If you’re then going to make a statement of ‘well, they could do one why didn’t they do the other’ then it’s rather missing the point.
The other thing here is that this is possibly a false premise. @bsims' original question IIRC was something like "why did the US have to buy the Harrier, why couldn't they just make their own?" It's entirely possible - likely even - that they could have made their own with sufficient investment into research & development and manufacturing. But why bother if they could just pick up the phone to Hawker Siddey and go, "yeah, it's America here, could we buy a hundred of your planes please? Love and kisses kkthxbi."
They gave up on grammer too.
Stop feeding the attention whore,and the thread will die a nice peaceful death.
bsims
This is like a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
There are pretty well defined documents and popular biographies explaining the invention of the engine which was the heart of the Harrier. It was invented and developed in the UK and was a unique solution to a previously intractable problem.
I answered your original question which implied that the US couldn't have developed a vertical landing system by showing you pictures and video of the vertical landing system they invented.
Now you've changed the thrust of the conversation to a discussion of why the Harrier was bought and the engineering difficulties of disparate unrelated systems.
Why don't you:
a) Decide what historical fact confuses you the most.
b) Clearly articulate a question that people can answer.
c) Stop moving the goalposts like a big trolly troll.
cougar, you can pour 1 pint into a 1/2 pint glass, the customer needs to drink it in two easier to swallow measures.
... which is precisely the problem. The customer ain't doing no drinking, he's just sitting there asking for more beer.
You're asking the same questions over and over from a basis of incorrect assumptions and then ignoring the explanations that myself and many others have given you. If you didn't learn "one of these things is not like the others" from Sesame Street then it's difficult to know what else to tell you.
Now you’ve changed the thrust of the conversation
I like what you did there.
No but I have lots of experience proof reading science and social science PHDs,
yet you constantly write it as PHD rather than the correct PhD lol
bsims
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div>Member</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">I understand all of that gobuchul, it just seems strange that the us didn’t do it in house for a major division of its military.
</div>
cost
Eat the pudding, the main point was always why they bought it, not that they couldn't make a lander.
Thanks for everyone's opinions.
And back under the bridge.
Cool come back, my thanks were genuine to the people who took the time to post detailed replies.
Decide what historical fact confuses you the most.
Quite a few by the looks of it.
I don't think anyone is saying the US couldn't have developed their own version of the Harrier, they just chose not to. Party, I would guess, because it was used by a small part of the US armed service. They bought a few hundred. That sounds a lot, but at the same time they were buying over 5000 F4's and 1000's of other types.
Why spend time and money for such a small requirement.
I have read the sr 71 was signed off accidentally by Congress ( who thought they were getting a different plane) which if actually true shows how much money was available to defence projects.
But the SR-71 was not a defence project! It was built for the CIA, and flown by spooks, the whole thing was paid for by off-the-books funding and built by Lockheed’s Skunk Works, they had to develop entire new engineering and manufacturing technology in order to actually make the bloody thing, because they were using a metal that had never been used before, titanium, and had to work out how to make the tools in order to work the material before they could make the airframe, an airframe that had to function at very high temperatures, which meant it had to expand, which meant the full tanks leaked like a sieve while on the ground, but the engines were designed to burn a fuel that would not ignite when exposed to a naked flame. It was only later when the Air Force found out about the plane that they started chucking their toys out of the pram and demanded their share of this whizzy new toy to play with. The SR-71 was a truly extraordinary aircraft, unmatched in its performance, and unlikely to be equalled. There was even an attempt to build a fighter version, the YF-12A, sort of hyper-Lightning, but the bloody thing was just too fast, a turn started over London took it out over Paris before coming back over London. If you can find a copy, there’s a book that covers the development, called ‘Skunk Works’, which is about the history of the place, and the amazing man responsible for designing the Blackbird and many others.
Working in that vast industry
I sell it, doesn't mean I understand it*
Likewise I to am an advocate of alien intervention. I find myself fascinated by things like ancient Egypt, Inca & Greek mythology, and technological peaks. I find it very arrogant to think we are a lone intelligent species. To which end I once had an argument on here on the basis of alternative life forms, in that we are arrogant enough to believe our scientific leaders have found the mathematical or scientific rules for everything. I don't thing so. There may be and and probably is other beings in a form we can't even comprehend.
