Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban • Hacker News Board

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#81

Post by asdfadsfgfdda » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 5:00 PM UTC

foobarqux wrote: post #49

asdfadsfgfdda wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not accurate to convert .1 psf to dB because it’s an impulsive shape, not a continuous tone. And human loudness perception depends on how smooth (low frequency) the shape is

> It’s not accurate to convert .1 psf to dB because it’s an impulsive shape, not a continuous tone. And human loudness perception depends on how smooth (low frequency) the shape is Sorry can you explain more? It's just the definition of dB (?) And it's less impulsive than you imagine, go to youtube to listen to the sonic boom + continuous roar. The FAA has no criteria about the "texture" of the sound and there is no…

On a typical day, the atmospheric pressure varies by maybe 150 Pa, or 3 psf. By definition, that’s 137 dB. But it’s imperceptible because the rate of change is so low.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#82

Post by IAmGraydon » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 5:11 PM UTC

That's funny - I had no idea it was actually banned in the first place. I live near a number of large military bases and hear the fighter jets break the sound barrier on a somewhat regular basis.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#83

Post by ranger_danger » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 5:50 PM UTC

mattas wrote: post #2

Not sure how this does anything to alter the laws of physics. But I guess it's a step in the right direction.

https://www.iflscience.com/nasa-image-shows-xb-1-jet-break-t...

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#84

Post by ranger_danger » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

staplers wrote: post #15

_m_p wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Nimbyism is generally against a public good (low income housing, powerlines, etc)but there is nothing public or good about this. Calling this nimbyism is billionaire psyop lol

Calling supersonic commercial flight 'nothing good' is certainly an opinion.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#85

Post by ranger_danger » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 6:00 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #75

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People finding a way to tolerate what was previously considered intolerable is pretty much the story of civilization.

If supersonic flight is so expensive that less than 1% of the population can enjoy it its not clear why the rest of us ought to tolerate it

You have to start somewhere before you can build towards an economy of scale that makes it affordable. If people used your same logic about regular airplanes, we wouldn't be using them today.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#86

Post by ranger_danger » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 6:02 PM UTC

xoa wrote: post #77

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's 108 decibels. > I don't see how anyone will tolerate that in practice. Oh! Really? https://earinc.com/gunfire-noise-level-reference-chart/

...yes, really? Gun fire is indeed stupendously, dangerously loud, which is why we have suppressors and heavy hearing protection for them. And there are indeed significant public/legal fights around outdoor gun ranges that end up near habitation (even if it's not the range's fault at all but rather because construction moved towards it). So I'm not really seeing how that's an argument that people not wearing earpro w…

Most gunshots people hear are not right next to them and so won't be anywhere near 108 dB to them.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#87

Post by nullocator » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 6:22 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #76

dstroot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was 100% in your camp until my neighbor bought an electric blower. The loud, high pitched whine is somehow louder and more ear piercing than a gas blower.

Gas blowers pollute which is the primary reason to ban them.

How many gas blowers do I have to run to be one Taylor Swift?

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#88

Post by michaelmrose » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 6:57 PM UTC

ranger_danger wrote: post #85

michaelmrose wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If supersonic flight is so expensive that less than 1% of the population can enjoy it its not clear why the rest of us ought to tolerate it

You have to start somewhere before you can build towards an economy of scale that makes it affordable. If people used your same logic about regular airplanes, we wouldn't be using them today.

Supersonic flight will never be suitable for the masses compared to normal flight due to basic physics. It will always require much more expensive planes and more fuel.

It's not more viable now wealth inequality just means that there are more rich people to benefit.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#89

Post by tencentshill » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

nullocator wrote: post #87

michaelmrose wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas blowers pollute which is the primary reason to ban them.

How many gas blowers do I have to run to be one Taylor Swift?

Its not many. They are stupidly innefficient.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-...

Given those stats, Gemini says about 8 leafblowers is the same continuous CO emissions as a private jet in flight.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#90

Post by tsherb » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 7:34 PM UTC

IAmGraydon wrote: post #82

That's funny - I had no idea it was actually banned in the first place. I live near a number of large military bases and hear the fighter jets break the sound barrier on a somewhat regular basis.

I believe the supersonic ban is/was on civilian aircraft.