6 ms·

> - Noise means you can't do US domestic The companies working on supersonic jets are in process of lobbying hard to get FAA approval for exemptions from noise

by qayxc 5y ago

> - Noise means you can't do US domestic The companies working on supersonic jets are in process of lobbying hard to get FAA approval for exemptions from noise regulations. [1] > - Concorde didn't have the range for Pacific Not their target market, they want to be a successful niche. > - Costs didn't work for Atlantic routes They claim improvements in fuel efficiency and their unique selling point (apart from the speed advantage) is the use of "green" fuels (whatever that implies). Also, see previous point: they don't want to be mainstream anyway. > - And airlines want lots of identical planes, not one special one for one route Not a problem they want to solve. Niche and all. While the economics are indeed questionable, these products cannot be compared to flagship products like Concorde. The jets are significantly smaller (50 PAX vs. 92-128 PAX), benefit from 50 years of progress in aviation technology, manufacturing, and operations and they have a very specific use case in mind. Concorde was the result of a technological dick-waving contest between Western Europe and the US w.r.t. civil aviation technology. Its purpose was as much of a political nature as it was an attempt at testing/demonstrating the practicality of supersonic passenger jets. It ultimately failed, but that doesn't mean contemporary attempts have to due to the differences in scope, technology and potentially regulatory environment. I remain sceptical, but I wouldn't want to write it off as a failure from the get-go. [1] https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/flight-testing/faa-releases-new-regulations-for-supersonic-flight-testing.html https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/flight-te...

