Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel News
Reload this Page >

Bloomberg: NASA Has a Way to Cut Your Flight Time in Half

Bloomberg: NASA Has a Way to Cut Your Flight Time in Half

Old Jul 24, 2017, 11:42 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: LAX
Programs: UA/AA
Posts: 1,740
Bloomberg: NASA Has a Way to Cut Your Flight Time in Half

NASA Has a Way to Cut Your Flight Time in Half

For almost a half-century there’s been a clear speed limit on most commercial air travel: 660 miles per hour, the rate at which a typical-size plane traveling at 30,000 feet breaks the sound barrier and creates a 30-mile-wide, continuous sonic boom. The ground-level disturbances that result—shattered windows, cracked plaster, maddened farm animals—have kept supersonic travel mostly off-limits since 1973, when the Federal Aviation Administration banned its use over U.S. soil.

That may be changing. In August, NASA says, it will begin taking bids for construction of a demo model of a plane able to reduce the sonic boom to something like the hum you’d hear inside a Mercedes-Benz on the interstate. The agency’s researchers say their design, a smaller-scale model of which was successfully tested in a wind tunnel at the end of June, should cut the six-hour flight time from New York to Los Angeles in half. NASA proposes spending $390 million over five years to build the demo plane and test it over populated areas. The first year of funding is included in President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic..._medium=social

Last edited by cblaisd; Jul 25, 2017 at 7:16 am Reason: Made it clear that what was posted is a quote from the article
jaymar01 is offline  
Old Jul 25, 2017, 3:32 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,334
Since when does an aircraft flying at Mach 1 at 30000 feet cause "shattered windows, cracked plaster, maddened farm animals " etc???

Edit after some more reading: My experience is with small military aircraft..... interesting that the aircraft SIZE is a significant factor........I would not have thought that as important as the speed.... let alone MORE so....

Last edited by trooper; Jul 25, 2017 at 3:37 am
trooper is online now  
Old Jul 25, 2017, 8:55 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 30,984
Mostly volume - the amount of air that needs to be displaced, and shape, which affects the waveform. Mass isn't important, and a higher speed can actually decrease the intensity as the shock cone narrows. Longer aircraft also spread the wavefront over a longer area, reducing the intensity.

The XB-70 caused significant booms at 70,000 feet - altitude doesn't significantly impact the intensity at ground level. Like a tsunami travelling through the ocean, the waveform can pretty much stay intact for quite a distance, all the way to the ground.


(Ha! Only 30 years before my undergrad Aero class was useful!)


It may become technically feasible, but a brand new design, with expensive fuel-consuming engines, with a relatively small seat capacity, doesn't seem like a financial winner. I'm not sure the sonic boom was the only Concorde problem.
CPRich is offline  
Old Jul 25, 2017, 12:08 pm
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: IAD/DCA
Posts: 31,797
wonder how long it will take for suborbital
Kagehitokiri is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2017, 10:32 am
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Massachusetts, USA; AA Plat, DL GM and Flying Colonel; Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 24,231
Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri
wonder how long it will take for suborbital
Or Hyperloop. Mach 1.2+; no airport needed, so terminals can be located near city centers; and boarding procedures probably more train-like (think Eurostar) than airplane-like, so less need to get to the terminal well in advance. Since even zero time in the air won't cut door-to-door time for a given trip to less than about three hours for most travelers, Hyperloop would be competitive with Mach 2+ on a door-to-door basis for North American trans-continental flights and would beat it on mid-range flights.

Granted, Hyperloop isn't going into operation next week, and infrastructure costs will have a lot to say about whether it ever does - but neither is the supersonic plane in the article that gave rise to this thread, and suborbital is still further out.
Efrem is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.