Ever read the Lensman series? Loved that.
Lets lets just hope they aren't reading this (potential TOTY) thread though, they'll be ROFLing even more than usual...
*maybe a little.
we are arrogant enough to believe our scientific leaders have found the mathematical or scientific rules for everything.
What nonsense.
I find it very arrogant to think we are a lone intelligent species.
As do I. As a dyed-in-the-wool sceptic I'm reasonably confident that there's other life out there. It's statistically highly likely.
As for the rest of your post though, my opinion is that it's mince.
Why Cougar? Have you irrefutable proof to the opposite?
I'm willing to bet not.
Why are there no more Space shuttles?
Why are there no more Renault 9s? They were launched in 1981 too. And what are Bucks Fizz doing these days? Or Peter Sutcliffe. Makes you think
I find it very arrogant to think we are a lone intelligent species.
Who is proposing that? Assuming by intelligent you mean human type (as opposed to corvids etc) given the size of the universe the odds are probably in favour. Although the age of the universe, eg they may have risen and died out, and the uncertainty of what are the chances of life developing makes it uncertain. That is, however, why money has been invested in trying to see if there are any detectable signals. I think you are confusing scepticism about UFOs and the broader question about life elsewhere.
in that we are arrogant enough to believe our scientific leaders have found the mathematical or scientific rules for everything.
To quote Dara Ó Briain.
“Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”
Have you irrefutable proof to the opposite?
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of opinions?
Are you unfamiliar with the point of a dialogue to validate your opinion?
You called out the majority of my post as "mince" Cougar, together with the following text I'd assume it's meant as a negative.
Its all very well stating someone's opinion as rubbish in an unqualified manner but at least have the temerity to explain why . If you can't, just say so. Maybe one day we or our successors will.find out the answer .
Or perhaps soften your response . It's aggressive, yet you have no counter.
I am very worried for the authors of the PhD’s theses that 5plusn8 is proofreading. The application of critical thinking, reasoning and logic are not limited to science or engineering... With that in mind, it would be interesting to understand the 5plusn8 position on philosophy...
Are you unfamiliar with the point of a dialogue to validate your opinion?
I don't think anyone here is opposed to dialogue. On that basis, have you anything you'd care to use to validate...
Likewise I to am an advocate of alien intervention.
... that as an opinion?
or "natural philosophy"
Its all very well stating someone’s opinion as rubbish in an unqualified manner but at least have the temerity to explain why .
When something is wrong on as many levels as the post cougar called 'mince' it's virtually impossible to engage with it in a constructive fashion. Such nonsense requires either a massive wordy post to deal with all the issues or a one word dismissal. Some have the patience for the former but clearly not cougar and not me either.
Spin, the phrase you may be looking for is "fractal wrongness". Wrong at every possible level, and no matter how closely you look. ref: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
Other useful phrases in the context of this thread include "Bullshit asymmetry" or "The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Ref: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bullshit
And for Kryton57 "Hitchens razor" "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Just one human mind can generate lazy and/or crazy statements, ideas or questions at a massive rate*. If they can't be bothered to put the work into proving it don't ask anyone else to put the effort into disproving it.
* e.g. Aliens built pyramids!
Earth 6000 years old!
Freddie Starr ate my hamster!
Man seen riding flying horse!
WWII bomber found on moon!
All humans infested with souls of ancient dead aliens executed in volcano!
I could go on, but I'm sure humanity will continue to rise up and fill the gaps in our stupidity.
Editto add: And then berate us for not taking them seriously.
There go you then Spin, you basically admitting that you have a strong opinion which differs from mine but have neither the time of will to evidence against it. Yours and Cougars remains an unqualified opinion therefore and does not prove anything I said as “wrong” in the slightest. Not an ounce of proof between the two of you. I admit I also said I can’t prove it, which equally doesn’t make me right either.
You’re both just stating its “wrong” because its off the range of what is currently determined to be “normal” but that could well be a conception that changes in the future (I give you 29” wheels as an obvious example). Only time will tell.
