so you're telling me the USA hasn't built a faster

>>31719330
why bother? we have spy satellites that get as good or better images, with no risk to a crew, almost anywhere in the world within hours.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

>>31719356
pussy

File: coldcomrade.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

>>31719330
you just don't know about it yet, retard

File: US_Air_Force_B-2_Spirit.jpg (493KB, 2754x1692px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 2754x1692px

Of course we have, pic related is the most advanced (known) manned aircraft on earth and it was made in the fucking 1980s.

There is such a thing as classified you know. I know we have hypersonic transatmospheric delivery systems that can go from Alaska to Moscow in like 17 minutes or some shit.

>>31719381
>what is thinly veiled aurora thread

File: keksimus maximus.jpg (18KB, 308x325px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 308x325px

>>31719390
>pic related is the most advanced (known) manned aircraft on earth

File: F-35A-pair.jpg (165KB, 1280x914px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1280x914px

>>31719390
>Of course we have, pic related is the most advanced (known) manned aircraft on earth and it was made in the fucking 2ks.

>>31719330
I don't remember what its called, but the US has a scram jet drone capable of mach 7 or so

File: STS70_KSC-95EC-1014.jpg (376KB, 1759x2229px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1759x2229px

>>31719356
Because of fucking liberals like you, humanity will parish.

>>31719636
The Shuttle was outdated when it took off for the first time.

File: Soyuz TMA-13_erected_at_Baikonur_Cosmodrome_launch_pad.jpg (1MB, 2832x3783px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2832x3783px

>>31719671

>>31719671
It wasn't outdated, it just didn't meet all its design objectives. I mean, you could argue that throwing all of our space budget on a low earth orbit space truck was a bad move, but it was the best space truck we could manage at the time.

>>31719330
We can, there's just no point.

The faster you go, the less efficient and more expensive it gets to fly at those speeds. You end requiring a far higher fuel mass fraction for fairly small increases in speed, and flight paths become more and more predictable. Also, spacecraft will always be faster. Once you start reaching hypersonic speeds, you end up needing an aircraft so large and expensive that it'd be better to just put something into orbit instead.

>>31719691
Right. The Shuttle was an overall failure, even the people that developed that will attest to that.

It's goal was to be a reusable cheap transport to LEO and a space station. It ended up costing more and eating up significant portions of the NASA budget for a job that could have been done by a cheaper capsule based system.

And at the end of the day most of the shuttle had to be replaced in between missions, so it wasn't even reusable. Couple that with a high failure rate......

Thankfully NASA is smart enough to know when to cut bait and get out of the business of being a LEO taxicab.

>>31719721
It was designed to be a transport to a space station but because the tech wasn't there to develop a true space truck, we couldn't afford to even build the space station it was designed to be a truck for for 20 years.

>>31719691
Truly ahead of it's time

>>31719741
I was going to counter that even failures are educational, but considering that they threw out the TDP for the Saturn (which WAS successful) , I don't have a leg to stand on....

File: РН Ангара_-32593073_334640273.jpg (156KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1024x768px

>>31719768
Every Soyuz is unique, they add, fix and improve things in every new spacecraft.

>>31719723
The SR-71 got better fuel economy the faster it went.

>>31719793
Vatnik

>>31719773
Well, there is some educational value, but we kept the program running for 30+ years. There's diminishing returns on education after 10 years or so.

Looking forward to the SLS program. The only true deeps space capable program on the planet.

>>31719808
Reality denier.

File: IMG_0670.jpg (40KB, 500x358px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x358px

And yes, we have satalites, we have drones and we have manned platforms like the U2 still flying. But we still have a need for recon anywhere on earth at any time . Sats only have coverage when they are overhead. Drones are slow and easy to intercept. The U2 flys high , is still the best platform as far as what it can capture, but those can be shot down too.

The US still has a need for a Mach 3+ recon platform , manned is best but unmanned will work. We have always had these platforms but they are in the black world. Rumored programs are Aurora, T3, SR-91... and now a grey program , the SR-72

>>31719796
That's because it relied on thermal expansion to seal its fuel tanks. It'd leak like a motherfucker before going transonic.

