Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
NASA

NASA Unveils Revolutionary X-59 'Quiet' Supersonic Aircraft (space.com) 90

After years of development, NASA has unveiled the X-59 supersonic jet capable of breaking the sound barrier without producing a thunderous sonic boom. "Instead, the Quesst will make a much quieter 'thump,' similar to the sound of a car door slamming as heard from indoors," reports Space.com. "If successful, the jet has the potential to revolutionize supersonic flight and aviation in general." From the report: NASA and Lockheed Martin showed off the finished X-59 Quesst ("Quiet SuperSonic Technology") today (Jan. 12) in front of a crowd of nearly 150 at the legendary Lockheed Martin Skunk Works facility in Palmdale, California, a research and development site typically known for its secrecy. The elongated beak-like nose section of the aircraft stood out prominently, showing off the fact that it does not have a forward-facing window. [...] Instead, it features what NASA calls the eXternal Vision System, or XVS, which consists of a camera and a cockpit-mounted screen that offers pilots an augmented-reality view of what's in front of the jet.

Jim Free, NASA's associate administrator, continued this sentiment, noting that the X-59 is merely the latest in a long line of NASA X-planes that have revolutionized aviation throughout the agency's history. "Even among other X-planes, the X-59 is special. Every aircraft that receives that X-plane designation has a specific purpose to test new technologies or aerodynamic concepts," Free said, "These special planes push the envelope of what's possible in flight. And once they prove those concepts, they often go into museums. And that's really what makes the X-59 different."

Free was referring to the fact that once the X-59 is ready for flight, the jet will make multiple flights over select residential areas in the United States in order to collect data on how people on the ground below experience and react to the quieter sonic booms it creates. NASA will then use that data to seek approval for commercial supersonic flights from regulatory agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration, with the ultimate goal of making aviation more sustainable and enabling faster flight over populated areas. Some of the applications of supersonic flight mentioned at today's unveiling include rapid medical response, shorter shipping times and, of course, faster travel.
"The first 'A' in NASA stands for aeronautics," said NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy during the unveiling ceremony. "And we're all about groundbreaking aerospace innovation. The X-59 proudly continues this legacy, representing the forefront of technology driving aviation forward." The 'X' in NASA's latest X-plane stands for 'experimental.'

"This isn't just an airplane, this is an X-plane," Melroy added. "It's the manifestation of a collaborative genius."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Unveils Revolutionary X-59 'Quiet' Supersonic Aircraft

Comments Filter:
  • Who the hell wants to hear muffled booms of any kind? Taxpayer's money poorly spent.
    • "If successful, the jet has the potential to revolutionize supersonic flight and aviation in general." But we know, you gotsta have yer agenda. Lot of clouds to shout at.

    • If airlines can't fly faster, all they can do is fly more people. Are you enjoying your airline experiences lately?
      • by Calydor ( 739835 )

        He doesn't have any. Like he said, wealthy people fly.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It doesn't work like that. Faster uses a lot more fuel, so costs much more. Current aircraft could go faster, but they would burn more fuel in an industry that will replace engines too get 3% more efficiency.

        They tried larger too, like the Airbus A380. Stopped production a few years ago. There aren't that many airports large enough for them, and people want point to point instead of hub and spoke.

        The GP is right, supersonic jets will remain for the wealthy, unless some miracle new engine and fuel are invent

        • "Faster uses a lot more fuel."

          Does it? Gosh, I haven't bothered to calculate the relative rates of energy consumption of walking somewhere vs. taking a car, train, or plane. Would you care to offer some thoughts on why the same convenience wouldn't apply to quiet supersonic travel?

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Because we are talking 10x the price for a supersonic ticket. They would have built more Concordes if there was demand on the routes it flew, but 99.9% of passengers took the subsonic option.

            • x10 because they went exclusive and made Concorde a very profitable high end service? How much would tickets have cost if theyâ(TM)d had economy class with razor thin margins?

