6 ms·

Why are tax dollars paying for research on a commercial plane? Couldn't Lockheed, Boeing, and Airbus fund it themselves, even if they are giving grants to acade

Why are tax dollars paying for research on a commercial plane? Couldn't Lockheed, Boeing, and Airbus fund it themselves, even if they are giving grants to academic or other researchers?

mparlane 11y ago
Because Aeronautics comes before Space in NASA?
cryptoz 11y ago
It's part of what NASA does, and it's a very good thing. If commercial companies are left to their own devices when it comes to things like airplanes, very very bad and damaging things happen like unchecked pollutants, urban noise, lack of safety, etc. It's very important for NASA and taxpayers to be a part of this process. > Supersonic vehicle research addresses the development of tools, technologies, and knowledge to help eliminate today’s technical barriers to practical commercial supersonic flight: sonic boom, fuel efficiency, airport community noise, high-altitude emissions, structural weight and flexibility, airspace operations, and the ability to design future vehicles in an integrated, multidisciplinary manner. http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/aavp/cst/index.html http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/aavp/cst/index.html
- hackuser 11y ago
  > If commercial companies are left to their own devices when it comes to things like airplanes, very very bad and damaging things happen like unchecked pollutants, urban noise, lack of safety, etc. It's very important for NASA and taxpayers to be a part of this process. Those sound like issues for regulators, not NASA.
  - arcanus 11y ago
    On the contrary, several of these points are not as simple as regulation, but are issues requiring fundamental research. NASA is about much more than space, and possesses cutting edge domain expertise in aerospace, which they are leveraging here. And the products of these investigations are more broadly available than if a similar result was captured by Boeing or Airbus, for example, where it would likely be a trade secret.
    - jxdjsks 11y ago
      Companies should be charged for these externalities. Going to pollute? How many people a year will this kill? What is the economic cost of these deaths? Levy that sum on the companies. Very simple. Then lets see who funds the research into cleaner tech.
gozur88 11y ago
Probably mostly because there isn't a commercial proposition for supersonic passenger planes. Fuel is the biggest single cost driver in commercial aviation, and aircraft use more fuel per unit distance the faster they go. This is why passenger jets are slower today than they were in 1965. I'm not sure why NASA's even bothering, unless the idea is to make supersonic aircraft for important government officials (cost being no object when tax dollars are used) and leave the the cramped cattle-car air travel to the plebes.
- mdorazio 11y ago
  That's why this move is so curious to me. All the major commercial carriers are effectively competing on ticket cost at this point, so the demand is for cheaper-per-passenger aircraft, not faster ones. It seems like in terms of pure economics the most feasible supersonic aircraft would be small business jets where speed and comfort are already prioritized and clients are willing to pay the premium. Maybe this is somehow related to possible spaceplane advancements in the more distant future?
  - willvarfar 11y ago
    Cheap and fast is nicer than cheap and slow. I recently booked a holiday in Thailand. Its a long haul to get there. I ended up changing my initial choice of part of Thailand to visit because I could fly direct for much the same price if I went to another region. All other choices involved a pit stop in Dubai.
- arcanus 11y ago
  > Fuel is the biggest single cost driver in commercial aviation, and aircraft use more fuel per unit distance > the faster they go. This is why passenger jets are slower today than they were in 1965. True, but this is misleading: the fuel economy of planes today are enormously improved over their 1960s progenitors and this is only in part because of reduced speeds. Computational fluid dynamics, improved engine design, superior material properties, etc. have resulted in significant improvements in aircraft design and efficiency. All of these factors have resulted in massively cheaper and safer travel (which lower costs through risk-adjustment). > make supersonic aircraft for important government officials (cost being no object when tax dollars are used) The unit cost of a new Gulfstream G650 is $64.5 million. Sounds as if cost is no object for more than just government officials.
baobabaobab 11y ago
Their owners want safe and steady profit. They aren't interesting in taking risks.
mercurial 11y ago
The usual cash infusion to the US military-industrial complex?

Why are tax dollars paying for research on a commercial plane? Couldn't Lockheed, Boeing, and Airbus fund it themselves, even if they are giving grants to academic or other researchers?

mparlane 11y ago

Because Aeronautics comes before Space in NASA?

cryptoz 11y ago

It's part of what NASA does, and it's a very good thing. If commercial companies are left to their own devices when it comes to things like airplanes, very very bad and damaging things happen like unchecked pollutants, urban noise, lack of safety, etc. It's very important for NASA and taxpayers to be a part of this process. > Supersonic vehicle research addresses the development of tools, technologies, and knowledge to help eliminate today’s technical barriers to practical commercial supersonic flight: sonic boom, fuel efficiency, airport community noise, high-altitude emissions, structural weight and flexibility, airspace operations, and the ability to design future vehicles in an integrated, multidisciplinary manner. http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/aavp/cst/index.html http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/aavp/cst/index.html

hackuser 11y ago
> If commercial companies are left to their own devices when it comes to things like airplanes, very very bad and damaging things happen like unchecked pollutants, urban noise, lack of safety, etc. It's very important for NASA and taxpayers to be a part of this process. Those sound like issues for regulators, not NASA.
- arcanus 11y ago
  On the contrary, several of these points are not as simple as regulation, but are issues requiring fundamental research. NASA is about much more than space, and possesses cutting edge domain expertise in aerospace, which they are leveraging here. And the products of these investigations are more broadly available than if a similar result was captured by Boeing or Airbus, for example, where it would likely be a trade secret.
  - jxdjsks 11y ago
    Companies should be charged for these externalities. Going to pollute? How many people a year will this kill? What is the economic cost of these deaths? Levy that sum on the companies. Very simple. Then lets see who funds the research into cleaner tech.

gozur88 11y ago

Probably mostly because there isn't a commercial proposition for supersonic passenger planes. Fuel is the biggest single cost driver in commercial aviation, and aircraft use more fuel per unit distance the faster they go. This is why passenger jets are slower today than they were in 1965. I'm not sure why NASA's even bothering, unless the idea is to make supersonic aircraft for important government officials (cost being no object when tax dollars are used) and leave the the cramped cattle-car air travel to the plebes.

mdorazio 11y ago
That's why this move is so curious to me. All the major commercial carriers are effectively competing on ticket cost at this point, so the demand is for cheaper-per-passenger aircraft, not faster ones. It seems like in terms of pure economics the most feasible supersonic aircraft would be small business jets where speed and comfort are already prioritized and clients are willing to pay the premium. Maybe this is somehow related to possible spaceplane advancements in the more distant future?
- willvarfar 11y ago
  Cheap and fast is nicer than cheap and slow. I recently booked a holiday in Thailand. Its a long haul to get there. I ended up changing my initial choice of part of Thailand to visit because I could fly direct for much the same price if I went to another region. All other choices involved a pit stop in Dubai.
arcanus 11y ago
> Fuel is the biggest single cost driver in commercial aviation, and aircraft use more fuel per unit distance > the faster they go. This is why passenger jets are slower today than they were in 1965. True, but this is misleading: the fuel economy of planes today are enormously improved over their 1960s progenitors and this is only in part because of reduced speeds. Computational fluid dynamics, improved engine design, superior material properties, etc. have resulted in significant improvements in aircraft design and efficiency. All of these factors have resulted in massively cheaper and safer travel (which lower costs through risk-adjustment). > make supersonic aircraft for important government officials (cost being no object when tax dollars are used) The unit cost of a new Gulfstream G650 is $64.5 million. Sounds as if cost is no object for more than just government officials.

baobabaobab 11y ago

Their owners want safe and steady profit. They aren't interesting in taking risks.

mercurial 11y ago

The usual cash infusion to the US military-industrial complex?