The American Concordes that never flew | Hacker News Reader

The American Concordes that never flew

bbc.com

57 pointsyitchelle18 comments

The 2707 was the reason behind the naming of the Seattle Supersonics, and the cancellation of the project led to Boeing laying off 60000 people, leading to the famous "will the last person leaving Seattle please turn out the light" sign. Wikipedia says the full scale mock-up is currently being restored at the Museum of Flight, I'll be in line to see it when it's ready.

The 2707's cancellation being the reason for Boeing laying of 60,000 people is a huge exaggeration. There was a general downturn in ALL airliner sales at that point in time in the 1970s, affecting the volume of existing subsonic airplane production.

http://old.seattletimes.com/special/centennial/november/ligh...

Read more history about the 1970s oil/energy crisis.

The SST contract was cancelled in March, and the sign went up in April 1971, the same month that Boeing's workforce reached the nadir of 38,690. The energy crisis didn't really bite until 1973. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis#/media/Fil...

I remember as a kid in the 70's having a book from Scholastic that had all the fantastic SSTs and vacuum, magnetic trains that would get us across the world in record time. It was amazing all the speculation about that and how little speculation there was about computers.

Those were the Usborne books, right? They were great. I had two or three of them and spent hours reading and re-reading them. When Hyperloop was announced, I'd assumed that it was that in-vacuum maglev train you mentioned finally getting built. :-)

Not sure, I too read those books multiple times. I too had the same assumption you did about Hyperloop.

I remember reading about bullet trains and supersonic jets in this one: http://www.amazon.com/First-Questions-About-Transport-Faulkn.... Recently moved back to my home state and am thoroughly enjoying the slow process of stealing all my childhood books from my parents house.

People always assume "current trends will continue". That the future will simply continue the progress they have already seen. Someone in the 70s would have seen a vast increase in travel speeds. Jets, bullet trains, interstate highway system etc... They can be forgiven for assuming the future would also involve faster speeds.

I used to have a bound set of schoolboy magazines (emphasis on the boy bit there) from the 1950s. I think my parents picked them up in a charity shop. They were amazing --- gleefully inaccurate articles about space travel with shiny pointy rocketships, excited cutaways diagrams of cities OF THE FUTURE, illustrated articles about the joys of electromagnetism... and, for some reason, I remember a semi-comic serial version of _Last of the Mohicans_. All done in 1950s two-colour printing with the occasional colour plate. Brilliant stuff.

No idea what happened to them. I'd love to see them again, although I'd probably cringe about how dated they are.

Obligatory recap of the same piece of history by Maciej Ceglowski (0:58 ~ 9:50 ) https://youtu.be/nwhZ3KEqUlw?t=59

Another unexpected irony due to the supersonic jet. Boeing had put their A engineers on the supersonic jet project while B engineers worked on 747.

Today there are documentaries celebrating the PM and engineers of 747. None for the cancelled project.

So you're a hot shit engineer and you come into work for the Monday meeting where the PM goes, "we've got 2 projects coming up: one is a supersonic jet, the other is an extra wide passenger jet that kinda resembles a whale." Somehow I don't see the best engineers, overwhelmingly, volunteering for the later.

Apparently, there is a Denver startup with a Mach 2.2 that wants to make American Concord a reality. http://boom.aero HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286

The SST project has another interesting legacy: the Space Shuttle.

Quite a few sources say that the reason Nixon approved the Space Shuttle was to appease voters who had been negatively impacted by the cancellation of the Boeing SST project.

Isn't there some jet or jet like propulsion engine that was developed in the UK a couple years ago that may offer far more efficient and even harder thrust that could revive high speed air travel?

Is that what that boom.aero post was about? Sorry, I wasn't able to read into it.

Either way, when these things come up, I am always curious what happened to the realization that air travel is a multitude worse than any other type of air pollution because it essentially directly delivers harmful particles right into the highest strata of our atmosphere. Is that no longer a concern with the jet-setting, globe trotting liberals? Or is it too inconvenient to their lifestyle and therefore will simply be ignored? Or maybe scientists were totally wrong about fundamental research?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)

> I am always curious what happened to the realization that air travel is a multitude worse than any other type of air pollution because it essentially directly delivers harmful particles right into the highest strata of our atmosphere. Is that no longer a concern with the jet-setting, globe trotting liberals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati...

"The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. The IPCC has produced scenarios estimating what this figure could be in 2050. The central case estimate is that aviation’s contribution could grow to 5% of the total contribution by 2050 if action is not taken to tackle these emissions, though the highest scenario is 15%."

So, it's a concern, but far from the largest. There have been pretty significant advances in fuel efficiency, lighter aircraft, stuffing more people into a single plane, etc.

I think the question is the proportionality, i.e., is that 3.5 or 5% impact a disproportionate one. The absolute percentages of even just 3.5% means nothing without seeing it in relative terms. If that 3.5% is caused by 0.0001% of activity then that seems rather significant. I don't see air travel being anything even remotely close to 3.5% of all human climate affecting activity so it strikes me that it really is actually a rather significant matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com