Retrograde Steps in Human Technology

  • Thread starter Thread starter Famine
  • 64 comments
  • 1,752 views
Famine

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
Messages
92,354
United Kingdom
Rule 12
Messages
GTP_Famine
I was thinking the other day. No, I know, but bear with me.

In 1964, an aircraft was launched. It was called the Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird. In its operational lifetime it was NEVER hit by enemy fire and outran over 4000 missiles. It could cover 1 mile every 2 seconds. Its farewell flight saw it run from LA to DC in 64 minutes. One flew from New York to London in ONE HOUR FIFTY-FIVE MINUTES in 1979. In a flight in 1976 it set the then world jet altitude record of 85,069 feet and still holds the jet flight speed record (in fact ALL flight other than the Shuttle) of 2193.167mph.

That's right, a plane built 41 years ago set the current record for the fastest powered flight 29 years ago. What have we got now? Eurofighter (1521mph)? The F22 Raptor (a piddling Mach 1.5)? The Scramjet doesn't count - it uses rockets and is currently an un-manned project.


Moving on. In 1969 the world saw two remarkable events. I'll cover one here and the next a little later. On March 2nd of that year, a very special aircraft - one of only 16 built - took off (in fact two took off simultaneously - entente cordiale and all that). Concorde - the fastest passenger aircraft in the entire of history (some claim the Tupelov Tu-144 could manage a marginally faster maximum speed but it's never been shown since it was a dismal and catastrophic failure). Concorde could cruise at Mach 2.23 (1336 mph). It could cross the Atlantic the easy way (West-to-East) in 2 hours and 53 minutes. After the Paris crash - its first in a 32 year service - Concorde was retired. Now, disregarding rumours of the Tupelov Tu-244 (due to enter service in 2010), what is the fastest passenger jet of all? It's the similarly-aged (also a 1969 baby) Boeing 747 at Mach 0.885. Which can only manage a 7 hour crossing - more than TWICE the time.

That's right (again). The fastest passenger jet ever entered service 36 years ago and was retired 2 years ago. Now we have to go half the speed in a plane also first made 36 years ago.


On April 12th, 1981, a most remarkable event occured. This date was STS-1 - the very first flight of a Space Shuttle (Columbia). Some 22 years later, STS-107 (the 113th mission of a Space Shuttle) left the pad, never to return. Columbia broke up on re-entry at 12,500mph, killing everyone on board. At this time it looks as though no more Shuttle missions will ever occur, with STS-114 on permanent hold. The Shuttle was the fastest manned vehicle, other than the Apollo 10 capsule on re-entry, ever made by humanity at Mach 25 on re-entry and, like all of the other previously mentioned vehicles, was a picture perfect example of functionality and beauty. Given the amount of work and the progress for humanity the Shuttle made, it literally sickens me to think she'll never "fly" again.


The other remarkable event that occurred in 1969 took place some months after Concorde left the ground. Two men only went and made footprints on the Moon. On the frickin' MOON. This, and five subsequent missions (Apollo 11-17, but not 13) saw a grand total of 12 men stood on the surface of the moon. The last was Gene Cernan. in 1972. Yes, mankind, despite having laptops worth £300 with 10 times the computing power of launch control in 1969, has not left the surface of the Earth (or, in the case of Skylab, Mir and the ISS, a low-Earth orbit) in 33 YEARS.



So in summary - the fastest aircraft are in their 40s and/or retired. No-one has walked on the moon in over 30 years and our Shuttle has gone tits up, leaving us with no re-usable launch and re-entry vehicle (despite a 98.2% mission success rate). It takes twice as long to get from New York to London as it did in 1977.

Why is mankind consistently taking retrograde steps in technology? What happened to striving for the fastest? Discuss.

(and beat THAT for length, John)
 
Because safety comes first?

Same thing is going on in racing.
 
Blackbird never crashed. Concorde crashed once in 34 years (with 112 lives lost) - and I can't even begin to count how many 747s were lost, including the worst civilian air disaster in history at Tenerife airport - and the Shuttle went down twice in 113 missions (once because of NASA cutbacks and once because of NASA complacency). No Apollo astronauts were lost (Apollo 1 caught fire on the pad and killed the crew whilst on the ground, Apollo 13 nearly went totally tits up, but returned safely - and saw FOUR further missions).

