This article is not complete without talking about the Space Shuttle. On reentry, "speeds are near 17,500 mph and the Mach number M is nearly twenty five, M < 25."[1]
Evidently the design of aircraft that can fly above the piloted flight speed record is available, and it can be made safe enough (ok, 2 space shuttles exploded but with further development can be made safer)
I agree that it's a matter of political and economic will, and the introduction of the unpiloted drone changes the picture, but at least for the time that the space shuttle was in operation, humans piloted aircraft for much faster than the official speed record.
These records are tracked by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, and they put spacecraft into a separate category. The speed record for manned space flight is held by Apollo 10.
The Space Shuttle isn't powered during re-entry, is it? I think in the context of records, "flight" usually is taken to mean self-powered flight, otherwise it gliding (or falling).
Some of the ideas in the pipeline for high-altitude launch to orbit vehicles and hybrid vehicles employing scramjets may exceed this. Assuming the current arc toward private advance aerospace projects continues, I wouldn't be surprised to see things like sub-orbital passenger flights that exceed that speed. (Edit: that last may depend on what the precise definition of "entirely within the atmosphere" is).
The article is talking about flight-speed records in the context of powered flight entirely within Earth's atmosphere. The Space Shuttle of course get's credit for being one of the fastest-ever moving objects with people on board. It was also an unpowered glider during those speed records. It's simply in a different category. And technically the Apollo 10 crew did even faster at 39,897 km/h in 1969; which is over 10K km/h faster than the Space Shuttle controlled flight record.
I find it absurd that we are spending half as much on military spending as we did around WWII, despite not being in a World War. What value are we getting for our money? How am I supposed to feel that a significant amount of my taxes go to Predator drones bombing people across the globe, occasionally including innocent civilians, instead of feeding, clothing, and educating downtrodden people back home? How does this spending compare to other countries?
Our military expenditures are high, but not so amazingly out of proportion as people assume: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2015/06/2.... The U.S. is at 3.5% of GDP, less than Israel (5.2%) but more than France or the U.K. (both 2.2%).
Israel is an unusual circumstance, in that it's surrounded by hostile countries, but so is the U.S. We de facto bankroll the western world's exercise of military force around the world. It's not like the U.K. or France don't care about terrorism--if we weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan, they very well might be.
It's also misleading to look at inflation-adjusted figures. Inflation does a poor job of measuring the changing costs of things that aren't mass-produced consumer goods. The cost of microprocessor fabs, for example, has grown far in excess of inflation over the past few decades.
Automation and Chinese manufacturing has driven down the cost of say furniture, but military expenditures don't scale like that. Even solider pay has far exceeded inflation: Bottom-rung pay for an enlisted solider was about $50/month back then, or $700/month in today's dollars. The bottom-rung pay today is about $1,700/month. Likewise, custom-made weapons systems are produced by ever bigger teams of scientists and engineers, whose own salaries have far exceeded inflation. To use a private-sector example: while the 757 was developed for about $5 billion in today's dollars, the 787 cost at least $15 billion.
Better to look at spending as a percentage of GDP. Today, we spend half as much in inflation-adjusted dollars, but also our economy is almost 9 times larger.
Ostensibly we are at war with concepts like "terror" and to "secure democracy".
In reality, it's used to backup the USD as reserve currency (Saddam switched to EUR as oil currency right before the US invaded Iraq) and to ensure we have our business interests supported around the globe.
Ostensibly this means we, as Americans, have a preeminent place as world citizens, but the reality is that the spoils from the dominant position we enforce is unequally split, and that inequality is further fracturing US society.
The chart is very misleading as it doesn't take into account the size of economy. The US is a much larger country than it was in 1945 and is spending much smaller portion on military today.
During WW2, US defense spending was over 40% of GDP. Today it's less than 5%.
Post 1992, we are paying for a military monopoly. Monopolies are expensive, inefficient, and make dumb decisions. But IMHO a monopoly is preferable to military competition, also known as total war. Obviously it's a scale, but that's what you are paying for.
For many countries, including some major powers, published military budgets are a catch-all category for a variety of developmental and administrative expenses - public works, colonial administration, development of the merchant marine, construction, and improvement of harbor and navigational facilities, transportation of civilian personnel, and the delivery of mail - of dubious military relevance.
