5 ms·

Amazing story. Read the story carefully. Note the incredible details of what that aircraft could do. Now read this line again: By far, the most memorable fl

Amazing story. Read the story carefully. Note the incredible details of what that aircraft could do. Now read this line again: By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966. This was more than four decades ago. Can you imagine what they're doing today? In some ways, it makes me angry, because I suspect that the military solved some engineering challenges decades ago that scientists are still wrestling with today.

rudyfink 18y ago
If you like that sentiment, you will probably like Burt Rutan's talk at Ted ( http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_futur... ). The theme is a lack of progress in aerospace and how to resolve it.
- pchristensen 18y ago
  Seconded. That's one of my favorite TED talks.
amichail 18y ago
The F-22 is pretty cool. Total overkill actually.
- Rod 18y ago
  I am particularly amazed by the F-22 avionics. More info on this at: http://www.f22fighter.com/avionics.htm http://www.f22fighter.com/avionics.htm An excerpt: "The F-22's avionics and software system is the most advanced ever integrated into an aircraft. It is the first aircraft to use integrated avionics, where the radar, weapons management system and electronic warfare system work as one, giving the pilot unprecedented situation awareness."
katz 18y ago
That is true - it is the same with space. They put a man on the moon 40 odd years ago and now they are still struggling to launch a shuttle without it blowing up.
- andyn 18y ago
  The moon trips were single shot with the sole purpose of putting someone on the moon before the Russians. Additionally, only a tiny part of the rocket had to re-enter the atmosphere to return the crew. This link http://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 http://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 perhaps explains what's wrong with the shuttle better than I could.
Kaizyn 18y ago
They've likely not exceeded the SR-71 by very much since then. The last several decades have seen the trend where costs are more frequently taken into account when deciding whether or not to pursue a line of scientific research. This is akin to the new direction the lazy chip makers have taken with multicore-multichip instead of continuing to work at improving the individual chips as much.
atlbeer 18y ago
More than 40 years ago.. This was some of the simulator technology they were using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Flight_simulator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Flight_simulato... The Link Simulator Company's SR-71 Flight Simulator was developed during 1963 – 1965 under a deep "black" security blanket because it and the team Link assigned to it were given access to CIA OXCART and USAF R-12 / SR-71 clearances, the complete list of names of classified vendors supplying parts and software that had to be simulated, the total aircraft performance envelope data and a government-produced satellite photo montage of almost the entire continental United States to provide optical imagery for the RSO's portion of the Flight Simulator. This later capability was mounted on a separate, large, rectangular glass plate (approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) by 12 feet (3.7 m) in size) over which moved an optical sighting head that traveled at the scaled speed and direction of the Blackbird during its simulated flight. Realistic and accurate images were then displayed in the Optical View Sight and SLR RCD (Radar Correlator Display) in the RSO cockpit. Imagery was not provided to the pilot's simulator, which like the RSO simulator, had translucent window panels with varying degrees of lighting to change a simulated flight from daylight to night flying conditions
jrockway 18y ago
This was more than four decades ago. Can you imagine what they're doing today? The world is a strange place. 30 years ago, you could fly from New York to Paris in 3.5 hours (Concorde). Now it takes more than 7. You'd think technology would always move forward, but apparently that's not the case. If something is good enough, that might be good enough forever. Depressing.

rudyfink 18y ago

If you like that sentiment, you will probably like Burt Rutan's talk at Ted ( http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_futur... ). The theme is a lack of progress in aerospace and how to resolve it.

pchristensen 18y ago
Seconded. That's one of my favorite TED talks.

amichail 18y ago

The F-22 is pretty cool. Total overkill actually.

Rod 18y ago
I am particularly amazed by the F-22 avionics. More info on this at: http://www.f22fighter.com/avionics.htm http://www.f22fighter.com/avionics.htm An excerpt: "The F-22's avionics and software system is the most advanced ever integrated into an aircraft. It is the first aircraft to use integrated avionics, where the radar, weapons management system and electronic warfare system work as one, giving the pilot unprecedented situation awareness."

katz 18y ago

That is true - it is the same with space. They put a man on the moon 40 odd years ago and now they are still struggling to launch a shuttle without it blowing up.

andyn 18y ago
The moon trips were single shot with the sole purpose of putting someone on the moon before the Russians. Additionally, only a tiny part of the rocket had to re-enter the atmosphere to return the crew. This link http://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 http://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 perhaps explains what's wrong with the shuttle better than I could.

Kaizyn 18y ago

They've likely not exceeded the SR-71 by very much since then. The last several decades have seen the trend where costs are more frequently taken into account when deciding whether or not to pursue a line of scientific research. This is akin to the new direction the lazy chip makers have taken with multicore-multichip instead of continuing to work at improving the individual chips as much.

atlbeer 18y ago

More than 40 years ago.. This was some of the simulator technology they were using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Flight_simulator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Flight_simulato... The Link Simulator Company's SR-71 Flight Simulator was developed during 1963 – 1965 under a deep "black" security blanket because it and the team Link assigned to it were given access to CIA OXCART and USAF R-12 / SR-71 clearances, the complete list of names of classified vendors supplying parts and software that had to be simulated, the total aircraft performance envelope data and a government-produced satellite photo montage of almost the entire continental United States to provide optical imagery for the RSO's portion of the Flight Simulator. This later capability was mounted on a separate, large, rectangular glass plate (approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) by 12 feet (3.7 m) in size) over which moved an optical sighting head that traveled at the scaled speed and direction of the Blackbird during its simulated flight. Realistic and accurate images were then displayed in the Optical View Sight and SLR RCD (Radar Correlator Display) in the RSO cockpit. Imagery was not provided to the pilot's simulator, which like the RSO simulator, had translucent window panels with varying degrees of lighting to change a simulated flight from daylight to night flying conditions

jrockway 18y ago

This was more than four decades ago. Can you imagine what they're doing today? The world is a strange place. 30 years ago, you could fly from New York to Paris in 3.5 hours (Concorde). Now it takes more than 7. You'd think technology would always move forward, but apparently that's not the case. If something is good enough, that might be good enough forever. Depressing.