Doesn't cut it. The four examples I've picked were all the safest in their field...
 
I had heard that the SR-71 required the pilot to wear a space-grade flight suit. Perhaps nobody wanted to fly the Blackbird anymore, and the military wanted an armed surveillance plane anyways, so they decided to retire it. Of course, that's just random speculation.
 
I've often thought of this myself. The answer that stands out the most for me is the cost. Maybe it would take more money today to design/build/maintain an aircraft faster then what the granddaddy beasts costed at the time.
 
sn00pie
Because safety comes first?

Same thing is going on in racing.
Click to expand...

And in real life! A good DVD to buy is Clarkson's Hot Metal. Its doing the evoloution of cars! But anyways that was probably one of the BEST things I have read in a while! I just skimmed it and I will read the rest later but now back to GT4 for me. :)
 
Strangely i was thinking about man not setting foot on the moon recentley just yesterday. It does seem strange. I can only imagine that they got bored of that game and stopped.

Stopping Concorde was a travesty. I never got to fly in it, and it is most surreal to withdraw such a high performer considering what we were/are left with.
 
They didn't step back onto the moon because there was nothing left to do. The original mission was to prove that America could get up there and plant a nuclear missile (hypothetically). They completed the mission and came back. Frankly, the moon is just a big rock. Period.
 
One reason why they retired the COncorde, was that it wasn't cost effective to keep it in operation.

Perhaps the reason for not returning to the moon, is a "been there, done that" attitude. We've landed there, studied it extensively, and realized it's dead. Mars on the other hand...

Just my simple thoughts

AO
 
In 1964, an aircraft was launched. It was called the Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird. In its operational lifetime it was NEVER hit by enemy fire and outran over 4000 missiles. It could cover 1 mile every 2 seconds. Its farewell flight saw it run from LA to DC in 64 minutes. One flew from New York to London in ONE HOUR FIFTY-FIVE MINUTES in 1979. In a flight in 1976 it set the then world jet altitude record of 85,069 feet and still holds the jet flight speed record (in fact ALL flight other than the Shuttle) of 2193.167mph.
Click to expand...
I'm a huge fan of the SR-71. It's my guess that we are currently using a much more advanced aircraft that we may not learn about until it, too, is taken out of service.

Moving on. In 1969 the world saw two remarkable events. I'll cover one here and the next a little later. On March 2nd of that year, a very special aircraft - one of only 16 built - took off (in fact two took off simultaneously - entente cordiale and all that). Concorde - the fastest passenger aircraft in the entire of history (some claim the Tupelov Tu-144 could manage a marginally faster maximum speed but it's never been shown since it was a dismal and catastrophic failure). Concorde could cruise at Mach 2.23 (1336 mph). It could cross the Atlantic the easy way (West-to-East) in 2 hours and 53 minutes. After the Paris crash - its first in a 32 year service - Concorde was retired. Now, disregarding rumours of the Tupelov Tu-244 (due to enter service in 2010), what is the fastest passenger jet of all? It's the similarly-aged (also a 1969 baby) Boeing 747 at Mach 0.885. Which can only manage a 7 hour crossing - more than TWICE the time.
Click to expand...
Well, the Concorde is/was incredibly expensive to operate, and it could not transport many people. I love this aircraft as well, but I'm shocked they didn't take it out of service years earlier. The airline industry is concerned with moving a lot of people at once - which is one reason why the 747 is so successful. It keeps their costs (and yours) to a minimum.

The other remarkable event that occurred in 1969 took place some months after Concorde left the ground. Two men only went and made footprints on the Moon. On the frickin' MOON. This, and five subsequent missions (Apollo 11-17, but not 13) saw a grand total of 12 men stood on the surface of the moon. The last was Gene Cernan. in 1972. Yes, mankind, despite having laptops worth £300 with 10 times the computing power of launch control in 1969, has not left the surface of the Earth (or, in the case of Skylab, Mir and the ISS, a low-Earth orbit) in 33 YEARS.



