What the fuck happened to aerospace tech since the 70s?
In the 70s, we had manned lunar missions, supersonic jetliners, multiple space stations in orbit, and reusable spaceplanes.
The fastest manned aircraft of all time (military or civilian) is the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird from 1966.
Not only that but if you compare air travel in the 60's and 70's compared today, the experience is much, much worse today. A Boeing 747 from 1970 has the same max speed, similar range, and passenger capacity compared to today but with far, far less luxury.
Space race fuelled funding and development, but that died down and no one cared much about aerospace apart from beating commies
Kevin Garcia
Scramjets still violently detonate and fragment into a million little pieces and haven't even reached mach 13 yet. So that shit needs to get worked out before we can move on.
>Not only that but if you compare air travel in the 60's and 70's compared today, the experience is much, much worse today. And also enormously more accessible and affordable.
Ryan Wright
For the most part, what has happened is incremental efficiency gains. Turns out passengers don't actually care about getting to their destination super quickly, and would much rather take a little bit longer and buy cheaper tickets. As for military stuff, most of the huge changes are under wraps.
For space, again, the name of the game has been efficiency and cost reduction as opposed to sheer power. It's difficult to truly impress upon someone how massive of an undertaking the Apollo program was. Remember that the US' space race was largely about pushing the science & tech to the absolute limit of what was possible to see where that boundary was, not set up any sustainable long-term presence or infrastructure. When the US did that, the world looked back and realized that to keep any of this shit going, it has to be sustainable and pay for itself. So everything when into optimization mode, which means starting from the small scale and working up.
With the success of the F9 and FH though, all that optimization and long-term planning that has been worked on is starting to pay off. The foundation is ready to go, now the industry just needs to start pulling off real projects from that foundation.
Colton Hernandez
>The fastest manned aircraft of all time (military or civilian) is the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird from 1966. No, that would be X-15
Bentley Ward
At my old job we had a three seat row from a Lockheed Constellation in the lunch room. Most comfy chair ever, it even had ashtrays in the armrests.
Chase Foster
Cold War ended no more competition in military technology development.
Also the fact that the SR-71 is technically the world's only aircraft thats ever came close to a combined-cycle engine that ever went into production. (Turbojet cycle in subsonic and supersonic in Ramjet cycle in a single engine)
The space program was just geopolitical dick-waving and we do that in other (cheaper) ways now. The shuttle was only reusable for a very loose definition of "reusable", and really only happened at all because of the sunk-cost fallacy - everyone involved kept pushing the useless thing forward because they didn't want to admit they'd made a hash of things. The SR-71 was made obsolete by satellites. In any case a lot of military recon these days is better served by predator drones than by SR-71s OR satellites. Air travel in the 60s had nicer service but a wallet-busting price. Sure you didn't pay extra to check a bag, but the ticket cost $1500 in today's money to begin with. Supersonic airliners never happened because of a.) sonic booms, and b.) the fact that they'd be much more expensive per passenger-mile to operate even with cheap 60s fuel, and since subsonic airliners are already fast enough to get you anywhere on the planet inside of one day, there wasn't much demand to make it faster still. Unmanned probes are still a thing, they just don't get prime-time TV coverage anymore. Go to theregister.co.uk/science if you want to know what's happening with space this week.
Austin Edwards
>What the fuck happened to aerospace tech since the 70s? jews and their insatiable hunger for shekels. and we let the vampiric parasites feast on our country. that's what happened
Jordan Sanchez
>get involved in foreign war >get fucked I do sincerely apologize for the influx or bad eggs to this country but you really should read your history books.
