3 ms·
> Concorde was profitable Only because the planes were sold to the carrier for a nominal (£1, iirc) price. If you consider the development and construction cos
by Tuna-Fish 5y ago
> Concorde was profitable
Only because the planes were sold to the carrier for a nominal (£1, iirc) price. If you consider the development and construction costs, the Concorde is billions in the hole.
- rbanffy 5y ago> Concorde is billions in the hole. This is the role of governments. From this R&D hole, aerospace jobs were maintained, people were trained, technologies were developed and a whole lot of other side benefits to both countries involved. It’s not unlike NASA’s space program - if you look at the market value of the equipment built, it’s just an enormous money sink. We all know it’s not.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y agoNASA and JPL and other ostensible civilian employers of rocket-scientists and other aerospace engineering experts has a nice side-effect of effectively giving the government a strategic-reserve of highly-skilled experts who can be reassigned to ASAT, ICBM and bomber weapons development at short-notice - and also means those same experts aren't employed by any rival or potential rival superpowers. ...kinda like how the US's civilian nuclear fusion programs were/are a way to keep people who-just-so-happen to be nuclear weapons experts gainfully employed and handily available after the cold war ended. Y'know... just in case!