Competition dropped away when the soviets gave up moon landings. Maybe competition makes way for complacency, or maybe it's just reduced funding?
But, seems competition is growing again...
But, seems competition is growing again...
Spacex explodes on landing....again
- Thread starter gman2304
- Start date
Before SpaceX, we relied on the Russians to take us up. I don’t think the competition ever stopped.. they were simply given the job while we we out out of business.
yes, they still used the old rockets developped for going to the moon aswell. But the big project that soviet moon landings were was cancelled, as was the soviet shuttle program.
I dont think we are anywhere near air travel either, what are we now? Over SIX DECADES of the commercialization of jet airplanes and commercial air travel is still the slow pace of around 550 Mph. the French almost had it back in the 70s, then the "earth people" started protesting.
So by the time we get to decade #7 we should FINALLY start to see a comeback of supersonic air travel.
It amazes me that people who think we have to escape from Earth to Mars because the climate is changing. So you escape Earth and want to go live on a planet with an atmosphere that is 95% carbon dioxide, no water and an average temperature of 80 F. below zero? And the moon is no better.
Very good point.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying I agree with climate change. I’m just saying he puts his money where his mouth is.
Very good point as well.
Not only that but the climate is changing on Mars as well and every other planet in the universe. In fact All the suns in our universe are changing too, earth won’t even exist in about two or 3 billion more years.
I remember they budgeted something like 5% of GDP to the space program back then, certainly not MUCH MUCH LESS.
$1 in the 60s is probably $10 today, if you factor in inflation of real cost of living instead of just the CPI.
My comment was directed towards tech not money.
Your smart phone is smarter than the computer that took men to the moon.
yep....total waste of money and for the carbon neutral crowd, an inconvenient truth.
I'm kind of amazed anyone thinks the reason to go go to mars is because of climate change?
Well sure if one looks at a geological and astronomical timeline.
The reason is that we need to figure out how to go places because as a species any species has a limited time on any planet anywhere and if you dont figure out how to move and colonize your race is a memory.
secondary reasons are that there is commerce to undertaken.
Well in about a billion more years the output of the sun will increase 10% so that it will boil off the oceans but the earth will still be here. But in about 5 billion years, the earth turns into a red giant and expands past the current orbit of the earth so that's when it'll probably be gone or at least the orbit will be pushed out, only off by about 2 billion years give or take.Not only that but the climate is changing on Mars as well and every other planet in the universe. In fact All the suns in our universe are changing too, earth won’t even exist in about two or 3 billion more years.
Faster air travel is all about the economics. Before air travel was deregulated, the price of a ticket was sky high. Supersonic travel was expensive because you could only have so many seats in a supersonic jet. There's just a very limited number of people willing to pay several times the price of a regular subsonic flight. Like in theory, you could make an entire airplane first class only and revenue would really increase. Only you can't find that many people per flight willing to pay that price. Same with supersonic travel. The demand wasn't there. How many tickets were you planning on buying?
We could have a lot of nukes around now too, but they're too expensive to build and it takes too long.
EPA/CAFE not into space rockets yet.
The technology isn't the hard part. It's the cost - especially in fuel and maintenance. The Concorde wasn't profitable to operate until the French and UK governments decided they'd bail out the manufacturer so that BA and AF didn't have to pay full price. Even then it was a niche market. There were a ton of orders, but most bailed. I actually had a die cast version of a Japan Airlines Concorde that never existed. They were promotional items.
There's also the sheer amount of noise that supersonic flight would have. These days the technology in commercial air travel is about efficiency and reducing overall costs.
I believe the other problem was the narrow body size of the supersonic jet. You couldn't really do a widebody like today's jet and go supersonic. That meant fewer seats and higher costs per ticket. There just weren't that many ticket to be sold and if it wasn't sold out, it would be even more expensive. About 6k for a ticket to go overseas. Some are willing to pay that, but not enough on a regular basis.
Interesting thoughts all.
I know the reasons supersonic travel failed in the 1970s.
The fact remains, commercial aircraft still travel at the same or almost same speeds they did 60 years ago.
So lets forget economics, demand, limited seating aircraft design and cost. We had a commercial super sonic aircraft in the 1970s and
technology has not been able to solve the issues mentioned in these posts. Some day we will be advanced enough that it will or once again, someone like Musk will think outside the box with a "can do" rather then "it didnt work"
There is going to be someone who overcomes the issues, that is a given, dont think mankind is going to travel at a top speed of 550 Mph for the rest of the time that we inhabit the earth, Im just surprised its still an issue 50 years after a commercial supersonic plane was built given all the advances in computing power and understanding of air power that took place since the time the Concord was built.
Newspaper stories talk about commercial space travel in the future while we are still traveling at the same speeds in planes that we did 60 years ago.
I know the reasons supersonic travel failed in the 1970s.
The fact remains, commercial aircraft still travel at the same or almost same speeds they did 60 years ago.
So lets forget economics, demand, limited seating aircraft design and cost. We had a commercial super sonic aircraft in the 1970s and
technology has not been able to solve the issues mentioned in these posts. Some day we will be advanced enough that it will or once again, someone like Musk will think outside the box with a "can do" rather then "it didnt work"
There is going to be someone who overcomes the issues, that is a given, dont think mankind is going to travel at a top speed of 550 Mph for the rest of the time that we inhabit the earth, Im just surprised its still an issue 50 years after a commercial supersonic plane was built given all the advances in computing power and understanding of air power that took place since the time the Concord was built.
Newspaper stories talk about commercial space travel in the future while we are still traveling at the same speeds in planes that we did 60 years ago.
It's called the "sound barrier" for a reason. It's not some arbitrary number. The laws of physics do not care for "thinking outside the box." Though there has been decades of study with little regard to economics (military projects), a practical large supersonic airplane still awaits a breakthrough. The military does not have a supersonic cargo plane either.
You can forget economics, but not the companies building them. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
It was probably economics that doomed it, before deregulation, plane tickets were much higher and there was probably a lower difference between an SST flight than a regular one. When regular ticket prices came way down, there just wasn't the economics to do the same with SST flights. Who wants to pay 6k for a flight when you could get there a little bit longer with a cheaper ticket at a much lower price. Maybe it made sense to blow 6k if a regular ticket was 2-3k but not if you can do it for under 1k.
Similar threads
