Not always, but not all old music is always better than modern music.
And it is NEVER State of the art. Even Krautrock is a bloody relict of a interesting past, that you can't play in the modern world, with the same effect.
'Krautrock' is not bad actually
I like the fact that both 'Krautrock' and Einstein (and much rocket-science) come from the same country
If, by saying 'never', you mean that, for example, a jazz-piece can never be called state-of-the-art jazz, then I would probably have to concede that my music-comparison (comparing the LEM to a good singer) was not well-chosen.
"State of the art" doesn't mean "has had the biggest effect." It means "the highest level of development"
True but irrelevant when you look at how the original poster's question is formed
I know you're somewhat of a nitpicker at times Hielor, Defender of Truth
, so I'll play your game for a moment.
The original poster, OrbiterSpore, asked this (I'm quoting it here for reference):
What is your "state-of-art" airplane/spacecraft?
So? What's yours? Fictional also counts
Issue #1: Missing time definition!
"the highest level of development"... but at what point in time? This is not defined in the question and thus the actual true defensible fact is that both vehicles I mentioned are 'legal' candidates for the title, state-of-the-art, since that's what they were when developed.
Issue #2: logical inconsistency!
Logic prohibits fictional craft be defined as state-of-the-art since fictional implies something non-developed. So since the original poster, OrbiterSpore, lets us know that fictional craft are not to be excluded in this thread we can deduce from that that we are not limited to the default definition of state-of-the-art.
Furthermore, the original poster, OrbiterSpore, asks "What is your" state-of-the-art aircraft, implying that we can choose freely, which is inconsistent with the logic of "highest level of development" since the term 'highest' is a logical singularity = there can be only 1 that is 'highest'.
end-of-nitpicking-game :bananadance:
The LEM and the 747 are far from the "highest level of development" available in modern times, given that both have had technologically superior successors designed that are capable of being built now, regardless of social impact.
I actually disagree with you here.
To my knowledge the LEM has not been superseded by any vehicle. The LEM is still the only vehicle that has landed humans on the moon and brought them back. It's still the most modern vehicle man has ever done a successful moon-return flight in. No other vehicle has proved itself capable yet, but the LEM. The LEM is still the pinnacle of human-carrying moon flight vehicles.
Are there even any other HUMAN-carrying lunar landers actually ever developed yet, besides the LEM? Altair was canceled before actually developed into a prototype, as far as I understand. Isn't the LEM the ONLY human-carrying lunar-lander EVER actually developed?
And if we adhere to the default definition of 'state-of-the-art', then depending on how we define "highest level of development", either the Airbus A380 or the Boeing 747-8 is the current state-of-the-art among large commercial aircraft.
The A380 first flew in 2005, the 747-8 in 2010, making the 747-8 the latest developed large commercial aircraft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8
We can then argue which design is the "highest level of development". The 747-8 is based on the typical 747 design, which itself is older than the A380 design (which itself is based on McDonnell Douglas MD-12 and the Boeing New Large Airplane (Boeing NLA)). But that then begs the question of where to draw the line of distinction. How 'different' must a design be to be considered a completely new design. The A380 and the 747-8 have many similarities (2 passenger decks, 2 swept tapered dihedral low-wings, 4 wing-mounted engines, cockpit in front with captain sitting on the left side, etc), and if we go back far enough we could even say they are both based on the Wright-bros design (they're all designed as aircraft for air travel)
What exactly defines "highest level of development"...
Not to other planets, to another astronomical body. The Moon is not a planet, it is, well... a moon.
That definition was not settled upon until 2006, so in 1969 the moon would technically still have been a planet
But you are right by todays standard; the IAU definition of planet, as of 2006, excludes the moon. My bad for not keeping up with recent events
Not to mention the fact that more people have flown on the 747, it's seen far more service overall, and, IMO, has been far more culturally significant.
I was thinking the same