              • They didn't exactly have a choice about going exclusive. The Concord was designed not just for cross-Atlantic flights but cross-continental as well. As an example, start off from Paris and land in New York. Refuel, take off and land at LAX. Refuel again and head out for Hawai'i, with a final leg ending in the Far East. Alas, the NIMBYs made a big fuss about sonic booms, both in crossing the continent and at the airports and limiting the Concord to cross ocean routes. Why they didn't take some over Cen
            • The price you're talking about is literally only for the Concorde, not for a vehicle that would have far more markets based on its quiet flight. Let alone projections beyond those initial extensions, into subsequent cycles of development. Why wouldn't supersonic travel develop the same way subsonic did given technology that addresses the problems that led to their initially being limited?
            • by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Saturday January 13, 2024 @07:25AM (#64155465)

              Youâ(TM)re way too high. Concorde burned 25600l/hr of fuel, compared to a 747-400â(TM)s 14400l/hr. Thatâ(TM)s 18.9l/mile compared to the 747â(TM)s 24l/mile. Surprisingly, Concorde burned *less* fuel to cross the Atlantic than the 747. The trick is it carried fewer passengers, so it comes out to 0.15l/passenger mile for Concorde, or 0.05 for the 747. 3 times the fuel burn isnâ(TM)t 10 times the price. The really tricky bit was that its fuel burn on the ground was horrible, but that could be fixed.

              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                FWIW I was talking about the ticket price, which was around 10x the economy class fare on a conventional jet. As well as the fuel, all the other services needed to make the flight are spread between fewer passengers. Crew, logics, airport fees, wear on the airframe and consumables...

          • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

            "Faster uses a lot more fuel."

            Does it?

            Yes, if you're flying in atmosphere.

            There is a static energy use, so obviously traveling at zero velocity has the worst fuel efficiency, but once you are moving through the air, atmospheric drag goes as v^2. Since energy is force times distance, your fuel efficiency for traveling a given distance goes down quickly with speed.

            You will ameliorate this problem partly by flying higher, since drag also is proportional to atmospheric density, and solve it completely by going suborbital, since above the atmosphe

            • Supersonic air travel is not "fundamentally different" from subsonic air travel. It simply has additional challenges, but also benefits.

              A sailboat is the most fuel-efficient way to cross oceans, but I'm not going to use one for that purpose, and neither is any modern business. And yet powered shipping is not a niche market: It is the entire market.
        • They did stop production of the A380 and mothballed many planes. Most have been in mothballed and restored to service. People do want point to point, but they also want enough capacity and low cost.

          It's not exactly larger that's the problem: the 4 engine designs are less efficient and the big twin jets are surprisingly close now, 525 seats for the A380 vs 420 for the A350 and 777X. Now fuel costs are down and capacity is getting tight, the A380 had made a comeback. As engine tech improves I would not be sur

        • It doesn't work like that. Faster uses a lot more fuel, so costs much more. Current aircraft could go faster, but they would burn more fuel in an industry that will replace engines too get 3% more efficiency.

          So why aren't there airlines that go slower? That super-linear efficiency vs. speed curve goes both ways. Save fuel not only due to less air resistance but also carrying less fuel. Especially for relatively short flights, I'm sure there are people that would be willing to trade time for money. The airlines would have to find a way to do the slower flights without the longer flights stepping on each other and eliminating flights, but this seems like a win-win for airlines and consumers. Business travele

      • Are you enjoying your airline experiences lately?

        Yes I am. The fact that more people are able to fly hasn't changed the airline experience at all, it has simply added a newer lower budget option. When I fly I still pay as much as I used to pay for an economy seat in the 80s. The difference is that now instead of an economy seat I get a full lay flat bed and the choice of when I want to eat each of my courses in my meal, ... for the same money.

        Oh and a modern business class ticket is still cheaper than an economy class ticket from the 80s/90s. So yeah flyi

        • Are you including the "security theater" nonsense in your comparative enjoyment to the 90's?

          I have no problems with the plane rides, themselves. It is the airport security and scheduling that are beyond irritating.

          • by ghoul ( 157158 )
            Thats because of 9/11. Dont blame NASA for that or even the FAA. CIA encouraged Bin Laden for years. They created the monster that led to 9/11 and the security theater people have to go through.
            • Well, it is because of the REACTION to 9/11, not 9/11 itself. There is a difference. Also note that I didn't blame NASA or the FAA.

              But as a consumer, I really don't care whose "fault" it is, the result is the same: making air travel a nightmare. And I don't think I am actually any safer and certainly don't "feel" any safer with most of the theater. The reaction should have been to harden the cockpit (and other similar measures), not to treat all passengers as terrorists.

          • As much as I am opposed to the security theater, I find flying now less of a hassle than in the mid 2000s. Checking in, baggage handling, the security lines, the deplaning process, all these steps (while I still highly dislike them) are nowhere near as bad as the were 20 years ago. It feels like a lot of these processes have been optimized to be smoother (though far from perfect). And yes, I'm talking economy now without status vs economy then without status.
            • This. With modern CT scanners and backscatter scanners, security is straight forward. No need to remove things from your bag, or take your shoes off, or any of that nonsense. And since we're comparing to the days of yore a business class flight gets you through priority at security, and if you can afford that you're probably also paying for TSA Precheck meaning you are through security in just a couple of minutes.

