Exclusive look at NASA's low-boom supersonic plane
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2021
- NASA and Lockheed Martin have reinvented aviation with the X-59 low-boom supersonic aircraft. And when it flies, they're hoping you won't even notice it.
Read the full story on CNET: www.cnet.com/news/nasa-lockhe...
Subscribe to CNET: / cnettv
Like us on Facebook: / cnet
Follow us on Twitter: / cnet
Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/2icCYYm
Follow us on TikTok: vm.tiktok.com/ZMd2h6yac/ - Наука та технологія
I'm sad I never got to fly on Concorde (the '70s fashion in those ads was 😚👌) but I would definitely want to fly on a supersonic jet! But would it be worth the ticket price?
Same here. If you ever go to Toulouse, France I highly recommend going to the museum there to see them in real life. I was super excited to see one in real life.
Airplane 547 mph
Speed of sound 761 mph
Do the math
I’ve been on Concorde (pre wheelchair ) but never flown on it sadly. This is the Cyrano De Bergerac of planes it looks intriguing but I’d fly on it if I had the money
As a passenger, you would not notice any difference between sub or supersonic flight. That said, you'd definitely notice arriving many hours earlier than your friends who took the normal fight 😁
Wouldn’t it be like $750-$800 usd per person?
X-59 story begins at 3:29.
Thank you!
Thank you
Appreciate you!
Thank you captain! Fly away now!!
CNET just isn’t what it used to be.. as a matter of fact it wasn’t much more than advertising
Isn’t “Breakfast in Paris dinner in New York” already possible?
More like breakfast in Paris second breakfast in New York.
Just checked that for fun. Paris is six hours ahead of New York so if you have breakfast at 8 AM and take off for the eight hours and twenty minute flight at 9 AM you will arrive in New York at 11.20 AM
By the time you have cleared NY immigration it'll be time for bed :-)
but will there be forthmeal
What about elevenses?
@@AnthonyHigham6414001080
Don't you mean PM?
@@marrqi7wini54 No, try the numbers on a clock face. Slightly surprised me.
Of interest, if Concorde was still flying you'd arrive, with a 9 AM departure from Paris, at 06:30 AM in New York.
Paris to NY was 3:30, dam that aircraft was fast.
I'd love to fly from LA to NY in a fraction of the time but I'd settle for just getting some legroom back.
Everyone would have to sit single file, and it sounds like longer is better for the sound issue.
@@layton3503 They'll find a way to make it worse, like your thighs will have to bend behind your torso and your calves will have to point upwards. I swear they purposely make the seats as uncomfortable as lecture hall seats at my old (VERY OLD) college.
@@boedillard8807 Trying being 6'3" or even taller.. Even in buisness class I have to sit either sideways or with my knees up on the back of the seat ... and even then it feels like my kneecaps are going to pop out. My last flight from Seattle to Charlotte was 8 hours of wishing I had sprung for first class and not hated every moment both ways because I had someone who constantly was flopping about in their seat hammering my poor knees.
No way, people are already complaining about the emissions from planes, adding room will reduce capacity and increase emissions
You do get that for a plane to go super sonic.
If they left the east coast, at super sonic.
They would over shoot the west coast.
That why we built the Concord to bend in half.
Cost, 850 million with 350 million more.
Concorde was a collaboration between BAC and Aerospatiale. British Airways and Air France were the customers.
I was listening to that thinking 'is this poor research or just dumbed down for the masses' in I reckon its the latter
French taxpayers
Also "Early days of aviation" - power flight had been around for 39 years by the time Yeager and his inanimate carbon rod broke the sound barrier. We fought two world wars with planes by then.
Also, she literally interviews CNET's aviation reporter...why didn't he do the video?
@@daleyoung5200 I reckon it is the first, there is no research here, it is essentially an advertisement, and it proves the point of the suspicious quality of NASA's work.
Its amazing how we went to the moon in 1969 and commercial supersonic in 1973....... and stopped. Its 2021 and we are doing it the right way now! We proved it was possible, now we are making it practical and actually safer.
Might be because we went from 1 to 42 in literacy..and UA-camrs can't build planes.
Would seem unlikely that you could translate those proportions to scale . Even a bizjet would be so ungainly as to be impractical.
I flew Concorde one-way (using miles) and it was the experience of a lifetime. We took off like a rocket ship going 250mph down the runway (average speed is 160-180mph) climbing at 24,000ft per minute. Broke the first sound barrier around 1:25 and continued to increase both altitude and speed eventually reaching 58,000ft and 1350mph at 2.0. I saw the black of space out the window, two sunsets, had champagne, caviar, cheese, lobster and more champagne, and we arrived before we left... Paris to NYC in 3.5hrs. I'd do it again tomorrow, an experience I'll never have again. Amazing!!
The future is looking bright 🌞 ✨️
Awesomeness! What was your departure time? (if remembered)
@@bar9501 We left Paris at 6:30pm if I remember correctly. I'd need to find my tkt receipt to be certain.
More importantly, is this plane going to be included in the next Flight Simulator 2025?! :P
Yes, only for the low price of 79,99
Pretty sure that the sim they are using in this video is x plane 11
No, that would cause a fps-boom.
This man asking the real questions
"... soon anyone could travel at super Sonic speeds" only then to cite the enormous ticket prices. 😯
prices will come down
I think people consider time more precious than small money saving. It will be expensive at first , but for someone who needs to get somewhere across continents in less time less time spent is more important
@@abinjosephkk8611 that was exactly concorde's selling point
@@abinjosephkk8611 that's a failure in time-management skills. The industry has been moving more towards luxurious accommodations over any subsequent speed gains via arrival times.
@@OriginalBernieBro I know, right? It's so dumb. If you want to travel across continents, you have high-speed, pretty much instant communication, to communicate and plan your trip. I don't care how much money I have, unless I have billions, spending $15,000 to go to Europe when I could spend $1,500 or less on a very luxurious and comfortable flight that gives me a lot of hours to just relax before I get there is much better.
I see very little use for supersonic flight, and the uses I see are very very specific.
If this is what is public information, I can't imagine what is classified.
Basically this but unpiloted and with weapons. As a backup for hyper sonic missiles.
CCP: quick download this video, we will build one in 2022!!!
Probably X-59s but capable of going underwater and to space 😂
Well they cloned Dolly the sheep almost thirty years ago so it's probably unimaginable
Placement of the passenger sit 😎
You know the way Lockheed is building the X-59 is actually really cool. When I interned there I literally worked in the construction are for it. They had the plane split into 3 parts. The front middle and back. They had them separated so that they could work on each piece separately. Then when finished with everything they would just pull the pieces together and secure them. It was really cool watching the engineers work on the plane and literally seeing the 3D models of the plane being worked on. And learning the challenges that these great engineers had to deal with!
What you described is essentially how we speed up the production process and make the construction of the aircraft stronger and longer lasting for a fraction of the time and cost.
That's so cool
Great piece of journalism.
Yeah, right? I really liked that objective rock music! And the part where they criticized that only rich people were and will be able to fly supersonic even though the development is funded with public funding/tax money!
Oh, wait... they didn't criticize that?
How convenient.
They also didn't talk about the fact that supersonic planes are less safe during landing and take off or that they create way more pollution.
Smarter Every Day, huh?
I thought you were a critical thinker. Yet you failed to recognize that this video does not contain ANY critique or critical thinking at all. Now... maybe... just go back to playing with your baseball cap for 5-year-olds.
it's huge for just one person,so how long would it be for 100 passengers.
@@none--other and yeay high
Scale it up, and passengers can sit in the long part.
By the time you get to your seat, you're nearly there.
This is about lifting a law, so that the super rich can have even more fun...
6
The only sonic boom I’ll be hearing would be coming from my heart
lol True
Damn u ok? :(
Or vehicles passing on the bridge under which we'll all sleep, sooner or later in this "leading democracy".
@@lesterryanmd huh?
on the reduction from 105 decibel to 75 decibel; it is a huge reduction.
the decibel is a very strange unit, when the decibels go up (or down) by 3 points the sound power is multiplied by 2 (or divided by 2 respectively).
from 105 to 75 is 30 decibel, the sound will be divided by 2 10 times in a row.
in other words the "boom" of the x59 will be ~ 5% of that of the "concorde" (not 5% less, just 5%)
THANK YOU!
Some people don't understand the decibel scale. The sound reduction achieved here (if successful) is MASSIVELY quieter than what the Concorde produced.
Kinda odd they're comparing a 200 foot long passenger plane to a 90 something foot long 1 person plane
I mean it's kind of hard NOT to create a sonic boom as it's caused by compression on the leading edge of the wing.. So even a flying dart with tiny wings is still going to cause a sonic boom just less of one.
@@SilvaDreams ? Was that a response to my comment? Or just an additional comment
Did you watch the video? it clearly explains what this vehicles purpose is, the comparison is unavoidable
Let’s scale this plane up to fly 100 people lmao
It's not just the noise level. It's also the fuel economy - going supersonic also accelerates fuel consumption at supersonic level.
I hope the jet engine efficiency upgrades also match the noise reduction improvements. Otherwise, this will only be applicable to those who can afford $15000 per ticket - which, to me, is nonsense.
They won't. Pointless millions of dollars spent so rich people can fly faster.... cool. Good job NASA, really taking the world's problems head on there
it makes sense for businessmen, though; time IS money, especially when dealing with lots of it. In catering to businesses eventually technology will be developed to then cater to the masses, as they have that firm economic base to work with, enabling expansion.
@@PlaySA Exactly, this only applies to the ultra rich who want to jet around faster. Economy class is all about fuel per passenger which supersonic will never be able to address no matter how "efficient". Unless a totally different method of flight is invented, most of us won't be going much faster any time soon. It's essentially just Concorde 2.0 (and also why they only really care about the sonic boom since that's not letting them fly exactly where they want to)
If I am correct, at supersonic speeds a thin slow moving layer of air forms around the plane reducing drag and fuel consumption. It is the afterburnes that consume the most fuel. If the engineers can make a supercruising jet which can go supersonic without using the afterburnes the average fuel consumption is reduced. The layer of air forming around the fuselage on the blackbird was a problem for the engines and it would reduce the thrust. The issue was fixed during development. The F-22 Raptor can supercruise at mach 1,2-1,5.
No it’s mostly the sound. Fuel economy does make things more expensive, but rich people would pay for it. The problem with supersonic jets is most places you couldn’t even fly to because they wouldn’t let you due to noise.
Cheers to all the engineers who unlock their creative spirit to bring us such technological marvels that advance the human race one leap at a time. Bravo!
Too bad it crashed in France, killing 109 souls on-board Concorde, and 4 people on the ground.
None of the engineers & technical experts thought to harden the engine cover to prevent metal debris penetrating into it (like it did on the runway in France causing the crash), or, to prevent blades breaking & piercing thru the engine casing, damaging fuel tanks, the cabin or the other engines! That's why the Concorde shut down.
@@davids1inwestholl45 heinsight herold
Commercial planes of that type are going to be long AF :D epic designs incoming
A commercial plane needs a lot of system redundancies in order to be safe, like 2 or more pilots, and be able to land in case something fails. Since the plane has that front camera and screen instead of a window, if it fails that would make it extremely hard to land it safetly.
This doesn't mean it will not he adapted for commercial planes but it's quite unlikely (also consider factors like passenger comfort, passenger cargo, engine efficiency, etc.).
there is a specific reason to why it is long not because of the sonic boom but something more fundamental, also I agree there will be epic designs.
Even 2x wasn't fast enough for this video
I used the skip button.
Agree
Agreed. CNET manage to make a potentially interesting subject unwatchable.
This is pretty cool stuff! And, I'm happy that the industry as a whole might be getting an overhaul in 8 years. Pretty exciting!!!
My great Aunt & Uncle flew on the Concorde a couple of times in their younger years and still talked about it all the time until the passed away in their 90’s!
It made a lifetime impression!
Awesome works!!! Looking forward to seeing the FF soon.
If you've never heard a sonic boom in person, it's impressive. I lived near a military installation (in the US) during the Vietnam war. The jet jockeys in their training flights, maybe once every 2 weeks, got a little hot. I've watched windows cracking while sitting in a house. Nobody I knew ever got hysterical over it. It was just "part of the deal" that came with living near such an installation.
For anyone who has lived in the midwest, you have heard thunder. Not so different. Having lived overseas where complaints from finicky suburbanite publics are not taken so seriously, we just get used to it.
I hear them weekly multiple times because Lockheed skunkworks is right down the street along with nasa. I’m Palmdale ca and they fly the b-2 from Northrop flying around sometimes too and that is fun to watch
I love how everyone thinks this is for civil applications.
What else for? Military wouldn't have much use from it. Maybe for these fancy hypersonic cruise missiles.
The civilian sector on the other hand has a lot to gain. And with Boeing starting to clearly lag behind in the passenger jet market, I wouldn't be surprised to see a supersonic Boeing 808 in this decade.
Bruh dude, it'll present more problems for the military than it solves. With the kind of shape it has, it's not gonna be very stealthy, very maneuverable or carry a lot of weapons
I mean honestly their end goal should be for travel? Why else would they care about changing the shape of the boom. The Concord people got tired of it being loud AF. It seems they are trying to solve this issue with a working model.
Surveillance
@@chino3796 Satellites are better in every single way at that.
The Concorde noise problem wasn't limited to the sonic boom - the jet engines were extremely loud also. I witnessed one taking off from the Phoenix airport while standing near the runway in the mid '80's, and it was the loudest thing I've every heard. The exception might be standing near the speakers at a rock concert.
That was due to the afterburners/reheats, engine design, and quantity of engines. Those four engines were massive turbojets designed for a bomber without noise considered. A modern SST would use 3 or less non afterburning turbofans designed for low noise.
@@BrapBrapDorito Modern SSTs are more than likely only going to require two engines. Considering we can make jet engines capable of producing over 40,000lbs of thrust without the reheats, i'm sure we can make an engine doing 35,000lbs of thrust dry and 45,000 to 50,000lbs wet. Oh, wait. I just described the F135 turbofans.
@@Optimaloptimus Wierdly enough, the closest one to production (the boom overture) has switched to a quad engine design citing cheaper engines, easier maintenance, and quieter engines (probably due to their lower thrust setting needed with more engines) I guess the reason large SSTs seemingly don’t use less than 3 engines is because to make twin engines generate that much thrust and be efficient at supersonic speeds, they would have to be massively loud as a medium bypass is the reasonable limit for supersonic travel, meaning the core would be absolutely enormous. Remember these things need to carry 60+ passengers very comfortably while generating enough thrust to push a jumbo jet along because of the force needed for transonic acceleration.
@@BrapBrapDorito Actually the design of the engines is less of a priority compared to the fuselage. The better you design the body itself, the less thrust you will actually need to get the body to go through the transonic and supersonic range. Which is the exact reason the Concorde was a delta winged aircraft since deltas are good at subsonic, transonic, and supersonic, they could even be good at hypersonic if you want to include that. The Concorde for 34,000lbs of thrust on reheat, it was still capable of Mach 2 flight. That's very good in terms of aircraft design. The real challenge is making the engines quieter. And honestly. We have both the research and the technology to achieve that in at least two short years. The military doesn't care about noise, especially since it's extremely good as a weapon. But commercially we have found ways of defeaning the sounds of the engine tenfold. The 787s for example have far less insulation and sound deafening materials than you would normally need in past aircraft from the 1990s all because the sound from the engines themselves were reduced by more than half, a flight on the 787 is almost silent, you couldn't hear the engines. For that reason, we could lower cost of the plane and increase revenue thanks to the decrease in weight and less maintenance requirements. To make it simple, your argument does not exist, it's already been answered. Also, Boom supersonic's overture is essentially just giving us a second Concorde with all the drawbacks minus maintenance. In my opinion the Overture will not last until they completely redesign it into something more akin to an X-59. Afterall, the size of the F-5/T-38 engines didn't matter considering how deafeningly loud those lil J85s are.
