In July, Lockheed Martin completed the build of NASA’s X-59 test aircraft, which is designed to turn sonic booms into mere thumps, in the hope of making overland supersonic flight a possibility. Ground tests and a first test flight are planned for later in the year. NASA aims to have enough data to hand over to US regulators in 2027.

  • dishpanman@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m interested to see how this plane performs compared to the Concord. It’ll be interesting to find out how bad the maintenance will be.

    Also the criticism and the “whatabout other important things” people commenting here should know that more than one type of research can be performed at the same time. This is an aerodynamics problem. The other problems related pollution from engines, fuel sources, and environmental impact are also being worked in parallel. A planet of 8 billion people is able to work on many problems and ideas in parallel without having one be a detriment over another. It’s not like an aeronautical engineer can be repurposed to be a fuel chemist!

  • A quarter billion dollars to build just a prototype and retread the Concorde fiasco with all its attendant environmental destruction. What does this have to do with exploring space, which is what I thought was NASA’s mission?

    • Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      National Aeronautics and Space Administration

      Atmospheric based praise pursuits have always been within their purview. Space just gets all the press.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why is it striking to you that A government funded by billionaires for billionaires is spending public funds on things that will only benefit billionaires?

      • Stuka@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You don’t want that unless you want the cost of virtually everything to increase.

        Don’t fuck with the infrastructure that keeps every corner of a country running on a day to day basis.

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Whose going to be able to afford this? Air fare is already expensive.

    Also, why is NASA doing this with tax dollars?

    Is this stupid or am I stupid and missing something obvious?

    • gammasfor@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’d hate to live in a world where just because something isn’t immediately useful it shouldn’t be researched.

      Being able to demonstrate the ability to suppress a sonic boom would be huge.

      • lntl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, there must be a reason to fund research. Then, publicly funded research must align with the public’s good.

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      People fly first class, people fly businees class. Some have the money.

      Also, for some, the time saved is worth much more than what the ticket costs, especially in business (expensive consultants?).

      why is NASA doing this with tax dollars

      The resulting aircraft/technology can be sold to commercial aviation and/or be used for military purposes

      something obvious

      NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, so it’s kinda in scope

              • If NASA was a profitable enterprise, it wouldn’t require external funding, and Lockheed and co would be doing that research themselves to keep that profit for themselves.

                NASA isn’t like CNSA or Roscosmos in that they don’t make their own rockets. It exists first and foremost to funnel money to aerospace contractors by either directly contracting with them or providing R&D in cases where cost/risk is greater than expected profit.

                A similar relationship exists with publicly funded universities selling patents to pharma.

                • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The fact that it’s not profitable overall doesn’t mean there can never be any profit from anything.

    • papertowels@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I imagine the same was asked when jet planes were first invented, now look at where we are.

      NASA is likely doing this with tax dollars because private industry has little reason to push forward research that does not yield an immediate ROI. Not yielding an immediate ROI is a very myopic driver of priorities.

      • lntl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the west, jet engines were developed to kill fascists and communists. The ROI was good.

        I don’t see the parallel

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Are you claiming that the idea of the jet engine, prototyping, and finalization of the jet engine was entirely sparked by what you’re referring to? I would argue that there’s a long line of research leading up to what you’re referring to that would’ve resulted in the questions you’re asking.

          • lntl@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I am. Although the concept of a jet engine was known about for a long time it was only prototyped and finalized for the war effort. Since the Germans knew they were going to war first, they had a head start and finished first.

            Everyone else launched reactionary programs. The goal of America’s program was to kill fascists, but they didn’t finish before the war’s end. Afterwards they pivoted to communists.

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Nevermind the increasingly feasible steps between the Egyptians and the folks of WW2, I imagine even the Egyptians had some naysayers commenting on the lack of practicality for the little spinning ball. Where was the ROI there?

                  What would’ve happened if whoever invented precursors, at any stage, of modern jets listened to naysayers whose main argument was “the common man cannot afford this”?

          • lntl@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Everyone was developing them, more or less. The thing is, the enemy doesn’t usually share their tech with you so you’ve got to develop programs independently.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure one of the A is for aeronautic - it’s kinda what they do, the n is for naughty tho so maybe that’s why?

    • YⓄ乙 @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is not for regulars doing 9-5 jobs. Its for the elite class , not for peasants.

  • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Instead of more luxury boondoggles for the rich, funded with tax money from people who will never afford it, how about we focus on decarbonizing air travel for the commoners? Fuck supersonic flight, use public money to develop a hydrogen powered regular speed transoceanic airliner so that regular people can have a sustainable long haul air travel option instead of making the carbon footprint of the rich even higher.