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."
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."
Weathy People Fly - Everyone Else Suffers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Oil reserves are unlimited (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oil reserves are unlimited because they will become uneconomical to recover before they will become exhausted. Of course technology messes with any straightforward extrapolation. With more advanced technology you can tap deposits that were uneconomical before -- we can pump oil from places where we just couldn't get it a hundred years ago. No doubt if we project a date for "running dry" today, we'll get past that date due to technology and in some cases new reserves.
But at some point the marginal econom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very odd definition of "practical." When it becomes too expensive for ordinary people to afford or for industries to profitably use, but can still be purchased at prices that cause rich people to put fancy crystal jars of it on display in their curio cabinets, I would call that practically running out for any practical use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The useless academic nature of that definition would be revealed before crude oil even gets into the 4-digits-per-barrel range. Those kinds of prices would make the '70s OPEC oil embargo (where oil prices merely quadroupled from what we would now call a laughably low price) look like a busy memorial day weekend and would amount to practically running out of oil for almost all purposes. It would be unaffordable and unprofitable to use it to fuel transportation and most industrial processes (especially energy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't have any. Like he said, wealthy people fly.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't have any. Like he said, very wealthy people fly supersonic.
Corrected for you
Weathy People Fly... but not supersonic (Score:2)
He doesn't have any. Like he said, very wealthy people fly supersonic.
Corrected for you
Except that very wealthy people do not fly supersonic.
Military fighter pilots fly supersonic, but only for short periods of time
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Weathy People Fly - Everyone Else Suffers (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the laws of physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Weathy People Fly - Everyone Else Suffers (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
No problems. If you're the kind of aeronerd who goes to the enthusiast day at Farnborough (ahem), you may find this interesting. Compare these two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The engines for the A380 vs the A350-1000. The A350 engines are substantially more powerful, 431kN versus 374kN for the A380 and much more efficient at 13.5g/kNs vs 16g/kNs.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.quora.com/Which-ar... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There are, they often use prop powered planes for shorter distances. For longer haul it's a trade off between time and cost. More flights per day/per crew shift.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Weathy People Fly - Everyone Else Suffers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Door closers (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Weathy People Fly - Everyone Else Suffers (Score:2)
"Wealthy People Fly - Everyone else Suffers"
Spirit Airlines is evidence that poor people fly and suffer at the same time.
Commuter plane (Score:2)
I need one of these for commuting.
The first thing I thought (Score:4, Funny)
HG2G fans will get the reference...
What is this "breaking the sound barrier" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:What is this "breaking the sound barrier" (Score:5, Informative)
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]
This is analogous to electromagnetic "stealth" (Score:2)
but for shock waves?
Cool!
Re:What is this "breaking the sound barrier" (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no sonic boom in steady super sonic flight.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Yes, there is a sonic boom when a plane is in steady supersonic flight. The previous commenter ("Latent Heat") had it correctly: the sonic boom is a cone-shaped shock-wave of sound trailing behind the airplane, with the apex at the airplane.
(in fact, a "sonic boom" has two "boom" like noises, the compression shockwave and the expansion shockwave.).
Unless you fly more or less exactly at the speed of sound. A super sonic airplane: You do not hear coming.
True. The shock wave trails behind the airplane
You hear no boom when it goes over you.
True. The shock wave trails behind the airplane
You hear the engine when it is far enough away.
Not just the engine noise (which is soft compared to the sonic boom) The shock wave ("sonic boom") hits you after the airplane has passed.
Re: (Score:2)
And while this sub-thread is interesting, I'm really feeling my age that nobody noticed (or commented on) "whop" and "foop", which is the sounds the Krikitt robots made in the Douglas Adams novel "Life, The Universe, and Everything". The acronym HG2G is for "Hitchhiker's Gu
Re: (Score:1)
I experienced thousands of super sonic flights over my head, every single day as a child.
There is no boom, or you have a strange idea what the word boom means, by a continuous super sonic flight. It is only loud, that is all.
