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.

  • LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Technology filters down. Once upon a time only the rich could afford corrective lenses, but that wasn’t a waste of resources. How many of non-wealthy people will read this comment and wear glasses or contacts? I do. BEVs were limited to the wealthy at first too, and now are solidly affordable to much of the middle class: dependent more on their access to charging and their driving requirements than on their budget. The first residential fridges cost more than a brand new Model T when they came out: the inflation adjusted 1922 price was ~$13,000 today. Was inventing fridges worthless?

    It’s NASA developing new technologies. New stuff starts off more expensive, which means it will start off limited to the wealthy. If you don’t want any new tech to come out that starts with rich people being the primary users, then you should go find your local luddite club to join.

    • j4k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      There will never be a fuel efficient way to travel at supersonic speeds using combustion technology. This is planet destroying tech. It won’t matter in 100 years when everyone is dead. This has no trickle down benefits, nor is it cutting edge. This targets an established market by trying to make it half tolerable for parasitic billionaires to further destroy the world. Supersonic commercial flight was done already. This is 1960’s technology with some CAD tools added. Trickle down, it did not. It did however prove exactly the market it is designed to enable. This is a toy for criminals that shouldn’t exist; the careless egomaniac destroyers of the World. This is only for the people that are constantly flying and have carbon footprints the size of small countries. It is criminal that this is developed at all right now. It is kind of interesting from an engineering perspective, but we are currently in the biggest deviation in earth’s climate since it has been tracked. We stepped over a cliff and have no clue when we’ll hit the bottom. The last thing we need is some stupid asshole that chose to make this problem enabled to make it worse.

      • LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aviation is one of the smallest contributions to greenhouse gas emissions as-is: in 2016 it was 1.9% of global emissions.

        The danger the rich pose to the planet isn’t being first in line for the second generation of supersonic transoceanic flights.

        The danger the rich pose to the planet is them keeping coal and natural gas plants open longer because they personally profit from it. It’s them keeping their taxes low, reducing our ability to fund renewable energy. It’s them fighting tooth and nail against any new energy efficiency regulation (remember the incandescent lightbulb ban fight?) because it “hurts profits.” It’s them fighting against public transportation.

        This? This isn’t even in the top 50 of their ills against the climate. The hate for the rich is well placed. Applying that hate to basic science is dangerously misplaced. The rich love when people push-back on funding science efforts.

      • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are already ways of making jet fuel from captured carbon, as the chemistry continues to evolve we absolutely will see carbon neutral flights becoming more common.

        I know doom feels good and I’m very susceptible to it myself but the reality is we’re probably going to make it through this, it kinda sucks really because it means we do need to plan for the future after all.

    • Oliver Lowe@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see where you’re coming from. Battery electric vehicles I think are a good example of trickle-down. It seems the R&D for electric cars affordable to wealthy people leads to new infra and tech for a changing power grid, buses, trains and bicycles.

      But two examples you raised:

      • corrective lenses
      • refrigeration

      have clear quality-of-life and health benefits. Supersonic passenger flights feel more like a luxury and convenience compared to food preservation.

      Hopefully in the development of reduced flight times between other sides of the world we perform research with impact beyond flight. Things like improved materials, fuel, aerodynamics that could be used for trains and trucks. I’m not an engineer but I hope it works like that!

      • LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Faster transportation is quality of life too. Just like cars were, or railroads before them. Yeah, this one is currently worthless for anyone that isn’t rich. But if it proves successful it will become useful for more of us. Like you say, there’s also just the material and other sciences being done to make it possible that will filter out elsewhere. So much of early space exploration was Cold War dick waving, and now think about how much we rely on satellites. I couldn’t navigate anywhere without GPS, personally…

        People here take their hate of the rich (which is well placed) and aim it at all the wrong things. Don’t like the rich? Tax 'em more. That’s what I want. Higher income taxes and even a wealth tax on the top. And way more meaningful inheritance taxes. Instead they’re bitching about investments in science.

        • Oliver Lowe@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Instead they’re bitching about investments in science.

          Agreed. To be fair, I can also see where the frustration comes from. We see “deals with the devil” being made, but the (disappointing?) reality is tech progress often looks like that. Flashy stories with pie-in-the-sky ideas get headlines and funding. Meanwhile the boring, difficult work continues on in the background. From the outside it seems non-sensical and inefficient: why couldn’t they just invest money directly into GPS research without all the military stuff? But, fortunately, some amazing stuff does come out of it too.

    • keeb420@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      yes tech filters down. however this is unneeded imho. we need cleaner transport not faster.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      “You should be thankful that the rich get to destroy the planet at the literal expense of the rest of us”

      Don’t you bootlickers ever get tired of the taste of leather?

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is wrong. NASA from the beginning was co-opted by the MIC owned by the original billionaires with a tissue thin veil about civilization advancement. Any discussion about super-sonic flight has already dismissed environmental impact and economic accessibility even if it’s ostensibly NASA doing it.

      IF there was a supersonic capable flight technology that somehow wasn’t reliant on fossil fuels or other externalities and was cheap enough that a minimum wage worker could use them as often as they use the Subway in the top 10 largest cities in the world, then I’d be 100% behind it. But that isn’t the case, that is not the intended case, and that will never be the case.

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

        First point there is carbon neutral jet fuel because NASA have been working of jet fuel chemistry for decades.

        Secondly flying isn’t commuting, people don’t need to go to new cities twice a day but being cheap enough to allow people on minimum wage to have a holiday a few times a year would be a great benefit to all.