Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

peter-doubt t1_itiu5ht wrote

Just a nit that needs picking:

>Seventy-five years ago, a sonic boom thundered for the first time over the high desert of California.

Over Peenemunde, Germany, it was broken in 1944. By the V2.

Agreed, not a plane.. but the article said first, and that's wrong

39

QWERTYroch t1_itiytvb wrote

To be really pedantic, that sentence isn't technically wrong. It was the first time it was broken "over the high desert of California", even if not the first time on Earth.

Obviously the context implies that it was the first ever, but in a vacuum each of their claims could be rationalized.

53

nucflashevent t1_itj76mj wrote

If they can reduce the amount of disturbance reaching the ground to a level that doesn't cause irritation, then supersonic aircraft become a means of pure economics.

In a way, they always were, but the economics were a lot harder when the only flight paths could be other water. Aside from New York-London/New York-Paris, there really weren't any major flight paths where people would conceivably pay the higher required costs.

If suddenly every current airport were opened to supersonic flights, then the economics become quite a bit easier to manager since there are tons of places in general (not just limited to destinations near ocean-crossing flight paths I mean) where the traffic may well see folks willing to pay for supersonic flights if they could.

40

RoninRobot t1_itjblk1 wrote

It’s been hypothesized that dive bombers surpassed the barrier before 1944 in vertical flight. Not that many or any survived the accomplishment. If we’re picking nits.

1

cadillacbee t1_itjvmb0 wrote

Well that's no fun...unless they apply it to my farts...

−6

nmesunimportnt t1_itk9jrd wrote

Despite the glowing optimism of this story, I’ve been hearing this promise for nearly as long as I’ve been hearing about fully self-driving cars. Not sure which one will arrive first, but “soon” sounds like Elon Musk runs this project…

−4

tickettoride98 t1_itkad8l wrote

I find it very short-sighted that stuff like this is only concerned with human's perception and not the rest of the biosphere. How would the noise of regular flights affect animals and insects? Some animals have far more sensitive hearing than we do, and sound is energy, so a sonic shockwave is transferring energy to all those tiny bugs in a way that nature has ever had (on a regular basis) which cannot be good for their delicate structure.

Yet all we ever check is how humans feel about it. Meanwhile wildlife populations are down 69% since 1970 and insect populations are down 75% in 25 years. But hey, faster air travel!

−3

[deleted] t1_itkaupz wrote

Guile is having an existential crisis.

2

MyNameIsDaveToo t1_itl3gr4 wrote

I'm guessing this results in even higher CO2 emissions per passenger...

2

MpVpRb t1_itlse19 wrote

Fluff piece containing little actual information

3

PlanetLandon t1_itm07si wrote

I started working on a novella years ago (but abandoned it) that had something similar. It was the distant future and humanity had colonized a dozen other worlds, so Earth was essentially turned into a giant nature preserve to allow the planet to heal. It was illegal for any human to land on the surface.

2

tickettoride98 t1_itmnrls wrote

My point was we're horrible at predicting the consequences of our own actions yet we're prepared to introduce constant low-grade sonic thumps as long as humans consider them tolerable. Seems like another great recipe for finding out in 20 years that constant low-grade sonic thumps really screw with other animals. See sonar and whales.

1

tickettoride98 t1_itmoib7 wrote

The Atlantic - Is Noise Pollution Making Desert Bugs Disappear?

> Some bug groups did not show much difference in abundance regardless of the overall noise level or the presence of a compressor. But others had dramatic changes. There were 24-percent fewer grasshoppers in compressor plots, 52-percent fewer froghoppers, and a whopping 95-percent fewer cave, camel, and spider crickets. The louder the plot was, regardless of the presence or absence of a compressor, the fewer velvet ants and wolf spiders there were.

2

alehel t1_itmp8oo wrote

I didn't even know it was physically possible.

1

strcrssd t1_ito23re wrote

Right, but there are consequences for not taking risks and advancing the state of the art as well. There are consequences for every action and inaction. If you want to be upset about the environment, take a look at that we're still using and aerosolizing lead in aviation engines. Look at the impacts associated with burning, rapidly, every fossil fuel we can find and allowing corporations to capture the government to continue, today, to subsidize fossil fuel resource extraction. After we know what fossil fuels are actually doing.

0

strcrssd t1_ito3t70 wrote

Yes, though jet fuel has a sustainable, carbon neutral alternative. If/when they can get the cost down, air travel is one of the few places that burning fossil fuels makes sense. The energy density of jet fuel is just too good. Batteries are too heavy, hydrogen is basically impossible to store.

Carbon capture can handle some CO2, but the wanton waste that characterized the 20th century is unsustainable.

1