this post was submitted on
1,043 points (68% like it)
1,916 up votes 873 down votes

space

unsubscribe152,960 readers

~97 users here now

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known". -Carl Sagan

You might also enjoy:

r/starparty

r/nasa

r/astronomy

r/cosmology

r/spaceporn

r/astrophys

r/aerospace

r/spaceflight

/r/spacemusic

/r/SpaceX

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 170 comments

[–]trot-trot[S] 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

United States of America's Space Shuttle Fleet

[–]Tgg161 32 points33 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If NASA takes a group shot, they should leave empty spots for the Challenger and Columbia.

[–]alexs 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They should craftily arrange some stuff out of frame to create shadows for Challenger and Columbia.

[–]gbimmer -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They're not good at the whole shadow thing...

http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-photographic-evidence.html

<tinfoil hat in place. Ready for non-humor-containing people to down-vote me....>

[–]vorpalrobot 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

its not long (4 mins) watch it.

edit: jumped the gun, but leaving link up just because.

[–]gbimmer 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ready for non-humor-containing people to down-vote me....

In other words: it's a joke.

[–]lifeofthunder 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And they should let Enterprise play, too.

[–]Lazrath 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

don't forget the USAF's shuttle

the X-37b; http://i.imgur.com/sU1Wo.jpg

[–]A_plant_uk 74 points75 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fantastic. Utterly beautiful machines. Such a shame they aren't being run any more. We're looking at a graveyard here.

[–]dblan9 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is it true that the Blackbirds had all kinds of problems in general but when flying and going top speed was flawless with no problems?

[–]ImZeke 22 points23 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is a bit of a simplification, but yes. The problems were by design - under extreme temperatures caused by air friction travelling about Mach 3, the metallic components of the aircraft would heat and seal joins that leaked when sitting on the ground. Another interesting little 'tid' is that the titanium components of the airframe actually strengthed over time with use due to the same high temperatures - they effectively 'heat treated' the metal.

[–]the_war_won 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Tempering titanium at supersonic speeds. That's some extreme metalworking.

[–]eidetic 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

From wikipedia:

Titanium was difficult to work with, expensive, and scarce. Initially, 80% of the titanium delivered to Lockheed was rejected due to metallurgical contamination.[26][27] One example of the difficulties of working with titanium is that welds made at certain times of the year were more durable than welds made at other times. It was found that the manufacturing plant's water came from one reservoir in the summer and another in the winter; the slight differences in the impurities in the water from these sources led to differences in the durability of the welds, since water was used to cool the titanium welds.

Also, Lockheed pioneered the use of titanium in aircraft design for the SR-71, which went on to be used in other aircraft. Before the SR-71, titanium was used sparingly on aircraft, but is used quite a bit on most modern fighters.

[–]dblan9 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you for clearing that up. That is unbelievably genius design. How cool that must have been to fly that for the first time.

[–]muteterror 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think what you and A_Plant_UK are referring to is that the SR-71 leaked fuel while stationary and while in flight until friction from high speed flight caused the metal in the aircraft to expand sealing the holes, I believe it was common place for them to take off with a full fuel load then once they were up to speed refuel in flight then get to work.

[–]masklinn 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is it true that the Blackbirds had all kinds of problems in general

They were not problems since they were by design. Though they were strange behavior for a "normal" plane. Which the blackbird never was.

[–][deleted] 52 points53 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Such a shame they aren't being run any more

Not really. They're entirely obsolete, insanely expensive to run, and they required such loose tolerances that they leaked fuel constantly.

We can do what the SR-71 did faster, better, cheaper, and safer now that we have advanced spy satellites.

[–]A_plant_uk 41 points42 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree, in terms of cost etc. I still wish they were around, or a direct descendant of them anyway. I find it's a similar feeling to the shuttle. A magnificent piece of technology and innovation for the time, decommissioned and consigned to history. It's for the best, but my rose tinted brain would enjoy seeing those beasts in flight. Irrational, but then I guess emotion is.

[–]orange_kevin 33 points34 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And whilst we're at it: Concorde!

[–]A_plant_uk 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Shit yeah, that plane had some serious life left in it. It's a shame the crash had not been foreseen from an engineering point of view, and that the crash destroyed all confidence from the public. Damn sound barrier, I shall never break you now!

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

and that the crash destroyed all confidence from the public

It was an excuse to get rid of them because they were so expensive.

[–]A_plant_uk 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't want to agree with you, but I reckon that was part of it too.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know it sucks :( but look at other amazing feats that do make a profit. Like the A-380, that thing is amazing!

