8 ms·

Nasa to test ‘quiet’ supersonic flights over Texas

71 points by daegloe 8y ago

ploek 8y ago
Am I understanding correctly that in the tests not the actual prototype will fly, but rather F/A-18s that somehow mimic the wave patterns generated by the X-59? How does that work?
- thornjm 8y ago
  Complete guess but they might use multiple F/A-18s, each with their own boom in a specific formation, to mimic the non-combining booms of the X-59?
grendelt 8y ago
Hey! Hey! I live in Galveston. I didn't know there was a citizen-scientist branch of this operation. (NASA did announce their plans earlier this year.) I'm actually quite excited about this happening.
sien 8y ago
There is an episode of the excellent Inside Skunkworks podcast about the Lockheed team that is building the aircraft for these tests: https://soundcloud.com/user-291478498 https://soundcloud.com/user-291478498 It's well worth a listen, as are the other episodes in the series.
- Already__Taken 8y ago
  "A low rumble" I presume? Thanks for the recommendation
fergbrain 8y ago
I wonder if this is related to Boeing’s announcement: https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/06/hypersonic-concept-vehicle.page https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/06/hypersonic-concept-v...
lev99 8y ago
The podcast .NET Rocks has several "geek out" episodes, which go into depth about tech. About two years ago they did one on supersonic flight, and I remember a lot of details about quiet sonic bombs there. Well worth a listen if someone wants to learn more about supersonic travel. Actually, all of the geek outs are fantastic. [Episode summary] > Concorde is gone, what will replace it? Time for a Geek Out! Richard talks about the aeronautical evolution that led to supersonic airliners, Concorde being the big one that flew from 1976 to 2003. What went wrong? Why did it stop flying? Besides the technological challenges, it all comes down to the sonic boom and laws that make it illegal to fly a civilian aircraft above the speed of sound. Richard talks about how technology has advanced enough now that aircraft can mitigate their sonic boom with specific shapes and flying capabilities. However, in the end, supersonics only get you there faster, typically for more money. Would you pay for to go faster? http://www.dotnetrocks.com/?show=1286 http://www.dotnetrocks.com/?show=1286
- RCampbell 8y ago
  The place where we ended up in that show is that airlines find that time and again, customers will pay for more luxury rather than time... a regular subsonic flight JFK-LHR is a bit over 7 hours, Concorde cut that to 3:15. But does that matter? People like the idea of getting there faster, but when it comes to actually spending money on it, most wouldn't do it. A one-way trip on Concorde was about $5000, and for that money, you got an old-school business-class seat (they never updated the interior of Concorde), no overhead bins, no internet access, no entertainment system of any kind. For that same money, you get the all-encompassing cocoon of the modern business-class pod on a 787. It may take twice as long, but you don't care because you're comfortable. Meantime, we're getting closer to manned hypersonic flight, Mach 5+ with combined cycle engines. Considering the development time necessary for a new airliner, especially with experimental technology like new supersonic engines, I think the LockMarts and Boeings of the world are waiting for more of that technology to mature. It would suck to develop a brand new Mach 2 airliner just in time for someone else to build a Mach 5 airliner. Also, the Mach 5 designs using ramjets would fly high enough (>80,000 feet) that sonic booms are really not an issue. The SR-71 at Mach 3 and 80,000 feet was virtually inaudible. Much of the experimentation going on around shaping sonic booms is proving contemporary fluid dynamic models that show that you can "customize" your N-Wave and make the kind of boom you want to make. Interesting times!
keyle 8y ago
It's weird to see real innovation happen again. For so many years innovation has been about how to fit as many meat bags as possible in a shoe box, prentending to be luxurious, at the adequate speed to save the most fuel as possible.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > innovation has been about how to fit as many meat bags as possible in a shoe box That's an odd way to describe the most accessible era of global travel in human history. It's not like first class tickets, which provide a comparable experience at a comparable inflated-adjusted price, aren't available to bring back the 60s. There are more travelers who want a cheaper ticket than there are those who want, more than cheaper tickets, (a) more comfort or (b) faster travel. Evidence for this is in the demand for cheap tickets with long layovers and repeat flyers in basic economy.
  - always_good 8y ago
    I recently paid bottom dollar for a flight and was annoyed when my knees jammed up against the seat in front of me. I had to contort myself a bit to fit. Then I chuckled at the annoyance since I, myself, had decided to get the dirt-cheapest flight available. Couldn't even be bothered to pay +$15 for an emergency exit seat. ...And I would've done it all the same again for that 2 hour flight. I just saw a Reddit thread where someone asked how many people would pay extra for a flight with no babies allowed. I had to roll my eyes at every commenter who said they would.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      2 hour flight is OK, but 5+? I would pay up.
    - slavak 8y ago
      > Flying is the worst one because people come back from flights and they're telling you their story, and it's like a horror story. They act like their flight was a cattle car in the 40s in Germany. They're like, 'it was the worst day of my life! First of all, we didn't board for like 20 minutes and then they made us sit there on the runway for 40 minutes! We had to sit there!' Oh really? What happened next? Did you FLY in the AIR incredibly like a BIRD? Did you partake in the miracle of human flight, you non-contributing zero?! ... You're sitting in a chair in the SKY! Here's the thing: people say there's delays. Delays? Really? New York to California in 5 hours. That used to take 30 years! And a bunch of you would die on the way there, and have babies... you'd be a whole different group of people by the time you got there. Now, you watch a movie, you take a dump, and you're home! — Louis CK
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
There is a fascinating pattern, in aeronautics, whereby the design that works best is almost always inexplicably beautiful. It's as if humans have a broad and innate understanding of aerodynamics, even far past our natural environment. (Contrast that with astrodynamics, where the best design is usually the ugliest.)
- tormeh 8y ago
  Is there such a thing as astrodynamics? Since there's mostly vacuum in space, can't you have whatever shape you want?
