Speak for yourself. As an Australian I'd love to see a long range mach 1 + aircraft introduced, rather than spending 24 hours on a plane just to get to the UK.
@@Mika-xt1wc They don't make money if you skip their stupid video. you can skip to the last minute, get the info you wanted, and leave a downvote. They desperately need you to watch their 10 minutes of fluff so they can get a couple ads in. They don't get a dime if you skip past their worthless rambling, so you're the "dumdum" for not understanding the point @BlazingShackles was making.
I used to love hearing the sonic boom when I was a child. We lived on the flight path in Devon, UK. I used to occasionally think about the passengers on board heading to New York, a place that I had only seen in films.
I started school in Abilene, Texas where Dyess Air Force Base was located. Sonic booms were just a way of life. I don't remember anybody getting upset over them.
What year was this? Abilene is in the middle of oil fields and agriculture where no-one was upset about a little "background" noise. I was raised in the Panhandle of Texas in the early '60s and heard sonic booms often from B-58s out of Carswell AFB on their missions in the test areas in west Texas.
@@sahibdipsandhu "uh last i checked the b58 isn't exactly capable of going supersonic lol" are you thinking of the B52? The B58 Hustler was America's first supersonic bomber that was designed to fly at mach 2. So...maybe check again.
This plane isn't meant for passenger transport. It is a proof of concept design, as a basis for building passenger planes. And it was't just the 1% flying on the concorde.
Just like shoes were a few hundred years ago. And then horses and carriages, and cars, and then planes not too much later. Just like income tax was originally, this is for the 0.01 percent today, but in ten years flying will be cheaper and faster than ever before.
concorde wasnt discontinued because of the sound of breaking the sound barrier. during its uk tour it passed over my house in england about 10 miles from mcr airport. it was not deafening nor did it rattle windows.
I lived near Holloman AFB for 5yrs and those f35s would knock the pictures off my walls every day. Granted, they were breaking the sound barrier a couple hundred feet AGL.
@@user-pj8hp9jd7t when you consider you can fit the uk into washington state twice with room for ireland, they didnt really have time to hit full throttle lol..
True the Concorde wasnt discontinued because of the sonic boom, but the reason why you never got affected by it was because the Concorde was only allowed to fly at supersonic speed on top of the ocean, this means by the the time they where close to your home the plane was already at subsonic speed. The biggest issue with the fact that they where only allowed to fly at supersonic speed on top of the ocean, was that limited the number of routes, pretty much no LA to Berlin, all because those engines the best fuel consumption happens at supersonic speed (if I remeber well it was 1.7 Mach), at lower speeds they where just burning the fuel. A fly LA to Paris with the Concorde (a route they once had), flying over the US at subsonic speed meant having to land by Chicago or NYC to reload fuel and keep the flight, making it non practical, that is why that route was canceled as well many other routes.
Exactly. Im on the M4 Corridor 20 miles from Heathrow. Used to love seeing Concorde come over every day at 1pm as a kid. It was not that loud. But the crackle from the engines was really cool.
@@giuseppe.turitto Some serious misrepresentations there fellah. For a start Concorde flew at Mach 2. And it did so using 'Supercruise' (ie supersonic flight without afterburners) for 3,000 miles. No other aircraft got anywhere close to that capability. Hilarious how the Yanks thought they invented 'Supercruise' with the F-22 when the EE Lightning was doing it in the '50s followed by Concorde in the '60s. As for the stops 'for fuel' in the USA? Well not quite true. It was to pick up more passengers.
Who remembers the show, Get Smart? I remember they had something called the Hush-A-Boom. That's what they should call this plane as a nod to Get Smart. 😂😂
Sounds like a good thing, but frankly we are having trouble with the quality & safety of subsonic flights now. Hopefully Lockheed-Martin is a better operation than Boeing now.
the thought of not having a visual reference of any kind in front of you at those heights and those speeds is truly terrifying and would no less require nerves of steel to get into a extremely fast box without windows.
Absolutely this is why DEI will be the defining criteria for HR hiring managers. My last flight took place in April 2024, it will be the last time I will ever fly. Unless of course Trump is elected and he manages to undo 12 yrs of Obama/Biden destruction of the US. LOL I don’t chase after rainbows and unicorns either.
WHEN A Pilot flies into a cloud he has NO VISUAL reference.. It's like someone painted the windows white.. I have flown when I couldn't see a meter down the nose The wings are gone from sight...hehe.. This happens every day I promise you it doesn't matter how fast you are going losing sight gets your attention every time... but we do it safely most times.. it's called instrument flying. They have a camera that helps this plane to see forward. my question is what happens when you get a bug that goes splat on the camera and covers the view...lol..
