NASA and Lockheed Martin formally debuted the agency’s X-59 quiet supersonic aircraft Friday. Using this one-of-a-kind experimental airplane, NASA aims to

    • comrade19@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the future people will even be able to play chess with someone across the world, and even order a pizza to their door on the telephone.

      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        and even order a pizza to their door on the telephone.

        While living on the moon. (50s futurists aimed high.)

          • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree. But sadly, a lot of progress is driven buy conflict as well.

            Unless a nation is under an existential threat there is little motivation to invest in progress.

            • comrade19@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you can order a missile strike a country away, you should bee able to put a pizza in it. Progress

      • roscoe@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Shut the fuck up! Now Vader, he’s a spiritual brother, with the force and all that shit. Then this cracker Skywalker gets his hands on a lightsaber, and the boy decides he’s goinna run the fucking universe - gets a whole Klan of whites together, and they’re gonna bust up Vader’s 'hood - the Death Star. Now what the fuck do you call that?

  • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they are taking about an “X-59” it’s because the classified tests on the “X-109” went well.

  • JTskulk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    “NASA aims to gather data that could revolutionize air travel, paving the way for a new generation of commercial aircraft that can travel faster than the speed of sound.”

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think that is definitely just a cover because they don’t want to admit they’re actually developing supersonic stealth planes for the military.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that is definitely just a cover because they don’t want to admit they’re they’ve actually developing developed supersonic stealth planes for the military.

        Ftfy

        What they reveal openly is usually from years ago. A couple aerospace friends are always like "yea, we heard scuttlebut about that about 5 years ago, so that means it was already a thing 10 years ago*, haha.

      • grayman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        From the eyewitness accounts of whistle blowers, traditional propulsion and modern propulsion are old tech compared to what they have today. Silent and extremely fast already exists.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Guys, check out the cockpit.

    I know technology is wildly advanced and he probably has a 360 view now, but other than test pilots, who are you going to get to fly a plane that lacks a forward view?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      With that huge honker of a nose, it’s not like you’d see much anyway. Entire cities could hide behind that

    • TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of the material issues with supersonic is friction heat buildup. Probably can’t have a front windshield at that speed.

      Cameras and instrumentation will do just fine tho

      • Ducky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        The heat is from compression, not friction. And besides that, this thing is only flying at mach 1.5, there are TONS of aircraft that fly at those speeds (and much faster) with windshields.

        The reason it doesn’t have a front windshield is because the change in shape of the aircraft at the windshield, to be more vertical, was disrupting their method of reducing the sonic boom. The aircraft needs the shape it has, so a windshield would have to be like 20 feet long to offer any forward visibility.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      but other than test pilots, who are you going to get to fly a plane that lacks a forward view?

      This plane will only be flown by test pilots. Its a technology demonstrator. Researchers build one of these to test concepts in physics in the real world.

      • rckclmbr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Basically Stealth IRL.

        BTW, fucking coolest, most underrated movie ever IMO

  • crystalmerchant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Across both teams, talented, dedicated, and passionate scientists, engineers, and production artisans have collaborated to develop and produce this aircraft,” said John Clark, vice president and general manager at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works.

    What the hell is a production artisan?

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Someone with the skills and knowledge to “manually” produce some of the many one-off parts that went into this prototype.

      The scientists and engineers may know what kind of part is needed, but it takes a different skillset to produce it.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So like the welders for the Russian rocket engines that were produced 50 years ago? Seems those welds are something we aren’t sure how they did it.

          • sugartits@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            HOLLY: Oh, I forgot, I haven’t told you the news.

            RIMMER: What news?

            HOLLY: A signal. We’re getting a signal. It’s probably nothing but I just thought I’d mention it.

            RIMMER: (Snaps his fingers) Aliens!

            LISTER: Oh god, aliens? Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn’t it? You lose your keys – it’s aliens. A picture falls off the wall – it’s aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day – you thought that was aliens as well.

            RIMMER: Well we didn’t use it all, Lister. Who did?

            LISTER: Rimmer, aliens used our bog roll?

            RIMMER: Just ‘cause they’re aliens doesn’t mean to say the don’t have to visit the little boys’ room. Only they probably do something weird and alienesque like it comes out of the top of their heads or something.

            LISTER: Well I wouldn’t like to be stuck behind one in a cinema.

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah something like that. Welding is absolutely something that requires skill and talent.

