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.
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.