KingreX32
87445
1364
11
Sep 16, 2023 6:14 PM
KingreX32
87445
1364
11
squillis
Both modern creations were due to unlocking the powers of chemistry. I only hope the unlocking of access to quantum states does the same for mathematical processing power
NatesSauceLab
We haven’t returned because the moon’s haunted.
Yuktio
It took 3900 years for scientists to finally accept that chariots would never fly or reach the moon and try something else.
definitelynotafae
So, one of the amazing historical things is how religion stunted any form of technological advancements after christianity became the standard european religion. When we finally broke away from the church technology was able to progress. We couldve been significantly more advanced today if it wasnt for chrstianity. And still the religious leaders try to stunt progress and revert us back.
TheSlouchOfBethlehem
and to think only 30 years after that we made it to alpha centauri
thechelonianshelmet
& 54 years, 1 months and 25 days later, we have assholes trying to take us back to the 19000s &, given half a chance, further back than that.
sigmatis
50 and some years later we have flat-earthers with access to social media
Myowngrampa
But also memes
layinginbedfeelinglikeaquesarito
In 1950 there was the trans-Atlantic telephone cable. In 2000 there were satellites bouncing the call. In 2020 we have Starklink, etc., as they predicted, it’s all speeding up
atheosxlii
Mr21782Man
Its what happens when you shift from growing plants, to building things, to learning things. Now you also now why it seems to have stopped, because a lot of people don't like learning to knew things.
IDownvoteKhaby
My boss at my first job told me that his grandfather was born in a covered wagon and died the same year as the moon landing.
ChristopherHallett
Betty White was older then pre-sliced bread.
NAbsentia
This brings up "mismatch," a theory in evolutionary biology addressing the situation of being physiologically out of tune with the physical environment. We ain't ready for this shit.
PolitiCat
One reason why we made such quick progression was religion becoming more and more irrelevant. We now see due to the rising vocality and lobbyism of religions a regression.
Skizzlesnap
In all honesty we probably would have gone further if we lost the “space race”. Much like the plot of “For All Mankind”.
Ghlargh
The race to the moon cost the US an absolutely insane amount of money and it's also thought to be the main reason for the collapse of the Soviet economy. After the US won and the Soviet fell the monetary and political motivation wasn't there to keep it up so the technology was abandoned. We can do it again given enough effort, and with more modern tech that effort will be much less than the first time.
zepphan15
This just shows the salary gap we are living with today.
crushingmissy
I say this all the time! Think about how in decades we have seen the invention and (practically) fall of CDs/DVDs, compared to the time between horse buggies and steam trains. We are surely advancing to fast.
inshadowz
Yet we're almost a quarter into the twenty-first century, well past the time that we should reasonably expect hover converted cars, and the only “hoverboards” I've seen so far have had wheels on them. I feel like faxing a serious complaint to somebody or other in charge!
crazycelt
Seems like we have stagnated since then..
kojenk
The next step
Legomaniac91
Soon afterwards:
sinestroxlodx
We’ve technologically out paced our emotional and moral development. We’re teenagers with nukes.
Miller16of16
We were adults with nukes who have turned into teenagers.
Them3OtherGuys
Bear in mind that most of the technological advances in that time were the direct result of "How can we kill more people faster?"
TheWombatStrikesAgain
Yeah, but not all of them. Some were driven by a want for convenience. For example, the rockets that made the moon landing possible where a result of "How can we kill people further away, without personally having to go over there?".
KingreX32
Or competition with the Russians during the cold war.
MissSiesta
Annnd now people refuse vaccines and claim the earth is FLAT
mikecaa
If we don't fuck it up and destroy oursleves, the future is going to be pretty awesome.
ChristopherHallett
I've got some bad news for you. If we don't make massive, and I mean like MASSIVE social, political, and economic changes within a few years maximum, the planet will no longer support human life in a short while. Maybe 50 years, maybe 150 years, but the environment here on Earth will not be suitable for humans to live in. We'll have to make arcologies to survive as a species.
charondaboatman
Oh. Yeah there’s that. 500 years, tops. Humans will be mostly gone.
lightfoot2
The Catholic Church had something to do with this.....
DoktorWeasel
It's a bit more complicated than that. There was suppression of some "heretical" ideas, but there also were a lot of technological developments that came out of the Monasteries. The Cistercians in particular made a lot of hydro-power and metallurgy advances, also building techniques. Lots of scientists were in fact priests, as the Church ran the universities. And that time gap is largely simply that getting the fundamentals down takes a whole lot of work and then speeds things up later.