          I have a electromechanical engineering degree myself, at some point during my education we had some labs where we did basic welding, milling, lathing and whatnot. The intention was not to become experts at it, but to get notions of what it entails. I quickly understood that theoretical understanding and hands-on experience are entirely different things, and require an entirely different skillset.

    • vind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Sonic Boom will sound more like your neighbours car door closing than an explosion

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even regular planes have negative effects on the neighborhoods they take off and land over. This is definitely going to be worse.

        I’ll only believe the “low noise” PR if it flies supersonic directly over Malibu or the Hamptons and Nantucket.

      • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        A sonic thump could still be very disturbing. Maybe not break windows, but induce panic I a lot of people.

        • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Jesus fucking Christ, we need a word for cunts in the comments who’ll find any fuckin reason to suggest a really specific reason to be against/offended about something on behalf of someone else 😂

          Is there a word for that?

          Can we make one?

          • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            May I suggest a blott?

            And what is so bad about not wanting sonic booms of any sort happening over my head?

            • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was making a point about the 0.00000001% of people that could be distressed by that but you didn’t understand my comment

              • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sorry, I missed the part were it was such a small number. I also doubt that number is true.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, apparently we do…

          The problem with Sonic booms isn’t that you notice them, it’s fine to notice the sound of a vehicle traveling overhead. The problem is that the sound from previous supersonic jets has shattered windows all along the flight path, ruptured eardrums and caused moderate hearing loss.That is a problem…

          If this instead sounds like a car door closing, I’d call that significantly quieter.

          • poppy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was at work in a bank (big, sturdy, multiple stories) when we experienced a sonic boom. It was heard/felt across several counties. We thought a bomb had gone off somewhere.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Considering that splitting supersonic shockwaves in the air is kind of analogous to splitting the water when plunge-diving for fish (which at least some pterosaurids are hypothesized to have done), that makes sense.

  • rickdg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s like a blind Pinocchio flying at the speed of sound controlled by a touch screen. 2024, ladies and gents.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was a joke.

        But no, I don’t believe it’s controlled with a touch screen. Though it is “daring” shall we say… to make a plane with no cockpit windows.

        • Kata1yst@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In commercial airliners, nearly the entire flight is now closely monitored and controlled by redundant computer systems. And the pilots rarely use the front window, they mostly fly by instrument.

          Cameras as the cockpit windows aren’t really that crazy at this point. Really glass cockpits are a formality.

          • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Glass cockpit is a specific term for flight decks that have replaced analog gauges with digital gauges and screens.

            Pilots use the windows all of the time. They use it to look for traffic and for vfr approaches.

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

          It’s really not, flying without looking out the window is very common especially for NASA and the USAF.

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s really not, flying without looking out the window is very common especially for NASA and the USAF.

            Absolutely, in fact it’s not just nasa or military, almost everyone does that. You need to prove that you can fly without looking out the window to get your “instrument rating” and be legally allowed to fly at night. Every instrument flight rated pilot can do it (a majority of pilots). However, airports are lit up with lights, so even at night or in fog, you can see the runway as you’re landing. If you have no windows, you can’t do that, you’ll need someone to guide you down.

            That’s not my concern, the issue is a lack of redundancy. If the computers crash or if the vehicle loses power your suddenly have no windows. From a design perspective, it’s a risky choice. Not insurmountable, but it’s a potential problem point. It’s a choice that adds an additional critical single point of failure.

            • reddithalation@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              lack of redundancy is a concern, but the same was said for fly by wire cutting the physical link between stick and controls. fly by wire is ubiquitous now, can be made very very safe, and is a net gain for aviation in general.

              not having a window is obviously a bigger challenge, but its still a solvable problem.

              • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, I totally agree. I don’t think this is an insurmountable challenge or anything, just a bold decision.

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

              Yeah but looking out the window as your plane crashes isn’t going to change the fiery death that a system shutdown on a modern airliner will inevitably bring.

              I get what you’re saying but a window is a structural trade off too, they’ve obviously done the testing and determined it’s a sensible design choice

              • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yeah but looking out the window as your plane crashes isn’t going to change the fiery death that a system shutdown on a modern airliner will inevitably bring.

                Simply not true.

                There are redundant systems for everything on aircraft. You can certainly control the plane without the computers working, and without any instruments working. You can generally control the plane even without power because of redundant hydraulic systems.

                Thinking computers are necessary to do anything is wrong when it comes to aircraft.

                And obviously the choice to eliminate the windows is entirely a structural design, that’s where you see the benefits, which I’m sure are quite real.