File: [email protected] (781KB, 946x664px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 946x664px

>>31719859
>Drones are slow

>>31719859
>T3

T3/TR-3/Tier III was a stealthy drone (quartz)

File: 1474347463972.jpg (164KB, 1421x1007px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1421x1007px

>>31719796
Yes, but that's because of the way they designed the engines. You're seeing it as
>regular at low speeds
>good economy at high speeds
when the reality was
>shit economy at low speeds
>slightly less shit economy at high speeds

For reference, look at NASA's HSCT studies.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890018277.pdf

Starting on Page 59, they look at some preliminary design studies for supersonic transports ranging from Mach 2.4 to Mach 10. They find that gross weight balloons beyond Mach 3, with weights approaching 3 million pounds. This is for the same ranges and payloads, and even accounting for a bunch of still-developing technologies. Plus, the average speed doesn't increase that much the higher your mach number, because you're spending more and more time accelerating to cruise speed.

Most of it's just basic aerodynamics. The lift to drag ratio you get drops at Mach numbers above one, and even pulling crazy shit like the drooping wingtips on the XB-70 doesnt really improve things so much as just keep your lift to drag ratio from getting shittier. The Concorde had a L/D of about 7 at cruise, while the A-12, flying about Mach 1 faster, dropped to 6.6. The XB-70 through really careful shaping and those drooping wingtips managed to get to an L/D of 7 at Mach 3, but it still dropped from lower mach numbers.

>>31719435
Not an argument

>>31719808
That's because it was explicitly designed to travel at those speeds. The SR-71 was woefully inefficient at low speeds. And we're still talking economy relative to itself. Compared to, say, a Phantom, the Blackbird was still an order of magnitude thirstier.

>>31719796
>The SR-71 got better fuel economy the faster it went.

You're talking about a jet that literally leaked fuel on the runway and was so underpowered and awful at low speeds that it couldn't even take off with a full load of fuel.

The fact that this behavior changed once it got into the air is not surprising or special. Most jets don't even suck that bad to begin with.

>>31719571
Say what you will about them, they do look sexy as fuck

>>31719636
>Because of fucking liberals like you, humanity will parish
both the sr-71 and the space shuttle were designed for the military first.

we got lucky that we didn't perish in a nuclear holocaust.

>>31719636

But at least we die knowing how to spell "perish"

>>31719636
I'd much rather be a county anyways. Fuck Louisiana.

File: 433534dc8970c9649a0e3f88cd9d0a38.jpg (20KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x300px

>>31720292
Underrated

>>31719846
It's custom made each time because after making one, all the drunks just wander off and forget how it was done while the machinery idles and rusts.

>>31719330
so you're telling me that the rest of the world hasn't built a faster jet than what was accomplished with 1950's technology?
also some mysterious sonic booms have been reported off the coast but have never been seen, so I'm guessing that we are still writing blank checks.

File: sr-71_cd_album.png (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1000px

>>31719330
>what is the SR72
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72

To achieve maximum speeds, everything will be unmanned, the Gs they pull simply put too much stress on an in vehicle operator. However, the link tech is so quick and instantaneous the having full real time control the unit flying at +5mach at +100k ft. is easy shit nowadays

>>31719598
Waverider
IIRC it's yet to sustain it very long though

>>31720317
That's some really bad ass adult arguments, I completely crushed.

The Air Force has a mini space shuttle that goes up for weeks or months at a time and does who the fuck knows what.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

>>31720214
Savagely rekt

>>31719859
>Sats only have coverage when they are overhead.
and how many do you think we have

there is no need for mach3+ recon platform.

File: image.jpg (71KB, 630x538px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 630x538px

>>31719636
>humanity will parish

File: Aerojet Rocketdyne.jpg (49KB, 704x396px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 704x396px

>>31719330
This probably doesn't count, right?

>>31723819
>posting a picture of a basketball from iPhone

don't you have a hi-point you should be loading the wrong caliber into Tyrone?

