NASA's X-59 plane is aiming for a sonic thump, not a boom

Sitting in the hangar of Lockheed Martin's famous Palmdale, California Skunk Works facility is one of the oddest aircraft ever to take shape: the X-59 that's looking to revive supersonic travel over land. The X-59 is a very strange looking bird. It's 99.7 ft (30.4 m) long with a 29.5 ft (9 m) delta-style wingspan – but the …

[martinusher]

Thump, not Boom, was what Concorde sounded like

I worked in Cornwall, on the Lizard, during the early 80s when Concorde flyovers were common. The sonic boom was more of a muted 'thump', sounding more like a neighbor careless unloading a bunch of material from a truck. It was nothing like the loud double bang we'd get from the Space Shuttle landing at Edwards AFB -- this was loud and sounded (and felt) like a small earthquake.

I'd expect this test plane to be hardly noticeable -- its needle nose is faintly reminiscent of Concorde while the Shuttle was never much more than a flying brick.

[herman]

Re: Thump, not Boom, was what Concorde sounded like

A Concorde flew over me once, but it wasn’t supersonic, unfortunately. It sure was a nice looking plane.

[TeeCee]

Re: Thump, not Boom, was what Concorde sounded like

I found myself underneath one when it was at high angle of attack on final to land, while I was sat in an MGB with the top down.

Once it got to about a mile ahead of me, I got pressed into the seat by the confined sheet of air producing the additional lift effect off that ogee wing. Very impressive bit of work that, making it produce waaaayyyyy more lift when it's most needed without resorting to variable geometry, like everyone else did.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Thump, not Boom, was what Concorde sounded like

I think I've posted this before, but I was once walking across the end of the Filton runway (the airfield at the BAC site where the UK Concordes were built) when one was taking off - it took off over my head and I had a view straight into the four Olympus engines on afterburner I'll never forget. Far enough away for safety but it was noisy - more felt in my chest than through my ears...

I think I saw all the UK production models take off on their maiden flight (only as far as Fairford); the one mentioned above was well past that and had been back for engineering checks. I occasionally visited the Brabazon hanger where they were assembled, though my only real work on them related to final development of the Oly 593 LP compressor blades. My main work was on an upcoming RAF fighter/bomber (since retired from successful service - which makes me feel old)!

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: Thump, not Boom, was what Concorde sounded like

Highly doubt the Concorde was anywhere near super sonic anywhere near Cornwell. They wouldnt be powering up until they had left any view of land, and that takes time.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Thump, not Boom, was what Concorde sounded like

The only time I heard a Concorde boom was in a yacht off the Bristol channel, more or less north of Land's End. We all looked round for a naval ship firing its guns until the penny dropped.

And while I am reminiscing, I was once in the jump seat of a British Midland 737 waiting for an winter evening takeoff at Heathrow at exactly the right spot to see the evening Concorde to New York take off just in front of us, with afterburners. Since it was dark, the sight was ... spectacular.

[ICL1900-G3]

Re: Thump, not Boom, was what Concorde sounded like

I live in Cornwall too... supersonic or not, I can vouch for those 'thumps'.

[Stephen Wilkinson]

Re: Thump, not Boom, was what Concorde sounded like

I lived near the coast in North Devon and we were on the flight path of Concorde, always loved hearing the sonic boom.

[EricM]

I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Size:

This is a demonstrator, comparable to F16/F18, a 1-Pilot aircraft.

If you scale this design up to a 100 seat airliner (comparable to the Concorde), a lot of probably non-linear effects will determine the energy of the resulting sonic boom - which then might or might not be Concorde-sized.

Sound:

Even if they achieve a 30-50% reduction in energy carried by the shock wave, it's still a shock wave. Looking at FR24, continental US, Europe and parts of Asia have already such a dense coverage of overflights ( which you mostly do not hear at all today) that even reduced shock waves every few minutes would probably be pretty hard to tolerate.

Energy consumption:

Sub-sonic air travel today is energy-intensive as hell already. Raising speeds to supersonic will raise the energy usage and CO2 emitted to fly the same route from A to B by a hefty margin.

Given the realities of air travel: Why?

Why reducing a 4 hr flight (take-off to touch-down) by 1 hr, if traveling to the airport, waiting for security screening, waiting for boarding, boarding itself, off-boarding, waiting for luggage, traveling from the airport ... already take the better part of a day anyway?