@@Optimaloptimus You are mostly correct, especially about the wings. (which is why the new overture design uses a clipped gullwing delta). However on the subject of the overture, the engines were a large part of the Concorde’s failure (the Concorde was banned from many airports for its sheer noise level, and it was designed to fly supersonic over lane and sea while the overture is designed to be supersonic purely overseas) the issue comes down to the fact the Concorde could be extremely optimized because of low fuel costs and the interior being average at best. The overture has to contend with extremely high fuel costs and the interior must be very luxurious now to satisfy customers high ticket prices. This means aircraft weight will be substantially higher, and engine thrust levels must be lower than on many aircraft as to reduce noise. Which ultimately brings us back to a quad engine design, which can (in theory) deliver more thrust and less noise than a comparable twin and trijet, while making manufacturing far easier as the engines aren’t as stressed overall. See, the concorde was designed to be an all around jet that was never designed to make a substantial profit as it was more of a government program to show off the capabilities of a few countries. The overture is essentially following the only way the concorde was successful/profitable in its later years, operating long haul routes at insane speeds for high prices, but with the advantage of easier maintenance and not being restricted to extremely few niche airports.
14:15 “Am I excited? You betcha!” That smile says it all. 😜
I flew the concord in the 86. France to Washington. Then slowly to Austin Tx on a regular flight that took longer than the concord. We were at the edge of space. 32 miles per second. Two sonic booms. I sat up front where a display of instruments were displayed. First class Super sonic service drinking champagne and more. A fantastic experience at the age of 36. Look forward to the success of new plane
32 miles per second? Thats mach 155. Thats greater than the solar system’s escape velocity lol
I hear the project, has been postponed
I was making paper airplanes like this growing up that flew like arrows and faster and farther than any other paper plane. Crazy we are finally to the point we are making jets the same way..
It may not be on the same level, but rc pilots do experience that first flight feeling often, especially the FPV ones.
FPV is unlike any other method of flight, and I can do it from the safety of the ground, but my brain forgets it's on the ground and truly feels like flying
warms my heart to see a new X-plane
I could listen to her reports constantly what a beautiful voice
Hi
Hi go good things and science. And go good machines.
And go A groups and go good groups and Department s.
Go good Library's and volumes.
And go Kodak's and good video groups. And go good things and work grouos and tv groups and films.
And go Safe things and smart things.
Mr. Branch & Assoc
Go good things and smart things and go Intelligent things.
And go good times. And go good hobbys and go Great. And go sciences.
And go a group s and A flight groups.
@@derriusbranch8620 ???
She's pretty easy on the eyes too!
It's breathtaking how far we have come in technology and science to be able to do something like this .
Except the British and French did it 52 years ago without computers.
@@AnthonyHigham6414001080 flew supersonic speed with almost non boom??
@@AnthonyHigham6414001080 I mean, if you're just talking about supersonic flights, the US military did it 74 years ago with even less technology... And the Soviets had the first supersonic transport flight 52 years ago.
The Concorde's first successful transatlantic flight in late 1973 (48 years ago), followed by entering regular service in 1976 (45 years ago).
@@AnthonyHigham6414001080 Also, did those British/French Concordes have the ability to fly supersonic speeds with next to no sonic boom, registering under 75 decibels? Just the takeoff of the Concorde could hit up to 120 decibels (with the sonic boom often much louder than just the decibel measurements, as tone/pitch can make things of lesser decibel measurements sound louder than higher ones).
