𧾠Just how in the fuck did they designed this without software of any kind?
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 01:46:13 UTC No. 16418457
Fuck autocad, solidworks, computer simulations... fuck everything, give me a ruler and a compass and fuck off.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 02:14:21 UTC No. 16418501
>>16418457
team f autistic greatest generation engies and a lot of money...
đď¸ Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 03:27:17 UTC No. 16418576
>>16418457
This was back in an era where results took priority. No government-mandated diversity, no women, no mentally ill trannies... just a bunch of nerdy white dudes in white shirts and ties, driven by a singular vision of creating the most beautiful flying war machine ever to exist.
If you only knew how good things could possibly be.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 03:40:48 UTC No. 16418591
>>16418457
>Just how in the fuck did they designed this without software of any kind?
With a lot of manpower. A single guy with autocad is about as productive as a room full of draftsmen
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 04:18:12 UTC No. 16418625
>>16418457
The entirety of ancient Rome was built without calculus or algebra beyond the very basics.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:55:18 UTC No. 16418735
>>16418457
There were computers in the 1960s
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 07:05:24 UTC No. 16418799
>>16418457
>>16418576
>>16418591
Not only was the SR-71 amazing, but it was built very quickly and by very few people.
>Kelly Johnson and his team at Skunk Works designed and built the A-12 (SR-71 Blackbird precursor) in about 28 months with a crew of 25 engineers and fewer than 50 technicians, no computers, no analysis, just sliderules and nicotine. And they had to invent stealth tech, computerized celestial navigation, and titanium metallurgy at the same time.
I fully believe that small teams can still do this. This is why small startups of just a few talented, motivated people can build a service/product and compete with established multibillion dollar players. The various multipliers of (skill * ambition * autonomy * incentive * NO BUREAUCRACY) means good teams are 10x or 100x as productive as the counterfactual.
This counterfactual would be projects like the Boeing 787. It took 8 years to design and build. It cost more than 30 billion dollars. I'm certain a competently run skunkworks could have done it faster AND with less then a tenth the budget.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 07:10:11 UTC No. 16418804
>>16418799
finally somebody mentions Kelly Johnson, I was getting worried
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 07:17:05 UTC No. 16418811
>>16418457
wind tunnels and test pilots with balls of steel
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:41:48 UTC No. 16418918
>>16418625
Don't underestimate the basics.
It would have been impossible to build stuff like that without any understanding of structural engineering.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:03:42 UTC No. 16419797
>>16418799
>I fully believe that small teams can still do this.
Yes, theres a few clear rules of organizations that indicate that organizations become dysfunctional and inefficient with scale. Large organizations get multiple layers of management and suffer from the principal-agent problem (when hired managers take over owners) and Price's law (50% of the work is done by the square root of the total number of employees).
This indicates that smaller business are more competitive. However larger business can have greater economies of scale, which boils down to better negotiating power and lower transport costs. The optimum point is somewhere in the middle, the ideal organization
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:48:34 UTC No. 16419852
>>16418457
Limitation drives creativity, it's the same with computers, just look at how well optimized old software is compared to what we have today, even though old software developers could only dream of the hardware that we have now
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:37:01 UTC No. 16420002
>>16419797
>The optimum point is somewhere in the middle, the ideal organization
It cannot be stable however. The steady state solution of the free market is a monopoly. As you have indicated, large corpos will eventually eat up all the competition. This is why you need an inhomogenous term in your diffeq to force the equilibrium to be in this golden middle. That inhomogeneity is government interference.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 00:44:06 UTC No. 16420066
>>16419797
>>16418799
I've seen several videos on youtube pop up about the Hermeus team working on several hypersonic aircraft that reuse and test the same technologies for the different aircraft. It's allowing them to create some extreme projects really quicky.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:04:02 UTC No. 16420158
>>16418576
>western man
>>16418591
>>16418625
this stuff is all gone now, for all your talk of superiority no other race literally lay down and died
the whole world caught up to you, Europe is back to being a complete backwater, and there's basically no chance it will ever recover to the way it was so i don't get why you're so proud of shit that is permanently out of reach for your people again
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 04:59:13 UTC No. 16420548
>>16420158
>for all your talk of superiority
Never did talk about racial superiority retard. I guess I have superior reading comprehension though
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 06:20:59 UTC No. 16420615
>>16418799
>sliderules and nicotine
same way we went to the moon, by smoking indoors
>small teams can still do this
nope, can't / won't smoke indoors
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:33:58 UTC No. 16420702
>>16420002
>. As you have indicated, large corpos will eventually eat up all the competition
I never indicated this.
I said large organizations have better negotiation power and cheaper transport costs. That isnt an infinite advantage, they have much higher labor costs.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:15:49 UTC No. 16420727
>>16420702
>they have much higher labor costs
You mean due to all that extra fluff? Makes sense. Anyways, free markets do tend to monopolies. If you have say 10 competitors who start out on even ground and just 1 of them buys another one out, you now have 9 competitors, 1 of whom has twice the capital. And so on. There are very few mechanisms in the free market that increase the number of competitors as opposed to decreasing it.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:16:13 UTC No. 16420766
>>16420727
>You mean due to all that extra fluff?
Due to the layers of management they require, due to Price's law that states that the square root of the number of workers does 50% of the labor, so your labor output per worker drops as the organization grows. And sometimes management spontaneously destroys the organization by looting it once they realize they can get more wealth by looting than with their salaries. Its really hard to get management to follow the organization's goals, despite being paid to do so.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:19:16 UTC No. 16420773
>>16420727
>Anyways, free markets do tend to monopolies.
I was watching a video about how TicketMaster became a monopoly. The video states that there used to be 7 large ticketing companies, all of which were bought by TicketMaster. The pajeet narrating the video said they were just too strong and that the govt helped them, I dont understand how this is possible, isnt that just a website?
Should be really easy to sell tickets online as QR codes or something.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:25:16 UTC No. 16420783
>>16418457
They were white.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:28:41 UTC No. 16420785
>>16420002
>The steady state solution of the free market is a monopoly
this is just objectively false
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:37:48 UTC No. 16420799
>>16420773
>isnt that just a website?
What do you think happens when locations build their own website? Artists will get blacklisted from ticketmaster venues if they perform there. Basically nothing short of a (currently ongoing) antitrust lawsuit, or a coalition of basically all major artists can possibly break it up
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:54:18 UTC No. 16420817
>>16420785
If itâs objectively false, then you should be able to argue why. Go ahead.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:15:52 UTC No. 16420828
>>16418457
>Just how
Simple, this was the era of the calm, the quiet and the competent, who were given the opportunities and delivering the results. And results here mean the Blackbird, the Apollo project, the Internet and much of what people take for granted today.
Now we have drama queans and a barely flying F-35 with a b0rken engine.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 13:09:40 UTC No. 16420912
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 13:38:38 UTC No. 16420933
>>16420799
>Artists will get blacklisted from ticketmaster venues
What even is a tickemaster venue? Ticketmaster owns the concerts venues?
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 13:41:41 UTC No. 16420939
>>16420912
Penis measurement equivalent of the yt inventing normalization to prove blacks are bad for society.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:03:58 UTC No. 16421133
>>16419797
>>16418799
>>16420785
>>16420817
The business lifecycle of startups means there is a constant stream of disruptive new ideas coming into the world. Founders will either exit (get acquired by a big company) or IPO (become billionaires, get capital to get bigger) or stay private. Eventually some startups become big companies, and with that bigness inefficiency creeps in. The cases where this happens slower are where passionate founders keep tight control over their vision. Examples: SpaceX, Apple (during the Jobs era), Microsoft (during the Gates era), etc.
So because there's a steady stream of new disruptive ideas I don't think a monopoly is steady state, its literally constantly changing.
>>16420158
Agree, Europe doesn't have an innovative culture. Unless (and maybe even if) they make a special economic/cultural enclave/zone [Singapore style], They're doomed. All the best Europeans, Indians, Chinese, etc. come to the US to work. They can get several times higher salaries. And then either stay in the US (if you're rich, the US is very nice) or go back home with their generational wealth. It's interesting to me that the leftists don't bitch about how bad brain drain is. The US literally lobotomizes the whole world by importing so many of the best foreigners.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:08:45 UTC No. 16421143
>>16421133
>I don't think a monopoly is steady state, its literally constantly changing
You need to look up what steady and transient behavior is lol. All you have described is local transient behavior. Steady state behavior is an equilibrium state observed at time going to infinity. All pertubrations such as startups you mentioned either tend to zero or some asymptotic value.
In other words, steady state behavior doesnât involve dynamics. Itâs a static state.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:06:47 UTC No. 16421226
>>16418576
>>16418799
>>16420783
>>16420828
Wrong, wrong, wrong triple wrong you wing-dings!!
It's not about the "limitation breeds creativity" , "No beaurocracy, DEI, WOKENESS!!" "They wer white"
You're such dumb normalfags idiots!!!! All that is a symptom not the cause.
We have people now smarter than ever. Look up 2023 IMO vs 1986 (when Terrance Tao took it)
We have tween engineers buidling absolutely insane projects. There's no lack of intelligent, capable human capital.
The problem is that all the low hanging fruit has been picked. Technology is not a limitless well.
In fact all of technology has benn more or less figured out by the 70s. All that was left was small refinement and adjustment.
The only filed that still had place for invention was computers and we have literally teenage kids making Js react a million times faster.
And genuises building state of the art AI system right now.
You're such NPCs, repeating the same trite bullshit with no real understanding of what's happening!!
