Concorde was profitable. Accidents + 9/11 pullback killed it. The major factor against supersonic is actually the fact that sonic booms are not allowed over the continental United states. Companies like Boom Supersonic are focussed on eliminating those.
> If British Airways and Air France were looking for more profit, these issues would have to be addressed. And that was the plan. British and French aerospace divisions were looking to create a brand new supersonic aircraft before plans to take the Concorde out of service in 2000 were realized.
> Of course, that never happened. With a plethora of odds stacked against it, the 2000 crash in France, 9/11 affecting interest, and Airbus scrapping Concorde part replacements, the Concorde was shelved before its time.
The prohibition on sonic booms mysteriously appeared when it came out neither the Lockheed nor Boeing SST would ever become a reality, leading to the embarrassing situation of the only supersonic airliner being a British-French collaboration.
NASA's X-59 project is aiming for a very low sonic boom
Making some money doesn't mean it was necessarily profitable enough to be worth flying. Typically you have a rate of return across the company that an investment needs to clear to be worthwhile. Especially when considering the aircraft almost certainly required specialized maintenance crews and parts, the bar was probably fairly high.
> In total, both the French and UK governments put in $1.44bn to get Concorde off the ground. $2.8bn went into realizing the world's first mass supersonic transport.
> At the end of it all, British Airways had gained £1.75bn in revenue with the Concorde against an operating cost of £1bn.
There are explicit supersonic-permitted areas used by military, but you can actually do supersonic flight as civilian too if you arrange their use (mainly a thing of scheduling so you don't collide with military/state aircraft).
The big rarity of that is that there are very low numbers of supersonic planes in civilian hands, and outside of Concorde and some Tu-144 models (not all of them), all are ridiculous fuel guzzlers in supersonic flight. I know there's one near Palo Alto, a civilian owned MiG-21.
Well, there's one guy in Palo Alto who had instructor permit on it even, and was looking for partner in its ownership (quite common solution for more expensive planes in civilian hands).
Ever is a long time! In 50 years when travel via rocket between cities on Earth is common, why wouldn't airports build rocket pads for it? When you can fly New York to Singapore in less than an hour, JFK isn't going to just give up that market, they're going to want to capture some of that money.
Probably because the blast radius during lift off is close to the entire JFK property size? Of course, let's not forget the blast radius of a Starship undergoing unscheduled rapid disassembly.
For normal people sure, but for VIPs and especially military it will happen.
Imagine being able to drop Seal Team Six into Taipei, the Red Square, or literally any other piece of earth with a ~50ft clearing on ~30 minutes notice? That's a capability which is very hard to put a price on.
I'd like to not imagine a boots-on-the-ground shooting war, where you are launching a craft that is indistinguishable from an ICBM at a nuclear power's capital.
I'd like anyone at the DOD who is imagining it to either be fired or shot, before they drag the rest of us into their geno-suicidal fantasies.
Starship is worse than an ICBM. ICBM carries a handful of MIRV warheads. Starship potentially carries hundreds of warheads. It is a single rocket first strike. Nobody would put that many warheads on one rocket, but the target needs to act like it could.
In real life adetachment of a couple of hundred soldiers with very limited support dropped into the middle of enemy territory, with their destination known 30 minutes in advance to anyone with tracking satellites will be very quickly overrun. Said adversary will also be thankful for the gift of the vehicle delivered to them with now way to get it out.
Is there any reason this would be more possible with a rocket than with, say, a plane? It has to land slow enough that the passengers survive, and during that process it can be spotted and shot down, or surrounded.
I mean I’m definitely in favor of getting some sci-fi style orbital drop troops, but I think it will require some development beyond the rockets; we’ll need to figure out how to get people who can survive a bunch of extra G’s.
A human being can withstand ~8g's for medium short duration with minimal accommodation, say tens of minutes - see fighter pilots. I would imagine that would be enough to get someone on the ground pretty quickly. 30 minutes door-to-door is also incredibly fast, how much of the world could be covered by AA or a fighter plane in time?
As a for instance, imagine if in the initial invasion of Ukraine Russia had the capability to drop a starship heavy's worth of men and supplies onto Antonov airport as soon as it was secure, instead of waiting for transport planes that didn't arrive in time.
You don't need the whole world to be covered. There is no point dropping special forces into the middle of nowhere. The air force can certainly respond within minutes to threats to major cities and strategic targets.
A starship wouldn't have made that much difference in the invasion of Ukraine. You're talking maybe two additional MBTs.
>There is no point dropping special forces into the middle of nowhere
Most of everywhere is the middle of nowhere and almost everything behind the lines is poorly guarded[0]. The vast vast majority of military strategy relies on two basic facts: things are far apart from each other[1] and one needs to move through another place to get to where one is going[2]. Ballistic transport gets around both of these limitations, which is why it is going to happen, costs be damned. Maybe it'll be drones getting dropped, or bombs, instead of people, but it'll be done nonetheless.
I don't know if you've ever played bughouse - but the timely application of even small amounts of resources can have a drastically outsized effect. A starship could have easily doubled the resources the Russians had to take that airport, a few more could have taken another while everyone was busy with the first.
[0]Because those resources are better spend on/near the line.
[1]Lines vs. back-lines vs. civilian areas, conventional logistics and its demands
Beijing is defended by two guards divisions. Who get woken up once it is determined that Beijing is the target and move into position.
Special forces are not very good against good regular troops. Special forces are really good light infantry. Regular troops have heavy weapons. Armored regiments have tanks. Mechanized infantry shows up with IFVs and troops.
Special Forces aren't great in head-to-head combat against well-equipped and well-supplied soldiers who know they're coming. They lose their advantage. Plus they would need a whole lot of resupply.
It's a preposterous scenario. China would blow the thing out of the sky long before it could land. And even if it did, they'd simply use armor and helicopters to decimate the forces.
Starship is insanely vulnerable for landings. It starts fast but has to slow down for landing. Which means that is vulnerable to every SAM in Beijing region.
I guess it could be done as drop of pods or something. The problem is that target can’t know the pods are troops and has to assume that they are nukes and this is first strike. China has no choice but to launch ICBMs immediately.
Plus, this risks the Starship itself. It might be possible to drop pods, now space and recently capable, and change directions. But is more likely that get in range of anti-ballistic missile.
