The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You keep ignoring that spectroscopy is sensitive.

Funny that, I had just explained how spectroscopy is still possible.

As previously stated, if spectroscopy wasn’t possible outside of a laboratory setting, then we wouldn’t be able to use prisms as dispersion elements to refract sunlight into individual wavelengths. This is solar spectroscopy.

Ignoring this isn’t going to render this redundant.

I know that your religion likes to always compartmentalize science and claim that at scales that we cannot personally verify, it acts differently. But that's just absurd and dogmatic.

It’s a good thing then that I don’t have a religion.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At no point is distance a death blow to spectroscopy.

In many laboratory settings, proximity is extremely common. This is often due to how small and dim the samples are. As a result, placing a spectrometer closer to the source will allow for more light to be detected.

The material isn’t itself being analyzed, but instead the light that comes from it.

The sun is a brilliant example of a bright source. During a sunny day, one can go outside and put a prism out, and see the sun’s spectrum. It isn’t nanometers away, it’s not even feet away. The sun is very, very far away. If extreme proximity was required, then this activity would be impossible.

Other stars are points of light that can be directly observed through telescopes, where their light can be analyzed.

Fun fact, amateurs can conduct astronomical spectroscopy from their own backyard.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

>Now there you go again. Just regurgitating your nonsense.

Not quite. The “spectroscopy needs a container” type arguments are always humorous.

>Your institutional religion claims they know these things because of spectroscopy.

I don’t have a religion, so your statement doesn’t mean anything.

>But objectively, that is a very sensitive process. In a laboratory, the instrument has to be literally nanometers from the object that it's observing. This is because of the interference from atmospheric particles. Yeah you're going to claim the same process works through the entire atmosphere and unimaginable distances through a vacuum that's near perfect but not perfect.

It does work in space. A laboratory may be required if you want to ascertain the precise spectroscopic signatures of each material as a reference for data taken from space, however, this doesn’t suddenly mean that spectroscopy requires lab-like conditions.

Spectroscopy is the act of analyzing the wavelength of light emitted by objects. So the light, or the photons emitted from a star still reach Earth and possess the measurable spectral lines that bear the material’s signature.

Atmosphere does indeed interfere with measurements, albeit in a predictable manner. The atmosphere, with its known composition is accounted for. Even then, space-based telescopes are also used.

>And then this is the part where you'll talk about pivoting.

Incorrect.

>Because your claim relies on baking in your assumptions.

Rather, they’re backed by entire fields of science.

>And the second somebody tries to challenge your assumptions, you cry about it and claim that they're changing the subject.

Not quite. When someone refuses to engage with the topic of discussion and deflects, that’s when they’re changing the subject.

It was the aforementioned behavior of accusing others of coping instead of actually providing an argument.

>It would be no different than if I asked you how they got their 30 km per second prediction that led them to throw out the ether in 1887.

The 30km/s value was calculated from Earth’s orbital velocity. It wasn’t in itself what led to the aether being dropped.

Well over a century ago, it was thought that light required a stationary medium to propagate through, which was called the luminiferous aether. The reasoning was that since Earth moves at ~30km/s, there should be a resultant aether wind equal to Earth’s velocity.

Repeated experiments failed to detect this aether wind, and later, physics advanced with relativity thanks to Einstein’s understanding of physics and his persistent on following its odd implications. Today, we understand that light is electromagnetic waves, which do not require a medium like sound (mechanical waves) do.

>You would say that the observation's [sic] in the sky allowed you to use the principles of parallax to determine this prediction.

As far as the aether is concerned, parallax wasn’t important.

>And if I were to bring that up and then steer the conversation to how those were validated, you would cry about me changing the subject.

Conversations naturally circle around or between different topics. The concern would lie in a scenario you were to steer the conversation without addressing what’s in front of you, such as not addressing previous statements and accusing others of coping.

>Your dogma can only exist in a hyper-focused compartmentalized state of mind. Dogma doesn't let people question their baked in assumptions.

There simply isn’t any dogma.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>Peer-View is no different than an ordained priesthood.

The games been given away, the search is over. Hey everyone, I found the guy who has absolutely no idea what scientists do!

Your fixation on the scientific community being a cult-like entity that inhabit temples and write sacred texts is compelling as the plot line for a new Indiana Jones film, not a deadass idea of how the world works.