>"The outgoing Carter administration increased military aid to the Salvadoran armed forces to $10 million which included $5 million in rifles, ammunition, grenades and helicopters.[72]"
The outgoing Carter administration increased military aid to the Salvadoran armed forces to $10 million which included $5 million in rifles, ammunition, grenades and helicopters.[72]
>"The United Nations has estimated that the FMLN guerrillas were responsible for 5% of the murders of civilians during the Salvadoran civil war, while approximately 85% of all killings of civilians were committed by the Salvadoran armed forces and death squads.[31]"
GG merikuh
Elijah Ward
More focus on unmanned and autonomous tech combined with the useless metrics you're using (manned space missions and number of space stations are retarded ways of measuring anything)
> A Boeing 747 from 1970 has the same max speed, similar range, and passenger capacity compared to today but with far, far less luxury. No, a modern Airbus A380-800 is far bigger [more passengers], can carry higher loads and has a lot more range.
Basically wrong on all counts. And tickets got cheaper.
Liam Ramirez
>With the success of the F9 and FH though, all that optimization and long-term planning that has been worked on is starting to pay off.
I don't believe for a moment that SpaceX's success has anything to do with 'optimization' that has taken place since the 70s. Most of SpaceX's stuff is Apollo-era tech, kerolox rockets, pintle injectors, etc. Maybe small gains from switching to Al-Li for the tanks but nothing major.
Space technology simply did not advance much between 1970 and 2010, for geopolitical and economic reasons.
Nolan Walker
Concorde was a shitheap of national pride that never turned a profit, SR-71 was prohibitively expensive and replaced by satellites + possibly interceptable by MiG-31s. Commercial flights became affordable and the process killed the luxury
Jeremiah Lopez
>the krafty krauts got the frogs and bongs to buy into the double delta meme
you can still have luxury, all you need to do is put the money back on the table. They still sell business- and first-class tickets.
Carter Wilson
"Next" war? user we've been constantly engaged in wars for the past 30 years.
How else are they going to convince the American public to transfer wealth from the middle and lower classes to defense contractors?
Anthony Robinson
>> lunar missions space raced ended
>> supersonic jetliners concorde crashed an killed a bunch of people, some of which weren't even passengers. It was never really all that profitable anyway.
>>multiple space stations in orbit cold war ended and we combined stations with the Russians. There are multiple space stations in orbit right now. Up until a couple months ago there were three, when one of China's two space stations reentered as planned.
>> reusable spaceplanes that rode on a non-reusable rocket
>> A Boeing 747 from 1970 has the same max speed, similar range, and passenger capacity compared to today but with far, far less luxury. but better fuel efficiency and lower operating costs. Passenger capacity has increased.
I always lol at the brainlets who really think trillions of missing dollars are being spent on super secret black projects outside of a cold war environment. like it's just a natural thing that happens.
Noah King
ssshhh user, we have cool technology like Facebook now! Isn't that way better?
This. Big gov is the only entity willing to risk millions on (war) science.
What happened? Capitalism happened. A fast airplane can hold as many ads as a faster airplane so naturally market wouldn't let itself go on that direction.
Angel Roberts
In the 70s air travel was still for the middle class only. At least here in yurope Ryanair and easyJet and so on have made it available to the masses to fly for their holidays
Luis Morgan
>safety
What are you, a cuck?
Parker Young
>>Not only that but if you compare air travel in the 60's and 70's compared today, the experience is much, much worse today. >And also enormously more accessible and affordable. And a fuckton safer
Joshua Taylor
>Most of SpaceX's stuff is Apollo-era tech Except the fact a computer lands the first stage and allows multiple uses?
John Watson
Concorde didn't end because of the crash. The planes were 35 years old and Airbus was going to stop making spare parts for them. British airways at least always made money from Concorde, though the fuel use meant the plane was entirely marketed as first class.