Da3n
Delaying it by 2000 years.
WJLIII3
Not the Catholic Church specifically, but every church, every king, every institution designed to fetter the will of the common people, is why this took so long, and the removal of those institutions is how we got here so fast.
MeowWoof
...but probably not for the 2000 years between chariots and the invention of Catholics though.
Fauxcused
Still does
KingreX32
Explain?
sirava
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affairo_affair">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
videopro10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
sirava
This thesis says that religion and science are diametrically opposed and I'm with the consensus that this is not the case. At times the Catholic Church has actually promoted scientific advancement, but at other times it's held it back or redirected it to suit its whims. Of course, the same can be said for despots, kings, and capitalism. Any system which tells you it is beyond questioning is holding us back. Not to mention how much better off we would be with birth control.
MeowWoof
You dare question the divine providence of the Holy See? To the uncomfortable chair with you!
dohcohv
Not really, it was the industrial revolution, mostly improvements in farming. For example, if it takes 99% of the population farming to grow enough food, you have very few people who can even work on improving technology or making tools. Something as simple as the Steel plow bumped up efficiency enough that say only 95% of the population needs to farm and now you have just had a 500% increase in toolmakers who can make better tools and that's how it goes. Today it is <1% working on farms.
Zreen
Arguably the Roman Empire was close to their own industrial revolution before their fall, problem being they hadn't yet gotten steel yet, and working with iron wouldn't be cost effective
dohcohv
They had steel at the time, the problem really was finding a cheap source of power. They had some experimental steam engines around 100AD, but they were more like novelties than serious attempts at replacing people or animals. The text that catalogues this device was preserved and transcribed by Charlemagne. While the device isn't practical, the theory it's based on is.
B3N15
I always think that's a huge understated aspect of the Industrial Revolution: the agricultural revolution that came along with it. It's hard to invent new things when you are faced with the decision of "you farm the wheat or you and your friends die"
WitchCityHound
The general ignorance of the dark ages in Europe was fostered by the church. A lot of inventors work on it as a hobby, at least nowadays. But if nobody can read or write or even explain thunder and lightning without bringing up a god, then there's no invention at all.
Promethianfire
The "Dark Ages" is a myth not rooted in historical fact. Middle Age Europe was not a morass of ignorant nose-picking louts bereft of education. Nor was the church opposed to science. Indeed, the church was responsible for most of the scientific and technological advancement during that time. I say this as an atheist who doesn't like organized religion.
dohcohv
The church was the only organization that was preserving and transcribing ancient texts from the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians. They were also one of the few groups that could read, it wasn't illegal, it just cost time and money with few people at the time having either. The church did fund science in the past because understanding the world was to understand God. However, they did prosecute those who they felt weren't right. Galileo is an example that brought up, but it wasn't his idea that the
dohcohv
Earth revolved around the sun that the church didn't like, his first book on the subject was transcribed and distributed by the church, but his second book had a religious character that was portrayed as an idiot, which the church didn't like. It's like making a book with a character that is your publisher just saying dumb stuff, not a great idea if you want them to publish it. Worse if they can excommunicate you.
hackller
yes! if it was not for the church, we'd be flying around in our own flying saucers and taking trips to the moon for the weekend!
NirvanaNik
Can we go next weekend? Im busy this weekend.
ghornby
There has been continuous culture in China for over 8000 years. There is continuous culture in India and Australia for over 5000 years. The peoples of Turtle Island and Amazonia existed independently of Catholic influence for 40-60 thousand years. Persians were performing algebra in 900 BCE. Purely blaming the church for the mitigation of European technological advancement is just thinly veiled euro-American exceptionalism. The advancement in the 20th C was a direct result on the industrial rev
EmanNiemThcin
And that is without even considering where (western and central) Europe would have been without monastic scholasticism saving and restoring the knowledge and ideas of antiquity after the migration period. People really are to eager to settle for easy answers when they fit their preconceived notions.
HairyChairstepper
Well said.
lightfoot2
India: Church, call it Hindism. China: Confucius. So yeah, any religion will do to set you back into the stone age.
ghornby
Hinduism doesn’t interfere with the scientific method. Look into how Indian culture has integrated western science. Confucius had influence for a very short time relative to the history of the culture. Religion is no doubt problematic but not the way you are implying.
lightfoot2
Yeah I'll have to see how the Muslims feel about that. But hey, you be you.
sirava
Throwing books into the past with a time machine:
Promethianfire
That's funny if not terribly fair to history.
sirava
An exaggeration obviously but I don't think it's wrong. Organized religions and cults discourage critical thinking.