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:08:53 UTC No. 16421232
>>16421226
So why donât we go to the Moon anymore if we have all that super duper advanced stuff? And why did the SLS, which is supposed to be the successor to Saturn-V, take 30 years to build from the refurbished Space Shuttle parts?
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:18:51 UTC No. 16421241
>>16421232
Because of momentum!!! all technology is momentum.
In the 20th century the space industry was slowly built up over time and acheived its objective of beating the russians.
With that momentum we carried on building the space shuttle and international space station which are more impressive technologically than going to the moon, and we also put all the satalleietes we need in orbit.
But there's no more reason to go to the moon after beating the russians so things slowly decayed, certain production lines shut down and you can't build a Saturn V or Appollo project today but why would you? there's fucakall on the moon! space exploration is nothing more than bread and circus for science obssessed soiboys.
It's like if you wanted to build a cathode ray tube from scratch today. You couldn't! Not because CRTVs are magic technology built by superior men but becaue the momentum is not there, we have slowly switched to other technologies, OLEDS, LCDs...ect.
In the case of space exploration there's no better technology, rockets is basically still the same as it was in the 70s because 1) all the low hanging fruit in that field have been picked.
2) there's no incentive to maintain that field of technology and those kinds operations
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:50:13 UTC No. 16421288
>>16421241
>objective of beating the russians
*the Soviets. The Soviet union was a union of 15 republics and only 50% of its population was ethnically Russian. I don't call Americans Californians.
>But there's no more reason to go to the moon after beating the russians so things slowly decayed
Other countries like China have those reasons and certainly have the economic capacity. They want to show that they're just as capable in terms of space exploration. Their current GDP is way higher than the US GDP was during the Apollo program. Yet we don't see any significant developments.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:09:28 UTC No. 16421482
>>16420933
>What even is a tickemaster venue
Skim wikipedia, I'm not going to spoonfeed you information retard
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:16:58 UTC No. 16421599
>>16421288
>They want to show that they're just as capable in terms of space exploration
They really don't, space is a side project and even India put a rover on the moon.
China is much better than Idea and they're focusing on current relevant technologies, buidling FABS and semiconductor industry which is far more of a miracle black magic technology than going to the moon.
They're also competing on the AI landscape and building up EVs.>>16421288
>They want to show that they're just as capable in terms of space exploration
They really don't, space is a side project and even India put a rover on the moon.
China is much better than Idea and they're focusing on current relevant technologies, buidling FABS and semiconductor industry which is far more of a miracle black magic technology than going to the moon.
They're also competing on the AI landscape and building up EVs.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:38:29 UTC No. 16421671
>>16421226
I see a lot of drivel. I see zero basis for any of these wild claims.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:47:00 UTC No. 16421696
>>16421671
I see a tranny whose incapable of contributing to a conversation
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:07:30 UTC No. 16421759
>>16418735
Hardware sure, but no one had written any software yet.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:10:02 UTC No. 16421859
>>16421759
Scientific software was the first to ever be written. Its just numerically solving equations.
But what is to calculate for the blackbird? Its a dumb plane that just goes fast.
Jet engines already existed and you can fly on a barn door as long as you have enough thrust.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:11:15 UTC No. 16421862
>>16421482
>Skim wikipedia, I'm not going to spoonfeed you information retard
Why not?
Why are you even on a forum then? Just to tell people to go elsewhere?
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:13:02 UTC No. 16421865
>>16421859
>what is to calculate for the blackbird? Its a dumb plane
I can't tell if everyone on /sci/ is doing a bit I'm too autistic to catch up on or if you guys are genuinely retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:15:30 UTC No. 16421871
>>16421862
>Why not?
Because I like to talk to people who are intelligent and resourceful. I know that's kind of rich considering where I'm posting though
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:16:04 UTC No. 16421872
>>16421865
Nobody cares what you think. add something to the discussion or shut the fuck up. I dont care who you are, if you are brown or a bot, just share useful information, faggot
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:20:47 UTC No. 16421879
>>16421872
>just share useful information
You first, mr. dumb plane. Go design a modern stealth bomber without using a supercomputer
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:21:10 UTC No. 16421882
>>16421871
>Because I like to talk to people who are intelligent and resourceful.
You are just an insufferable cunt and ignorant to the gills. You dont know shit about anything and you can only feel important by attacking people.
>Just go to this other website
>Why dont you ask somewhere else
Imbecile. Websites are not magical sources of knowledge. Websites are written by people, with information shared by people. If you dont want to share, then dont, you dont have to write some lamentations about how you dont want to talk to others,
As if you had anything to say, fucking retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:23:42 UTC No. 16421884
>>16421882
>ignorant to the gills
I at least understand how ticketmasters contract system works
>you dont have to write some lamentations about how you dont want to talk to others,
You quite literally asked why I redirected you to another source, and I answered. I'm sorry that hurt your feelings
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:24:35 UTC No. 16421885
>>16421879
>Go design a modern stealth bomber without using a supercomputer
What a stupid thing to say? What the fuck is this meant to be? An argument?
Why would i build a stealth plane? No one here is claiming to be able to do such thing, but obviously specialists in the 1960s, actual airplanes experts could. This doesnt mean that anyone can do so out of the blue.
Jet airplanes already existed by the 1960s, its not like any of these men started from scratch. The blackbird doesnt even do anything special, it just flies fast and it was also a garbage plane in general, that crashed multiple times
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:26:22 UTC No. 16421886
>>16421884
>I at least understand how ticketmasters contract system works
How would you know that and why do you think anyone cares about what you allegedly know? You have said you donyt want to share any information, no? Then stick to your word and keep quiet faggot. Didnt you say you dont want to talk, yet here you are half a dozen posts in?
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:28:51 UTC No. 16421887
>>16421859
>Scientific software was the first to ever be written.
Sure, but it wasn't written before the hardware existed. Be serious.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:29:06 UTC No. 16421888
>>16421886
>why do you think anyone cares about what you allegedly know
Because you asked. If you truly didn't care, then I clearly did the right thing by not wasting my time explaining things to you anyways
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:31:55 UTC No. 16421892
>>16421884
>I redirected you to another source,
No you didnt.
"Wikipedia" isnt a source, It would be like pointing in the general direction of a library and saying "just look there"
The information would just be hidden in a sea of irrelevant information you'd have to spend hours to look for, if it even exists.
The reason you suggested it was just to be an arrogant faggot. It isnt like you actually know the answer or know if its available in wikipedia. But you cant resist posting so you felt that you had to say something. Anything.
"Look in wikipedia" is a way of saying nothing while pretending to be useful. Of course it doesnt work, your intentions are transparent.
And why do you keep replying to me if you said you dont want to talk and you think you above everyone else?
What even makes you think you are so much better when you dont know anything? You just like to argue and say you know things, but when pressed you cower like a scared faggot
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:35:28 UTC No. 16421898
>>16421888
>Because you asked.
I asked about Ticketmaster, not about what you allegedly know or not. I dont care about you as a person, i dont know who you are, imbecile. I dont care if you allegedly know about TicketMaster if you are not going to talk about that.
You just want to say that you know but not say what, because you dont know shit.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:40:29 UTC No. 16421907
>>16421892
>Wikipedia" isnt a source, It would be like pointing in the general direction of a library and saying "just look there"
You seem really invested in this so I'll do you a solid little buddy. Ticketmaster only owns a few major venues, for the most part they have exclusive contracts with venues. In the past, when artists have tried rebelling against their system ticketmaster has blocked them from using their venues, which basically destroys/heavily damages their careers. This is generally illegal, but the government couldn't be bothered to do anything about it until fairly recently
>why do you keep replying to me if you said you dont want to talk and you think you above everyone else?
Because it's funny to me and I have time to kill. Same reason you're doing this I assume
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 00:43:44 UTC No. 16422041
>>16420548
>b b b but they were Le huwyte
Cry harder
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 00:46:09 UTC No. 16422045
>>16422041
You're the one bringing up skin color, racist
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 18:50:37 UTC No. 16423313
>>16421133
>So because there's a steady stream of new disruptive ideas I don't think a monopoly is steady state, its literally constantly changing.
There is not an infinite amount of good, marketable ideas. There will never, ever be a market for human-riding saddle reins for example. But this is a potential future disruptive idea.
The time horizon until all good, marketable ideas are exhausted is more on the timescale of 200 years than 20 000 years. It's MUCH more closer to centuries.
>b-but my economics where the capitalism doesn't degenerate to feudalism works for 30 or 40 years
Yeah and I am talking about facts that preoccupy nations and human civilization for a longer timespan than that. If you are against the free market you are either a child or a commie NPC. But if you don't recognize that capitalism inevitably degenerates into literal manorialism (feudalism) you are unintelligent.
Free market economics is like liberty: it's a tree that needs to be watered with the blood of world-war style crises or Black Deaths from time to time. Only then get old, crusted up institutions (like megacorporations) dissolved like with a cleansing bath in aqua regia (acid).
This is the only way how the best possible system can be sustained. Disruptive ideas ain't gonna cut it.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 18:54:42 UTC No. 16423324
>>16421859
>Its a dumb plane that just goes fast.
