Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
From: kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever built
Summary: Fact, or mere Snobbiness????
Message-ID: <21@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 89 20:01:15 GMT
References: [deleted] <625@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>
Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe
Lines: 33

In article <625@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>, me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk (M D Ayton) writes:
> Right, I've just about had enough of this.
> 
>  At the
> time *NO* American manufacturer was capable of building a supersonic carrier,
> and on the principle of "if you can't join them, beat them" lobbied, lied,
> bribed and cheated their way to making it uneconomic for anyone else to build
> such a carrier either.

1)  This does not have a lot to do with sci.space.  It probably should be 
moved to rec.aviation, or some other newsgroup.

2)  *NO* American manufacturer???  EXCUSE ME???  Are you talking about the
same set of manufacturers which built the XB-70 Valkyrie, the B-58 Hustler,
the X-15, etc, ad nauseum???  I'd say the technology for sustained 
supersonic flight was WELL established within the US Aerospace industry.

Why DIDN'T American companies build an SST?  Good question.  Probably has
lots to do with a radically liberal, anti-technology Congress.  Probably
some questions about the dubious economic feasibility of such a venture.
I'd guess that you've not checked the 'facts' thrown before the US Congress
during this time period--claims of ozone depletion, permanent stratospheric
ice clouds leading to global cooling, damage to marine ecosystem from sound,
etc.  Sort of in the same vein as your 'fact' that the US simply couldn't do
it at the time.

Now let's move this to rec.aviation, and get back to space discussions.


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied