Comments on: The REAL story behind America’s SST, or lack thereof. https://habitablezone.com/2015/04/01/the-real-story-behind-americas-sst-or-lack-thereof/ Thu, 09 Apr 2026 15:15:13 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: bowser https://habitablezone.com/2015/04/01/the-real-story-behind-americas-sst-or-lack-thereof/#comment-32406 bowser Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:03:30 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=49282#comment-32406 "- - - but because they are hard." “- – - but because they are hard.”

]]> By: hank https://habitablezone.com/2015/04/01/the-real-story-behind-americas-sst-or-lack-thereof/#comment-32405 hank Thu, 02 Apr 2015 20:55:13 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=49282#comment-32405 An aggressor's first strike will try to take out as many of yours as possible, only the ones that survive will be available for a counter-strike. So the more you start out with, the better the deterrent. Its the guy who plans to shoot first who can afford to go on the cheap. He only has to hit your silos, and have just a few left over. His silos will be empty. In fact, he doesn't need silos at all if he's planning on shooting first. And look out for the honest guys. They have every incentive to lie to themselves. Its the DIShonest guys who realize when they have to abandon a tall tale because people are not likely to believe it any more. The True Believers will never run out of excuses. No, there are already enough examples of wasteful spending without having to come up with theories about the SST. For example, we put highly accurate silo-busting MIRVs on our submarine-launched missiles (a first-strike weapon on a purely defensive, counterstrike, MAD-type delivery system) simply because it made our defense contractors rich. About the same time, we canceled an upgrade of our hardened silos (a purely defensive, second-strike weapon) to pay for it. Only great restraint by Soviet war planners prevented them from launching a preemptive attack. If I had been in their shoes, I would have looked at the evidence and taken the first swing. An aggressor’s first strike will try to take out as many of yours as possible, only the ones that survive will be available for a counter-strike. So the more you start out with, the better the deterrent. Its the guy who plans to shoot first who can afford to go on the cheap. He only has to hit your silos, and have just a few left over. His silos will be empty. In fact, he doesn’t need silos at all if he’s planning on shooting first.

And look out for the honest guys. They have every incentive to lie to themselves. Its the DIShonest guys who realize when they have to abandon a tall tale because people are not likely to believe it any more. The True Believers will never run out of excuses.

No, there are already enough examples of wasteful spending without having to come up with theories about the SST. For example, we put highly accurate silo-busting MIRVs on our submarine-launched missiles (a first-strike weapon on a purely defensive, counterstrike, MAD-type delivery system) simply because it made our defense contractors rich. About the same time, we canceled an upgrade of our hardened silos (a purely defensive, second-strike weapon) to pay for it.

Only great restraint by Soviet war planners prevented them from launching a preemptive attack. If I had been in their shoes, I would have looked at the evidence and taken the first swing.

]]> By: bowser https://habitablezone.com/2015/04/01/the-real-story-behind-americas-sst-or-lack-thereof/#comment-32404 bowser Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:22:13 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=49282#comment-32404 In those days did the US turn down a challenge because it would lose money? Remember the Moon? ICBMs - 10 times more than necessary? The list goes on. It was completely uncharacteristic for the US to abandon the SST. My friends story passes the smell test. Abandoning it as impractictable doesn't. At least for my nose. (And the guy was an honest guy with no need to make up something.) But that's why we have opinions. Thank God. In those days did the US turn down a challenge because it would lose money? Remember the Moon? ICBMs – 10 times more than necessary? The list goes on.
It was completely uncharacteristic for the US to abandon the SST. My friends story passes the smell test. Abandoning it as impractictable doesn’t.
At least for my nose.
(And the guy was an honest guy with no need to make up something.)
But that’s why we have opinions. Thank God.

]]> By: hank https://habitablezone.com/2015/04/01/the-real-story-behind-americas-sst-or-lack-thereof/#comment-32403 hank Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:57:16 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=49282#comment-32403 The SST was abandoned because it was a loser, and we had all the proof we needed from the failure of the UK/French version. It lost money because there was no need for it, no market, they kept it flying for prestige reasons, and as soon as they had an excuse to do so, they cancelled it. It served no useful purpose. Not enough passengers are going to pay twice as much just so they can get there in half the time, especially if they have to travel in cramped conditions that can't come close to matching the comfort of a first class ticket in a conventional jet. Besides, even back then, most of the hassle and delay of air travel was endured at the airport, or getting there and back, not in the air. Even if air travel was completely instantaneous, it would still take all day and still be a pain in the ass. No, the SST was the typical engineer's wet dream, just because we can build something doesn't mean we should--unless you can get someone else to pay the bills. The same goes for the proposed new hypersonic transports, sub-orbital rocket planes, or other adolescent fantasies currently on the drawing boards. No one NEEDS to get to Tokyo in two hours, especially if the express flight only takes off every other day. Think about it. I suspect your friend's face-saving story was just that. It kind of reminds me of when cruise missiles first became available, there was a big push to build a new fleet of bombers to carry them, replacing our aging B-52s. It occurred to me, why an expensive new delivery system? Why not just strap them onto Piper Cubs? The whole point of having cruise missiles is that they don't require an expensive new delivery system. Concepts like this are job programs for engineers. The next thing they'll try and sell us is that there is a future for free enterprise in space travel. 8) The SST was abandoned because it was a loser, and we had all the proof we needed from the failure of the UK/French version. It lost money because there was no need for it, no market, they kept it flying for prestige reasons, and as soon as they had an excuse to do so, they cancelled it. It served no useful purpose. Not enough passengers are going to pay twice as much just so they can get there in half the time, especially if they have to travel in cramped conditions that can’t come close to matching the comfort of a first class ticket in a conventional jet. Besides, even back then, most of the hassle and delay of air travel was endured at the airport, or getting there and back, not in the air. Even if air travel was completely instantaneous, it would still take all day and still be a pain in the ass.

No, the SST was the typical engineer’s wet dream, just because we can build something doesn’t mean we should–unless you can get someone else to pay the bills. The same goes for the proposed new hypersonic transports, sub-orbital rocket planes, or other adolescent fantasies currently on the drawing boards. No one NEEDS to get to Tokyo in two hours, especially if the express flight only takes off every other day. Think about it.

I suspect your friend’s face-saving story was just that. It kind of reminds me of when cruise missiles first became available, there was a big push to build a new fleet of bombers to carry them, replacing our aging B-52s. It occurred to me, why an expensive new delivery system? Why not just strap them onto Piper Cubs? The whole point of having cruise missiles is that they don’t require an expensive new delivery system.

Concepts like this are job programs for engineers. The next thing they’ll try and sell us is that there is a future for free enterprise in space travel. 8)

]]>