Tesla's 'Death Ray'

[E]

Fallout one(?) had a loading screen with a huge nuke in it easily caravan size, fallout BOS had a missile warhead shaped nuke in it.
Fallouts computers were huge (no transistors??) so no computer guidance. (Not totally needed)

Did that russian missile have any transistors (I read the russians had a plane with only valves as late as the early eights (EMP resistant)).

I presume the rays need targeting otherwise you fry an entire coast (possible in fallout) if so how hard is that. Can it hit a missile,

any point on the globe, defined beforehand

Doesn't sound too spritely. (though this is an advanced post 50's world)

Really bad explanation follows

If I remember what I know of tesla's rays correctly (had a mate who was a fanatic(and I could be wrong))
You need to get two separate waves to converge on a point. (triangulated on the target?)
or
You have to range the signal (Tune two waves to syncronise at a predetermined distance)

just had a thought
Why wasn't the deathray used to stop the nukes in the first place?
If you want to use a "deathray missile shield" you better get the plot bang on.

My personal opininon is you can make the idea fit.
But I don't think it has the right "Feel" for Fallout. Fallout 1 and 2 both ended with the PC causing a huge bang (was fallout 1's atomic? fallout 2's definitely was) not stopping one.
To keep in this pattern you should get the PC to let off a nuke at just the right time to stop the bad guy's nuke (at a probably safe distance).

Edit
Tactics had a PC nukeing stuff as well

 

[Jack the Anarch]

No, there are no ICBMs in Fallout because they don't fit either the technology (no transistors) or the basis of the setting (50s retro sci-fi).

As E has already pointed out, transistors are not a prerequisite for making an ICBM and the first Russian missiles were quite probably using vacuum tubes, so there's no problem with that. As for the 50s science fiction, as far as I can tell, they had an awful lot of rockets there and the early ICBMs were nothing other than big, stupid rockets.

While theoretically possible within Fallout's technological setting, it's highly unlikely and would require huge facilities vulnerable to attack (like the ICBMs of the 60s).

That didn't prevent their use, even though they were vulnerable to surprise bombing raids, and in fiction you can always imagine the missiles with much faster reaction times than they actually had. The Russian R-7 Semyorka rocket took almost 20(!) hours to prepare and launch, and could be kept on ready to launch status for only a few days, so was an easy target to neutralize for US bombers if they knew where they were located. Either way, I don't see how this relates to the plausability of having ICBMs in Fallout. I'm not saying that all nukes had a rocket propelled delivery vehicle, just that some have.[/quote]

Aside from that, the setting is very important as well. I suggest you go watch Dr. Strangelove to grasp why this doesn't really fit the setting.

This I will do, but for an uneducated player as I am, the game is the only source of information I have, and upon having completed it I have not seen any reason why the ICBMs could not have played a role in the nuclear conflagration. I admit, I might not have been the most attentive player, so I would be grateful if you could point out a reference in the game where it is stated in what way were the nukes delivered to their target and how that rules out ICBMs.


Now about E's view of Tesla Rays.
As far as I am aware (from reading other people's interpretations) the Death Ray defense system would have used radars to detect targets, radio communication to identify them as hostile or friendly. Once identified as hostile, his device would have ionized the target to positive potential (at least temporarily) and with this done to a sufficiently high enough voltage the electrons from the surrounding environment would flood to the target due to electrostatic attraction. With the target ionized and with a transmitter ('Death Ray' projector) arranged with a high enough opposite potential (negative) the supplied electrons would be literally pulled to the ionized target. This would in effect create a directed bolt of lightning from the transmitter to the target, effectively neutralizing it (probably something much more uglier).
To ionize a target he would have used a Fresnel Lense to focus a "Longitudinal" or Scalar wave, hence creating a focused electrostatic potential at the target.
All this is proposed in the article I already have linked to.

 

[Sander]

As E has already pointed out, transistors are not a prerequisite for making an ICBM and the first Russian missiles were quite probably using vacuum tubes, so there's no problem with that. As for the 50s science fiction, as far as I can tell, they had an awful lot of rockets there and the early ICBMs were nothing other than big, stupid rockets.