[–]A_plant_uk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is one beast indeed. A piece of engineering that has the kind of stats that are great for a pub quiz. Or top trumps.

[–]Tyler5280 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Virgin Galactic yo.

[–]A_plant_uk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I knew that 200 grand would come in handy!

[–]keiyakins 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Also, airships!

[–]S7evyn 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If it makes you feel better, the B-52 is expected to be in service until the 2040's, so that's 85 years of service. It owes it's longevity to JDAMs though.

[–]buggereet 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ah, the old "you're a robot" defense. /s

[–]ghpowers 30 points31 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We can do what the SR-71 did faster, better, cheaper, and safer now that we have advanced spy satellites.

From Wikipedia:

It may take 24 hours before a satellite is in proper orbit to photograph a particular target, far longer than a reconnaissance plane. Spy planes can provide the most current intelligence information and collect it when lighting conditions are optimum. The fly-over orbit of spy satellites may also be predicted and can allow the enemy to hide assets when they know the satellite is above, a drawback spy planes lack.

So there are still many reasons why spy planes are the better option. Not saying that the Blackbird is the best option with UAV technology what it is. But satellites aren't always the best option or even an option at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Succession

[–]another_user_name 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's also the hybrid option, such as the X-37

[–]alle0441 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Quick comment: We still use U-2's for an almost constant presence in a few places in the world. They aren't predicted to die until a comparable UAV is developed.

[–]TomOwens 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My understanding is that the Global Hawk was supposed to be that UAV, but it didn't quite work out that way. I'm not sure why, but I've read about Global Hawk as the successor to the U-2 in a number of articles.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]eidetic 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Damn it. I really wished you hadn't included that last line. Now I really want to know what that one capability is.

On a side note, I keep forgetting just how big the Global Hawk is. It's almost 20 feet shorter, but has a wingspan about 14 feet longer than the U2.

[–]TomOwens 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know. It looks so small in pictures. Until you put a point of reference next to it, such as a person or another aircraft.

[–]mbrodge 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, I've got a picture of myself standing in front of one in the hangar that they took for the base paper when I made Centurion. It really puts the thing in perspective. A lot bigger than most people think, especially when they hear the term UAV. They tend to picture a large RC airplane with a camera.

[–]TomOwens 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's interesting. I'm actually working in the defense industry on ISR systems now. Hearing and reading what people say about various capabilities is very interesting, although not a lot can be discussed outside of work. Honestly, I think it would be nice if UAVs can someday replace most, if not all, manned flights.

[–]mbrodge 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know, there are a lot of us that feel that way. We've had a handful of U2 pilots die for various reasons over the years, and it would be great if we never had to face that sort of tragedy again.

[–]TomOwens 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I feel really lucky to be involved in this kind of work. I just graduated in May, and I've had 3 summer jobs and 2 co-ops in the defense industry, ranging from supporting research at the AFRL to working on software for cutting edge ISR sensors at my current job. I've had the opportunity to meet people in the military and federal law enforcement who use the technology that I've touched, and it's so rewarding to hear them talk about how the technology I've been a part of making has helped them achieve their mission in ways that are better, faster, and safer than before. It's why I kept coming back to defense - you don't get this feeling of pride and accomplishment anywhere else, I don't think.

[–]mbrodge 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've worked with Predator, Global Hawk, U2, TARS, and a couple other things. I'm not sure what exactly you've worked on, but chances are pretty good that I've used it to kill a terrorist or two at some point in the last decade.

[–]Already__Taken 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's probably weapons that can hit the things now though.

[–]auandi 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They still fly the U-2 but there's also the theory that since the SR-71 wasn't public initially there may be a successor yet to be made public.

Edit: or as another_user_name pointed out there's also the x-37 which is quite a bit faster.

[–]nothas 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not really. They're entirely obsolete, insanely expensive to run, and they required such loose tolerances that they leaked fuel constantly.

BUT THEY LOOK SO COOL. this negates anything else you mentioned

[–]auandi 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's why we still have the F-22 despite their difficulty flying in the rain and having never been used in the 20 years we have had them!

[–]bananapeel 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To be fair, a constellation of spy satellites isn't cheap either. But they are almost entirely one-shot expenses. Most of the money is spent up front and you're done.

[–]hardwired99 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What does loose tolerances mean?

[–]alexs 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Because of the high speeds this plane achieved, it would heat up a lot during flight. This meant various bits of it expanded a lot, so much so that they had to design in all kinds of gaps and overlapping bits which would expand and close up when the plane was actually flying. One by-product of this was that the plane leaked fuel while it was waiting to take off.