@@thrillchaser9492 exactly my point, pilots are trained and encouraged to rely and trust their instrument clusters over their visual and other physical senses because it can't be fooled as easily as a humans senses can however in case of catastrophic failure being the bug splat on the camera rendering instruments useless you have a second life line being your windows. lol God help ya going at those speeds only to experience a glitch, lag or a screen freeze rendering the image useless. lol
Yes is a silly argument, but imagine if we had a way to fly a pacient that had been in a bad accident to a medical center that can take care of it in matter of minutes, not hours. This research if succesful can lead to improve aviation and the creation of medical fast response services. But I think is only a dream.
Guys, I apriciate your thinking, but flying supersonic is super expensive. There are already jetplanes in service doing just this. And they are almost as fast as sound.
Fun fact: Every 3 decibels, the intensity of the sound *doubles*. From 75 to 105 decibels, the sound pressure has doubled 10 times! That makes the Concorde's sonic boom 1024 tiems louder than the new proposed line of jets.
Yes, but. The human ear is only capable of detecting a 3db change in level. Every time you increase the volume on your audio system so you can just hear a difference in volume you are increasing the level by 3db.
@@keithbalding7258but decibel is not an absolute scale but a relative. Yes, +3 db is barely audible but +10db is basically double the volume to our ears. Also depends on which frequency you are hearing too. For example, 200 Hz and 1000 Hz both playing at 60 db, one will drive you nuts while the other one is quite tolerable.
When i worked at lockheed martin in palmdale i had access to a 2nd floor mezzane overlooking the area were they were assembling the X-59 it was interesting to observe the progress over time as it was assembled
There was a day when sonic booms were common. We were used to it and when the jets were high altitude it really wasn't a problem. There are always people that won't like anything you do. You find this with people that build houses next to airports then complain about the noise the airplanes make taking off and landing at the airport, go figure that one!
@@lqr824 I see you're an "expert" on the topic. Well, you're not. I'm 73 years old and I lived in those days. Where I lived they were common. Go badger someone else.
@@donadams8345 In no country on the planet, in any year in history, did even 10% of the citizens even hear even one sonic boom. Sonic booms have never been common. Maybe the very few percent that lived near a military training base might hear them at times but not even military jets flew supersonic with any regularity. But go back and read your comment. You didn't SAY they were common around military training, you said common full stop, no qualifications whatsoever, and now you're whining because you've been called out as a liar. Have been such a whiner all your 73 years?
They've probably had it secretly for 40 years already but are unveiling it publicly now because secretly they have something newer that makes it obsolete.
It's basically an X world flight simulator with a small computer screen. Sure we can all handle 75 more decibels of noise while wearing noise canceling headphones.
I bet the only purpose was massive kickbacks as any other expensive projects. Business as usual. But they needed to show something before it goes to an archive.
As a New Yorker I used to love when the Concord flew into JFK. I lifeguarded Rockaway Beach the summers of 87,88 and 89 and watched the Concord fly in the morning.
As the old joke goes with the pilot of the new airliner welcomes his passengers aboard ' This plane is fully automated and nothing can go wrong ... go wrong .. go wrong ... '
The shape of the plane isn't the hard part. It is much harder to find a material strong and light enough. And to design engines and a cockpit that don't get in the way of each other or the design of the plane.
But if you look at the shape of the X-59 it's obvious that to get the reduction in the sonic boom level it has had to have a really extreme pointy shape - 100ft long with a 30ft wingspan. Concorde was already very pointy, with a 200ft long fuselage and an 85 ft wingspan for 100 seats capacity. To scale up the X-59 proportionately for a 100 seat passenger jet it would be like 300ft long with a 90ft wingspan. That's a huge plane for 100 seats. Although very pointy planes fly very well at high speed they don't generate much lift at low speeds, so need really long runways to take-off and land. This would be even more true with a plane that's 300ft long.
@@nicholasklangos9704It is true if the surface area of the aircraft increases, the leading edge has to increase proportional to the area of the fuselage and wing area, probably incredibly difficult to scale up.
My dishwasher must be much quieter than yours.In the late 1980's I saw an add in the NYT offering a New Years Eve flight from NYC to London and back for $1,500. I had the money (just barely) but not the attitude to spend the money. I'm still conflicted over the choice.
As you get older you realise that you need to take some opportunities as they arise because there’s no guarantee you will get a second chance to take them. Imagine being able to say you flew on Concord, as the years pass the amount of people able to say that diminishes, there will never be another first supersonic passenger jet.
Looks like it borrowed a lot of parts from the F-16. Also a sonic boom is not just noise pollution problem but also one of efficiency. It takes energy to make sound, and a sound that loud takes a lot of energy to produce. It is very much like the wake of a boat where a large wake is both taking a lot of energy and reducing the boat/ships efficiency that created it. Minimize the wake minimizes the boom and maximizes efficiency.
This country has a lot of crude oil that hasn’t been developed yet and until technology brings us a better faster way of traveling than why not use our resources “Rising water lifts all boats”
@@larrybremer4930 it has components from several different aircraft, the F-16 being one of them. But what do I know, I’m only a NASA AFRC engineer working on the project.
@@Rockoblocko Just saying F-16 was the only recognizable parts sir. And thanks for your service. My stepdad was an engineer on the shuttle program right up until the instant the last flight lifted off.
I think you might be the goof it isn't realistic making that shape big enough for passengers and certainly not financially viable just like Concorde even though fuel was cheaper and emissions weren't much of a concern.
I used to believe that no system would be implemented in commercial aviation without a certain level of redundancy, but Boeing and airbus really like proving me wrong. I will say though, after the first few crashes I am sure the government agencies will step in and make those systems redundant and much safer.
I remember the Cold War days when the military used supersonic jets with impunity on training flights in Europe. Some of them were stratospheric, not low level, and their boom was quite subdued even with technology of the day. The only problem was that the boom came without warning and it was this element of surprise that made it a nuisance. So, a lot of psychology is involved here. Just like with the Concorde. Its most annoying feature was that it was made in Europe.
The Concorde ate jet fuel like a land yacht car from the 70's. There's a reason it didn't fly from Vancouver, LA or SFO airports to Asia. Cutting that flight time would have been amazing. Concorde was inspired technology, but it had its drawbacks. Cost per hour of flight time in its 4100 mile flight range was its Achilles' heel
@@captlazer5509 First class plus 20% as I recall. It was marginal technology - if London weather was poor you had to decide half an hour ahead to divert into Paris or vice versa. There was not enough fuel to go around and then divert, but this margin was somehow made legal - they had more cojones those days. It did not really matter because the idea was that Concorde was iteration no.1, to be followed by better versions. Like the moon landings would continue after the first batch. What could possibly go wrong, right?
@peterf2451 there was love in North America for the Concorde. I was a kid and remember classmates drawing the Concorde and that campy movie Airport 77: The Concorde. Wish the fuel consumption issue could have been solved. Maybe one day a new Concorde will grace us again.
@@jbird6609don't know about the first accident ? But the last on was no fault of concorde it was due to shoddy maintenance on an American airliner that the bit fell off of .
@jbird6609 Concorde didn't "become" an economic failure, it was an economic failure from the get-go. Concorde NEVER turned a profit. If there had been money to be made with an SST you can bet any body part you want U.S. airlines would have clamored for Boeing or Lockheed or somebody to make an American one! The Boeing SST advanced to the full scale mockup stage and the airlines weren't interested in it.
Nobody wants high speed rail. It's far too costly and impractical for our large country. We just recently got high speed rail from Orlando, FL to the Miami area. There is one stop in Orlando and I think there are either four or five stations in the Miami area. The only people that train actually serves live in Orlando or Miami AND have a frequent need to travel between them. More stops could be added along the way, but the more stops you have, the less the time advantage of the train over a car and the less attractive it is compared to a faster plane.
@@kirkjohnson6638 People go to Orlando OR Miami. Nobody needs both. But... how long do you think it will take for this scaled down demonstrator plane to become a real-world travel option? Europe is full of high-speed rail and guess what, genius... They turn a profit.
@@TheDwightMamba The high speed train in FL only travels between Orlando and Miami. Unless you want to go from Orlando to Miami or miami to Orlando, that train is of no use to you. And, that train goes about 80 mph, so it doesn't aave much time over driving. And, yeah, I've ridden a high speed train in France from Paris to Lyon. It's decent and you can save about $100 or so compared to flying but it takes a bit longer. The only places that high speed train makes sense in the US is along the northeastern seaboard because that is the only area with enough major cities spaced closely enough to generate fares and where people can save enough time and money to be worth taking the train vs. driving or flying. As soon as you try to go through the interior of the US, the spacing between major cities makes flying a much better option. The west coast cold possibly be a good place for a high speed train, but as everyone in CA has been learning for decades, its way to expensive to build. They have been working on it for 45 years and have had to scale it back to a short route between Bakersfield and Merced. According to Google, the high speed rail in CA has already cost over $11.2 billion to go 119 miles through rural lands. When they try to buy suburban and urban land to extend the train between San Diego and Sacramento the costs will skyrocket as will the time needed to negotiate deals with thousands of land owners rather than a few mega land owners in the central valley. By the time they get it done everyone will either be telecommuting, taking their self driving cars while sleeping, or will already be neuralinked into the cyberworld.
@@billmullins6833 are you aware that NASA paid NG $247.5 million for this demonstrator?.... with... um... tax money? Weird. If the market for supersonic travel was there, why does the government have to pay for it? Dude called me a genius and went ALL CAPS to do it. Thank you for proving my statement with your ill-informed statement.
