log in | register | forums
Show:
Go:
Forums
Username:

Password:

User accounts
Register new account
Forgot password
Forum stats
List of members
Search the forums

Advanced search
Recent discussions
- 10 RISC OS gift ideas for Christmas (News:)
- Drag'N'Drop Autumn edition now available (News:)
- !DualHead puts 2 screens in one (News:)
- RISC OS London Show 2017 - Notes from the talks (News:6)
- November News (News:)
- !Organizer 2.28 reviewed (News:2)
- !OBrowse reviewed (News:10)
- Aemulor (Gen:16)
- DDE reaches release 28 and above (News:)
- Elesar quicks dispels stormy clouds (News:2)
Latest postings RSS Feeds
RSS 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.9
Atom 0.3
Misc RDF | CDF
Site Search
 
Article archives
The Icon Bar: The Playpen: Concorde
 
  Concorde
  andrew (11:40 24/10/2003)
  jmb (12:17 24/10/2003)
    alpha (17:48 24/10/2003)
  takkaria (13:07 24/10/2003)
    andrew (13:42 24/10/2003)
      monkeyson2 (13:48 24/10/2003)
        ToiletDuck (14:18 24/10/2003)
          monkeyson2 (14:32 24/10/2003)
            filecore (14:43 24/10/2003)
              monkeyson2 (14:49 24/10/2003)
                filecore (15:07 24/10/2003)
          andrew (15:51 24/10/2003)
            ToiletDuck (16:06 24/10/2003)
  takkaria (15:11 24/10/2003)
    filecore (15:32 24/10/2003)
      ilcook (19:22 24/10/2003)
  ksattic (16:24 24/10/2003)
    mavhc (16:32 24/10/2003)
      ksattic (17:39 24/10/2003)
        mavhc (22:13 24/10/2003)
          ksattic (22:36 24/10/2003)
            Phlamethrower (13:09 27/10/2003)
              filecore (17:17 27/10/2003)
                ilcook (19:32 27/10/2003)
                  Revin Kevin (22:22 27/10/2003)
                    andrew (23:46 27/10/2003)
                  Phlamethrower (11:40 28/10/2003)
                filecore (09:09 28/10/2003)
 
Andrew Message #47471, posted by andrew at 11:40, 24/10/2003
HandbagHandbag Boi
Posts: 3439
I can't believe the Government has allowed this to be grounded. They should let RichardBranson fly it or invest into a successor as a international collaboration if necessary.
If China can put a man into space we should be capable of technological achievements.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
JMB Message #47473, posted by jmb at 12:17, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47471
Member
Posts: 467
So, we should ignore the huge running costs and the noise it makes then.
As to investing into a successor - you do realise that Concorde came in billions over budget and was only finished due to the bloody-mindedness of the British and French governments. Yes, that's billions of pounds of taxpayers money spent on designing a contraption that only a privileged minority can use. Excellent use of public money, methinks.
</rant>
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Andrew Sidwell Message #47474, posted by takkaria at 13:07, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47471
Member
Posts: 324
"How dare they let old planes come out of service!"

We made a technological achievement. Now it's too old to continue with. Hard concept, eh?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Andrew Message #47476, posted by andrew at 13:42, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47474
HandbagHandbag Boi
Posts: 3439
It's nothing to do with it being too old. Virgin could run it.

British Airways also made a profit from it by the way. The only loss was the manufacturing cost of it. This is why I suggest a collaboration.

We should have technological endeavours, it's good for the country and for mankind.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Phil Mellor Message #47477, posted by monkeyson2 at 13:48, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47476
monkeyson2Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler

Posts: 12380
Of course it's too old. It's a noisy, filthy old beast of a machine. Stick it in a museum.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Mark Quint Message #47478, posted by ToiletDuck at 14:18, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47477
Ooh ducky!Quack Quack
Posts: 1016
Hey!
lets bring back steam trains!
they're all engineering masterpeices so the government *must* use taxpayers money to keep them in service...
</sarcasm>
i think i've made my point :E
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Phil Mellor Message #47479, posted by monkeyson2 at 14:32, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47478
monkeyson2Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler

Posts: 12380
Plus remember that the British government wanted to get shot of it during its design - it's only thanks to the French that it's here at all.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #47481, posted by filecore at 14:43, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47479

Posts: 3867
I say forward with the Particle Accellerator project.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Phil Mellor Message #47482, posted by monkeyson2 at 14:49, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47481
monkeyson2Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler

Posts: 12380
Wait until I perfect my perpetual motion unicycle...
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #47483, posted by filecore at 15:07, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47482

Posts: 3867
Wait until I perfect my perpetual motion unicycle...
p = s * t(t)/t(c) :-) perpetual motion!