No, it ended because with high speed internet you can have video meetings between US and EU without needing to get managers across the Atlantic in 4 hours
Colton Ross
>MiG-31 SR-71s were possibly interceptable by MiG-25s, which also happen to be one of the greatest planes ever developed
>American reconnaissance discovers the MiG-25 >enormous airframe and huge wings >no idea what it's going to be used for >guess that it must be a deep-penetration strategic bomber or extremely maneuverable (and gigantic) fighter >more than 10 years later a Russian pilot defected in one >find out it's gigantic because it's so fucking heavy >it wouldn't fly without the huge amount of lift the wings produce
And that's the story of how an enormous duct-taped together hunk of stainless steel was developed to hit mach 3+
You make more money selling cheap shit to millions of plebs than you do selling great stuff to a couple of rich people
Think how much money mcdonalds makes
Matthew Williams
They have cabins and showers on planes now if you spend the money you would have spent in the 70s
Justin Jenkins
your point being
Jonathan Brooks
Because you need more germans, chinks or russians to teach brainlet muricas how to do things.
Jeremiah Torres
To answer OP's question, a decline in public sector projects to advance civil society at the behest of a burgeoning anti-state philosophy to curtail the extent of government and its taxation and public sector investment to allow for increasing wealth return of the economy to the capital classes and copious propaganda to that effect.
Levi Gomez
This guy gets it. Nice dubs.
Benjamin Baker
incomes were much higher then too
Justin Morgan
it's shut down because the earth is flat user it cannot be allowed for average human to go here that's why they stall this industry
Julian Baker
SR-71 was retired due to arms reduction treaties allowing Russians and Americans to fly spy planes over each other to verify quantity and location of nukes (it's politically obsolete). 747 is now retired by probably everyone other than Air Force 1. Fuel got expensive, so economy flights for everyone.
Space X made some things cheaper, but rocket technology will always be to expensive to bring about a space age, we need something that escapes the pull if gravity instead of fighting it.
Christopher Cook
Yep. I learned about this in business class. Then a new technology comes along which disrupts the current status quo.
ie teleportation... can you imagine what would happen to the transportation industry if tech like that became viable? 90% of it would go out of business.
Joseph Moore
Boeing 777ER, because America
Aaron Clark
They found out the Earth was flat but also that they couldn't keep up the space hoax so axed the Space programs and pretended they lost all the original footage of the (((Moon))) Landings.
Notice the flatness in this indpendent non (((NASA))) footage and the small hotspot in the clouds from the sun which is much closer (~3000 miles away) and much smaller (~30-50miles diameter) thant (((they))) tell us.
Still bigger than the early models and has more range.
IIRC Boeing had a moment in its history where it thought smaller, flexible shorter-range planes would be the future of commercial aviation. Wasn't completely insane, but still a bad guess.
Tyler Ramirez
Runaway Coporatism and Conservatism. Electorate is too stupid to stop it now. Only recourse for an user is to exploit it and profit off it too.
People started thinking "for what purpose" before doing something.
Caleb Lewis
>horizon is curved >i-it's f-flat! what did they mean by this?
Ethan Moore
Since OP clearly is from the US point of view, I'll contradict this.
I'd actually say the US military expenditures [where all of the above except civilian Boeings ultimately were financed with] just got more silly and had less civilian / technology learning uses.
Mason Gonzalez
Don't forget the best part of the Mig-25: >Murrica is concerned the Mig-25 is some kind of new super plane. >Murrica runs to the labs to experiment with such an aircraft. >Discover the advantages of a large craft with low wing loading, lifting body design, and high T:W. >F-15 becomes a thing. >Greatest air superiority platform to exist for 20 years. >Greatest combat record of any aircraft in the history of combat craft. >Wasn't unseated until the F-22. >Literal super plane born from paranoia over a Soviet shitpile interceptor.
Chase Gutierrez
Hold a hula-hoop up to your eye level and you will see curve too.
Simple 3D modeling disproves globe earth belief that what you see from altitude happens on a sphere ball. Not to mention NASA's own pics well below 110,000 feet show extreme curvature even on non wide angled lense cameras which can not explain or conicide with what is seen on independent footage.
Also ground measurments prove you can see farther than the sphere earth dictates you can. You can see cities, islands, mountains etc when they should be well below the curve of the Earth. Or do you disagree with this point?
In large part, the space program was a way to fund the nuclear arms race with the support of the American people. If you can build a rocket to send people into space, you can send a warhead too. If you can send communication satellites, you can send targeting and tracking satellites too. Getting men to the Moon is a way to say "fuck you, we can put weapons platforms on the moon."
