News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SR-72 by tdicola on Saturday March 08, 2014 @05:16PM (#7366602)
What's the deal with all the SR-71 posts in the past few days? They're a cool relic of the cold war age but what has happened recently with them that's warranted all the attention?

Also if you're really enamored with them you should definitely check out the national airforce museum in Dayton, OH: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ You can see one up close, along with all kinds of other planes, jets, and missiles. Admission is free, and expect to spend at least a full day walking around the place.

Re:SR-72 by rawicki on Saturday March 08, 2014 @05:31PM (#7366643)
It's just the snowball effect. Every post about SR-71 encourages more people to learn something about it and that sometimes results in another post to HN.
Re:SR-72 by Blahah on Saturday March 08, 2014 @05:43PM (#7366683)
I'm amazed there are so many people interested in military equipment. Is this a USA thing? Would love someone to explain the appeal.
Re:SR-72 by jckt on Saturday March 08, 2014 @05:47PM (#7366699)
It's not so much that it's military equipment. Some of it is just amazing engineering, regardless of context. Since many HNers are engineers, it is not surprising that posts about interesting/amazing feats of engineering get voted up.

One of my favourites (ignore the patriotic stuff in the beginning): http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/press_suit001.html

Re:SR-72 by rbanffy on Saturday March 08, 2014 @05:45PM (#7366690)
I wouldn't call the fastest airplane ever built to be just "military equipment". It's probably one of the greatest engineering achievements ever and it's still unsurpassed.

It's also a beautiful machine.

Re:SR-72 by Blahah on Saturday March 08, 2014 @06:21PM (#7366796)
Didn't realise it was the fastest airplane ever built, that sheds some light on it. It is really a greater engineering feat than anything in the space program?
Re:SR-72 by Crito on Saturday March 08, 2014 @06:30PM (#7366818)
It depends on if you count the X-15 or the Shuttle, but neither of those were air-breathing.
Re:SR-72 by rbanffy on Saturday March 08, 2014 @07:26PM (#7366973)
The shuttle should be considered a glider (a lousy one) when landing. The X-15 is a rocket with wings and should be called a spaceplane - it crossed the 100 Km border twice after all, and couldn't take off by itself.
Re:SR-72 by Crito on Sunday March 09, 2014 @03:11PM (#7369520)
Agreed. The X-15 even had a RCS for when control surfaces no longer had enough air to bite into.
Re:SR-72 by rbanffy on Sunday March 09, 2014 @05:19PM (#7370009)
The coolest thing is the analog computer that seamlessly went between control surfaces and RCS as if it were flying using surfaces within an atmosphere. It may not be a "real" plane, but that doesn't make it any less amazing.

I'd love to see the X-15 progress into the X-20 and onwards.

Re:SR-72 by Crito on Saturday March 08, 2014 @05:47PM (#7366696)
I think the SR-71 interests most people despite being military equipment. It interests me in the same way that the X-15, Apollo, or SpaceX's Grasshopper interest me.
Re:SR-72 by melling on Saturday March 08, 2014 @06:01PM (#7366742)
The SR-71 is a major milestone in human engineering that hasn't been matched in 4 decades. It's like we landed on the moon and stopped all progress. The plane carries no weapons and it's only purpose was to take pictures.
Re:SR-72 by Crito on Saturday March 08, 2014 @06:03PM (#7366747)
Nitpick, the SR-72, which this article is about, apparently would carry weapons.
Re:SR-72 by javajosh on Saturday March 08, 2014 @06:15PM (#7366786)
People's interest is roughly proportional to the energy level involved. Energy is proportional to v^2, so fast things are extraordinarily interesting.