[–]masterofshadows 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It leaked so much fuel it had to be refueled immediately after takeoff.

[–]parimm 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Source?

[–]masterofshadows 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sourced. This is just what i found after a quick googling, I read it somewhere else but honesly who remembers the exact source of every bit of trivia they read?

[–]bobandy47 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I like how people are too lazy to confirm or reject the information themselves, instead using one word answers to get someone else to do the work and not read the outcome either...

[–]masterofshadows 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While unfortunate, don't take it to mean everyone is that way. Otherwise you'll be falling victim to confirmation bias, as the only comments you'll see are ones asking for a source.

[–]sigmaecho 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"To allow for thermal expansion at the high operational temperatures, the fuselage panels were manufactured to fit only loosely on the ground. Proper alignment was only achieved when the airframe heated due to air resistance at high speeds, causing the airframe to expand several inches. Because of this, and the lack of a fuel sealing system that could handle the thermal expansion of the airframe at extreme temperatures, the aircraft would leak JP-7 jet fuel onto the runway before it took off. The aircraft would quickly make a short sprint, meant to warm up the airframe, and was then refueled in the air before departing on its mission. Cooling was carried out by cycling fuel behind the titanium surfaces at the front of the wings (chines). On landing after a mission the canopy temperature was over 300 °C (572 °F), too hot to approach. Non-fibrous asbestos with high heat tolerance was used in high-temperature areas.[20]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

[–]llamagoelz 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

in engineering and aerospace especially there are very tight tolerances (±0.2 mm or tens thousandths of an inch) set on how close a part needs to be to its proper dimensions so that they go together correctly and fit snug/function properly. if a part doesnt fit within the tolerance set for its dimensions then it is often destroyed and a new one is made. this is expensive and time consuming so some projects will sacrifice efficiency by loosening the tolerances on their parts. my father works for a company that creates extremely tight tolerance parts for the military and aerospace business and he actually does the quality checking with coordinate measuring machines, its pretty neat but also stressful.

[–]martinw89 7 points8 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is the correct answer. The blackbird most likely had VERY tight tolerances. It did of course have loosely fitted parts though. Everyone else in this thread is confusing fit and tolerance.

[–]jeanpicard 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think loose tolerance means what you think it means.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You mean parts that don't mesh together in a firm and consistent manner? I think I know exactly what it means.

[–]ImZeke -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We can do what the SR-71 did faster, better, cheaper, and safer now that we have advanced spy satellites.

I don't see how you can possibly say that with any sense of dignity, given that the cost of a spy satellite and the cost of the SR-71 have neither ever been disclosed.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't see how you can possibly say that with any sense of dignity

The SR-71 is an expensive spy plane that requires us to violate sovereign air space to get photos of things we can get at much higher clarity with spy satellites without going into enemy territory and without risking any personnel.

[–]GrippingHand 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not disagreeing, but I think it's funny that the answer to violating sovereign air space is just to increase altitude.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]walrusii -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was going to downvote for too much boldness and caps lock. But I'm refraining because of "THE TURTH IS KNOWN TO MEEEE!!!"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well... if you argue semantics... you could argue that your country ends where the atmosphere ends. So by putting a robot into space it's more like spying across a border rather than actually BEING in the country.

[–]kilo4fun 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The atmosphere doesn't really have an end.

[–]TheDrBrian 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The nice thing about the SR 71 was that you didn't know it was coming. You can work out exactly when a satellite will be overhead and hide all of your shit.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Which is why we had the Space Shuttle. It was originally developed for military purposes. You could send up a shuttle with a "science payload" and send that payload into any orbit you wanted to without the Soviets knowing exactly where it was.

We also have Geostationary satellites that can just sit and watch one part of Russia, so in all. It works out as a better solution.

[–]ImZeke -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

and send that payload into any orbit you wanted

You absolutely could not.

We also have Geostationary satellites that can just sit and watch one part of Russia,

No we didn't. The orbit of a GEO satellite reaches up to the tens of thousands of miles. Camera resolution would be junk at that distance. Surveillance satellites go in LEO.

[–]alexs 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The SR-71 is an expensive spy plane that requires us to violate sovereign air space

"Sovereign air space" is an arbitrary political by product of various treaties. Being really really really high up doesn't somehow absolve you of being a douchebag just because no one ever wrote it on a bit of paper.

[–]ImZeke -4 points-3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The SR-71 is an expensive spy plane that requires us to violate sovereign air space to get photos of things we can get at much higher clarity with spy satellites without going into enemy territory and without risking any personnel.

Ah, so the answer is "I have no supporting information." Thanks for being upfront about it.

EDIT: Since you're unwilling to defend your position I will come out and say it. You are almost certainly wrong about the relative costs and capabilities. We rarely, if ever, have a spy satellite in position exactly when requires; cloud cover and other atmospheric factors can dramatically impact the quality of photos taken. The cost of an SR-71 mission is probably less than the cost of the fuel it takes to reposition a satellite. Your safety concern is conceptually a good one, but given that no one has come close to shooting down an SR-71 and there were no mission accidents I can't say it's backed up by reality.

Do you know what agency has the largest budget, out of the entire intelligence community? The NRO. (The agency that designs, builds and launches spy satellites).

[–]AcMav 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem is that Russian Technology caught up. A Mig-25 has been clocked going Mach 3.2, only slightly slower than a SR-71. The Mig carries R-40R Missiles which can travel 37 Miles at Mach 4.5. Given this fighter configuration I'd like to see you try and fly a SR-71 over Russia these days (They use a Mig-31 currently which is capable of Mach 2.81 Sustained, but has power/weight to go faster if you're gutsy) without losses. These technologies were designed to counter the SR-71 and the XB-70A Valkyrie specifically. The 71 is most definitely obsolete against Russian targets and Allies even though she and the Valkyrie are beautiful airframes.

[–]ImZeke 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem is that Russian Technology caught up.

You make an excellent argument. There really is no way we can provide effective overhead support to our tens of thousands of men in uniform deployed in Russia.

Further, the crucial capability of the Sr-71 is not speed but altitude - which the Foxbat cannot achieve. Further, you site classified performance numbers of the -71. If you can provide me with an official citation for those figures I'd be happy to consider them. Otherwise, you're making stuff up.

[–]AcMav 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maximum Speed of SR-71 is Mach 3.3 with a Service Ceiling of 80,000 Ft.

Maximum Speed of Mig-25 is Mach 3.2 with a Service Ceiling of 68,000 Ft up to 80,000 Ft for the unarmed variant. Therefore its conceivable to fire a R-40 at 68,000 Ft and hit your target SR-71 flying at 80,000 Ft (2.27 miles up) without even challenging the design limitations of the missile.

I will concede however that the main challenge to taking down one of these jets is response time. In the time that it takes you to scramble and get a Mig-25 or Mig-31 airborne the Sr-71 is going to be putting a large distance between you and it.

[–]trekkie00 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 during this period. The MiG-25 overspeeded its engines, which led to their later destruction.

The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, with typical intercept speeds near Mach 2.5 in order to extend the service life of the engines.

You could catch up in a Mig-25, but chances are you'd destroy its engines in the process. I've also heard rumors about the SR-71 surpassing that speed (from stuff written by their pilots), so it's quite possible they could still outrun them.

[–]ImZeke 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What would be the point of chasing an SR-71 with an unarmed plane? Scrap book photos?

[–]Already__Taken 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

At the time, They might not be aware if the Mig can catch up with a missile or not. Might not chance it and abort.

[–]Already__Taken -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm also not convinced the guidance systems on the missiles are able to account for being fired from a moving target at mach 3.2 to hit something at 3.3 over at the very least 12,000 ft of altitude and whatever distance.

Not including acceleration because I've no idea how you'd add that.

The r-40 goes 5023.8 ft./s amazingly just shy of 1 mi/s (5280 ft.)

from wikipedia, its max range is 37mi and this assumes they don't have to give up any max speed for this, So that's 195360 ft.

sr-71 is 3684.1 ft/s at 80,000 ft which is 12,000 ft above a mig-25 at 3572.5 ft/s at 68,000ft.

Mach 1 = 1,116.4[3701] feet per second = [rounded off.]

R-40 is 5023.8ft/s that closes on the sr-71 at 1339.7 ft/s. It can do this for 38.88 seconds (max Range / top speed = flight time. 195360 / 5023.8 = 38.88)

1339.7 * 38.88 = 52,087.5 ft closer the r-40 can catch up by. If the mig 25 is within 50686 ft or 9.6mi or the SR-71 the R-40 has enough fuel to hit the blackbird. It's not 52087 as remember there's at best 12ft vertically is has to make up. Triangles and all that.

Bare in mind 2 planes chasing each other the sr-71 is 111.6 ft. further away every second.

Basically to catch one they have to keep a MIG in the air at ALL times and in interception range. I don't know how long it takes to get one to 68k ft. I was going to see if their radar gives them enough warning to get a mig to altitude but I guess they can monitor that from anywhere so I don't know really.

No I won't work out how far away they have to be head on. My guess is quite a lot. But if the SR-71 turns it can probably easily avoid the missile. They can tell if they've got radars looking at them so they know if there's a missile lock.

[–]AerialAmphibian 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A Mig-25 has been clocked going Mach 3.2

Very briefly and at a high cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-25

With a top speed of Mach 2.83+ (as high as Mach 3.2, but only risking significant damage and destruction of the engines)...

As someone pointed out already, by the time any MiG-25s take off and reach their top altitude an SR-71 could have left the country. The Blackbird has the advantages of higher altitude and sustained Mach 3+ speed. The Foxbat can't match either, and the window of opportunity for its missiles to catch the Blackbird is pretty narrow.

I'm sure that modern Russian interceptors can do better than the Foxbat, but since the SR-71 was decommissioned this is a moot point.

[–]Linlea 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Indeed

expensive to run

the cost of a spy satellite and the cost of the SR-71 have neither ever been disclosed.

an expensive spy plane ... violate sovereign air space ... lower clarity images ... risk to personnel

That's a simple repetition of the previous claim (ignoring the counterargument) and an additional few assertions along completely different lines. Not quite a change of position but something very similar, which is often the sign of a weak argument

[–]ImZeke -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's a simple repetition of the previous claim

The argument was not "nuh-uh, the SR-71 is less expensive" the argument was "You have no evidence for your claims; the data indicates you are wrong." I make no apologies for your lack of reading comprehension.

[–]Linlea 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm afraid you've misunderstood my comment.

Indeed

This means I am agreeing with you. It works like this: you say something (i.e. your previous comment) and I say "indeed" i.e. "**truly* (used for emphasis, to confirm and amplify a previous statement, ...)*"

So I'm agreeing with you and then also pointing out that the person you are replying to has simply repeated their claim without bothering to provide any response to your very valid counter claim (that it isn't expensive, relatively speaking) and has also expanded their claims in a direction that is significantly different to their previous points (something that usually indicates they have conceded the point that was being countered: i.e that it isn't that expensive after all, as you say)

I make no apologies for your lack of reading comprehension

Nor would anyone expect you to. Making such an obvious and redundant statement is really an excuse (a pretension, a fabrication) used to accuse me of a lack of reading comprehension and is a particularly terrible form of argumentation. It's devious, essentially. You're pretending that some apology is required or is asked for just so you can tell someone their reading comprehension is lacking. If you truly believe someone's reading comprehension is lacking you should just tell them it is, instead of going to the effort of dressing it up into a pretentious apology refusal. Of course that would make you look like a crude and unsophisticated person: someone that goes around insulting other people for no good reason, so you have had to dress it up as a response to some unasked apology.

As a side point, can you see the irony in your comment about my reading comprehension when in fact it was you that had misunderstood my comment?

[–]SeriousDude 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

yes i also want to see more spying...

[–]A_plant_uk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If it's good spying, you'll never know....

[–]SeriousDude 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh those pesky Russians are on it again ?

[–]A_plant_uk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Shh, we might be being watched.

[–]hosk 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Scumbag USAF.

Untouchable spyplane.

Retires entire fleet.

[–]imitokay 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wow, people over use that meme ...

The SR-71 was retired because it has been replaced by UAVs (see RQ-4 Global Hawk) and satellites. There is nothing scumbag about retiring a retardly expensive aircraft whose job can be performed cheaper/better in other ways.

[–]lotionsandcreams 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah but uav's only show where the enemy is and has about a 3 second delay or so.

with the SR-71 you get REAL TIME MOVEMENT, and what direction they're facing!!!!!!!!

:D

[–]imitokay 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Haha, just call in the dogs- they don't need silly UAV

[–]lotionsandcreams 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't like calling in dogs because people shoot them and all I see are my hard working dead puppies strewn about :(

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I suppose you would also like to kill all of the swans because canadian geese are more effective at filling the park with bird shit. Swans being beautiful birds are not a consideration.

[–]Plutoid 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Taxpayer here. Kindly STFU. Our military spending is so comically overblown it's insane. I don't dog on any attempt by the military when it comes to cost cutting. (Except for body armor and humvee doors, oc.)

[–]PirateMud 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A lot of savings have already been made by using effectively slave labour to produce body armour and helmets for the US military.

[–]TexasTaxes -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[Citation needed]

[–]PirateMud 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is the company/government body that is responsible for it. It is fundamentally slave labour, as the rate of pay is of the oder of 25¢/hour, without all the usual worker's benefits (pension, etc).