You fire a big gun, that is a boom/bang. Sounds like an explosion, that is a supersonic bang/boom.
Nothing like this is happening when a super sonic plane flies over you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It is easy to check. You see it coming, but do not hear it.
Faster than sound.
Simple.
Of course I had an advantage over your stupidity: living around 3 big air bases.
Ramstein, Sembach, Frankfurt. There is another one, which I do not recall.
As the protests against that low height supersonic flights where big, the americans thought it is kind of fun to fly to a school and then bring the plane into a nearly vertical climb: you can not do anything for minutes. To loud to talk. But no boom ... sure, it does not go
Re: (Score:2)
They may have been supersonic airplanes, but no, they weren't flying supersonic when they were buzzing your school. Whoever told you they were supersonic was misinformed, and you were too young to question it.
But you can question it now.
Re: (Score:1)
At airbases they are subsonic. 20km away they are not. Because at that time in US occupied Germany: pilots where assholes.
Any more to talk about?
they weren't flying supersonic when they were buzzing your school. Whoever told you they were supersonic was misinformed
No one told me that, idiot. I was in the school. How fucking stupid can you be?
We fought 20 years that US occupying forces stop this bullshit of flying super sonic over inhabited areas, and they turned it around on us.
Flying directly on the towns
Stories from school [Re:What is this "breaking ..] (Score:2)
No one told me that, idiot. I was in the school. How fucking stupid can you be?
Nobody told you the jets were supersonic? You just made that up when you were a child and believed it ever since?
Something you told yourself when you were a child may be incorrect.
...During some years/times of the year school lessons between 11:00 to 13:00 where impossible because of constant harassment by American air planes.
I've lived next to an airport. I can assure you that fighter jets are very noisy even when they're not flying supersonic. "They were really loud" may be a reason a schoolboy will think "they must have been flying supersonic," but it's not actually any indication that they were in fact supersonic.
Look: learn something about supe
Re: (Score:1)
Again:
A super sonic jet flights faster than the sound in air. That is basically the latin word: "super sonic".
You do not need anyone to explain to you that three spots at the horizon approaching you, making no sound: are super sonic. They fly ahead of the sound they are trailing behind them. So you do not hear them. Simple. Then they fly over you, you still not hear them and then comes the B^HO^HO^HM^H ... no: there is no boom. They are just loud.
No idea what you learned in school or physics.
But you obvious
Re: (Score:2)
I may indeed "lack in the social skills and human behavior" department, as you say. But I do understand supersonic aerodynamics. The "facts" that you taught yourself in grade school turn out to be wrong.
Learn something about the subject, and when you have, THEN tell people how shockwaves work.
Then they fly over you, you still not hear them and then comes the B^HO^HO^HM^H ...
When it's flying supersonic: correct. The sonic boom lags the airplane.
no: there is no boom. They are just loud.
When it's flying subsonic: correct. The sound still lags the airplane, but there's no sonic boom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No they don't
You would not here a boom/bang if there was a continuous shockwave. You obviously would hear a continuous shockwave.
As a kid I had thousands of super sonic flights every day.
The shuttle reentry made a boom when it undercut the sound barrier. There was no BOOM BOOM BANG BOOM BANG BOOM BOOM
At the least... (Score:2)
it isn't a Boeing.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, an additional selling point is that its doors don't fall off.
Sheesh, one door falls off a plane (Score:2)
and it becomes a meme about Boeing aircraft?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as the old joke goes, "but you fuck one goat..."
What can't we get aero goodies? (Score:2)
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
Pilots on the ground. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Unplug the USB stick with your mp3s first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
FYI (Score:2)
Many more photos, a rollout video, and an animated "concept" video of the aircraft in flight here [nasa.gov]
But why?! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 /
Time saved for who? (Score:1)
Being made for being made's sake (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Being made for being made's sake (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Supersonic Cargo Could be interesting (Score:2)
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.
Why the "quiet" SST? (Score:2)
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
When is it going to FLY? (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)