[mostly average]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

These days, why travel at all? Telecommunications exists, it's cheaper, faster, and cleaner (assuming you're wearing clothes under the desk). Supersonic travel will probably exist only for the Charismatic Leaders to attend climate summits at luxury resorts or to lecture the peasants in person about their carbon footprints. After all, the luxuries of the few greatly outweigh the needs of the many.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Supersonic travel will probably exist only for the Charismatic Leaders to attend climate summits at luxury resorts or to lecture the peasants in person about their carbon footprints.

See also-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/28/net-zero-civil-servants-rack-three-million-air-miles-year/

Staff at DESNZ took 1,130 flights between Jan and September. Then there was the recent jolly in Baku attended by around 60,000 people dedicated to extorting $300bn a year to give to the UN's new version of their oh so fraud-ridden oil for food program.

But presumably if this aircraft can be scaled up, a high speed, low drag aircraft might be more fuel efficient thanks to its aerodynamics. Would be interesting to see CO2e per 1,000km compared to current airliiners.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

I agree 100% with your comment but you fail to appreciate the audience for concorde and business class.

Its all leadership, they need these stupid things to pretend they are important and too validate how valuable they are.

If eliminate travel, there goes their hookers and expensive hotels just so they can pretend they negotiated something.

Take the King, without the ceremony he is basically nothing, Concorde and travel is all part of the ceremony to present leadership as different and important...

[Ian Johnston]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

I agree 100% with your comment but you fail to appreciate the audience for concorde and business class.

Its all leadership, they need these stupid things to pretend they are important and too validate how valuable they are.

If people had actually wanted to fly Concorde it wouldn't have gone out of service. Lack of support from BAe and Rolls-Royce were only contributory factors - it stopped because the demand just wasn't there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

That's not the only reason. Air frames age and need maintenance to remain flight worthy. If nobody makes the parts anymore that becomes more and more complicated and costly to the point where the plane simply is no longer economically viable.

Which is what happened to Concorde.

[0laf]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

For business you might well have point. For pleasure, travel certainly does broaden the mind.

But for me the reason to avoid travel is the misery of the travel experience offered by our airlines and airports.

They've probably done more for the environment by offering such an appalling service that people never want to fly again than through any official greenwashing program.

As for the X59 in the story it's a lovely piece of design but one would have to think the day of these ultrafast transports is likely over and the future is going to be larger, slower and somehow electrically powered

[ICL1900-G3]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Amen to that! I haven't flown in years, partly on environmental grounds, partly because it's frightful. Mind you, train travel is not exactly peachy - except in France.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

"But for me the reason to avoid travel is the misery of the travel experience offered by our airlines and airports."

A big reason for me being a huge rail fan. The whole experience (even in the US) is much better than going anywhere near an airport.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

"These days, why travel at all?"

There's a lot less need to travel for business, but that doesn't mean you don't want to attend a conference/trade show/training in some other city. I "attended" a virtual trade show once and never again. Me thinks they tried too hard and it didn't have the same appeal. I've made a large number of connections by meeting people at those sorts of gatherings. The whole value of going might come down to a quick chat in a hallway.

I have a limited budget for those sorts of things these days and would much rather go by train. A meeting/show overseas is not going to have enough return to be worthwhile unless it gives me a good excuse to write off a holiday I want to take.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

When the initial trials of Concorde were taking place, I remember going out into the garden to listen for the sonic boom. It was never more than a muffled "baboom". I have often wondered how much of the resistance to Concorde flying over the US was because it was an Anglo-French boom, not a Boeing one. Perhaps less of a problem now, with a NASA boom and Boeing not exactly being flavor of the month.

[Graham Dawson]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

The last thing anyone wants to hear right now is a Boeing boom.

[Apocalypso - a cheery end to the world]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

> I have often wondered how much of the resistance to Concorde flying over the US was because it was an Anglo-French boom, not a Boeing one.

About 100% of it, I would say.

Boeing were always going to do whatever they could to prevent a competitor with a far a more glamorous airplane from gaining market share. But I don't think they had to work too hard because Concorde arrived just in time for the 1970's oil price shock and became a handy symbol of hate for the save the planet brigade.

And, just like the mobile phone 3G/4G/5G health-scare bullshit of recent years, there was also a ton of bullshit written about sonic booms: apparently one cow, somewhere in the US, once had a miscarriage when some fighter jet scared it with a sonic boom. This became: the US dairy industry will fail overnight if Concorde is allowed, or words to that effect.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

The Space Shuttle made a huge boom over the US. Especially Columbia.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

"I have often wondered how much of the resistance to Concorde flying over the US was because it was an Anglo-French boom, not a Boeing one. "

Boeing was looking at a supersonic aircraft and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be profitable or just too close to risk the investment. I think there is still a requirement for non-US airlines to have to have routes in and out of the country and not city pairs within the country so there wouldn't be a possibility of LA>NY>London and the other way. There are supersonic corridors across the US.

NASA does a lot of pure research which I find a good use of money since the data becomes available to industry. That data might be used later give insights on a problem a corporation is stumbling over in a development program. NASA isn't doing applied research for those sorts of things in a specific way, but might take on research to address something that's been noticed in a more general way.

[Dagg]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Because sometime (actually most times) it is not the final destination that is important, it is the things you learn on the journey.

[Bilby]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Why reducing a 4 hr flight (take-off to touch-down) by 1 hr, if traveling to the airport, waiting for security screening, waiting for boarding, boarding itself, off-boarding, waiting for luggage, traveling from the airport ... already take the better part of a day anyway?

I live in Brisbane, and my family live in England. After four hours of flight time on a current airliner heading to London via Dubai and/or Singapore, my plane is still over the Australian mainland, approaching the coast near Darwin. The total flight time is 24-30 hours, depending on the route (which varies depending on which countries are hosting a war at the time, and on other factors such as the time of year and location of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone and its turbulent storms).

Saving five or six hours on such a flight would be well worth paying for. A four hour flight is just a short hop by comparison.

Of course, significant improvements in total travel time would also be possible if aircraft range were extended sufficiently to fly BNE-LHR non-stop. Non-stop supersonic would be ideal, maybe cutting the flight down to a pleasantly brief ten to twelve hours.

[Muscleguy]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Indeed, I live in Scotland but have family in New Zealand. That you can fly Dubai or Doha to Auckland direct is a boon. It was very frustrating to touch down in Brisbane on the way. Auckland is just across the ditch and here we were on the ground for 90min. Add on landing, takeoff and taxiing.

Extend that benefit in range further and further is a better investment than supersonic.

The exception might be the supersonic space plane being developed in New Zealand. You go ballistic travelling in a much less dense less resistant medium. Safety and radiation exposure need to be worked out. But that would be a thing for aircrew. I don’t go back very often so it would not be much of a concern any more than it is on conventional flights.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

A smart person would actually live near their family so they could see them regularly instead of hoping for years of waiting for the next concorde.

[bill 27]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Actually I enjoy not living near my family.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Then why are you complaing about the tyranny of distance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

> A smart person would actually live near their family so they could see them regularly instead of hoping for years of waiting for the next concorde.

Have you never heard of a family with more than one child? And those children then growing up and moving away to different locations? How do you propose that the parents live close to both of them? Buy two houses and spend 6 months of the year at each?

I can only assume that CowHorseFrog towers is made of ivory.

[David Hicklin]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

> > A smart person would actually live near their family so they could see them regularly instead of hoping for years of waiting for the next concorde.

You can blame the railways for that, before then few people would travel far from where they lived never mind move, and we had local cottage industries......

[MachDiamond]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

"You can blame the railways for that, before then few people would travel far from where they lived never mind move, and we had local cottage industries......"

I use rail to visit my mom since at best it's a 3-hour drive and at worst it's been an 8-hour drive. It's nearly always 3 hours on the train and on weekends it's very inexpensive. The weekend schedule also lines up nicely since I have a transfer. A couple months ago I went to see a band perform a couple of states away and took the train. It was an overnight trip each way and the station was a few blocks from the hotel with the venue a few blocks from there. No need to rent a car or pay for a taxi. I would have saved several hours by driving and saved some money too, but it would have been two full days of driving and that many more miles on my car in the heat of summer.

I find rail a good idea in the 21st century so having friends and family not too far from stations a good thing. If you like cottage industry, spend your money there. I'd love to relocate to a market town with a good selection of independent shops. I love to do my own cooking so having a good butcher and fish monger is luxury. While I like to bake, some things are too much of a chore so having a good bakery nearby is nice. If I could have that a few stops down the line by train, that would work too.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Yes and those children should FIX their priorities isntead of selling themselves out for a career. You only live once, work is just that work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Check your privilege. For most people, work is a life-or-(death/starvation/homelessness) struggle that can screw you with unfairness as much as it wants and any time it wants. If you've been lucky to have a good supply of job opportunities in your (trade/profession/discipline) available near your parents all your life, then lucky you. Most of us don't. My skill is so rarefied that I had to travel over 160 miles from home to find work. Imagine telling Sir Simon Rattle that he can only conduct the local church folk band and nothing else, and must work as a shelf stacker in ${SUPERMARKET} for his day job until he dies. You wouldn't dare. Would you?

