Losing an airplane to space.......? (1 Viewer)

[Andrew W]

A few notable records:

New York to London 1:54:56.4

London to Los Angeles 3:47:35.8

Los Angeles to Washington D.C.1:04:20

 

[Jack Briggs]

I would love to believe that the so-called Aurora space/aircraft exists--but until I see it I cannot "believe" it. But, man, if the SR-71 is still the state-of-the-art, let's hear it for late-'50s/early-'60s technology; the bird first flew operationally in 1964.

Hell, we still use the U-2.

I want us to do better.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm
No comment. I'm just a poor country boy.

 

[Dennis Reno]

Jack - I can't see atoms but I still believe they exist
The government has something up their sleaves and it certainly isn't the U-2 and some satellites! Too many mysterious sonic booms, strange contrails, control tower personnel reporting aircraft traveling at Mach 5+, etc.

 

[CharlesD]

I find it interesting that the military retired the SR-71 when there is no apparent replacement. That’s very unlike the military just give up on a weapon or system without having something newer/better to replace it.

The need for spy planes is just as great as before, as the satellites are not always in the right orbits to quickly look at a crisis area. Also if a sensor in a satellite at an altitude of say 250 miles gives good resolution, just think of how much better it would be at 10 miles.... This leads me to think they may well have something to replace the SR-71. Now maybe it isn't a better/faster/higher version of the SR-71 but I'd be surprised if there is not some sort of replacement out there that we don't (yet) know about.

 

[Greg Morse]

Dennis Nicholls, didn't expect to find a fellow denizen of Parallax Bill's forums here of all places. Small world.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Greg,
Well I'm a world-class cheapskate. Gov't surplus CRT projectors, gov't surplus rifles, I'll take a bargain wherever I find it... :b Might as well recycle my tax dollars somehow....

 

[Jack Briggs]

Dennis: A possible flaw in your response is that we at least have photographic evidence of the existance of atoms!
Hey, again: I'd love it if there is an air/spacecraft that can outperform the mighty SR-71.

 

[Dennis Reno]

OK Jack, you got me there. How about neutrons, protons and electrons?

 

[DaveF]

A possible flaw in your response is that we at least have photographic evidence of the existance of atoms!

At the risk of being pedantic and off-topic, what do you mean by "photographic"? There has never been a film-emulsion image of an atom.
Now we do have a great deal of evidence for atoms, that nicely support our wonderful atomic theories. And all sorts of images based on the interaction of very tiny needles with atomic surfaces. But sadly, no photos for grandma

 

[RobertR]

let's hear it for late-'50s/early-'60s technology

I like my engineering job, but I do wistfully imagine how exciting it must have been to be an engineer at the famous Lockheed "skunk works" (where the SR-71 was built) in those days....

 

[Bill Cowmeadow]

If you have ever saw an SR-71 take-off, you would never forget the sight. The U-2 and the SR-71 used to follow the same take off protocol. They each had to eatablish an altitude of 60,000 ft before leaving the perimeter of the base they launched from. It was amazing to see.

 

[Ryan Wright]

I find it interesting that the military retired the SR-71 when there is no apparent replacement. That’s very unlike the military just give up on a weapon or system without having something newer/better to replace it.

The end of the cold war pretty much was the death of the SR-71, as well as other amazing aircraft.

 

[DaveF]

When amazing things such as the Golden Gate Bridge were built, it was expected that 10, 20 people would die during accidents. Now, if one person dies on the job, you might as well cancel the whole project! The lawsuit will bankrupt you.