>>31719636
Republicans are the ones who have spent the last 40 years gashing NASA's budget.

>>31719721
>but it was the best space truck we could manage at the time.
No it wasn't, it was a bureaucratic piece of shit even then

>>31719904
The problem is more the plummeting fuel efficiency as you get faster and faster, and the radically different engine designs needed for different speeds.

>>31719636
excuse me, but the republicans routinely say that NASA is a huge waste of time. Liberals have constantly fought for it over the years.

>>31719330
Fastest ever jet plane is called BLACK Bird. Really makes you think.

>>31725159
>I live in a fantasy world

t. you
Completely delusional, its the dems who will cut NASA every time to pay for their gimmedats

>>31719727
>high failure rate
>98% success rate
ok

>>31721698
>the Gs they pull simply put too much stress on an in vehicle operator.
Never fucking post again. If they build that it'll never pull any intense g's you fucking moron.

>>31725319
It's dumbass Republican Senators who "fund" NASA by mandating they spent huge quantities on useless shit like SLS because it means money for Alabama.

>>31725319
What are you talking about, speak the with the average Republican voter, they talk about slashing funding to NASA all the time, saying that space exploration is a waste of time and that "there are bigger problems to fix here". Not to mention many Republican lawmakers dislike NASA because of their stance on climate change.

>>31725319
here are some sources if you don't believe me

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245585-nasa-warns-gop-on-cuts-to-space-program

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-science-committee-leaders-slam-nasa-for-cutting-deep-space-exploration-spending-1444409860

Materials technology already peaked. Transistors have a few years till they too peak. Software will get better for a few years after that.

Maybe the U.S. has a contingency for scramjets, and such.

>>31719380
we have the record, try and beat it commie

IIRC there actually is a replacement for the SR-71 in service now but it's still classified.

People were probably asking about the replacement for the U2 when the one got shot down in Russia, even though the SR-71 was flying at that time.

>>31719636

>implying that conservatives aren't the ones constantly undermining national science and technology projects unless you can strap a million dollar bomb to it and then use it to fight someone else's civil war for them

>>31725943
U2-incident: 1960
A-12 first flight: 1962
SR-71 first flight: 1964

>>31725943

source
proofs

No need. We have orbital surveillance. And cruise missiles, ICBM etc.

Plus space vehicles at 7km/s made air speed records look like snail races.
Mach 3.5 vs Mach 30+?

Fastest humans ever= Apollo missions. Farthest ever from earth too. And 44 years later we haven't even attempted to top them.

but we are building faster jets, just not manned jets.

>>31726085

The need for rapid continuous on station recon was needed as recently as 2003.

In ODS Schwarzkopf was informed expedient reconnaissance was unable to be provided because they had not had anything like the SR-71. Its still a need that exists today, but its been stitched by a bunch of systems: The KH-9 Hexagon and RQ-4 spring to mind.

File: x47-B.jpg (459KB, 1920x1281px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 1920x1281px

>>31726199
>The need for rapid continuous on station recon was needed as recently as 2003.

Continuous on station recon requires long loiter times, which hypersonic aircraft do not have. If you want to do it rapidly, the solution is to rapidly forward-deploy long loiter time recon.

You're looking for something like pic related.

> Carrier groups are always forward deployed.
> Drones with long loiter times are the tits

Now you can save your hypersonic boner for next-gen cruise missiles, like God intended. You're welcome.

>>31721698
>what is the SR72
The purest example of vaporware.

>>31719793
>each is inique

seems like a great way to run a space program 100 years into the industrial age

>>31719671
Modern lifter technology doesn't come close to the SLS program, despite it being 1970s technology. The Shuttle was decades ahead of its time

File: thescarch.png (499KB, 858x356px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 858x356px

>not flying an A-12 overhead while dodging incoming MiG-31 standoff missiles and dropping SEAD missiles from suborbital altitudes, annihilating S-400s where they sit

Why even live?

>>31725332
If your car only worked 98% of the time you drove it, would you want to spend that much money on it?

