5 ms·

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I'm concerned that commercial-supersonic will be a net-negative in my life. I'm assuming that, as with the Concords, most of t

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I'm concerned that commercial-supersonic will be a net-negative in my life. I'm assuming that, as with the Concords, most of the benefit for supersonic travel would be to very wealthy individuals and corporations. But everybody living/working beneath the flight path would have to endure the added noise pollution.

dmitrygr 7y ago
Almost all new consumer-accessible technologies benefit the wealthy first, simply due to the initially-high costs. Just imagine if people like you had decision making power. We'd not have microwaves, televisions, cell phones, etc...
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
The entire point of this concept is removing that noise pollution. Additionally, a more modern, efficient aircraft than the Concorde might conceivably someday make sense for more widespread, and hence more affordable use.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  > The entire point of this concept is removing that noise pollution. My understanding was that the noise-reduction was specifically for sonic booms. If I understand correctly, commercializing this would mean a transition from no sonic booms to quieter-than-before sonic booms. From my own, personal perspective that's a net-negative.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Speaking as someone who used to live pretty close to an airport, I'd point out that normal airliners are not without noise pollution, and I'd rather it be gone sooner rather than later. The faster a plane crosses the horizon, the less of your time will have noise pollution. Then the question becomes how much quieter these sonic booms are, and how they compare to more traditional airliners' noise pollution.
    - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
      I live 10-15 miles from a small regional airport, but apparently near one of the approach paths. I agree with the potential tradeoffs you listed. I'd also add that my concerns are ultimately pyscho-acoustic, which complicates the analysis.
    - jhayward 7y ago
      The planes you are noticing are all below the 10,000 ft level (i.e., on approach or takeoff) and are required to fly no faster than 250 knots. No supersonic aircraft will be flying supersonic on approach or at low altitude. If their engines are noisy they will be louder for the same amount of time as others.
branchan 7y ago
That's what the 'Quiet' part of the name is trying to solve. From another source: The X-59 has been designed to achieve a PLdB of 75, similar to what might be heard when standing next to a heavily trafficked road.

dmitrygr 7y ago

Almost all new consumer-accessible technologies benefit the wealthy first, simply due to the initially-high costs. Just imagine if people like you had decision making power. We'd not have microwaves, televisions, cell phones, etc...

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

The entire point of this concept is removing that noise pollution. Additionally, a more modern, efficient aircraft than the Concorde might conceivably someday make sense for more widespread, and hence more affordable use.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
> The entire point of this concept is removing that noise pollution. My understanding was that the noise-reduction was specifically for sonic booms. If I understand correctly, commercializing this would mean a transition from no sonic booms to quieter-than-before sonic booms. From my own, personal perspective that's a net-negative.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Speaking as someone who used to live pretty close to an airport, I'd point out that normal airliners are not without noise pollution, and I'd rather it be gone sooner rather than later. The faster a plane crosses the horizon, the less of your time will have noise pollution. Then the question becomes how much quieter these sonic booms are, and how they compare to more traditional airliners' noise pollution.
  - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    I live 10-15 miles from a small regional airport, but apparently near one of the approach paths. I agree with the potential tradeoffs you listed. I'd also add that my concerns are ultimately pyscho-acoustic, which complicates the analysis.
  - jhayward 7y ago
    The planes you are noticing are all below the 10,000 ft level (i.e., on approach or takeoff) and are required to fly no faster than 250 knots. No supersonic aircraft will be flying supersonic on approach or at low altitude. If their engines are noisy they will be louder for the same amount of time as others.

branchan 7y ago

That's what the 'Quiet' part of the name is trying to solve. From another source: The X-59 has been designed to achieve a PLdB of 75, similar to what might be heard when standing next to a heavily trafficked road.