this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
216 points (97.4% liked)

science

14577 readers
73 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In launch event on Friday, agency shared plans to test over US cities to see if it’s quiet enough by engaging ‘the people below’

Nasa has unveiled a one-of-a-kind quiet supersonic aircraft as part of the US space agency’s mission to make commercial supersonic flight possible.

In a joint ceremony with Lockheed Martin Skunk Works in Palmdale, California, on Friday, Nasa revealed the X-59, an experimental aircraft that is expected to fly at 1.4 times the speed of sound – or 925mph (1,488 km/h).

The aircraft, which stands at 99.7ft (30.4 metres) long and 29.5ft wide, has a thin, tapered nose that comprises nearly a third of the aircraft’s full length – a feature designed to disperse shock waves that would typically surround supersonic aircraft and result in sonic booms.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Pierce said the X-59’s job would be to “collect data from the people below, determine if that sonic thump is acceptable and then turn the data over to US and international regulatory authorities in hopes to then lift that ban”.

Why can’t commercial airlines fund the project, then? Why is NASA investing public money to deregulate private industry?

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 41 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Huh? NASA is providing thought leadership to expand the possibilities of human travel, but has no interest in running a commercial airline.

Many technologies you use every day started as NASA research

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee -4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why are tax dollars going to something that will only benefit a small percentage of people and will cause relatively bad environmental damage.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Are you aware what NASA stands for?

I personally am happy some of my tax dollars go towards advancing science.

The reason we have issues in society...homeless people, lack of universal healthcare, etc is not because we find NASA, it's via mismanagement of the funds we have, and bad politics, etc. None of which are NASAs fault or purpose.

NASA does a huge amount of environmental research as well. But part of their team focuses on experimental flight, and this is a product of that.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

I'm happy to fund science too, but this isn't the time to develop even more fuel-intensive commercial travel options.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Nasa is always researching supersonic/hypersonic travel, that's what a space agency does.

It would be hard to list ALL of the ways that research benefits you.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

Yeah but it doesn't usually research how to make commercials transportation way less fuel efficient.

"The New York Times looked at the same comparison in the late 1970s when rising fuel prices were causing major difficulties for Concorde. It concluded that Concorde used four times the amount of fuel of the 747, based on a New York to Paris flight. These comparisons are even worse when looking on a per passenger basis – Concorde, of course, only took 100 passengers, compared to well over 400 on the 747-400." source

Planes are already a bad source of pollution, this makes it 8 times worse. Awful.

[–] DistractedDev@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago

The first A in NASA is aeronautics. They just do the science. I would say deregulation is a fairly strong word here. It's more like they'd be updating the laws to reflect modern tech.

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)

This is literally how every expensive R&D project gets done. Private companies won't dump this kind of money into good R&D, but the government will because they don't care about ROI.

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Except this ignores the existence of bell labs, you know the private R&D lab with ten Nobel prizes and a laundry list of inventions that quite literally shaped our modern world.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Deregulate is not the same as engineering a solution to solve the problem that was previously solved by regulations.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

The assumption that all regulations are good now, and in perpetuity, is the issue here. Deregulation of shite or outdated regs is a good thing ffs.

It's insane to me that the word seems so opaque to people.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

This is probably defense spending, tbh.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

American is a Socialist country for those wealthy enough.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is outsourced to Lockheed Martin so it's basically just using Nasa to fund the military even more. There is nothing commercially interesting about this. It's all military planes.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Well, this might be missile research.