16 ms·

Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban

175 points by jackgavigan 10y ago

BorgHunter 10y ago
Even if the noise problem has been fixed, supersonic travel has another huge problem: Fuel consumption. Concorde positively guzzled fuel compared to the jets of its day, and this (among other things) made it uneconomical to operate. The authors of this article never even touched this topic. Has it improved considerably?
- lmm 10y ago
  Concorde was more-or-less viable for BA (though not for AF). Specialized maintenance for such a small fleet (because it effectively only operated the transatlantic route due to regulations) was the thing that killed it economically.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It was viable in that it broke even on its running costs, but towards the end it wouldn't have covered the cost of actually acquiring the aircraft, nor any major expenditures such as upgrades required for safety or compatibility with newer systems. Concorde used to serve a lot more than just the NYC-London/Paris route. It used to serve Bahrain, Rio de Janeiro, Dakar, Caracas, Washington DC, Miami, and Mexico City. Those faded away due to a lack of demand. (Ignoring Dallas and Singapore, as those failed due to restrictions on supersonic flight.) I'm sure a new design could be a lot more economical. Of course, regular airliners have become a lot more economical as well, so it's a tougher bar to clear.
  - CaptainZapp 10y ago
    Concorde was more-or-less viable for BA (though not for AF). Can you elaborate, or direct me to a source? I'm genuinly interested.
    - lmm 10y ago
      There was an extended forum thread (on pretty much all aspects of Concorde - went on for tens or hundreds of pages) that was linked from here once - afraid I don't have it to hand.
      - aterris 10y ago
        If this thread is anywhere, I would bet its on flyertalk (awesome air travel forum with great info).
      - xioxox 10y ago
        Maybe this one: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html
        CaptainZapp 10y ago
        Very interesting. Thank you very much.
- barisser 10y ago
  You're right; let's go nuclear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
  - baldfat 10y ago
    I actually would think that could be done "safely". No sarcasm. I am expecting that if fusion ever becomes a reality we will go with electric motors which will certainly always be sub-sonic.
    - zwily 10y ago
      > electric motors which will certainly always be sub-sonic Why is that?
      - skykooler 10y ago
        Electric motors have a top speed which is governed by the forces generated by induction. At higher speeds they spend more and more torque countering those forces. Contrast this with turbines, where a higher inlet speed translates into a higher output speed - the amount of energy a turbine uses to keep itself spinning is constant rather than proportional to airspeed. This is why electric motors would have issues flying at high speeds.
        sliverstorm 10y ago
        Can you not simply use overdrive gearing to keep motor speed down?
        kabdib 10y ago
        ... or spin the motor with another motor. It could be motors all the way down . . .
        marcosdumay 10y ago
- fred_is_fred 10y ago
  The market can figure that out. If the noise problem is solved (I can't read the article because it says I need to sign in), then allow it and let the airlines decide if they can make money doing it.
  - PKop 10y ago
    Click the "web" link above, under the article title. Sometimes you need to use an incognito window, but not always.
  - Reason077 10y ago
    It's not so much the cost of fuel that is a concern, but the environmental impact. Unlike power generation and ground transport, global emissions from aviation are increasing rapidly at a time of growing concern about climate change. While increased speed is nice if it can be done efficiently, innovation in aviation needs to remain focused on improving efficiency.
    - adrianN 10y ago
      Banning a particular form of transportation seems a poor method for reducing emissions. Just tax the fuel properly and it will sort itself out. Flying is currently much too cheap compared to its environmental impact imho. How can it be cheaper to fly from Berlin to Munich than taking the car (or the train)?
      - codecamper 10y ago
        "tax it properly" Define properly. We are afraid of possible feedback loops destabilizing ice sheets much earlier than predicted? Maybe the price should be 5x what it current is? If emitting CO2 causes unknown massive harm, then it seems sane to figure out a CO2 neutral method to create these liquid fuels that jets require. That would seem very expensive, with current technology.
        adrianN 10y ago
- vermontdevil 10y ago
  http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-... NASA is working on this - both the sound and the fuel use.
  - thearn4 10y ago
    In fact, x-plane development is going to be funded by NASA Aeronautics for the production of a number of next-gen flight demonstrators, included a supersonic low-boom demonstrator. Truss-braced wing configuration, hybrid-electric and all-electric are among the other contenders.
- lujim 10y ago
  Subsonic flight is cutting through cheese with a sharp knife. Supersonic flight is cutting through cheese with a hammer. There is no way it will ever be commercially economical with gas turbine engines and afterburners. Even super cruise without afterburners is incredibly inefficient and has very few uses outside of tactical aviation.
  - thescriptkiddie 10y ago
    Drag in supersonic flight is not nearly as big an issue as you would think. The Concorde was inefficient mostly because it used afterburning turbojets that had poor efficiency at low speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qualitive_variation_of_cd_with_mach_number.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qualitive_variation_of_cd...
    - lujim 10y ago
      That is coefficient of drag. You have to remember that goes into the drag equation which includes velocity squared. force_of_drag = .5 * mass_density * (velocity^2) * coefficient_drag * area. As that coefficient starts tapering off after transonic drag decreases velocity squared is there to ramp up the drag.
      - mchouza 10y ago
        That's true, but supersonic planes also travel higher (Concorde -> 18 km, XB-70 -> 22 km). The real problem is that L/D decreases at supersonic speeds. For example, the XB-70 had a L/D of about 7, while the 707 had a L/D over 18...
      - Gravityloss 10y ago
        As lift is also proportional to density, area and square of velocity, that whole term cancels out from the equation of fuel usage per distance, basically only L/D or cL/cD matters. In practice it might be a bit more complicated. EDIT: indeed here we can see that Concorde had lift to drag ratio of only 7.5 at Mach 2, while Boeing 747 has 17.7 at Mach 0.9 or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio
- xlm1717 10y ago
  The article does touch on how newer designs could reduce sonic booms by making lighter aircraft. If a new supersonic jet is manufactured that is a fraction of the weight of a Concorde, it could be much more fuel efficient as well.
  - ElijahLynn 10y ago
    The article does mention that the size of the aircraft affects the size of the boom.
- _ph_ 10y ago
  The Concorde had never been optimized for fuel consumption. Even for a jet of its time, it was quite wasteful of fuel. I once was told by someone who had some insight into Boing, that they had a much more efficient supersonic airliner in development in the competition to the Concorde, when the project was cancelled. So yes, supersonic airplanes would use more fuel than subsonic ones, but how much we can't know until someone builds a modern supersonic aircraft.
  - JshWright 10y ago
    > but how much we can't know until someone builds a modern supersonic aircraft. You really think modern aircraft manufacturers are surprised by the fuel consumption (or any other performance characteristic) of their aircraft prior to them actually being built?
    - _ph_ 10y ago
      Oh, by the time they start to assemble physical parts they of course know exactly the performance figures, but that is pretty close to the end of the design process. Only after the design process you know these and I don't know how much of that is being done now.
      - ghaff 10y ago
        That's true but there's enough history of supersonic aircraft design that it's not really much of a mystery what the general numbers are going to look like given speed, range, capacity, etc. targets. Sure, the designers won't know at a detailed level until they actually design the aircraft to some degree. But it's pretty much a certainty that they have (at a minimum) a back of the envelope idea of how things will look.
- elidourado 10y ago
