Originally posted by Dowding
That's right, the US invented atmospheric science.
And besides, the moon shot "wasn't economical". Since when has economics mattered in terms of international prestige? The fact that Britain and France chose to heavily subsidise Concorde tells you something about that. They did it for the prestige, not because of economics.
The Apollo program was obviously never meant to make a profit, and if you argue that the Concorde was never meant to make a profit, I can concede your point on the reasons the Ameraican SST was cancelled.
However, Boeing's design was considerably larger that the Concorde to carry more passengers and possibly allow for some economics in scale. If problems could have been solved, problems such as fuel consuption, noise, and environmental, the American SST would have flown.
The problems were not solved in any of the three SST projects, and all ultimately failed when using an economic eye. As they said in The Right Stuff, "What makes these fly is funding"
I personally thought that the stratosphere environmental issue was overblown, and took a flight on Concorde during one of its visits to Oshkosh. One of the more expensive joy rides I took, but the experience was worth every penny. It is quite an aircraft, and I hope Virgin Atlantic gets BA's planes and can give it a go.
Perhaps good management can make it an economic success.