SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Trump Backs Supersonic NASA Jet That Will Fly From New York to London in Three Hours
A sleek, experimental plane that would quietly crack the speed of sound and transform a trans-Atlantic flight into a three-hour hop received critical backing on Monday under NASA's budget request for the fiscal year that starts October 1, 2018. The document signals the Trump administration would like to prioritize the jet, as well as further research into faster-than-sound airplane technology.
The budget request refers to the Low-Boom Flight-Demonstrator, a plane NASA wants in order to bring back supersonic commercial flights by mitigating their most annoying side effect, the loud sonic boom that accompanies them.
That boom has always been the biggest stumbling block for commercial supersonic flight. It is caused by the sheer number of air particles the nose of the plane pushes aside as it flies. Those molecules form a wave of high pressure, like a boat's wake as NASA describes it, which rolls out like a carpet beneath the airplane.
Also at Space.com.
Related: NASA Quesst Project - Quiet Supersonic Transport
Concorde Without the Cacophony: NASA Thinks It's Cracked Quiet Supersonic Flight
NASA Tests Light, Foldable Plane Wings for Supersonic Flights
NASA Releases 2018 Edition of Spinoff
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:21AM (7 children)
Profitable or not, it was way more expensive (11 times the cost of subsonic flights between JFK and LHR). And to save what? a few hours?
Please. The Concorde was for people with more money than sense or corporate execs who could con their companies into it. All to be able to brag that they flew on the Concorde. And you don't even need the Concorde for that anymore, Virgin Atlantic will do just fine with US$11,000+ for first class.
When supersonic travel is around the cost of these flights [google.com], then come talk to me. Until then, it's just a bragging rights thing. Which is why L'Orange is all over it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tonyPick on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:05AM (1 child)
Because it was only ever running with prototypes - more SST would have reduced the cost. Running a small fleet of prototypes for that long will be expensive.
ISTR it would have been a substantial win for trips from Europe to the west coast USA (e.g. LAX, flight times are ~12 Hour).
A while ago the BBC had a program where the designers &managers of the original Concorde development talked about plans and one of the things I recall was the statement that the ban on SST over the US was the real killer, because it meant they couldn't run the planned routes to the US west coast. Can't find the link now (annoyingly)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:15PM
Mexico and Canada might be very happy to tolerate sonic booms if you paid them.
London to Seattle can go via Canada. Rome to LA can go via Mexico. Berlin to either can go via a polar route and the Pacific Ocean.
(Score: 2, Funny) by iru on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:42AM (1 child)
I’m curious about the ТЧ-144. How well did it fared economically in comparison to the Concorde. For those who do not know the Tupolev 144 was the Soviet version of a passenger supersonic airplane. Some even say that the Concorde took some inspiration from it.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday February 14 2018, @04:30PM
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:16AM (1 child)
Just wait until the USA has a supersonic passenger plane, then it'll be the best thing since sliced bread.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:23AM
I'm not a huge fan of sliced bread and until supersonic transport is price competitive with subsonic travel, I'm not really interested.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:44PM
Concorde let you leave Paris at 11AM and have a morning meeting followed by a business lunch in NY. When your CEO is paid more per hour than most people get per year, it can matter.
Add rich people, bragging rights ... and you get a break-even flagship for BA and AF.
Which is why the US, which was late to that party, banned it under "noise concerns", which are total bullshit to anyone who's ever spent an hour in a US city.
You don't understand it, fine.
Given the cost of development, whether a supersonic plane could break even today or tomorrow is debatable, and the risk that the math would change before the first deliveries is why nobody's really trying.
I'm just sad that after retiring the SR-71 and Concorde, humans actually regressed in their ability to go fast from point A to fairly distant point B.