12 ms·

I look at it through the lens of what they had available to them in terms of adjacent technology and capability compared to the present day. For example, when

I look at it through the lens of what they had available to them in terms of adjacent technology and capability compared to the present day. For example, when I stand in front of an SR-71 Blackbird and consider that it was created w/ slide rules & Friden mechanical calculators. When sophisticated automated design and analysis tools like FEA and CFD were still far, far away. It conjures a narrative for me, true or not, that they seemed to do so much with so little, and by contrast we seem to do so little with so much. Which results in a crude emotional response that is some hybrid of awe & despair. Then a few days goes by, and I snap out of it.

exoesquitur 8y ago
I think the newish perception that risk is unacceptable plays a part. I'm glad to see the "safety above exploration" mindset giving way a bit. Accidents are going to happen. Pioneers in dangerous endeavors understand this. It's good to see society remembering it as well.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Whose risk? If we're talking risk of astronauts and test pilots, certainly--they know the dangers and they've decided it's worth it. My worry is that people who think "move fast and break things" is a good business strategy are now starting to move into transport, medicine, and other fields where the lives of random citizens are on the line.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Whose risk? Anyone's risk, even if there's no risk at all. Post on Reddit about how you replaced your own water heater and people will wag their finger at you for not having a licensed plumber do it all (as if the plumber would stop by the next day to check for leaks). People get off on trying to score virtue points virtue signaling about risk (not just on the internet, in real life too). The Christmas tree (or do I have to call it a holiday tree because the "risk" of offending someone is too great) across the room from me might spontaneously catch fire. It probably won't happen so I don't care, that won't stop some anonymous stranger on the internet telling me I should use modern LED lights because they run cooler. I understand not playing fast and loose with people's lives but the likelihood and magnitude of a possible bad outcome required to stall things has been getting smaller and smaller over the years and it makes getting anything and everything done more time consuming and costly. Before you could just put up a Christmas tree in the office if everyone wanted to, now you have to figure out if anyone could hypothetically be offended. Before you could just build a road or a bridge and deal with the environmental impact as it happens, now you have to do a study and account for the whereabouts of every drop of rainwater that will fall on whatever you're building before you even break ground. There is a risk of a potential bad outcome inherit to everything. Somehow society has perverted itself into thinking that risk is a binary and all risk is bad and not work it.
    - chopin 8y ago
      When I was a child we had a Christmas tree with real candles.
  - kibibu 8y ago
    Like Uber killing somebody, for example.
  - squarefoot 8y ago
    "If we're talking risk of astronauts and test pilots, certainly--they know the dangers and they've decided it's worth it." Sensationalist journalism coupled with ability of the Internet to amplify the worst. If an astronaut died back then, maybe a few tabloids could have screamed in horror, while every other media would have depicted the tragedy as what it was: a highly trained professional who lost his life while doing something amazing but very dangerous whose risks he was well aware of. Today a tragic event like that one would produce such a level of trash that its effects could undermine political campaigns or have perfectly healthy businesses go belly up. It's just too risky.
moftz 8y ago
Things like the Blackbird seem really amazing but whats out there now is even more amazing. It's crazy they were able to do all of that back then with just hand tools. But now you could design the same thing sooner, cheaper, and make the thing perform much better. Computers have really advanced what we can make. Just the software from 10 years ago seems crude to what you can do now. Not everything needs to be a big black stealth plane to appreciate technological progress.
- borkt 8y ago
  Why is the F-35 program such a disaster then? Honest question though I am sure the answer is feature creep and poor management
  - ljf 8y ago
    IMHO - because it wasn't built with a goal or a reason. The amazing tech builds of the 60s were each made to fill a need or meet a goal. The F-35, how many goals it that supposed to meet? Easily more than 10. And it isn't great at any of them, in its quest to be OK for all of them...
    - ghaff 8y ago
      And before that people complained about the various services having too many different projects dedicated to their own missions. The F-35 seems to my non-expert eye to have been poorly conceived but creating a more versatile aircraft instead of a bunch of more specialized ones is not inherently a stupid idea.
      - ljf 8y ago
        Yes, but any multi use tool will never be as good as a separate specialised one, so the question is really 'how good do we want to be'. And for a military aircraft I guess the answer will always be 'really good'.
      - eptcyka 8y ago
        When it comes to the military, top gun wins. A specialized gun will top a non-specialized one in a given combat situation, all else being equal. Of course, the F-35 will be a great general purpose weapon against far less advanced targets, but if they are pitted against their Russian and Chinese counterparts, I don't believe they will fare all that great.
afterburner 8y ago
They were throwing a lot of money at aerospace back in those days. Space race, Cold War, actual hot wars fought with US and Soviet equipment and expertise. The moon landing was a huge project too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA-Budget-Federal.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA-Budget-Federal.svg Nowadays money gets thrown at other things, stuff is still happening.
ajmurmann 8y ago
I wonder how much of that also has to do with the cold war having lead to wasteful prestige and/or brute force projects. We really badly needed the SR-71. Space projects were often more about prestige and doing better than the enemy than scientific or economic value creation.
colordrops 8y ago
The SR-71 was classified for a while before the public became aware of it. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the tech that is still classified seems impossibly futuristic.
- FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
  I dunno, there are several SR-71s sitting outside with completely unrestricted access. https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/locations.php https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/locations.php Of course, they've been gutted of electronics and engines, but still, anybody can walk right up to one with calipers and a tape measure... Good luck affording that much titanium though. It's a PITA to form and weld, too.
  - kibibu 8y ago
    Well, from that list you know where to find at least 1 SR-71 worth of titanium.
    - FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
      Avoid the pesky forming and welding tasks, too.
  - colordrops 8y ago
    Re-read my comment: "was classified for a while". Not "is currently classified."