Promethianfire
Generally, yes. However, the church was the source of funding for most scientific and technological development in the Middle Ages (which were not "Dark") and is to thank (along with the Muslim world) for preserving classical works of science and philosophy prior to the development of the printing press. It's easy to forget today how integral religious institutions were to pre-industrial society. I say this as an athiest.
sirava
All true, but where would we have been without religion? Better or worse? It's possible we might have invented alternative institutions that would have done as well or better. I'm not saying religion is all bad, but I'm not sure it's a net good.
SteelSpaceBandit
Promethianfire
I'm an atheist and no friend of organized religion, but like the myth of the "dark ages," that's an unfair statement. If anything, the church helped preserve and expand science and technological development. There are famous examples of it getting in the way - Copernicus and Galleio most notably - but we forget that much of their work was also funded by the church. Also, monesteries and Muslim scholars are to thank for preserving classical works of science and philosophy. 1/2
Tobecontinued1992
It is fucking weird that like for surgery and anatomy we kept using a roman manuscript that used monkeys and dogs, but its also weirder that pagan ass romans and greeks had hang ups about carving up human bodies considering all the tortures and execution styles they had.
Promethianfire
If the Catholic church had supplanted previous Indo-European religions or institutions that were doing a better job of furthering science, you'd have an argument, but that wasn't the case. It's also very ethnocentric to say that we'd be more advanced if not for Catholocism / Christianity because that statement presumes Europeans are better at science than the rest of the world. The Church wasn't preventing other cultures from advancing science.
GCRust
Galleio is also misrepresented. Yes, he ended up being right in the end. The problem was, he COULD NOT prove to the *Scientific* standards of the day why his theory was correct and instead argued it on a matter of *Faith*. Basically, he approached the problem for entirely the wrong direction and somehow ended up at the right conclusion.
Pheehelm
Also he had a bad habit of picking stupid fights for stupid reasons and antagonizing people who could easily have been powerful friends. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Inquisition-condemn-Galileo-for-his-belief-in-Copernicus-ideas/answer/Steve-Dutch
BaloneyBob
onlyheretoargue
I never understood why he was riding it backwards.
KawaiiInari
Like honestly what else would you do? You're screwed, might as well have fun while you can.
ahbrannon1
I worked around nuclear bombs for a number of years and was always tempted to ride one like it was horse. Never did but I wasn't the only one who had that thought.
BaloneyBob
We were watched a little too closely during aircraft loading inspections to hop on one. It’s one way to get off the loading team though!
ahbrannon1
True, but the thought still occurs from time to time. We once called for a security sweep of the convoy route from storage to aircraft alert areas. I was on a Turkish AFB at the time. They sent us about 25 guys with brooms. Communicating is sometime a real challenge.
DukeDarkwood
.... At least you didn't ask for people to comb the desert.
ElbowDeepInSaintCelestine
hollerfloozy
Time flies.... ( I know, I know.. it's cheesy, don't come at me. I couldn't help myself. )
Pintofdoom8888
How long should I be timing them for, and do I have to wait until they are airborne?
BadPunsAplenty
But only when the time is wright
Twinklepot
Oh you!
EmeraldNight
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana,
lostinamapfactory
And 54 years after the moon landing, we're still flying the 737, which came out in 1967. We've peaked and can't figure out what to do next, which is why I comment and post memes as I dont have any better ideas either
GlobalImageServiceCat
This is a stupid thing to say. You should feel bad.
OffTheGrid99
Physician heal thyself
seanmccorkle
Advances have been made in AI, biotechnology, and medicine. We have computers now that can answer questions like experts, we can create crops that produce fuels and medicines, we are curing more and more dieases every year, and we can design vaccines in months. We can communicate by video around the world and have access to knowledge and history and weather radar on our phones.
lostinamapfactory
Oh I definitely agree, progress in other technologies has been incredible. I guess my point was more related to achievement and outcomes in aviation and the relative comparison between 1903 and 1969 and 1969 and today.