          • Are you including the "security theater" nonsense in your comparative enjoyment to the 90's?

            I don't have security theatre, I don't live in the USA. Our security is quick and fast and all I do is empty my pockets, it's actually less invasive than clearing security at my work. I keep my shoes on, watch on, drinks and laptops in my bag and everything is fine, as a business class customer I'm usually through security in less than 5 minutes. That said in the USA if you can afford a business class ticket you can also afford a TSA precheck which in combination with a business class ticket also lets you s

            • >"TSA precheck"

              That severely violates privacy because it requires fingerprinting. And from that point on, the person will be "searched" every single time any criminal investigation fingerprint search is performed.

              If it really is for just identity confirmation, which is all it should be for, then deep-vein palm scan is acceptable because it cannot be abused like fingerprints, plus it is fast and accurate.

            • I don't have security theatre, I don't live in the USA.

              It's fine in the USA. Security Theater is basically a nerd meme from 2004. There was some truth to it, now there's not much.

    • I work at the U on a long hallway of offices and classrooms. Over a semester break when the classroom doors were equipped with armored latches that could be locked from the inside, the door closers were also adjusted to slam with a window-rattling boom.

      Instructors often close a classroom door for privacy during an in-class exam, where a steady stream of the the students leaving after they complete the exam early let the closer slam the door as they leave. I guess this doesn't break the concentration of

    • Who the hell wants to hear muffled booms of any kind? Taxpayer's money poorly spent.

      Still better than having to listen to someone honk their car horn two, three, or four times when trying to lock their car.

    • "Wealthy People Fly - Everyone else Suffers"

      Spirit Airlines is evidence that poor people fly and suffer at the same time.

  • I need one of these for commuting.

  • by flatulus ( 260854 ) on Saturday January 13, 2024 @04:30AM (#64155277)
    Oh, so they make a sound like "whop" or "foop" when the break the sound barrier

    HG2G fans will get the reference...
    • by Latent Heat ( 558884 ) on Saturday January 13, 2024 @08:14AM (#64155491)

      Isn't it common knowledge in geekdom that the sonic boom occurs in steady-state supersonic flight? That a supersonic aircraft trails a cone-shaped shock wave in its wake? And generally speaking, the boom isn't heard on the ground at the brief moment when it accelerates past the speed of sound so much as at some delay after an already supersonic aircraft has passed overhead?

      Or is breaking the sound barrier a figure of speech, not referring the transition between subsonic and supersonic flight but to the ongoing process of flying at supersonic speed? But something tells me this phrase is derived from a misunderstanding that crossing the transonic flight regime is what causes a boom heard over a wide area, rather than the boom occuring over a narrow strip where the shock wave reaches the ground, a strip that sweeps forward in the direction the aircraft is traveling.

      • by test321 ( 8891681 ) on Saturday January 13, 2024 @08:54AM (#64155555)

        I don't know if it helps but here is their statement (2017) regarding how it works: "'We have tailored the lift distribution and the pressure that goes over the airplane so that the shockwaves no longer coalesce into this strong wave,' he says. 'I must say coming up with this design was not easy. It took thousands of optimization runs with tools that we worked with NASA to validate over the years.'" https://www.flightglobal.com/h... [flightglobal.com]

  • it isn't a Boeing.

  • NASA calls the eXternal Vision System, or XVS, which consists of a camera and a cockpit-mounted screen that offers pilots an augmented-reality view of what's in front of the jet.

    meanwhile there are still hundreds of millions of cars on the road that drive at sedate speeds that are nowhere near supersonic, that still have to legally sport those vestigial airbrakes called side-view mirrors, wasting untold amounts of energy for nothing.

    Can we too get XVS and save gasoline pretty-please? It's 2024 for God's sake!

    Incidentally, you have to marvel at the governmental agencies' insistence on coming up with ridiculous acronyms for really obvious thing... It's like they had nothing better to

    • FAA will have to come up with a new rating above instrument rating which pilots will have to get a license for - camera rating. Flying a plane with no windows is a totally new way of flying planes. The cameras better be engineered better than MCAS and keep working in all kinds of situations. And the screens should not break if the pilots spill coffee on it. Landing and taxiing is going to be especially tricky without windows. Even ground crew at a airport would need special training for planes with no wind
      • Should a fault occur in the camera system, reboot the system with control-alt-delete. If that doesn't work, try to reinstall the operating system.
      • Flying a plane with no windows is a totally new way of flying planes.