exoesquitur 8y ago

I think the newish perception that risk is unacceptable plays a part. I'm glad to see the "safety above exploration" mindset giving way a bit. Accidents are going to happen. Pioneers in dangerous endeavors understand this. It's good to see society remembering it as well.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Whose risk? If we're talking risk of astronauts and test pilots, certainly--they know the dangers and they've decided it's worth it. My worry is that people who think "move fast and break things" is a good business strategy are now starting to move into transport, medicine, and other fields where the lives of random citizens are on the line.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Whose risk? Anyone's risk, even if there's no risk at all. Post on Reddit about how you replaced your own water heater and people will wag their finger at you for not having a licensed plumber do it all (as if the plumber would stop by the next day to check for leaks). People get off on trying to score virtue points virtue signaling about risk (not just on the internet, in real life too). The Christmas tree (or do I have to call it a holiday tree because the "risk" of offending someone is too great) across the room from me might spontaneously catch fire. It probably won't happen so I don't care, that won't stop some anonymous stranger on the internet telling me I should use modern LED lights because they run cooler. I understand not playing fast and loose with people's lives but the likelihood and magnitude of a possible bad outcome required to stall things has been getting smaller and smaller over the years and it makes getting anything and everything done more time consuming and costly. Before you could just put up a Christmas tree in the office if everyone wanted to, now you have to figure out if anyone could hypothetically be offended. Before you could just build a road or a bridge and deal with the environmental impact as it happens, now you have to do a study and account for the whereabouts of every drop of rainwater that will fall on whatever you're building before you even break ground. There is a risk of a potential bad outcome inherit to everything. Somehow society has perverted itself into thinking that risk is a binary and all risk is bad and not work it.
  - chopin 8y ago
    When I was a child we had a Christmas tree with real candles.
- kibibu 8y ago
  Like Uber killing somebody, for example.
- squarefoot 8y ago
  "If we're talking risk of astronauts and test pilots, certainly--they know the dangers and they've decided it's worth it." Sensationalist journalism coupled with ability of the Internet to amplify the worst. If an astronaut died back then, maybe a few tabloids could have screamed in horror, while every other media would have depicted the tragedy as what it was: a highly trained professional who lost his life while doing something amazing but very dangerous whose risks he was well aware of. Today a tragic event like that one would produce such a level of trash that its effects could undermine political campaigns or have perfectly healthy businesses go belly up. It's just too risky.

moftz 8y ago

Things like the Blackbird seem really amazing but whats out there now is even more amazing. It's crazy they were able to do all of that back then with just hand tools. But now you could design the same thing sooner, cheaper, and make the thing perform much better. Computers have really advanced what we can make. Just the software from 10 years ago seems crude to what you can do now. Not everything needs to be a big black stealth plane to appreciate technological progress.

borkt 8y ago
Why is the F-35 program such a disaster then? Honest question though I am sure the answer is feature creep and poor management
- ljf 8y ago
  IMHO - because it wasn't built with a goal or a reason. The amazing tech builds of the 60s were each made to fill a need or meet a goal. The F-35, how many goals it that supposed to meet? Easily more than 10. And it isn't great at any of them, in its quest to be OK for all of them...
  - ghaff 8y ago
    And before that people complained about the various services having too many different projects dedicated to their own missions. The F-35 seems to my non-expert eye to have been poorly conceived but creating a more versatile aircraft instead of a bunch of more specialized ones is not inherently a stupid idea.
    - ljf 8y ago
      Yes, but any multi use tool will never be as good as a separate specialised one, so the question is really 'how good do we want to be'. And for a military aircraft I guess the answer will always be 'really good'.
    - eptcyka 8y ago
      When it comes to the military, top gun wins. A specialized gun will top a non-specialized one in a given combat situation, all else being equal. Of course, the F-35 will be a great general purpose weapon against far less advanced targets, but if they are pitted against their Russian and Chinese counterparts, I don't believe they will fare all that great.

afterburner 8y ago

They were throwing a lot of money at aerospace back in those days. Space race, Cold War, actual hot wars fought with US and Soviet equipment and expertise. The moon landing was a huge project too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA-Budget-Federal.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA-Budget-Federal.svg Nowadays money gets thrown at other things, stuff is still happening.

ajmurmann 8y ago

I wonder how much of that also has to do with the cold war having lead to wasteful prestige and/or brute force projects. We really badly needed the SR-71. Space projects were often more about prestige and doing better than the enemy than scientific or economic value creation.

colordrops 8y ago

The SR-71 was classified for a while before the public became aware of it. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the tech that is still classified seems impossibly futuristic.

FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
I dunno, there are several SR-71s sitting outside with completely unrestricted access. https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/locations.php https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/locations.php Of course, they've been gutted of electronics and engines, but still, anybody can walk right up to one with calipers and a tape measure... Good luck affording that much titanium though. It's a PITA to form and weld, too.
- kibibu 8y ago
  Well, from that list you know where to find at least 1 SR-71 worth of titanium.
  - FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
    Avoid the pesky forming and welding tasks, too.
- colordrops 8y ago
  Re-read my comment: "was classified for a while". Not "is currently classified."