New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era?

rshowalter - 10:41am Jan 24, 2001 EST (#589 of 596)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Tell me more about this Tesla story, and the support for it?

on dirac's

"Because no scientific reasons whatsoever have been presented. The "figure of merit" thing is engineering and scientifically worthless."

The idea that "engineering is scientifically worthless" shows a good deal of disconnection from the processes by which real human beings build real things that work.

Engineers have, over the years, built many things, including very many involving big projects. And the experience is that order of magnitude advances aren't to be expected after a project has gone on long enough, except in VERY exceptional cases, and always for good engineering reasons. (Engineering is the science that can be applied to making things, by real human beings, in real human organizations, using real tools.)

mhunter20 - 11:17am Jan 24, 2001 EST (#590 of 596)

Tesla's Death Ray

It is perhaps not surprising that Tesla would not have tried to profit from his patents on radar, the invention believed responsible for the Allied victory in WWII, since he did once rip up an extremely profitable contract with G. Westinghouse (AC motor).

rshowalter - 01:10pm Jan 24, 2001 EST (#591 of 596)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

From the "death ray" reference

It is not certain if Tesla ever used the death ray, or indeed if he even succeeded in building one. But the following is the often-related story of what happened one night in 1908 when Tesla tested the foreboding weapon.

At the time, Robert Peary was making his second attempt to reach the North Pole. Cryptically, Tesla had notified the expedition that he would be trying to contact them somehow. They were to report to him the details of anything unusual they might witness on the open tundra. On the evening of June 30, accompanied by his associate George Scherff atop Wardenclyffe tower, Tesla aimed his death ray across the Atlantic towards the arctic, to a spot which he calculated was west of the Peary expedition.

Tesla switched on the device. At first, it was hard to tell if it was even working. Its extremity emitted a dim light that was barely visible. Then an owl flew from its perch on the tower's pinnacle, soaring into the path of the beam. The bird disintegrated instantly.

That concluded the test. Tesla watched the newspapers and sent telegrams to Peary in hopes of confirming the death ray's effectiveness. Nothing turned up. Tesla was ready to admit failure when news came of a strange event in Siberia.

On June 30, a massive explosion had devastated Tunguska, a remote area in the Siberian wilderness. Five hundred thousand square acres of land had been instantly destroyed. Equivalent to ten to fifteen megatons of TNT, the Tunguska incident is the most powerful explosion to have occurred in human history -- not even subsequent thermonuclear detonations have surpassed it. The explosion was audible from 620 miles away. Scientists believe it was caused by either a meteorite or a fragment of a comet, although no obvious impact site or mineral remnants of such an object were ever found.

Nikola Tesla had a different explanation. It was plain that his death ray had overshot its intended target and destroyed Tunguska. He was thankful beyond measure that the explosion had -- miraculously -- killed no one. Tesla dismantled the death ray at once, deeming it too dangerous to remain in existence.

I don't know the evidence that Tesla actually believed his rig had destroyed Tunguska. Given the size of that event, it would have been impossible to believe that, if Tesla had related the idea to conservation of energy -- an idea Tesla knew well.

But the facts that such ideas are quoted, by anonymous sources, is related to another fact. People can believe almost anything about classified research - because no one can check. Over long times, you can however, look at decisions made. The missile interceptor was chosen over the lasar because, in the opinion of people looking at the facts, it was a better shot. And the missile interceptor has worked far worse than hoped. So now, it seems, the lasar approach is being revived, and even called "child's play."

mhunter20 - 01:17pm Jan 24, 2001 EST (#592 of 596)

rshowalter 1/24/01 1:10pm

Given the size of that event, it would have been impossible to believe that, if Tesla had related the idea to conservation of energy -- an idea Tesla knew well.

Perhaps you should read about the source of power that Tesla used for his rig.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense