▲ 57 points
back
44 comments
We've moved the (few) comments that aren't about the title to this other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42853633.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
So the Virgin Galactic vehicles don't count either?
I understand that we're doing marketing here, but non-military supersonic flight is 50+ years old.
No, rockets don't count. Hobby rockets break Mach all the time. This is a private supersonic jet, which has to breathe air vs "simply" carrying its own oxidizer. (Yes, rockets are hard but supersonic jets are also hard!)
Privately built, not civil; there's a huge difference. "Civil" in the meaning they seem to be using means "neither military nor religious" (e.g. civil servant). The Concorde was decidedly unaffiliated with the military, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't affiliated with any religious organization, though I can't find a source for the latter.
> "Civil" in the meaning they seem to be using means "neither military nor religious" (e.g. civil servant).
More likely, just not-military, which is the well-established meaning of “civil” in the specific context of aviation.
As you note, however, it is still wrong: as Concorde (and the Tu-144, despite its engines being controlled military technology) existed.
The Concordians believe that the Overture will be the second coming of their saviour.
The "civil" here is as in "civil aviation". Aviation is broadly either civil or state aviation.
Presumably it's derived from "civilian".
British Airways and Air France (both of which operated the Concorde) are both definitely civil aviation.
They mean civil as in "courteous and polite"
"first" meaning it hasn't occurred in the writer's lifetime ?
Is there another that they're not thinking of? The Concorde was a joint government project.
Hmm, in my understanding of language, a gov project would be called "public", which contrast with "private". Civil contrasts with military/religious.
That doesn't make it a military project (with regards to aviation, there are military and civil planes).
Same applies to the Tu-144.
“Civil” in reference to aircraft and aviation does not mean “unconnected to government”.
TechCrunch has degenerated into a clickbait site with horrifically unprofessional "journalists" working there.
You get god awful articles like this, where "civil" is used instead of "civilian" and the author is too addicted to scrolling TikTok to be aware of the fact that this thing called the Concorde used to exist before he was born, rendering his mangled statement to be factually inaccurate.
> "civil" is used instead of "civilian"
How is that a problem?
For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_aircraft uses both "civil aircraft" and "civilian aircraft".
So... we're memory-holing the Concorde then? Or are we pretending that the British Aircraft Corporation wasn't a private company?
> Scholl added that “XB-1’s supersonic flight marks the first time a supersonic jet has come from something other than a nation-state.” The Concorde, which was retired in 2003, was built jointly by the British and French governments.
It would be more impressive sense if Falcon 9s weren't making hypersonic sonic booms every other week for years now.
I thought for sure this was just a bad headline, but no, the article makes the same mistake. Maybe someone can find a better source, this is still a good story.
From the article:
> The Concorde, which was retired in 2003, was built jointly by the British and French governments.
This is the technicality TechCrunch is using to make this claim.
Yeah, but that's not what “civil” means.
Also Concorde wasn't "built" by governments. Funded by, perhaps..
Related:
Boom Supersonic to break sound barrier during historic test flight today
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42852077
XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
For those unfamiliar with the special meaning of "civil", in the specific context of aviation:
It's such a pity that a really exciting step for this company is bring ruined by such a bad report of it.
Not surprisingly the focus of most of the comments are on the absurd statements of "first civil supersonic flight " or the Concorde was "built by governments".
Which is a pity because the achievement is a milestone on the road to future supersonic commercial flight. How much better would the article be if it focused on the genuine step made rather than polluting it with easily dismissable nonsense.
Reminder: Concorde 1st flight was 2nd March 1969. Civilian supersonic flight was completely routine until 2003. You could book pure "pleasure cruises" doing a lap of the Bay Of Biscay, eating lunch, and returning to the same airport. IT was not "built by the government" either. It was built by Sud Aviation (later Aérospatiale) and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC), both private companies. It was funded by government.
It was not routine. There were only what 14 commercial concordes? Something like 12,000 737s have been built as a point of comparison.
Are A380s routine? There are what, only 250 of those? Concorde had a regular schedule decade after decade. Only 14 airframes but 50K flights from BA alone, I presume a somewhat similar number from Air France. 12K 737s, a completely different market and customer for the most part. High-end can be routine too, you just needed to have the money.
>IT was not "built by the government" either. [...]both private companies. It was funded by government.
Eh? Apollo was built by private companies too. So were the B-52 or F-35 or SR-71. Using private companies to build and do engineering on government projects that are envisioned/funded/directed by government is the rule not the exception. Most people wouldn't describe the F-35 as a private company project though.
100% accurate, AFAICT and as a French man. I wonder why you are downvoted.
Does SpaceShipOne not count?
Strange definition of 'civil'. I think I'd use 'built by a private company' instead.
Great achievement though.
Edit: apparently it was unclear to many readers - Concorde was a supersonic civilian aircraft. And, though partly built by private companies, it was certainly a state project.
The Concorde was barbaric
Civilian, as opposed to military
Concorde was civilian, though.
A civil aircraft is an aircraft which is not military. Idiotic.
When will Americans stop using superlatives and lie all the time about everything they try to market / advertise ? There was russian tupolev and french-british concorde before ya know you're not the first one unless you modify the meaning of words ("civil" here, used for "a private company", but even here we could argue that Aéropostale was a private company) you're using or you create so small a niche that you're number 1 in it, purely for marketing / manipulation purposes. I very much dislike this kind of marketing and makes me not want to read anything techcrunch writes. Why do we still put up with those basic and obvious manipulation techniques ?
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- also, please avoid nationalistic flamebait on HN - it only makes the threads worse...
Agreed about the rules but this is a real cultural phenomenon (culture correlates strongly countries) that this article illustrates
Maybe, but nationalistic flamebait was the higher-order bit here. If you want to post thoughtfully about a real cultural phenomenon, it would be necessary not to lead with that ("When will Americans stop using superlatives and lie all the time"), as well as to make sure that indignation does not drown out curiosity in your post.
Thank you for the advice I will follow it in the future, and also thank you for moderating
Appreciated!