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.
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?
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?
Private jets should be illegal
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.
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.
but I’d guess that some of the technologies that make SS travel possible may make subsonic travel more efficient.
I wouldn’t count on that. if a plane is optimized for efficiency during the longest part of its flight, which would presumably be supersonic cruise at high altitude, a bunch of things that make modern airliners as efficient as they are (blended winglets, and turbofan engines where the fan generates more thrust than the actual turbine engine exhaust) are directly counter to that
It’s an entirely different kind of flying. All together!
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.
People absolutely used the Concorde to arrive four hours sooner. It’s short flight time made it possible for bussiness execs to have meetings on the other side of the ocean and be back home on the same day back when video calls weren’t an option yet.
I’m reminded of when Phil Collins flew the concorde so he could perform at both Live Aid concerts in 1985.
This should be considered terrorism against the climate. There’s absolutely no need for this technology beyond convenience for the rich and privileged.
Would it still be terrorism if the technologies being developed makes subsonic travel more efficient?
There are legitimate materials science, atmospheric sound propagation physics, and climate science modeling questions that are being answered by these tests. I believe it extremely short sighted to think the application of this technology and enhanced fluid dynamics to be limited to “rich people fuck the planet faster”.
I’m not saying that it is never fair to criticize a scientific endeavor, but enhancing our understanding of quickly transporting things through a dense atmosphere is not a bad thing.
I don’t really see how this could be used for anything else but even then it’s hard to see how the benefits would outweigh the harms of enabling climate arson.
