this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
372 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

34877 readers
5 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] zoe@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

taxpayer money is free, no there's no loss to begin with

[–] LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Huh? What kinda question is that?

[–] _MusicJunkie@beehaw.org -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Concorde wasn't profitable in the long run. Nowadays with video conferencing, even less people need to show up to a transatlantic business meeting.

Unlikely this makes financial sense.

[–] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Great it's cool research though and should continue, if you want to bitch about wasted taxes go comment on military threads and comment there where billions are wasted on shit contracts that never materialize due to incompetent base mangers who can't distinguish vapor ware proposals from real tech. Don't bitch about scientific research that's just fucking dumb.

[–] Gargleblaster@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A commercial passenger plane should not be the subject of government research.

The science behind minimizing a sonic boom is not just applicable to commercial planes, ffs stop trying to kill science and research fucking idoits.

[–] _MusicJunkie@beehaw.org -3 points 1 year ago

Chill mate I'm not even from the US. There still is no practical use for this.

[–] zoe@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah but that was decades ago.

Without the boom, these planes can fly possibly more profitable routes, for example, drawing parallels is hard with such a time-distance

[–] Gargleblaster@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago

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

That is what companies like Boeing and Lockheed are for.

NASA has no business making airplanes for rich passengers.