This is where I heard of what I'm talking about, and a simple google search of 'us prison labor' will show you many other sources from varying political positions (I refrained from posting a 'workers world link because it was so extremely left it would obviously be biased against the US Government), and so on.

[–]Plutoid 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Okay, almost any attempt. Thanks for that, PirateMud.

[–]Nozkin 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That picture gave me shivers. I've just resolved to see one of those in the flesh before the year is over.

[–]GargamelCuntSnarf 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The air & space museum near Omaha has one hanging in the foyer, just in case you happen to live in that vast expanse of nothingness from New York to California.

[–]Nozkin 29 points30 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nope, I'm English. By some very convenient coincidence I've just found out they have one at Duxford Air Museum, which is about half an hour from my university and I was planning on going at some point anyway. Fuck yeah.

EDIT: Fuck me, the only one outside of the States, 10 miles away. How lucky is that?

[–]GargamelCuntSnarf 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fuck yeah indeed.

This photo was some serious geekporn for me. It really kicks ass that you can see them up close.

Did you ever read this story? It was posted a few weeks ago, but it's been around forever.

[–]Clocked 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Love that story, I read it every time it's posted, cheers :)

[–]hairyknuckle 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's pretty awesome. There's one about an hour away from me.

This story from a pilot is good as well.

[–]ImZeke 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Anyone who posts that link gets an upvote.

[–]peggs82 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've never understood why that book is so damn expensive? I would buy it in a heartbeat...

[–]hairyknuckle 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wish his book was a regular ol' thing I could pick up at a store :(

[–]PirateMud 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Duxford is expensive entry, but well worth it. Also fairly local to you is the Shuttleworth Collection, for some old stuff that is actually flown and isn't just a static display piece. Check it out some time.

[–]trekkie00 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's also a couple in the National Museum of the US Air Force near Dayton, Ohio - one SR-71 in the Cold War gallery and one YF-12 in the "Research and Development" hanger.

[–]trot-trot[S] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]blackeagle613 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just saw one recently at the air and space museum near Dulles. Absolutely amazing as was seeing the space shuttle enterprise, concorde, and dozens of other planes.

[–]OompaOrangeFace 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was in Southern California last year and saw five of them in one day without even specifically looking for them. It was crazy.

[–]MikeVail 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I had a chance to see one fly at a air show in California. It never landed but did a few flyovers and on the last one hit the afterburners and went straight up. It was gone in seconds and I am sure it wasn't using 100% of its power.

[–]unbuklethis 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's an A-12, its predecessor on display here in San Diego, at the Air & Space museum.

[–]THE_PUN_STOPS_HERE 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I saw an A-12 on the USS Intrepid in New York. Amazing plane, you're looking around at all these typical fighter jets and helicopters, and then looming in the corner is an amazingly slim, totally black plane that is way longer than you expect. That and the Concorde are the coolest things there.

[–]LeRenard 8 points9 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Minor nit-pick: Those aren't all SR-71s.. I'm pretty sure at least the one in the front left is an A-12.

Edit: It counts, but I wanted to point out the SR-71B from Dryden in the rear center.. two canopies.

[–]retrogamer500 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm pretty sure at least the one in the front left is an A-12.

Looks more like a blackbird to me (notice the extra set of windows for the second crewman).

[–]Nozkin 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think you're right; it's subtle but it's in the shape of the nose. Also, the one at the very back is an A12 as well.

[–]danteferno 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Los Angeles Center reported receiving a request for clearance to FL 60 (60,000ft). The incredulous controller, with some disdain in his voice, asked, "How do you plan to get up to 60,000 feet?"

"The pilot (obviously a sled driver), responded, "We don't plan to go up to it, we plan to go down to it."

He was cleared...

[–]fireinthesky7 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is nothing short of aeronautical pornography.

[–]trot-trot[S] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

22 U.S. Navy F-14D Super Tomcats, shortly before their retirement, staged for launch (via) aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) in the Atlantic Ocean on 10 March 2006.

[–]gbimmer 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I just saw one in person at the Dulles Smithsonian on Sunday. Pics are at home. I'll post up a thread one of these days with the 120 pics I took around the whole gammit there.

Also got pics of the shuttle, lunar lander, Enola Gay, and about 300 other aircraft and spacecraft of various sorts.

The thing I found interesting was that the SR-71 wasn't as big as I had thought it would be, the Shuttle is fuckin' massive, and our fighter jets are about 30% larger than I thought they were. At the same time there have been some really, really small aircraft built over the years. Planes that I seriously doubt I could fit in (6', 200 lbs).

