If the Concorde went FTL, it would definitely still be in service, no matter the cost. Still, I've done a bit of math, and it seems to say the energy required w

If the Concorde went FTL, it would definitely still be in service, no matter the cost. Still, I've done a bit of math, and it seems to say the energy required would make it prohibitively expensive for everyone, billionaires included. So maybe it wouldn't still be in service. But hey, you never know. Anyway, given that the Concorde actually flew Heathrow to Barbados, which is further than Hawaii to Tokyo *; that says to me it had enough range to get from Hawaii to Tokyo, at least on paper. Regardless, there have been significant improvements to airplane technology since the 1970's when the Concorde was built. The four engine 747 isn't even being manufactured, in part because engines are so much better Boeing doesn't need four of em like that. (The fact that the large Airbus planes have four is not lost on me, but that doesn't change the fact that we've progressed since the 70's). If they'd managed to hang on until there was a third generation Concorde, I think they'd still be flying. The part I'm interested in is the why of super sonic travel (SST) being dead. It clearly is, no denying that. But saying people just weren't willing to pay what it costs is an oversimplification that doesn't capture any of the business-side issues, or other parts of the story that took it down. The fuel crisis in the 70's is another thing that didn't help. The airshow crash was another nail in its coffin. As far as the Blackbird, that first flew in 1964. * https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b#:~:text=This%20was%20made%20possible%20due,A'%20to%20nearly%204500%20miles https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b#:~:text=This%20w....