In July, Lockheed Martin completed the build of NASA’s X-59 test aircraft, which is designed to turn sonic booms into mere thumps, in the hope of making overland supersonic flight a possibility. Ground tests and a first test flight are planned for later in the year. NASA aims to have enough data to hand over to US regulators in 2027.

    • twogems@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or it’s own people. Which is stupid, because the brain drain will catch up technology wise.

      • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        We can tell it’s already effecting you by trying to suggest nasa is a waste, when we spend 100 times it’s budget on wasted military contracts or the fact we do have a tax bracket that allows someone to even become a billionaire instead of taking back excessive wealth stolen from workers in predatory labor markets. There are other areas we should be getting this money for the public and it sure as hell shouldn’t be from aeronautic or space research ffs.

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also NASA has created endless bits of research that benefit everyone and the economy, the fact I’m typing this from my phone is only really possible because NASA ‘wasted’ money going to space.

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are technologies already starting to roll out which will make flying the least ecologically damaging means of public transport for long and medium length journeys, I wrote a comment about it already but they’re building a faculty that turns captured carbon into jet fuel it’s really clever stuff.

          • strawberry@artemis.camp
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            yeah but captured carbon gas is stupid expensive, and I imagine it’ll be worse for jet fuel. porsches recaptured carbon gas is like $40 a gallon

            • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The first computers cost millions and the one I’m holding in my hand is basically worthlesss. capture and conversion are both fairly simple processes so we will see a lot of reduction in cost once engineering pathways are established especially when tied to excess power generation from renewables - instead of wasting excess capacity divert it to a nearby carbon capture plant.

              If a system like this manages to make fuel cheaper than standard fuel types then we’ll see them spring up everywhere, it could be a total game changer. Worse ways there’s an expensive alternative for use cases where electric planes aren’t feasible and we learn a lot about atmospheric carbon in the process.

              The air force have been doing studies and they’re really keen on it, fuel security is the main reason but it wouldn’t have got this far if it wasn’t at least somewhat economically viable.

              • strawberry@artemis.camp
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I agree with you 100% that it will get cheaper, though I think that gas will soon be something only rich people can afford for their fancy cars. the rest of us peasants will be stuck with our shitty electric cars

    • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      How about bitch about the actual wasteful military spending instead of scientific research into physics and understanding the dynamics of sonic booms. Nasa has like .1% of the military budget ffs.