andi999 5y ago
Even if they get an excemption, affected people will probably come with pitchforks and torches to the headquarter. These supersonic booms are really loud.
- supportlocal4h 5y ago
  I grew up under fairly constant sonic booms. They always seemed pretty cool because it meant a high performance aircraft was overhead. I'm sure they annoyed some people. They excited some people. And they just became mundane to a lot of people.
  - hannasanarion 5y ago
    Are you confusing sonic booms with regular loud aircraft? Sonic booms over land are illegal in most countries. The US military only ever does supersonic exercises far offshore.
    - shawabawa3 5y ago
      I remember hearing sonic booms while on holiday in wales as a child, just looked it up and it looks like a couple still happen every year I assume the military can decide to be exempt from the law if they want
      - pw201 5y ago
        They can in the UK. Back in January, the QRA Typhoons chasing an unresponsive aircraft back in January went right overhead at 10000 ft at supersonic speeds. That was loud: https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/huge-sonic-boom-heard-over-cambridge-9148048/ https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/huge-sonic-boom-...
    - SonicScrub 5y ago
      I'm not the person you are replying to, but there is a possible explanation if the person is American. In 1964 the FAA organized an experiment to perform supersonic fly-overs of Oklahoma City over a period of 6 months. Quoting from Wikipedia "the experiment was intended to quantify the effects of transcontinental supersonic transport (SST) aircraft on a city, to measure the booms' effect on structures and public attitude, and to develop standards for boom prediction and insurance data." Link to the wiki page if you are curious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests Here are some highlights - The US Airforce performed ~8 booms per day between 7am and the afternoon - In the first 14 weeks, 147 windows in the city's two tallest buildings were broken - An attempt to lodge an injunction against the tests was denied by a district court judge, who said that the plaintiffs could not establish that they suffered any mental or physical harm and that the tests were a vital national need - Testing was paused for a time when activist groups sought a restraining order against the testing - The Saturday Review published an article titled The Era of Supersonic Morality, which criticized the manner in which the FAA had targeted a city without consulting local government - All this public pressure ended the testing early - There were 9,594 complaints of damage to buildings, 4,629 formal damage claims, and 229 claims for a total of $12,845.32, mostly for broken glass and cracked plaster.
- rsync 5y ago
  "Even if they get an excemption, affected people will probably come with pitchforks and torches to the headquarter. These supersonic booms are really loud." Agreed. I grew up near[1] the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs and I have a very distinct childhood memory of some cadet breaking the sound barrier over our town. I was (figuratively) knocked out of my bed. It was unbelievably loud. I thought the world was ending. To be fair, this was probably a very low altitude flight so it was probably much worse than a "normal" sonic boom. Still... [1] Canon City, CO
- 542354234235 5y ago
  They are not looking for the ability to cause sonic booms, they are looking allow supersonic planes that don’t produce the concussive booms. > In the airline industry’s current tube-and-wings model, shock waves largely roll off and then meld into a sonic boom. The aerodynamic X-plane, however, is designed to scatter multiple shock waves and minimize their cumulative effect, producing only a rumble or soft thump. [1] > Acoustic engineers have developed a system for measuring sonic booms, called perceived levels of decibels, or PLdB. A decibel (dB) is a measure of pressure; PLdB is what people actually hear. When the Concorde airliner went supersonic, its window-rattling booms scored a PLdB rating of 102, equivalent, for a split second, to the high whine of a fighter engine just feet away. Those are the booms that inspired the original FAA ban. 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. (The numeric drop is larger than it might seem; the decibel scale is logarithmic.) In more conventional units, the Concorde’s supersonic sound waves carried a powerful maximum atmospheric overpressure of two pounds per square foot. By contrast, the X-59’s would exert 0.3 pounds per square foot on the eardrum. [2] [1] https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-prepares-to-go-public-with-quiet-supersonic-tech https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-prepares-to-go-public-with-qu... [2] https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/lower-the-boom-180971750/ https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/lower-the-boom-1809...
  - andi999 5y ago
    Let's see how this plays out. They say volume is a key factor, and the test vehicle is very small, while the plane later will be much larger.
FireBeyond 5y ago
> They claim improvements in fuel efficiency and their unique selling point (apart from the speed advantage) is the use of "green" fuels (whatever that implies). Also, see previous point: they don't want to be mainstream anyway. That seems a logistical issue to me. Airport fueling services have Jet A/A1. So airlines buying Boom will have to arrange contracts to supply these "green" fuels at service destinations?
- fancy_pantser 5y ago
  They've been using Prometheus Fuels (a YC-backed company with further investment from US DOE and BMW i Ventures) thus far, starting with a 2019 deal. It will probably be up to United as to how they fuel the aircraft once in service, but they are basically touting that it is using a carbon-neutral fuel source all through R&D and Prometheus is using Boom to show that it can produce A1 (or possibly JP-8 with additives) in some new ways starting with ethanol and renewable energy sources. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/06/18/1870486/0/en/Boom-Supersonic-Partners-with-Prometheus-Fuels-to-Supply-Carbon-Neutral-Fuel-for-XB-1-its-Mach-2-2-Demonstrator-Aircraft.html https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/06/18/187048... https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/09/20200916-prometheus.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/09/20200916-prometheus...
gsnedders 5y ago
> The companies working on supersonic jets are in process of lobbying hard to get FAA approval for exemptions from noise regulations. [1] Note that Boom _isn't_ focusing on noise currently, unlike the other companies (which are much more focused on bizjets), knowing this will limit the routes they can fly on even with any regulatory changes. They're content to start with just the oceanic routes (and notably they're aiming for longer range than Concorde, and able to fly at least some trans-Pacific routes non-stop); presumably future iterations when it's known whether there will be regulatory changes (and what they'll be) could aim for lower noise and overland flight.

by qayxc 5y ago

andi999 5y ago

Even if they get an excemption, affected people will probably come with pitchforks and torches to the headquarter. These supersonic booms are really loud.

