- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Something to consider about the early advancement of aviation.
Posted on 6/30/19 at 12:44 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 6/30/19 at 12:44 pm to Darth_Vader
Or the market hasn't proven that there is enough incentive for them to undertake R&D costs into that sort of tech.
Look at the capabilities of the F-22 as an easy example and the advanced materials which have been developed for space probes, etc.
Look at the capabilities of the F-22 as an easy example and the advanced materials which have been developed for space probes, etc.
0
Posted on 6/30/19 at 12:44 pm to Darth_Vader
Any technological revolution is gonna seem to slow down over time
Look at computer graphics for instance
Look at computer graphics for instance
Posted on 6/30/19 at 12:50 pm to Sun God
Ya and then there will be some major breakthrough followed by a rush of new tech / advancement which will gradually slow down till the next major breakthrough which changes the landscape
Posted on 6/30/19 at 12:52 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
It was to point out the level of advancement in the first 50 years of flight dwarfs those of the last 50.
Posted on 6/30/19 at 2:31 pm to Darth_Vader
The amount of technological advancement from 1900 to 1950 was unreal
Posted on 6/30/19 at 3:07 pm to weadjust
quote:
The ability to land a rocket is indeed a massive advancement. But rocket technology itself has been around even longer than manned aviation.
Posted on 6/30/19 at 3:24 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
You missed the entire point. So let me me spell it out to you. When you compare the level of advancement in the first 50 or so years in flight to the last roughly 50 years, you’d have to be an idiot to not recognize the first half far exceeds the second when it comes to the level of advancements.
-We went to the moon in the second 50 years.
-A single F-22 and its support elements is capable of destroying an entire Air Force from the first 50 years.
-A private citizen owns rockets that land on fricking barges after lobbing satellites into orbit.
-We have goddamned golf carts on Mars that were put there by a spacecraft that completely autonomously aerobraked, deployed a parachute, lowered the golf cart down on a cable, cut the cable when the golf cart touched down, then flew away so it wouldn't crash land on the golf cart.
-The fricking Concorde.
-Bombers that can fly from a base in Missouri to the other side of the planet and drop a thermonuclear bomb on your head, completely fricking undetected until you wonder what that bright light is.
-Cassini
-Juno
-New Horizons
This post was edited on 6/30/19 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 6/30/19 at 3:40 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
That’s where you’re wrong. It is a technology issue because they’ve not developed the technology to make supersonic commercial economically viable.
Again, as the other person mentioned: there are major physical issues there that can’t be wished away.
It’s not about being unimaginative. Technology has egged along. We have developed and deployed engines that allow for the first time ever supersonic flight without engaging a fuel glutton afterburner (Concorde needed to be a flying gas tank on take off, which is part of why the Paris crash which sealed the coffin on supersonic flight was so firey)
But physically it still takes more fuel to run.
And market evaluations indicate the persistent demand isn’t there at the requisite price point.
Most people would rather go on a Dreamliner for less.
Next you’ll be saying part of it not being economically viable is a technological issue because they haven’t made a supersonic plane that magically doesn’t make a sonic boom.
Which by the way would be legally required to use a supersonic craft on pretty much all continental US flights. Commercial supersonic travel outside of a couple mile buffer zone on a few places is banned here.
This post was edited on 6/30/19 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 6/30/19 at 3:45 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
compared to the past 50 or so years and we have all their knowledge and the aid of advanced computers to help us
The prototype of the SR-71 first flew in 1962 and it wasn’t declassified until 1990.
We have no idea what we have.
This post was edited on 6/30/19 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 6/30/19 at 3:53 pm to Scoop
I agree with your sentiment, and while I don’t know when it was declassified, I do know it played major roles in films from at least the early 80s
Posted on 6/30/19 at 4:47 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
That’s where you’re wrong. It is a technology issue because they’ve not developed the technology to make supersonic commercial economically viable.
That’s a fuel tech problem, not an aviation tech problem. As long as airplanes run on fossil fuels, supersonic commercial flight doesn’t make economic sense.
Apple could make a phone that could play a AAA console game at medium settings, but they won’t, because it would get about thirty minutes of battery life. As long as we are relying on lithium-ion, there is a cap on how much power makes economic sense.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News