        It most certainly isn't: it's like flying a drone from inside the drone. Flying drones with cameras has been a solved problem for a long time now.

        • Good point. But it sure is hard to get past the "what if" situation of a plane full of people being blinded.

          I guess that isn't terribly rational since flying by instruments in weather or at night happens all the time, and in such conditions looking out the window is useless.

          Still it seems... wrong.

  • by thomst ( 1640045 )

    Many more photos, a rollout video, and an animated "concept" video of the aircraft in flight here [nasa.gov]

  • It is a fairly small aircraft - looks like it seats one.
    If scaled to something practical, it might have completely different sound profile. There is no guarantee that the bigger plane will be as silent as this prototype.
    To me it looks like billionares are using tax money to research (get approval for) faster private planes. Nothing else makes sense.
    • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      It is a fairly small aircraft - looks like it seats one.

      The Wright flyer was a fairly small aircraft, seats one. Its purpose is to show that it works.

      You do the first test article at the smallest scale possible.

    • If scaled to something practical

      One of the beautiful things about air pressure is that it does scale without issue. It's why we make small models of planes and put them in wind or shock tunnels and then get the production run ready and successful on the first go.

      The question though isn't whether this plane is impractical, this one is a tech demo. The question is if someone will find practical use for the research. There's no point building a bigger plane if no one orders them, and currently an airliner sure as hell won't given the cost /

  • So now it's just going to take longer to get on or off the damn plane (security checks, baggage check-in, passport control etc.) than it is to fly anywhere. Mind you, tickets for this thing will probably be so expensive it'll only be club-class or over who can afford it and they will get fast-pass though all this stuff while the rest of us just carry with the usual airport dance of "hurry up and wait". Frankly, the actual flight itself is usually the least hassle of the journey, it's all the crap at the air
  • I don't get this airplane. It's got no cargo space. It's got room for only one person. And it has no windows. So what is its usefulness? To transport a single person faster than the speed of sound, which seems like an extremely impractical purpose for an airplane.

    Yes, yes, I get that it's an experimental plane, engineered to exceed the speed of sound with minimal noise generated. But if that's the design necessary to make this possible, it's still extremely impractical when you try to add any space fo

    • by skam240 ( 789197 )

      You literally explain it and then fail to get your own point. This plane is an experiment. All this plane is being used for is to test their low sonic boom technology. Once that's shown to work or not work they'll then make the call on whether they want to continue developing the tech or not.

      Only when their core concept of low disruption faster than sound travel is proven will they begin designing a practical real world plane around it.

    • by ghoul ( 157158 )
      Its an experimental plane. X planes are made to test out concepts. Once/if they prove the concept, they can scale it up. That long nose is ideal for first class passengers who will enjoy the view.
    • Exactly. Maybe they'll learn something from it than can be applied elsewhere. It's not obvious that there is a large scale use case, but not every experiment needs to have one.
    • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      I don't get this airplane. It's got no cargo space. It's got room for only one person. And it has no windows.

      It's a test article.

      So what is its usefulness?

      It's a test article.

      ...Yes, yes, I get that it's an experimental plane, engineered to exceed the speed of sound with minimal noise generated.

      Exactly.

  • not as much commercial applications as government/military, but the idea of deploying emergency supplies or whatever on a faster timescale is nice. Perhaps not really necessary since you can also just pre-stage things at bases around the globe.

  • Simple: the sound of any object going faster than the speed of sound can be VERY loud even without an engine on the plane running. Anyone who remembers the Space Shuttle flying overhead during the landing phase as the Shuttle approaches the landing strip or more recently close to the landing of the Falcon 9 first stage rocket know the very loud and distinct "double bang" of a sonic boom.

    As such, thanks to modern computational fluid dynamic research on supercomputers, we know how to shape an airplane so the

  • Not sure if I missed it in the summary, the article, or the comments... but I couldn't find the date that they are going to actually fly this pane and see what it sounds like when it breaks the sound barrier?

  • The conditions that qualify passengers for compensation are subject to various factors, and understanding them is akin to deciphering the nuances of air travel. Delta typically compensates passengers for delays caused by issues within their control, such as maintenance or crew-related issues. However, it's essential to recognize that compensation eligibility varies depending on the specific circumstances of each case. For those seeking additional assistance, platforms like AirAdvisor can serve as helpful gu

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...