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

A smart person wouldnt be complaining about a plane being slow and needing a concorde. They should be complaining about why they get so little holiday time that it matters.

[Dagg]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Shirley you must be kidding. As the saying goes you can choose your friends you can't choose your family.

I've seen many an xmas lunch where by half way through the afternoon one half of the "family" was ready to kill the other half. I've seen my wife have a punch on with her younger sister. The sisters partner and me both stayed right out.

[Like a badger]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

"Of course, significant improvements in total travel time would also be possible if aircraft range were extended sufficiently to fly BNE-LHR non-stop. Non-stop supersonic would be ideal, maybe cutting the flight down to a pleasantly brief ten to twelve hours."

Don't know about Brisbane, but there's plans to (re?) introduce scheduled London to Sydney non-stop late next year, for 22 hours of airborne misery.

WRT supersonic travel, you're looking at around 3-4 times as much fuel use, and whilst London-Sydney might be possible without a refueling stop, that would be at the price of higher average flight weight, greater fuel load, fewer passengers and double flight crew. This would be wildly expensive.

[bill 27]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Leave Rome, 6 hours to Dubai, 2.5 hour layover, 13.75 hours to Sydney. Try to sleep at hotel, to wired. Final 2.75 hour flight to destination the next afternoon. Then again there was that LAX to SYD flight once upon a time. So in my opinion fast is good. As far as train service in Europe goes...it's great. But you're not gonna jump on a SST to fly from Venice to Amsterdam, or want to ride a train for that matter..

[0laf]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

If you weren't packed in like battery hens going to slaughter and financially abused while there would the longer trip be less arduous and possibly even nice, making the need for a faster flight less?

Is the demand for a faster flight largely because it's horrible, so the less time doing it the better.

[herman]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Yup, trains in Europe are a much better way to travel than flying. Train tickets are priced much higher than plane tickets and they are always fully booked far in advance. Plane travel has become third class travel.

[imanidiot]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Technically correct but international train travel in large parts of Europe ALSO sucks, it's just that air travel has now been enshitified so much that it's worse than train travel.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

If they scale it up large enough and get it high enough, they could maybe get the shockwave to mostly self-cancel. This article seems to imply that shockwaves self-aligning is the biggest problem they're trying to overcome.

[RockBurner]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Some very simple, quick, dirty, and probably wrong, but hopefully accurate enough within a given factor of ten, calculations: (figures from wikipedia)

Airbus A380-800: (Trent): Range: 14,800 km; Fuel Capacity: 323,546 L : Rough consumption : 21.86 L/km.

Boeing 747-8: Range: 14,320 km; Fuel Capacity: 238,610 L : Rough consumption: 16.66 L/km.

Concorde: Range: 7,222 km: Fuel Capacity: 119,600 L: Rough consumption: 16.56 L/km

Rough consumption = Capacity / Range.

Obviously fuel consumption figures are very rough and don't take into account variations in weather, cargo-load etc etc: but by the looks of it: by flying far higher, and far faster than other aircraft, Concorde was actually somewhere near par for fuel consumption despite the extra energy output required to achieve those heights and speeds.

It's much higher operating costs (I would guesstimate) were more likely to do with higher training requirements for both air-crew and ground-crew, high maintenance costs, (ie much more frequent work), and the need for much longer runway hence limiting the routes it could do (and a fair few other factors, naturally. All that champagne dished out wasn't free....).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

I think there's a size thing going on too. Liters per passenger kilometer would be more fare.

A380-800 seats 615 so that's 0.036 L/Pkm

747/8 seats 524 so that's 0.032 L/Pkm

Concorde seats 100 so that's 0.166 L/Pkm

Which is why two of the three are still flying and one got retired.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Concorde had 100 passengers,

Airbus A380 can carry up to 853 passengers

Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental has up to 467 passengers

(All above numbers from wikipedia...)

Suddenly supersonic travel looks a lot less economical... ( potentially > 8 times more expensive on fuel, and probably more maintenance required too)

[Like a badger]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Between Concorde first flight and today there's 55 years more research and pretty limitless computing power available, so I suspect you might reasonably expect to halve Concorde's fuel per pass km figure. That may seem dramatic, but it's the same improvement in conventional airliner fuel use across the same period.

You might say that's still 4x as much fuel per like for like trip, but we're making the wrong comparison - average widebody fuel use includes the densely packed paxmeat in the back (like me), and we're not going to be in the market for supersonic. A valid comparison needs to be against fuel used per pass km for business and first, which (based on CO2 estimates) is about 3 to 4x the fuel use of peasant class.

So for the people for whom Son of Concorde might be built, it probably won't be using that much more fuel than they already use (on the assumption that on SoC they're packed in Concorde-style). A bigger cost problem might be recovering the $30bn+ costs of developing the aircraft to commercial scale from a tiny number of passengers.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Funny how you forgot to mention how many pax each plane actually takes...

[MachDiamond]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

"even reduced shock waves every few minutes would probably be pretty hard to tolerate."

The cost is such that there isn't a likelihood of that many super-sonic flights. They would only be going that fast during cruise and up pretty high to keep heating down on the skin.

The utility of super-sonic flight is much more limited today with modern communications. The very long routes were too long for Concorde to do in one go and those are the place where there could be an advantage. A 15 hour flight from LAX to SYD being cut down to 7 hours would be awesome. A 12 hour flight from LAX to Tokyo down to 6 hours would be much nicer. If the flight isn't that long, all of the other non-flight carp becomes the dominant time issue. When I used to fly, I just wrote the whole day off after 9/11. Before that, it might be possible to fly somewhere, do something and fly back on the same day or the next. It's easy to see why small business jets get used. They can fly in and out of smaller airports closer to hand, there's no security, no luggage hassles, the plane leaves when the occupant(s) gets on board and one can fly non-stop. It comes with a cost, but for anybody where the time is more costly, it can be a bargain.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: I must admit, beyond basic research I do not fully get the point of the X-59 program

Amazing complain about how far something is but they never stop to ask why they are travelling in the first place.

Its the same group of idiots who commte for hours and never ask why they are commuting in the first place...

[Anonymous Coward]

A supersonic Cyrano!

THE VISCOUNT: Sir, your nose is ... hmm ... it is ... very big!

CYRANO: 'Tis a rock! ... a peak! ... a cape! A cape, forsooth! 'Tis a peninsular!

[...] You love the little birds, I think? I see you've managed with a fond research, to find their tiny claws a roomy perch!

[...] Take care, ... your head bowed low, By such a weight ... lest head o'er heels you go!

(excerpted from "Cyrano de Bergerac", the play by Edmond Rostand, applied here to X-59)

[Snar]

One boom or two?

We lost supersonic flight, yet gained twats in 1.4l shit-heaps with stupid exhaust systems that make more noise per mile.

Bravo for progress!

[lglethal]

Getting rid of the boom would be nice...

I live under the training flight path for the Eurofighters in [redacted]. Although they're not allowed/supposed to go Supersonic, they do. Regularly.

It sounds like an explosion going off a few streets away. Makes you jump like nothing else. Sometimes makes the windows shake.

Funnily enough, the locals (I'm a relatively new transplant), don't even blink an eyelid. They're so used to it.

Anything to reduce that boom would be appreciated, even if it was just the bloody pilots, obeying they rules, and not going supersonic over our bloody house!

[steelpillow]

Platypus

One intriguing feature of the X-59 is its Platypus style nose: looks like a needle from the side, but more like an ice lolly stick or duck's bill from above and below. My guess is that this allows the needle-look taper to be more slender, reducing the shock at the tip. Also, like the chines on the Lockheed Blackbird, the faster it flies the better it gets at generating lift, to help compensate for the rearward shift of the CL at supersonic speeds. So why, then does the thing sprout two tail surfaces and a canard? "Just spreading the booms, Sire"?

Talking of booms, we should remember that as the plane flies higher, the ground pressure falls. A low-flying Eurofighter will create a louder boom at ground level than a bigger but higher-flying Concorde. The higher you fly, the more time the booms have to merge together and defeat the magic of the X-59 boom massage. Fortunately, it also fades with distance. So boom management is more about allowing a plane to go supersonic at lower altitudes and over more populated areas, thus making it more economic to operate.

Also. the layer of "We're dealing with it" technobabble enables the industry to overcome the environmental hate hype inherited from the Richard Wiggs (UK), not-invented-here (US) and indignation (Rest of World) era of the last century. This is probably the most significant aspect of the whole programme.

