Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!Dale.Amon
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US
Message-ID: <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 20 Jan 89 19:06:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 27

Actually what stopped the SST in the US were the enviro-nuts who
probably thought the sonic booms would vibrate the tail feathers off
the ducks. Or maybe they felt that if man were meant to fly at MACH god
would have given him a higher methane storage capacity... :-) and :-(

Seriously though, it was a bunch of noisy neo-luddites who got them
banned from all but NY and DC, and I think they even tried to stop them
there.

I don't remember to well how much they had to do with killing the
Boeing SST. The cancelation certainly didn't help the Seattle economy
much. But then, my feeling is that if it required government funding to
create a COMMERCIAL product, then it probably means that the technology
of 1970 was just not up to the job. When an SST is economically viable,
they will be built. The Concorde is nice, but I wonder if it ever paid
off it's full development cost?

I would guess we'll see the return of the SST sometime in the early
part of the next century. It will then be the standard aircraft for
fairly long haul flights.

If the NASP does turn into a commercial product, I will predict it will
follow the same path as the SST, and for the same reasons. There will
be a few built by some country by 2010 or so. They will be used for
very long haul flights for very premium prices. Then, by around 2040 or
earlier (the technological exponential), they will become a common
place form of transport for those distances and for LEO.