10 ms·

Is there any single piece of technology that's more retro-futuristic than the SR-71? It is undefinably iconic especially if you understand what happened behind

Is there any single piece of technology that's more retro-futuristic than the SR-71? It is undefinably iconic especially if you understand what happened behind the scenes. Lockheed's Skunk Works managed to not only look into the future, but they managed to make it manifest in the past. The first one took flight over fifty years ago and we still talk about it as if they represent the promise of the future. As a culture and community, we rarely view Project Apollo in the same way. To me, in contrast to the Blackbird, our first step outside our cradle looks dated. The Saturn V is an ode to the sheer force of will required to send human beings to another heavenly body. It certainly looks the part. The Blackbirds, on the other hand, were precise, surgical instruments designed to cut borders and they look the part. Every element of the plane ends in that sharp-looking edge. There are no blunt surfaces on it. It’s one complex curve wrapped around itself and stretched into that timeless shape. And that's before you pull back on the curtain. I don't have online sources for this, but I have read books about the project that explained how every single part within the Blackbirds - from the engines to the paint - was brought into being for this project. They set out to do something so daring and so pioneering that they had to invent new alloys to do it. And then they had to build the machines to work that alloy: new machines - tape-based robots - to precisely carve it into shape, new procedures to put it together, and new philosophies to let it fly. These planes were designed to fly so fast that ordinary Titanium-based alloys would melt or weaken over time leading to rapid, unplanned disassembly. They didn’t have more advanced ceramics which could do the job, so Kelly Johnson’s team came up with a new alloy that was annealed - or re-tempered - in flight, so that it became stronger and stronger over time. Theoretically above some classified altitude the Blackbird can go much faster than Mach 3 and keep on going until the airframe melts away at some crazy high, theoretical speed no one has bothered to check. They did all of that in a past where the most sophisticated engineering tool in common use was a slide rule and the first scientific pocket calculator was nearly a decade into the future. Do you ever wonder when we'll build something so daring that it will finally eclipse this project? I do. Paraphrasing Thiel, "what happened to the future? We were promised Blackbirds and got the F-35 instead."

