The Concord

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by NUKE
All I ever said about the American SST is that we could have built one in the 60's . I also said that America is and was capable of building one.

Well, Nuke, is this what you need to feel better about yourself and your country?  A canned project which produced nothing but a prototype?  Listen, you really don't need to compare the Concorde with the SST to feel better about your country.  The Americans have accomplished many many achievements which you should feel proud of.  Just like the Concorde, the American Space Shuttle is one of the few achievements the USA has contributed to mankind as a whole.  Would you like someone to say that your space shuttle program has suffered two major accidents resulting in the death of fourteen astronauts and continue to say that it has a bad safety record?  I don't think so...

[GRUNHERZ]

"Just like the Concorde, the American Space Shuttle is one of the few achievements the USA has contributed to mankind as a whole."


How has the Concorde, which is only accesible to a few of the ultra rich, contributed anything to manking in the sense you are talking about?

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How has the Concorde, which is only accesible to a few of the ultra rich, contributed anything to manking in the sense you are talking about?

A dream, my man.  A dream that each one of us has and each one for his own.

[akak]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ


How has the Concorde, which is only accesible to a few of the ultra rich, contributed anything to manking in the sense you are talking about?

Maybe not a major contribution to mankind but it did prove that supersonic transcontinental flight is possible.


Ack-Ack

[NUKE]

Well, Nuke, is this what you need to feel better about yourself and your country? A canned project which produced nothing but a prototype? Listen, you really don't need to compare the Concorde with the SST to feel better about your country.

Am I missing something? When have I compaired the American SST to the Concorde? I have not posted anything about the American SST project, other than that it was canceled because it was not economically viable.

And that is my point. The Concored is being canceled because it was not and is not economically viable.... otherwise more Concordes would be produced.

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by NUKE
Am I missing something?

LOL!! Yes you are, about your own posts.  Ok, let me back up a bit here and quote you...

Originally posted by NUKE
I never said how wonderful one would be, nor did I ever site one spec about it.

and...

Originally posted by NUKE
Plus, we could have easily built the American SST.... economics played the smart role and we didn't build it, even though it would have flown more than 2 x's the  the people at mach 2.7

Well... you obviously are referring to specs here...

Originally posted by NUKE
And that is my point. The Concored is being canceled because it was not and is not economically viable.... otherwise more Concordes would be produced.

That's duly noted, thank you.  So, what is your purpose to point out the less than obvious?  Other than to belittle a European project that the French took part in, to feel better about your country's achievements?

[NUKE]

That's duly noted, thank you.  So, what is your purpose to point out the less than obvious?  Other than to belittle a European project that the French took part in, to feel better about your country's achievements? [/B]

The purpose was to put into a new thread what was being said in another thread with an unrelated title. That the Concorde was never economically viable and that is the reason it is being canceled.  

I have complimented the French and British on the Concorde. I have nothing against the Concorde. I have said, it's a beautiful plane and a remarkable acheivement.


Then when Boroda stepped in with his wild claims, the tread turned into a different discussion.

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by NUKE
I have complimented the French and British on the Concorde. I have nothing against the Concorde. I have said, it's a beautiful plane and a remarkable acheivement.

Oh, come now, Nuke.  Let me quote you again...

Originally posted by NUKE
Dosn't matter what caused the crash, saftey record is worse on record.

From the early 60's, when America planned an SST, we tested the results of an SST over America and it resulted in 8000 noise complaints and 5000 damage claims ( due to booms) in a 6 month period.

The fact remains that the Concorde was a failure economically and in it's safety record.

When Furball tried to clarify the safety record of the Concorde program, you insisted on saying this.  So, how are we to interprete this?  You do have something against the Concorde.

Listen, my friend, your country, the US of A, has acheived so much that you can feel proud of.  Let Boroda be Boroda.  You don't need to belittle the Concorde.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by FDutchmn
Oh, come now, Nuke.  Let me quote you again...

 
When Furball tried to clarify the safety record of the Concorde program, you insisted on saying this.  So, how are we to interprete this?  You do have something against the Concorde.

 

"The fact remains that the Concorde was a failure economically and in it's safety record."

I have nothing against the Concorde. I sighted facts about the Concorde. Of the 12 that operated, one crashed resulting in the worst safety record of any major aircraft.

I believe the 12 Concordes had averaged about 2.5 hours per day over their life-span. That is not a practicle plane to operate commercially

Saying all of this does not mean that I have something against the Concorde. It is an argument against it's ability to operate commercially.

And in the end, those are the reasons it is being canceled. You might as well say that the British and French are belittling the Concorde..... because they came to similar conclusions in their descision to end the program.

[Furball]

wait a minute.... isn't the worst aircraft safety record now the Shuttle? or is it in a different catagory?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Furball
wait a minute.... isn't the worst aircraft safety record now the Shuttle? or is it in a different catagory?

Probably a different catagory I would imagine....


The shuttle has the worst safety record of any shuttle.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Furball
wait a minute.... isn't the worst aircraft safety record now the Shuttle? or is it in a different catagory?

Name another transport vehicle with over 350 million miles logged with less than 20 deaths.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by NUKE
If you're not just a flat-out liar, then you are just ignorant. The Buran did have ceramic tiles, as well as other carbon ones and the whole concept and design was a copy of the shuttle.

95% of modern airplanes use the concept of Mozhaysiy's airplane built in 1880s. They all have two wings and control surfaces. Wright brothers definetly stole it!

So what?!

Designs with similiar purposes always look similar.

If you think that Russians "stole" the "shuttle" design - then I think that your thinking ability and common sence doesn't let me continue this conversation.

Speaking of design concepts, "shuttle" uses the same coaxial stage configuration as R-7 rocket, designed in 1955 and still used as first two stages of Molniya/Soyuz launch vehicle.

AGAN, FOR THE THIRD TIME AND VERY SLOW:

B U R A N   I S   O N L Y    A    P A Y L O A D    F O R   A N   E N E R G I Y A    L A U N C H    V E H I C L E.

This is the main difference in concepts. It makes them ABSOLUTELY  different. Orbiter design is as similar as Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz and Almaz re-entry capsules. Chinese spaceship has the same design of the capsule.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by AKIron
The US still has manned space program, with a much better safety and success record than Russia I must add. Just taking some time to figure what went wrong with the last shuttle flight and how to avoid it.  

The shuttle has a pretty good safety record compared to other air/space craft. As of 2000 over 350 million miles flown with only one loss. Now, it's two lost, don't know the mileage but it's still a damn good record.

2 catastrophes with 14 victims in last 20 years is a very good safery record.

JFYI: last catastrophe in Soviet/Russian space programm happened in 1973, un-pressurising of the capsule on re-entry, Soyuz-11, 3 cosmonauts dead.

Before that only Vladimir Komarov died in 1966 when Soyuz-1 parachute system failed.

At the same time US lost 3 astronauts in a fire in Apollo oxygen atmosphere...

So far R-7/Soyuz is the safest launch vehicle ever made, technology perfectied after almost 50 years of production...

[Boroda]

Originally posted by AKIron
Name another transport vehicle with over 350 million miles logged with less than 20 deaths.

Soyuz

Not even speaking about Salyut/Mir space stations. They are not "transprot vehicles".