Not a problem. This illustrates the difficulty with assessing history, in that much of history in modern times is partitioned among specialty communities. The reader of Popular Science might have known. The reader of Redbook almost certainly would not have known. And now that there is a proliferation of internet topic channels and podcasts, awareness is even more fragmented.
Just trundle out the old bat-signal and I will arrive to save the day!
Love the sense of humor bro. The point I was getting at tho (of which I failed) was we went from the right brothers to the moon landing in about 50 years ,our propulsion tech has stagnated and we carry super computers in our pockets that make the 60s NASA computers look like building sized calculators. I believe questioning where we are with defense SAPs and pontificating are duly warranted
You are not looking at the circumstances of history. Early aviation was simple technology and progress was straightforward. World War I provided a big push in airplane development. Then the shadow of the impending World War II started another big push that continued through the war, and was also pushed by the Cold War. World War II also pushed rocketry, and especially also in the Cold War. As part of the Cold War, NASA was formed along with the manned space program, and we went to the Moon as a major national political goal. Once attained, the public lost interest in being on the Moon and Congress saw no further point. The funding dropped and NASA begged for money with which to develop the Space Shuttle, which was still a major propulsion push. Lots of Shuttle missions. Then the Soviet Union collapsed and there was no major political reason to develop anything better than the Shuttle. We diverted interest into the international Space Station. Then the Shuttle killed a second crew and was retired. No more money for propulsion. On the side, Elon Musk came along with his aggressive approach to commercial space launch---and indigenous rocket engine production, and propulsion development resumed under his hands.
Promising technology using nuclear energy was dabbled in, but deemed politically unattractive, so no funding. You can't build what you don't pay to develop. Plenty of sophisticated work on ion engines for satellite orbit adjustment, but they don't make for dramatic videos.
So, you are mistaken in your assessment, by simply omitting everything that has happened since Apollo. it all hinges on whether it is being paid for. And whether there is any expertise left out there after the funding droughts. It is commonplace to "lose" technology if the people who create and produce it are not replenished, generation after generation. People get impatient and leave for greener pastures because they have a family to feed. People retire, and die. Business executives think you grow technology like wheat, just plow and harvest. No big deal. They don't understand that there is a wealth of detailed knowledge that must be maintained, or you lose your grip. Like Boeing. It used to be an actual leader in the field, and now it is struggling through Space Capsule 101.
Special Access Programs? Nobody knows shit about them, and there is no legitimacy in speculating that they are magic. I've been in them. They are technical as hell, just on things they don't want the public to know about for the sake of operational security. No new physics. Pontificating? On the basis of what? Wishful thinking? A very worthless distraction from reality.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. The SR-71 came out of the Skunkworks. None of the space programs that I mentioned had Lockheed as a prime contractor.
Very thoughtful assessment I must say. Blaming funding or lack there of is just an excuse IMHO. Funding has never been a problem for government programs that line the pockets of the biggest contractors involved.
I'm now thinking the blackbird was leaked to provide cover for a new project .
You've heard of the tictac uap I'm sure .
That project goes back to 1967 and I don't think you read about it in popular science.
In your business "compartmentalization"is an unescapable reality that keeps you busy busy busy but in the dark .
The space program funding was all out in the open. The budgets were debated in Congress. Major programs have been terminated, to the contractor's distress. The SST (Boeing) was canceled. The F-22 (Lockheed/Boeing) was canceled. The Space Shuttle (Boeing/Rockwell) was retired. The X-33 (Lockheed) was canceled before completion. The YAL-1A (Boeing/Lockheed) was canceled. I could go on, but my point is that you are wrong in saying "funding has never been a problem for government programs." The Blackbird was public knowledge before 1970; what "new project"? Then along came the F-117, disclosed around the time of the Gulf War. Clever, but not alien technology.
Where did you read that the "tictac" UFO was a project, going back to 1967? Nobody knows what the "tictac" is, or even if it was real. You can't explain the inexplicable by inventing a pipe dream. And it amuses me to see how people can expound in such a lofty way about compartmentalized activities---that they haven't been part of. I have been part of them. There is no alien technology, only clever work. So, don't bother to look down. All you will see is my bald spot.
Not a problem. This illustrates the difficulty with assessing history, in that much of history in modern times is partitioned among specialty communities. The reader of Popular Science might have known. The reader of Redbook almost certainly would not have known. And now that there is a proliferation of internet topic channels and podcasts, awareness is even more fragmented.
Just trundle out the old bat-signal and I will arrive to save the day!
Love the sense of humor bro. The point I was getting at tho (of which I failed) was we went from the right brothers to the moon landing in about 50 years ,our propulsion tech has stagnated and we carry super computers in our pockets that make the 60s NASA computers look like building sized calculators. I believe questioning where we are with defense SAPs and pontificating are duly warranted
You are not looking at the circumstances of history. Early aviation was simple technology and progress was straightforward. World War I provided a big push in airplane development. Then the shadow of the impending World War II started another big push that continued through the war, and was also pushed by the Cold War. World War II also pushed rocketry, and especially also in the Cold War. As part of the Cold War, NASA was formed along with the manned space program, and we went to the Moon as a major national political goal. Once attained, the public lost interest in being on the Moon and Congress saw no further point. The funding dropped and NASA begged for money with which to develop the Space Shuttle, which was still a major propulsion push. Lots of Shuttle missions. Then the Soviet Union collapsed and there was no major political reason to develop anything better than the Shuttle. We diverted interest into the international Space Station. Then the Shuttle killed a second crew and was retired. No more money for propulsion. On the side, Elon Musk came along with his aggressive approach to commercial space launch---and indigenous rocket engine production, and propulsion development resumed under his hands.
Promising technology using nuclear energy was dabbled in, but deemed politically unattractive, so no funding. You can't build what you don't pay to develop. Plenty of sophisticated work on ion engines for satellite orbit adjustment, but they don't make for dramatic videos.
So, you are mistaken in your assessment, by simply omitting everything that has happened since Apollo. it all hinges on whether it is being paid for. And whether there is any expertise left out there after the funding droughts. It is commonplace to "lose" technology if the people who create and produce it are not replenished, generation after generation. People get impatient and leave for greener pastures because they have a family to feed. People retire, and die. Business executives think you grow technology like wheat, just plow and harvest. No big deal. They don't understand that there is a wealth of detailed knowledge that must be maintained, or you lose your grip. Like Boeing. It used to be an actual leader in the field, and now it is struggling through Space Capsule 101.
Special Access Programs? Nobody knows shit about them, and there is no legitimacy in speculating that they are magic. I've been in them. They are technical as hell, just on things they don't want the public to know about for the sake of operational security. No new physics. Pontificating? On the basis of what? Wishful thinking? A very worthless distraction from reality.
Both projects came out of skunkworks Btw
I'm not sure what you are referring to. The SR-71 came out of the Skunkworks. None of the space programs that I mentioned had Lockheed as a prime contractor.
Very thoughtful assessment I must say. Blaming funding or lack there of is just an excuse IMHO. Funding has never been a problem for government programs that line the pockets of the biggest contractors involved. I'm now thinking the blackbird was leaked to provide cover for a new project . You've heard of the tictac uap I'm sure . That project goes back to 1967 and I don't think you read about it in popular science. In your business "compartmentalization"is an unescapable reality that keeps you busy busy busy but in the dark .
The space program funding was all out in the open. The budgets were debated in Congress. Major programs have been terminated, to the contractor's distress. The SST (Boeing) was canceled. The F-22 (Lockheed/Boeing) was canceled. The Space Shuttle (Boeing/Rockwell) was retired. The X-33 (Lockheed) was canceled before completion. The YAL-1A (Boeing/Lockheed) was canceled. I could go on, but my point is that you are wrong in saying "funding has never been a problem for government programs." The Blackbird was public knowledge before 1970; what "new project"? Then along came the F-117, disclosed around the time of the Gulf War. Clever, but not alien technology.
Where did you read that the "tictac" UFO was a project, going back to 1967? Nobody knows what the "tictac" is, or even if it was real. You can't explain the inexplicable by inventing a pipe dream. And it amuses me to see how people can expound in such a lofty way about compartmentalized activities---that they haven't been part of. I have been part of them. There is no alien technology, only clever work. So, don't bother to look down. All you will see is my bald spot.