6 ms·

It's disappointing that SST died off the way it did. In the 1960s, the 747 was originally designed as a stopgap between subsonic and supersonic, which was viewe

It's disappointing that SST died off the way it did. In the 1960s, the 747 was originally designed as a stopgap between subsonic and supersonic, which was viewed as the next inevitable step. Unfortunately, in a hamfisted effort to study the impact of sonic booms, the air force created so many over Oklahoma City that the government lost a very large lawsuit over the damage done to nearby buildings. Regulations ensued, and that effectively stunted any efforts to minimise the sonic boom in commercial applications. I'm hopeful this can kickstart a new effort to renew SST and scale it to where it was more cost effective than the Concorde tried to be.

vermontdevil 9y ago
For those curious, the Oklahoma City boom tests is explained in full here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests
jandrese 9y ago
Sonic Booms wern't the only problem. It's hard to get around the cost element since jet fuel is a significant chunk of an airline ticket and SSTs are necessarily going to burn a lot more of it. Ultimately people largely chose to save the $1,000 and take the extra 3 hour penalty to their trip. Even for people willing to pay more you have to consider competition like the luxurious Emirates A380s that give you a small bedroom for the trip vs. the coach seats on the Concorde.
- ghaff 9y ago
  It's probably worthwhile to continue researching the space, but it's hard to see the economics working out--especially outside of small business jets. There just aren't that many people who care enough about extra hours that they can already travel in a fair bit of comfort if they're willing to pay for it. This is especially true if the design can't handle truly long distance travel like trans-Pacific. Although it's not quite the same thing, I'd observe that British Airways has even cut back on its business class-only flights from London to New York. There just aren't that many people willing to pay thousands of dollars to either save a few hours or to travel in more comfort for a few hours.
  - melling 9y ago
    The United States spent $20 billion for air conditioning during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/air-conditioning-military-cost-nasa_n_881828.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/air-conditioning-m... Perhaps in the near term it only makes sense for business jets, but it is a step forward. It isn’t money down the drain and the research will pay future dividends.
    - loeg 9y ago
      > The United States spent $20 billion for air conditioning during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? I am struggling to see the relevance.
    - chrisseaton 9y ago
      > The United States spent $20 billion for air conditioning during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Do you think this is some kind of luxury? Have you got any idea how hot it gets in an operations room tent in Afghanistan? And some of those tents are hospitals.
      - melling 9y ago
        I was going to simply say that we spent $1 trillion on the Iraq War (another trillion in Afghanistan). I was only trying to show how little the research costs in the big scheme of things.
JulianMorrison 9y ago
I have hope that SpaceX BFR will break past the sonic boom problem by doing the zoomy stuff outside the sound transmitting parts of the atmosphere.
- detritus 9y ago
  As much as I like what SpaceX are doing, I'm personally dubious about the idea of tens or hundreds of large scale ballistic rocket launches every day and their affect on the atmosphere, purely for consumer travel. The thought of making a colander out of our ozone and ionosphere sends shudders down my spine.
  - JulianMorrison 9y ago
    They are LOX/kerosene so it's not as bad as hydrazine or something. And it's less fuel for a suborbital lob and subsequent braking burn than for LEO. And a good portion of the journey is unpowered ballistic drift. But yeah, it probably isn't ideal for the atmosphere.
    - Robotbeat 9y ago
      SpaceX are using methane for BFR point to point, not kerosene. Burns cleaner, and they're planning on synthesizing it eventually like they need to do for Mars. Although I suspect that long-term, if you're synthesizing your fuel, you're better off using hydrogen instead of methane. Structural mass is generally higher if you use hydrogen, but there is a performance boost especially at higher velocities. And you avoid the inevitable energy loss from the Sabatier Reaction. And generally better for the climate than methane, particularly if you're running fuel-rich.
      - theothermkn 9y ago
        From a conservation of mass standpoint, synthesizing methane would be better for the climate. The stored fuel represents temporarily sequestered carbon. The exhaust, whether the engine runs rich or lean, only represents carbon that was in the atmosphere before the Sabatier reaction was run. However, the total size of the launch vehicle market renders these speculations superfluous, for now.
mtgx 9y ago
Poor Oklahoma just can't catch a break. First supersonic planes, now fracking destroying its infrastructure. http://www.businessinsider.com/earthquakes-fracking-oklahoma-research-2018-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/earthquakes-fracking-oklahoma...
abtinf 9y ago
An active startup: https://boomsupersonic.com/ https://boomsupersonic.com/
hinkley 9y ago
Boeing had a competing transsonic design that lost to the 787. We hit $4/gal for gas during planning and airlines were interested in operating costs. Not shaving 90 minutes off an intercontinental flight.
vkou 9y ago
As long as airport transportation and security continues to be a dog and pony show, that wastes more of my time then the flight does, I'd rather fly subsonic. Hell, I'll take one tenth of the delta between the two tickets, and splurge for extra leg room and a bottle of wine to see me through the flight.