RedFlameGamer
Less that we've peaked, more that we're currently in a period of refinement
lostinamapfactory
That's probably a good way to put it. Taking what we've got and improving it. Taking a sad song and making it better
doubledeckerturbowagon
EVER CHURNING PROOOOOGREEESSSSS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH
ArchMagos
Our speed of travel in atmosphere is a matter of physics, mostly. Any faster than the current speeds seen and the air over the wing goes supersonic and creates a shitload more drag.
bufordTjustice
When you combine profit-centered disposable capitalism with anti-science religious conservativism, you get stagnation. We could have been pursuing green energy, space travel, and advancements not based on sucking profit from a 60yr old design. But here we are.
AttackOfTheKillerTomatoes
I feel like we switched to escaping from earth virtually instead of physically lol
greenf1sh
Because the next steps forward are equally great leaps. After years and years of engineering, were moving forward with supersonic jets that don't create shockwaves so they can actually be used around populated areas.
4vie
You make it sound a bit like the 737 is the pinnacle of aeronautical aviation.
lostinamapfactory
It's the workhorse for sure, though more modern Airbus 320neo seems to have surpassed it in flying miles.
BigDaddysMeatWagon
Technologies progress quickly until the upper limit is found, then we need to find another technology. Computers are quickly hitting that upper limit right now.
orangeyougladididntsaypoop
We know what to do. Lobbyists and money have prevented it
Onlyhereforthelaughs
It's not that we've peaked, it's that we've stagnated thanks to corporate interests. :\
Rhythmaster
I mean the next step is to try to do all the stuff we already figured out how to do, but WITHOUT requiring the combustion of fossil fuels. Its gonna be a massive challenge.
B3N15
I don't think "peaked" is the right word. We've just hit the upper extent of the available technology and are waiting for the next big innovation.
RandomDude74575
theres going to be a point where AI is going to be doing stuff that even we cant understand. how far that point in time is, that would be the human peak.
lostinamapfactory
At a minimum we've plateaued then. Ironically, its faster to walk or bike in many cities than by the innovation that we created to be fast.
snotrocketscience
The x86 computer architecture was introduced in 1978 and most PCs still use it today. That doesn't mean they're the same thing.
snotrocketscience
The modern 737 flies faster and higher, with nearly double the carrying capacity and range all for less fuel use and pollution.
Pyrowolf1
That's like saying that because the first Porsche 911 was released in 1967 and they still make them that we "cant figure out what to do next" with cars. A 2023 Porsche 911 is pretty much unrecognizable compared to a 1967 version. Similarly, Just about every single aspect of the latest 737s is upgraded versus the originals and you will likely never see one of the originals flying around.
lostinamapfactory
For sure, the tech advances are quite striking. But the cruising speed between the 737-100 and 737 max 8 are identical, 50 years apart. The max does this much more efficiently and moves more people, and yes has much better technology. But it's still a 6 seat across, single aisle plane with 2 engines. Not like some of the cool late 1990s designs Popular Science would have us believe is coming
elmesito
The 737 is a short haul plane in 99% of cases. Take off and landing take a big part of the flight time, so increasing the top speed whilst remaining within the speed of sound, which is a limitation when flying over populated areas, offers little or no gains in terms of travel time. Mentour pilot on YT made an interesting video a while back explaining why supersonic flight hasn't been successful as we thought it would be 60 years ago.
lostinamapfactory
Yeah I watch his stuff, it's great
youreathing
AND we haven't set foot on the moon since the 60s... for some reason ...
lostinamapfactory
We were there in 1972, but after several crewed missions and completing the "goal" of being on the moon, the novelty is crewed missions seems lost.
youreathing
True. I imagine there are a myriad of reasons, but it just seems strange that we went to the surface just those few times, and never again.
lostinamapfactory
I think it was budget cuts...hard to justify to the public that continued moon missions are necessary when the whole point was to be the first. I thought the movie Apollo 13 did a good job of capturing the indifference people had at the time.
RhymingEverything
I mean: cell phones, we're on the road to curing most cancers, self-driving cars, jetpacks, they've teleported and quantumly entangled particles, maglev trains, commercial space travel, we're gone to mars...
lostinamapfactory
Oh I definitely agree there have been technology advances, and there is a lot of potential for fusion power. But aside from communication technologies, there is not as much difference between now and 1969, as there was between 1969 and 1903 Kitty Hawk.
slinkydust
Boy talk about sticking your head in the sand
RhymingEverything
I could see that perspective, they definitely don’t seem as noticeable, but there are big picture things going on that we could not even imagine 50 years ago. We are on the road to literally stopping aging for example.
