Slashdot Mirror
More On Silent Supersonic Planes
Reverberant writes "Popular Science describes the latest attempt at developing a supersonic plane designed to minimize sonic booms. The article describes some of the history behind the research, and recent attempts at validating the theory. Also note that researcher Ken Plotkin is a frequent contributer to alt.sci.physics.acoustics."
Pilots rely on more than just being able to see outside. They have literally dozens of instruments that they have to monitor in addition to the view outside. During the night and over the ocean, you have nothing but your insturments to rely on, so it's not like this is a new thing for pilots. Still, if it were ME I would want a window :)
You ok big guy? You want a so-o-o-oda?
Ah, screw it I tried.
- Stewie from the Family Guy
For those of us without subscriptions to every major publication, online and dead tree, the whole fucking point of Slashdot is things we might want to see and missed, due to lack of said subscriptions.
Actually, on a serious note, I got pretty frustrated with the article. Actually, I only read the first page and then got bored. I'll never understand why science writers always clutter up their articles with crap like that turtle in the story. We want to read about advanced aerodynamics, not wildlife. Then they go on and on talking in detail about the test. Just tell us what happened at the test; we don't need a blow-by-blow account.
Extra clutter like that really makes the article seem amateurish. You have to be really damn interested in the topic to wade through all that extraneous crap at the beginning of the article no less! Maybe they think they are humanizing the dry science. But do you think people who buy a magazine that has Science in the title really find science boring? Or that they need this high-school-like prose at the beginning?
And don't even get me started on when an article tries to make an analogy with something real-life. I read an article in Scientific American some years ago that was using the swordfight between Zhang Ziyi and Michelle Yeoh in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as an example of how the new technology can better the "old standbys". The whole point of that scene was that Yeoh could have killed Ziyi even with that fancy Green Destiny in her hands. What a terrible analogy! And this is the way you start off a science article?
Sorry, just had to rant,
GMD
watch this
Well, of course. That's why you have backups, and backups for the backups. Likely backups for THOSE. If all those levels of redundency fail, odds are not being able to see is the least of your worries.
TODO: Something witty here...
As the very first paragraph of the article mentioned, one use is for supersonic business jets. Just because the researchers are using a heavily modifed F-15 as a test vehicle doesn't mean it's all for killing things. NASA still uses Titans for launching spaceprobes, even though they were originally designed for launching nuclear warheads. The planes that fly through hurricanes to gather wind speed data probably save lives every time a big one approaches land, but they are still modifed military aircraft.
Yes, this has military applications as well. Lots of things do. The medical resarch you mention has been perverted to war before, for just one example. If you would like to see this knowledge focused on peaceful persuits and shared for the benefit of all, more power to you. It is not going to be possible to share it with businesses across the country and still keep it a military secret. All you have to do to help mankind here is pressure the people talking about applying it to silencing commercial aircraft to keep that promise, and it will make things better for lots of people.
Who is John Cabal?
While you're right, Kennedy shouldn't have been flying under VFR in IMC. He wasn't instrument rated, although he had had lots of instrument training, and with passengers on board, doing it was just horribly irresponsible.
A related side note: commercial pilots are required to have an instrument rating to fly for hire at night. This doesn't apply in this case because Kennedy wasn't flying for hire.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Here's a hint: the vast majority of airline traffic is in controlled airspace for the entire time the engines are running.
While it is the responsibility of all pilots to "see and avoid" other traffic, if instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) exist, that's not possible. But if IMC exists, then pilots who aren't instrument-rated had damn well better not be flying in it.
Now, if a controller fucks up and vectors two planes into each other, well, how, exactly were the pilots supposed to see that coming in IMC? Nothing anyone in the planes can do about that. Sorry.
Since we're talking about IMC -- or its functional equivalent, no windows in the plane -- here, your comment isn't exactly relevant.
All that being said, I sort of doubt the FAA would approve a type design with no external visibility other than an electronic system, no matter how many levels of redundancy back up that electronic system. Even if the FAA approved it, the passengers wouldn't. Gulfstream, Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing aren't stupid. The writer of the PopSci piece is exhibiting some extremely wishful (and impractical, IMO) thinking.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
What I'm going to say is nothing new, totally unoriginal, but...
I find it paradoxal that the bleeding hearts will criticise the US military to no end, when there very right to express those opinions has been secured by the technological edge that allowed the US and its allies to win both WWII and the Cold War.
You needn't be an avid fan of the current government's decisions to realise that many *many* people have benefited enormously from the security and technological advances that were pioneered by this "war machine".