No. If my car failed 1/50 times I drove it, I'd be fucking man

>>31727468
Does your car take you into fucking space?

The more complex a machine is, the more it costs to operate, and the more potential it has to fail.

In the off chance your car does get you into fucking space, shit man, what make/model?

>>31719330
Why have such fast planes when we have minute men?

>>31727160
Yeah, the only current space program able to put american asses into orbit

>>31725406
If the south was held by democrats they'd be doing the same stuff

>>31727331
The shuttle was garbage
It cost far more than just launching expendable rockets, for a fraction of the payload and ZERO ability to leave LEO

>>31719636
>lets make aircraft we have no real use for anymore due to better technology

Yeah, lets make really good CRT monitors too.

>>31727614
And the shittle was supposed to alleviate all the extreme problems and difficulties of repeated spaceflight, and greatly reduce costs.

It failed at that.

>>31719330
>so you're telling me the USA hasn't built a faster jet
What is the X-43 for 500, Alex
What are SCRAM jets for 400, Alex

>>31728072
>11 seconds of powered flight

>>31719330
The goal isnt to build the fastest aircraft.

>>31719341
Yet you now have a new high speed reconnaissance plane in the works.

>>31728396
Doesn't mean there is an actual need to fill

>>31728413
Ahem, i'll say again anon there is an SR-71 replacement in development, you sure?
Satellite orbits can be predicted and as such secret operations can be worked around them, plus if you need to get an update on that military buildup taking place along your own borders it's kind of crucial.

>>31725564
>peak the with the average Republican voter, they talk about slashing funding to NASA all the time
You're kiddong. The average republican has an erection longer than the Saturn V for NASA because "muh lunar landlings, american #1" Its the dems that want to slash its budgets for more welfare and "environmental agencies" Hell obama literally told NASA that their new mission statement should be muslim outreach

http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html
>he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering

>>31728544
Well it is the republicans who force NASA to use old shitty shuttle contractors to build the SLS, which is the reason SLS will be a disaster

>>31719330

Why bother? We haven't been back to the moon either. Nothing to justify the cost.

>>31719381
>>31719390

These anons are on to something. I have no doubt in my mind that we have classified, experimental shit that would blow your mind. I have no idea what it even might be, but given how both the U2 and SR71 were hushed up, we've got some good shit.

>>31728438
Constellations of satellites is better/cheaper than these shitty high mach aircraft

The main situation is a "use it or lose it" situation, they need to procure stuff from a company to keep its capabilties in existance.

>>31728807
So bullshit, the military has NOTHING that is particularly special.
The only stuff the military/contractors do is take things down completely uneconomic lines of development

If there were commercial uses for military weaponry, the private sector would have be so much more advanced.

>>31728544
So what? What does that have to do about slashing the NASA budget and not supporting newer space exploration systems? Lots of nations use that "polititalk" to make other nations feel included. It happens constantly.

No the average republican voter doesn't give two shits about returning to the Moon or heading to Mars, look at how Elon Musk's speech about heading to Mars in less then 10 years went. people on the right criticized him (and people on the left talked about Michael Cera). Same thing every time NASA sends an object into space, it's a chorus of "We have more important things do why waste money on space exploration" or "We have to go to Russia to send shit up, THANKS OBAMA" (funnily enough if they funded NASA, big government, properly in the first place we wouldn't need to do that).

And no they don't, they hate spending money on things that don't have any real military value. Look at the SOFIA NASA project, it was nearly torpedoed a few times because some Republican thought that observation of the cosmos was a useless endeavor, I would know I've worked on it. Funnily enough Pt 2. the cost of the SOFIA project is immensely smaller due tot he fact that maintenance and upgrading can be done on the ground as opposed to in space.

>>31728710
This, some company that is competeing against SpaceX (in the free market I should add) is getting all bootyblasted because they don't have any viable product to compete with and are trying to get politicians to downplay SpaceX.

>>31728830

>muh keynesian economics tells me that central planning isn't very efficient, therefore all military advanced is garbage

i can't hold all this retardation senpai

>>31728830
>totally irrelevant reply: the post