[–]Celsius1414 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I got the opportunity in the late 80s to walk around inside the Shuttle buildings at Vandenberg -- talk about perspective!

[–]Tgg161 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Love that museum. Pro tip: they stop charging the ridiculous parking fee after 4:15pm.

[–]walrusii 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I saw this link and took a moment to think about whether someone at NASA would actually see this post on reddit and try to make the request happen. I came to the conclusion that even if someone from NASA saw it they wouldn't be high enough level to have any pull. After considering all this I realized that I am the person who works at NASA and who doesn't have any pull to try to make this happen. Perspective, man.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The guy who thought up Lunar Orbit Rendezvous didn't have any pull, either. We got to the moon his way because he had to guts to tug at a bunch of strings. Go to your boss, his boss, and so forth until you get an audience with Charles Bolden!

[–]Cheesejaguar 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, it's not like I can do anything from my intern desk in the basement of some building at ARC. :-(

[–]exxocet[!] 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One day, high above Arizona, we were monitoring the radio traffic of all the mortal airplanes below us. First, a Cessna pilot asked the air traffic controllers to check his ground speed. "Ninety knots", the ATC replied. A twin Bonanza soon made the same request. "One-twenty on the ground", was the reply.

To our surprise, a navy F-18 came over the radio with a ground speed check. I knew exactly what he was doing. Of course, he had a ground speed indicator in his cockpit, but he wanted to let all the bug-smashers in the valley know what real speed was. "Dusty 52, we show you at 620 on the ground", the ATC responded.

The situation was too ripe. I heard the click of Walter's mike button in the rear seat. In his most innocent voice, Walter startled the controller by asking for a ground speed check from 81,000 feet, clearly above controlled airspace. In a cool, professional voice, the controller replied, "Aspen 20, I show you at 1,982 knots on the ground."

We did not hear another transmission on that frequency all the way to the coast.

  • SR-71 pilot from brian shul

[–]mexicodoug -1 points0 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We did not hear another transmission on that frequency all the way to the coast.

So, uh, how long did it take you to get to the coast, and by the way, which coast are you talking about? From Arizona you could have reached the nearest Arctic coast significantly sooner than the nearest Antarctic coast.

[–]exxocet[!] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"On a typical training mission, we would take off near Sacramento, refuel over Nevada, accelerate into Montana, obtain high Mach over Colorado, turn right over New Mexico, speed across the Los Angeles Basin, run up the West Coast, turn right at Seattle, then return to Beale. Total flight time: two hours and 40 minutes"

[–]mexicodoug -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's a long way around to mention the Pacific coast of the lower 48 in the USA. Still, they could have gotten to the Sea of Cortez a lot faster, and not much longer to the go the other direction to the Gulf of Mexico, and not much longer after that to get to the Atlantic coast.

Thanks for the downvote, by the way. Especially after having provided appropriate context or citation in your original comment, NOT.

Original comment from exxocet:

One day, high above Arizona, we were monitoring the radio traffic of all the mortal airplanes below us. First, a Cessna pilot asked the air traffic controllers to check his ground speed. "Ninety knots", the ATC replied. A twin Bonanza soon made the same request. "One-twenty on the ground", was the reply.

To our surprise, a navy F-18 came over the radio with a ground speed check. I knew exactly what he was doing. Of course, he had a ground speed indicator in his cockpit, but he wanted to let all the bug-smashers in the valley know what real speed was. "Dusty 52, we show you at 620 on the ground", the ATC responded.

The situation was too ripe. I heard the click of Walter's mike button in the rear seat. In his most innocent voice, Walter startled the controller by asking for a ground speed check from 81,000 feet, clearly above controlled airspace. In a cool, professional voice, the controller replied, "Aspen 20, I show you at 1,982 knots on the ground."

We did not hear another transmission on that frequency all the way to the coast.

SR-71 pilot from brian shul

WTF coast were you talking about again???

[–]exxocet[!] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

SR-71 pilot from brian shul

not appropriate citation? try google aspen 20 and brian shul im sure ur a big boy, its a nice relevant story with enough citation to trace its origin i was not aware that the internet required oxford referencing style

it wasnt my downvote - but this one is

go fuck yourself (exxocet 2011)

[–]mexicodoug -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

try google aspen 20 and brian shul im sure ur a big boy,

Can you even speak English? It's a language, you fucking ignorant piece of shit!

[–]exxocet[!] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

speak or write?

i am unable to converse in the language adequately, but write it well enough to piss you off

faget

[–]jesse060 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's so sad to see the space shuttles right now :(.