It shouldn't be surprising that after nuclear weapons develoent hit it's zenith, funding dried up for NASA too.
Jack Price
Not a flat earther but that footage is shot with fish-eyed lenses, you can tell by the inverted curvature of the horizon at points within the footage, not to mention that the highest altitude a weather balloon can fly is nowhere near the boundary of the Earth's atmosphere.
Jason Davis
Flat discs have curves like dinner plates or frisbees. If you to hover above one on a micro scale you would be able to see curvature much like in the independent film of space.
>we need something that escapes the pull if gravity instead of fighting it. More like financial incentives for innovation. Aerospikes would greatly increase rocket efficiency if private companies wouldn't lose money developing the tech.
Dominic Morales
No matter what type of lens is used, the altitude is still far too low to see a curve. Compare your photo with pic related, try and point out any individual mountain peaks you can see here. Flatfags simply don't realise the scale of the Earth, much like Columbus but without the excuse of ignorance when utilities such as the Internet exist.
> Hold a hula-hoop up to your eye level and you will see curve too. Well, it is round...?
> Simple 3D modeling It's not terribly simple, you still need to model the earth and pick how you want to simulate optics.
> belief that what you see from altitude happens on a sphere ball. It's an oblate spheroidal. A somewhat "squished" sphere.
> You can see cities, islands, mountains etc when they should be well below the curve of the Earth. Or do you disagree with this point? You can't see anything that is "well below" the curvature of the earth, so there is nothing to disagree with.
Juan Thomas
>that pic just point the camera down some and the sphere will line up with the horizon
Eli Perez
"The new Boeing Hyperdeath 747: 20% chance it explodes, what... are you a cuck?"
Gosh, imagine if this guy made important decisions.
Adrian Ross
> you can tell by the inverted curvature of the horizon at points within the footage You can even see that very strongly from the other camera that is visible in the image.
Did you watch the linkage though? It's shown what happens as the camera rocks up and down, when the center of the image is above and below the horizon line.
Whether you got a stereographic, equidistant, equisolid or orthographic fisheye lens with this or that extra distortion, you can tell how the actual shape looks once the camera moves like that.
Sebastian Perry
Go drink your soi while real men ride the Hyperdeath 747
Daniel Nguyen
LMAO hahahah oh man hahahahahha lmao literally using a debunked image lol
That's the 1972 blue marble image, one of only 2 real photographs taking of earth. (the second one was in 2015 btw). It has been debunked by backtracing sunlight patterns and showing that the time it was taken was impossible to come with that view at that distance claimed in comparison to what the total amount of earth that would be in the sun is.
The other Blue Marble picture that are whole images of earth aren't real photographs btw they are admitted composites like pic related.
thanks for posting that, looked into it. that thing's fuckin wild.
Austin Thomas
things was much more comfier back then
>turn on pentium II computer >bios seems to be okay >prepare some tea and breakfast >food and tea is ready >login as you sip and take a bite >wait 2 minutes as you eat your meal >browse yahoo chatrooms
today >turn on computer >boots up in 2 seconds >automatically snaps a picture of my face >login automatically in windows hello >start programs download updates automatically >downloads 30gb update >phone vibrates telling me that i used my monthly bandwith
Wyatt Wilson
You wrote a lot for something without evidence.
Jordan Moore
Also lol at you thinking I don't understnad basic VSauce and Neil Degrasse concepts. It's not hard to understand the concept of the scale of Earth. What you can't escape is the simple fact that the majority pictures literally almost all.. 99.99% images of whole earth are photoshopped composite images. Which leads only to a handful of instances that "prove" earth which isn't really proof because these images can be faked then and now and like I pointed out show flaws like having only 1 continent in daylight with 49% of the earth visible (one side of a sphere at that distance (you can never truely see 50% of a sphere)) while there are missing continents in that image. Here's more if you would like to know youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8wYukRsdQ
Lmao balltards believe pic related is proof btw hahah literally stitching together thousands of satelite aerial pictures on a preformed photoshop ball and adding artificial water masses and sunlight etc
I work in industry, and all our calculations account for curvature of the earth, and we hit shit consistently. So i mean... if there's a conspiracy, they must know how to warp physics too. Preeeeeetty wild conspiracy...