Yes, there is a problem there since this makes an ICBM arsenal completely implausible.
And again, go watch Dr. Strangelove to get a better feel for it.

That didn't prevent their use,

Considering the fact that they were never used and written off *very* quickly, it did. They were also not fully deployed until after the '50s.

even though they were vulnerable to surprise bombing raids, and in fiction you can always imagine the missiles with much faster reaction times than they actually had. The Russian R-7 Semyorka rocket took almost 20(!) hours to prepare and launch, and could be kept on ready to launch status for only a few days, so was an easy target to neutralize for US bombers if they knew where they were located. Either way, I don't see how this relates to the plausability of having ICBMs in Fallout. I'm not saying that all nukes had a rocket propelled delivery vehicle, just that some have.

Wait, what?
You just explained yourself exactly how it would *not* fit in the technological canon of Fallout and then say 'but that doesn't matter'.
Bullshit, it does. It may be fiction, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore everything you want to, especially since it's fiction grounded on certain principles.

This I will do, but for an uneducated player as I am, the game is the only source of information I have, and upon having completed it I have not seen any reason why the ICBMs could not have played a role in the nuclear conflagration. I admit, I might not have been the most attentive player, so I would be grateful if you could point out a reference in the game where it is stated in what way were the nukes delivered to their target and how that rules out ICBMs.

Oh, for fuck's sake.
It's not about what is or isn't stated in the game, it's about the setting and technologic state in Fallout. It doesn't need to be specifically mentioned in the game to be right or wrong.
I'd also suggest you go educate yourself as to the principles of Fallout's design before you go on to argue from an uneducated point of view.

 

[Brother None]

That said, Jack, there's no ingame evidence to support theories of ICBMs and no ingame evidence to disprove such theories, which is why everyone goes with theorising on the setting. And the setting does dictate no ICBMs unless proven otherwise in a game.

Van Buren (the planned Fallout 3 that's been cancelled) did plan to have an orbital missile platform, but no ICBMs.

 

[Jack the Anarch]

Ok. So no ICBMs.
Doesn't really matter for Tesla's Death Ray to be incorporated in the game. So, basically except for Sander, you people like the idea. Too bad we won't see it in Fallout 3 by Bitchesda.

 

[E]

To fulfil the role of the ICBM what about something more fallouty.
Take one huge 50's strategic bomber, replace the cockpit with a computer like the one in the glow.
Give it atomic propulsion
(a real project from the 50's that worked except for the hideous amount of radiation that eventually killed every one who used it. but the world of fallout has nicer radiation than we do here.)

These craft in theory only needed to land when the crew needed something.

You now have a fallout type nuke delivery machine that can be on the other end of a sinister madman's button.

Alternate plot idea,
What if a very small part of the USA was protected by the prototype deathray. (a fallout shangri-la)
the deathray has fallen into disrepair.
The madman is sick and tired of their dog crapping on his lawn so he decides to nuke the place.
PC must find technician type to fix the problem (or top secret plans etc)

 

[Jack the Anarch]

Or you could have a suicide rocket propelled vehicle with some Mutant frustrated with the fact the he can never have kids deciding to take a dive into oblivion.

There are multiple avenues to take with this approach, all which could prove interesting to play out. Anyone care to elaborate on this more? E?

 

[Vox]

Take one huge 50's strategic bomber, replace the cockpit with a computer like the one in the glow.
Give it atomic propulsion
(a real project from the 50's that worked except for the hideous amount of radiation that eventually killed every one who used it. but the world of fallout has nicer radiation than we do here.)

Slight correction:

The plane was built with an onboard reactor (using the planes entire cargo capacity, btw.), but the reactor didn't power the engines. It technically COULD, though.

But there was another problem:

If they plane's get shot down in combat, or worse, crashes over friendly territory (due to some technical failure), it'd pollute a huge area with radioactive junk.
Like a massive dirty bomb.

Info.

 

[E]

I'm just going off the documentary I watched, which had the russian plane's propulsion generated by cool air entering the (hot) reactor and then as it expands it was vented out the back thus generating thrust.

The russian plane fed air directly into the reactor to heat it.
The american plane fed air into a heat exchanger.

According to the documentary both planes flew and functioned well enough. Except for the radition that is.

 

[chadious maximus]

icbms, bombs, what does it matter? though i havent read JtA's link, from what i know of Tesla's WWI death ray experiments, they werent all that successful. the actual death ray was big, bulky, used craploads of electricity, and had a very short range. and being used as a defense against air threats, BAH!

still, he designed one, and the USA built one, so it could make its way into the fallout universe. it could even play a role in defending a town against ground attack, but little else.

maybe it could even be turned into an easter egg of sorts.

"you find a large, electrical powered contraption marked 'Death Ray'. Right next to it you find a notebook of what seems to be mad scribblings. Upon reading, you realize the writing is in Russian. You close the notebook and scratch your head."

 

[Vox]

And during the game you can learn russian, and understand what it's all about the death ray, but after you leave the area you will never find the death ray again.

 

[chadious maximus]

And during the game you can learn russian, and understand what it's all about the death ray, but after you leave the area you will never find the death ray again.

a random encounter. BELLISIMO!

and on the topic of ICBMs, yeah, there doesnt seem to be that tech, but there CERTAINLY could've been the tech to create Nuclear Missiles. the germans during WWII used V2s (large, long ranged "dumb" missiles), and Hitler and the Third Reich existed in the FO universe (see Narrarators speech if FO1), so an upgraded, nuclear warhead version of a primative V2 is certainly possible, but just not mentioned. if they arent mentioned in the real games, and they are to make thier way into FO3, they must be the exception to the rule, maybe made only in SMALL amounts, and never really able to be used before the bombs fell, as a way to explain thier lack of mention in the games before it.

 

[Vox]

There's an object description of a computer in Fallout 1. It gives a computer's specs and they're totaly high tech.
So even if they have different technology in the FO universe, there's still a way to achieve certrain technological standards in an alternate way.
A high tech computer on a nice retro styled nuclear warhead rocket and the problem is solved.

Hypotheticaly, of course.
Because iirc there was no use of missiles in FO, or I'm just hungover and can't remember shit. oO

 

[Sander]

There's an object description of a computer in Fallout 1. It gives a computer's specs and they're totaly high tech.
So even if they have different technology in the FO universe, there's still a way to achieve certrain technological standards in an alternate way.
A high tech computer on a nice retro styled nuclear warhead rocket and the problem is solved.

Again: no. Really, no.
There wasn't any 'totally high-tech' description of a computer of the format we have these days. Every computer in Fallout was insanely bulky, including Zax. You can't fit that onto a rocket.

Other than that, yet again: ICBMs do *not* fit Fallout's setting.

Also, V2s are a far cry from an intercontinental missile, both in range and accuracy, not to mention destructive capability.

 

[Vox]

I am positive there was such a description of a computer. And sure they are bulky, but so are atom bombs.
And they have fusion power in FO. So they could use some fusion powered engine for the missile.

But yeah... I'm talking about it HYPOTHETICALY, I said above, that I'm pretty sure there were no missiles in FO (so far).

 

[Sander]

I am positive there was such a description of a computer.

Then prove it.

And sure they are bulky, but so are atom bombs.

Yes, that makes *two* reasons why the missile would be much too large to actually work.

And they have fusion power in FO. So they could use some fusion powered engine for the missile.

And how would that solve the problem of the bulky missile, or the non-targeteable missile.

 

[Vox]

I try to make a screenshot next time I play Fallout 1.

Fusion power could give a massive bomb incredible thrust and the computer is not there for fun. But for targeting calculations and shit.

And just because Fallout is 50s style, doesn't mean, that it's technology is. There are many ways to create certain effects, not just with that what WE call conventional. So why shouldn't there be controlable missiles if there are antigravitational sentry drones and bipedal robots... and artificial intelligences. Imagine what imense computer you need to (possibly) create an A.I.. And in Fallout there are several artificial intelligences, therefore the computers in Fallout ARE extremly far developed, even if they're bulky, what might be a simple sacrifice to increase efficiency.