I work with a woman who thinks the moon landings were faked
Weirdly, she believes we’ve been to the moon, but just the Neil/Buzz landing was faked
Its not that mad .. I think some of the pictures were a bit too good..
Imagine you've successfully landed on the moon and once you come back you develop your photos only to find that something didn't quite work and you don't have any 🙁
Your currently having a bit of one upmanship with the russians and you may have spent a lot of money so you really need some pretty pics.
Your mates friends making a movie with a really good moon set that you could borrow for a few hours and anyway youll be going back to the moon again so you will get some real pictures , no ones going to notice if you sort of reshoot it and get the nice publicity pics your country needs.
Only time will tell.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you've basically said (from what i infer from your post regarding Ancient culture "myths") and a sciFci series from the '60's) that we've been visited by aliens already?
Unless you've got some proof, then yeah, it's just stories. Having a crack at Cougar and Spin doesn't make them less fictional.
on aliens - check out the drake equation and the fermi paradox
My belief - the zoo hypothesis. Loads of aliens out there watching us but they are not going to contact us until we prove ourselves worthy 😉
Equally Nickc, does either of the using words like “mince” and “wrong” as the only argument make them any more fictional. A status quo then.
Like a said, theres a mainstream view, and theres other views. None of them have been proven without doubt - even the main stream, theres just an implied level of general acceptance.
Kryton
I refer you to my previous post
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Its not up to ANYONE to bring the evidence to disprove your nonsense! Its up to you to prove it.
dudeofdoom
It doesn't make sense.
Do you think the Russians were not watching the moon landing very carefully and listening in to the transmissions?
You admit they had a vested interest in the Americans failure, so if the fakery was as obvious as every (conspiracy theorist) says, why the silence from them? (or does the rabbit hole go even deeper than we suspect!)
Errmmm - the moon landings are ture beyond doubt. conspiracy theories about the moon are proven wrong without doubt.
All opinions are not equal
Its not up to ANYONE to bring the evidence to disprove your nonsense! Its up to you to prove it.
Yet that statement doesn't written for nor apply only to me does it? See bold - you too have made an unqualified assumption. Its not up to me to disprove you, Cougar or Spin either, just because the three of you can't be bothered.
Anyway, we are arguing in pointless circles, lets not continue.
A status quo then.
not really...
the "aliens have been here before" is just made up to fit a 20/21st century cultural zeitgeist, it's just mythic. Whereas at the very least the Fermi Paradox has some mathematic rationale.
Kryton
"A status quo then"
I think you mean that you have forced a draw through your gallant effort (like the knight in monty python)
You have produced an idea from nothing,
Offered no evidence, and
Declared your unsupported idiotic notion equal to all of the scientific, archaeological evidence which does not support your assertion. (Note I didn't say "disproves")
Brilliant!
Offered no evidence,
Neither has anyone else provided evidence against my theory in this discussion, so yes a status quo.
I think you mean that you have forced a draw through your gallant effort
I'm not claiming a moral victory, there's no winners and losers here its just a discussion.
idiotic notion
Is it? Feel free to enlighten me as to why with factual and evidential data. Something no one else has provided either in the last 15 hours.
Apologies for the planespottery diversion -
But the SR-71 was not a defence project! It was built for the CIA, and flown by spooks, the whole thing was paid for by off-the-books funding and built by Lockheed’s Skunk Works
Not quite, the Oxcart was the CIA aircraft, the SR-71 was developed from it for the USAF. The A12 Oxcart is the one on the right.
If you can find a copy, there’s a book that covers the development, called ‘Skunk Works’, which is about the history of the place, and the amazing man responsible for designing the Blackbird and many others.
There's an brief but interesting piece on the CIA website here and a more in-depth look at the program(me) here.
Ok,
The origins of these sorts of stories is based on Cultural Imperialism, (it still sort of goes on; you only have to read Guns Steel and Germs, and the sorts of trashy novels like Lensman) it has at it's heart "Who built the pyramids? After all it couldn't have been Black Africans". In Carter's days, it was either Greeks (they worshipped at the idol of Classicism) or some other "lost" culture, ie Amazonian, or Atlantis, anything other than the truth staring them in the face, that it was indeed, Black Africans over 6000 years ago, that had built at Geza a building that remained the biggest man made structure for 4000 years.