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Is there such a thing as astrodynamics? Yes, it's a hodgepodge of ballistics, orbital and celestial mechanics, and other factors relating to spacecraft navigation.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Yes, I nearly majored in it. It's basically spacecraft engineering + orbital mechanics and celestial navigation.
- s2g 8y ago
  Or humans have a natural affinity for smooth surfaces and curves. Objects that happen to be aerodynamically efficient.
- jacobush 8y ago
  Given that humans are pretty good swimmers and divers, and even have little webbing between fingers and toes, I'd say we have an innate understanding of fluid dynamics rather than aerodynimcs, with aerodynamics being a special case of fluid dynamics. I.e. we have an innate ability to identify a good swimmer's body, because we as a species are (potentially) good swimmers.
- ericst 8y ago
  I would say that this is not specific to aeronautics. It works also for other engineering fields. I find there is always an uncanny beauty in simple, elegant and efficient design usually. Be it software, mechanics or electronics. I am sure it goes as well in other disciplines... Engineering is a form of Art.
chx 8y ago
> Japan Airlines invested $10 million into Boom Technologies, OK so Boom has raised 47.3M so far according to techcrunch which is ... nothing? Even something as relatively simple as the Sukhoi Superjet 100 had a program cost of 1.5B. I can't even imagine how much a supersonic jet will cost.
- dingaling 8y ago
  I don't think anyone in aerospace expects Boom / Aerion / Spike etc to actually deliver. More likely they're positioning for acquihire.
- ddalex 8y ago
  Probably Boom only delivers at this point CAD drawings and scale-models. They get some limited wind tunnel time to test their models. Probably if they can show they have something, they will partner with an manufacturer (Airbus? Saab?) to build a prototype. There are Boom engineers lurking around HN, probably one of them can pitch in and comment.
Theodores 8y ago
So the F-104 Starfighter tests in Oklahoma in 1964 were not good enough then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests It seems that the military have more money than sense to pursue a failed idea that isn't going to help win The War Against CO2 levels. Only in America.
- Already__Taken 8y ago
  Good enough for what? This is about aircraft design to reduce/eliminate the booms. Those test were about finding what the public would put up with, that being none at all.
DocTomoe 8y ago
In a bid to save America's transatlantic and transpacific airline industry, the US banned the Concorde from flying over the mainland because of "noise concerns". I feel like Europe should return the favor should this ever result in an airliner.
- Reason077 8y ago
  Noise “concerns” were very much genuine with the Concorde. An incredible achievement of technology and engineering, but an environmental disaster.
  - sschueller 8y ago
    What about all the military aircraft?
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      Military aircraft are highly restricted from going supersonic over populated areas too[0]. We live near a US Air Force base, we had a single sonic boom last year and the base put out a tweet/statement apologizing, and the pilot got written up. During national security incidents like 9/11 all bets are off. [0] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/44759/do-usaf-fighter-jets-go-supersonic-over-land https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/44759/do-usaf-f...
      - WalterBright 8y ago
        When I was a kid in the 60s, sonic booms were regular from the AF. I always enjoyed them.
    - dx034 8y ago
      Most countries have restrictions on when/where military planes are allowed to fly supersonic. If they have to cross the sound barrier over populated area (happened over southern Germany last year), this always causes a lot of publicity and can even result in shattered windows (which the military will pay for).
Sarki 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics But yeah, it's a breakthrough... Oh look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive No one mentions as well that the optimum form factor for such a technology consists in two round plates facing each other (wink-wink).
Tempest1981 8y ago
Please capitalize NASA -- it's an acronym (for National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- bbrian 8y ago
  In Ireland, DART means Dublin Area Rapid Transit, but since it's pronounced "dart" rather than "d", "a", "r", "t", it's appropriate to write it "Dart". Or so my brother tells me.
  - nency7 8y ago
    Tell your brother to stay in school.
abhiminator 8y ago
This is exciting. Concorde's withdrawal from active service back in 2003 dragged the aviation industry back by at least a couple decades imo, though I concede that its critics are right in pointing to the fact that the aircraft was an absolute disaster when it came to its carbon footprint and overall eco-efficiency. [0] This project, if successful, could be a 'Wright brothers' moment for supersonic travel and would dramatically cut down inter-continental travel time, thereby propelling the aviation industry into stratosphere and increasing the global financial throughput as a result of decreased flying duration -- in the next decade or so. [0] https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/concordesst/concorde-s-environmental-impact-t837.html https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/concordesst/concorde-s-envir...
- ant6n 8y ago
  Bringing our carbon footprint into the stratosphere as well (both via passenger miles, and via carbon per passenger mile). And the chances for electrification are even more remote than for subsonic planes -- at least its conceivable that electric propeller planes could work, in 50 years or so.
  - abhiminator 8y ago
    How about hybrid propulsion systems? I agree with your assertion that complete electrification of the aviation industry is several decades away, but a hybrid solution should be optimally feasible given the advances in battery density and related industries. [0] [0] http://www.eenewseurope.com/news/hybrid-electric-aircraft-next-step-electrification-mobility-0 http://www.eenewseurope.com/news/hybrid-electric-aircraft-ne...
    - delibes 8y ago
      I think battery for commercial jet airliners might be a long way off, due to jet fuel's energy density. Small planes might manage. One idea I recall from Virgin Airlines a while back was to have planes towed around the airport so they didn't have to burn fuel on the ground. Ah here we go (2006!) : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6203636.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6203636.stm
m-p-3 8y ago
I'm curious to hear that, hopefully someone will record the attempts!

