| |
Concorde |
| |
andrew (12:40 24/10/2003)
jmb (13:17 24/10/2003)
alpha (18:48 24/10/2003)
takkaria (14:07 24/10/2003)
andrew (14:42 24/10/2003)
monkeyson2 (14:48 24/10/2003)
ToiletDuck (15:18 24/10/2003)
monkeyson2 (15:32 24/10/2003)
filecore (15:43 24/10/2003)
monkeyson2 (15:49 24/10/2003)
filecore (16:07 24/10/2003)
andrew (16:51 24/10/2003)
ToiletDuck (17:06 24/10/2003)
takkaria (16:11 24/10/2003)
filecore (16:32 24/10/2003)
ilcook (20:22 24/10/2003)
ksattic (17:24 24/10/2003)
mavhc (17:32 24/10/2003)
ksattic (18:39 24/10/2003)
mavhc (23:13 24/10/2003)
ksattic (23:36 24/10/2003)
Phlamethrower (13:09 27/10/2003)
filecore (17:17 27/10/2003)
ilcook (19:32 27/10/2003)
Revin Kevin (22:22 27/10/2003)
andrew (23:46 27/10/2003)
Phlamethrower (11:40 28/10/2003)
filecore (09:09 28/10/2003)
|
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #47471, posted by andrew at 12:40, 24/10/2003 |
 Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
I can't believe the Government has allowed this to be grounded. They should let RichardBranson fly it or invest into a successor as a international collaboration if necessary.
If China can put a man into space we should be capable of technological achievements. |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
JMB |
Message #47473, posted by jmb at 13:17, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47471 |
Member
Posts: 467
|
So, we should ignore the huge running costs and the noise it makes then.
As to investing into a successor - you do realise that Concorde came in billions over budget and was only finished due to the bloody-mindedness of the British and French governments. Yes, that's billions of pounds of taxpayers money spent on designing a contraption that only a privileged minority can use. Excellent use of public money, methinks.
</rant> |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Sidwell |
Message #47474, posted by takkaria at 14:07, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47471 |
Member
Posts: 324
|
"How dare they let old planes come out of service!"
We made a technological achievement. Now it's too old to continue with. Hard concept, eh? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #47476, posted by andrew at 14:42, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47474 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
It's nothing to do with it being too old. Virgin could run it.
British Airways also made a profit from it by the way. The only loss was the manufacturing cost of it. This is why I suggest a collaboration.
We should have technological endeavours, it's good for the country and for mankind. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #47477, posted by monkeyson2 at 14:48, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47476 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Of course it's too old. It's a noisy, filthy old beast of a machine. Stick it in a museum. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Quint |
Message #47478, posted by ToiletDuck at 15:18, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47477 |
 Quack Quack
Posts: 1016
|
Hey!
lets bring back steam trains!
they're all engineering masterpeices so the government *must* use taxpayers money to keep them in service...
</sarcasm>
i think i've made my point  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #47479, posted by monkeyson2 at 15:32, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47478 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Plus remember that the British government wanted to get shot of it during its design - it's only thanks to the French that it's here at all. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #47481, posted by filecore at 15:43, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47479 |
Posts: 3867
|
I say forward with the Particle Accellerator project. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #47482, posted by monkeyson2 at 15:49, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47481 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Wait until I perfect my perpetual motion unicycle... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #47483, posted by filecore at 16:07, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47482 |
Posts: 3867
|
Wait until I perfect my perpetual motion unicycle... p = s * t(t)/t(c)  perpetual motion!
[Edited by filecore at 16:08, 24/10/2003] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Sidwell |
Message #47484, posted by takkaria at 16:11, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47471 |
Member
Posts: 324
|
That's all, folks. The last flying concordes touched down about five minutes ago. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #47485, posted by filecore at 16:32, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47484 |
Posts: 3867
|
That's all, folks. The last flying concordes touched down about five minutes ago. Can't say I'm particularly sad, really. Closest I got to one (and probably ever would have, had they kept flying) was on the telly, and while I'm sad intellectually to see a piece of technology like that scrapped, I feel no emotional connecion whatsoever. Guess I'm just not the flying type. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #47486, posted by andrew at 16:51, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47478 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Hey!
lets bring back steam trains!
they're all engineering masterpeices so the government *must* use taxpayers money to keep them in service...
</sarcasm>
i think i've made my point Not really as no-one is considering using any more taxpayer's money. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Quint |
Message #47487, posted by ToiletDuck at 17:06, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47486 |
Quack Quack
Posts: 1016
|
Not really as no-one is considering using any more taxpayer's money.
I can't believe the Government has allowed this to be grounded ^ sounds to me like *someone* was....
Anyway, it was nice having it fly over twice a day back home, back at school it meant we got a 5 minute break at 11.05 |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Wilson |
Message #47488, posted by ksattic at 17:24, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47471 |
 Finally, an avatar!
Posts: 1291
|
It's a deep shame to see it go. I have never lived on its flight path, so I can't comment on the noise. I have been inside Concorde, though it was the prototype at Duxford. It's hard to put a value on something like this, which is an icon to many people.
I don't understand the reasons for BA not allowing Virgin to continue flying them. Safety was not an issue after the 17M upgrades, and it was only half-way through its operational life. Personally, I'd love to see the space shuttles grounded permanently rather than Concorde. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #47490, posted by mavhc at 17:32, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47488 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
Personally, I'd love to see the space shuttles grounded permanently rather than Concorde. Why? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Wilson |
Message #47492, posted by ksattic at 18:39, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47490 |
Finally, an avatar!
Posts: 1291
|
Personally, I'd love to see the space shuttles grounded permanently rather than Concorde. Why?
OK, time to qualify my statement.
The space shuttles are fuel inefficient and unsafe by modern standards, because they were designed in the early 70s. I think that a person's chance of survival on one is around 1/100 because of the two unfortunate disasters. I know it's not an easy task, but what is needed is a new design. The shuttle's design was botched together to make it work - a vessel with three huge fireworks strapped on the side. A better design would be the original shuttle concept, which was a craft that is taken into high altitude by a plane and then self-propelled into space.
I love the idea of the shuttles - a reusable space vehicle - but they're just too costly and unsafe in my opinion to have a much longer operational life. Perhaps if Nasa didn't go with the cheapest bidder for once...
My affinity to Concorde is probably irrational and stems from the fact that I went in the prototype at an early age and was fascinated by it. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tim Fountain |
Message #47493, posted by alpha at 18:48, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47473 |
Forum bod
Posts: 570
|
So, we should ignore the huge running costs and the noise it makes then. Noise is a valid point, but if the airlines don't mind covering the running costs why should we care? I'm in the camp that think Virgin should have been allowed to keep using them.
Yes, that's billions of pounds of taxpayers money spent on designing a contraption that only a privileged minority can use. Excellent use of public money, methinks. Surely it becomes more of a waste of money when the plane is scrapped?
It's an old plane, yes, but it hasn't been superceeded. There isn't another passenger aircraft that goes as fast. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Ian Cook |
Message #47495, posted by ilcook at 20:22, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47485 |
 Resident idiot
Posts: 1075
|
That's all, folks. The last flying concordes touched down about five minutes ago. Can't say I'm particularly sad, really. Closest I got to one (and probably ever would have, had they kept flying) was on the telly, and while I'm sad intellectually to see a piece of technology like that scrapped, I feel no emotional connecion whatsoever. Guess I'm just not the flying type.
I've been in the prototype, so there.  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #47496, posted by mavhc at 23:13, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47492 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
> > > Personally, I'd love to see the space shuttles grounded permanently rather than Concorde.
> > Why?
> OK, time to qualify my statement.
Yay.
> The space shuttles are fuel inefficient and unsafe by modern standards, because they were designed in the early 70s. I think that a person's chance of survival on one is around 1/100 because of the two unfortunate disasters.
There's nothing around capable of the same payloads, human and cargo AFAIK.