So in summary - the fastest aircraft are in their 40s and/or retired. No-one has walked on the moon in over 30 years and our Shuttle has gone tits up, leaving us with no re-usable launch and re-entry vehicle (despite a 98.2% mission success rate). It takes twice as long to get from New York to London as it did in 1977.
Click to expand...
I think the competition with the Russians was the biggest reason for the push to the moon. Now, it's lost its luster and I think it is much more difficult now for NASA to justify their high operational costs to the taxpayers.
 
This is a very interesting thread. Famine, with your permision, may I post your thoughts on another forum? (giving you credit of course)
 
It wouldn't be cost effective to keep concord running, it wouldn't be cost effective to send people to the moon, I think these things are mainly because of cost. Of course I don't necessarily agree with it, but it happens.
Jordan
It's my guess that we are currently using a much more advanced aircraft that we may not learn about until it, too, is taken out of service.
Click to expand...
Yes, at Area51 they have planes doing Mach8 but they won't tell us because then they'll have to tell us all their secrets about the aliens living in our basements that gave them the technology to make these planes... :D

Blake
 
As Jordan and Der Alta have said, the Concorde, although a magnificent machine, was a financial nightmare for British Airways and Air France. And, it was still nearing retirement anyways, since years of frequent supersonic flight does take it's toll on an airframe.

As for the Blackbird, I suspect the Aurora has replaced it in service, but nobody wants to admit it.

And some people are guessing another space race could be on the horizon. With the Chinese rapidly advancing their technological expertise (including achieving a manned space flight recently), some are speculating this could trigger another space race in the somewhat distant future.
 
Jordan
I'm a huge fan of the SR-71. It's my guess that we are currently using a much more advanced aircraft that we may not learn about until it, too, is taken out of service.
Click to expand...

I'm also a huge fan of the SR71 Blackbird. Maybe there are hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft being used by the U.S.A.F. right now, but I doubt it. America has been in debt for the last decade & wouldn't have the budget to develop something new & expensive like they did in the 60's. Even if they did have enough money to manufacture a new hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft, it wouldn't be very useful because spy satellites & stealth aircraft has made fast planes like the SR71 obsolete.
 
Famine
Its farewell flight saw it run from LA to DC in 64 minutes.
Click to expand...
Over continental United States? Why did the SR-71 get allowed to do that when Concorde wasn't? That is what killed Concorde. It wasn't allowed to use loads of routes because of objections due to the damage the sonic boom may or may not cause. The only places it could go to were New York and Bahrain where it was flying over water.

We also, at the minute, can't go to the moon even if we wanted to. The Shuttle is not powerful enough to get there. It can only do a low earth orbit. It can't break free and go to the moon. The Saturn 5 was the only way to get there and NASA don't know how to build it anymore! They had to destroy the plans & blueprints as a way to get funding for the Shuttle.
 
The Sr 71 was replaced by Satellites which were faster and had better camera facilities. They never get shot down.

Thats a leap forward from air -> space. :P
 
Jordan
I'm a huge fan of the SR-71. It's my guess that we are currently using a much more advanced aircraft that we may not learn about until it, too, is taken out of service.
Click to expand...

Possibly, although I don't ascribe to the theory of Nellis.

Blackbird was actually retired in 1990, because of the $30,000 per hour price tag. But it was resurrected in 1995 - two planes flying from Beale - because "its talents were once again needed", and chopped in 1997.

Jordan
Well, the Concorde is/was incredibly expensive to operate, and it could not transport many people. I love this aircraft as well, but I'm shocked they didn't take it out of service years earlier. The airline industry is concerned with moving a lot of people at once - which is one reason why the 747 is so successful. It keeps their costs (and yours) to a minimum.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly, but Concorde was a "loss-leader". It was a flagship, taking the glitterati on high speed flights around the world (£2000 for a transatlantic ticket). Everyone went "Oooooh! Aaaaah!" when it went past, except in the houses in West London where they went "Urrrrrrgh! Aaaaargh!" as their eardrums exploded at 11am and 3pm every day (Concorde's sound always put me in mind of a cross between a very loud jet and a scourer in a frying pan).

British Airways and Air France could claim for 30 years that they were the only people in the world to offer supersonic passenger flight - after competition with the Russians (who got there first, but failed to build it properly) and the US (who gave up at the cost of it all - $3 billion PER PLANE). People aspired to fly on it one day - even though it was amazingly cramped.

