Thank you all for the comments. In brief reply:
*I am not advertising the failures of the programs, only the highlights. As the war intervenes more details will become available. Please realize that with minimal investment Goddard was able to achieve significant advancements on his own.
*German missiles were largely based on steel and lacked for alloys and materials in many cases. Replace steel missile bodies with aluminum and performance improves notably, albeit not enough to make earth-shattering differences
*Gyroscopes and their precision engineering, along with miniaturization, were a key problem in V2 targeting difficulties. It was thought that had the gyroscopes been perfected the precision of strikes would be measured in city blocks and not in kilometers
*Mass production is not being undertaken, these are prototypes by and large. Technical feasibility is the key here, but the offshoots - and unforseen consequences - will be of additional interest. Not everything here will lead in the direction it appears to, and not every country would be glad to see a United States commanding such superior technology so early in the course of events.
*Transistors were discussed as early as 1926 in a paper from Dr. Julius Lilenfield. Interestingly he developed speakers at the end of his life that made significant commercial impact. He also developed the electrolytic capacitor which aided miniaturization of electronics. Dr. Oskar Heil described similar possibilities in 1934.
*Dr. John Bordeen won two Nobel prizes, one for his work on the transistor in 1947 and another for superconductivity (BCS theory) in the early 70s. His first PhD student was Dr. Nolansky, who pioneered the LED and might win the Nobel prize in a year or two.
*The V2 will be a rough analogue to the 'Major' at the outset, though material science and additional considerations will make the 'Captain' have equivalent usefulness eventually. 'Sergeant' engines will eventually prove useful in specific military roles as well.
*The idea of having the equivalent of the NACA under military auspices creates proximity for a lot of early technologies. The people I mention and the events around them are real, so suppose by the US entry into the war there is a Silicon Valley type research facility where eggheads of all varieties are able to pool their ideas? Would an 'enhanced' SCR-268 or SCR-270 make a difference about how we get into the war?
*I am not advertising the failures of the programs, only the highlights. As the war intervenes more details will become available. Please realize that with minimal investment Goddard was able to achieve significant advancements on his own.
*German missiles were largely based on steel and lacked for alloys and materials in many cases. Replace steel missile bodies with aluminum and performance improves notably, albeit not enough to make earth-shattering differences
*Gyroscopes and their precision engineering, along with miniaturization, were a key problem in V2 targeting difficulties. It was thought that had the gyroscopes been perfected the precision of strikes would be measured in city blocks and not in kilometers
*Mass production is not being undertaken, these are prototypes by and large. Technical feasibility is the key here, but the offshoots - and unforseen consequences - will be of additional interest. Not everything here will lead in the direction it appears to, and not every country would be glad to see a United States commanding such superior technology so early in the course of events.
*Transistors were discussed as early as 1926 in a paper from Dr. Julius Lilenfield. Interestingly he developed speakers at the end of his life that made significant commercial impact. He also developed the electrolytic capacitor which aided miniaturization of electronics. Dr. Oskar Heil described similar possibilities in 1934.
*Dr. John Bordeen won two Nobel prizes, one for his work on the transistor in 1947 and another for superconductivity (BCS theory) in the early 70s. His first PhD student was Dr. Nolansky, who pioneered the LED and might win the Nobel prize in a year or two.
*The V2 will be a rough analogue to the 'Major' at the outset, though material science and additional considerations will make the 'Captain' have equivalent usefulness eventually. 'Sergeant' engines will eventually prove useful in specific military roles as well.
*The idea of having the equivalent of the NACA under military auspices creates proximity for a lot of early technologies. The people I mention and the events around them are real, so suppose by the US entry into the war there is a Silicon Valley type research facility where eggheads of all varieties are able to pool their ideas? Would an 'enhanced' SCR-268 or SCR-270 make a difference about how we get into the war?