IDownvoteKhaby
Taxian
I am so proud of my parents for not voting for that d-bag.
assmaster4000
Same, they're English so they couldn't have, but even so.. fuck Ronnie and his dick sucking missus
ViperMD
https://www.mccallstudios.com/the-prologue-and-the-promise/ Some great shots of the mural being painted. :)
amglasgow
Just because the planes still say "737" on the side doesn't mean they're the same level of tech.
lostinamapfactory
True, but my point was more that fundamental technology changed so much between 1903 and 1969...from the Wright Brothers to the Concorde. Many piston planes didn't survive the transition to the jet age (though the DC 3 seems to be one still holding on in some areas). From an outcome perspective, a 737 is still a 6 seat across airliner with 2 engines, crusing around 850 kmh, its just moving more people more efficiently.
OnlyWantToSayOneThing
Sure, the body is of the airplane is the same but the cockpit and specifically the ENGINES are years ahead of what they were in the past. Most of this is because the body is certified safe and pilots are trained to fly it and it fills a specific passenger count niche. Its better to replace the engines. I'm too dumb to get actual numbers but airlines are a race to the most efficient engine as fuel is by large the biggest cost.
lostinamapfactory
Oh I agree, the components are vastly improved. I think my point was that there were more fundamental changes in the 60 years prior than after. A chain driven motor to piston engines to jet engines, rockets and supersonic travel, all within the first 60 years of aviation.
Darjanator
Physics is a very hard ceiling.
lostinamapfactory
Yep
Doismellbacon
Also map factories can be very confusing
lostinamapfactory
Been lost a long time
putcleverusernamehere
The 737s flying today are significantly quieter, more fuel efficient and comfortable than the original. But ya, we haven't gotten past using liquid dinosaurs for fuel
landbaronness42
We HAD a Concorde that flew 800 mph faster than a 747.
iamlegendinjapan
Aren't they bringing the Concord back?
DoktorWeasel
I haven't heard anything about that, although there is work on supersonic transports again. Efficiency (and the related cost effectiveness) and quieting sonic booms so that flights aren't banned over land are the two main things being focused on.
BallsackHippo
It turned out that supersonic flights are bad for the climate and atmospheric ozone.
GOAE
That was really not the reasons the Concorde failed, design challenges (including accidents and deaths) and unprofitability were the nails in the coffin.That aside, you're right in that going near or past critical mach has too much parasitic drag to ever be more economical than flying subsonic near mach 0.8~0.85, at least with currently known physics. Which is why almost all jets cruise at the upper edge of the subsonic speed regime when able and permitted to do so.
backitupthunder
Plus expensive and loud.
Subsound
Having faster transit doesn't always make it cheaper...
Hammertulski
Teleport pad here, teleport pad there. Just need to connect the dots and we’re in business.
FloridaManMurdersAFlamingo
I’m more terrified of the idea that teleportation could exist, merely make replicas of people while killing the original each time and nobody would ever know.
GCRust
PosthumousExile
I see what you did there 🤫🤭 spoilers
robgourlay350
Do you want "The Fly" to happen? Because this is how we make "The Fly" happen.
Hammertulski
I’m ok with anomalies, Fly or otherwise.
lostinamapfactory
necrojoe
"rest of the fucking owl". Or for a little more old-school referenced, "Yadda, yadda, yadda..."
AndWeShallCallItThisLand
Did you just yada yada sex?
iDrinkDrano
That doesn't mean we peaked, you goob. There's been SO many advances since then, it's just that they are only meted out according to wealth and the military keeps a lot of the flight advancements to themselves.
Hashbrown123
Isn't it said that civilian tech is about 20 years behind what the military has developed.
iDrinkDrano
That doesn't seem farfetched. I'm sure there's a lot of military tech with little application outside of killing, but I imagine there's a lot of cross proliferation in the details
Petrojet
This would've been a really healthy contribution to the discussion if it wasn't for the childish goob comment.
iDrinkDrano
Well you're a goob too, then.
Petrojet
Incel energy lol have your last word and take care x
lostinamapfactory
I don't know, planes are flying slower to save fuel, it can be faster to walk or bike than drive in a lot of cities, road speed limits are generally the same as 50 years ago (aside from fuel restriction limits to 55 mph). I postulate we've discovered a lot of practical limits in transportation and the improvements are in how we meet those limits, including fuel efficiency, motive power technology. At a minimum we've plateaued.