71 points by daegloe 8y ago

Am I understanding correctly that in the tests not the actual prototype will fly, but rather F/A-18s that somehow mimic the wave patterns generated by the X-59? How does that work?

thornjm 8y ago
Complete guess but they might use multiple F/A-18s, each with their own boom in a specific formation, to mimic the non-combining booms of the X-59?

grendelt 8y ago

Hey! Hey! I live in Galveston. I didn't know there was a citizen-scientist branch of this operation. (NASA did announce their plans earlier this year.) I'm actually quite excited about this happening.

sien 8y ago

There is an episode of the excellent Inside Skunkworks podcast about the Lockheed team that is building the aircraft for these tests: https://soundcloud.com/user-291478498 https://soundcloud.com/user-291478498 It's well worth a listen, as are the other episodes in the series.

Already__Taken 8y ago
"A low rumble" I presume? Thanks for the recommendation

fergbrain 8y ago

I wonder if this is related to Boeing’s announcement: https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/06/hypersonic-concept-vehicle.page https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/06/hypersonic-concept-v...

lev99 8y ago

The podcast .NET Rocks has several "geek out" episodes, which go into depth about tech. About two years ago they did one on supersonic flight, and I remember a lot of details about quiet sonic bombs there. Well worth a listen if someone wants to learn more about supersonic travel. Actually, all of the geek outs are fantastic. [Episode summary] > Concorde is gone, what will replace it? Time for a Geek Out! Richard talks about the aeronautical evolution that led to supersonic airliners, Concorde being the big one that flew from 1976 to 2003. What went wrong? Why did it stop flying? Besides the technological challenges, it all comes down to the sonic boom and laws that make it illegal to fly a civilian aircraft above the speed of sound. Richard talks about how technology has advanced enough now that aircraft can mitigate their sonic boom with specific shapes and flying capabilities. However, in the end, supersonics only get you there faster, typically for more money. Would you pay for to go faster? http://www.dotnetrocks.com/?show=1286 http://www.dotnetrocks.com/?show=1286

