Concorde was the greatest engineering achievment of the 20th century, do you agree?

Lol it blew up! What kind of engineering feat is that?

You probably mean the LHC. Which isn't 20th Century.

I don't. I'm fairly sure there was another particle accelerator built in the 20th Century at CERN?

personally I think the atom bomb was the greatest engineering achievemnet of the 20th century

I never disputed the fact that Concorde was an impressive feat of engineering, and this, in conjunction with the emboldened part, kind of makes me question why you began your comment with "I'd disagree", seeing as if anything, we're in agreement.

But yeah, like I said, I think total utility (how many people, over how many years etc.) is something that is of great importance in determining just how "great" a given engineering achievement was.

personally I think the atom bomb was the greatest engineering achievemnet of the 20th century

I am of the belief that Concorde was the greatest technological and engineering achievement of the 20th century.

Think about it....it was created in the 1960s, yet even by today's standards it would still outperform any modern aircraft.

Mach 2 speed (twice the speed of sound), sophisticated 'fly by wire' control systems, window coolers that cooled the fuselage and windows down due to friction with the air at such high speeds, and London to New York in just over 3 hours. There were even computers that slowed the airspeed down to get into the engines, since engines cannot take in air at such high speeds....and this was in the 1960s when such computer technology didn't even technically exist!

Concorde was a phenomenal feat, one that has not been equalled since, so I vote it for the greatest 20th century engineering and technological achievement, what do you think?

If you don't agree, what do you think was a better achievement? I think you'll be hard pressed to find anything better.

you'll be grateful when theres a massive asteroid the size of texas heading towards us

I disagree with the utility part. A 500 foot high statue which is merely there for decorative purposes is just as great an achievement as a 500 foot high building that can actually be used for something.

you'll be grateful when theres a massive asteroid the size of texas heading towards us

2 words: Space shuttle.....

oh and we also went to the moon in the 20th century!!

apollo?

Concorde was certainly an impressive feat, however I don't think it trumps the Nuclear Bomb, Apollo Program or the Internet.

A famous quote from a NASA engineer and official once said:
"Getting to the moon was a piece of cake compared to getting Concorde to work"

Supersonic flight had previously only been possible for extremely well trained military pilots wearing fully pressurised space suits within their aircraft and flying for no more than 30 minutes/an hour at a time. They went from that to having 120 people in lounge suits for 3+hrs flying across the Atlantic in less than a decade.

Certainly impressive, but do higher technical achievements really mean greater engineering achievements? Especially as it didn't turn out to be economically viable (people can argue that governments stopped it etc. - but if it was viable, a private company (or even Airbus) could just start making them again).

While getting to New York in 3 hours was good for the few that were able to afford Concorde, it didn't really provide much improvement for people in general over existing jets that get there in 8 hours.

Whereas the internet completely revolutionised communications, space travel has vastly increased knowledge of space and spawned dozens of real-world practical applications etc. etc.

I guess if you strip usefulness out of the equation Concorde could be top though.

BA ran a profit out of their Concorde services every year they operated flights to/from NYC. The publicity alone paid for the extra fuel it used. Air France never made it quite so successful, so when they made the choice to retire it, EADS followed French calls and made Airbus cease it's licensing authority and stop producing spares. Had that not happen I'm 99.9% certain BA would still be operating them now.

I guess we have to define what we mean by 'engineering'. To me - a highly biased aeronautical engineer by degree and trade - its nuts and bolts, it's grease and oil, it's moving things that people can see. Apollo was good. But not many people ever saw it, fewer got inside it.

Concorde stopped traffic for decades. It's last flight was a global news item. Wherever it flew people stopped and looked up. Concorde wasn't about the people inside, it was about the people outside, watching it go by. Grace and beauty in design, yet ferocious unrelenting power. Time after time. A Saturn V rocket was good. But it was only used once. Concorde was used daily. For 40 years.