[–]BZWingZero 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Umm, yeah. Pretty sure it gets disassembled that far after almost every flight. I know the OMS pods and the nose assembly get removed along with the engines, and the windows covered each time. They just don't normally bring it out of the OPF until all of it is reinstalled. The "missing" pieces are just left out a little longer this time because all of the toxic chemicals (especially the hypergolic fuels) are being completely cleaned out of the propulsion system. Which, coincidentally, is located in the removed sections.

Except for the engines, everything will be put back in place once its thoroughly decontaminated. The engines are being saved for "possible future applications" like the SLS.

[–]eidetic 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Man, either the Shuttle is larger than I thought, or the Millennium Falcon is incredibly small. I also didn't know the Shuttle had a docking port for the Millennium Falcon. (Last pic)

[–]hbx09 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]ImZeke 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Too late. They've already sent off the first one to museum.

[–]Cyrius 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Too late. They've already sent off the first one to museum.

[Citation needed]

I can find no source saying delivery of Discovery to the Smithsonian has happened. This video has a NASA spokesperson saying the target date is April 12.

[–]gbimmer 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

During reconnaissance missions the SR-71 operated at high speeds and altitudes to allow it to outrace threats. If a surface-to-air missile launch was detected,** the standard evasive action was simply to accelerate and outrun the missile**.

I'm sorry but that's just fuckin' awesome. Nothing any of the detractors say can overcome how awesome that single sentence is. Nothing.

....except, perhaps, if we have an even more awesome plane that isn't known to the public yet. If so then that's the only way to out-awesome that sentence.

[–]DeFex 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

what is that red line they have down the side for?

[–]ImZeke 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's to indicate the flow direction of awesomeness.

[–]doitlive 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't step past this line. Seriously.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yep.

The red stripes on some SR-71s are to prevent maintenance workers damaging the skin. The curved skin near the center of the fuselage is thin and delicate. There is no support underneath with exception of the structural ribs, which are spaced several feet apart.

[–]ufoNtexas 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Its pretty messed up that Houston is not getting one of the shuttles. Mission control should account for something.

[–]Gardimus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Does anyone else suspect that these planes went somewhat faster than mach 3.3?

[–]dearastronomer 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wouldn't be hard to model it with today's computers. Thing was designed in the late 50's.

[–]ipainton 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I may be misinformed. I thought that the Air Force photographers took this photo. Either way its beautiful.

[–]Cheesejaguar 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can't recall, but I seem to remember there aren't actually 3 space shuttles. There are like 3 bodies that constantly have parts swapped between them, including the OMS and main engines.

[–]quesarah 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That sounds right. The main engines are removed and replaced between launches... Er, were. I think they're already off Endeavour and Discovery.

[–]MrAlexSan 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I just posted this on Twitter. If you guys have a Twitter please do the same. If we can get enough tweets to them, or get enough people on board with us, we might just persuade them to do it!

Hey NASA! @NASA @Lori_Garver Do this please. http://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/j6kps/dear_nasa_please_take_lots_of_very_highquality/

[–]I-Play-Drums 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not 100% sure NASA reads Reddit during their meetings to look for suggestions...

[–]TGMais 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not 100% sure they don't!

[–]hoyfkd 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And I want poses damn it. Just like a Sears photographer.

Maybe Atlantis should put it's rear landing gear down, and Discovery should lean to the left with it's wing under.....

[–]errorflux 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I hope they do, too!

[–]Syben 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you are ever in Palmdale California out near Edwards AFB, there is a free to enter outdoors exhibit called Blackbird Park. They have an SR-71 an A-12 and a U-2 along with many other amazing planes in good condition. The planes are in touching distance and you really get a feel for the amazing craftsmanship. More INFO!

[–]Levy_Wilson 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What about the test shuttle Enterprise? And perhaps some shots of the memorials for the Challenger and Columbia?

[–]mexicodoug 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I always upvote clusterfucks.

[–]Synux 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is a beautiful request.

[–]xclapcorex 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think NASA already spent enough money on making all those hi-res movie posters for every shuttle launch.

[–]willsword 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's probably the highest ratio of money per cubic foot of space you'll see in one place.

[–]thegauntlet 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So many of these look like A-12's. I only see one that I can confirm is a SR-71 in this shot and that is the far middle one. Notice the raised second seat? All SR-71's had this. The earlier and top secret A-12 did not.

[–]jsbarone -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is it bothering anyone else that the shadows aren't centered properly?

[–]Benny_the_Jew -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can't they just photoshop them?