GOAE
That's just wrong. Planes are not flying slower, the ideal cruise speeds of jets have not changed much at all since the physics of cruise has not changed. To go below cruise speed you are nearing loiter speed, which while doing so allows you to fly longer does not allow you to fly further given any amount of fuel. To optimize fuel, you want to go as fast as you reasonably can to reduce flight duration (ever second airborne burns fuel) until the drag exceeds the reductions in flight time.
lostinamapfactory
One school of thought https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2022/12/08/why-is-your-flight-slower-today-than-ever-before/?sh=2d0d09985c8a
iDrinkDrano
That's a wild take. I don't see how "we've put practical civilian limits" relates to 'we've plateaued', especially if you look at the progress in trains and other forms of transportation. Just because we're in a country that won't admit that centering everything around cars was a terrible choice doesn't mean the humanity or even America as a whole hasn't made advancements. Road speed limit is such an arbitrary metric for measuring car improvements by that I'm actually bewildered.
lostinamapfactory
For speed limits for example, they are based on physical safety limits of driver and vehicle operation, reaction time, coefficient of friction. Cars have the engines to go faster than these limits, but roadway geometry still is what it is. The promise of self driving cars is to overcome the driver limitations, but other practical and physical limitations remain.
OnlyWantToSayOneThing
"In 1913, 33.38 people died for every 10,000 vehicles on the road. In 2021, the death rate was 1.66 per 10,000 vehicles, a 95% improvement." You could argue that we have plateaued in technology on roadways (route 40 was built in the early 1800's) but you would be wrong. If speed is your only metric you will have fuel inefficient cars that kill more people. "old cars were built like tanks!" and are more likely to kill drivers due to lack of any form of crash testing and NEW technology.
ShamaOA
Tbf the fastest in-atmosphere flight ever recorded was in 2010 at 13,201 mph, an unmanned flight nearly 7 times faster than the manned version. The trouble we have is the limitations of the human body rather than a technological inability to go faster.
Shrike99
The fastest manned flight was 4,520 mph, which is ~1/3rd, not ~1/7th of 13,201 mph. And that's assuming you're excluding the Space Shuttle, which was certainly in the atmosphere during reentry and which Scott Manley estimates peaked at ~17,209 mph on it's fastest reentry.
R100GSPD
The weakness of the flesh...
LordFancypantsicus
Okay, but the Concorde could fly faster than a 737. We don't have to go 13k MPH to consider it an advance. That said, I think we are better off reducing fuel consumption and emissions than aiming for more speed right now.
wabitgirl
Fuckin THIS. Fuck going faster, get me better, cleaner, more efficient, more useful aircraft that don't ruin the environment by being used!
adam002232
Acceleration is a limiting factor, but speed is not
Nateinthewild
What happened on that flight that wouldn't have worked with a human? Just rapid acceleration?
RandomDude74575
inertia. eyeballs would fall apart, blood flow would stop, organs would get destroyed or relocated, and maybe even break bones from the amount of g-force
Shrike99
G-force is about acceleration, not speed. While the boost phase of the HTV-2 flight had very high peak acceleration at each stage burnout due to being launched on what was essentially a Peacekeeper ICBM, the actual winged flight portion would not have exceeded a few gees at most, and would have been perfectly survivable for a human. At least up until the point where it disintegrated.
ProphetofEntropy
the SR-77 heated up to 600°F from the friction of the air, doubling the speed increases the surface heating to about 2000°F since the air resistance increase isnt linear. its much harder to keep a person alive at those temps, so you need more equipment, meaning more space and weight making your craft that much harder to make.
ProphetofEntropy
heres a not black box hyper sonic program for manned flight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwTTMPB49I
ministryofpeace
So the next step is to shed this mortal coil and become digital consciousnesses.
tounushi
But would that still be you or would it be your digital offspring?
nov227
Agree, we could give up the piss, spit, shit, and cum of our cumbersome meat bodies in exchange for a new, digital heaven on the computer.
PathologicalLier
For only 59,99€ per week
Questionablysensible
Only if I am the sysadmin
EccentricNimoy
We all love Lain!
danishjuggler21
* digital consciousni
simba9
Not until microtransactions become a thing of the past
seventailfox78
Would you like to experience an emotion? Click to pay £1.99
MasterDark001
You mean… we can do away with emotions? Sign me up!
DiedAndHauntingImgur
Ooooh that makes sense. I’m not dead inside, I just have the Free To Play version