And there are this tables in shops, where a almost typical PC is placed. In the demo you could even play Fallout on it. Remember?

 

[Sander]

I try to make a screenshot next time I play Fallout 1.

Fusion power could give a massive bomb incredible thrust and the computer is not there for fun. But for targeting calculations and shit.

An explosion could also give it 'incredible thrust'. Hardly the point.
The computer being there for making 'targeting calculations and shit' is nice and all, but this doesn't work on an overly large and bulky missile which hence has no capability of staying in flight and on course. I could give a cannonball a large amount of initial impulse, but that wouldn't make it fly properly across continents. It'd just drop down after a while.

Other than that, this would be completely and utterly impractical in every way. The military would need huge (and I mean massively ridiculously huge) missile silos to be able to fire them, not to mention insanely expensive computers and a ridiculously large 'fusion'-based engine for *each* missile. On the other hand, they could just have these babies drop from the sky from aeroplanes. And what do you know, that actually *does* fit the setting.
Also, yet again, go watch Dr. Strangelove.

And just because Fallout is 50s style, doesn't mean, that it's technology is.

In most cases it's 50s *based*. Eg. no transistors. Which means *no* compact computers in *any* way.

There are many ways to create certain effects, not just with that what WE call conventional. So why shouldn't there be controlable missiles if there are antigravitational sentry drones and bipedal robots... and artificial intelligences. Imagine what imense computer you need to (possibly) create an A.I.. And in Fallout there are several artificial intelligences, therefore the computers in Fallout ARE extremly far developed, even if they're bulky, what might be a simple sacrifice to increase efficiency.

No, there is only one AI in Fallout (there are two more in Fallout 2, but both are in very, very canon-breaking locations and can hence be disregarded) and that's in a secure, secret military bunker as a super-secret military experiment. It's also bulky as shit, bulky meaning a room full of computer gear if not more.
Did you even play this game?
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the robots did not work on their own but were controlled by huge, bulky computers in the bases. Which is why disabling the power causes the robots to do nothing, or how you can tell the computer to have the robots kill 'large vermin'.

And there are this tables in shops, where a almost typical PC is placed. In the demo you could even play Fallout on it. Remember?

The demo was filled with easter-eggs and in-jokes.
Also, 'a typical PC' could just as well be a cash-register. Any computer that can do anything in the Fallout games is huge and bulky. Every single one of them.

 

[chadious maximus]

just throwing in a comment on the V2s. them being able to be used in place of ICBMs? BAH! you are right, mr. moderator, in that they would lack the range and accuracy, but fired at short range from say, a Chinese Submarine perhaps, and what does accuracy matter when the missile detonates with a thermo-nuclear explosion?

it could explain how certain areas of the FO universe could've been hit, as certain areas (The GLOW for instance), seem to be a long way for enemy bombers to fly (its near Tijuana for cryin' out loud!)

again, if no mention is made of them, and they are made mention of in a new game, they must be explained. and again, the explanation could be simply, Bombers carrying bombs were cheaper and more efficient, the missiles were only good for special circumstances. hence, lots of planes, lots of bombs, no mention of missiles!

 

[Sander]

just throwing in a comment on the V2s. them being able to be used in place of ICBMs? BAH! you are right, mr. moderator, in that they would lack the range and accuracy, but fired at short range from say, a Chinese Submarine perhaps, and what does accuracy matter when the missile detonates with a thermo-nuclear explosion?

Submarine missiles are very doubtful as well, but at least a bit more likely. However, there is again the problem of the mass and size of a nuclear bomb in the Fallout universe.

it could explain how certain areas of the FO universe could've been hit, as certain areas (The GLOW for instance), seem to be a long way for enemy bombers to fly (its near Tijuana for cryin' out loud!)

It would? I don't think it is very far at all, actually.

again, if no mention is made of them, and they are made mention of in a new game, they must be explained.

Eh.....nope. If new material contradicts old material, it simply isn't to be seen as canon. We don't consider Tactics, FOBOS or certain parts of Fallout 2 canon either.