Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 207 posts

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

#181

Post by [deleted] »

pkulak wrote: post #178
arjie wrote: post #41

This is so exciting. The only ones I know working on this are Boom (unless they’ve pivoted entirely into AI DC turbines). Between this and the wind-turbine-blade air transporter it’s an exciting time for aviation. Now if we can only transition off leaded fuel!

> This is so exciting. How exactly? Purely on a tech basis? Because it's not solving a real problem anyone has. Some millionaire who wants to go from NYC to LA a couple hours faster is not a problem worth solving. And certainly not when it's less efficient, and inconveniences everyone in the flight path with a very loud noise.

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by nradov »

GordonS wrote: post #152
WalterBright wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the 1960s (!) the military would fly supersonic over the town I lived in. I always enjoyed the boom. I would also open the window during a thunderstorm or go sit on the porch because I enjoyed the incredible electric display and the booms.

Back in the 80's the British air force would fly ridiculously low over the rural village I grew up in, certainly lower than they were meant to be allowed to - everyone hated it. You'd be minding your own business and then just about shit yourself out of nowhere!

I find it so bizarre that anyone would be upset about this instead of thankful for the protection.

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

#184

Post by tuna74 »

pkulak wrote: post #179
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I often have military flight training over my town, and I don't find the sonic booms particularly bad. I barely notice the planes unless they fly close to the ground over my house. I'm not sure how the sonic booms of fighter jets compare to passenger planes, though.

I can't stand military jets over my neighborhood. I get irrationally angry every time I'm walking somewhere with my wife and we both have to completely stop talking for two blocks because some F-14 is blasting around over our heads. They are just unbelievably loud.

The last American F14 was retired 20 years ago.

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

#185

Post by yieldcrv »

xnx wrote: post #129
yieldcrv wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of do have that faith. Sean Duffy's reality TV career hasn't really hampered the transportation agencies I think staff at the agencies as well as industry staff are very passionate about what they do in their respective domains, and even with the agency heads being industry plans or uncredentialed susceptible to regulatory capture, I still think I can appreciate the willingness to revisit old prohibitions in c…

The same Sean Duffy who took a vacation paid for by the companies he regulates? ( https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/05/13/... ). I expect that guy to put enrich "Sean Duffy" as priorities #1, #2, and #3.

I think I covered all of that with my mention of regulatory capture and you were waiting for any conversation that mentions him to post that

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

#186

Post by makeitdouble »

dylan604 wrote: post #116
foobarqux wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a substantial noise beyond the initial boom which is very loud even relative to the main boom. But even just a half second of a car horn going off right next to you every so often is intolerable.

> But even just a half second of a car horn going off right next to you every so often is intolerable. You must not have a neighbor with a car whose alarm constantly goes off at random points throughout the day right outside your window. You eventually don't notice it. Speaking from experience

To state the obvious, it's better if it's calm:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/health-impa...

On getting used to it, people adapt in that they stop consciously noticing the noise, but it's still constantly processed and grinding on one's environmental awareness.

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

#187

Post by cindyllm »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #171
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.

I disagree. The more that I travel, the more that I notice the trend: The richer you become, the quieter you become. Even in the same country, income level seems to strongly correlate with how loud you are in public (and private).

[dead]

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

#188

Post by craftkiller »

dylan604 wrote: post #116
foobarqux wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a substantial noise beyond the initial boom which is very loud even relative to the main boom. But even just a half second of a car horn going off right next to you every so often is intolerable.

> But even just a half second of a car horn going off right next to you every so often is intolerable. You must not have a neighbor with a car whose alarm constantly goes off at random points throughout the day right outside your window. You eventually don't notice it. Speaking from experience

I actually do, and I still notice it every time. Some asshole across the street rides a motorcycle and every day he revs his motorcycle which sets off the alarm of some other asshole's van.

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

#189

Post by m463 »

foobarqux wrote: post #8

0.11 pound per square foot is what is being proposed. That's 108 decibels. Which is between standing next to a lawn mower and standing next to a car horn. I don't see how anyone will tolerate that in practice. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/db

It seems like that is the limit. the proposal:

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/ARM-260115-001_Supersonic_NPRM_...

... also alludes to new designs where the boom doesn't reach the ground. It also talks about primary and secondary booms.

Will folks with these planes eliminate risk of going > .11 psf by having the boom stay off the surface?

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

#190

Post by foobarqux »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #155
foobarqux wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are in fact the same. 108dB loud.

> They are in fact the same. 108dB loud There is a tonne of progress in atmospheric modellingn that lets us predict how the thump will be refracted to and reflected from the ground. So yes, you still have the same energy being dumped into the atmosphere. But less of it turns into audible sound, less of it arrives in one go, and less of it ever reaches the ground in an audible form.

108 dB is the proposed FAA allowable pressure at the surface of the earth. They didn't come up with this number arbitrarily they did it with consultation with the supersonic plane companies and if those companies could achieve much less than 108dB then the proposed limit would be lower.
Post reply on HN