In case this isn't b8, the aerodynamic properties of a craft change drastically with Mach number. A craft suited for subsonic flight would perform like shit in the supersonic ranges and vice versa. Blackbird was the first of its kind and needed extensive aerodynamic testing, both computational and empirical, to iron out the design.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:00:30 UTC No. 16423338
>>16423324
>ke shit in the supersonic ranges and vice versa. Blackbird was the first of its kind and needed extensive aerodynamic testing, both c
no it was not you dum fuck.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:19:12 UTC No. 16423368
>>16420615
>smoking indoors
this man gets it.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:27:35 UTC No. 16423384
>>16420828
>Simple, this was the era of the calm, the quiet and the competent,
actually these dudes were chads and tended to live quite hard. the v8 used to start the sr-71 was the same model the engineers drag-raced in the weekend etc. they fucked everything that moved. lots of vets, lots of status for working for these companies, good money too. when industry collapsed chad went into finance and law (1970s) and nerds took over stem and banned smoking indoors. the 70s is when the current nerd stereotype dates from and that's why.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:44:34 UTC No. 16423427
>>16423338
show me a predecessor that operated at Mach 3 then
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 17:45:01 UTC No. 16428908
>>16418457
this is a nice thread, so have a bump
Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 17:52:15 UTC No. 16428924
>>16421482
this thread was going so well.... until the redditor had a chimpout
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:12:43 UTC No. 16430215
>>16423313
>If you are against the free market you are either a child or a commie NPC
Is the US communist or a child?
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:39:08 UTC No. 16430260
>>16423368
>>16420615
This.
When I'm seriously working on something it's like ww1 meets the forges of isengard.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:54:32 UTC No. 16430278
>>16421226
>>16421241
Holy histrionics batman
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 07:12:18 UTC No. 16430432
>>16422045
Of course I am a racist. White people deserve this karma they are receiving.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 07:19:07 UTC No. 16430442
>>16423313
It is much, much more common for megacorps to fall to irrelevance than to remain at the top of the game for many decades. Look at the average longevity in the S&P500 in pic related.
The business models don't last forever. And to change business models often means competing against the golden goose. This is what happened to Kodak, Blockbuster, HP, Sears, etc. People in all of these companies knew disruptive change was coming but their incentives weren't there to capitalize on that -- if you were the CEO and your company made 1b/yr, would you pivot to a business model that made 100m/yr? That's what it would have been like for Kodak to go all-in on digital cameras instead of film.
To bring this back to SR-71-- I predict that Boeing will never recover, and will continue their fall from grace-- they are in terminal decline and cannot recover. But the US aviation industry isn't doomed -- I think a smart, motivated, and lucky founder/team can do to planes what SpaceX did to space. We might even get new SR-71-style works of art as a result.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:12:45 UTC No. 16430480
>>16430442
>We might even get new SR-71-style works of art as a result.
There is simply no incentive. SR-71 was a product of its time. It was an era when reconnaissance satellites werenât readily available. There really is no need for something like this today. Even something less specialized like MiG-25 isnât needed anymore. Aviation is the film equivalent for the defense industry. It has its niche and that niche had already been saturated by the 80s. Things like the Concorde were shown to not be economical.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:21:55 UTC No. 16430488
>>16430480
>There really is no need for something like this today.
Wrong. Satellites are highly predictable. The Blackbird was not. By the time the earth shattering sonic boom hit the ground, the aircraft was long gone.
That is why it was used over Libya, possibly the last run over hostile territory. They hammered across the desert while modern missiles were getting uncomfortably close, forcing them to reach new max speed.
There still is a need for something like it but it will have to be a lot faster yet.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:54:48 UTC No. 16430527
>>16430488
>Satellites are highly predictable
And? It's not like they can be targeted by missiles.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:03:13 UTC No. 16430533
>>16421226
>In fact all of technology has benn more or less figured out by the 70s. All that was left was small refinement and adjustment.
they said this in the 1800s about physics after electromagnetism matured
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:10:12 UTC No. 16430539
>>16418457
>t. Newey
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:24:27 UTC No. 16430550
>>16430527
The Blackbird was targetted, routinely, and yet it was never shot down by hostiles. And these days, satellites can be shot down, China has done it already.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:20:26 UTC No. 16430675
>>16430550
>China has done it already
citation, please
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:44:42 UTC No. 16430792
>>16430675
Certainly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:11:05 UTC No. 16430834
drawing
wooden models
it's the same thing as your fancy computer software
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:21:50 UTC No. 16430851
>>16430792
>le test
Certainly the same as locating and targeting a US satellite whose orbital parameters are kept as a top secret.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:10:30 UTC No. 16431230
>>16423324
The Blackbird did perform like shit at subsonic speeds.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:59:26 UTC No. 16431348
>>16418591
Great american heroes.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:17:27 UTC No. 16431698
>>16430851
>orbital parameters are kept as a top secret
Hobbyists can calculate them in our times, nation states even better so.
>>16431230
Thankfulli it was made for 3+ Mach, and delivered.
