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.

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Whose going to be able to afford this? Air fare is already expensive.

    Also, why is NASA doing this with tax dollars?

    Is this stupid or am I stupid and missing something obvious?

    • gammasfor@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’d hate to live in a world where just because something isn’t immediately useful it shouldn’t be researched.

      Being able to demonstrate the ability to suppress a sonic boom would be huge.

      • lntl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, there must be a reason to fund research. Then, publicly funded research must align with the public’s good.

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

        • zoe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

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

              • 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.

                • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

      • Gargleblaster@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • _MusicJunkie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

    • papertowels@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I imagine the same was asked when jet planes were first invented, now look at where we are.

      NASA is likely doing this with tax dollars because private industry has little reason to push forward research that does not yield an immediate ROI. Not yielding an immediate ROI is a very myopic driver of priorities.

      • lntl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the west, jet engines were developed to kill fascists and communists. The ROI was good.

        I don’t see the parallel

          • Revan343@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They were in development in various countries simultaneously, Spain would have likely gotten there first if not for Franco. Germany did manage the first jet fighter and bomber though, with Britain not long after

          • lntl@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Everyone was developing them, more or less. The thing is, the enemy doesn’t usually share their tech with you so you’ve got to develop programs independently.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Are you claiming that the idea of the jet engine, prototyping, and finalization of the jet engine was entirely sparked by what you’re referring to? I would argue that there’s a long line of research leading up to what you’re referring to that would’ve resulted in the questions you’re asking.

          • lntl@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I am. Although the concept of a jet engine was known about for a long time it was only prototyped and finalized for the war effort. Since the Germans knew they were going to war first, they had a head start and finished first.

            Everyone else launched reactionary programs. The goal of America’s program was to kill fascists, but they didn’t finish before the war’s end. Afterwards they pivoted to communists.

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Nevermind the increasingly feasible steps between the Egyptians and the folks of WW2, I imagine even the Egyptians had some naysayers commenting on the lack of practicality for the little spinning ball. Where was the ROI there?

                  What would’ve happened if whoever invented precursors, at any stage, of modern jets listened to naysayers whose main argument was “the common man cannot afford this”?

                  • lntl@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I understand what your trying to say, I just don’t think it’s true. The capitalist class came up with the intermediate steps, for profit, during the industrial revolution.

      • lntl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        And take a look around. Maybe they shouldn’t have the reigns.

    • Chapo_is_Red [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This way NASA can get 95% of the way with research/design then they can sell it cheaply to a chosen private sector firm who can make all the money.

      Which firm? I’d pay attention to where memebers of Congress are investing

      • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think NASA sells their research, pretty much anyone can take it and make their own variant. So it’ll probably be an aviation startup that will try to run it like a tech company, collect a billion dollars and deliver vaporware (or if we’re lucky, something extremely dangerous like the oceangate sub) before eventually going bankrupt.

    • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      NASA does a lot of aviation experiments actually. They’re not making an airliner, they’re just making a test vehicle to learn how to reduce sonic boom noise.

    • zephyreks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the only way to remain competitive when the US’ largest rivals are able to tap state funding for research.

      You don’t see the military applications of large-scale supersonic flight?

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then it goes from “waste of money” to “actively bad”. God knows the last thing the US needs are new technologies with “military applications”

    • YⓄ乙 @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is not for regulars doing 9-5 jobs. Its for the elite class , not for peasants.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure one of the A is for aeronautic - it’s kinda what they do, the n is for naughty tho so maybe that’s why?