"18 of the 430 humans who have flown in space have died, 14 on two shuttle missions and four on two Soyuz flights. That works out to a fatality rate of just over four percent, a rate that holds roughly true if one considers only US or only Russian citizens" "One can argue that this metric inflates the fatality rate, since it counts includes people who have flown multiple times; over 600 seats have been filled on the 113 shuttle flights to date, reducing the shuttle’s fatality rate to closer to two percent"
> I know it's not an easy task, but what is needed is a new design. The shuttle's design was botched together to make it work - a vessel with three huge fireworks strapped on the side. A better design would be the original shuttle concept, which was a craft that is taken into high altitude by a plane and then self-propelled into space.
You want the shuttles grounded to make work on such a plane finish sooner?
> I love the idea of the shuttles - a reusable space vehicle - but they're just too costly and unsafe in my opinion to have a much longer operational life. Perhaps if Nasa didn't go with the cheapest bidder for once...
Evidence?
> My affinity to Concorde is probably irrational and stems from the fact that I went in the prototype at an early age and was fascinated by it.
As long as you admit it
I think it'd be funny if they announced it wasn't really the last flight, they just wanted to raise ticket prices. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Wilson |
Message #47497, posted by ksattic at 23:36, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47496 |
Finally, an avatar!
Posts: 1291
|
There's nothing around capable of the same payloads, human and cargo AFAIK. Good point, the shuttle is capable of carrying the largest payload sizes.
reducing the shuttle’s fatality rate to closer to two percent That's twice as bad as I thought!
You want the shuttles grounded to make work on such a plane finish sooner? No, I want them grounded when they have a successor, but a good start would be to announce some plans for a successor and generate some support...somehow.
Perhaps if Nasa didn't go with the cheapest bidder for once... Evidence?
It's well known that companies go with the cheapest bidder that can produce parts to meet (but not necessarily exceed) a specification. Nasa isn't an exception. I've seen evidence, but I don't have it to hand, as usual. 
I think it'd be funny if they announced it wasn't really the last flight, they just wanted to raise ticket prices. I think that'd be a great publicity stunt! Concorde running for a little longer so that people can have flights just for the experience. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #47517, posted by Phlamethrower at 13:09, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47497 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone?  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #47523, posted by filecore at 17:17, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47517 |
Posts: 3867
|
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone? Concorde to replace shuttle, if you ask me. Get it into space? Make it fly supersonic then point it straight up, if you ask me.
DISCLAIMER: This is only a drunken opinion but in the author's current state of mind it makes sense. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Ian Cook |
Message #47525, posted by ilcook at 19:32, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47523 |
Resident idiot
Posts: 1075
|
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone? Concorde to replace shuttle, if you ask me. Get it into space? Make it fly supersonic then point it straight up, if you ask me.
DISCLAIMER: This is only a drunken opinion but in the author's current state of mind it makes sense.
It'd havo to faster than mach 2, to do it. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Kevin Wells |
Message #47528, posted by Revin Kevin at 22:22, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47525 |
Member
Posts: 644
|
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone? Concorde to replace shuttle, if you ask me. Get it into space? Make it fly supersonic then point it straight up, if you ask me.
DISCLAIMER: This is only a drunken opinion but in the author's current state of mind it makes sense.
It'd havo to faster than mach 2, to do it.
More powerful engines, pr more exotic fuel.
More speed please.
________
I did not do it. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #47532, posted by andrew at 23:46, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47528 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone? Concorde to replace shuttle, if you ask me. Get it into space? Make it fly supersonic then point it straight up, if you ask me.
DISCLAIMER: This is only a drunken opinion but in the author's current state of mind it makes sense.
It'd havo to faster than mach 2, to do it.
More powerful engines, pr more exotic fuel.
More speed please.
we're British |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #47535, posted by filecore at 09:09, 28/10/2003, in reply to message #47523 |
Posts: 3867
|
Here, has somebody been buggering about with my post count? I hit 1000 ages ago...  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #47546, posted by Phlamethrower at 11:40, 28/10/2003, in reply to message #47525 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
It'd havo to faster than mach 2, to do it. I *think* that a stable orbit (of earth, at the right distance for satellites and stuff) requires a speed somewhere between 6 and 7 kilometres a second, but can't be bothered:
a) looking it up
b) remembering it
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