blattimwind 8y ago
> Paraphrasing Thiel, "what happened to the future? We were promised Blackbirds and got the F-35 instead." It's kinda weird how the F-35 just looks somehow dated and like a slob compared to e.g. the older (and cooler looking) F-22. Though perhaps "cool looks" is maybe not the prime factor in fighter jet selection...
- combatentropy 8y ago
  Kelly Johnson, who led the project to build the Blackbird, disagrees. "All of us had been trained by Kelly Johnson and believed fanatically in his insistence that an airplane that looked beautiful would fly the same way." --- Ben Rich, Skunk Works This quote opens an essay on beauty by Paul Graham, http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
  - js2 8y ago
    Function follows form?
    - ReptileMan 8y ago
      They merge at a point. The moment they merge you have achieved Nir... Unix ideal.
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    Believe he also had to be convinced by Rich to support the boxy F-117A.
    - Teknoman117 8y ago
      The F-117 was mostly a limitation of computing technologies at the time. We (apparently) didn't have the horsepower to model radar hitting curved surfaces, so the boxy plane came as a result of the limitations of the modelling system.
- ohaideredevs 8y ago
lallysingh 8y ago
The SR-71 was replaced by satellites. The F-35 is a giant weird beast because it's massively multi-mission, but really as a backstop to what we can't do with drones, missiles, and satellites.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The F-35 is a giant weird beast because it's massively multi-mission No, it's multimission because new airframe types for manned combat aircraft that could meet evolving demands were becoming giant weird beasts and getting exponentially more expensive (something that typically happens with classes of systems as they become unviable) anyway, and doing one airframe for almost every conceivable role was envisioned as a means of containing costs.
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    Containing costs -> multi mission -> giant weird beast. I don't think we disagree. Still, I think the point about it being a backstop to unmanned aerial assets stands. I don't know if it needs to be optimized for any single mission when it's likely to be a worse choice than one of those assets.
  - Anarch157a 8y ago
    > doing one airframe for almost every conceivable role was envisioned as a means of containing costs. Didn't they learn from the Phantom that one airframe for all tasks simply doesn't work ?
    - aidenn0 8y ago
      No.
- cm2187 8y ago
  > but really as a backstop to what we can't do with drones, missiles, and satellites ...yet? Will it not be most likely the last manned fighter jet?
combatentropy 8y ago
It bothers me to see so many projects overbudget and late, even to do mediocre things like combine a city's disparate accounting systems. Were companies better in the past?
- 7952 8y ago
  There is a great podcast that covers this question.... http://omegataupodcast.net/181-why-megaprojects-fail-and-what-to-do-about-it/ http://omegataupodcast.net/181-why-megaprojects-fail-and-wha...
darkpuma 8y ago
> "Is there any single piece of technology that's more retro-futuristic than the SR-71?" Maybe not more, but up there with it are the Concorde, and the H&K G11. Also, if you like the SR-71, check out the A-12. The immediate predecessor of the SR-71, very easy to confuse the two, with the notable exception of the A-12 having a single seat. I think that makes it even cooler. Just one pilot, no other aircrew, up there alone with the machine. That's really incredible to me.
- tyingq 8y ago
  I'd throw in the H&K XM25 grenade launcher on the list as well. Wouldn't be out of place in a sci-fi movie.
- jnurmine 8y ago
  I was not familiar with A-12 and looked it up. Wow. With the wingtips are folded up, the A-12 looks like something out of Star Wars. The triangular shape is reminiscent of B-2 Spirit, though these are of course completely different beasts. Both the A-12 and B-2 were designed during roughly the same era, late 1980s. I guess there was some kind of cross-pollination of ideas (maybe via DARPA) for a triangular design to appear like this?
  - mandevil 8y ago
    I think you and GP are discussing different A-12's. GP is referring to the Lockheed A-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12 and you are referring to the McDonnell-Douglas A-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger... Don't even bother trying to figure out US military naming schemes. I suspect that the reason the A-12 and the B-2 looked alike is that there is enough similarity in mission that the best shape ended up that way. (Or as an old friend used to say, "aerodynamics can't lie.")
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Aye, the Lockheed A-12. It was apparently the 12th iteration of the CIA's "Archangel" program, hence "A-12." Knowing the CIA, that designation may have been misdirection too. 'Main battle tanks' are called 'tanks' today because of WWI era misdirection. Instead of calling them "armoured tractors" or something descriptive like that, the British called them "water carriers." The abbreviation of that (w.c.) was considered crude though, so they were renamed "tanks" as in a container for carrying water. This was to ensure any German spy who overheard the wrong conversation would get the wrong impression.
ylere 8y ago
I love reading about skunk works! Any specific books you can recommend?
- criddell 8y ago
  Well, there is the book called "Skunk Works" written by Ben Rich. It's very good.
  - dv35z 8y ago
    Agreed - this is an incredible book. Highly recommend it.
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    I loved the story about the F-117 (the hopeless diamond) in radar testing not showing up on the screen, so the radar operator told someone to go check to see if the model fell off the stand. That guy stuck his head out the door and was about to say "no it's still there" when a bird landed on the model and the radar operator said "Oh, I see it now"
  - skunkworker 8y ago
    I love this book, the accounts from the pilots (humourous and anxious) are incredible. Growing up I read this multiple times and it never fails to be a great read. Some of my favorite stories include the fact that you could take off in the morning, fly up to the arctic circle, and back down in time for dinner in the evening.
- sizzzzlerz 8y ago
  More Than My Share Of It All by Kelly Johnson, himself (well, through a ghost writer)
gfosco 8y ago
The SR-71 is amazing in many ways. It can't start it's own engines, they are started one at a time by a huge generator that drives under each wing. Adding to what you said about the skin of the plane, what I heard is that the skin isn't sealed until it's flying... that the SR takes off with a minimal fuel load, because it literally leaks fuel, and then gets refueled immediately. It's no wonder people speculate there was other-worldly inspiration.
- stoolpigeon 8y ago
  Most military aircraft at the time and for a while after could not start themselves. I think everything on the deck when I served on a carrier in the late 80s except maybe s-3s required huffers and electric carts to get going.
  - gfosco 8y ago