Please don't reproduce.
Jace Thompson
In the video, the guy conveniently acts as if the photograph depicts the light disappearing immediately beyond the horizon, which would only be true should the photo be taken at noon, which it isn't as shown in the video. Not to mention the positioning is all wrong, the eastern horizon of the blue marble ends at India, yet the guy claims that he should be seeing western Australia, which is several thousand miles to the east of the physical horizon. Why are flatfags so keen on deception to prove their point, and why are they so keen on just listening and believe whatever their fellow flatfags say?
>Well, it is round...? Yes and any honest person would admit that viewing a round image from space does not constitute proof of a sphere rather it could also proof a flat disc. The other step is to realize that what you see rising up from earth isn't what you would see rising up from on top of a sphere.
>It's an oblate spheroidal. A somewhat "squished" sphere.
This has nothing to do with the conversation. An blate spheroid squished at the bottom as Neil Degrasse Tyson says is anagalous to the Sphere Earth. The differences are so minute it's not even a topic, and in their own (faked and photoshopped) pictures it shows what can be described as a perfect sphere easily.
>You can't see anything that is "well below" the curvature of the earth, so there is nothing to disagree with.
So what are you going to say when I prove you wrong?
>what happend? Well, the German engineers went too old to invent the stuff for us and finally retired. Our US engineers simply never kept up. Hence no progress since the seventies.
John Reed
Bro. It's fucking bait. Just don't bother.
Lincoln Smith
>Yes and any honest person would admit that viewing a round image from space does not constitute proof of a sphere rather it could also proof a flat disc One image isn't enough for proving the geometry of anything, but a flat disc is will not work when you see curvature in all directions and do so regardless if you're in a place that currently has sunlight or a place that currently is at night.
The reason why you can have night and day zone shaped as they are as well as have curvature in all directions is because earth is a spheroid, not a disc.
> So what are you going to say when I prove you wrong? I figure you'd know better, being in the position where overwhelming proof and scientific consensus is currently against you even when you account for all data available.
Jose Morris
Too bad there's video with stabalized gyro/gimble? stabalized cameras that debunk what you're suggesting
>not to mention that the highest altitude a weather balloon can fly is nowhere near the boundary of the Earth's atmosphere.
This is missing the point. Scientists/NASA will tell you can see the earth curvature around 50,000 feet with 35,000 feet being the lowest (with no proof just theory?) Weather balloons can go well above this and well above this at up to 170,000 feet or so. More than enough to see abundent curvature but instead you see minute curvature that can be attrivbuted to a flat disc
What part don't you understand? That image doesn't show up the correct percentage of Earth that should be lit up by sunlight. You can't scapegoat and say because it's a closer shot because they gave the distance and the whole premise of it being a whole photograph is that it HAS to be a certain distance away which would mean the shot would have half the earth in it.
You work in shit NASA gooch-licker. The aerospace industry is one of the most comparmentalized industries on earth and most of the "engineers" do menial tasks that a trained mexican can do like building components or have nothing to do with actual space or like all the people standing around in a control room doing nothing. You think you hit shit but all you hear is a fed down report and you think you calculate for cuvature but not even USA military missle testing and development factor in curvature of earth.
Weakest my Dad works at Nintendo argument from you. Why don't you tell me how you know the earth is a ball using science and not emotion connected to your meme job.
>In the video, the guy conveniently acts as if the photograph depicts the light disappearing immediately beyond the horizon,
Thank you babies first researcher, but you are wrong the photo scientifically shows 49% of the earths surface which includes the twilight areas being on the edge
> with no proof just theory? No you dolt, it's just some engineer saying that you could measure it on a photograph or something because now you have a decent bunch of pixels of curvature that is visible. [Obviously AFTER correcting your lens.to theoretically represent a straight line at the horizon as perfectly straight].