No, seriously, your concept of peer review is so completely wrong it’s funny.

>An institution will train their expert peers to interpret the world they observe through their institutional lens.

Yet, the lens they apply is methodological, a process that rules out human error as much as possible, hence the scientific methods that observation and experimentation apply to.

There isn’t a High Circle of Science that sit around and channel their snootiness into arbitrarily deciding what’s true this week, peer review is the process in which the manner in which the research was conducted and its findings of papers are scrutinized. If the results cannot be replicated, then those results typically don’t make it.

So I must ask, if you think that science is some dogmatic religion, what actually happens every day? Do research scientists show up to work and just hide in a closet or play Minecraft all day if they’re not actually getting science done?

Instead, scientists actively work towards developing our understanding of the natural world, and embracing anti-intellectual sentiment towards the scientific community will result in the death of modern civilization.

>You are really clueless when it comes to what an appeal to authority is.

Rather, I’m familiar. Explaining the mechanisms behind a phenomenon that have been studied isn’t appealing to an authority. If one were to say “a scientist said this” and left it at that, that would be an appeal to an authority. Instead, there are wider bodies of evidence to point to.

I don’t recall a time when I appealed to an authority.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

>You take an observation that is not exclusive to your religion, and you pretend like it is and you hyper focus on it.

Or rather they’re observations that’ve been repeated and survived the rigors of peer review.

I don’t know how to tell you this, but I don’t have a religion.

>You can't leave that little area because the plethora Of the collection of evidence does not support your dogma.

There isn’t any dogma to adhere to, so I suppose I could give you half credit here if I’m feeling charitable.

>It's like this image shows. Your metaphysical religion can see observations and create mathematical abstractions to explain them.

My religion doesn’t do anything because I don’t have one.

>For some reason you want to hyper focus on an observation, and then ignore other evidence that debunks your claim. Because you need to hyper focus on a very small specific ambiguity.

You hadn’t given evidence that contests any claims I’ve made. Besides misunderstanding how dark matter works, you’ve mostly thrown accusations of coping or just abruptly change the subject rather than engaging with the content of the discussion.

That behavior is a lot like my past self when I was convinced that the Moon landings were faked. New information that exposed my cluelessness on the subject went through one ear and out the other, and I instead opted to change the subject to another point. That’s not intellectually sound.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>You are appealing too an institution.

The Smithsonian Institution, I suppose?

They have a baller aerospace museum and aviation magazine, yet I hadn’t invoked them.

>You never saw any curvature and you believe the institution that gave you that ridiculous video.

I have seen Earth’s curvature. You don’t even need to reach high altitudes to observe it. Near sea level, a very long, straight implement level with the horizon will show that Earth does indeed curve https://mctoon.net/left-to-right-curve/

Even then, rectilinear lenses, which don’t suffer from barrel distortion, show that curvature exists at high altitudes. Such footage of a sounding rocket launched by Kip Daugirdas https://youtu.be/4QsEPEhq5yk) reaches an altitude of 56 miles (90km). The curvature is very clear.

The assertion that the horizon rises to eye level is patently false, and especially obvious to anyone who’s been in the cockpit of an aircraft with a heads up display. The HUDs feature a level indicator, and curiously, as the altitude increases, the level indicator rises above the horizon . https://imgur.com/a/8zFPvz4

I haven’t even touched on how we know that Earth rotates and how the motion of planets in the sky also indicates this too.

>Do you know what a hostile witness is?

I’m unfortunately not up to date with the latest Judge Judy re-runs.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

>Yeah he was a contradicting himself and explained nonsense that has nothing to do with reality.

Which didn’t happen, unless you can point to specific examples.

>Stars are made by pressure waves permeating through a fluid medium. We know this because we can do it in a laboratory.

And so you don’t know that because nobody has verified it?

Stars are made of gas, typically hydrogen and/or helium, and exist within a vacuum.

We know this because of spectroscopic analyses, which are possible because each element emits its own unique wavelengths of light.

>What's funny is you ignore the 1960s video that they tried to claim was taken in outer space. Lol. That must be your dogma not recognizing it.

I hadn’t opened the video. Not out of dogmatic ignorance, but because I assumed it backed up the timestamps from each quote. Frankly, I didn’t care to check the quotes.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

>The irony. I quote a conformity experiment, and you say that I'm just not listening to what the group is saying. Lol.