  Yes, the Concorde actually flew with afterburners, which are notoriously fuel-inefficient. Modern engines can do Mach 2.2 without afterburners.
  - rleigh 10y ago
    This was only for take off and acceleration through the trans-sonic regime. It certainly didn't use them for super-cruise at Mach 2; at this speed the engines were operating at their peak efficiency.
- peteri 10y ago
  At supersonic cruise (M2) Concorde used fuel at the same rate as a Jumbo, a quick google search reveals this: "BA said a 747 cost $100,000 to fly each way across the atlantic in wages, fuel, maintenace etc, before fixed costs. At the same time Concorde was costing $120,000". Having read in the past the various Concorde threads on pprune.org, one view was that it was killed of by Airbus who didn't want to keep on supporting it as the manufacturer so helped get rid of the certificate of airworthiness. see this url http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm for at least one view.
  - goodcanadian 10y ago
    The 747 carries ~450 passengers. The Concorde carried ~100. So, the Concorde is 4.5 times worse on a per capita basis. EDIT: Actually, ~5.4 times worse if you take into account the 1.2x difference in cost.
    - ulfw 10y ago
      British Airways' 747-400 carry between 275 and 345 passengers, depending on configuration. But still. Similar in principle :) http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/boeing747-400 http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fle...
      - goodcanadian 10y ago
        Depends on the airline, I suppose. Air Canada used to fly 747-100s with 400 seats: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/historical/b747-100.html http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/historical/b747-100....
- Roboprog 10y ago
  If you are concerned about fuel consumption you are probably not sufficiently wealthy. You probably even drive a Corolla or a Civic instead of a nice Hummer :-)
  - largote 10y ago
    Nobody who's actually wealthy would describe a Hummer as "nice".
    - Roboprog 10y ago
      Right :-) I forget to add the "sarcasm" tag.
- jhayward 10y ago
  Gaz guzzling is not a foregone conclusion. For instance, recall that the SR-71 actually got better fuel mileage the faster it flew, due to insightful use of the energy found in the compression wave.
rando444 10y ago
For those that need to get around the paywall https://www.google.dk/search?q=Drop+the+Supersonic+Aircraft+Ban%2C+Watch+Business+Boom https://www.google.dk/search?q=Drop+the+Supersonic+Aircraft+...
- jackgavigan 10y ago
  Or you could click on the "web" link at the top of this page...
  - rando444 10y ago
    TIL. Thanks!
  - LeonM 10y ago
    Or, when using chrome, prefix the URL with a '?'
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
barisser 10y ago
This is Peter Thiel's hypothesis in action: that the world of things sees little progress due largely to regulation.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  Peter Thiel has a lot of hypotheses tho https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/09/paypal-co-founder-peter-thiel-address-white-nationalist-friendly-“property-and-freedom https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/09/paypal-co-fou...
  - stuaxo 10y ago
    Wow, the ending - with friends like Milo, who needs enemies?
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
I feel like this is one of those things we can afford to let China get ahead of us on, and if it works good, if not, it didn't cost us anything.
gambiting 10y ago
I thought another problem was that there is no market for shorter flights if they are still too long to do in a single day? To give an example - Concorde's 3h flight time from London to New York was perfect, because there were people actually interested in going to US/UK for a day for business and coming back the same night. But Concorde wasn't very popular on longer routes, because if you were going to spend 6 hours on a plane you might as well spend 12 and fly overnight, getting some good sleep, and saving yourself a tonne of money.
- pm90 10y ago
  It depends on the customer. Many executives would rather spend the extra money to save time.
  - gambiting 10y ago
    Sure, but it reminds me of the issues French railways were facing recently after introducing new super-fast trains. Turns out, there's a lot more people interested in trains that take 12 hours to get somewhere but which arrive at reasonable time(say, leave at 8pm, arrive at 8am) than trains that are much quicker, but arrive at 3am at night, which is a stupid time - it's too early to stay up, too late to go to a hotel. Overnight flights are similar .
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Agreed, and this is why it makes sense to allow the Concorde to (noisily) zoom over the Atlantic while not necessarily subjecting flyover state Americans to sonic booms from New York to LA. As for the longer flights, the 16 hour Los Angeles->Sydney experience is hellish. Depending on the price, I would certainly shell out to get there quicker.
  - terravion 10y ago
    I can think of a ton more people who want to go from SF to NY (LA to DC, etc) or vice versa for the day than I can people who want to go to London for the day. Flying supersonic, you could actually get some work done on the other end. My guess, is that supersonic flight would be a huge boon to California, making it much more practical to locate 2,000 miles away from the geographic concentration of customers.
rando444 10y ago
There is a Concorde that is being returned to service, although not in the US. So I guess we'll be able to see with first hand evidence whether or not business will actually "boom". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/supersonic-breakthrough-concorde-could-fly-again-within-four-years https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/supersonic-bre...
- gsnedders 10y ago
  As far as I'm aware, Airbus have shown no interest in paying for the type certificate to be reinstated (they withdrew it after AF/BA withdrew them). Without that, there's no question about it flying.
lujim 10y ago
The cost of speed rises exponentially while the returns are linear. This is true even in subsonic flight, but above mach 1 the penalties are prohibitive. No gas turbine, jet fuel powered aircraft will ever make this commercially viable without being subsidized.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Most of the components of the cost are at most cubic with speed, not exponential. Fuel consumption is quadratic with speed and power required is cubic (roughly).
ubersync 10y ago
Please don't. Think about the environment. Let the industry focus on fuel efficiency rather than speed. If the ban is lifted, a lot of R&D money will go into speed.
- felipesabino 10y ago
  It seems that industry has already been focused on fuel efficiency and consequently speed has decreased significantly in the last decades [1] [1] https://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/ https://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/
  - barney54 10y ago
    The slower speeds waste a non-renewable resource--time. Extra time spent travelling is time that we can't get back.
    - onion2k 10y ago
      That's only true if you can't make any use of the time while you're at the airport or in the air. You absolutely can, even if you're 'only' reading a physical document.
- mrtron 10y ago
  Electric.
- hx87 10y ago
  Only if speed actually pays off. With fuel as expensive as it is (and if it's too cheap, just tax it some more), that won't necessarily be the case. And if it is, then getting people to fly less on economy flights is a better and economically more efficient way to reduce fuel consumption. Set an environmental goal and let the market sort out the process. Don't regulate the process itself.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  I don't think you have much to worry about. The airline industry has been focused on fuel efficiency for a long time now, and as a result, coast-to-coast flights already take significantly more time because they fly slower (for fuel efficiency). Unlike the 60s, air travel is no longer the domain of the upper-middle class and up, almost everyone does it, and the airlines profit through sheer volume, and live with a lot of competition. This is why they're always trying to weasel more profit with little fees for everything, because consumers are so price-conscious. They're not going to get that many takers if they start offering flights that are 2-3x the speed but 6x the ticket price.
ivoras 10y ago
Since when was "Concorde regulated out of existence"? Wikipedia says it's simply because of economical reason it was retired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement Not every failure is an anti-free-market conspiracy.
- djb_hackernews 10y ago