Still, people (like you) can't quite get over it. It may be subconcious, in some cases (Like Jared Diamond) yer actual racism, but...You still need to ask yourself, what is it that makes you question the evidence that these structures were built by ancient humans?
1)
I am very worried for the authors of the PhD’s theses that 5plusn8 is proofreading.
You overestimate my influence on the outcome of their labour, I just checked for typo's, spelling, repeated words, references and figures coherence, readability etc. My opinions on the content were not required.
(To those of you questioning my grammar, I am better at spotting mistakes, but with my own work I am lazy where it does not matter, on STW it does not matter. Economy of effort.)
2)
The application of critical thinking, reasoning and logic are not limited to science or engineering…
If you read my posts, I never said that. I explicitly denied it. For example:
This does not mean that if you don’t have any of these qualifications then you will be more credulous.....However I think that the higher the level of physical science education the less credulous you will be about these theories.
When I said
I totally disagree with this hence my theory requiring science education. Arts and social “science” require no understanding of logic and proof, they do logic, but many don’t get it.
I make the point that they don't require it, does not mean that many of them do not use rigorous logic and critical thinking, but many of them do not, and get away with it. That's harder to do with a science background.
3)
With that in mind, it would be interesting to understand the 5plusn8 position on philosophy…
Particularly with regard to the philosophy of science
or “natural philosophy”
I don't understand what you are asking? Natural Philosophy is/was the original foundation of what is now called Science, in fact some philosophers are calling for a reunification of Natural Philosophy and the Philosophy of Science. I have read pretty widely from Russell, Grayling, Feyerbrand, Kuhn , Gould, Pinker Maxwell.
I can't really define a "position" as such, I don't keep up to date with current thinking, and I can't say I remember all that I have read. But be assured that I'm convinced that Philosophy is the basis of science (and maths). What was your point?
As an aside, I don't really want this to be about me, marginally suspicious that the three of you played the man not the ball there. A bit of an uncharitable undertone like "with that in mind", are you trying to make assertions about my character?
I wanted to see if the general consensus was that a decent science education was a reasonable inoculation against specifically the moon landing conspiracies, i.e. once you understand at least some of how it is done, you realise a) how it was possible, b) how hard it would have been to fake.
lensman is not trash!. Its a key part of SF history. very very dated tho
I've been off grid for a few days, boy this thread has grown! I just wanted to correct a minor technicality on the Harrier:-
"There have been quite a few attempts to create a jet aircraft that could transition from vertical to horizontal forward flight, and the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier wasn’t the first to achieve a smooth transition from vertical to horizontal flight, but it was a British aircraft. The Russians tried it, using small jet nozzles on the wingtips, nose and tail. It was a failure. The Americans attempted their own, one a prop-driven aircraft that took off vertically, standing on its tail, with a large contra-rotating prop to propel it. It was a failure as well. It was Rolls Royce who solved the problem using swivelling nozzles on the side of the main jet engine to vector the jet exhaust out of the sides of the plane instead of at the trailing edge of the wings or the tail."
This is true apart from one small detail, it was Bristol Siddley who developed the Pegasus engine, Rolls-Royce then acquired Bristol Siddely in 1966, so Rolls-Royce can't take the credit for the design and development I'm afraid. A small point but one that would annoy a few people I know. It was indeed the small 'puffer' jets in the wing tips and the tail that provided the stability in the hover. They could divert air from the engine bypass duct and generate upto 2000 lb of thrust to control the aircraft in pitch, rolls and yaw. Of course back then this was all done by the pilot, so required great skill, but modern VSTOL aircraft like the V22 and F35 now use computers to fly the aircraft in the transition. Another innovation of the Pegasus engine was that the Low pressure spool and high pressure spools of the engine contra-rotated, this canceled out any rotational forces from the rotating parts of the engine and negated the need for any sort of tail rotor type of mechanism to counter the gyroscopic reaction forces of the engine when manoeuvring in the hover.
5plus8 - I was just playing with words. No serious point at all
