/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14730274
Pic related is from 1984. Just a few years later, the same game was launched with solid multi coloured polygons. The next 25 years were much slower.
1900s - 1960s was Wright brothers' first powered flight to sustained Mach 3 and also moon landings
1960s - 2020s we got F-35, currently grounded at exactly zero Mach.

Examples after examples show stagnation has hit hard.

>>14666020
It was a different era, when the calm, the quiet and competent were given the chance to deliver the results. And they did. In spades.

>>12327262
Nobody could even begin to fathom things such as SR71s flying when Wrights made their powered flight. Sixty years, merely a few generations, between their simple gliders to this. If rocketry takes off for good this time we may not be able to grasp how quickly it may evolve. Sure, there's the whole going into fucking space without a comfortable atmosphere and gravity to keep you on the ground, but we've progressed far since then.

>>12312451
Intentionally, yes. Kelly Johnson was famous for such tricks.

>>12312451
Very good points. On lighting up the afterburners the growl was epic ("and it felt good" as Brian Shul said, they nearly crashed). Good stories.

>>12312578
>airframe would contract at altitude
It would expand rather, as heat increased. Some heat was dumped into the fuel before entering the engines.

To wit:
1960: U2 shot down, the US excreted a brick
1964: a prototype, designed with slide rulers, was flying with numerous firsts:
- made of titanium, then also known as "unobtanium"
- using special cooled jet fuel lit with special igniter
- capable of sustained use of afterburner
- blended shape for low radar cross section (RCS)
1968: pic. related hammered across the skies with impunity.
2020: it still is the fastest, was never shot down

Today? F-35 has been under development for years and is the cause of special attention for GAO.

>>11990858
There are a few books, some available freely on the net, about pic. related.

No Cubane or other strained molecules yet?
Imagine if we could use such for jet fuel.

>>10794428
>I feel like the 1969 moon landings were the peak of America. Everything since then has basically been a letdown.
Pic. related is also a peak. F-35 shows how deeply the entire West has fallen.

Submit to pic related. Now.

>>9826876
>If it was possible to fly at Mach 3, a bird, bat or pterosaur would already have evolved to do it

>>9085682
A Blackbird accidentally made a detour into the past.

>>9051635
There is a bit more to it than that, like the emphasis of tech rather than paper pushing.

Simply put the guy who knew what they were doing were allowed to get on with what they knew. That always gives results.

1960: Gary Powers shot down in his U-2
1964: Blackbird takes to the skies, with impunity.

Something went wrong in the 1970's, not sure what. Skylab fell out of the sky. F-35 has been in development for over a decade and still only "operational" given enough inverted commas.

We still haven't recovered.

>>8681063
People haven't thought about making America great since the 60's. OK, joking aside, it is rather disturbing that the 60's now seem like to peak performance of the West. Sure, we have fast computers and stuff but the speed of development and the optimism was something else. Just read the story behind pic. related.

>>8681075
>Money.
>It takes a lot.
That didn't stop truly enormous figures being spent on banks after the crisis. Trillion is now the new billion, they say.

>>8681278
Two. Lunokhod probes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme