The skies of Oklahoma City roared for six months in 1964 as military aircraft intentionally rattled the population below with a daily barrage of thunderous sonic booms. It was a controversial test — the consequences of which have lingered to this day.
Two approaches in the works could revolutionize air travel by making future supersonic passenger planes compliant with the FAA’s new noise rules: Colorado-based company Boom Supersonic, which is specifically mentioned in the FAA proposal, plans to use physics to prevent sonic booms from ever reaching the ground, regardless of plane design. NASA, on the other hand, is flying an experimental plane called X-59 that is specifically designed to reduce the intensity of the boom.
This should be considered terrorism against the climate. There’s absolutely no need for this technology beyond convenience for the rich and privileged.
There are legitimate materials science, atmospheric sound propagation physics, and climate science modeling questions that are being answered by these tests. I believe it extremely short sighted to think the application of this technology and enhanced fluid dynamics to be limited to “rich people fuck the planet faster”.
I’m not saying that it is never fair to criticize a scientific endeavor, but enhancing our understanding of quickly transporting things through a dense atmosphere is not a bad thing.
I don’t really see how this could be used for anything else but even then it’s hard to see how the benefits would outweigh the harms of enabling climate arson.
If we can reduce the shockwave from sonic booms that could directly lead to more efficient plane engines. The main current impediment they have is the tips of the turbine blades can only get so close to the speed of sound before they explode from the forces they’re experiencing.
Which could have knock-on effects for anything involving an airfoil moving through a fluid. Helicopters, boats, wind turbines, hydro-power, etc.
Better understanding and control of the physics / materials science at the sound barrier would be very good news.
Then they should study that directly rather than how to better waste huge amounts of fuel making the lives of the rich more convenient at the expense of everyone else’s survival.
Might as well say flying is convenience for the rich and privileged. Because in the 1950s, it was. If you were poor, you still went on a boat. It could be we all do transatlantic trips on a plane like this in the future.
I mean it kinda is but the reality is people aren’t going to go backwards. However, that doesn’t mean we need to make the problem dramatically worse. I seriously doubt we’ll all be traveling this way but if we are it’s because we decided to value our convenience over the lives of the young and the poor.
The renewable transition cannot be stopped because it’s simply now cheaper to generate solar and wind. You install them once every few decades and only do basic maintenance to get power and store that into batteries. It could be that we have so much oil left over it won’t be expensive
Would it still be terrorism if the technologies being developed makes subsonic travel more efficient?
More efficient than standard air travel? I seriously doubt that’s possible but I guess it would be less bad then.