[munnoch]

Re: Platypus

Japanese bullet train designs have been going the same way. Longer and flatter noses. Not because they travel supersonic exactly but because the shockwave when they enter tunnels causes a boom at the far end.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Platypus

It does have a bit of a platypussy air on TFA's photo, but much less so at lockheed martin, and even less in the product card (pdf) IMHO (not an expert ...).

It does look rather odd though ... a bit like a plane that flew up a rocket's butt (sorry! not pretty ... but you can judge for yourself ...) and got stuck there. Then again, each view angle seems to produce a different impression of it ... (unlike the Mona Lisa).

Bottom line is, if it can crack that loud speed of sound gas pressure sonic bang with less discomfort than before (silent yet not deadly at all) then it's a winner in my book cabinet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Platypus

@steelpillow - you know the rules:

Nothing is ever invented until the US patent is applied for, even if it is more than a century after the rest of the world.

e.g. Victorian children has pulse jets as toys. GE patented it after 2006. (Sorry but I can't be bothered to look the exact date up. I worked for GE in the UK after 2006 and was astounded that not only did they apply for the patent, but someone got a huge bonus for the invention, and announced in an All Hands meeting that had the UK room of Engineers all looking at each other in incredulity.)

[imanidiot]

Re: Platypus

The problem there is more so with patent law, in that if you can convince the patent office to issue a "false"/bad patent for something that shouldn't be patentable because of prior art, getting that patent voided is at the very minimum going to cost a competitor over $500k, up to several million, depending on how they have to go about fighting it. This stuff is clear patent system abuse to stiffle innovation by small competitors. And until the patent is voided, they can use it to sue the small guys. Again, even if in the end the patent gets voided, there's little chance the small guys will have the budget and will to fight such a case through likely multiple rounds of court battles, all the while accruing lawyer costs.

[John Brown (no body)]

99/7 ft long?

Come on El Reg! Really? Decimal feet?

If we're going to be using "American Traditional Units", aka imperial units, then Shirley it's 90' 8 and 4/10" :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Clueless

> Less: I've been Clue since my first squadron in the Air Force over 20 years ago. I walked in, they took a look at my name, and they just said, "OK, we've got to come up with something good."

But instead he got "Clueless", ba-dum tish.

[imanidiot]

Re: Clueless

Given that pilot nicknames usually come from something extremely embarrassing done by the rookie pilot, I doubt the real tale is as simple as Clue wants us to believe here or as simple as "oh his last name is Less". There was likely an incident involving Clue where he demonstrated his complete and utter "Clue"Less-ness. Knowing pilots however it might be one not suitable for repeating in polite company ;)

[ChoHag]

> we will fly fairly quickly

I should hope so!

[Zolko]

The X-59 is 30.4 m long with a 9 m delta-style wingspan

the Concorde was 61.66 m long with 25.6 m span delta wing, so very similar form, with a very long and pointy nose.

[the sonic boom is] spread out over the length of the airplane instead of into two short sections: nose and tail

the Concorde being even longer than the X-59, it should have done that spreading already. So what's the big difference that they expect ? (apart from the obvious, the US invented that sonic boom excuse because the Alliance Cordiale beat them)

[Ptol]

Flying ultra long distance....

Flying from New Zealand to Europe is brutal. Take off from NZ, fly for 7 hours and then look at the in flight map, and you still have not reached the west coast of Australia. It's only another 10 hours to get to Doha / Dubai / Abu Dhabi. Qantas flights from Sydney to europe are planned to be premium economy as the cheapest option. With business for those spending someone else's money. On this 22 hour flights, there will be 2 complete crews being paid for the entire flight, but only able to work for half the time.

So, replace a 19 hour flight from Christchurch to Dubai (currently done daily by Emirates on a a380, with a fuel stop in sydney) with a supersonic plane that does the flight in 9 hours. You only need 1 crew, so staff costs have dropped 75%. Yeah, fuel costs have increased, and the less annoying sonic thud is going to be heard by emu's and kangaroos rather than people. You just need a supersonic ultra long range plane carrying 300 people. Even if the middle east to europe leg is flown subsonic, I'd pay a premium economy price for a 9 hour economy seat, in preference to a 19 hour premium economy seat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Flying ultra long distance....

"You just need a supersonic ultra long range plane carrying 300 people"

Sounds a doddle, the stage is yours, maestro.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: Flying ultra long distance....

So you are complaining about the time it takes today for regular planes, but you want a concorde that costs 5x more...

Maybe its me, but the time required to work to earn those 5x is far more than the extra time it takes todays planes to fly compared to a concorde.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Flying ultra long distance....

Work smarter, not harder...