[Edited by filecore at 16:08, 24/10/2003]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Andrew Sidwell Message #47484, posted by takkaria at 15:11, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47471
Member
Posts: 324
That's all, folks. The last flying concordes touched down about five minutes ago.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #47485, posted by filecore at 15:32, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47484

Posts: 3867
That's all, folks. The last flying concordes touched down about five minutes ago.
Can't say I'm particularly sad, really. Closest I got to one (and probably ever would have, had they kept flying) was on the telly, and while I'm sad intellectually to see a piece of technology like that scrapped, I feel no emotional connecion whatsoever. Guess I'm just not the flying type.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Andrew Message #47486, posted by andrew at 15:51, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47478
HandbagHandbag Boi
Posts: 3439
Hey!
lets bring back steam trains!
they're all engineering masterpeices so the government *must* use taxpayers money to keep them in service...
</sarcasm>
i think i've made my point :E
Not really as no-one is considering using any more taxpayer's money.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Mark Quint Message #47487, posted by ToiletDuck at 16:06, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47486
Ooh ducky!Quack Quack
Posts: 1016

Not really as no-one is considering using any more taxpayer's money.

I can't believe the Government has allowed this to be grounded
^ sounds to me like *someone* was....

Anyway, it was nice having it fly over twice a day back home, back at school it meant we got a 5 minute break at 11.05 :)
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Simon Wilson Message #47488, posted by ksattic at 16:24, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47471
ksattic
Finally, an avatar!

Posts: 1288
It's a deep shame to see it go. I have never lived on its flight path, so I can't comment on the noise. I have been inside Concorde, though it was the prototype at Duxford. It's hard to put a value on something like this, which is an icon to many people.

I don't understand the reasons for BA not allowing Virgin to continue flying them. Safety was not an issue after the 17M upgrades, and it was only half-way through its operational life. Personally, I'd love to see the space shuttles grounded permanently rather than Concorde.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Mark Scholes Message #47490, posted by mavhc at 16:32, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47488
Member
Posts: 660
Personally, I'd love to see the space shuttles grounded permanently rather than Concorde.
Why?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Simon Wilson Message #47492, posted by ksattic at 17:39, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47490
ksattic
Finally, an avatar!

Posts: 1288
Personally, I'd love to see the space shuttles grounded permanently rather than Concorde.
Why?
OK, time to qualify my statement.

The space shuttles are fuel inefficient and unsafe by modern standards, because they were designed in the early 70s. I think that a person's chance of survival on one is around 1/100 because of the two unfortunate disasters. I know it's not an easy task, but what is needed is a new design. The shuttle's design was botched together to make it work - a vessel with three huge fireworks strapped on the side. A better design would be the original shuttle concept, which was a craft that is taken into high altitude by a plane and then self-propelled into space.

I love the idea of the shuttles - a reusable space vehicle - but they're just too costly and unsafe in my opinion to have a much longer operational life. Perhaps if Nasa didn't go with the cheapest bidder for once...

My affinity to Concorde is probably irrational and stems from the fact that I went in the prototype at an early age and was fascinated by it.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Tim Fountain Message #47493, posted by alpha at 17:48, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47473
Forum bod
Posts: 569
So, we should ignore the huge running costs and the noise it makes then.
Noise is a valid point, but if the airlines don't mind covering the running costs why should we care? I'm in the camp that think Virgin should have been allowed to keep using them.

Yes, that's billions of pounds of taxpayers money spent on designing a contraption that only a privileged minority can use. Excellent use of public money, methinks.
Surely it becomes more of a waste of money when the plane is scrapped?

It's an old plane, yes, but it hasn't been superceeded. There isn't another passenger aircraft that goes as fast.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Ian Cook Message #47495, posted by ilcook at 19:22, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47485
trainResident idiot
Posts: 1068
That's all, folks. The last flying concordes touched down about five minutes ago.
Can't say I'm particularly sad, really. Closest I got to one (and probably ever would have, had they kept flying) was on the telly, and while I'm sad intellectually to see a piece of technology like that scrapped, I feel no emotional connecion whatsoever. Guess I'm just not the flying type.


I've been in the prototype, so there. :P
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Mark Scholes Message #47496, posted by mavhc at 22:13, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47492
Member
Posts: 660
> > > Personally, I'd love to see the space shuttles grounded permanently rather than Concorde.
> > Why?
> OK, time to qualify my statement.
Yay.

> The space shuttles are fuel inefficient and unsafe by modern standards, because they were designed in the early 70s. I think that a person's chance of survival on one is around 1/100 because of the two unfortunate disasters.

There's nothing around capable of the same payloads, human and cargo AFAIK.