To add my own anecdote, this is very similar to the discussions that I have with fellow French Canadians. We've got a big collective chip on our shoulder against the English. However, the reality is that the English system of government, instituted here in Canada and the United States, has spared us from the sort of upheaval that our blood-thirsty European ancestors have inflicted on themselves. Bloodthirsty, yes, because before Europe decided to "remake" its virginity, it was one of the most war-torn shitholes on the planet. And I don't think that will ever change because people there remain as naïfs as before.
Writing from Norway, eh?
Probably a country that benefited enormously from the protection guaranteed by the US and its allies. So much so that you had no need to invest in a real military to defend yourselves. So shut the fuck up.
Flamebait, yes, but it needs to be said.
That's not really true, it's just that most of the changes are more subtle than the flamboyant extravaganza that was Concorde. The newer planes are doing much the same job they did back in '99, but much more efficiently and safely. There's little "Gee Whiz" factor, but technology is sure marching on.
There's more than just technology involved too. I remember an article on Beyond 2000 about BMW's Hydrogen powered 7 series. The technology has been around for decades, but we don't have this stuff on the road due to politics and infrastructure. When the need arises (when the cost/benefit ratio is right) it'll happen. Hopefully all the world saving technology will hit the mainstream before it's too late for the planet.
Disclaimer: Saw Micheal Moore's "The Corporation" the other day... ;)
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
I've never heard a sonic boom... so I'm not really sure how loud they are, but a co-worker described it as "pretty much sounds like thunder".
Is that really a big problem? It seems kind of dumb to me to ban supersonic flight over cities.
There are certainly very important military implications to being able to go supersonic without a boom. If you have a plane capable of going supersonic, but is indistinguishable from noise on radar thanks to stealth technology, a sonic boom is one thing that could give you away in enemy territory. If you can't be heard on the ground, or easily seen on radar, that makes your mission that much easier.
Don't be alarmed... MY ASS!
If you watch cable TV shows much, no doubt you've seen your share of close-calls in airplanes.
Yes, there are plenty of occasions where all the instruments fail, the power goes out, the hydraulics go out, etc. People still survive because, despite the high-tech systems, there is still JUST ENOUGH under manual control that a very good pilot in decent weather can land such a crippled plane.
Good luck doing that when they can't even see! And don't bother telling me that they're going to have multiple cameras, with backup systems and all that, I've already heard of plenty of cases where all 3 computer systems on 747s have failed. That's not one case, but MANY independant cases.
As you can probably assume, I'm not afraid of technology in the slightest. However, I do know that even the most advanced and well-tested technology in the real world can fail. If you aren't willing to trust electronic voting machines, are you really ready to give technology 100% control over matters of life and death?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
A better analogy is armor. Whatever armor you have, the enemy can make ordnance to penetrate it. But is still better to defend against an armor brigade with $2 million Abrahms tanks, rather than a fleet of $20,000 jeeps.
Actually, jet engine manufacturers have done a very commendable job reducing engine noise, thanks to high-bypass turbofan engines that use mostly the front fan to generate thrust and the use of acoustically-treated and tuned jet engine nacelles.
A less-known problem is that of the noise rushing around the airframe at flight speeds, which can also generate a lot of noise that could be heard from the ground. Fortunately, modern computational fluid dynamic research has reduced this problem, even on the upcoming Airbus A380 super jumbo airliner.
Point 1: Barriers to trade
You know, you're absolutely right. I am totally against the difficulties that we create for developing nations, that keep them from putting their goods (usually agricultural) on our markets.
The fact is, both the United States *and* Europe are guilty, one as much as the other.
That said, many African governments have adopted protectionist policies of Marxist inspiration. Mugabe is only the latest and most flagrant example; it's been happening for decades. So you can't expect Country A to allow Country B's goods into their domestic market if there is no reciprocity. Reciprocity is essential for free trade. However, this is done in a bilateral fashion on a category-by-category basis, so reciprocity would apply to, say, all raw agricultural products. The fact that they don't want to drop tarifs on your heavy equipment is not a mitigating factor related to the said agricultural products, as far as I understand.
Point 2: Natural resources
I'm growing very wear of the argument that we are raping all those poor countries' natural resources. The fundamental nature of economic exchange is the fact that someone places a higher value on your good or service than you do. This is how wealth is generated, *this* is the basis of true economic development.
This is silly, I shouldn't even have to illustrate it, but let's take the example of diamonds. African Country is rich in diamonds. The country really doesn't know what to do with them -- it doesn't have experienced jewellers to cut them or industries to use them in other products. However, African Country has people with families to feed, and these people need jobs. That means that a demand exists for a domestic product that will create a net inflow of cash if exploited.
Basically, I suppose that it comes down to an ideological preference. Do you prefer free commerce that generates new wealth, or are you stuck in the sclerotic mindset that prefers to give away millions of dollars in the form of "aid" that will never encourage these countries to take the steps necessary to improve their well being? If your dream is to create a global welfare state, we have nothing further to say to each other.