army and the
first stage of the Juno rocket that launched it was a modified Redstone, an
Army ballistic missile (not an ICBM).

Skipping forward to manned flight, the first two US manned Mercury missions
(1961) used extended Redstones again for sub-orbital launches. The next four
Mercury missions (1962-1963) used modified Atlas rockets (Atlas LV-3B's
specifically, which were man-rated Atlas D's) These Atlas rockets were
America's first ICBMs. Atlas rockets continued to be used for space launches
for several more years, launching target vehicles for docking with during
Gemini, launching a few space probes, etc. Literally dozens of Atlas D ICBMs
were used as launch vehicles for damn near half a century. Some of the first
GPS satellites were put up on Atlas rockets.

The Gemini missions (1965-1966) continued this tradition, all using man-rated
Titan IIs (ICBMs, but with more redundancy for reliability). In the years that
followed, the Titan II continued to be used for satellite launches, and like
the Atlas, spawned a successful line of derivative launch vehicles.

The point that I am making here is that ICBMs worked swimmingly as launch
vehicles, and weren't just pushed onto NASA for a task that they weren't fit
to perform. Slap a Centaur/Agena/etc on top and they can do a hell of a lot,
and with a few added redundancies, they got men into space brilliantly.
Redstones/Atlas's/Titan IIs made quality launch vehicles. We are by no means
talking "minimal overlap".

It wasn't until 1968, less than a year before putting a man on the moon, that
NASA used a non-ICBM derived launch vehicle for a manned mission (The Saturn
1B, with Apollo 7, and a few short months later with the famous Saturn V, for
Apollo 8).

~~~
dragonwriter
> The point that I am making here is that ICBMs worked swimmingly as launch
> vehicles, and weren't just pushed onto NASA for a task that they weren't fit
> to perform.

Since the task of an ICBM and the task of an orbital launch vehicle are
virtually indistinguishable, that shouldn't be all that surprising. It's the
same task, just with a different payload.

~~~
jlgreco
Exactly. An ICBM getting something up there and moving sideways fast is doing
the same thing as a launch vehicle getting something up there and moving
sideways fast. ICBM technology is rocket technology, rocket technology is ICBM
technology.

The place where they really start to differentiate is the return vehicles.
ICBM reentry vehicles have different requirements than other sort of reentry
vehicles (basically they should have properties that make them harder to track
and shoot down) but even then the physics is all the same physics.

------
masklinn
> During the 1960s, the US and the Soviet Union competed for supremacy in
> space. But there was another contestant in the race - the Lebanese Rocket
> Society

Ignoring the France[0], Japan[1], the UK[2] and China[3], that is.

Kind of a weird hook.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamant)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(rocket_family)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_\(rocket_family\))

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_1)

~~~
mturmon
Like a lot of early-stage technologies, it was easy to get in and do novel
things when it was in its infancy. The early U.S. work had the same amateur
characteristics as in TFA:

[http://www.space.com/13463-nasa-jet-propulsion-lab-rocket-
te...](http://www.space.com/13463-nasa-jet-propulsion-lab-rocket-test-
anniversary.html)

Sand bags to hide behind, fuel lines strung up on sticks, and a case of
Crisco. What more could you want?

------
jdmitch
There is also an interview with Manoug Manougian, the founder of the rocket
club, here:

[https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/10questions/10-questions-with-
ma...](https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/10questions/10-questions-with-manoug-
manougian)

apparently this year is the first time he has been back to Lebanon since he
left in 1966.

~~~
inglesp
He sounds like a lovely guy.

------
JVIDEL
I think nothing shows how big the space race really was than the fact that so
many countries poured resources into building a national space program

See the case of Argentina:
[http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en-419&sl=auto&tl=e...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en-419&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fes.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistoria_de_la_astron%C3%A1utica_en_la_Argentina)

Another case worth mentioning is a forerunner of SpaceX the West German
company OTRAG
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG)

