This Is Pictures.

[george graves]

Funny thing is - it was 1960's technology. That thing was designed with a slide ruler.

[u3b3rg33k]

I love slide rules. I have a circular slide rule, a reactance & capacitance slide rule, as well as a pencil holder slide rule. Quicker than google, and more fun than cheating.

[BlackbirdM3]

They had to leak fuel as they expanded so much in flight it would seal them up. If it didn't leak, it would have just disintegrated in flight.

Yes they did grow, and yes they did leak. The seams of the fuel tanks were however sealed with a silicone product made by 3M. In the case of the SR71C, the rear section of the cockpit assembly (that formed the front bulkhead for one of the fuel tanks) wasn't sealed at all. This was due to the fact that that section was never intended to actually fly. It was a static test piece that they grafted onto the airframe of a YF12 (One of the 3 built. I have not found a reference as to what happened to the original cockpit section of the YF12) This was done to replace #957 which crashed at Beale in '67 (I think) leaving only one two seat trainer to fly (956). 981 was known as the bastard since it really was a hodgepodge of parts that were never intended to work with one another. It had odd electrical systems, the front fuel tank leaked like crazy, and it required some rudder trim to keep it flying straight. (I guess it tended to yaw to the left)

One of the articles from my previous post talks about the tank sealant. Every SR71 had to undergo a near full tear down every year that took place a Palmdale. Resealing the fuel tanks was done at this time.

Back to the SR71C (981). If the gov't wanted to restart the program, the cockpit section of 956 could be removed and placed onto a different airframe the same way the cockpit section for 981 was grafted onto the YF12. This would give the program a two seat trainer again. (Much to Kalamazoo's dismay that they had the nose section of their B model stolen and replaced with that of an A model.) Its not a cheap or easy proposition, but it could be done. I'm told the SR71 flight simulator is up at Boeing field, but I've also heard that it is in Texas somewhere. It was completely updated to 1995 specs when the program was restarted. It was shared by both NASA and the USAF at the time.

I have to say that seeing an SR in a museum is like seeing an eagle or something in a zoo. Yeah, its cool, but it doesn't belong there. It should be burning a hole in the sky at 80K feet and 3+times the speed of sound. Not sitting there like a caged bird.

I think that one should be made flight worthy and flown on a limited basis. A private group has done this with an Avro Vulcan bomber in England. The plane is funded and maintained entirely through donations and private contributions. If a nation far smaller than ours can do that with a Vulcan, we could do it with and SR71.

As for being designed with a slide rule, lets look at it this way. The design was so good and so important that if the Wright Brothers flight was one small step for man, the SR71 program was one giant leap for mankind. 40 years later what have we done with all our technology? We certainly haven't done any better. Hell, we put men on the moon with sliderules, as a country, now we can't put a man in space despite having high tech computers and advanced manufacturing processes. What is wrong with this pictures?

Will

[u3b3rg33k]

Space X, bitch.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0526-spacex-space-linkup-20120526,0,2268.story

[BlackbirdM3]

Space X, bitch.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0526-spacex-space-linkup-20120526,0,2268.story

These guys are cool and all, but they are a LONG way from putting a person in space, let alone more than one person, and the moon is pretty far fetched any time soon. I think its great they got a capsule into orbit. In the grand scheme of things, thats a pretty big deal. Still, they can't do what the space shuttle was doing 20 years ago.

The US space program shot its self in the foot when it was decided that we didn't need to go to the moon anymore let alone Mars or beyond. Think about it, in the span of 20 years not only did they put a man in orbit, but they put a men on the moon, using slide rules. We have pretty advanced computers now, and we can't get our asses out of the atmosphere without risking a trip on a Russian rocket.

In my lifetime I've seen the first launch of the space shuttle, both shuttles lost, then the end of the shuttle program. Not to mention the end of the program that ran the fastest and highest flying thing in the air. We need to pull our heads out and reclaim our place in both the sky and space :hitler:

Ok, end of rant ;)

Will

[thebutcher37]

M42 powered Cop car?
nah...

[u3b3rg33k]

The US space program shot its self in the foot when it was decided that we didn't need to go to the moon anymore let alone Mars or beyond. Think about it, in the span of 20 years not only did they put a man in orbit, but they put a men on the moon, using slide rules. We have pretty advanced computers now, and we can't get our asses out of the atmosphere without risking a trip on a Russian rocket.

Private industry will get it done, even if it takes a bit longer (same reason uncle sam made the presses - no one else would)

As for modern computers being tits and whatnot - spaceflight hasn't really gotten more complicated, so it's less to with number crunching and more to do with the will (and the funding / profit margin) to git 'er dun.

[BlackbirdM3]

Private industry will get it done, even if it takes a bit longer (same reason uncle sam made the presses - no one else would)

As for modern computers being tits and whatnot - spaceflight hasn't really gotten more complicated, so it's less to with number crunching and more to do with the will (and the funding / profit margin) to git 'er dun.

That was exactly my point. The thing on the computers was more in the ability to build the craft to get us to Mars or the moon or where ever. We have the ability to build some pretty amazing machinery that flat out couldn't be done 40 years ago, yet we cant get back to where we were 40 years ago. It should be a joint venture between NASA and private firms. NASA has been doing it longer than anyone else, but the funding isn't there. Now that the shuttle program is no more, I know for a fact that Lockheed went out and hired as many of those guys as they could (inside word from a friend who builds missiles for Lockheed.)

It seems to me that we no longer want to reach for the stars or go looking for "the right stuff". We are more than happy to let someone else do it while we sit in front of the TV saying "hey look at that" rather than going out and trying to do it.

My hat is off to the Bransons, Rutans, and Musks. They are the ones who are reaching for the sky, and they are footing the bill to do it. If we could get all the people who know how to do it working with the people who both want and have the $ to do it, we could be back on the moon in 5 years, and ready to go to Mars in less than 10 years. We need to cut the red tape and shot for the moon.

Will

[MAXELHOFF]

R

F

[MAXELHOFF]

Oh.

;

[CorvallisBMW]

So much awesome engineering stuff in the last 2 pages, I'm geeking out :)

[LuckyHenriksen]

So much awesome engineering stuff in the last 2 pages, I'm geeking out :)

Me too hahaha. I love reading all the info and stories

[leothedrummer]

[BlackbirdM3]

Some heavy metal for your viewing pleasure... 856 feet long, 45000 tons, with the ability to hurl a 2400lb .50cal projectile 25 miles. The USS Iowa left for Long Beach this afternoon. This is the last time the wold will see a battleship on the open ocean. It was the end of an era.














Heavy metal vs not so heavy metal.


The fat lady has sung, the show is over. Never again will the wold witness the might of a battleship on the open ocean.

Will

[george graves]

This is the last time the wold will see a battleship on the open ocean. It was the end of an era.

What's that about?