Discussion:
How the Air Force plans to keep the legendary B-52 Stratofortress flying for 100 years
(too old to reply)
SolomonW
2017-05-13 08:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-air-force-plans-to-keep-the-b-52-flying-for-100-years-2017-5?IR=T

B-52 is having a good run as there are few weapon systems that last 100
years
jerry kraus
2017-05-15 13:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-air-force-plans-to-keep-the-b-52-flying-for-100-years-2017-5?IR=T
B-52 is having a good run as there are few weapon systems that last 100
years
Just another indication that science and technology stopped dead with the explosion of the first H-bomb in 1952. Scared off the governments and the big corporations, it put them at risk. We've had virtually no progress since then, as all world governments have shifted to a Fascist model of stability, at all costs. Look at our great world technological innovators like Elon Musk. He's digging tunnels for Chrissakes, Oh what an incredible innovation!
The Horny Goat
2017-05-15 16:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 15 May 2017 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-air-force-plans-to-keep-the-b-52-flying-for-100-years-2017-5?IR=T
B-52 is having a good run as there are few weapon systems that last 100
years
Just another indication that science and technology stopped dead with the explosion of the first H-bomb in 1952. Scared off the governments and the big corporations, it put them at risk. We've had virtually no progress since then, as all world governments have shifted to a Fascist model of stability, at all costs. Look at our great world technological innovators like Elon Musk. He's digging tunnels for Chrissakes, Oh what an incredible innovation!
On the other hand the electronics and munitions carryed by a B-52
today is radically different than 50 years ago.
jerry kraus
2017-05-15 18:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 May 2017 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-air-force-plans-to-keep-the-b-52-flying-for-100-years-2017-5?IR=T
B-52 is having a good run as there are few weapon systems that last 100
years
Just another indication that science and technology stopped dead with the explosion of the first H-bomb in 1952. Scared off the governments and the big corporations, it put them at risk. We've had virtually no progress since then, as all world governments have shifted to a Fascist model of stability, at all costs. Look at our great world technological innovators like Elon Musk. He's digging tunnels for Chrissakes, Oh what an incredible innovation!
On the other hand the electronics and munitions carryed by a B-52
today is radically different than 50 years ago.
OK, Horny, I'm exaggerating a bit, to make the point. Yes, we've had progress in computer and communications technology, and THAT'S ABOUT IT!!!!
Actually, the munitions aren't really that radically different except in terms of the computer and communications technology that guides them. The H-bomb remains, far and away, the ultimate weapon, after 65 years. Because, I presume, governments and large corporations decided enough was enough, and physicists have been navel-gazing in particle physics, ever since.

What better proof that no progress whatsoever has been made in transportation technology in over a half a century, than the continued preeminence of the B-52?
Bradipus
2017-05-31 00:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 10:44:00 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 May 2017 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:54:45 AM UTC-6, SolomonW
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-air-force-plans-to-keep-the-b-52-flying-for-100-years-2017-5?IR=T
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
B-52 is having a good run as there are few weapon systems
that last 100 years
Just another indication that science and technology stopped
dead with the explosion of the first H-bomb in 1952.
Scared off the governments and the big corporations, it put
them at risk. We've had virtually no progress since then,
as all world governments have shifted to a Fascist model of
stability, at all costs. Look at our great world
technological innovators like Elon Musk. He's digging
tunnels for Chrissakes, Oh what an incredible innovation!
On the other hand the electronics and munitions carryed by a
B-52 today is radically different than 50 years ago.
OK, Horny, I'm exaggerating a bit, to make the point. Yes,
we've had progress in computer and communications technology,
and THAT'S ABOUT IT!!!!
Actually, the munitions aren't really that radically
different except in terms of the computer and communications
technology that guides them. The H-bomb remains, far and
away, the ultimate weapon, after 65 years. Because, I
presume, governments and large corporations decided enough
was enough, and physicists have been navel-gazing in particle
physics, ever since.
What better proof that no progress whatsoever has been made
in transportation technology in over a half a century, than
the continued preeminence of the B-52?
Apart the name, what of a 1950 B-52 is remained the same in a
2017 B-52?

