Stas Bush wrote:Quite obviously they would not be able to make sense of the modern guidance systems, but they might make sense of the missile's combustion system, propellants, tank shapes, stuff like fin control mechanics, etc. And we're not saying they would be able to directly copy the modern technology.
But none of that is precisely new state of the art. After all, the British Army was using the Congreve rocket as artillery back in the 18th and 19th centuries and quite effective it was when used properly. The Congreves became obsolete when improvements in artillery meant that the same job could be done by regular artillery. The next jump that comes is when materials science moves up to allow components capable of handling conditions in the new designs. This bounces back to teh question I asked earlier, what is the time-window in which a system thrown back in time could be useful?
Instead, they might get something that is very inferior, especially with their materials - but something still superior to what is being developed at the time, shortening the development cycle - possibly by decades. If they get the general principles of rocket science, from engines to aerodynamics, from several actually working examples - there would be not only a far greater acceptance of rocket science as a necessary tool for military purposes, which is a good way to get lots of money, but also a sound basis from which to work.
A lot of these things were already known. As I've pointed out, rockets and their virtues were well-appreciated. What was amiss was that the accuracy problem hadn't been solved and couldn't be until guidance systems were available and they're way out of court. Salvo rocket launchers like the BM-21 were already available (back to Congreves again) but they were inefficient and ineffective compared to tube artillery in the tactical environment that then existed. Again, we come back to the problem that inventions exist within a specific environment and taking them out of that environment deprives them of most of their value. For example, suppose we took anti-tank missiles back to 1917. They'd have a limited value in picking off bunkers and so on but overall, they'd be of very limited value indeed (that begs the question of whether they'd work at all in the conditions of the Western Front. Certainly, the wire-guided ones would have serious problems).
And I believed that rather powerful combustion engines were developed in aviation already in the 1930s-1940s, so they are not so behind to make sense of the machinery, even if they would lack computerized controls. Even if it propels them to experiment with 1930s-1940s comparable levels of power in the 1900s, that's already something.
The problem here is that the new and more powerful engines depended on advanced materials technology. They also depended on advances in lubrication, cooling etc. Now some of that could be translated into 1917 technology but other parts couldn't. Also, those engines depended on production techniques that simply weren't available back then. Just because people could see what had been done didn't tell them much about how it could be done. It's interesting to note, by the way, that power output between 1917 and 1934/35 really didn't change very much as far as production engines was concerned. The top-of-the-line engines in 1917 developed around 400 horsepower, in 1934, it had increased to around 650 horsepower. However, that isn't the whole story. Special-purpose engines were already around that could develop twice that power but they were one-off hand-built entities with lives that were measured in minutes rather than hours. What allowed that class of engine to be developed into production entities was changes in production technology and materials science, none of which will be obvious from simply looking at an engine.
This brings us back to a question I asked earlier. There is a window of opportunity which allows a time-travelled development to have a major effect by reverse engineering. The question is how large is that window? How quickly do we move from "Wow, let's do it" to "ee, we knew it was coming and this proves it but....." to "oh my, what the blue blazes is this?" to "Well, let's try pressing this button - AAARRGGGGGGGGGGGG!" I'd guess that window would vary with the precise technology in question but I doubt if any of them would take more than a few years. For example, take my Corvette back into the 1950s and give it to a GM dealer to run a routine service.
"Ah, a Corvette Sir, yes we can do this. Haven't seen this model before, must be the new 1955 version. Ummm, where's the hood release?"
Stuart presses button and pops the hood. "There you are. Here's the maintenance manual."
Mechanic opens the manual to Page One Step One. "Plug the lead from the computer car status monitoring system into the USB port fitted to the onboard diagnostic system and run engine monitoring program. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????" Loud crash as mechanic faints.
(Stuart revives mechanic by administering shot of his 25 year old McAllan - which still dates from 25 years plus in the Mechanic's future - after making sure he hadn't damaged the car when his head hit it on the way down). "Look, I'll call Onstar and get you some help."
Mechanic (weakly) "What's Onstar?"