    Thank you for your service!, and for sharing.. I didn't know that.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    The startup of an F-22 using it's jet fuel starter is pretty wild: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUO-D2-OfDQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUO-D2-OfDQ
  - grkvlt 8y ago
    Most aircraft, really. That's why jet engine "air start" services are provided at most airfields and airports.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
> Do you ever wonder when we'll build something so daring that it will finally eclipse this project? We can't do that kind of engineering anymore. Computers have made us ... lazy? That's not really the word. With so much computing power at hand, we just don't have the pinpoint focus that it would take to make another SR-71 and not hobble it with over engineering and feature creep. Or even just being able to let go of a nagging problem. For example, a proper sealant couldn't be found to keep the fuel from leaking so they just said whatever and let it leak fuel until it warmed up. Nobody would do that today.
- jandrese 8y ago
  The real problem is that the mission the SR-71 was built for doesn't exist anymore, and nobody else with a need to go that fast has the money to back it up. We could build a successor the SR-71 that would go even faster and further and have fewer weird issues like fuel leaking out constantly, but it would cost a lot more (even inflation adjusted) than the SR-71 did and fulfill a mission that nobody was asking for. Computers didn't make us lazy, but the Git-R-Done mentality of the old projects got gobbled up by the bureaucracy in all of our big defense contractors/aerospace companies. It's super hard for a Kelly Johnson type to fend off thousands of middle managers all trying to justify their position.
mixmastamyk 8y ago
Love the SR-71 and recently visited Kelly's gravesite when I found it was in the neighborhood. However, the economics of never really made sense in regards to its utility. Only during the cold war could such a project be dragged into the realm of possibility.
spectramax 8y ago
This was a joy to read, I am getting goosebumps and this feeling running down the spine when we as humans do something extraordinary. Truly extraordinary.
- andrepd 8y ago
  Eh. Weapons of maintenance of American military hegemony aren't exactly my idea of the pinnacle of human ingenuity. It certainly looks cool though.
  - spectramax 8y ago
    Technically, it is. Don’t throw political and philosophical burden and anti-American stance when we are discussing technical achievements. The parent comment simply talks about engineering challenges and it’s frankly amazing.
blhack 8y ago
I don’t think we will in the US. We are too self hating right now. There was a story where Trump basically tried to get NASA to try and do a manned mars mission within 10 years. He said he’d offer them an unlimited budget. They said no. Now, feasibility of any of this aside: that just depresses me more than anything I’d heard in a long while. You won’t even try? C’mon! What happened to “we are doing it not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard”? The mentality that we can do literally anything we put our minds to? Look at the way that people want to vilify Elon Musk. Here’s a guy that embodies everything I grew believing was the American spirit, and apparently that makes him a bad guy. So sad.
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  >“But what if I gave you all the money you could ever need to do it?” Trump reportedly asked. “What if we sent NASA’s budget through the roof, but focused entirely on that instead of whatever else you’re doing now. Could it work then?” "Cancel all your research projects and focus on a rushed, unsafe, mission to Mars within the next four years" isn't an offer I'd take either. And that's even supposing he has the political power to actually give them the money he was offering. Which he doesn't.
  - blhack 8y ago
    I don’t think I’d take your uncharitable version of the offer either!
    - mixmastamyk 8y ago
      Also, many folks don't realize that going to Mars would be much harder than the Moon for multiple reasons. There are several big engineering problems not yet solved and n. Nasa knows this. There's a Tyson show on it, perhaps still on Netflix if interested.
- tzs 8y ago
  > Now, feasibility of any of this aside: that just depresses me more than anything I’d heard in a long while. You won’t even try? C’mon! What happened to “we are doing it not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard”? The mentality that we can do literally anything we put our minds to? They are going to try. Just a month before, Trump himself had signed a bill outlining a manned Mars mission, and the timeline to actually do it. What they said no to was a spur of the moment request, made without discussing feasibility (or anything else about it) with anyone else before making it, to do it way way way faster than that. Here's an article with the details [1]. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/trump-offered-nasa-unlimited-funding-to-go-to-mars-by-2020.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/trump-offered-nasa-un...
starpilot 8y ago
> Theoretically above some classified altitude the Blackbird can go much faster than Mach 3 and keep on going until the airframe melts away at some crazy high, theoretical speed no one has bothered to check. I'm very skeptical of these rumors. The SR-71 inlets were shaped for a specific range of mach numbers, and wouldn't work beyond that. Significant new engineering would be needed to go well beyond mach 3.5.
- ontologiae 8y ago
  Using MagnetoHydroDynamic, you can. You just have to use parietal Engine invented by Jean-Pierre Petit in 1975[1]. With this technology you can fly at Mach 8, easily.. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn8b3E9oUHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn8b3E9oUHY
  - thfuran 8y ago
    > With this technology you can fly at Mach 8, easily.. In an SR-71?
  - starpilot 8y ago
    Ah, I was mistaken.
CtrlAltT5wpm 8y ago
>...ordinary Titanium-based alloys would melt or weaken over time leading to rapid, unplanned disassembly. That's a rather understated way of saying "She'll fly herself apart!" I should be working, but your comment was enthralling.
- basementcat 8y ago
  I had the good fortune to hear Bill Weaver (pilot of an SR-71 that underwent a midair unplanned disassembly) tell his story. http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-free-fell-space-lived-tell/ http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-fr... https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/17/sr-71-mid-air-disintegration/ https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/17/sr-71-mid-air-disinteg...
imtringued 8y ago
F-35 is a massive success compared to UAVs. It's the only supersonic aircraft with VTOL capabilities that also simultaneously has stealth capabilities. HN constantly complains about manned fighters being obsolete but Global Hawk et. al. cost more than a F-35 per unit and they can at most only be used against ground targets that don't fire back.
macoovacany 8y ago
YF-12 development film. Check out the avionics test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1FLEbAbl4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1FLEbAbl4Q
ams6110 8y ago
> Do you ever wonder when we'll build something so daring that it will finally eclipse this project? Maybe we have, and just haven't been told about it.

blattimwind 8y ago

> Paraphrasing Thiel, "what happened to the future? We were promised Blackbirds and got the F-35 instead." It's kinda weird how the F-35 just looks somehow dated and like a slob compared to e.g. the older (and cooler looking) F-22. Though perhaps "cool looks" is maybe not the prime factor in fighter jet selection...

combatentropy 8y ago
Kelly Johnson, who led the project to build the Blackbird, disagrees. "All of us had been trained by Kelly Johnson and believed fanatically in his insistence that an airplane that looked beautiful would fly the same way." --- Ben Rich, Skunk Works This quote opens an essay on beauty by Paul Graham, http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
- js2 8y ago
  Function follows form?
  - ReptileMan 8y ago
    They merge at a point. The moment they merge you have achieved Nir... Unix ideal.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  Believe he also had to be convinced by Rich to support the boxy F-117A.
  - Teknoman117 8y ago
    The F-117 was mostly a limitation of computing technologies at the time. We (apparently) didn't have the horsepower to model radar hitting curved surfaces, so the boxy plane came as a result of the limitations of the modelling system.
ohaideredevs 8y ago

lallysingh 8y ago

The SR-71 was replaced by satellites. The F-35 is a giant weird beast because it's massively multi-mission, but really as a backstop to what we can't do with drones, missiles, and satellites.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The F-35 is a giant weird beast because it's massively multi-mission No, it's multimission because new airframe types for manned combat aircraft that could meet evolving demands were becoming giant weird beasts and getting exponentially more expensive (something that typically happens with classes of systems as they become unviable) anyway, and doing one airframe for almost every conceivable role was envisioned as a means of containing costs.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  Containing costs -> multi mission -> giant weird beast. I don't think we disagree. Still, I think the point about it being a backstop to unmanned aerial assets stands. I don't know if it needs to be optimized for any single mission when it's likely to be a worse choice than one of those assets.
- Anarch157a 8y ago
  > doing one airframe for almost every conceivable role was envisioned as a means of containing costs. Didn't they learn from the Phantom that one airframe for all tasks simply doesn't work ?
  - aidenn0 8y ago
    No.
cm2187 8y ago
> but really as a backstop to what we can't do with drones, missiles, and satellites ...yet? Will it not be most likely the last manned fighter jet?

combatentropy 8y ago

It bothers me to see so many projects overbudget and late, even to do mediocre things like combine a city's disparate accounting systems. Were companies better in the past?

7952 8y ago
There is a great podcast that covers this question.... http://omegataupodcast.net/181-why-megaprojects-fail-and-what-to-do-about-it/ http://omegataupodcast.net/181-why-megaprojects-fail-and-wha...

darkpuma 8y ago

> "Is there any single piece of technology that's more retro-futuristic than the SR-71?" Maybe not more, but up there with it are the Concorde, and the H&K G11. Also, if you like the SR-71, check out the A-12. The immediate predecessor of the SR-71, very easy to confuse the two, with the notable exception of the A-12 having a single seat. I think that makes it even cooler. Just one pilot, no other aircrew, up there alone with the machine. That's really incredible to me.

