Thread

1. yodon · 1790727412 · focus · HN ↗

   The SR-71 is cool, but this article is not at all confidence inspiring on many fronts.

   Guy being interviewed by a reporter about a secret project. A secret project that is trying to resurrect an antique plane that has been subject to weather and on display as a museum piece for many years.

   It sounds like a clown-show staged around a cool looking plane that's older than 90+% of HN readers.

   1. somenameforme · 1790730749 · focus · HN ↗

      There was something special about the 60s in the US. Your comment implies you might not appreciate how absurd the SR-71 was. The F-35 is our latest fighter jet. It has a top speed of 1200 mph, the SR-71 had a top speed of 2200 mph. The F-35 is capable of operating at around 50,000 ft, the SR-71 was capable of operating at 85,000 ft. The F-35 has a self fueled range of about 1350 miles, the SR-71 had a self fueled range of 2,900 miles.

      Look up aviation records and you'll find the SR-71. It even still holds the #1 spot for the fastest airflight (by a plane) ever. Basically, the SR-71 is old, but old doesn't mean antiquated. The 60s was the era that we went from knowing basically nothing about space, to putting a man on the Moon in 7 years (Kennedy gave his 'to the Moon' speech in 1962, first landing 1969), while we currently flail about trying to recreate it with a program lasting into the decades already. The SR-71 was another product of this era.

      1. m4rtink · 1790761568 · focus · HN ↗

         F-35 can shoot stuff, unlike the SR-71.

         1. somenameforme · 1790781443 · focus · HN ↗

            There were armed variants like the YF-12. So far as I understand, the main reason the game changed is because missiles improved. Not much point focusing on things like speed when some missiles are reaching mach 16, contrasted against the SR-71's mach 3.3. In that context you simply have to pray your counter-measures work, and if that fails, then hope your ejection seat works.
         2. Tangurena2 · 1790793322 · focus · HN ↗

            Bullets are slower than the SR-71 - it would shoot itself down if it had a gun.

            1. bionade24 · 1790796225 · focus · HN ↗

               Newton disproved that more than a century ago.

               1. Lumich · 1790797535 · focus · HN ↗

                  Did you mean Einstein? But it was only a “thought experiment” …

                  1. bionade24 · 1790864822 · focus · HN ↗

                     I was wrong, it was actually already Galilei: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Galilean_invariance" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Galilean_invariance

                     who described that a motion happens in relation to its inertial system.

                     Fact is, the claim that the SR-71 would fly into its own fired bullets is absolutely ludicrous.

                     1. Lumich · 1790881053 · focus · HN ↗

                        « claim … ludicrous » — Without knowing much about physics, I totally agree.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.