Here's a quote from an article that discusses sonic boom decibels over land - "Since decibels are on a logarithmic scale, *a noise limit of 80 decibels, say, would allow supersonic jets overland that are roughly 100 times quieter than the Concorde.* It would sound about as loud as a lawn mower or motorcycle, and only last about half a second."
So, producing a brief, 75 decibel sonic boom over land would be exponentially quieter & less damaging than that which the Concorde produced.
I'd rather hear a sonic boom above my house than a bloody police helicopter! 😡
Fascinating. Ingenuity at its finest. Everything comes around. Limitations are possibilities . . .
Beautiful planes you are testing great video, thank you. From San Diego California.
Thanks for the great reporting and an awesome topic.
Hope there's a backup screen or two for that plane. Imagine if that went dark on you during flight?
As a child my father saw the hindenburg...whan I was small I saw the concord...my wish is that future generations will see this.
Saw this being transported from Phoenix heading West! What a sight to see 😍
Test Pilot, what a career... excited about testing out a very fast plane
😂😂😂
NASA has the best acronyms!
HECKA yea
they tend to make the acronym word up because it sounds cool, and decide on the meaning later 😂
@@airplanemode101 It seems like the case here.
Following the topic closely, this video fed my thirst for new news about the topic
thanks and wish them good progress
I live near Lockheed in La and this right here is going to be fun to see them test
The Concord was grounded because of a serious fatal accident killing 109 that reduced number of booked flights. They made money until then, contrary to your "report".
Cost of maintenance, and noise levels during landing and takeoff was certainly another reason.
Don’t forget file prices going up
Let’s not forget that beast GUZZLED fuel
Fule*
Douglas X-3 Stiletto (1952) vs. L/M X-59 (2021)
Incredible! Great job everyone!
Great info , nice look into Skunk Works facility . Is this inside a new building or vintage ?
Next step: phase cancelling a sonic boom and using the energy to make a worm hole
Thanks for using metrics in this video. 🙏🏾🙏🏾
Yes, because nautical miles are very metric...
I once was flying from Salt Lake City northward, and another commercial plane passed the one I was in, much closer than the mile or so which is the required separation distance. I'm sure it was closer than 1000 feet, maybe no more than 700 feet. If you add the 500+ mph speeds of the two planes, the other plane (a continental airlines plane) and the one I was on, were moving apart at over 1100 mph, something like mach 1.5. There was no audible noise, but the speed was breathtaking. The other plane was there, and then it was gone. I wasn't frightened, my only thought was, "How beautiful.". At low altitudes, on a supersonic aircraft, you might get a similar effect of blinding speed.
I love CFD! I'm currently writing a Master's Thesis using it. Awesome stuff!
It's going to be interesting to compare the X-59 to the Boom XB-1, which is a privately-funded test plane researching the same sonic boom reduction technololgies.
imagine the monitor malfunction
**IMAGINE** PLEASE COMPREHEND BEFORE COMMENTING DUH
It's probably built to a much higher standard than your mass manufactured, planned obsolescence integrated, cheapest possible component with highest possible markup composed commercial viewing device like a TV or monitor.
On top of that, it probably also has backups.
Can you guys understand *imagine? Of course there's always 0.1% of that happening but not 0.
You guys are kill joy
Even if that monitor was built in high standards it still not indestructible, everything man made is vulnerable.
you could probably use some precise lidar to measure deviations from design no?
I hear sonic booms weekly multiple times sometimes because Lockheed skunkworks is right down the street along with nasa. I’m Palmdale ca and they fly the b-2 from Northrop flying around sometimes too and that is fun to watch
It's a good start. I think it will take a while to produce a practical & affordable aircraft with the passenger capacity to be profitable. It's astonishing to realize how one regulation stifled decades of innovation.
3:28 Budget for the front gate sign : $3
I've been waiting for someone to cover this, great job! Can't wait for first flight!
I miss hearing those sonic booms. I heard them as a kid playing on the playground.