tyingq 8y ago
I'd throw in the H&K XM25 grenade launcher on the list as well. Wouldn't be out of place in a sci-fi movie.
jnurmine 8y ago
I was not familiar with A-12 and looked it up. Wow. With the wingtips are folded up, the A-12 looks like something out of Star Wars. The triangular shape is reminiscent of B-2 Spirit, though these are of course completely different beasts. Both the A-12 and B-2 were designed during roughly the same era, late 1980s. I guess there was some kind of cross-pollination of ideas (maybe via DARPA) for a triangular design to appear like this?
- mandevil 8y ago
  I think you and GP are discussing different A-12's. GP is referring to the Lockheed A-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12 and you are referring to the McDonnell-Douglas A-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger... Don't even bother trying to figure out US military naming schemes. I suspect that the reason the A-12 and the B-2 looked alike is that there is enough similarity in mission that the best shape ended up that way. (Or as an old friend used to say, "aerodynamics can't lie.")
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Aye, the Lockheed A-12. It was apparently the 12th iteration of the CIA's "Archangel" program, hence "A-12." Knowing the CIA, that designation may have been misdirection too. 'Main battle tanks' are called 'tanks' today because of WWI era misdirection. Instead of calling them "armoured tractors" or something descriptive like that, the British called them "water carriers." The abbreviation of that (w.c.) was considered crude though, so they were renamed "tanks" as in a container for carrying water. This was to ensure any German spy who overheard the wrong conversation would get the wrong impression.

ylere 8y ago

I love reading about skunk works! Any specific books you can recommend?

criddell 8y ago
Well, there is the book called "Skunk Works" written by Ben Rich. It's very good.
- dv35z 8y ago
  Agreed - this is an incredible book. Highly recommend it.
- dwighttk 8y ago
  I loved the story about the F-117 (the hopeless diamond) in radar testing not showing up on the screen, so the radar operator told someone to go check to see if the model fell off the stand. That guy stuck his head out the door and was about to say "no it's still there" when a bird landed on the model and the radar operator said "Oh, I see it now"
- skunkworker 8y ago
  I love this book, the accounts from the pilots (humourous and anxious) are incredible. Growing up I read this multiple times and it never fails to be a great read. Some of my favorite stories include the fact that you could take off in the morning, fly up to the arctic circle, and back down in time for dinner in the evening.
sizzzzlerz 8y ago
More Than My Share Of It All by Kelly Johnson, himself (well, through a ghost writer)

gfosco 8y ago

The SR-71 is amazing in many ways. It can't start it's own engines, they are started one at a time by a huge generator that drives under each wing. Adding to what you said about the skin of the plane, what I heard is that the skin isn't sealed until it's flying... that the SR takes off with a minimal fuel load, because it literally leaks fuel, and then gets refueled immediately. It's no wonder people speculate there was other-worldly inspiration.

stoolpigeon 8y ago
Most military aircraft at the time and for a while after could not start themselves. I think everything on the deck when I served on a carrier in the late 80s except maybe s-3s required huffers and electric carts to get going.
- gfosco 8y ago
  Thank you for your service!, and for sharing.. I didn't know that.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  The startup of an F-22 using it's jet fuel starter is pretty wild: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUO-D2-OfDQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUO-D2-OfDQ
- grkvlt 8y ago
  Most aircraft, really. That's why jet engine "air start" services are provided at most airfields and airports.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

> Do you ever wonder when we'll build something so daring that it will finally eclipse this project? We can't do that kind of engineering anymore. Computers have made us ... lazy? That's not really the word. With so much computing power at hand, we just don't have the pinpoint focus that it would take to make another SR-71 and not hobble it with over engineering and feature creep. Or even just being able to let go of a nagging problem. For example, a proper sealant couldn't be found to keep the fuel from leaking so they just said whatever and let it leak fuel until it warmed up. Nobody would do that today.

jandrese 8y ago
The real problem is that the mission the SR-71 was built for doesn't exist anymore, and nobody else with a need to go that fast has the money to back it up. We could build a successor the SR-71 that would go even faster and further and have fewer weird issues like fuel leaking out constantly, but it would cost a lot more (even inflation adjusted) than the SR-71 did and fulfill a mission that nobody was asking for. Computers didn't make us lazy, but the Git-R-Done mentality of the old projects got gobbled up by the bureaucracy in all of our big defense contractors/aerospace companies. It's super hard for a Kelly Johnson type to fend off thousands of middle managers all trying to justify their position.

mixmastamyk 8y ago

Love the SR-71 and recently visited Kelly's gravesite when I found it was in the neighborhood. However, the economics of never really made sense in regards to its utility. Only during the cold war could such a project be dragged into the realm of possibility.

