Adolf Hitler owns space !

Joann Evans wrote:

Anthony Frost wrote:

In message
Ian Stirling wrote:

In sci.space.policy Brian Raab wrote:

And to take this thread in an unexpected right angle...

Could the V2 win the X-prize?

Fails on the government development clause?

Anthony



Interesting...could it not be considered public domain or something,
by now?


You betcha. That's what comes when you *lose*.


What other common technologies were originally developed by
government, mostly military?


Well, not a whole hell of a lot. Most technologies are developed by
companies, many *for* governemnt, but government itself typically
doesn't develop much.

Joann Evans wrote:
Actually, if Hitler had listened to, and supported his rocket people
sooner, you guys might now be in charge, and that statement might today
be taken seriously.

Not in the slightest. The rocket weapons were very much
ineffective and an inefficient use of resources. Moreover,
Germany was very fortunate in that it was defeated before
the advent of nuclear weapons. A stronger Germany and a
longer war in Europe would have meant only greater
destruction of Germany before its defeat.

Additionally, even without nuclear weapons the allied
forces had developed tremendous destructive capabilities.
It's probably not entirely coincidence that Germany was
defeated right at the time that everything clicked into
place for allied bombing to become tremendously effective
(Dresden, Tokyo, etc.)


But as one who mught be in the 'subhuman' category, it's just as well
that he didn't...

Quite.


I have to think someone's written an alternate history SF story like
this.

PKD?

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:35:35 -0500, "Christopher M. Jones"
wrote:

I have to think someone's written an alternate history SF story like
this.
PKD?

Heinlein did something along those lines, in 'Rocket Ship
Galileo'... the Nazis had established a base on the moon, complete
with nuclear weapons, and the heroes had to stop them.

Bit of a fun read, BTW. :-)

Could the V2 win the X-prize?

According to a 1988 article of the soviet newspaper "Komsomolskaja
Znamja" ("The torch of Lenin's Party Youth Organization") the U.S. Navy
in the Indian Ocean has recovered a german space space capsule
containing three blonde nazinauts, who had been launched in late 1943
and spent four decades in anabiotic sleep.

One must wonder why the russians wrote these, as it would make Gagarin
less significant? It was not on the April's first.

Actually, if Hitler had listened to, and supported his rocket people
sooner, you guys might now be in charge, and that statement might
today
be taken seriously.

Not in the slightest. The rocket weapons were very much
ineffective and an inefficient use of resources. Moreover,
Germany was very fortunate in that it was defeated before
the advent of nuclear weapons. A stronger Germany and a
longer war in Europe would have meant only greater
destruction of Germany before its defeat.

Nazi Germany had incredible chemical weapons capabilities, they even had
early nerve poison gases (the US later refined these molecules into the
dreaded "V-gases"). Poison gases are also weapons of mass destruction
and not less effective than nukes when it comes to unpopulating cities.

Also, german spies planted a radio homing beacon at the top of the
Empire State Building, which device was not found until late 1946. If
the germans had time to finish the A-10 missile project (5000km+ range
with V-2 upper stage) they coud realize 2001/09/11 almost 60 years
before!

Don't forget the revolutionary Type XXI submarines and jet fighters. How
can you drop a nuke on Berlin, if Me-P-1101, Go-229 and Ta-183 fighters
slaughter all your B-29 bombers with guided missiles? It is not obvious
the USA would go on to finish Germany, they might find it easier to
share world dominance if the nazi win in the east.

Actually, there was a Hollywood movie about this alternative history,
where war winners USA and Nazi Germany co-exist and share the rule of
the entire world by 1960. An SS officer's son then accidentally learns
about the shoa and he tries to uncover the hidden history of the Reich's
rise.

Tamas Feher wrote:

Nazi Germany had incredible chemical weapons capabilities, they even had
early nerve poison gases (the US later refined these molecules into the
dreaded "V-gases"). Poison gases are also weapons of mass destruction
and not less effective than nukes when it comes to unpopulating cities.

By the time Germany had nerve gases in quantity, they lacked the
means to deliver it. Their strategic bombers were mostly gone.
The allies retained mass quantities of earlier generation
poison gases, and had developed their own (somewhat less toxic)
version of nerve gas (di-isopropyl fluorophosphonate). Most
importantly, the allies had the infrastructure in place for
delivering thousands of tons of munitions to cities in
Germany.

Paul

Christopher M. Jones wrote:

Joann Evans wrote:

Actually, if Hitler had listened to, and supported his rocket people
sooner, you guys might now be in charge, and that statement might today
be taken seriously.


Not in the slightest. The rocket weapons were very much
ineffective and an inefficient use of resources.


This is in fact debatable. Thye V-2 had the range and destructive power
of a medium bomber, and cost 1/10 as much. By the end of the war, the
effective lifespan of a German medium bomber was something like 3
missions. So, 3 V-2's would do as much damage as 1 Dornier, but at 3/10
the cost, and without losing the crew.



Note: figures are "IIRC."

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:44:50 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Not in the slightest. The rocket weapons were very much
ineffective and an inefficient use of resources.


This is in fact debatable. Thye V-2 had the range and destructive power
of a medium bomber, and cost 1/10 as much. By the end of the war, the
effective lifespan of a German medium bomber was something like 3
missions. So, 3 V-2's would do as much damage as 1 Dornier, but at 3/10
the cost, and without losing the crew.

But the Dornier would have had at least somewhat more precision...

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:44:50 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Not in the slightest. The rocket weapons were very much
ineffective and an inefficient use of resources.


This is in fact debatable. Thye V-2 had the range and destructive power
of a medium bomber, and cost 1/10 as much. By the end of the war, the
effective lifespan of a German medium bomber was something like 3
missions. So, 3 V-2's would do as much damage as 1 Dornier, but at 3/10
the cost, and without losing the crew.


But the Dornier would have had at least somewhat more precision...


By that time it was pretty much down to flattening cities and vast waves
of Soviet tanks and troops.

Plus, the Germans were makign good strides in guided munitions... would
not be the least bit surpised if the V-2 couldn;t have been made rather
more accurate than it was.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:44:50 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Not in the slightest. The rocket weapons were very much
ineffective and an inefficient use of resources.


This is in fact debatable. Thye V-2 had the range and destructive power
of a medium bomber, and cost 1/10 as much. By the end of the war, the
effective lifespan of a German medium bomber was something like 3
missions. So, 3 V-2's would do as much damage as 1 Dornier, but at 3/10
the cost, and without losing the crew.

But the Dornier would have had at least somewhat more precision...

No it wouldn't. During Operation Steinbock in early 1944 the Germans had
difficulty finding the city of London. They got around 30% or fewer hits on
London. The V2 hit London Civil Defence Region about 38% of the time a year
later, when the Germans had lost Northern France.
The RAF had the same type of problem in 1941 over Germany.
This is why countries like Syria try to buy or build Scud missiles - you
can't bomb accurately in the face of enemy air superiority, even if
"accurately" means hitting a large city.

Murray Anderson