Slashdot Mirror
NASA Wants To Get Supersonic With New Passenger Jet (networkworld.com)
coondoggie writes: NASA wants to put a supersonic passenger jet back in the sky that promises to a soft thump or supersonic heartbeat as the agency called it - rather than the disruptive boom currently associated with such high-speed flight. The 'low-boom' aircraft known as Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) will be built by a team led by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. It will cost $20 million to develop baseline aircraft requirements and a preliminary aircraft design.
...and what sort of fuel economy will it get?
Boeing failed with the SST, due to anticipated fuel costs not meeting market needs. Similarly with the Concorde, which couldn't operate profitably.
Sure, there are some rich folk who would pay for short flight times, but the mass market is price conscious. The problem with supersonic flight is not sonic booms, but efficiency.
Finally, why is NASA wasting taxpayer money designing passenger aircraft for the civilian market?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Concord is a variety of grape. Indeed, there can be some expensive wines out there. This story is about fast planes, however. Maybe you mean the Concorde?
More pork for Lockheed Martin.
Obvious pork is most definitely obvious. After spending $20 million, NASA gets... a pile of paper. For $20 million, not one sheet of metal will be bent, not one rivet will be hammered, not one seam will be welded. And why is NASA spending this $20 million? Because it might not work. Or maybe nobody will want one.
After 70 years of this bullshit, we're suffering far more than we realize. Because of contracts like this, big business is now convinced of its own infallibility, and Republicans are convinced of the ineptitude of government. This is not the capitalism they've been selling us all these decades. This is ridiculously socialized risk. If we were pursuing actual capitalism, Lockheed would have done a market analysis, possibly discovered that there's a profitable niche going unfilled, and attempted to fill it by designing and building an aircraft. With their own goddamn money.
Instead, Lockheed did a market analysis, possibly discovered there's a profitable niche, and hedged their bets by shoving their risk up our collective asses. So now it's all upside for Lockheed. They can't lose. If it turns out that designing planes on paper is still a stupid idea (F-35, we're looking at you), and the pile of paper NASA receives can't be used to build a plane anybody wants, it's "government" that failed. "NASA Failure!" "NASA Boondoggle!" "NASA's Plane Can't Fly!" The headlines write themselves.
And so the perception that government is incompetent is reinforced, and Lockheed Martin's stock doesn't take a hit, because hey, they delivered a pile of paper. That's what the contract specified. US businesses are never wrong, US businesses never make mistakes, especially not big expensive multi-million dollar mistakes. No, only governments do that.
It's insidious. It's wrong. Every contract like it should be opposed by every American.
Refrigeration is only for the wealthy. Automobiles are only for the wealthy. Indoor plumbing is only for the wealthy. Computers are only for the wealthy. Going to college is only for the wealthy. Electric cars are only for the wealthy.
Ethanol subsidies are just corporate welfare. Windmill subsidies are just corporate welfare. Solar panel subsidies are just corporate welfare. Electric car subsidies are just corporate welfare. Government backed student loans are just corporate welfare. CFL subsidies are just corporate welfare.
Isn't it funny on how the definition of "wealthy" and "corporate welfare" changes depending on the who, when, and where? There's plenty of evidence that what is now a luxury that only the 1% could afford will eventually become affordable for the other 99%.
Oh, and let's pick on just the Republicans because the Democrats NEVER give free stuff to corporations.
If there is something to complain about with government spending then I can give much better examples than funding NASA to research high speed flight. Researching high speed flight is EXACTLY the kind of thing that NASA was created to do.
Go soak your head.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I would agree with most of what you say until you get to "Researching high speed flight is EXACTLY the kind of thing that NASA was created to do." Technically, NASA was created because of Sputnik and had nothing to do with anything but the space race.
But ignoring that point. Isn't the US about free market capitalism. Doesn't that mean that those that risk capital benefit from the success of taking that risk? Government funding of the project removes the risk, but Lockheed still gets the reward. Now government funding makes sense when there is low return so nobody takes the risk such as certain medical research, infrastructure projects, etc. But that is not the case with this. Government funding of this is like government funding of an oil pipeline. Surely the private sector can do this on their own.
If one truly values capitalism as an economic system, then how can this be seen as anything other than corporatism, which is basically corporate welfare.