If you did it with just 1km horizontally in view, you couldn't even tell if it's just an attribute of your terrain (hilly?) and the curvature also wouldn't be visible enough on a photo - who the fuck knows what happened if it's just two pixels higher in the center than on the sides. You need to see a larger span.
Colton Bennett
>ut a flat disc is will not work when you see curvature in all directions and do so regardless
Lmao what are you talking about, flat discs curve in a ll directions
>The reason why you can have night and day zone shaped as they are as well as have curvature in all directions is because earth is a spheroid, not a disc
Wrong you can have night and day on a large area with a small sun like a simple concept like pic related (which most flat earthers don't hold as true but a simple example)
Or it could be more complex like youtu.be/5m8rywmzdXE (jump to 13min 40 seconds) with mapping out azimuth and declination of the sun which is getting closer to a true mapping of the flat earth sun pattern.
>being in the position where overwhelming proof and scientific consensus is currently against you even when you account for all data available.
Most scientists have no clue, even Astrophyscists like Neil Degrasse Tyson didn't understand the science behind their own globe earth and he consistently said wrong things until recently. I would say 99% of scientists had no clue 5 years ago, now after flat earth maybe 95% don't have some clue with the rest thinking they have it figured it out when they don't.
Anyways here is Toronto being seen over 30 miles of water from a sea level (0 elevation) viewer height 6 feet, when it should be under 600 feet of curvature.
>No you dolt, it's just some engineer saying that you could measure it on a photograph or something because now you No you dumbass, it was liteally some popscience magazine that came out with the number 35,000 and posted no proof of being able to see it at 35,000 feet. Meanwheil NASA says it's 50,000 feet and Neil Degrasse says it's 60,000 feet.
You're missing the point though that a weather ballon goes well above these figures at 100,000 feet plus and show a lack of curvature
I also like how the globetards also failed to reply to the fact that you can see a hotspot below the sun, which coincides with flat earth theories of a small localized sun. Not one humungous sun 93 million miles away
Good luck, I came here for the gore first, still can't leave.
Ryan Gutierrez
>Lmao what are you talking about, flat discs curve in a ll directions Not evenly at all.
The closer you get to the edge, the more uneven the curvature "behind" and "in front" of you get.
If you stand right at or fly above one edge, there is no curvature in front of you and the curvature behind you is extreme.
> Wrong you can have night and day on a large area with a small sun like a simple concept like pic related That's NOT in the shape of real earth day and night zones, and again, your horizon will not even NEARLY look evenly curved when you look around you flying above some point like the one that is in the center of illumination on your image.
> Most scientists have no clue Wat? I mean, yea, social sciences and humanities don't, but... wat?
> Anyways here is Toronto being seen over 30 miles of water from a sea level (0 elevation) viewer height 6 feet, when it should be under 600 feet of curvature. Toronto's center is nominally 76 meters above sea level plus then you have building height. And sea level is an estimated average between high and low tide.
And YET on the very YT preview image you see the lower parts of buildings being "cut off" by the horizon line... guess what happened? There are buildings lower than the nominal city center (near the sea?) and their lower parts are behind the horizon...
Jonathan Gray
It's just me one guy. But you should be so lucky to be in my presence. You are talking to a highly developed level 86 Warlock conspiracy theorist. I know all the who's who and what's what of the conspiracy world. The possibility of flat earth is there and the evidence for round earth is miniscule but so is the proof of flat earth is still in it's infacy. It can go either way to be honest but that's still a major blow to scientific dogma of all correctness in their knowledge. Flat earth has already shat all over mainstream science credibility and exposed it as weak and emotion based with a totalirain mindset at it's current state.
Lucas Garcia
>>Literal super-X born from paranoia over a Commie/Yankee shitpile Y That happened a lot during the cold war.