There's a certain country that has the Xerox ready. 🤔
Chyna
They Probably Already Built & Tested It
Which is a good thing otherwise US would stop innovating...................
X Plane 11 for the win!
Yeah! More planes! Exactly what we needed
Back in the seventies I think the reason for super sonic ban was the lack of a US built SST. Just to kill the European competition. After all, no one banned the SR71 flights at M3 over continental US at the time.
How is that everyone including NASA, see footage of some UAPs going extremely fast and performing unbelievable aerodynamic movements and were supposed to be excited for this?
One of those UAP videos was literally just a Canadian Goose flying, it's speed being exaggerated by the parallax effect.
Maybe these UAPs aren't actually aerial vehicles and instead are optical illusions like most of these videos turn out to be.
Because someday we might be able to fly on one of these… we’ll never get the chance to fly on UAP, unless we get abducted by one!
Don't be a sucker, every one of the videos that have come out lately have already been explained away/de-bunked. People like you are being preyed upon by the un-reputable to get clicks/views just because you "want to believe" and are willing to suspend your critical thinking abilities for that belief.
When actual astronomers/astrophysicists start talking about UAPs showing up on their instruments then we should take it seriously
Yoooo. They’re doing this at Skunk Works!!! That’s how you know it’s important 😳
Yes, a plane with that design will definitely be practical. /sarcasm
No, it's not important. It won't be even practical. The necessary shape will make it hard to maneuver around an airport.
Well technology needs to start somewhere
@@Wisewolf_of_Avalon
It's not practical and it won't be practical. It's just too long.
@@bobfg3130 Cute
@@momoreview5555
Alright. Scale it up and see what dimensions it will have. Compare that to passenger capacity.
Nice to know the noise control problem is being improved upon. Have to wonder if this also improves the situation in terms of heating and fuel efficiency?
100+Db to ~70Db is way bigger of a sound change than you think. Keep in mind that a 6Db increase feels like the volume of something DOUBLES
The decibel scale is logarithmic, so what seem like small changes in numbers can actually be pretty significant.
There was a great video on why concord failed and the main reason was just the fact that it isnt needed. Fly overnight in first class for a fraction of the price and get a good night sleep and wake up in a new country.
Well, if you could have the same thing but faster, you probably would get it if you could. It’s like with every high-end thing: you could get something way cheaper that would do the job or you could get something premium giving you extra. And people do buy these. I’m pretty sure billionaires would love a couple of hours of free time that those planes could get them
Could make the argument that 5G isn’t needed either. Or a new pair of fashionable pants.
For the very rich there is a market, and if they buy planes, it will make the next generation of planes and tickets cheaper and after 20 years it becomes ubiquitous.
@@MichaelSmith-by3te
Counting on mega millionaires and billionaires to be your business base is really stupid. People worth over 100m are less than 1% of 1% of the world population... Those with liquid assets of over 100m make-up less than 1/4% of the 1% of the 1%.
And most of those that rich already own their own jet(s).
So this is a real stupid way for NASA to spend R&D time and money.
NASA should use that money to invest in rockets and vehicles which can get us to Mars - something humanity has never accomplished. Not recreate the Concorde which was developed at the time of the last moon landing.
Maybe help Boeing with the new generation of 737's and 777's, and reexamine the 747-8's and 787's so they aren't flying death traps.
@@Mommyandtux
Well said. There probably is a small market for supersonic private jets but the technology will never trickle down to the common man so someone is getting NASA to pay for their research. Big Tech, big bribes.
I understand why this guy is emotional, I was never smart enough to work for the company ( and a bit lazy hehe ) but I always envied aerospace engineers
don't be. I worked on electronics in aerospace. design - 1 year. certification - 10 years.
Boeing ones or the real ones?