>>16431348
The quiet, the calm and the competent. Yes, it was a long time ago.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:37:08 UTC No. 16432061
>>16430432
kys nigger
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 02:59:24 UTC No. 16432273
>>16418457
The Blackbird had a attrition ratio of more than 30%, in all standards was a piece of shit
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 03:21:06 UTC No. 16432292
>>16430480
When I said âsr71 styleâ I meant a game changer. For example, maybe it wonât be fast planes but cheap ones. Or spaceplanes. Or 100+pax vtol airliners. Or autonomous flying motorcycles Etc.
I think there will likely be a few major innovations in civilian air travel in the medium term
1.) vtol/stol airliners. The limiting factor for air travel now is runway/airport space. Big wings (so terminals need to be far apart), many thousands of feet of runway, long delays between large aircraft for wake turbulence all mean that airports are operating at their limit. A solution is for airplanes to land and takeoff in much shorter distances. Also, folding or smaller wings could make airplanes much more compact, meaning airport terminals can be smaller/denser. Also, if theyâre vtol/stol, they can approach from more steeper angles more closely.
2) rocket planes. For long distance travel, even the rarified atmosphere is a significant impediment. Going via suborbital trajectories means a lot of the trip is in space so there is very little friction. Another benefit is the speed- spaceplanes will need to go several Mach to work. With cheap full flow staged combustion engines from SpaceX or Stoke, a spaceplane is not â20 years awayâ anymore.
3.) this isnât a type of aircraft but a type of pilot. Autonomous aircraft change the business case of passenger transportation. Instead of minimizing the number of crew per passenger to save money (which means aircraft with hundreds of passengers have a minimum of 2 flight crew), suddenly a much smaller aircraft (12, 6, or even a 1 seater) can be viable. This means point to point airtaxis.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 03:45:27 UTC No. 16432315
>>16430533
This one faggot constantly posts that shit, his posting style is very recognisable
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 04:49:33 UTC No. 16432379
>>16430851
>secret orbits
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 06:10:56 UTC No. 16432442
>>16418457
with all you need to do math
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:44:54 UTC No. 16432692
>>16418457
Less distraction. I wonder how much productivity at work would increase if phones are banned and internet could be only used for work related stuff.
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:38:26 UTC No. 16435367
>>16432442
you forgot something
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:20:32 UTC No. 16435434
>>16423313
>here will never, ever be a market for human-riding saddle reins for example
pretty sure they carry these at every sex shop in the world (not to imply there's anything salvageable in the economic coom sector)
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:39:08 UTC No. 16435556
>>16423313
>There is not an infinite amount of good, marketable ideas
Prove it.
[spoiler]You can't[/spoiler]
>There will never, ever be a market for human-riding saddle reins
Prove it.
[spoiler]You can't[/spoiler]
>The time horizon until all good, marketable ideas are exhausted is more on the timescale of 200 years than 20 000 years.
Prove it.
[spoiler]You can't[/spoiler]
> If you are against the free market you are either a child or a commie NPC.
Prove it.
[spoiler]You can't[/spoiler]
> if you don't recognize that capitalism inevitably degenerates into literal manorialism (feudalism) you are unintelligent.
Prove it.
[spoiler]You can't[/spoiler]
>Free market economics is like liberty: it's a tree that needs to be watered with the blood of world-war style crises or Black Deaths from time to time
>Only then get old, crusted up institutions (like megacorporations) dissolved like with a cleansing bath in aqua regia (acid)
Prove it.
[spoiler]You can't[/spoiler]
>This is the only way how the best possible system can be sustained
Prove it.
[spoiler]You can't[/spoiler]
> Disruptive ideas ain't gonna cut it.
Prove it.
[spoiler]You can't[/spoiler]
Bogus fantasies... If you were in government you would ban free speech, I'm sure of it.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:16:33 UTC No. 16435617
>>16420158
i found your comment humorous due to it's ignorant display of a lack of educated understanding of the geopolitical situation.
it's as if we were having subway syndrome: picture the sliding screen mario push-pull-pop:
you project your finger up your ass meanwhile it's pointed at your head :D
I don't which is what, you have shit for brains or you're making a point at a ho
thank you for your wit.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:22:48 UTC No. 16435621
>>16420727
meanwhile they hire a 100 blueprinters staffing. they commute, staff the blueprints around. complexity is one reason. and then boom, that's not reality. 100 blueprinters doing what? you mean __smoking crack__.
a small team is one.