  Regulation limited the addressable market size of Concorde. Economies of scale and all that.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  I have no love for this article, but everyone should be able to agree on a couple of points: (1) Cutting the size of the potential market by an order of magnitude can be the difference between economical and uneconomical. (2) Limitations on negative noise externalities should be implemented based on actual noise produced (dB, or whatever), not on whether the aircraft is supersonic per se.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- blahi 10y ago
  I'm genuinely curious. Did you read the article?
- rayiner 10y ago
  Seriously. Physics killed the Concorde. The 787 can carry 2-3x as many passengers from London to New York using less than half the fuel of the Concorde. Engineering could have improved that somewhat, but not nearly enough.
  - foota 10y ago
    Of course it can, it's thirty some years newer.
jgalt212 10y ago
> if fusion ever becomes a reality The whole world changes. No more wars over oil.
- baldfat 10y ago
  Wars are over ideology.... :(
  - chillingeffect 10y ago
    Ideology and resources are an intertwined pair. Ideologies are exploited to gain resources. E.g. Islamic terrorism is a selected and nurtured subset of Islam for negative memes as a side effect of conflict of oil. The large, underlying cultural ideology is "we need lots of transportation."
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Wars are more often over resources, with ideology and identity (secular or religious) as a tool for the elites that want the resources to motivate the non-elites that aren't getting the resources one way or another to fight on their behalf.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    I can't recall even a single war in the last hundred years that was over ideology. Almost all wars used a lot of ideology in the propaganda to motivate the soldiers and workers, but the actual reasons for starting them pretty much always come down to gaining or ensuring control over resources, or realpolitik - incite a conflict that we get some advantage in the global game, so that some strategic oil line doesn't get built, or overthrow their government so that their trade policies are the way we want.
    - baldfat 10y ago
      1) ISIS Taliban (Religious Ideology Iraq and Afghanistan) (We haven't gone to war with other Oil Rich Countries and Afghanistan doesn't have oil) 2) Vietnam (Cold War Communism) don't see an oil attachment)) 3) Korea (Cold War Communism) don't see an oil attachment)) 4) I would argue WW2 Japan and Hitler was an ideology more then a grab for oil. Killing of Polish, Homosexuals, Jews and Russians was not for oil 5) WW1 - http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/causeww1.htm http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/causeww1.htm Too long to comment on this but it was certainly not about oil I find the wars for oil in the conspiracy realm. People will say the American Revolution and Civil War was over commodities but I HIGHLY disagree i.e. French Revolution happened over the same ideology. War fought specifically around oil (Iraq Kuwait) I fail to see other examples. http://www.businessinsider.com/nine-wars-that-were-fought-over-commodities-2012-8?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/nine-wars-that-were-fought-ov...
fisherjeff 10y ago
Given that supersonic travel has zero effect on time spent in the airport - which is a large fraction of travel time when flying domestically - I just don't think that the cost/benefit math comes even close to working out for most people. Especially for the famously cost-conscious airline industry [0]. If the premise of this article were true, then lifting the ban would be a major legislative priority for the airlines and likely already be lifted. [0] https://books.google.com/books?id=7E-c6ni5MfYC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=Bob%20Crandall%20olive%20story&source=bl&ots=Say2jSbu--&sig=4xhyzJFpGt6fbW-ZenVJHRqM5_s&hl=en&ei=tgNXTpC6E4fC0AHQnISQDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=7E-c6ni5MfYC&pg=PA107&lpg=...
- barney54 10y ago
  With coast-to-coast travel, time spent in the airport is a much lower fraction of travel time. That's why the coast-to-coast flights make sense for supersonic travel. We don't know if the cost/benefit math works out until people are able to try.
  - fisherjeff 10y ago
    Coast-to-coast is definitely the best case scenario. I recently flew SEA->ATL, and it took 4.5 hours at mach ~0.7. So with airport time, let's say ~6 hours total. Even ignoring differences in sub/supersonic flight (i.e., being unrealistically conservative), doubling my cruise speed to mach 1.5 would've increased fuel consumption by 4x while bringing my total travel time down to around 4 hours. So it'd be (probably significantly more than) 4x the cost just to reduce my travel time by 30%. Again, that's for the "best case" of coast-to-coast travel.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      > So with airport time, let's say ~6 hours total. How'd you manage to spend (average) only 45 minutes in the airport on each end? Even pre-TSA, I never managed to go from front door to jetway that fast.
lujim 10y ago
Another factor is that with advances in global communication is that it may be hard to justify the need to physically go from JFK to LAX at mach 2 just to conduct business.
- Loughla 10y ago
  >is that it may be hard to justify the need to physically go from JFK to LAX at mach 2 just to conduct business My experience is that these types of trips are less about business, and more about glad-handing and greasing wheels. Those are two things which are difficult to do on Skype.
bogomipz 10y ago
I wish HN would ban or at least officially frown upon posting links that are behind a pay wall. How can you reasonably discuss an article you can't read?
- drabiega 10y ago
  Just google the title, the paywall usually disappears if you come from a search.
  - bryanlarsen 10y ago
    At the top of this page, there's a link labelled "web" that does just that.
    - rtkwe 10y ago
      I've run into the paywall on WSJ even after following the web or searching on Google a handful of times so it's not fool proof.
- DanBC 10y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Mea culpa, thanks.
frenchman_in_ny 10y ago
Where's the team on Boom[0] on this? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11346947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11346947
hx87 10y ago
In terms of regulation, wouldn't it make more economic and comfort sense to enable sleeper-only flights where everyone lies down, ala Japanese capsule hotels? Tight spaces are much more comfortable when I'm lying down than when I'm sitting.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Doesn't even need to be sleeper-only flights. Just book business class on pretty much any international flight. (Which is actually much more comfortable than seat configurations for most of the time the Concorde was flying--much less the Concorde itself which was rather cramped.)
- ulfw 10y ago
  These used to exist (and still do on some flights). I flew on Singapore Airlines from LAX to SIN when they still had their Airbus A340-500 flying nonstop in about 18 hours between Singapore and Newark or Los Angeles. The whole plane was just 100 seats, business, lie-flat only. Frankly with the odd wide seating they have, you could have easily put 140-150 in there.
Roboprog 10y ago
I'm guessing that the people wanting this are going to charter smaller planes, where you walk into a small airport, the clerk at the desk says "Good morning, Mr Warbucks", and you walk out the back 2 minutes later onto your chartered plane. Things like the cost and TSA don't apply to these people, they just want to get across the country and back in a single day, and still have time to check on how their minions are operating their interests outside of the NYC - DC region. At least, that's what I would want if I could affort it :-)
- Roboprog 10y ago
  I got to ride the company plane once at my previous job, and that's pretty much exactly what the scene was, other than having to show my work badge since the clerk of course didn't know a minion like me. That plane (a turboprop) "only" went about 300 MPH or so (on a longer trip), rather than Mach +, but to get from the Sacramento area to the east bay, you make pretty good time - about 15 to 20 minutes in the air.
keithly 10y ago
This first part of this talk is relevant-- about the viability of SST and subsonic commercial flight actually being "good enough": http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm
JoshTriplett 10y ago
I wonder if this is a sign of initial efforts by Boom (http://boom.aero/ http://boom.aero/) to turn public interest and policy in favor of supersonic?
batbomb 10y ago