supportlocal4h 5y ago
I grew up under fairly constant sonic booms. They always seemed pretty cool because it meant a high performance aircraft was overhead. I'm sure they annoyed some people. They excited some people. And they just became mundane to a lot of people.
- hannasanarion 5y ago
  Are you confusing sonic booms with regular loud aircraft? Sonic booms over land are illegal in most countries. The US military only ever does supersonic exercises far offshore.
  - shawabawa3 5y ago
    I remember hearing sonic booms while on holiday in wales as a child, just looked it up and it looks like a couple still happen every year I assume the military can decide to be exempt from the law if they want
    - pw201 5y ago
      They can in the UK. Back in January, the QRA Typhoons chasing an unresponsive aircraft back in January went right overhead at 10000 ft at supersonic speeds. That was loud: https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/huge-sonic-boom-heard-over-cambridge-9148048/ https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/huge-sonic-boom-...
  - SonicScrub 5y ago
    I'm not the person you are replying to, but there is a possible explanation if the person is American. In 1964 the FAA organized an experiment to perform supersonic fly-overs of Oklahoma City over a period of 6 months. Quoting from Wikipedia "the experiment was intended to quantify the effects of transcontinental supersonic transport (SST) aircraft on a city, to measure the booms' effect on structures and public attitude, and to develop standards for boom prediction and insurance data." Link to the wiki page if you are curious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests Here are some highlights - The US Airforce performed ~8 booms per day between 7am and the afternoon - In the first 14 weeks, 147 windows in the city's two tallest buildings were broken - An attempt to lodge an injunction against the tests was denied by a district court judge, who said that the plaintiffs could not establish that they suffered any mental or physical harm and that the tests were a vital national need - Testing was paused for a time when activist groups sought a restraining order against the testing - The Saturday Review published an article titled The Era of Supersonic Morality, which criticized the manner in which the FAA had targeted a city without consulting local government - All this public pressure ended the testing early - There were 9,594 complaints of damage to buildings, 4,629 formal damage claims, and 229 claims for a total of $12,845.32, mostly for broken glass and cracked plaster.
rsync 5y ago
"Even if they get an excemption, affected people will probably come with pitchforks and torches to the headquarter. These supersonic booms are really loud." Agreed. I grew up near[1] the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs and I have a very distinct childhood memory of some cadet breaking the sound barrier over our town. I was (figuratively) knocked out of my bed. It was unbelievably loud. I thought the world was ending. To be fair, this was probably a very low altitude flight so it was probably much worse than a "normal" sonic boom. Still... [1] Canon City, CO
542354234235 5y ago
They are not looking for the ability to cause sonic booms, they are looking allow supersonic planes that don’t produce the concussive booms. > In the airline industry’s current tube-and-wings model, shock waves largely roll off and then meld into a sonic boom. The aerodynamic X-plane, however, is designed to scatter multiple shock waves and minimize their cumulative effect, producing only a rumble or soft thump. [1] > Acoustic engineers have developed a system for measuring sonic booms, called perceived levels of decibels, or PLdB. A decibel (dB) is a measure of pressure; PLdB is what people actually hear. When the Concorde airliner went supersonic, its window-rattling booms scored a PLdB rating of 102, equivalent, for a split second, to the high whine of a fighter engine just feet away. Those are the booms that inspired the original FAA ban. 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. (The numeric drop is larger than it might seem; the decibel scale is logarithmic.) In more conventional units, the Concorde’s supersonic sound waves carried a powerful maximum atmospheric overpressure of two pounds per square foot. By contrast, the X-59’s would exert 0.3 pounds per square foot on the eardrum. [2] [1] https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-prepares-to-go-public-with-quiet-supersonic-tech https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-prepares-to-go-public-with-qu... [2] https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/lower-the-boom-180971750/ https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/lower-the-boom-1809...
- andi999 5y ago
  Let's see how this plays out. They say volume is a key factor, and the test vehicle is very small, while the plane later will be much larger.

FireBeyond 5y ago

> They claim improvements in fuel efficiency and their unique selling point (apart from the speed advantage) is the use of "green" fuels (whatever that implies). Also, see previous point: they don't want to be mainstream anyway. That seems a logistical issue to me. Airport fueling services have Jet A/A1. So airlines buying Boom will have to arrange contracts to supply these "green" fuels at service destinations?

fancy_pantser 5y ago
They've been using Prometheus Fuels (a YC-backed company with further investment from US DOE and BMW i Ventures) thus far, starting with a 2019 deal. It will probably be up to United as to how they fuel the aircraft once in service, but they are basically touting that it is using a carbon-neutral fuel source all through R&D and Prometheus is using Boom to show that it can produce A1 (or possibly JP-8 with additives) in some new ways starting with ethanol and renewable energy sources. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/06/18/1870486/0/en/Boom-Supersonic-Partners-with-Prometheus-Fuels-to-Supply-Carbon-Neutral-Fuel-for-XB-1-its-Mach-2-2-Demonstrator-Aircraft.html https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/06/18/187048... https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/09/20200916-prometheus.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/09/20200916-prometheus...

gsnedders 5y ago

> The companies working on supersonic jets are in process of lobbying hard to get FAA approval for exemptions from noise regulations. [1] Note that Boom _isn't_ focusing on noise currently, unlike the other companies (which are much more focused on bizjets), knowing this will limit the routes they can fly on even with any regulatory changes. They're content to start with just the oceanic routes (and notably they're aiming for longer range than Concorde, and able to fly at least some trans-Pacific routes non-stop); presumably future iterations when it's known whether there will be regulatory changes (and what they'll be) could aim for lower noise and overland flight.