4 ms·

I always think to myself that the technology we see and know about now, the spy planes and such, are ~50 years old, so what is operating now that we won't know

by imdsm 7y ago

I always think to myself that the technology we see and know about now, the spy planes and such, are ~50 years old, so what is operating now that we won't know about until some of us are 70 or 80 years old?

onion2k 7y ago
In some cases for things like stealth tech, sure. In most cases though, where there's an obvious commercial aspect to successful research, we see things fast. When there's a military invention that could lead to something like a microwave or nylon the company behind it want to reap billions from selling to the public as soon as possible. This is one reason why I find stories like this one unlikely. If we assume this object is, say, a Chinese spy drone, why would the Chinese use this amazing new tech for something as mundane and boring as a spy drone? They could turn it in to a commercial engine, mount it on some aircraft, and completely dominate the air travel and air freight. As far as using technology to crush your enemies goes that would have a much greater impact on the US than watching what the country is up to from a drone.
- krapp 7y ago
  >They could turn it in to a commercial engine, mount it on some aircraft, and completely dominate the air travel and air freight. It's entirely possible that some novel propulsion technology would only work with extremely light craft under specific conditions, and either couldn't scale to the size of a commercial aircraft, or would be less efficient or cost effective at that scale than existing technology. Ion propulsion is only useful in space, for instance.
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    A significant fraction of reported UFOs are much, much larger than the largest existing conventional jets.
    - krapp 7y ago
      You appear to be making a number of assumptions here which don't actually prove anything, you're just preaching to the choir of UFO believers. First, that all UFO reports accurately describe craft that defy known physical laws (discarding the likelihood of hoaxes or misidentifications of conventional craft or other phenomena.) The significance of the fraction, in this case, is irrelevant. Second, that people are able to accurately gauge the size of objects in the sky (they aren't, see phenomenon like the moon illusion as an example of how difficult it is, and how biased human perception can be.) Just because people see a roughly triangular formation of lights in the night sky, doesn't mean there's a vast, football-field sized black triangle hovering over the city. And you should have said "A significant fraction of reported UFOs appear much, much larger," for your actual comment to be true, we would need examples of actual UFOs to test against the size of conventional jets. Third, that the phenomenon on the video in the posted article shows a craft which uses the same or a similar form of technology as "much larger" UFOs, and that this somehow invalidates the premise that novel forms of propulsion exist which cannot arbitrarily scale.
      - erlangNewb 7y ago
        You seem to be making the case that because the commenter did not offer provenance that none exists. Is my understanding of your point correct?

by imdsm 7y ago

onion2k 7y ago

In some cases for things like stealth tech, sure. In most cases though, where there's an obvious commercial aspect to successful research, we see things fast. When there's a military invention that could lead to something like a microwave or nylon the company behind it want to reap billions from selling to the public as soon as possible. This is one reason why I find stories like this one unlikely. If we assume this object is, say, a Chinese spy drone, why would the Chinese use this amazing new tech for something as mundane and boring as a spy drone? They could turn it in to a commercial engine, mount it on some aircraft, and completely dominate the air travel and air freight. As far as using technology to crush your enemies goes that would have a much greater impact on the US than watching what the country is up to from a drone.

krapp 7y ago
>They could turn it in to a commercial engine, mount it on some aircraft, and completely dominate the air travel and air freight. It's entirely possible that some novel propulsion technology would only work with extremely light craft under specific conditions, and either couldn't scale to the size of a commercial aircraft, or would be less efficient or cost effective at that scale than existing technology. Ion propulsion is only useful in space, for instance.
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  A significant fraction of reported UFOs are much, much larger than the largest existing conventional jets.
  - krapp 7y ago
    You appear to be making a number of assumptions here which don't actually prove anything, you're just preaching to the choir of UFO believers. First, that all UFO reports accurately describe craft that defy known physical laws (discarding the likelihood of hoaxes or misidentifications of conventional craft or other phenomena.) The significance of the fraction, in this case, is irrelevant. Second, that people are able to accurately gauge the size of objects in the sky (they aren't, see phenomenon like the moon illusion as an example of how difficult it is, and how biased human perception can be.) Just because people see a roughly triangular formation of lights in the night sky, doesn't mean there's a vast, football-field sized black triangle hovering over the city. And you should have said "A significant fraction of reported UFOs appear much, much larger," for your actual comment to be true, we would need examples of actual UFOs to test against the size of conventional jets. Third, that the phenomenon on the video in the posted article shows a craft which uses the same or a similar form of technology as "much larger" UFOs, and that this somehow invalidates the premise that novel forms of propulsion exist which cannot arbitrarily scale.
    - erlangNewb 7y ago
      You seem to be making the case that because the commenter did not offer provenance that none exists. Is my understanding of your point correct?