Growing up near a few Air Force bases (Holloman/White Sands and Kirtland) you'd occasionally hear sonic booms. They'd do quite a number on sliding glass doors with tons of visible wobble.
Someone 10y ago
Firstly, I wasn't aware there was a ban on supersonic flight. I thought Concorde was banned simply because it was too noisy, not because of concerns over sonic booms. Secondly, reading https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/supersonic_aircraft_noise/media/noise_policy_on_supersonics.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap..., I have the impression that the FAA already is working towards lifting this ban. Quote (2008): We anticipate that any future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the FAA affecting the noise operating rules would propose that any future supersonic airplane produce no greater noise impact on a community than a subsonic airplane. Given that, I expect that, if a manufacturer shows up with a supersonic plane that fits that bill, the FAA almost has to allow it to fly over the US.
- crististm 10y ago
  The noise of the engine is not that big of a problem as the sonic boom. This one is loud and becomes annoying and distracting pretty fast. In fact this is why Concorde routes were over the ocean: there was nobody to complain there about the sonic boom.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Quoting from the link: > Current research is dedicated toward reducing the impact of sonic booms before they reach the ground, in an effort to make overland flight acceptable. Recent research has produced promising results for low boom intensity, and has renewed interest in developing supersonic civil aircraft that could be considered environmentally acceptable for supersonic flight over land.
kw71 10y ago
The US military uses the river that runs behind my rural property as kind of a track for some kind of supersonic flight. I've heard them for years, with periods of daily activity, but never seen one, for by the time I hear the sonic boom they are gone from view. I don't understand why the military is allowed to do this but nobody else.
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  Because it's the military, obviously /s
Animats 10y ago
The WSJ is probably thinking about the supersonic bizjets being proposed for the 1%.[1] Bizjet passengers get to bypass the main TSA lines. (Well, more like the 0.01%. Aereon's proposed price is $110 million for a 12 passenger supersonic aircraft. It's only Mach 1.6, while Concorde was over Mach 2. If you have to ask about operating cost, you can't afford it.) [1] http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/ http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/
- elidourado 10y ago
  See Boom (YC 2016) http://boom.aero/ http://boom.aero/
- blastrat 10y ago
  most "private jets" are "fractional" timeshares, so you don't have to pay the full $110 million. See http://NetJets.com/ http://NetJets.com/ still, it's also "fractional" 1% anyway, 1% doesn't get you in a private plane. Evidence that we live in the time of oligarchs, they call the fast plane they want to get noise approval for BOOM and BTW, for those thinking about it, even when you "own" it, the cost of every flight is much more than 1st class tickets.
jacquesm 10y ago
Drop the silly security theater and the need to be at the airport hours in advance of the flight. That will do a lot more for speeding up airtravel than enabling supersonic flight for the happy few and it will apply to all flights.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  People keep repeating this, it sounds terrible. I'm at the airport 30 min before departure from a small domestic airport, 1h before departure for a domestic flight from a large airport, and maybe 1.5h, max, before departure for an international flight. For none of them do I expect more than 5 minutes of security. Unless I'm flying to the US in which case the security charade takes hours. This is a TSA problem not a general problem with air travel.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    It is a problem because the actual checks take minutes but all the delays turn those minutes into hours. And probably those hours translate into opportunities to bypass the various checks.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      By "5 minutes of security" I meant all the queuing for bag drops, security checks etc, not just the actual check. By delay you mean standing in line, waiting for the security check? From what I hear the time in security has become worse in later years in the US, what is the reason for that? Less staff at checkpoints? More thurough checks?
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    Plenty of big city international airports have long waits too. CDG in Paris has a recommended wait time of 3 hours.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      A lot of airports just have fine print because they want to point at it when someone misses their flight because one odd day there was a massive rush at security and queues spiked to 3h. I have not been at CDG 3h early for flights (though haven't been there in the last year). The stories from the US now seem to indicate that the long waits are the rule rather than the exception which to me indicates a change from just a few years ago.
blobbers 10y ago
My old car was a humble Honda, but the fact that it had their F1 Technology filtering down into the engine made it a really great car (9000 RPM redline + VTEC cam switching). I could see a modernization of cross atlantic/pacific flights from military technologies filtering down into private/passenger jets. Yes, you have to pay more but at my stage in life I am willing to trade money for more time. I'd rather pay double for a flight for a doubling in speed (business speed) than a doubling in comfort (business class.) A 5 hour flight from NYC to Asia would be amazing!
shraken 10y ago
I remember hearing the boom from the STS117 space shuttle in San Diego when it was landing at Edwards back in the summer of the 2007. Shit's loud, even at 100 miles.
reidacdc 10y ago
Several years ago, I read Erik Conway's "High Speed Dreams", and learned about an important feedback loop that operates in the SST world. What happens is, you design an SST, figure out the noise profile, and are horrified. You pour a ton of research effort into making it quieter. The aero engine industry adopts your awesome quieting technology across the board, subsonic aircraft get much quieter, people's expectations adjust, and for all your effort, your SST is still the noisiest bird in the sky. Because you're this huge outlier, you get a lot of negative regulatory attention, which manifests in the form of flight-path and operating-hour restrictions. You can make SSTs quieter, but they'll never be the quietest. This isn't about sonic booms directly, but it's absolutely relevant, SSTs still have to take off and land, and you can't use engines with those giant fans on the front and hope to perform. The technical solution, if it exists, is to come up with an engine-quieting technology that somehow _only_ works for high-thrust low-bypass SST engines. That will break you out of the loop. AFAIK, no such technology exists.
jheriko 10y ago
i can't be arsed to circumvent the need to sign up or subscribe... but ban?!?! are we misremembering what happened somehow? what happened was a total stagnation in that direction due to lack of demand. they already had to charge a premium for concorde...
hristov 10y ago
This is a really bad and superficial article. They try to dismiss the idea of a sonic boom as a product of the imagination of a crazy environmentalist. But the sonic boom is a well documented and completely uncontroversial fact. Then they try to set up a strawman by implying that the main concern is architectural damage and therefore if there is no architectural damage everything would be ok. But there is still the concern of health and quality of life damage to humans. Imagine if you lived by a major airport and you had to hear a sonic boom every couple of minutes. Then the idea that modern materials and light-weighting would significantly reduce the sonic boom is rather unlikely. A passenger plane will have a limited benefit from lightweighting, because you cannot light-weight the cargo. You will probably get much quieter sonic booms if you have small business jet style planes, but it would still be there. Fighter planes are entirely too small and too expensive to be business jets and they still create quite a noticeable boom. There has been a lot of research on how to minimize booms. It has not really resulted in anything acceptable. But, hey, if someone makes a supersonic passenger plane with a sonic boom that is too quiet to cause any issues, sure we should change the law. But to change the law based on stary-eyed belief that the magic of lighweighting will make everything ok is just stupid.

175 points by jackgavigan 10y ago

Even if the noise problem has been fixed, supersonic travel has another huge problem: Fuel consumption. Concorde positively guzzled fuel compared to the jets of its day, and this (among other things) made it uneconomical to operate. The authors of this article never even touched this topic. Has it improved considerably?

lmm 10y ago
Concorde was more-or-less viable for BA (though not for AF). Specialized maintenance for such a small fleet (because it effectively only operated the transatlantic route due to regulations) was the thing that killed it economically.
- mikeash 10y ago
  It was viable in that it broke even on its running costs, but towards the end it wouldn't have covered the cost of actually acquiring the aircraft, nor any major expenditures such as upgrades required for safety or compatibility with newer systems. Concorde used to serve a lot more than just the NYC-London/Paris route. It used to serve Bahrain, Rio de Janeiro, Dakar, Caracas, Washington DC, Miami, and Mexico City. Those faded away due to a lack of demand. (Ignoring Dallas and Singapore, as those failed due to restrictions on supersonic flight.) I'm sure a new design could be a lot more economical. Of course, regular airliners have become a lot more economical as well, so it's a tougher bar to clear.
- CaptainZapp 10y ago
  Concorde was more-or-less viable for BA (though not for AF). Can you elaborate, or direct me to a source? I'm genuinly interested.
  - lmm 10y ago
    There was an extended forum thread (on pretty much all aspects of Concorde - went on for tens or hundreds of pages) that was linked from here once - afraid I don't have it to hand.
    - aterris 10y ago
      If this thread is anywhere, I would bet its on flyertalk (awesome air travel forum with great info).
    - xioxox 10y ago
      Maybe this one: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html
      - CaptainZapp 10y ago
        Very interesting. Thank you very much.
barisser 10y ago
You're right; let's go nuclear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
- baldfat 10y ago
  I actually would think that could be done "safely". No sarcasm. I am expecting that if fusion ever becomes a reality we will go with electric motors which will certainly always be sub-sonic.
  - zwily 10y ago
    > electric motors which will certainly always be sub-sonic Why is that?
    - skykooler 10y ago
      Electric motors have a top speed which is governed by the forces generated by induction. At higher speeds they spend more and more torque countering those forces. Contrast this with turbines, where a higher inlet speed translates into a higher output speed - the amount of energy a turbine uses to keep itself spinning is constant rather than proportional to airspeed. This is why electric motors would have issues flying at high speeds.
      - sliverstorm 10y ago
        Can you not simply use overdrive gearing to keep motor speed down?
        kabdib 10y ago
        ... or spin the motor with another motor. It could be motors all the way down . . .
        marcosdumay 10y ago
fred_is_fred 10y ago
The market can figure that out. If the noise problem is solved (I can't read the article because it says I need to sign in), then allow it and let the airlines decide if they can make money doing it.
- PKop 10y ago
  Click the "web" link above, under the article title. Sometimes you need to use an incognito window, but not always.
- Reason077 10y ago
  It's not so much the cost of fuel that is a concern, but the environmental impact. Unlike power generation and ground transport, global emissions from aviation are increasing rapidly at a time of growing concern about climate change. While increased speed is nice if it can be done efficiently, innovation in aviation needs to remain focused on improving efficiency.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    Banning a particular form of transportation seems a poor method for reducing emissions. Just tax the fuel properly and it will sort itself out. Flying is currently much too cheap compared to its environmental impact imho. How can it be cheaper to fly from Berlin to Munich than taking the car (or the train)?
    - codecamper 10y ago
      "tax it properly" Define properly. We are afraid of possible feedback loops destabilizing ice sheets much earlier than predicted? Maybe the price should be 5x what it current is? If emitting CO2 causes unknown massive harm, then it seems sane to figure out a CO2 neutral method to create these liquid fuels that jets require. That would seem very expensive, with current technology.
      - adrianN 10y ago
vermontdevil 10y ago
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-... NASA is working on this - both the sound and the fuel use.
- thearn4 10y ago
  In fact, x-plane development is going to be funded by NASA Aeronautics for the production of a number of next-gen flight demonstrators, included a supersonic low-boom demonstrator. Truss-braced wing configuration, hybrid-electric and all-electric are among the other contenders.
lujim 10y ago
Subsonic flight is cutting through cheese with a sharp knife. Supersonic flight is cutting through cheese with a hammer. There is no way it will ever be commercially economical with gas turbine engines and afterburners. Even super cruise without afterburners is incredibly inefficient and has very few uses outside of tactical aviation.
- thescriptkiddie 10y ago
  Drag in supersonic flight is not nearly as big an issue as you would think. The Concorde was inefficient mostly because it used afterburning turbojets that had poor efficiency at low speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qualitive_variation_of_cd_with_mach_number.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qualitive_variation_of_cd...
  - lujim 10y ago
    That is coefficient of drag. You have to remember that goes into the drag equation which includes velocity squared. force_of_drag = .5 * mass_density * (velocity^2) * coefficient_drag * area. As that coefficient starts tapering off after transonic drag decreases velocity squared is there to ramp up the drag.
    - mchouza 10y ago
      That's true, but supersonic planes also travel higher (Concorde -> 18 km, XB-70 -> 22 km). The real problem is that L/D decreases at supersonic speeds. For example, the XB-70 had a L/D of about 7, while the 707 had a L/D over 18...
    - Gravityloss 10y ago
      As lift is also proportional to density, area and square of velocity, that whole term cancels out from the equation of fuel usage per distance, basically only L/D or cL/cD matters. In practice it might be a bit more complicated. EDIT: indeed here we can see that Concorde had lift to drag ratio of only 7.5 at Mach 2, while Boeing 747 has 17.7 at Mach 0.9 or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio
xlm1717 10y ago
The article does touch on how newer designs could reduce sonic booms by making lighter aircraft. If a new supersonic jet is manufactured that is a fraction of the weight of a Concorde, it could be much more fuel efficient as well.
- ElijahLynn 10y ago
  The article does mention that the size of the aircraft affects the size of the boom.
_ph_ 10y ago
The Concorde had never been optimized for fuel consumption. Even for a jet of its time, it was quite wasteful of fuel. I once was told by someone who had some insight into Boing, that they had a much more efficient supersonic airliner in development in the competition to the Concorde, when the project was cancelled. So yes, supersonic airplanes would use more fuel than subsonic ones, but how much we can't know until someone builds a modern supersonic aircraft.
- JshWright 10y ago
  > but how much we can't know until someone builds a modern supersonic aircraft. You really think modern aircraft manufacturers are surprised by the fuel consumption (or any other performance characteristic) of their aircraft prior to them actually being built?
  - _ph_ 10y ago
    Oh, by the time they start to assemble physical parts they of course know exactly the performance figures, but that is pretty close to the end of the design process. Only after the design process you know these and I don't know how much of that is being done now.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      That's true but there's enough history of supersonic aircraft design that it's not really much of a mystery what the general numbers are going to look like given speed, range, capacity, etc. targets. Sure, the designers won't know at a detailed level until they actually design the aircraft to some degree. But it's pretty much a certainty that they have (at a minimum) a back of the envelope idea of how things will look.
elidourado 10y ago
Yes, the Concorde actually flew with afterburners, which are notoriously fuel-inefficient. Modern engines can do Mach 2.2 without afterburners.
- rleigh 10y ago
  This was only for take off and acceleration through the trans-sonic regime. It certainly didn't use them for super-cruise at Mach 2; at this speed the engines were operating at their peak efficiency.
peteri 10y ago
At supersonic cruise (M2) Concorde used fuel at the same rate as a Jumbo, a quick google search reveals this: "BA said a 747 cost $100,000 to fly each way across the atlantic in wages, fuel, maintenace etc, before fixed costs. At the same time Concorde was costing $120,000". Having read in the past the various Concorde threads on pprune.org, one view was that it was killed of by Airbus who didn't want to keep on supporting it as the manufacturer so helped get rid of the certificate of airworthiness. see this url http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm for at least one view.
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  The 747 carries ~450 passengers. The Concorde carried ~100. So, the Concorde is 4.5 times worse on a per capita basis. EDIT: Actually, ~5.4 times worse if you take into account the 1.2x difference in cost.
  - ulfw 10y ago
    British Airways' 747-400 carry between 275 and 345 passengers, depending on configuration. But still. Similar in principle :) http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/boeing747-400 http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fle...
    - goodcanadian 10y ago
      Depends on the airline, I suppose. Air Canada used to fly 747-100s with 400 seats: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/historical/b747-100.html http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/historical/b747-100....
Roboprog 10y ago
If you are concerned about fuel consumption you are probably not sufficiently wealthy. You probably even drive a Corolla or a Civic instead of a nice Hummer :-)
- largote 10y ago
  Nobody who's actually wealthy would describe a Hummer as "nice".
  - Roboprog 10y ago
    Right :-) I forget to add the "sarcasm" tag.
jhayward 10y ago
Gaz guzzling is not a foregone conclusion. For instance, recall that the SR-71 actually got better fuel mileage the faster it flew, due to insightful use of the energy found in the compression wave.

rando444 10y ago

For those that need to get around the paywall https://www.google.dk/search?q=Drop+the+Supersonic+Aircraft+Ban%2C+Watch+Business+Boom https://www.google.dk/search?q=Drop+the+Supersonic+Aircraft+...

jackgavigan 10y ago
Or you could click on the "web" link at the top of this page...
- rando444 10y ago
  TIL. Thanks!
- LeonM 10y ago
  Or, when using chrome, prefix the URL with a '?'
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

barisser 10y ago

This is Peter Thiel's hypothesis in action: that the world of things sees little progress due largely to regulation.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
Peter Thiel has a lot of hypotheses tho https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/09/paypal-co-founder-peter-thiel-address-white-nationalist-friendly-“property-and-freedom https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/09/paypal-co-fou...
- stuaxo 10y ago
  Wow, the ending - with friends like Milo, who needs enemies?

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

I feel like this is one of those things we can afford to let China get ahead of us on, and if it works good, if not, it didn't cost us anything.

gambiting 10y ago

I thought another problem was that there is no market for shorter flights if they are still too long to do in a single day? To give an example - Concorde's 3h flight time from London to New York was perfect, because there were people actually interested in going to US/UK for a day for business and coming back the same night. But Concorde wasn't very popular on longer routes, because if you were going to spend 6 hours on a plane you might as well spend 12 and fly overnight, getting some good sleep, and saving yourself a tonne of money.

pm90 10y ago
It depends on the customer. Many executives would rather spend the extra money to save time.
- gambiting 10y ago
  Sure, but it reminds me of the issues French railways were facing recently after introducing new super-fast trains. Turns out, there's a lot more people interested in trains that take 12 hours to get somewhere but which arrive at reasonable time(say, leave at 8pm, arrive at 8am) than trains that are much quicker, but arrive at 3am at night, which is a stupid time - it's too early to stay up, too late to go to a hotel. Overnight flights are similar .
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Agreed, and this is why it makes sense to allow the Concorde to (noisily) zoom over the Atlantic while not necessarily subjecting flyover state Americans to sonic booms from New York to LA. As for the longer flights, the 16 hour Los Angeles->Sydney experience is hellish. Depending on the price, I would certainly shell out to get there quicker.
- terravion 10y ago
  I can think of a ton more people who want to go from SF to NY (LA to DC, etc) or vice versa for the day than I can people who want to go to London for the day. Flying supersonic, you could actually get some work done on the other end. My guess, is that supersonic flight would be a huge boon to California, making it much more practical to locate 2,000 miles away from the geographic concentration of customers.

rando444 10y ago

There is a Concorde that is being returned to service, although not in the US. So I guess we'll be able to see with first hand evidence whether or not business will actually "boom". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/supersonic-breakthrough-concorde-could-fly-again-within-four-years https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/supersonic-bre...

gsnedders 10y ago
As far as I'm aware, Airbus have shown no interest in paying for the type certificate to be reinstated (they withdrew it after AF/BA withdrew them). Without that, there's no question about it flying.

lujim 10y ago

The cost of speed rises exponentially while the returns are linear. This is true even in subsonic flight, but above mach 1 the penalties are prohibitive. No gas turbine, jet fuel powered aircraft will ever make this commercially viable without being subsidized.

sokoloff 10y ago
Most of the components of the cost are at most cubic with speed, not exponential. Fuel consumption is quadratic with speed and power required is cubic (roughly).

ubersync 10y ago

Please don't. Think about the environment. Let the industry focus on fuel efficiency rather than speed. If the ban is lifted, a lot of R&D money will go into speed.

felipesabino 10y ago
It seems that industry has already been focused on fuel efficiency and consequently speed has decreased significantly in the last decades [1] [1] https://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/ https://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/
- barney54 10y ago
  The slower speeds waste a non-renewable resource--time. Extra time spent travelling is time that we can't get back.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    That's only true if you can't make any use of the time while you're at the airport or in the air. You absolutely can, even if you're 'only' reading a physical document.
mrtron 10y ago
Electric.
hx87 10y ago
Only if speed actually pays off. With fuel as expensive as it is (and if it's too cheap, just tax it some more), that won't necessarily be the case. And if it is, then getting people to fly less on economy flights is a better and economically more efficient way to reduce fuel consumption. Set an environmental goal and let the market sort out the process. Don't regulate the process itself.
Grishnakh 10y ago
I don't think you have much to worry about. The airline industry has been focused on fuel efficiency for a long time now, and as a result, coast-to-coast flights already take significantly more time because they fly slower (for fuel efficiency). Unlike the 60s, air travel is no longer the domain of the upper-middle class and up, almost everyone does it, and the airlines profit through sheer volume, and live with a lot of competition. This is why they're always trying to weasel more profit with little fees for everything, because consumers are so price-conscious. They're not going to get that many takers if they start offering flights that are 2-3x the speed but 6x the ticket price.

ivoras 10y ago

Since when was "Concorde regulated out of existence"? Wikipedia says it's simply because of economical reason it was retired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement Not every failure is an anti-free-market conspiracy.

djb_hackernews 10y ago
Regulation limited the addressable market size of Concorde. Economies of scale and all that.
jessriedel 10y ago
I have no love for this article, but everyone should be able to agree on a couple of points: (1) Cutting the size of the potential market by an order of magnitude can be the difference between economical and uneconomical. (2) Limitations on negative noise externalities should be implemented based on actual noise produced (dB, or whatever), not on whether the aircraft is supersonic per se.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
blahi 10y ago
I'm genuinely curious. Did you read the article?
rayiner 10y ago
Seriously. Physics killed the Concorde. The 787 can carry 2-3x as many passengers from London to New York using less than half the fuel of the Concorde. Engineering could have improved that somewhat, but not nearly enough.
- foota 10y ago
  Of course it can, it's thirty some years newer.

jgalt212 10y ago

> if fusion ever becomes a reality The whole world changes. No more wars over oil.

baldfat 10y ago
Wars are over ideology.... :(
- chillingeffect 10y ago
  Ideology and resources are an intertwined pair. Ideologies are exploited to gain resources. E.g. Islamic terrorism is a selected and nurtured subset of Islam for negative memes as a side effect of conflict of oil. The large, underlying cultural ideology is "we need lots of transportation."
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Wars are more often over resources, with ideology and identity (secular or religious) as a tool for the elites that want the resources to motivate the non-elites that aren't getting the resources one way or another to fight on their behalf.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  I can't recall even a single war in the last hundred years that was over ideology. Almost all wars used a lot of ideology in the propaganda to motivate the soldiers and workers, but the actual reasons for starting them pretty much always come down to gaining or ensuring control over resources, or realpolitik - incite a conflict that we get some advantage in the global game, so that some strategic oil line doesn't get built, or overthrow their government so that their trade policies are the way we want.
  - baldfat 10y ago
    1) ISIS Taliban (Religious Ideology Iraq and Afghanistan) (We haven't gone to war with other Oil Rich Countries and Afghanistan doesn't have oil) 2) Vietnam (Cold War Communism) don't see an oil attachment)) 3) Korea (Cold War Communism) don't see an oil attachment)) 4) I would argue WW2 Japan and Hitler was an ideology more then a grab for oil. Killing of Polish, Homosexuals, Jews and Russians was not for oil 5) WW1 - http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/causeww1.htm http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/causeww1.htm Too long to comment on this but it was certainly not about oil I find the wars for oil in the conspiracy realm. People will say the American Revolution and Civil War was over commodities but I HIGHLY disagree i.e. French Revolution happened over the same ideology. War fought specifically around oil (Iraq Kuwait) I fail to see other examples. http://www.businessinsider.com/nine-wars-that-were-fought-over-commodities-2012-8?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/nine-wars-that-were-fought-ov...

fisherjeff 10y ago

Given that supersonic travel has zero effect on time spent in the airport - which is a large fraction of travel time when flying domestically - I just don't think that the cost/benefit math comes even close to working out for most people. Especially for the famously cost-conscious airline industry [0]. If the premise of this article were true, then lifting the ban would be a major legislative priority for the airlines and likely already be lifted. [0] https://books.google.com/books?id=7E-c6ni5MfYC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=Bob%20Crandall%20olive%20story&source=bl&ots=Say2jSbu--&sig=4xhyzJFpGt6fbW-ZenVJHRqM5_s&hl=en&ei=tgNXTpC6E4fC0AHQnISQDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=7E-c6ni5MfYC&pg=PA107&lpg=...

barney54 10y ago
With coast-to-coast travel, time spent in the airport is a much lower fraction of travel time. That's why the coast-to-coast flights make sense for supersonic travel. We don't know if the cost/benefit math works out until people are able to try.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  Coast-to-coast is definitely the best case scenario. I recently flew SEA->ATL, and it took 4.5 hours at mach ~0.7. So with airport time, let's say ~6 hours total. Even ignoring differences in sub/supersonic flight (i.e., being unrealistically conservative), doubling my cruise speed to mach 1.5 would've increased fuel consumption by 4x while bringing my total travel time down to around 4 hours. So it'd be (probably significantly more than) 4x the cost just to reduce my travel time by 30%. Again, that's for the "best case" of coast-to-coast travel.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > So with airport time, let's say ~6 hours total. How'd you manage to spend (average) only 45 minutes in the airport on each end? Even pre-TSA, I never managed to go from front door to jetway that fast.

lujim 10y ago

Another factor is that with advances in global communication is that it may be hard to justify the need to physically go from JFK to LAX at mach 2 just to conduct business.

Loughla 10y ago
>is that it may be hard to justify the need to physically go from JFK to LAX at mach 2 just to conduct business My experience is that these types of trips are less about business, and more about glad-handing and greasing wheels. Those are two things which are difficult to do on Skype.

bogomipz 10y ago

I wish HN would ban or at least officially frown upon posting links that are behind a pay wall. How can you reasonably discuss an article you can't read?

drabiega 10y ago
Just google the title, the paywall usually disappears if you come from a search.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  At the top of this page, there's a link labelled "web" that does just that.
  - rtkwe 10y ago
    I've run into the paywall on WSJ even after following the web or searching on Google a handful of times so it's not fool proof.
DanBC 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Mea culpa, thanks.

frenchman_in_ny 10y ago

Where's the team on Boom[0] on this? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11346947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11346947

hx87 10y ago

In terms of regulation, wouldn't it make more economic and comfort sense to enable sleeper-only flights where everyone lies down, ala Japanese capsule hotels? Tight spaces are much more comfortable when I'm lying down than when I'm sitting.

ghaff 10y ago
Doesn't even need to be sleeper-only flights. Just book business class on pretty much any international flight. (Which is actually much more comfortable than seat configurations for most of the time the Concorde was flying--much less the Concorde itself which was rather cramped.)
ulfw 10y ago
These used to exist (and still do on some flights). I flew on Singapore Airlines from LAX to SIN when they still had their Airbus A340-500 flying nonstop in about 18 hours between Singapore and Newark or Los Angeles. The whole plane was just 100 seats, business, lie-flat only. Frankly with the odd wide seating they have, you could have easily put 140-150 in there.

Roboprog 10y ago

I'm guessing that the people wanting this are going to charter smaller planes, where you walk into a small airport, the clerk at the desk says "Good morning, Mr Warbucks", and you walk out the back 2 minutes later onto your chartered plane. Things like the cost and TSA don't apply to these people, they just want to get across the country and back in a single day, and still have time to check on how their minions are operating their interests outside of the NYC - DC region. At least, that's what I would want if I could affort it :-)

Roboprog 10y ago
I got to ride the company plane once at my previous job, and that's pretty much exactly what the scene was, other than having to show my work badge since the clerk of course didn't know a minion like me. That plane (a turboprop) "only" went about 300 MPH or so (on a longer trip), rather than Mach +, but to get from the Sacramento area to the east bay, you make pretty good time - about 15 to 20 minutes in the air.

keithly 10y ago

This first part of this talk is relevant-- about the viability of SST and subsonic commercial flight actually being "good enough": http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm

JoshTriplett 10y ago

I wonder if this is a sign of initial efforts by Boom (http://boom.aero/ http://boom.aero/) to turn public interest and policy in favor of supersonic?

batbomb 10y ago

Growing up near a few Air Force bases (Holloman/White Sands and Kirtland) you'd occasionally hear sonic booms. They'd do quite a number on sliding glass doors with tons of visible wobble.