vermontdevil 9y ago

For those curious, the Oklahoma City boom tests is explained in full here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests

jandrese 9y ago

Sonic Booms wern't the only problem. It's hard to get around the cost element since jet fuel is a significant chunk of an airline ticket and SSTs are necessarily going to burn a lot more of it. Ultimately people largely chose to save the $1,000 and take the extra 3 hour penalty to their trip. Even for people willing to pay more you have to consider competition like the luxurious Emirates A380s that give you a small bedroom for the trip vs. the coach seats on the Concorde.

ghaff 9y ago
It's probably worthwhile to continue researching the space, but it's hard to see the economics working out--especially outside of small business jets. There just aren't that many people who care enough about extra hours that they can already travel in a fair bit of comfort if they're willing to pay for it. This is especially true if the design can't handle truly long distance travel like trans-Pacific. Although it's not quite the same thing, I'd observe that British Airways has even cut back on its business class-only flights from London to New York. There just aren't that many people willing to pay thousands of dollars to either save a few hours or to travel in more comfort for a few hours.
- melling 9y ago
  The United States spent $20 billion for air conditioning during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/air-conditioning-military-cost-nasa_n_881828.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/air-conditioning-m... Perhaps in the near term it only makes sense for business jets, but it is a step forward. It isn’t money down the drain and the research will pay future dividends.
  - loeg 9y ago
    > The United States spent $20 billion for air conditioning during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? I am struggling to see the relevance.
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    > The United States spent $20 billion for air conditioning during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Do you think this is some kind of luxury? Have you got any idea how hot it gets in an operations room tent in Afghanistan? And some of those tents are hospitals.
    - melling 9y ago
      I was going to simply say that we spent $1 trillion on the Iraq War (another trillion in Afghanistan). I was only trying to show how little the research costs in the big scheme of things.

JulianMorrison 9y ago

I have hope that SpaceX BFR will break past the sonic boom problem by doing the zoomy stuff outside the sound transmitting parts of the atmosphere.

detritus 9y ago
As much as I like what SpaceX are doing, I'm personally dubious about the idea of tens or hundreds of large scale ballistic rocket launches every day and their affect on the atmosphere, purely for consumer travel. The thought of making a colander out of our ozone and ionosphere sends shudders down my spine.
- JulianMorrison 9y ago
  They are LOX/kerosene so it's not as bad as hydrazine or something. And it's less fuel for a suborbital lob and subsequent braking burn than for LEO. And a good portion of the journey is unpowered ballistic drift. But yeah, it probably isn't ideal for the atmosphere.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    SpaceX are using methane for BFR point to point, not kerosene. Burns cleaner, and they're planning on synthesizing it eventually like they need to do for Mars. Although I suspect that long-term, if you're synthesizing your fuel, you're better off using hydrogen instead of methane. Structural mass is generally higher if you use hydrogen, but there is a performance boost especially at higher velocities. And you avoid the inevitable energy loss from the Sabatier Reaction. And generally better for the climate than methane, particularly if you're running fuel-rich.
    - theothermkn 9y ago
      From a conservation of mass standpoint, synthesizing methane would be better for the climate. The stored fuel represents temporarily sequestered carbon. The exhaust, whether the engine runs rich or lean, only represents carbon that was in the atmosphere before the Sabatier reaction was run. However, the total size of the launch vehicle market renders these speculations superfluous, for now.

mtgx 9y ago

Poor Oklahoma just can't catch a break. First supersonic planes, now fracking destroying its infrastructure. http://www.businessinsider.com/earthquakes-fracking-oklahoma-research-2018-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/earthquakes-fracking-oklahoma...

abtinf 9y ago

An active startup: https://boomsupersonic.com/ https://boomsupersonic.com/

hinkley 9y ago

Boeing had a competing transsonic design that lost to the 787. We hit $4/gal for gas during planning and airlines were interested in operating costs. Not shaving 90 minutes off an intercontinental flight.

vkou 9y ago

As long as airport transportation and security continues to be a dog and pony show, that wastes more of my time then the flight does, I'd rather fly subsonic. Hell, I'll take one tenth of the delta between the two tickets, and splurge for extra leg room and a bottle of wine to see me through the flight.