Airframe?
Metal sheets?
--
Bradipus
jerry kraus
2017-05-31 13:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 10:44:00 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 15 May 2017 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:54:45 AM UTC-6, SolomonW
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-air-force-plans-to-keep-the-b-52-flying-for-100-years-2017-5?IR=T
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
B-52 is having a good run as there are few weapon systems
that last 100 years
Just another indication that science and technology stopped
dead with the explosion of the first H-bomb in 1952.
Scared off the governments and the big corporations, it put
them at risk. We've had virtually no progress since then,
as all world governments have shifted to a Fascist model of
stability, at all costs. Look at our great world
technological innovators like Elon Musk. He's digging
tunnels for Chrissakes, Oh what an incredible innovation!
On the other hand the electronics and munitions carryed by a
B-52 today is radically different than 50 years ago.
OK, Horny, I'm exaggerating a bit, to make the point. Yes,
we've had progress in computer and communications technology,
and THAT'S ABOUT IT!!!!
Actually, the munitions aren't really that radically
different except in terms of the computer and communications
technology that guides them. The H-bomb remains, far and
away, the ultimate weapon, after 65 years. Because, I
presume, governments and large corporations decided enough
was enough, and physicists have been navel-gazing in particle
physics, ever since.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
What better proof that no progress whatsoever has been made
in transportation technology in over a half a century, than
the continued preeminence of the B-52?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
Apart the name, what of a 1950 B-52 is remained the same in a
2017 B-52?
Airframe?
Metal sheets?
Bradipus, my Italian friend, nice to hear from you! I thought, possibly, you were no longer with us, for some reason, or another.

You make a good point. In what sense, precisely, does the B-52 remain unchanged, as the B-52? Well, clearly the Airframe is the same, as far as one can tell from looking at it. Actually, I'm not sure the jet engines employed are substantially different, although I'm less certain on that point. Obviously, the electronics involved in radar, navigation, weapons targeting etc. are vastly different. But, I think in terms of speed, range, lift capacity, cargo capacity etc, the B-52 is very largely what it was. Hence, as a transportation system, as distinct from a weapons platform, its capacities are very largely unchanged. Hence, my point, that transportation technology has been dead in the water since the 1950's.
Post by SolomonW
--
Bradipus
Bradipus
2017-06-01 02:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Post by jerry kraus
What better proof that no progress whatsoever has been
made in transportation technology in over a half a
century, than the continued preeminence of the B-52?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Apart the name, what of a 1950 B-52 is remained the same in
a 2017 B-52?
Airframe?
Metal sheets?
Bradipus, my Italian friend, nice to hear from you!   I
thought, possibly, you were no longer with us, for some
reason, or another.
I am still breathing, FWIK :-)

Not much time to read this NG.
Post by jerry kraus
You make a good point.   In what sense, precisely, does the
B-52 remain unchanged, as the B-52?   Well, clearly the
Airframe is the same, as far as one can tell from looking at
it.    Actually, I'm not sure the jet engines employed are
substantially different, although I'm less certain on that
point.   Obviously, the electronics involved in radar,
navigation, weapons targeting etc. are vastly different.  
But, I think in terms of speed, range, lift capacity, cargo
capacity etc, the B-52 is very largely what it was.   Hence,
as a transportation system, as distinct from a weapons
platform, its capacities are very largely unchanged.   Hence,
my point, that transportation technology has been dead in the
water since the 1950's.
Evolution after revolution.

In biology there is the logistic law of growth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function

Also interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_revolution
--
Bradipus
jerry kraus
2017-06-01 13:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by jerry kraus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Post by jerry kraus
What better proof that no progress whatsoever has been
made in transportation technology in over a half a
century, than the continued preeminence of the B-52?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Apart the name, what of a 1950 B-52 is remained the same in
a 2017 B-52?
Airframe?
Metal sheets?
Bradipus, my Italian friend, nice to hear from you!   I
thought, possibly, you were no longer with us, for some
reason, or another.
I am still breathing, FWIK :-)
Not much time to read this NG.
Post by jerry kraus
You make a good point.   In what sense, precisely, does the
B-52 remain unchanged, as the B-52?   Well, clearly the
Airframe is the same, as far as one can tell from looking at
it.    Actually, I'm not sure the jet engines employed are
substantially different, although I'm less certain on that
point.   Obviously, the electronics involved in radar,
navigation, weapons targeting etc. are vastly different.  
But, I think in terms of speed, range, lift capacity, cargo
capacity etc, the B-52 is very largely what it was.   Hence,
as a transportation system, as distinct from a weapons
platform, its capacities are very largely unchanged.   Hence,
my point, that transportation technology has been dead in the
water since the 1950's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Evolution after revolution.
Oh, sure. I'm of course exaggerating a bit to make a point. But, obviously, people from the 1950's would have no difficulty recognizing the B-52, if transported to 2017, while people from the 1890's obviously wouldn't have recognized any aircraft at all, if transported to 1957, since they didn't have aircraft at all. Hence, my point, that transportation technology has not progressed nearly as far in the last 60 years, as in the 60 years preceding.
Post by Bradipus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
Also interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_revolution
--
Bradipus
Bradipus
2017-06-06 19:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Evolution after revolution.
Oh, sure.   I'm of course exaggerating a bit to make a point.
  But, obviously, people from the 1950's would have no
difficulty recognizing the B-52, if transported to 2017,
while people from the 1890's obviously wouldn't have
recognized any aircraft at all, if transported to 1957, since
they didn't have aircraft at all.   Hence, my point, that
transportation technology has not progressed nearly as far in
the last 60 years, as in the 60 years preceding.
You too, you learned to walk only once... and not to fly...
:-)
--
Bradipus
jerry kraus
2017-06-06 20:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by jerry kraus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Evolution after revolution.
Oh, sure.   I'm of course exaggerating a bit to make a point.
  But, obviously, people from the 1950's would have no
difficulty recognizing the B-52, if transported to 2017,
while people from the 1890's obviously wouldn't have
recognized any aircraft at all, if transported to 1957, since
they didn't have aircraft at all.   Hence, my point, that
transportation technology has not progressed nearly as far in
the last 60 years, as in the 60 years preceding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
You too, you learned to walk only once... and not to fly...
:-)
True, Bradipus, but, I don't represent the whole of human society, you know. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Post by Bradipus
--
Bradipus
The Old Man
2017-06-06 22:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by jerry kraus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Evolution after revolution.
Oh, sure.   I'm of course exaggerating a bit to make a point.
  But, obviously, people from the 1950's would have no
difficulty recognizing the B-52, if transported to 2017,
while people from the 1890's obviously wouldn't have
recognized any aircraft at all, if transported to 1957, since
they didn't have aircraft at all.   Hence, my point, that
transportation technology has not progressed nearly as far in
the last 60 years, as in the 60 years preceding.
You too, you learned to walk only once... and not to fly...
:-)
--
Bradipus
But in 1897, the concept of manned, controlled flight was understood, if only by a few. Decent engines were few and far between, but there were a number of gliders around that were making some decent flights without killing their pilots.

Regards,
John Braungart
jerry kraus
2017-06-07 13:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by Bradipus
Post by jerry kraus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Evolution after revolution.
Oh, sure.   I'm of course exaggerating a bit to make a point.
  But, obviously, people from the 1950's would have no
difficulty recognizing the B-52, if transported to 2017,
while people from the 1890's obviously wouldn't have
recognized any aircraft at all, if transported to 1957, since
they didn't have aircraft at all.   Hence, my point, that
transportation technology has not progressed nearly as far in
the last 60 years, as in the 60 years preceding.
You too, you learned to walk only once... and not to fly...
:-)
--
Bradipus
But in 1897, the concept of manned, controlled flight was understood, if only by a few. Decent engines were few and far between, but there were a number of gliders around that were making some decent flights without killing their pilots.
Regards,
John Braungart
Fair enough, John. I'm not saying that people from 1897 couldn't have learned, eventually, based on what they already knew, that flight was possible. I'm saying that all the planes in the sky in 1957 would have looked very odd indeed, to someone transported there from 1897. While someone transported from 1957 to 2017 would scarcely have noticed any change, at all. Let's face it, transportation technology has NOT made the kind of progress in the last 60 years, as in the preceding 60 years, that is, prima facie, obvious, and self-evident.
Dean
2017-06-07 18:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by The Old Man
Post by Bradipus
Post by jerry kraus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bradipus
Evolution after revolution.
Oh, sure.   I'm of course exaggerating a bit to make a point.
  But, obviously, people from the 1950's would have no
difficulty recognizing the B-52, if transported to 2017,
while people from the 1890's obviously wouldn't have
recognized any aircraft at all, if transported to 1957, since
they didn't have aircraft at all.   Hence, my point, that
transportation technology has not progressed nearly as far in
the last 60 years, as in the 60 years preceding.
You too, you learned to walk only once... and not to fly...
:-)
--
Bradipus
But in 1897, the concept of manned, controlled flight was understood, if only by a few. Decent engines were few and far between, but there were a number of gliders around that were making some decent flights without killing their pilots.
Regards,
John Braungart
Fair enough, John. I'm not saying that people from 1897 couldn't have learned, eventually, based on what they already knew, that flight was possible. I'm saying that all the planes in the sky in 1957 would have looked very odd indeed, to someone transported there from 1897. While someone transported from 1957 to 2017 would scarcely have noticed any change, at all. Let's face it, transportation technology has NOT made the kind of progress in the last 60 years, as in the preceding 60 years, that is, prima facie, obvious, and self-evident.
But now your argument is self-limiting based on what an aircraft looks like. Look at where flight went in the first 60 years...from 15 feet high at Kitty Hawk to men on the moon. In the second 60 years, flying machines have gone from the ground to interstellar space. That's quite an improvement.
Loading...