spectramax 8y ago

This was a joy to read, I am getting goosebumps and this feeling running down the spine when we as humans do something extraordinary. Truly extraordinary.

andrepd 8y ago
Eh. Weapons of maintenance of American military hegemony aren't exactly my idea of the pinnacle of human ingenuity. It certainly looks cool though.
- spectramax 8y ago
  Technically, it is. Don’t throw political and philosophical burden and anti-American stance when we are discussing technical achievements. The parent comment simply talks about engineering challenges and it’s frankly amazing.

blhack 8y ago

I don’t think we will in the US. We are too self hating right now. There was a story where Trump basically tried to get NASA to try and do a manned mars mission within 10 years. He said he’d offer them an unlimited budget. They said no. Now, feasibility of any of this aside: that just depresses me more than anything I’d heard in a long while. You won’t even try? C’mon! What happened to “we are doing it not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard”? The mentality that we can do literally anything we put our minds to? Look at the way that people want to vilify Elon Musk. Here’s a guy that embodies everything I grew believing was the American spirit, and apparently that makes him a bad guy. So sad.

wlesieutre 8y ago
>“But what if I gave you all the money you could ever need to do it?” Trump reportedly asked. “What if we sent NASA’s budget through the roof, but focused entirely on that instead of whatever else you’re doing now. Could it work then?” "Cancel all your research projects and focus on a rushed, unsafe, mission to Mars within the next four years" isn't an offer I'd take either. And that's even supposing he has the political power to actually give them the money he was offering. Which he doesn't.
- blhack 8y ago
  I don’t think I’d take your uncharitable version of the offer either!
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    Also, many folks don't realize that going to Mars would be much harder than the Moon for multiple reasons. There are several big engineering problems not yet solved and n. Nasa knows this. There's a Tyson show on it, perhaps still on Netflix if interested.
tzs 8y ago
> Now, feasibility of any of this aside: that just depresses me more than anything I’d heard in a long while. You won’t even try? C’mon! What happened to “we are doing it not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard”? The mentality that we can do literally anything we put our minds to? They are going to try. Just a month before, Trump himself had signed a bill outlining a manned Mars mission, and the timeline to actually do it. What they said no to was a spur of the moment request, made without discussing feasibility (or anything else about it) with anyone else before making it, to do it way way way faster than that. Here's an article with the details [1]. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/trump-offered-nasa-unlimited-funding-to-go-to-mars-by-2020.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/trump-offered-nasa-un...

starpilot 8y ago

> Theoretically above some classified altitude the Blackbird can go much faster than Mach 3 and keep on going until the airframe melts away at some crazy high, theoretical speed no one has bothered to check. I'm very skeptical of these rumors. The SR-71 inlets were shaped for a specific range of mach numbers, and wouldn't work beyond that. Significant new engineering would be needed to go well beyond mach 3.5.

ontologiae 8y ago
Using MagnetoHydroDynamic, you can. You just have to use parietal Engine invented by Jean-Pierre Petit in 1975[1]. With this technology you can fly at Mach 8, easily.. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn8b3E9oUHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn8b3E9oUHY
- thfuran 8y ago
  > With this technology you can fly at Mach 8, easily.. In an SR-71?
- starpilot 8y ago
  Ah, I was mistaken.

CtrlAltT5wpm 8y ago

>...ordinary Titanium-based alloys would melt or weaken over time leading to rapid, unplanned disassembly. That's a rather understated way of saying "She'll fly herself apart!" I should be working, but your comment was enthralling.

basementcat 8y ago
I had the good fortune to hear Bill Weaver (pilot of an SR-71 that underwent a midair unplanned disassembly) tell his story. http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-free-fell-space-lived-tell/ http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-fr... https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/17/sr-71-mid-air-disintegration/ https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/17/sr-71-mid-air-disinteg...

imtringued 8y ago

F-35 is a massive success compared to UAVs. It's the only supersonic aircraft with VTOL capabilities that also simultaneously has stealth capabilities. HN constantly complains about manned fighters being obsolete but Global Hawk et. al. cost more than a F-35 per unit and they can at most only be used against ground targets that don't fire back.

macoovacany 8y ago

YF-12 development film. Check out the avionics test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1FLEbAbl4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1FLEbAbl4Q

ams6110 8y ago

> Do you ever wonder when we'll build something so daring that it will finally eclipse this project? Maybe we have, and just haven't been told about it.