RCampbell 8y ago
The place where we ended up in that show is that airlines find that time and again, customers will pay for more luxury rather than time... a regular subsonic flight JFK-LHR is a bit over 7 hours, Concorde cut that to 3:15. But does that matter? People like the idea of getting there faster, but when it comes to actually spending money on it, most wouldn't do it. A one-way trip on Concorde was about $5000, and for that money, you got an old-school business-class seat (they never updated the interior of Concorde), no overhead bins, no internet access, no entertainment system of any kind. For that same money, you get the all-encompassing cocoon of the modern business-class pod on a 787. It may take twice as long, but you don't care because you're comfortable. Meantime, we're getting closer to manned hypersonic flight, Mach 5+ with combined cycle engines. Considering the development time necessary for a new airliner, especially with experimental technology like new supersonic engines, I think the LockMarts and Boeings of the world are waiting for more of that technology to mature. It would suck to develop a brand new Mach 2 airliner just in time for someone else to build a Mach 5 airliner. Also, the Mach 5 designs using ramjets would fly high enough (>80,000 feet) that sonic booms are really not an issue. The SR-71 at Mach 3 and 80,000 feet was virtually inaudible. Much of the experimentation going on around shaping sonic booms is proving contemporary fluid dynamic models that show that you can "customize" your N-Wave and make the kind of boom you want to make. Interesting times!

keyle 8y ago

It's weird to see real innovation happen again. For so many years innovation has been about how to fit as many meat bags as possible in a shoe box, prentending to be luxurious, at the adequate speed to save the most fuel as possible.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> innovation has been about how to fit as many meat bags as possible in a shoe box That's an odd way to describe the most accessible era of global travel in human history. It's not like first class tickets, which provide a comparable experience at a comparable inflated-adjusted price, aren't available to bring back the 60s. There are more travelers who want a cheaper ticket than there are those who want, more than cheaper tickets, (a) more comfort or (b) faster travel. Evidence for this is in the demand for cheap tickets with long layovers and repeat flyers in basic economy.
- always_good 8y ago
  I recently paid bottom dollar for a flight and was annoyed when my knees jammed up against the seat in front of me. I had to contort myself a bit to fit. Then I chuckled at the annoyance since I, myself, had decided to get the dirt-cheapest flight available. Couldn't even be bothered to pay +$15 for an emergency exit seat. ...And I would've done it all the same again for that 2 hour flight. I just saw a Reddit thread where someone asked how many people would pay extra for a flight with no babies allowed. I had to roll my eyes at every commenter who said they would.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    2 hour flight is OK, but 5+? I would pay up.
  - slavak 8y ago
    > Flying is the worst one because people come back from flights and they're telling you their story, and it's like a horror story. They act like their flight was a cattle car in the 40s in Germany. They're like, 'it was the worst day of my life! First of all, we didn't board for like 20 minutes and then they made us sit there on the runway for 40 minutes! We had to sit there!' Oh really? What happened next? Did you FLY in the AIR incredibly like a BIRD? Did you partake in the miracle of human flight, you non-contributing zero?! ... You're sitting in a chair in the SKY! Here's the thing: people say there's delays. Delays? Really? New York to California in 5 hours. That used to take 30 years! And a bunch of you would die on the way there, and have babies... you'd be a whole different group of people by the time you got there. Now, you watch a movie, you take a dump, and you're home! — Louis CK

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

There is a fascinating pattern, in aeronautics, whereby the design that works best is almost always inexplicably beautiful. It's as if humans have a broad and innate understanding of aerodynamics, even far past our natural environment. (Contrast that with astrodynamics, where the best design is usually the ugliest.)

tormeh 8y ago
Is there such a thing as astrodynamics? Since there's mostly vacuum in space, can't you have whatever shape you want?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Is there such a thing as astrodynamics? Yes, it's a hodgepodge of ballistics, orbital and celestial mechanics, and other factors relating to spacecraft navigation.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Yes, I nearly majored in it. It's basically spacecraft engineering + orbital mechanics and celestial navigation.
s2g 8y ago
Or humans have a natural affinity for smooth surfaces and curves. Objects that happen to be aerodynamically efficient.
jacobush 8y ago
Given that humans are pretty good swimmers and divers, and even have little webbing between fingers and toes, I'd say we have an innate understanding of fluid dynamics rather than aerodynimcs, with aerodynamics being a special case of fluid dynamics. I.e. we have an innate ability to identify a good swimmer's body, because we as a species are (potentially) good swimmers.
ericst 8y ago
I would say that this is not specific to aeronautics. It works also for other engineering fields. I find there is always an uncanny beauty in simple, elegant and efficient design usually. Be it software, mechanics or electronics. I am sure it goes as well in other disciplines... Engineering is a form of Art.

chx 8y ago

> Japan Airlines invested $10 million into Boom Technologies, OK so Boom has raised 47.3M so far according to techcrunch which is ... nothing? Even something as relatively simple as the Sukhoi Superjet 100 had a program cost of 1.5B. I can't even imagine how much a supersonic jet will cost.

dingaling 8y ago
I don't think anyone in aerospace expects Boom / Aerion / Spike etc to actually deliver. More likely they're positioning for acquihire.
ddalex 8y ago
Probably Boom only delivers at this point CAD drawings and scale-models. They get some limited wind tunnel time to test their models. Probably if they can show they have something, they will partner with an manufacturer (Airbus? Saab?) to build a prototype. There are Boom engineers lurking around HN, probably one of them can pitch in and comment.

Theodores 8y ago

So the F-104 Starfighter tests in Oklahoma in 1964 were not good enough then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests It seems that the military have more money than sense to pursue a failed idea that isn't going to help win The War Against CO2 levels. Only in America.

Already__Taken 8y ago
Good enough for what? This is about aircraft design to reduce/eliminate the booms. Those test were about finding what the public would put up with, that being none at all.

DocTomoe 8y ago

In a bid to save America's transatlantic and transpacific airline industry, the US banned the Concorde from flying over the mainland because of "noise concerns". I feel like Europe should return the favor should this ever result in an airliner.

Reason077 8y ago
Noise “concerns” were very much genuine with the Concorde. An incredible achievement of technology and engineering, but an environmental disaster.
- sschueller 8y ago
  What about all the military aircraft?
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Military aircraft are highly restricted from going supersonic over populated areas too[0]. We live near a US Air Force base, we had a single sonic boom last year and the base put out a tweet/statement apologizing, and the pilot got written up. During national security incidents like 9/11 all bets are off. [0] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/44759/do-usaf-fighter-jets-go-supersonic-over-land https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/44759/do-usaf-f...
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      When I was a kid in the 60s, sonic booms were regular from the AF. I always enjoyed them.
  - dx034 8y ago
    Most countries have restrictions on when/where military planes are allowed to fly supersonic. If they have to cross the sound barrier over populated area (happened over southern Germany last year), this always causes a lot of publicity and can even result in shattered windows (which the military will pay for).

Sarki 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics But yeah, it's a breakthrough... Oh look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive No one mentions as well that the optimum form factor for such a technology consists in two round plates facing each other (wink-wink).

Tempest1981 8y ago

Please capitalize NASA -- it's an acronym (for National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

bbrian 8y ago
In Ireland, DART means Dublin Area Rapid Transit, but since it's pronounced "dart" rather than "d", "a", "r", "t", it's appropriate to write it "Dart". Or so my brother tells me.
- nency7 8y ago
  Tell your brother to stay in school.

abhiminator 8y ago

This is exciting. Concorde's withdrawal from active service back in 2003 dragged the aviation industry back by at least a couple decades imo, though I concede that its critics are right in pointing to the fact that the aircraft was an absolute disaster when it came to its carbon footprint and overall eco-efficiency. [0] This project, if successful, could be a 'Wright brothers' moment for supersonic travel and would dramatically cut down inter-continental travel time, thereby propelling the aviation industry into stratosphere and increasing the global financial throughput as a result of decreased flying duration -- in the next decade or so. [0] https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/concordesst/concorde-s-environmental-impact-t837.html https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/concordesst/concorde-s-envir...

ant6n 8y ago
Bringing our carbon footprint into the stratosphere as well (both via passenger miles, and via carbon per passenger mile). And the chances for electrification are even more remote than for subsonic planes -- at least its conceivable that electric propeller planes could work, in 50 years or so.
- abhiminator 8y ago
  How about hybrid propulsion systems? I agree with your assertion that complete electrification of the aviation industry is several decades away, but a hybrid solution should be optimally feasible given the advances in battery density and related industries. [0] [0] http://www.eenewseurope.com/news/hybrid-electric-aircraft-next-step-electrification-mobility-0 http://www.eenewseurope.com/news/hybrid-electric-aircraft-ne...
  - delibes 8y ago
    I think battery for commercial jet airliners might be a long way off, due to jet fuel's energy density. Small planes might manage. One idea I recall from Virgin Airlines a while back was to have planes towed around the airport so they didn't have to burn fuel on the ground. Ah here we go (2006!) : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6203636.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6203636.stm

m-p-3 8y ago

I'm curious to hear that, hopefully someone will record the attempts!