(troll's advocate from above, I was smiling til' I read your post and found I'm green)
shoot me some info back.
shit's not rocket scients
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:32:19 UTC No. 16435628
>>16420548
i'm above reading.
guess i didn't take it.
enjoying the thread (sorry guys on stilts passi, haven't been posted in like half a year)
sorry my humor sucks '' is 'negative' ... ya
?
i'm just friendly rhetorician subset of logic, $magicians..
anyway
for example is to be expecting: >>16420002
the base schizo broth C.Eng.?
neetb
as i thot 'i'm going to reply to everyone of you' while i choke in aroom down on gagging smoke
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:37:34 UTC No. 16435634
>>16420799
>>16420773
this is good pasta.
ronald mcdonald still getting up everyday to read the newspaper. i find my self sucking OP cocke
make ups one?
though
>>16420766
thx for disgusting science, law, and business talk today.
i will have to analyze and adapt my commenterie for journal and expansion-assimilative set
to note as of date we're posting on a hacker commenterie news site
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:58:03 UTC No. 16435654
>>16418799
The plane was pretty much already designed before they were approached by the CIA. I don't remember which youtube channel it is, but there's a vid of one of the engineers that worked on the engines who said as much while talking to people at an exhibit, anyway. I don't know that it was specifically the Navy that approached them at first. I assume all branches were interested in something that could sustain mach 3 for a ridiculous amount of time at ridiculous altitudes, but the engineer made it sound like they were talking with the Navy first, and when the Navy heard how much it'd cost, they decided they would stick to their other game plans. I'm guessing it also had something to do with runway, hanger, and all the other crazy requirements, too, and that part of it is just the engineer tossing some bants at the Navy.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 03:07:45 UTC No. 16435660
>>16430432
no no you're right.
bastok eats babies
sleep is for babies
lets go to sleep and coffeebalize
i notice i disclaimed my original point while making it
i'm NOW WAKING UP
this post was literall 'extremely? low quality' hiss fine
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 21:01:39 UTC No. 16438622
>>16435654
>The plane was pretty much already designed before they were approached by the CIA
I searched but didn't find any such claims. Also A-12 was a CIA project.
Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 18:05:27 UTC No. 16440070
>>16418457
they built different.
Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 18:26:10 UTC No. 16440116
>>16418457
absolutely based
fuck zoomers
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 00:29:03 UTC No. 16440515
>>16418625
You don't need calculus for proportional design. See the book 'the Stone skeleton' that defends proportional design for nowadays masonry buildings.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 20:03:17 UTC No. 16441619
>>16420158
>Europe is back to being a complete backwater
The Netherlands, with a population of 18 million exports more than the entirety of India. I think Europe's fine lmao.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:22:29 UTC No. 16441859
>>16419797
Jeff Bezos used to preach 'the pizza rule'. >>16420817
NTA but:
Monopolies/big companies usually suffer through market crashes far more than their smaller counterparts. They're rarely one big monolith with a clear and concise structure. Most of the time they'll be a tangled mess of different subsidiaries, departments and a couple random companies in the various stages of a merger. That tangled web leads to a lot of little inefficiencies that will cause a lot of trouble when there isn't infinite free money anymore. One guy died and nobody noticed, one claim he's driving across the EU from Lublin to Barcelona everyday and charges the company for it, another one is a nepo baby and his job is unclear to everyone and so on and so forth. Those little things ad up and are difficult to root out.
They're also very vulnerable to shifting market trends. This is mainly because they're often very vertically integrated so when they launch a new product they need to rework their entire supply chain by themselves while a smaller company will just find a different partner who has what they need. The more you vertically integrate the more you run into the ECP.
That's why they've been lobbying your precious government to continue along the Keynesian path. They're also granted their monopolies by the state thanks to copyright laws and patents.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:28:57 UTC No. 16441869
>>16438622
I found the video, but he was talking specifically about the engine, not the whole plane. Makes sense, given that he worked on designing the engine. I doubt they just designed the engine without designing several air frames. I know the A-12 was CIA. It came before the SR-71. That's a part of the point I was making. It's not as though they designed the thing from scratch in 12 months. It's like saying a new model of car that has had several previous generations already being designed in a few months is astounding.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:32:31 UTC No. 16441960
>>16420002
Monopolies owned by Noble people or all people are likely the best case scenario, it would at least simplify everything I would think in a good way and reduce many manners of waste. As a thought experiment imagine: Thee American Water Company, Thee American Car Company, Thee American Copper Company, Thee American Steel company, Thee American Apple Company, Thee American Computer Company, Thee American Construction Company
Because all these companies would recieve all the money of their associated industries, all spheres of markets would finally be square and cornered, Thee American Car Company would make trucks and sedans and electric vehicles and Lamborghinis and concept cars and custom designs.
People could still start there own boutique car companies with their friends , make and sell cars, I geuss this is where the big problem arises aha,
If people outside of the company come up with a great car design and build a prototype and it's undeniably loved by everyone thus great demand, then that is threatening competition, and so the established giant will try to make some partnership, buy the design, and if the free individual does not want to partner, would there not be great ability to provide an undeniably great partnership with this person, an irrefusable offer, like,"we are so established and able, we will produce all these in demand cars for you, and give you 95% of the profit , I geuss they will have to from the ground up take loans/pre orders to develop a factory to produce the cars.
