NASA Hires Lockheed Martin To Build Quiet Supersonic X-Plane (space.com)

New submitter john of sparta shares a report from Space.com: NASA has taken a huge leap forward in its quest to create an aircraft that can travel faster than the speed of sound without causing the ear-splitting sonic boom. The space agency announced today (April 2) that it has awarded the aerospace company Lockheed Martin a $247.5 million contract to design and build a new X-plane, known as the Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator (LBFD), which may soar silently over the U.S. by 2022. Lockheed Martin's LBFD won't be built for transporting people. Before any supersonic planes will be allowed to fly over land, NASA and Lockheed Martin must prove that it's possible to break the sound barrier without the sonic boom.

Jaiwon Shin, associate administrator of NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, said that the LBFD will fly over select U.S. cities starting in mid-2022 and NASA will "ask the people living and working in those communities to tell us what they heard, if anything." The LBFD aircraft will be 94 feet (29 meters) long, or about the size of a small business jet. It will fly at a cruising altitude of about 55,000 feet (17,000 meters) and reach a speed of 1.4 times the speed of sound (about 1,000 mph, or 1,600 km/h). This will "create a sound about as loud as a car door closing," NASA officials said in the news conference.

Comments

Re: But... WHY??

[AmiMoJo]

Japan's space agency JAXA has been working on similar tech in the last decade too.

Reducing the sonic boom is just one idea for bringing back supersonic transport aircraft. Others include designing one that operates better at lower speeds, so that it can get out over the ocean before going supersonic without wasting too much time and fuel.

Re:Earsplitting?

[known_coward_69]

US Navy has these giant ships that carry aeroplanes anywhere in the world

Re: But... WHY??

[Sarten-X]

As someone who routinely flew across half the continent... no.

get the FAA to change the rules allowing existing designs to create a sonic boom over land while traveling over a certain altitude

It's not just an FAA problem. The booms are still problematic, even at altitude. They require a lot of planning, as they will disrupt other aircraft in flight. They're also still a nuisance at the ground, even if they aren't loud enough to shatter windows or cause damage.

simply bring a new Concorde back

Ah, yes... let's bring back a doomed aircraft and hope it magically works better this time.

The Concorde was a brilliant piece of engineering, but ultimately impractical. Its design, optimized for supersonic flight, meant it wasn't very stable at the lower landing speed, and had to pitch much higher during landing to maintain stability. That's why the nose tips down: so the pilots can see where they're going while the plane is still pointed up. Add to that the inefficiencies and difficulty in accommodating the unique needs of the plane, and it's no surprise it was mothballed.

given the amount of sonic booms people have endured for decades living near an Air Force base or a Space Shuttle landing site. A fighter jet squadron is not quiet by any means.

...both of which pale in comparison to the frequency of booms from possible commercial traffic.

As it happens, I've spent a good amount of time near fighter jets. They certainly aren't quiet, being up in the hundred-decibel range from a reasonable distance, but they typically don't produce sonic booms while anywhere near the ground. Even then, the bases where they perform such maneuvers are usually in sparsely populated areas, where the majority of people exposed to the noise are the military personnel, who quite frankly aren't given the ability to complain.

Similarly, the western Space Shuttle landing sites were also in sparsely-populated areas. While the eastern landing site at Kennedy Space Center is certainly more populated than Edwards AFB, it's still far less dense (especially where the booms were loudest) than most of what you'll find in the path of commercial air travel.

The reality is tickets will likely cost 10 - 20x more

At first, this is probably true. Yet, first-class seats are still filled routinely, and I know of at least one company that would love any ability to move people and equipment across the country, and have them arrive in time to be installed the same day.

and attract about as many people as those who fly privately, which is not that large a market.

The funny thing is that usually markets will appear. Significantly cutting travel time anywhere in the continental U.S. means it's possible (though expensive) to get something off a loading dock in Boston at 7AM, and get it to a loading dock in L.A. by 4PM, while there's still someone there to unload it. Currently, that impossibility means there's no chance of the shipment arriving while the dock is staffed, so it waits until the next morning. That means a one-day effort is now two days, and if that stretches over a weekend, it becomes four days to do a ten-minute installation on a part*.

And humans have to sleep, so flying coast to coast is quite socially acceptable when done overnight without causing a considerable loss to precious business time.

Humans also have to sleep fairly comfortably, or they suffer consequences like not being able to walk the next day. There are also a lot of folks who understand that "business time", "sleep time", and "personal time" are all separate things that should not be mixed freely. There are also companies who will only pay for time spent traveling during normal business hours, so flying overnight is an inconvenience to the employee with absolutely no compensation*.

* These stories are unfortunately true, from a previous job where I did installation and troubleshooting of very expensive equipment, usually located on the other side of the country from our office.