Oh, and by the way, the Shuttle produces a relatively mild 1.25 pounds per square foot while landing... the Concorde at altitude and speed is 1.94 psf. Just FYI.
Yes... it was American sour grapes that damaged Concorde's success more than anything else.
The Concorde wasn't the first one either y'know. That'd belong to the Russian's TU-144 'Concordski'. The fact that USSR abandoned the idea of SST in the mid 70's due to it's numerous drawbacks doesn't mean anything, though, right? It's solely due to American sour grapes. And the Boeing 2707 (AKA 733) and Lockheed L-2000 (Both of which were viable, though the Boeing won out) weren't abandoned because they were fuel-guzzling and insanely noisy... Nope. It was all out of spite. I mean, the Boeing 2707 only carried over twice the passengers the Concorde did (250 to 128) at.6 Mach faster.
Sarcasm aside, no. The Sonic Boom was what killed SST. Having lived in Florida a good part of my life, and subject to Shuttle Sonic Booms from landing 60 miles away, I can safely tell you that having 30 such events a day is not acceptable. One window rattling every few months is an amusing diversion. One an hour would get old, fast.
Oh, and thank you for the extra information. Was a good read. Any additional reading you recommend? I'm quite interested in this subject if you couldn't already tell...
Actually, if you'll notice in those pictures, there is one massive burst, with several minor ones on places that you pointed out, mainly the canopy and wings.
The main boom is the one I was describing, and as far as I can tell, it was accurate. At least the Wikipedia seems to agree with me:
In smooth flight, the shock wave starts at the nose of the aircraft and ends at the tail. There is a sudden rise in pressure at the nose, decreasing steadily to a negative pressure at the tail, where it suddenly returns to normal. This "overpressure profile" is known as the N-wave due to its shape. We experience the "boom" when there is a sudden rise in pressure, so the N-wave causes two booms, one when the initial pressure rise from the nose hits, and another when the tail passes and the pressure suddenly returns to normal. This leads to a distinctive "double boom" from supersonic aircraft.
and ending the Concorde would have just confirmed what all the naysayers thought, that it was too soon for a decent SST.
That's my point. It *was* too soon for a decent SST. Had it been run as a free-market expirement, it would have ended a few years after it was brought to the public. The only reason it survived as long as it did was the fairly hefty initial government subsidies.
Had the industry instead waited for the technology to mature, which it is to some degree now, it wouldn't suffer from the negative image the public has of SST's, namely that they're, like I said, noisy gas-hogs. Hopefully, if somebody pursues a SST based on this Sonic Boom shaping research, they'll be smart enough to not rely on afterburners for supersonic capabilities... The Joint Strike Fighter manages to cruise above Mach 1 with a single engine, hopefuly the next SST will be able to cruise above Mach with a 3 or 4 engine design without the Afterburners.
While I'll grant that the XB-70 was indeed cooler than the Concorde, it doesn't touch the coolness of the SR-71...
Well. Unless you count the video of the mid-air collision which effectively ended the development program. *THAT* was cool... Tragic, but very, VERY cool.
It's created constantly by supersonic flight. It's a byproduct of the air pressure in front of the plane being extremely high, steadily decreasing as you head back to the tail, and a sharp rise behind the tail when the pressure snaps back to normal.
This is why there are two booms from each aircraft. The first one from the pressure wave preceding the plane, and the second from the posterior wave.
After all, somehow they seem to have overlooked the possiblity of changing the shape of the airplane to reduce the boom until now. Seems to me that's a pretty obvious thing to look into.
Nope. They though of the idea in the 70's, if I remember correctly. They simply didn't have the ability to properly model the aircrafts until the advent of extremely powerful computer aided designs which allowed modelling of the airflow both in front and hundreds of feet behind the aircraft.
Nope. "Shaping" is where the booms are created in relation to the aircraft and each other, and how they would effect each other. "Directed" would be pointing the booms in a direction and saying "Go there!". Only one is possible.
As well as the Shuttle for Areas near Cape Canaveral...
But alas, no. The Concorde has a much higher 'figure of merit' (FM), and creates a much larger boom than a fighter. The size of the boom relates to the weight and length of the aircraft, and since the Concorde is much heavier than the relatively small Fighters...
The Concorde has an FM of 1.4, wheras most fighters have less than a 1... Translation: Concorde leaves a much bigger boom.
That's not entirely accurate. The shockwave can be shaped, though the math to make that possible is way over my head. The structure at the origin of the shockwave determines the wave's shape.
Shaped, yes. The purpose of this testing is to shape it so that the different booms spread out the boom so it isn't as loud, or interfere with each other to possibly partially cancel each other.
It can't, however, be directed, which is what the Great-grandparent was asking.