Yeah, life was better back in the good old days, when workers were disposable. :rolleyes
I agree with you in general, Ryan. But I wholly disagree here. I think improved workplace safety, as a result of lawsuits or not, is a good thing. Period.
Back to planes: I'm not sure how they're doing financially, but the design and fabrication of the Boeing 777 was pretty amazing. I find that exciting: a bold and challenging way to engineer such a massive product.
And while not a hot topic, the space station is a pretty groovy project.
And of course, the Human Genome Project is truly a Big Venture (Not as sexy as going to the moon, but probably more beneficial to mankind on the whole).
But if I had my druthers, I'd lose the Man-on-Mars projects for a while, and work on a moon-base. Just seems more feasible, more useful, and quicker. And would give us many the skills and experiences needed to then go to Mars.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Jack

I would love to believe that the so-called Aurora space/aircraft exists--but until I see it I cannot "believe" it. But, man, if the SR-71 is still the state-of-the-art, let's hear it for late-'50s/early-'60s technology; the bird first flew operationally in 1964.

I'm glad I can agree on something with you today. By TODAY'S standards, the operational characteristics of this plane are still pretty awesome. You have to believe that Aurora or something else exists. We will probably have to wait a 100 years to have the records declassified as to what this plane did, where it went and what it obtained. Even then it will make for some fascinating stories. I used to watch this plane take off on operational missions. It is the most striking thing I have ever seen in the air. Just the sight of it would raise the hair on my neck. And the noise. Two engines as loud as an eight engine B-52.

 

[CharlesD]

the space station is a pretty groovy project

Agreed, the ISS is an amazing acomplishment, and (at the risk of commiting politics) it is a shame that current decision makers seem to have severly downgraded the emphasis on this project.

I would disagree about the Moon vs Mars. I beleive that there is so much more to be gained in both the short and long term by concentrating on a puch to put people on Mars, than by only returning to the moon. I would like to see both happen, but I think Mars is so much more important.

 

[Ryan Wright]

Yeah, life was better back in the good old days, when workers were disposable.
I agree with you in general, Ryan. But I wholly disagree here. I think improved workplace safety, as a result of lawsuits or not, is a good thing. Period.

Workers were never disposable. There was great sorrow when a worker died. But that worker's family knew that he made the choice to do dangerous work.
When you build a project as large as a huge dam, or a large bridge, or a skyscraper, you're going to lose workers. Period. It's just a fact of life: Thousands of people working a very dangerous job day in and day out, there are going to be accidents no matter how strong your safety measures are. Workplace safety is a good thing, but it's become so anal that large projects now cost billions to build and most people simply aren't undertaking them anymore. We haven't built a significant building in decades, and we won't for this very reason. The red tape that is necessary to get anything done, the (sometimes necessary, sometimes insane) safety steps taken and the sure-to-come lawsuits alltogether equal no new big projects.
And I, personally, think it's sad.

 

[Charles J P]

Workplace safety is a good thing, but it's become so anal that large projects now cost billions to build and most people simply aren't undertaking them anymore. We haven't built a significant building in decades, and we won't for this very reason. The red tape that is necessary to get anything done, the (sometimes necessary, sometimes insane) safety steps taken and the sure-to-come lawsuits alltogether equal no new big projects.
And I, personally, think it's sad.

I really dont understand your logic. I assure you if a truly large bridge or building needed to be built somewhere, someone would. The reason the WTC will not be replaced with something similar is because people have come to realize that it is inconvenient & unnecessary (and most recently, dangerous) for so many people to be in a single building (buildings) at the same time. It just isnt worth the negative possabilities. You seem to be saying that that is a shame because you would like to see a really big building. Go to egypt, see the pyramids. :frowning:

 

[Kirk Gunn]

Satellite Recon abilities are about as classified as any subject matter can get. I've got a friend who works at NSA in the "Satellite" program, and that's all she can say. I'm confident we wouldn't give up aerial recon if the satellites couldn't do it faster, safer and cheaper.

In addition, unmanned recon planes have been around awhile. One made a trip from LA to Australia and back non-stop. And they can be armed. The next generation of fighters after the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) will be unmanned also. Flying, killing robots ! Why wait for T-3 to be released when you have the real thing ?

 

[Julie K]

faster, safer and cheaper.

Choose any two.
A satellite will likely never be cheaper than sticking some poor schmuck into a cockpit and letting him fly over some hostile bit of dirt, but they have the great advantage of being extremely difficult to shoot down.