"18 of the 430 humans who have flown in space have died, 14 on two shuttle missions and four on two Soyuz flights. That works out to a fatality rate of just over four percent, a rate that holds roughly true if one considers only US or only Russian citizens" "One can argue that this metric inflates the fatality rate, since it counts includes people who have flown multiple times; over 600 seats have been filled on the 113 shuttle flights to date, reducing the shuttle’s fatality rate to closer to two percent"

> I know it's not an easy task, but what is needed is a new design. The shuttle's design was botched together to make it work - a vessel with three huge fireworks strapped on the side. A better design would be the original shuttle concept, which was a craft that is taken into high altitude by a plane and then self-propelled into space.

You want the shuttles grounded to make work on such a plane finish sooner?

> I love the idea of the shuttles - a reusable space vehicle - but they're just too costly and unsafe in my opinion to have a much longer operational life. Perhaps if Nasa didn't go with the cheapest bidder for once...

Evidence?

> My affinity to Concorde is probably irrational and stems from the fact that I went in the prototype at an early age and was fascinated by it.
As long as you admit it :-)

I think it'd be funny if they announced it wasn't really the last flight, they just wanted to raise ticket prices.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Simon Wilson Message #47497, posted by ksattic at 22:36, 24/10/2003, in reply to message #47496
ksattic
Finally, an avatar!

Posts: 1288
There's nothing around capable of the same payloads, human and cargo AFAIK.
Good point, the shuttle is capable of carrying the largest payload sizes.

reducing the shuttle’s fatality rate to closer to two percent
That's twice as bad as I thought!

You want the shuttles grounded to make work on such a plane finish sooner?
No, I want them grounded when they have a successor, but a good start would be to announce some plans for a successor and generate some support...somehow.

Perhaps if Nasa didn't go with the cheapest bidder for once...
Evidence?
It's well known that companies go with the cheapest bidder that can produce parts to meet (but not necessarily exceed) a specification. Nasa isn't an exception. I've seen evidence, but I don't have it to hand, as usual. ;)

I think it'd be funny if they announced it wasn't really the last flight, they just wanted to raise ticket prices.
I think that'd be a great publicity stunt! Concorde running for a little longer so that people can have flights just for the experience.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jeffrey Lee Message #47517, posted by Phlamethrower at 13:09, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47497
PhlamethrowerHot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff

Posts: 15057
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone? :monkey:
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #47523, posted by filecore at 17:17, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47517

Posts: 3867
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone? :monkey:
Concorde to replace shuttle, if you ask me. Get it into space? Make it fly supersonic then point it straight up, if you ask me.

DISCLAIMER: This is only a drunken opinion but in the author's current state of mind it makes sense.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Ian Cook Message #47525, posted by ilcook at 19:32, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47523
trainResident idiot
Posts: 1068
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone? :monkey:
Concorde to replace shuttle, if you ask me. Get it into space? Make it fly supersonic then point it straight up, if you ask me.
DISCLAIMER: This is only a drunken opinion but in the author's current state of mind it makes sense.


It'd havo to faster than mach 2, to do it. :E
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Kevin Wells Message #47528, posted by Revin Kevin at 22:22, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47525
Member
Posts: 644
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone? :monkey:
Concorde to replace shuttle, if you ask me. Get it into space? Make it fly supersonic then point it straight up, if you ask me.
DISCLAIMER: This is only a drunken opinion but in the author's current state of mind it makes sense.


It'd havo to faster than mach 2, to do it. :E
More powerful engines, pr more exotic fuel.

More speed please.
________
I did not do it.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Andrew Message #47532, posted by andrew at 23:46, 27/10/2003, in reply to message #47528
HandbagHandbag Boi
Posts: 3439
Shuttle to replace concorde, anyone? :monkey:
Concorde to replace shuttle, if you ask me. Get it into space? Make it fly supersonic then point it straight up, if you ask me.
DISCLAIMER: This is only a drunken opinion but in the author's current state of mind it makes sense.
It'd havo to faster than mach 2, to do it. :E
More powerful engines, pr more exotic fuel.
More speed please.
we're British
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #47535, posted by filecore at 09:09, 28/10/2003, in reply to message #47523

Posts: 3867
Here, has somebody been buggering about with my post count? I hit 1000 ages ago... :frown:
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jeffrey Lee Message #47546, posted by Phlamethrower at 11:40, 28/10/2003, in reply to message #47525
PhlamethrowerHot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff

Posts: 15057
It'd havo to faster than mach 2, to do it. :E
I *think* that a stable orbit (of earth, at the right distance for satellites and stuff) requires a speed somewhere between 6 and 7 kilometres a second, but can't be bothered:

a) looking it up
b) remembering it

:monkey:
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 

The Icon Bar: The Playpen: Concorde