Wow! That's amazing. Air Force almost as far along as in the 50's when the X-15 existed

[RichA]

I don't see the "brag" in this story. But it's nice to see they are
reduced to replicating 60 year-old feats.

http://www.space.com/20967-air-force-x-51a-hypersonic-scramjet.html

[David Staup]

The x-15 was a rocket plane that just broke the sound barrier.....

this thing is quite advanced by comparison ...you idiot

now human intelligence, as demonstrated by you, has lost
considerable....chuckle

[Brad Guth]

Without operation "Paperclip", we probably wouldn't have had the X-15.

[RichA]

On May 6, 9:51 pm, David Staup <dst...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 5/4/2013 6:26 PM, RichA wrote:> I don't see the "brag" in this story. But it's nice to see they are
> > reduced to replicating 60 year-old feats.
>
> >http://www.space.com/20967-air-force-x-51a-hypersonic-scramjet.html
>
> The x-15 was a rocket plane that just broke the sound barrier.....
>
> this thing is quite advanced by comparison ...you idiot
>

You stupid QUEER. Wikipedia:

The North American X-15 was a rocket-powered aircraft operated by the
United States Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) as part of the X-plane series of experimental
aircraft. The X-15 set speed and altitude records in the early 1960s,
reaching the edge of outer space and returning with valuable data used
in aircraft and spacecraft design. As of 2013, the X-15 holds the
official world record for the fastest speed ever reached by a manned
aircraft. Its maximum speed was 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h).[1]

[Brad Guth]

Those "Paperclip" SS Nazis seemed to know what they were doing with
all sorts of fly-by-rocket stuff.

[David Staup]

oooo chuckle twas a rocket plane as I said
idiot
>

[Yousuf Khan]

It's a rocket vs. a jet, that's the difference here. The similarity in
speed is just a secondary feature. Jets have considerably more
commercial viability.

Yousuf Khan

[Quadibloc]

On May 8, 6:23 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's a rocket vs. a jet, that's the difference here. The similarity in
> speed is just a secondary feature. Jets have considerably more
> commercial viability.

Given that the Concorde did not succeed, I doubt that this has enough
commercial viability to be commercially viable. But it will be kinder
on the taxpayer's wallet...

Actually, though, the stated goal was to ferry U.S. troops anywhere in
the world within an hour. Not having to carry oxidizer instead of fuel
means *a bigger payload*. Which makes sense - soldiers are bulkier
than a nuclear warhead.

John Savard

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:e8480da2-1e67-46e3...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

On May 8, 6:23 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's a rocket vs. a jet, that's the difference here. The similarity in
> speed is just a secondary feature. Jets have considerably more
> commercial viability.

Given that the Concorde did not succeed,

 

==========================================

In service for 30 years...

Given that the Saturn V did not succeed...

Given that the Statue of Liberty did not succeed...

Given that The twin towers of the WTC did not succeed...

 

[Helpful person]

On May 10, 12:29 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

<LordAndroc...@May2013.edu> wrote:

>
> Given that the Concorde did not succeed,
> ==========================================
> In service for 30 years...
> Given that the Saturn V did not succeed...
> Given that the Statue of Liberty did not succeed...
> Given that The twin towers of the WTC did not succeed...

The reason that the Concorde did not succeed was largely political.
It was built for the trans Atlantic route, particularly from Europe to
the West coast of the US. It passed all environmental (including
noise) regulations.

However, as the US did not have any competitor, a witch hunt took
place to change the noise specification to exclude Concorde. That is
one of the major reasons for it not being a commercial success.

http://www.richardfisher.com

[Quadibloc]

On May 10, 6:01 am, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> However, as the US did not have any competitor, a witch hunt took
> place to change the noise specification to exclude Concorde.  That is
> one of the major reasons for it not being a commercial success.

Ah - protectionism. I had thought it was too expensive, and thus there
was not enough of a market for people willing to spend a lot of extra
money to save a little time. Still, if that were true, no one would be
flying on airplanes at all...

John Savard

[AM]

Concord LOST money on every commercial flight. IT was NOT economically
viable. (maintenance costs alone were staggering)

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"AM" <sct...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:lZqdndESxon7jRDM...@giganews.com...

=====================================

The plane I’m referring to was called Concorde (with an ‘e’),

which remained in service for 30 years while operated by both

Britain and France with flights to the UAE which rich Arabs

could afford and cheapskate jealous Yanks could not. Had it

not been commercially viable it would have been scrapped along

with the Saturn V, which was not economically viable and

scrapped in the early 70s along with the Apollo program as the

launch costs were staggering.

Perhaps you are referring to the Russian copy (Concordski) after

you attempted to copy Soyuz with Saturn V, still in use and still

a commercial success.

American brainwashing was never more successful than on its

own people.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

 

[Helpful person]

On May 10, 11:20 am, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Concord LOST money on every commercial flight. IT was NOT economically
> viable. (maintenance costs alone were staggering)

It lost money because the fleet was too small. If the supersonic
route from New York to Los Angeles had been open there would have been
many more planes and the maintenance of the aircraft would have been
much less. It was cut off for political reasons and never managed the
economy of scale.