Concorde's costs were legendary. On the transatlantic flights once the engines were started on the ground, everything else was cleared out of its way. If it didn't pushback, taxi and take-off inside 12 minutes, it couldn't take off, because it had used too much fuel. Astounding.

Jordan
I think the competition with the Russians was the biggest reason for the push to the moon. Now, it's lost its luster and I think it is much more difficult now for NASA to justify their high operational costs to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely - and that may be fundamental to the scope of human acheivement.

Either you break the records or your worst enemy does it. Hang the cost.

Perhaps the Cold War - and other actual wars - did more technological good than harm. Would we have any reasonable understanding of nuclear weapons or jet propulsion (for flying fast or blowing up rogue asteroids :D) without WWII? Would we even BE in space without the Cold War? Fascinating.

ShobThaBob
This is a very interesting thread. Famine, with your permision, may I post your thoughts on another forum? (giving you credit of course)
Click to expand...

Sure, go for it... :D

Blake
Area51
Click to expand...

Puppy killer!
 
Famine
Everyone went "Oooooh! Aaaaah!" when it went past, except in the houses in West London where they went "Urrrrrrgh! Aaaaargh!" as their eardrums exploded at 11am and 3pm every day (Concorde's sound always put me in mind of a cross between a very loud jet and a scourer in a frying pan).
Click to expand...
Someone help me understand this. Why is it that people who can't stand the sound of aircraft choose to live next to airports? I know the Concorde is much louder than your typical passenger jet, but it's not like the Concorde just suddenly appeared and started flying to London daily out of the blue.

Perhaps the Cold War - and other actual wars - did more technological good than harm. Would we have any reasonable understanding of nuclear weapons or jet propulsion (for flying fast or blowing up rogue asteroids :D) without WWII? Would we even BE in space without the Cold War? Fascinating.
Click to expand...
It's true. War is very good not only for technology, but also for economic reasons (increased demand for manufactured products; it's why the great depression ended at the start of WWII).
 
The Sr 71 was replaced by Satellites which were faster and had better camera facilities. They never get shot down.

Thats a leap forward from air -> space. :P
Click to expand...
That is what I was thinking. And pilots were required t wear space suits because they travelled above the armstrong line (?) where pressure is so low your blood will boil and it was easier to have pilots wearing suits than complete pressurisation of a cabin.

The reason the SR71 BB can fly so fast is because it was designed purely for that and high altitude flight. Unlike planes like the EF and Raptor which are designed more for manouvrability and occasionly low level penetration (less so with raptor).

Anotehr reason I have heared that contributed to the plight of Concorde was 9/11. Not the direct 'planes are unsafe' idea but that many of the frequent fliers died either in the towers or in the planes.
 
Ev0
Someone help me understand this. Why is it that people who can't stand the sound of aircraft choose to live next to airports? I know the Concorde is much louder than your typical passenger jet, but it's not like the Concorde just suddenly appeared and started flying to London daily out of the blue.
Click to expand...

What a rediculous comment!

Are you insinuating that the whole area around Heathrow, plus all areas underneath the flightpath (i.e. my house), should just be bulldozed down because people wouldn't be stupid enough to want to live there? There, of course being right next to London, and aside from the occasional plane noise (that's only noticeable in the summer) is a very practical place to live in.

I never found Concorde to make a sound that "i couldn't stand". It's loud, sure, but i wasn't ever planning on moving house just because it was scheduled to fly right over my house.
 
Famine

Perhaps the Cold War - and other actual wars - did more technological good than harm. Would we have any reasonable understanding of nuclear weapons or jet propulsion (for flying fast or blowing up rogue asteroids :D) without WWII? Would we even BE in space without the Cold War? Fascinating.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

This is very interesting things famine, things which i have thought to myself on numerous occasions.

I bet there is a better plane then the blackbird, heck we didnt even officially know it existed till the 90's. I reckon there is a whole host of technalogical marvouls which we arnt suppose to know about. The amount of technology we have is amazing yet we cant build a plane better than we could in 1969, bs.

One day id love to get all the top secret stuff, and see what our real forefront of technology is, not the forefront which we end up knowing, which is normally behind what the NASA and Area 51 etc are studying.
 
Famine
Blackbird never crashed. Concorde crashed once in 34 years (with 112 lives lost) - and I can't even begin to count how many 747s were lost, including the worst civilian air disaster in history at Tenerife airport - and the Shuttle went down twice in 113 missions (once because of NASA cutbacks and once because of NASA complacency). No Apollo astronauts were lost (Apollo 1 caught fire on the pad and killed the crew whilst on the ground, Apollo 13 nearly went totally tits up, but returned safely - and saw FOUR further missions).

Doesn't cut it. The four examples I've picked were all the safest in their field...
Click to expand...

Statistically speaking, right?

I'd imagine they'd only revoke an aircraft model if something was fundamentally flawed in its original design.

What about upkeep costs?

[edit:] Last question extensively covered - have to read entire thread first from now on. [/end mental note]
 
Famine

That's right, a plane built 41 years ago set the current record for the fastest powered flight 29 years ago. What have we got now? Eurofighter (1521mph)? The F22 Raptor (a piddling Mach 1.5)? The Scramjet doesn't count - it uses rockets and is currently an un-manned project.
Click to expand...

Why would the F22 or eurofighter need to go faster? speed is a waste of fuel and pilots rarely need to afterburn at mach 1.5. What situation other then a short distance scramble would deem it necessary to build a faster plane?
 
donbenni
What a rediculous comment!

Are you insinuating that the whole area around Heathrow, plus all areas underneath the flightpath (i.e. my house), should just be bulldozed down because people wouldn't be stupid enough to want to live there? There, of course being right next to London, and aside from the occasional plane noise (that's only noticeable in the summer) is a very practical place to live in.

I never found Concorde to make a sound that "i couldn't stand". It's loud, sure, but i wasn't ever planning on moving house just because it was scheduled to fly right over my house.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I never said anything about bulldozing houses just because they are near an airport.

Secondly, I'm talking about the people who whine and complain about noise pollution from aircraft when they are living right next to an airport. What I want to know is why do people choose to live next to an airport when they hate loud noises?
 
keram
Why would the F22 or eurofighter need to go faster? speed is a waste of fuel and pilots rarely need to afterburn at mach 1.5. What situation other then a short distance scramble would deem it necessary to build a faster plane?
Click to expand...

An incoming SAM or AAM running at Mach 1.9. Why did Blackbird "need" to go at Mach 3.5? Why is the MiG Foxbat capable of Mach 3? Why would the Panavia Tornado F2 need to fly at Mach 2.2?

For that matter, why do we need Mach 2 passenger aircraft, or Mach bombers (B1-B)?


Blackbird could photograph 100,000 square miles every hour. Modern surveillance planes can't even get close to that - and satellites, whilst capable of providing higher resolution images, aren't able to cover the same amount of area in the same time as the Blackbird (partially due to the fact that they're going so fast, they pass over the same location twice in that hour), which is why it was resurrected in the mid-1990s.

And let us not forget the Israeli fighter version of the 'bird...
 
Famine
And let us not forget the Israeli fighter version of the 'bird...
Click to expand...
I'm 100% sure it was the Americans who built the prototype for an interceptor variant of the SR-71, and not the Israelis. Or, maybe I'm missing something here...
 
Well, the YF-12A was of course a forerunner to the SR-71A. But I believed that although the YF-12A never saw USAF action, some were sold to the Israelis.
 
Famine
Why is the MiG Foxbat capable of Mach 3?
Click to expand...
Because the Blackbird was and the proposed B-70 Valkyrie bomber was supposed to do Mach 3 too.

I also think that the F-15 Eagle, with its published max speed of Mach 2.5, was actually capable of more.
 
MdnIte
Frankly, the moon is just a big rock.
Click to expand...

Because it is? :D

Famine
For that matter, why do we need Mach 2 passenger aircraft, or Mach bombers (B1-B)?
Click to expand...


We don't. Especially bombers. All they do is fly over something and pound the bejesus out if it...
 
Wasn't the SR-71s high speeds a bi-product of its main design specification that was to attain high altitude flight?
 
Back