It is very possible this is wrong, just wondering out loud.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 02:53:35 UTC No. 16442080
>>16441619
Bruh, Amsterdam is majority non white now what are you talking about "exports" for
the Dutch are fucking gone lmao
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:12:19 UTC No. 16444439
>>16421133
>and with that bigness inefficiency creeps in.
Seems also evil slips in. Google had "don't be evil" but they dumped that in favour of money, loads of money. And now the rot has set in.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:30:00 UTC No. 16444843
Have an idea for a business venture tell me if this could work, every day in my small town at a few locations starting at like 7 am or whatever there are an average of 50 or so Spanish guys hoping to be picked up by a contractor to help out on a jobs item.
I must imagine or it seems, a large percentage of them do not get picked up each day.
How many other small and big towns of America does this happen each day, if it's around 1,000, that's around 50,000 men who want to work every day but have no smooth and clear path of doing so.
Find some abandoned malls or something as headquarters, incorporate as The Spanish-American Construction Corps.
And start building a new state of the art city?
New York City and likely all cities were made from scratch by supplying men with jobs who are demanding to work.
If not that maybe there are some other useful projects they can be coordinated to attend to
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:32:20 UTC No. 16444848
>>16444439
>Google had "don't be evil" but they dumped that in favour of money, loads of money. And now the rot has set in.
"Don't be evil" was never a comprehensive enough philosophy to avoid corruption. Evil people don't think they're evil.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:21:22 UTC No. 16444915
>>16421226
>>16418799
>>16421232
>>16421241
The real reason that there's no longer either government interest nor public interest in advancing physics or chemistry and building machines, is because people are afraid of technology now. After the wars of the 20th century people got burned out on progress. Physics and rockets and energy and materials remind people of nuclear bombs, war, pollution, and death. Computers are the only technology that gets a pass in the public consciousness because they aren't ostensibly related to war or pollution and Ted Kaczynsky never wrote about them. That's why computer science is the only field we've managed to advance since the mid 70s.
>All the low hanging fruit has been picked
This just-so explanation doesn't explain the complete sci-fi revolution we've had in computing and AI which is completely contrary to the advancement of every other field. You're just defining computing as having been low-hanging and other things as not having been, based entirely on the fact that computing advanced and the other fields didn't. This assertion might make sense if CS yielded new fruits and other fields didn't with similar levels of funding but that's not true, the revolutions in computing are entirely professional to their funding and interest. Even as late as the 90s nobody had any clue that computer science would yield such fruits, yet at that time it was getting orders of magnitude more interest and funding than physics and chemistry. That is how we know that there is a more fundamental force at play.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:57:04 UTC No. 16444994
>>16421133
>It's interesting that leftists don't bitch about how bad the brain drain is
How could they, or why would they, when leftism is overtly responsible for the phenomenon? Brains drain from more regulated, more taxed socialist countries to less regulated and lower taxed capitalist countries precisely because of those reasons.
Leftists are so opposed to letting you think about this topic that most of them don't even admit that intelligence exists or is quantifiable in the first place.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:40:41 UTC No. 16445050
>>16421226
>The problem is that all the low hanging fruit has been picked.
What about bio and nano tech?
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:45:36 UTC No. 16445064
>>16418457
>Just how in the fuck did they designed this without software of any kind?
you build a little model
put it in a wind tunnel
and then you do that another 15 times or so
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 02:25:24 UTC No. 16445182
>>16444915
Computers are a subtle technology of connectivity, it unites people
Think about before computers, the opportunity for a large number of people to communicate with a large number of people a large number of times. Humanity has never even been able to come close to so being able to speak to itself
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 04:23:22 UTC No. 16445300
>>16445182
That didn't become true until the 2000s for autistic men, and not until the 2010s for normies. Before that, it was largely seen as a niche productivity tool for work, or some kind of weird library.
đď¸ Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:13:41 UTC No. 16445344
>>16445300
Yes and there was some time between the model t and Ferrari,
But as the spirit of the early car wad to drive, and the latter as well
The spirit of the computer is to connect
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:00:32 UTC No. 16445394
>>16445050
>What about bio and nano tech?
by its very nature very high up.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:09:16 UTC No. 16445573
>>16444848
>"Don't be evil" was never a comprehensive enough philosophy to avoid corruption.
Principles are rarely comprehensive, they should be wide in scope and make people stop up and think. Dumping it was indubitably a big, read flag.
> Evil people don't think they're evil.
This is correct, but dumping principles indicate they wanted not to look too closely at the smelly stuff.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:32:13 UTC No. 16445664
at the moment the white faustian man is completely strangled by useless government regulations and even more useless bureaucrats while all the energy is spent on babysitting women, nigger, trannies and jeets.
when we break free things like this will happen again.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 18:14:50 UTC No. 16446111
>>16445664
>completely strangled by useless government regulations
This is the effect of the Iron Law of the Oligarchy. a well known issue. The only known way to reverse this, is civilisation collapse. It might be that the expected WWIII will take care of that.