Trust me, you are definitely smart enough to work at Lockheed. You’d be amazed at some of the people they hire here 😂
They were doing sonic boom testing over the Texas coast
For those sad not to be able to fly the Concorde - or the soviet Tupolev - don't regret it too much. It was anything but a relaxed or pleasant flight by modern standards. Very cramped seats, not much headroom, plenty of noise and not much different feeling of speed. The good part, the food was pretty refined.
watch the US military add guns to this lmao
Imagine those cameras fail, can someone tell me how the pilot would be able to land the aircraft as they wont be able to see where they are going
My guess is that the cameras have triple redundancy. In addition, the pilot of a companion pacer aircraft could always talk the X plane pilot down. Not a major problem.
@@rodanderson8490 oh wow that's cool. Thank you for explaining ❤
NASA and Lockheed Martin! Classic unstoppable team!
not only the sound was the problem, but also the stretching of the plane body...at least that is what I heard
11:45, “ Nasa will test the public reaction if they are okay with the tiny boom” cool cool cool 😎
Nasa, bro, people’s houses next to the train shake as if an earth quick every single day bc of train noise 😂😂
Those of us in the quiet country aren't so forgiving. We moved out here for a reason! 75db sounds pretty good though.
@@Version135 you’re taking about the railroads if not mistaken?
The aircraft has to be flying saucer shaped to avoid the sonic boom 🛸
@Marcos Gonzalez that's a UFO joke, lighten up. You just love going around telling people they are wrong. You're so smart that you didn't get the joke.
Very very good article and video!! Kudos!!
Concord didn’t stop because of the sonic boom, the design was flawed which they discovered after the infamous incident on July 2000
Yeeesss!! I just was watching the video and going crazy! , your are right , and also the stupid reason they talked about so why they just didn't fly supersonic over the Atlantic and reduce speed before reaching the US ?!
Alternative title:
"Someone at NASA finally figured out how to make a paper aeroplane."
Pretty sure they said the same thing about the Concorde...
2.5 years later and they have unveiled the X-59 and now doing live tests over the population for feedback.
I hope they have a backup for the monitors, like an occular periscope system next to the bottom camera (for landings, of course), in case the monitors fail and they need to land via visuals.
That's what I thought. I'd hate for my life to depend on a good screen image.
Imagine forgetting to press the record button.
it will come down to two critical questions - how fast can it fly @ 75db, and how many people it can carry @ that speed.
I don't think either number is going to be impressive, and therefore I don't believe it can ever successfully commercialize.
If this lil plane does well, there might be an interest from the investors and government for the bigger thing. At least they're building something, not just making 3d models.
It's a test craft. They'll use what they learn from this to design a commercial plane.
Impressive as this is, surely it has even less commercial viability than the Concord
I'd love to fly the concorde in the future.
Also available with super stealthy "Quietly Retreat Humiliated from Bagram" Button
The last helicopter out of Saigon was better though.
USA never had a standing (full time professional) army until after WW2 and never lost a war. Since then USA hasn’t won one against any enemy of consequence. Better off without it, considering the expense?
How to speak Australian: replace the "er" with "a" :)
yeh nah
Example - koaler & kangerroo are spelt with an "a" to replace the "er".
I once asked an engineer if such an airplane is actually low boom or does it fly so high that by the time its sound reaches the ground, it is actually fairly quiet>?
That Skunk let's you know this plane built different.
How are they letting civilians in skunk works is beyond me 🤦🏻
russians are sure to be taking notes no?
@@elgracko Russians will strap a vodka booster to anything and call it a day
@@MohammedKhaled-ju7gy yah seriously heheh
If we talk, they kill us…
I flew Concord ! I doubt this plane will be used commercialy. The greenies will prevent it.
so we're not talking about the "is this safe" part. kewl
What's unsafe about it?
Looks like the beveled body is meant to redirect the boom to push up not split all around. It’s being channeled.
One of those reasons why i love NASA.
Other than population reduction?
The thump of my mum's slapping my cheeks (only sonic boom i have ever experince)💥
📸👮
4:11 it looks like transverse wave (like light) however sound is longitudinal wave like 4:15.
I was just thinking the same thing.. it looks like something from the 1950s like it came from the Valkyrie era.