They've only been promising a solution to the Sonic Boom problem for, what, 30 years now?
Not only did the Concorde jump the gun by a few decades, I think it's hindered any development into the field of Commercial Supersonic Transport by being an noisy fuel-hog... Though it was one of the most beautiful planes ever built, right up there with the SR-71...
They are not quite there yet: the card is the length and width of an ordinary credit card, but it is still about three times as thick. Alan Sege, Beepcard's CEO, says the company now plans to use smaller chips to slim it down to normal thickness
Knowing Google, they're probably doing one or more of the following:
*Getting usibility information from the beta testers.
*Assessing their ad-placement algorithms.
*Trying to see how the email will work on their distributed systems.
*Hashing through privacy concerns, see if there are ways to alleviate them.
And I'm sure there's more that others could think of that they'd be testing...
Slashdot Mirror
From here:
C# != .NET
Think Mono
Great. I can see Microsoft's new slogan now:
Windows: The best OS for surgeons
Oh, and by the way, the Shuttle produces a relatively mild 1.25 pounds per square foot while landing... the Concorde at altitude and speed is 1.94 psf. Just FYI.
Sarcasm aside, no. The Sonic Boom was what killed SST. Having lived in Florida a good part of my life, and subject to Shuttle Sonic Booms from landing 60 miles away, I can safely tell you that having 30 such events a day is not acceptable. One window rattling every few months is an amusing diversion. One an hour would get old, fast.
Naw. The Harlem Globetrotters would show up and grant him immunity at the last minute.
Once in a lifetime?
I dunno 'bout you, but I plan on being alive 8 years from now.
Twice in a lifetime, that I'd agree with...
Oh, and thank you for the extra information. Was a good read. Any additional reading you recommend? I'm quite interested in this subject if you couldn't already tell...
The main boom is the one I was describing, and as far as I can tell, it was accurate. At least the Wikipedia seems to agree with me:
Such a technical solution already exists.
Had the industry instead waited for the technology to mature, which it is to some degree now, it wouldn't suffer from the negative image the public has of SST's, namely that they're, like I said, noisy gas-hogs. Hopefully, if somebody pursues a SST based on this Sonic Boom shaping research, they'll be smart enough to not rely on afterburners for supersonic capabilities... The Joint Strike Fighter manages to cruise above Mach 1 with a single engine, hopefuly the next SST will be able to cruise above Mach with a 3 or 4 engine design without the Afterburners.
Ack. Sorry, I kinda went on a rant there...
While I'll grant that the XB-70 was indeed cooler than the Concorde, it doesn't touch the coolness of the SR-71...
Well. Unless you count the video of the mid-air collision which effectively ended the development program. *THAT* was cool... Tragic, but very, VERY cool.
It's created constantly by supersonic flight. It's a byproduct of the air pressure in front of the plane being extremely high, steadily decreasing as you head back to the tail, and a sharp rise behind the tail when the pressure snaps back to normal.
This is why there are two booms from each aircraft. The first one from the pressure wave preceding the plane, and the second from the posterior wave.
Nope. "Shaping" is where the booms are created in relation to the aircraft and each other, and how they would effect each other. "Directed" would be pointing the booms in a direction and saying "Go there!". Only one is possible.
As well as the Shuttle for Areas near Cape Canaveral...
But alas, no. The Concorde has a much higher 'figure of merit' (FM), and creates a much larger boom than a fighter. The size of the boom relates to the weight and length of the aircraft, and since the Concorde is much heavier than the relatively small Fighters...
The Concorde has an FM of 1.4, wheras most fighters have less than a 1... Translation: Concorde leaves a much bigger boom.
Nope. The Boom is omnidirectional. In fact, the downward part of the wave is aided by the increasing atmospheric pressure.
They've only been promising a solution to the Sonic Boom problem for, what, 30 years now?
Not only did the Concorde jump the gun by a few decades, I think it's hindered any development into the field of Commercial Supersonic Transport by being an noisy fuel-hog... Though it was one of the most beautiful planes ever built, right up there with the SR-71...
That's not true! I mean theres...
err...
uh...
Pokemon?
Crap, you're right. They all suck. I'm just waiting for Frogger: The Movie.
Not only will it have Voice Recognition, it will have voice synthesis to communicate to the user! I can see it now...
"I can't let you buy that, Dave."
Will there be a www.BurnAllJPGs.com?
Knowing Google, they're probably doing one or more of the following:
*Getting usibility information from the beta testers.
*Assessing their ad-placement algorithms.
*Trying to see how the email will work on their distributed systems.
*Hashing through privacy concerns, see if there are ways to alleviate them.
And I'm sure there's more that others could think of that they'd be testing...