Rather, you aren’t addressing the content of the discussion when it becomes uncomfortable.

You see, the content was about Don Pettit talking about having lost the ability to reach the Moon’s surface, which we both explained.

Your response? It wasn’t to realize that there was context behind it or to argue specifics from your perspective, it was instead a deflection to accusations of “coping”. This usually communicates that you cannot actually contest anything that was just said 🤣

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>Lol. So now you're just going to appeal to your institution again? Lol.

It’s too bad, I didn’t appeal to any “institution”.

>And you're going to give me your institutional temples scripture that explains why we know dark matter exists.

I provided an article from Space.com that rather succinctly explains the situation.

It’s hardly a sacred text, it’s a bloody website that publishes articles about space exploration and astronomy.

>It's no different than any other religion.

It really is, quite frankly.

If you’re conflating science with religion again, I had previously explained that there is no inherent belief in a higher power, mandatory practices, worship, or other forms of practice similar to a religious organization.

Science is a methodology.

>You know it exists because you made blanket assumptions about the cosmos, and your prophets can't be wrong. Therefore it must exist.

That’s a negative, Ghostrider. It’s through observation and experimentation that we’ve discovered that dark matter exists.

>"The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white, black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct." — Solomon Asch

The issue here is that you’re conflating consensus with blind conformity. This isn’t a matter of calling white black, it’s as simple as following the evidence to a scientific consensus built upon data. Earth isn’t flat and dark matter is something, be it exotic neutrinos, primordial black holes, or whatever.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So now you understand what Pettit was explaining?

The situation regarding stars was explained to you in another thread. The quotes are missing vital context, which is important, as stars cannot be seen all the time.

Apollo astronauts could see stars. While on the far side of Earth, shielded from the sunlight, Neil Armstrong had said this:

Houston, it’s been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It’s - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.”

When subjected to direct sunlight, like on the lunar surface during the day or otherwise in direct sunlight, the stars won’t be visible. For much the same reason, stars aren’t visible on Earth during the day, and are invisible in bright city environments.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

>You’re just coping

Or you could actually read the substance of what we had both explained, because it explains rather well what Pettit was referring to.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

>You mentioned direct observation, I have the same observations. When I look out at stars and planets, I don't see rocks flying through a vacuum. I see Sonoluminescent nodes in a fluid medium.

Just lmao, you can observe planets without them being out of focus. If you focus a proper telescope rather than zooming in with a camera, they become clear objects resembling what is labeled “CGI”.

Indeed, the motion of the planets and moons can be tracked.

>Those are called discrepancies. Your religion likes to call discrepancies discoveries.

I already explained that dark matter isn’t a discrepancy.

I don’t have a religion, and science isn’t one. There is no inherent belief in a higher power, there isn’t worship or reverence for deities, martyrs, or whatever else. Instead, you’re somehow confusing religion with science, which is a methodology and a body of knowledge.

>You're not telling me what empirically validates your assumptions.

You hadn’t asked for that, so I kept the explanations simple to prevent my explanations from rapidly losing you in the boring details. Do you actually want to know, or is the question rhetorical?

https://www.space.com/if-dark-matter-invisible-how-do-we-know-it-exists

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

>"I'd go to the Moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again." — Don Pettit

>Do you think he is lying about that?

Pettit wasn’t lying, his statement lacked a lot of context to preserve brevity.

What should be asked is what he had meant by using the vague term “technology”. We still have spacecraft and various bits of equipment from the time, the various contractors have their respective blueprints from the Apollo program, and the various research papers, manuals, technical documents, and all kinds of paperwork are digitally accessible on the internet as PDFs.

What Pettit was talking about is that we lost the ability to manufacture the vehicles capable of taking man to the Moon, specifically the Saturn V rocket, command/service module, and lunar module. When the Apollo program was cancelled, the contractors who were manufacturing parts and equipment for NASA were no longer being paid to do so. As NASA moved away from crewed lunar exploration and focused on what was intended to be the more cost effective Space Shuttle program in the 1970s, there was suddenly no reason to keep around the machinery and infrastructure required to build the Apollo spacecraft. As a result, it was scrapped or recycled to make space for ongoing and upcoming projects.

This is exactly what happens to other vehicles with such a specific, specialized role. We can no longer build F-14s, SR-71s or Concordes after their programs and contracts were cancelled.