The Boeing 747 would also have lost money if it couldn't fly at full
speed over land.

http://www.richardfisher.com

[AM]

On 5/10/2013 12:59 PM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "AM" <sct...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:lZqdndESxon7jRDM...@giganews.com...
> On 5/10/2013 12:29 AM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> > "Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> > news:e8480da2-1e67-46e3...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 8, 6:23 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's a rocket vs. a jet, that's the difference here. The similarity in
> > > speed is just a secondary feature. Jets have considerably more
> > > commercial viability.
> >
> > Given that the Concorde did not succeed,
> > ==========================================
> > In service for 30 years...
> > Given that the Saturn V did not succeed...
> > Given that the Statue of Liberty did not succeed...
> > Given that The twin towers of the WTC did not succeed...
>
>
> Concord LOST money on every commercial flight. IT was NOT economically
> viable. (maintenance costs alone were staggering)
>

> /=====================================/
> /The plane I’m referring to was called Concorde (with an ‘e’), /
> /which remained i//n service for 30 years while operated by both/
> /Britain and France with flights to the UAE which rich //Arabs/
> /could afford and cheapskate jealous Yanks could not. Had it /
> /not //been commercially viable it would //have been scrapped along/
> /with the Saturn V, which was not economically viable and /
> /scrapped in the early 70s along with the Apollo program as the /
> /launch costs were staggering./
> /Perhaps you are referring to the Russian copy (Concordski) after/
> /you attempted to copy Soyuz with Saturn V, still in use and still /
> /a commercial //success./
> /American brainwashing was never more successful than on its /
> /own //people./
> /-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
> When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an

> argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet./
> //



It NEVER made money on any passenger flight it made. IT was heavily
subsidized by the English and French govts.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"AM" <sct...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:5dCdnf_o3Ir75xDM...@giganews.com...

=====================================================

Roads NEVER make money on any journey ever made. Roads have

been heavily subsidized since the Roman Senate wanted the Apian

Way built to move troops 2000 years ago and have continued to be.

Rail made money until government

stepped

in and “subsidized” it

with the people’s taxes. Tea clippers were a

commercial success

when they were heavily subsidized by a Navy

to combat piracy.

Without road, rail and shipping there would be no

commerce.

Back in the 80’s

airline pilots flying crappy little DC9s were making

$100,000 a year,

now they are lucky to get $30,000.

When are you

going to make all Interstate highways and state

highways into toll roads

instead of

heavily subsidizing them with

the people’s taxes?

Concorde was a commercial success for 30 years.

American brainwashing was never more successful than on its

own people.

[Quadibloc]

On May 10, 2:53 pm, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Boeing 747 would also have lost money if it couldn't fly at full
> speed over land.

Would the Concorde have been able to fly at full speed over land
without subjecting anyone on the ground to sonic booms?

The protectionism lay in not allowing France and Britain to build some
sort of offshore air terminal a few miles off the coast of New York,
not in failing to allow that.

John Savard

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:22430aa0-c962-4c64...@g9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

What a load of bullshit! At 30,000 feet you don’t hear a plane

at all and any sonic boom would be insignificant. Concorde

refused the London/Paris – San Francisco route when it was

speed limited, the Yanks don’t like any REAL competition.

That’s why they don’t play a real man’s game like Rugby,

they are all pads and helmets in case they get hurt, the poor

little darlings, and they can’t build a car for Formula 1

either.

[Yousuf Khan]

On 10/05/2013 9:31 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On May 8, 6:23 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a rocket vs. a jet, that's the difference here. The similarity in
>> speed is just a secondary feature. Jets have considerably more
>> commercial viability.
>
> Given that the Concorde did not succeed, I doubt that this has enough
> commercial viability to be commercially viable. But it will be kinder
> on the taxpayer's wallet...

Well, I'm assuming they're thinking they didn't climb high enough with
the Concorde to get enough fuel economy or something. So they'll try
getting a little higher and faster now to the edge of space.

> Actually, though, the stated goal was to ferry U.S. troops anywhere in
> the world within an hour. Not having to carry oxidizer instead of fuel
> means *a bigger payload*. Which makes sense - soldiers are bulkier
> than a nuclear warhead.

Soldiers are also more squishable. Must be some killer G-forces they'll
experience, as this thing will accelerate like an intercontinental
ballistic missile rather than the more sedate human rockets that have
already gone up.

Yousuf Khan

[AM]

On 5/19/2013 7:49 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> Well, I'm assuming they're thinking they didn't climb high enough with
> the Concorde to get enough fuel economy or something. So they'll try
> getting a little higher and faster now to the edge of space.

The cost of maintaining the Concord was the reason it never made a profit...

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

There was never a viable market for saving a few hours on a
transatlantic flight. Speculation exists that laptop PCs would have
doomed the Concorde as well.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On May 11, 9:21 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@May2013.edu> wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message

>
> news:22430aa0-c962-4c64...@g9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 2:53 pm, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The Boeing 747 would also have lost money if it couldn't fly at full
> > speed over land.
>
> Would the Concorde have been able to fly at full speed over land
> without subjecting anyone on the ground to sonic booms?
>
> The protectionism lay in not allowing France and Britain to build some
> sort of offshore air terminal a few miles off the coast of New York,
> not in failing to allow that.
>
> John Savard
>
> What a load of bullshit! At 30,000 feet you don’t hear a plane
> at all and any sonic boom would be insignificant. Concorde
> refused the London/Paris – San Francisco route when it was
> speed limited, the Yanks don’t like any REAL competition.
> That’s why they don’t play a real man’s game like Rugby,
> they are all pads and helmets in case they get hurt, the poor
> little darlings, and they can’t build a car for Formula 1
> either.

Sonic booms would still be a problem at the speed and altitude of the
Concrude. Based on your posts we can conclude that you played
football (the real kind, not soccer) without a helmet. F1 is boring,
the lead rarely changes and the fastest car wins. NASCAR is all about
strategy and subtle adjustments to the car during pit stops.