Boom Supersonic to break sound barrier during historic test flight today

Post by kachapopopow » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 3:32 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67

kachapopopow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the last person you'd use climate change as an argument, I'm generally just frightened by the amount of problems that the governments will have to ignore before they can have their first commercial flight bleeding into ground flights. It's the typical cyclist versus cars problem. I like cycling and I don't like driving and nothing will change that.

> first commercial flight bleeding into ground flights ? > I like cycling and I don't like driving and nothing will change that Nothing has to. If you started advocating for banning cars, on the other hand, you’d expect to see an anti-cycling lobby crop up.

Post by kachapopopow » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 3:35 PM UTC

rockemsockem wrote: post #39

kachapopopow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and if you're talking about economy you will never be able to set foot on a plane like this either. There are proposals to have this over land as well which I am very strongly against to the point of not wanting a company like this to be successful.

Are you unfamiliar with the work NASA is doing on sonic boom reductions? Or are you too cynical to care?

Post by tjpnz » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 3:37 PM UTC

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #69

tjpnz wrote: post #54

I think a lot of people here are missing the point. The idea isn't to just replicate Concorde's flights across the Atlantic Ocean - or any stretch of water for that matter. Their plan would be to have this thing flying over land. The noise issue will be solved either through some feat of engineering or political lobbying. The cynic in me believes it will be mostly the latter.

I super do not want even a muffled supersonic boom crashing over my house! It would definitely breed some significant resentment against the rich to have my house even gently shaking day by day. My gut tells me this is in no way a solvable problem. But I too fear that after it's built, it'll be the LLM story of "yes we had to illegally access & use every book & piece of art in existence to train this, but now that we…

Post by ipdashc » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 3:39 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #24

ipdashc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the noise pollution can be solved (or, as others have said, just run it only over the ocean), I don't see how this thing wouldn't pump out an immense amount of CO2. It's definitely cool and would make flying nicer, but in an era where we're trying to decarbonize, get sustainable aviation fuel going, optimize flight paths to avoid contrail warming, etc... I can't lie, there is a big part of me that hopes it do…

> in an era where we're trying to decarbonize, get sustainable aviation fuel going You don’t see an ultrapremium flight option improving chances for synthetic jet fuel?

Post by nradov » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 3:39 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51

nradov wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military does not have relatively silent supersonic flight. Only a few US military aircraft models are even capable of supersonic flight, and they're plenty loud. In order to avoid complaints they normally they only fly that fast over designated exercise areas. The Boom aircraft incorporates some quiet supersonic technology but until they actually test it they won't know whether it's actually quiet enough.

> military does not have relatively silent supersonic flight We have one plane—soon to be retired—that can supercruise, i.e. sustain supersonic flight without afterburners, the F-22 [1]. It’s absolutely incorrect to treat this technology as anything but bleeding edge. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise