> "We can say that Concorde had less technical flaws than Tu-144, clear in hindsight" It was clear 40 years ago. those who understood the area knew it had 0 c

> "We can say that Concorde had less technical flaws than Tu-144, clear in hindsight" It was clear 40 years ago. those who understood the area knew it had 0 chance at being a competitor. was the tu-144 a success? by many metrics yes. was it at all comparable to the concorde? absolutely not. > "if not efficient and safe enough, to be used by NASA in 2000-s." Nasa has to re-fit the craft, including engines.