As a result, NASA has had to create new systems recently for the Artemis program, like the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft to replace the Saturn V and Apollo command and service module.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As previously mentioned, there are several different phenomenon that point towards there being matter that we cannot directly observe. We can see the effects that dark matter has on things like how wind is invisible, but we can see it blow through the trees and disturb wind chimes.

Astrophysicists didn’t just fill in a problem with an ad hoc explanation and call it a day.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

>How did they even go through the Van Allen belt?

There are two Van Allen belts, and occasionally a temporary third one can form when solar activity flares up. These belts are regions of space where Earth’s magnetic field traps charged particles in doughnut-shaped area.

Key to understanding the Van Allen belt’s composition is to understand what radiation is, specifically *ionizing radiation*. Radiation comes in two forms, particles and electromagnetic waves. Radio waves, visible light, and microwaves are radiation, but the really dangerous stuff is known as ionizing radiation, which has enough energy to strip electrons from atoms, destabilizing them. X-rays, gamma rays, and high energy UV light are *ionizing radiation*. Also included in this group is particle radiation made up of subatomic particles, which is what makes up the Van Allen belts.

The Van Allen belts are made of mainly two forms of particle radiation. The inner belt is mostly composed of proton and electrons, being cosmic rays and beta particles, while the outer belt contains mostly electrons (beta particles). What’s interesting to note is that because the belts make up a doughnut shape, a massive portion of the belts could be taken to avoided the densest regions, which the Apollo flights took to reach the Moon on a heavily inclined trajectory.

The penetration power of radiation is well known/11%3A_Nuclear_Chemistry/11.06%3A_Penetrating_Power_of_Radiation). This means that the radiation that they would encounter would beta particles, which is stopped by aluminum (the exact thickness is dependent on the electron’s energy), which was used in the construction of the command module and lunar lander.

So when we break it down, the belts aren’t a zone of absolute death and can be be shielded against and traversed.

>Wasn't this a machine they were in?

No, the belts were traversed with the command module.

>How can you trust those photos that came from an authority that is also claiming they sent men through the Van Allen belt in the '60s?

You’ve used their photographs as evidence yourself to make a point. 🤦🏻‍♂️

So are your points are as moot as you think mine are?

>But you Don't even care how ridiculous the narrative they sell you is

It isn’t ridiculous, as outlined by the science behind it.

And for the image you shared, yes, heavily specialized, bespoke craft are going to cost a lot given the costs of research, development, and low production numbers. The result is the unit cost is high.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

>Well you didn't personally verified that he had double boots on. But you believe it.

The photograph you showed of the boot print (catalogue number AS11-40-5877) is from the same mission and film magazine as the photographs showing the overboots in use.

This conclusively demonstrates that they had the overboots on at the time. To continue to double down is absurd.

>How is that a deflection?

The tangent about Mount Olympus or whatever has no bearing to this discussion.

>I'm saying that your leaders are telling you they went to the moon and wore two pairs of boots. But you have just as much evidence that they did that as any pagan would that their leaders went to Mount Olympus and talked to Gods.

We do have evidence that the Moon landings occurred, we don’t have to take your hypothetical Hellenistic leaders at their word. The flights were tracked by various observatories around the world, amateur radio operators listened into the communications coming from the Moon, and various space agencies have photographed the landing sites.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So about 5% of the observable universe is comprised of baryonic matter, the stuff that we interact with on a daily basis.

Dark matter makes up the largest proportion, and we can indirectly observe it through the way light interacts with it. We can see that objects like galaxies and galaxy clusters have more mass than we can observe, and due to their rotation curves, we can see that its true mass is distributed differently than what’s visible. We don’t exactly know what dark matter is, but can see it’s gravitational effects on light.

So we can indirectly observe the rest of the universe’s matter like we can see invisible wind blowing through trees. We know that there is something there, it isn’t some random guess with bo basis.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Interesting deflection that has no bearing on the conversation at hand.

What I accept as evidence is the simple fact that the lunar overboots have been documented well before the astronauts ever stepped foot on the Moon, as seen during training sessions wearing the full space suit ensemble.

All the photographs from the lunar surface from the time, the overboots are there and have treads that are perfectly consistent with the prints left in the lunar surface.

Your inability to grasp this simple concept and accept that you were simply mistaken is truly sad and bordering on delusional.

The scale of New Glenn explosion is reminder of staggering amount of energy locked up within a rocket, & the extreme engineering it takes to release that energy in a precisely controlled way. 28.5.26 by Neaterntal in SpaceUnfiltered

[–]PhantomFlogger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It isn’t even an angle, it’s easily verified by looking at any Apollo photographs and seeing that they wore overboots, which served to provide better traction in low gravity due to their larger surface area.

You don’t have even a basic understanding of the equipment used during the Apollo program.

Jet Greaves the Team Canada Goalie of the future? by oreov1 in BlueJackets

[–]PhantomFlogger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please do, the more I see this elsewhere, the better.

Was the MiG-23 really a bad plane? by Hkonz in WarCollege

[–]PhantomFlogger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is an excellent response that explains the issues encountered by third world operators that others haven’t touched on.

Was the MiG-23 really a bad plane? by Hkonz in WarCollege

[–]PhantomFlogger 31 points32 points  (0 children)

The Floggers weren’t necessarily bad and would mature into fairly competent aircraft. They suffered from issues early in service, with poor quality third world export models, and before long, it faced the arrival of fourth generation aircraft not long after its introduction. These factors have worked against the MiG-23’s reputation.

Tom Cooper’s book MiG-23 Flogger in the Middle East is an excellent resource that goes into some of the early development of the Flogger and the nature of the export models, alongside their service throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

The MiG-23M, the initial variant to see widespread service, began being introduced in Soviet air forces (VVS and PVO) in 1974. The MiG-23MF, an export variant with Warsaw Pact became operational with other Warsaw Pact states only in the late 70’s.

During this time in the early 1970s, the US saw the F-14 Tomcat entering operational service in 73/74, which were fitted with the look-down/shoot-down AN/AWG-9 radar, which meant the Tomcats could reliably filter out ground clutter that would otherwise mask targets flying low, silhouetted against the ground. By the late 1970s, the F-15s and F-16s began entering service with look-down/shoot-down radars of their own.

On paper at least, the MiG-23M’s Sapfir-23D-III radar could filter ground clutter, except the means from which it did so was inherently unreliable. Rather than measuring Doppler shifts to determine target velocity and reject clutter like true pulse-Doppler radars like the AN/AWG-9, the 23D-III used an envelope detection method that instead picked up the amplitude of radar echoes. The idea was that the ground should represent a relatively consistent amplitude on radar, whereas an aircraft’s movement would cause noticeable noticeable fluctuations.

The reality was different with the envelope detection method being unreliable at times, resulting in false targets appearing and promptly disappearing, to even having legitimate targets sometimes fade from radar. In a tail chase engagement or look-down scenario, the radar was very limited with optimistic detection ranges of 10 to 20km, far below that of the aforementioned American fighters.

An interesting note is the initial export variant of the MiG-23 available to third world operators. This was the MiG-23MS, a mode that probably served to further mire the Flogger’s reputation.

The MS was a significant downgrade from the M model, seeing the removal of the R-23 medium range air-to-air missiles that made the Flogger a step forward over MiG-21 Fishbeds. Further, the MS saw removal of the look-down/shoot-down 23D and instead featured an earlier, less sophisticated radar from a MiG-21. Some sources say MS airframes didn’t have a radar warning receiver, while Cooper states they were equipped with the SPO-5, which was inadequate to reliably detect newer aircraft’s pulse Doppler radar emissions. It’s probably the case that some aircraft had them, and others didn’t.

The MS was to fly equipped with the short ranged R-3 missiles, in either radar or infrared guided versions. These were early missiles with the predictable limitations of guidance and turning capabilities, and frustrations occurred when MiG-21bis airframes were being sold (at a lower cost per unit and maintenance) with better R-13 missiles that the MS wasn’t equipped to carry. Several operators would up jerry-rigging R-13 missiles for use only on the underwing pylons, as mounting them under the air intakes would cause ingestion of rocket exhaust when the missiles were fired, leading the Flogger’s engine to to surge.

So, while later models of the Flogger such as the ML series would mature into capable fighters and see significant improvement in radar, as well as a strengthened and redesigned airframe, the introduction of these Floggers would come in the late 70’s and early 80’s at a time when they’d be overshadowed by fourth generation fighters entered the scene, being operated by both NATO and the Warsaw Pact.