> What's really sad is that 70s-era technology is better than what we have today. No more SR-71. No more Concorde.
Define "better".
The Concorde was a scam - middle class citizens were taxed by England and France to subsidize a supersonic luxury plane that only the rich could afford to buy (subsidized) tickets on.
The SR-71 was the best tool we could build at the time. Once technology got better, we replaced it with satellites.
The fact that it leaked fuel, flew at Mach 3, had a crew of 2, etc. are not features, they are flaws.
Yeah, it's cool as all heck.
...but don't kid yourself that it's better than what we've got now.
The current airlines are subsidized, too. If you want to fly to Small Town, USA, the airline isn't making any money. It's paid for by the people that live in cities that can actually sustain an airport.
The reality is that it takes 6 hours to fly across the Atlantic now. The reality is that 10 years ago, it took half that. That's not progress, even if it is profit.
The Concorde was not a scam, sometimes the state has to subsidize some technology so it could become available.
Think of the moon landing.
Not everybody had the chance to be an astronaut on the Apollo mission, but I believe that US citizens were "happy" to pay taxes because they got something to be proud of.
Define "better".
The Concorde was a scam - middle class citizens were taxed by England and France to subsidize a supersonic luxury plane that only the rich could afford to buy (subsidized) tickets on.
The SR-71 was the best tool we could build at the time. Once technology got better, we replaced it with satellites.
The fact that it leaked fuel, flew at Mach 3, had a crew of 2, etc. are not features, they are flaws.
Yeah, it's cool as all heck.
...but don't kid yourself that it's better than what we've got now.