The skies of Oklahoma City roared for six months in 1964 as military aircraft intentionally rattled the population below with a daily barrage of thunderous sonic booms. It was a controversial test — the consequences of which have lingered to this day.
Two approaches in the works could revolutionize air travel by making future supersonic passenger planes compliant with the FAA’s new noise rules: Colorado-based company Boom Supersonic, which is specifically mentioned in the FAA proposal, plans to use physics to prevent sonic booms from ever reaching the ground, regardless of plane design. NASA, on the other hand, is flying an experimental plane called X-59 that is specifically designed to reduce the intensity of the boom.
If you thought that one hurdle was the massive amount of emissions that accelerate the death of the planet even more you’re wrong. Apparently it’s noise levels.
That one big hurdle is “What’s the fucking point”? The number of people who need to get halfway around the world six hours faster and who are willing to pay ten times as much for the privilege is vanishingly small, and frankly, that’s not a problem that needs solving.
I mean Boeing can’t even build subsonic airplanes any more and Airbus. . .well, they have “Bus” in their name. Who needs a supersonic bus?
deleted by creator
You dont see an immediate usecase for faster travel and point out its cost as if costs do not come down over time.
Who needs a flatter screen, a few people with enough money to make freeing up a foot and a half behind their tv a worthwile expense isnt really a problem worth solving.
Your second point is amazing, irrefutable.
Sure that was why there was never really a business case for Concorde, but ……
- I would pay a little more to get there a little faster. Research is not only trying to quiet the boom but also trying to make it more economical.
- I believe the company listed there is focusing on private jets. Someone who can afford a private jet might be more likely to pay a premium to get there faster
You might be able to make it less uneconomical, but air resistance is a bitch. You wanna go twice as fast, you need four times as much power, and now you need a heavier plane to carry all that fuel. Which uses more fuel because of how heavy it is. Diminishing returns kicked in before you even got airborne, and now you’re just throwing thrust at the problem and you’re throwing fuel at the thrust.
Sure, there are some people who don’t give a fuck, and would be willing to expend whatever in fuel and emissions to build a plane that will use as much fuel as a commercial liner that carries hundreds to get six people to Dubai a couple hours faster, but no sane government would allow that kind of plane to be built or even land on their territory because of how plainly awful that math is for everybody not richer than god.
Right?
I was not aware that the concorde flew for about 25 years? That’s honestly pretty amazing.
Overall unnecessary though. Unless they demonstrate that it’s somehow more efficient, by flying higher and faster and the trip being shorter? I doubt it though.
The Concorde cut a 7-8 hour transatlantic flight to under 3.5 hours. People didn’t fly the Concorde to arrive four hours sooner. The difference of not being stuffed in a giant Tylenol for an extra four hours was the greatest selling point.
Efficiency per passenger mile is the big question. I’ll probably be worse than subsonic aircraft, but I’d guess that some of the technologies that make SS travel possible may make subsonic travel more efficient.
