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.

  • it_depends_man@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • DrakeAlbrecht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

    • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • Noxy@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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!