5 ms·
1969 was truly the pinnacle of US aerospace industry - Concord, Boeing 747 and Apollo 11 all happened during this year.
by d_silin 3mo ago
1969 was truly the pinnacle of US aerospace industry - Concord, Boeing 747 and Apollo 11 all happened during this year.
- ceejayoz 3mo agoThe Concorde wasn't made in the US. It was a UK/France partnership.
- d_silin 3mo agoMy bad! Global aerospace industry then.
- schainks 3mo agoThe US was still very much involved in its development and testing, so I think we can still chalk it up as a win for multi-country collaboration, eh :3
- tonyedgecombe 3mo agoThe biggest impact the US had on Concorde was banning it from flying supersonic overland.
- rsynnott 3mo ago> The US was still very much involved in its development and testing ... Wait, how was that? The Concorde was essentially the Franco-British entry in what was once a rather fierce international race to build a supersonic passenger jet (then seen as the future); the US entries were the (failed) Lockheed L-2000 and Boeing 2707. If the US had been open to collaboration, it is likely that the UK would’ve gone in with them, and we might live in an alternate universe where there was a UK/US Concorde-ish thing, and maybe a French mini-Concorde (the French design which got subsumed into Concorde was particularly small, only 70 passengers). In our universe, though, US manufacturers were sceptical of working with BAC because they believed that govt funding for a foreign design would be hard to come by.
- schainks 3mo agoJeez it's on the Wikipedia page, not sure why you wouldn't consider these things "direct involvement": - NASA Skylancer built to validate wing design and improve landings. - NASA simulations at Ames that predicted ground effect pitch issues that was incorporated into pilot training.
- AnimalMuppet 3mo agoConcorde wasn't the US aerospace industry.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- mrcwinn 3mo agoThis is such an absurd statement. What US aerospace has created post 1969 is nothing short of remarkable in comparison. (And we can be proud of the Apollo era too.)
- A_D_E_P_T 3mo ago> This is such an absurd statement. Oh come on, it's hardly "absurd." > What US aerospace has created post 1969 is nothing short of remarkable in comparison. (And we can be proud of the Apollo era too.) What are you referring to? If you want to chart progress over time, consider this: In 1919, people were still flying biplanes and civilian aviation barely existed. Fifty years later, in 1969, you've got the 747 -- consider the progress made over those fifty years! Fifty years from then, in 2019, you've still got the 747 -- alongside, as the article notes, smaller and less remarkable aircraft "that are more efficient, but far less majestic and memorable." So what, pray tell, is so remarkable?
- ReptileMan 3mo agoThe efficiency and the safety. Modern planes are disgustingly safe to the point that hull loss is almost unheard of. For 50 years the industry has optimized for safety and fuel efficiency. And the modern machines are marvels in that.
- rbanffy 3mo agoTrue, but still incremental improvements over proven designs - maybe a sign of very strict safety standards making new designs and differentiation more expensive than just the development.
- aunty_helen 3mo agoOr more likely, that’s exactly how you make incredibly safe systems. Not by introducing clean sheet unproven designs but by taking what works and improving any deficiencies over and over again.
- 3mo ago