NASA moves a step closer to supersonic passenger flights

deconstruct@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.ml – 393 points –
NASA moves a step closer to supersonic passenger flights | CNN
cnn.com

In July, Lockheed Martin completed the build of NASA’s X-59 test aircraft, which is designed to turn sonic booms into mere thumps, in the hope of making overland supersonic flight a possibility. Ground tests and a first test flight are planned for later in the year. NASA aims to have enough data to hand over to US regulators in 2027.

154

You are viewing a single comment

People fly first class, people fly businees class. Some have the money.

Also, for some, the time saved is worth much more than what the ticket costs, especially in business (expensive consultants?).

why is NASA doing this with tax dollars

The resulting aircraft/technology can be sold to commercial aviation and/or be used for military purposes

something obvious

NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, so it's kinda in scope

Sold at a loss?

taxpayer money is free, no there's no loss to begin with

Huh? What kinda question is that?

I know right? Of course it's sold at a loss, that's why NASA is paying Boeing to do the research.

Can't have Boeing waste money on R&D, that would hurt their shareholders.

How would you know? It hasn't been sold yet.

If NASA was a profitable enterprise, it wouldn't require external funding, and Lockheed and co would be doing that research themselves to keep that profit for themselves.

NASA isn't like CNSA or Roscosmos in that they don't make their own rockets. It exists first and foremost to funnel money to aerospace contractors by either directly contracting with them or providing R&D in cases where cost/risk is greater than expected profit.

A similar relationship exists with publicly funded universities selling patents to pharma.

The fact that it's not profitable overall doesn't mean there can never be any profit from anything.

Just because a river flows south doesn't mean you couldn't find an eddy in the currents that flows north for a few seconds.

But the water still has nowhere to flow but south. If the cost was less than expected return, these companies would do this research internally. Even if for just one moment, one tiny aspect of the program did make a profit, it wouldn't change the nature of the system.

But we're not talking about the nature of the system here, we're talking about this specific instance.

And I don't agree they'd necessarily do it internally, sometimes talent is the biggest blocker, not money. They can contract out a team of highly qualified engineers from NASA for a project here and there, when they need it. Hiring people is extremely expensive and having those people do nothing between projects is even more so.

we're not talking about the nature of the system here, we're talking about this specific instance.

If I buy a million lotto tickets that have a 50% payout, it would be incomplete if not deceptive to point at one ticket and say "Well you might win 100 bucks, we don't really know" instead of "the reason they're selling you those tickets is because the risk and expense is greater than the payout."

Hiring people is extremely expensive and having those people do nothing between projects is even more so.

That's still an example of NASA eating an expense of R&D while Lockheed gets the profits.

The resulting aircraft/technology can be sold to commercial aviation and/or be used for military purposes

That is what companies like Boeing and Lockheed are for.

NASA has no business making airplanes for rich passengers.

Concorde wasn't profitable in the long run. Nowadays with video conferencing, even less people need to show up to a transatlantic business meeting.

Unlikely this makes financial sense.

Great it's cool research though and should continue, if you want to bitch about wasted taxes go comment on military threads and comment there where billions are wasted on shit contracts that never materialize due to incompetent base mangers who can't distinguish vapor ware proposals from real tech. Don't bitch about scientific research that's just fucking dumb.

A commercial passenger plane should not be the subject of government research.

The science behind minimizing a sonic boom is not just applicable to commercial planes, ffs stop trying to kill science and research fucking idoits.

Chill mate I'm not even from the US. There still is no practical use for this.

Yeah but that was decades ago.

Without the boom, these planes can fly possibly more profitable routes, for example, drawing parallels is hard with such a time-distance