Someone 10y ago

Firstly, I wasn't aware there was a ban on supersonic flight. I thought Concorde was banned simply because it was too noisy, not because of concerns over sonic booms. Secondly, reading https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/supersonic_aircraft_noise/media/noise_policy_on_supersonics.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap..., I have the impression that the FAA already is working towards lifting this ban. Quote (2008): We anticipate that any future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the FAA affecting the noise operating rules would propose that any future supersonic airplane produce no greater noise impact on a community than a subsonic airplane. Given that, I expect that, if a manufacturer shows up with a supersonic plane that fits that bill, the FAA almost has to allow it to fly over the US.

crististm 10y ago
The noise of the engine is not that big of a problem as the sonic boom. This one is loud and becomes annoying and distracting pretty fast. In fact this is why Concorde routes were over the ocean: there was nobody to complain there about the sonic boom.
- dalke 10y ago
  Quoting from the link: > Current research is dedicated toward reducing the impact of sonic booms before they reach the ground, in an effort to make overland flight acceptable. Recent research has produced promising results for low boom intensity, and has renewed interest in developing supersonic civil aircraft that could be considered environmentally acceptable for supersonic flight over land.

kw71 10y ago

The US military uses the river that runs behind my rural property as kind of a track for some kind of supersonic flight. I've heard them for years, with periods of daily activity, but never seen one, for by the time I hear the sonic boom they are gone from view. I don't understand why the military is allowed to do this but nobody else.

colejohnson66 10y ago
Because it's the military, obviously /s

Animats 10y ago

The WSJ is probably thinking about the supersonic bizjets being proposed for the 1%.[1] Bizjet passengers get to bypass the main TSA lines. (Well, more like the 0.01%. Aereon's proposed price is $110 million for a 12 passenger supersonic aircraft. It's only Mach 1.6, while Concorde was over Mach 2. If you have to ask about operating cost, you can't afford it.) [1] http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/ http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/

elidourado 10y ago
See Boom (YC 2016) http://boom.aero/ http://boom.aero/
blastrat 10y ago
most "private jets" are "fractional" timeshares, so you don't have to pay the full $110 million. See http://NetJets.com/ http://NetJets.com/ still, it's also "fractional" 1% anyway, 1% doesn't get you in a private plane. Evidence that we live in the time of oligarchs, they call the fast plane they want to get noise approval for BOOM and BTW, for those thinking about it, even when you "own" it, the cost of every flight is much more than 1st class tickets.

jacquesm 10y ago

Drop the silly security theater and the need to be at the airport hours in advance of the flight. That will do a lot more for speeding up airtravel than enabling supersonic flight for the happy few and it will apply to all flights.

alkonaut 10y ago
People keep repeating this, it sounds terrible. I'm at the airport 30 min before departure from a small domestic airport, 1h before departure for a domestic flight from a large airport, and maybe 1.5h, max, before departure for an international flight. For none of them do I expect more than 5 minutes of security. Unless I'm flying to the US in which case the security charade takes hours. This is a TSA problem not a general problem with air travel.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  It is a problem because the actual checks take minutes but all the delays turn those minutes into hours. And probably those hours translate into opportunities to bypass the various checks.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    By "5 minutes of security" I meant all the queuing for bag drops, security checks etc, not just the actual check. By delay you mean standing in line, waiting for the security check? From what I hear the time in security has become worse in later years in the US, what is the reason for that? Less staff at checkpoints? More thurough checks?
- tedmiston 10y ago
  Plenty of big city international airports have long waits too. CDG in Paris has a recommended wait time of 3 hours.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    A lot of airports just have fine print because they want to point at it when someone misses their flight because one odd day there was a massive rush at security and queues spiked to 3h. I have not been at CDG 3h early for flights (though haven't been there in the last year). The stories from the US now seem to indicate that the long waits are the rule rather than the exception which to me indicates a change from just a few years ago.

blobbers 10y ago

My old car was a humble Honda, but the fact that it had their F1 Technology filtering down into the engine made it a really great car (9000 RPM redline + VTEC cam switching). I could see a modernization of cross atlantic/pacific flights from military technologies filtering down into private/passenger jets. Yes, you have to pay more but at my stage in life I am willing to trade money for more time. I'd rather pay double for a flight for a doubling in speed (business speed) than a doubling in comfort (business class.) A 5 hour flight from NYC to Asia would be amazing!

shraken 10y ago

I remember hearing the boom from the STS117 space shuttle in San Diego when it was landing at Edwards back in the summer of the 2007. Shit's loud, even at 100 miles.

reidacdc 10y ago

Several years ago, I read Erik Conway's "High Speed Dreams", and learned about an important feedback loop that operates in the SST world. What happens is, you design an SST, figure out the noise profile, and are horrified. You pour a ton of research effort into making it quieter. The aero engine industry adopts your awesome quieting technology across the board, subsonic aircraft get much quieter, people's expectations adjust, and for all your effort, your SST is still the noisiest bird in the sky. Because you're this huge outlier, you get a lot of negative regulatory attention, which manifests in the form of flight-path and operating-hour restrictions. You can make SSTs quieter, but they'll never be the quietest. This isn't about sonic booms directly, but it's absolutely relevant, SSTs still have to take off and land, and you can't use engines with those giant fans on the front and hope to perform. The technical solution, if it exists, is to come up with an engine-quieting technology that somehow _only_ works for high-thrust low-bypass SST engines. That will break you out of the loop. AFAIK, no such technology exists.

jheriko 10y ago

i can't be arsed to circumvent the need to sign up or subscribe... but ban?!?! are we misremembering what happened somehow? what happened was a total stagnation in that direction due to lack of demand. they already had to charge a premium for concorde...

hristov 10y ago

This is a really bad and superficial article. They try to dismiss the idea of a sonic boom as a product of the imagination of a crazy environmentalist. But the sonic boom is a well documented and completely uncontroversial fact. Then they try to set up a strawman by implying that the main concern is architectural damage and therefore if there is no architectural damage everything would be ok. But there is still the concern of health and quality of life damage to humans. Imagine if you lived by a major airport and you had to hear a sonic boom every couple of minutes. Then the idea that modern materials and light-weighting would significantly reduce the sonic boom is rather unlikely. A passenger plane will have a limited benefit from lightweighting, because you cannot light-weight the cargo. You will probably get much quieter sonic booms if you have small business jet style planes, but it would still be there. Fighter planes are entirely too small and too expensive to be business jets and they still create quite a noticeable boom. There has been a lot of research on how to minimize booms. It has not really resulted in anything acceptable. But, hey, if someone makes a supersonic passenger plane with a sonic boom that is too quiet to cause any issues, sure we should change the law. But to change the law based on stary-eyed belief that the magic of lighweighting will make everything ok is just stupid.