That graph is great, you can see how low US spending was before WW2, but then the cold war began and it trended up. Then the USSR dissolved, and the US's spending was trending down, but then 9/11 happened and it spiked upward again.
How am I supposed to feel that a significant amount of my taxes go to Predator drones bombing people across the globe, occasionally including innocent civilians, ...
I'm reminded of this commentary by A. Whitney Brown when he talks about his support for our troops during the Iraq War.
Um. Your country has drones bombing innocent people across the globe, and you are worried about...whether you are getting value for money?! Please consider for a moment what that might sound like to people 'across the globe'.
Well, you get a really low probability of any potential adversaries trying to steal, destroy, or interfere with American interests or its allies. Ask anyone whose lost anything because of a foreign attack or occupation what that's worth.
You also get an unrivaled navy that protects all this global trade.
You get allies in Europe who were able to rebuild under the threat of communist invasion because they didn't have to spend all their efforts maintaining a massive military to futily defend themselves.
You get thousands of nuclear weapons to guarantee that you'll never have a foreign army occupying your neighborhood.
[+] [-] barkingcat|8 years ago|reply
Evidently the design of aircraft that can fly above the piloted flight speed record is available, and it can be made safe enough (ok, 2 space shuttles exploded but with further development can be made safer)
I agree that it's a matter of political and economic will, and the introduction of the unpiloted drone changes the picture, but at least for the time that the space shuttle was in operation, humans piloted aircraft for much faster than the official speed record.
[1] https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/BGH/hihyper.html
[+] [-] kej|8 years ago|reply
Here's some good jumping off points:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vehicle_speed_records
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records
[+] [-] simplicio|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajarmst|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skykooler|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 24gttghh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ynniv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] namlem|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrguyorama|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|8 years ago|reply
Israel is an unusual circumstance, in that it's surrounded by hostile countries, but so is the U.S. We de facto bankroll the western world's exercise of military force around the world. It's not like the U.K. or France don't care about terrorism--if we weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan, they very well might be.
It's also misleading to look at inflation-adjusted figures. Inflation does a poor job of measuring the changing costs of things that aren't mass-produced consumer goods. The cost of microprocessor fabs, for example, has grown far in excess of inflation over the past few decades.
Automation and Chinese manufacturing has driven down the cost of say furniture, but military expenditures don't scale like that. Even solider pay has far exceeded inflation: Bottom-rung pay for an enlisted solider was about $50/month back then, or $700/month in today's dollars. The bottom-rung pay today is about $1,700/month. Likewise, custom-made weapons systems are produced by ever bigger teams of scientists and engineers, whose own salaries have far exceeded inflation. To use a private-sector example: while the 757 was developed for about $5 billion in today's dollars, the 787 cost at least $15 billion.
Better to look at spending as a percentage of GDP. Today, we spend half as much in inflation-adjusted dollars, but also our economy is almost 9 times larger.
[+] [-] r00fus|8 years ago|reply
In reality, it's used to backup the USD as reserve currency (Saddam switched to EUR as oil currency right before the US invaded Iraq) and to ensure we have our business interests supported around the globe.
Ostensibly this means we, as Americans, have a preeminent place as world citizens, but the reality is that the spoils from the dominant position we enforce is unequally split, and that inequality is further fracturing US society.
[+] [-] jobu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tristanj|8 years ago|reply
During WW2, US defense spending was over 40% of GDP. Today it's less than 5%.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
[+] [-] hectorr1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bunderbunder|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
[+] [-] sp332|8 years ago|reply
For many countries, including some major powers, published military budgets are a catch-all category for a variety of developmental and administrative expenses - public works, colonial administration, development of the merchant marine, construction, and improvement of harbor and navigational facilities, transportation of civilian personnel, and the delivery of mail - of dubious military relevance.
[+] [-] fenwick67|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrs235|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ansible|8 years ago|reply
I'm reminded of this commentary by A. Whitney Brown when he talks about his support for our troops during the Iraq War.
https://youtu.be/Mg76Df0oSbM?t=1m53s
The whole thing is worth a watch.
[+] [-] melling|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yesenadam|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fhjugree|8 years ago|reply
You also get an unrivaled navy that protects all this global trade.
You get allies in Europe who were able to rebuild under the threat of communist invasion because they didn't have to spend all their efforts maintaining a massive military to futily defend themselves.
You get thousands of nuclear weapons to guarantee that you'll never have a foreign army occupying your neighborhood.