My wife lived on Jet Rd, in Sandy Springs, right in the flight line of Dobbins Air Force Base. There were a lot of sonic booms, living so close to the base.
You do understand that the concept of flying on instruments is essential to commercial airlines...or maybe you don't. Inclement weather, etc. Moreover, spatial disorientation is one of the most common causes of airplane and helicopter crashes with pilots who aren't able to fly on instruments alone. Kobe Bryant crash is a perfect example. Or JFK Jr. is another.
I was at the Reno air races and a military jet broke the sound barrier in front of the crowd. It was an accident, he misread the mach meter, it got written up in the papers the next day. It was loud, like a bomb going off nearby, but not earsplitting. The most interesting thing was the air around me suddenly felt solid and pushed me briefly, a very odd sensation.
I just checked and the Canadian Avro Aero could clock out at maximum 2104 km/h or Mach 1.7 that's in 1957-1959 Boys.. P.S. all it would take to kill the x59 is to have a electrical failure and without visuals it would be very hard, if not impossible , to fly that craft.. anywhere .
Most modern aircraft would crash with a complete electrical failure. They rely entirely on electrical systems to fly at all, regardless of whether you can see or not.
Electrical failure...like every plane you have ever flown in. The turbines normally provide electrical power to the aircraft, but they all have a separate back up generator that provides emergency power to essential flight ststems should you lose the engines....with the first step being the ability to attempt a restart of the engine(s). So your comment is irrelevant.
I recall the other concern other than sound was the detrimental effect on the ozone layer from constant jet flights over 50 000 feet. Did that problem magically go away?
@paulmorissette5863 she stated "X59 team". We aren't part of the "team". You might be, but the majority of us are part of the working masses that the government steals from in order to fund things.
Batteries with at least double capacity/weight as the best we have today make electric boosted supersonic ram air hybrid jets a possibility. Electric motors can push air at a speed into the RAM jet engine for it to work until the plane is going fast enough the motors can be shut off and it flies via supersonic RAM jet power at Mach 5 to its destination.
Pushing air past Mach 2 into the RAM jet isn't going to happen with electric motors my friend. That's a LOT of power needed as well as dealing with the transition from sub to supersonic airflow. I'm waiting for the test results of this 'quiet boom' airplane which I believe isn't going to end up with passenger airliners being made for supersonic travel ever again due to fuel efficiency problems. The military will gain some tech info from it no doubt...but when paying customers are involved...this is going to be WAY too expensive.
I don't think that the narrator has seen the plane. I'm sure that this has been a very long time coming. I hope to be able to see it in person some day. Thank you.
Silent vehicles will not be part of the secret society's space force. Terrance Howard has cracked the ongoing mathematical errors at the highest levels. Now that this barrier is broken, they will make ships that decouple/disconnect from the forces that hold it. There was no need for wings, and shape would not inhibit the ship from traveling through space. These are new only to us. All these things we finally see are 40 to 50 years outdated from the place actually achieved.
The Concorde only flew at supersonic speed over the Atlantic.. I heard some sonic booms as a young boy in the Netherlands when our air force had gotten planes flying faster than the speed of sound. It was not too bad. Just a short loud "Boom!" No windows broke. 😁
It was a NASA project dude, so a fraction of that budget...much less than military spending... and unlike the damn overflowed darpa and skunkworks projects that take billions, and out of the military budget, this is in the hands of real aeronautical engineers and astronauts and scientists.
The screen at 8:16 is the UEFI Shell - hinting at a somewhat modern PC computer (probably x86_64). The UEFI shell is often configured ex factory (on the motherboard) as a "boot profile of last resort" = its appearance usually signals that the PC has failed to find a suitable boot drive with a proper operating system.
Its not a tech demo for commercial use. It's a military program. The reason why we don't do supersonic commercial travel now is because it's too expensive
All this video did was remind me of what a technical marvel Concorde was. 100 people, drinking Champagne, at Mach-2, at 60,000 feet, for 4,000 miles ...... half a century ago !!!!! Here's the thing though .... Most people aren't concerned about how long the flight takes as long as the experience is pleasant. The problem with international flight is the terrible experiences at check-in, customs, waiting around, cramped seats, car parking miles away ....etc. A 5 hour flight isn't a problem. It's the fact that the end to end experience is 10 hours of stress and discomfort.
THe real reason why the Concorde program was cancelled is not due to sonic boom but related everything to economics, it was simply a huge money pit for both Air France and British airways !
if i'm not mistaken about the facts from what i just watched. in 1970 the much larger concord PASSENGER plane was too loud with 100 db. And now 50 years later we are only advanced enough to design a plane for a single pilot and 75 db.
I actually remember hearing the defening sonic boom!!! Yeah, my father and i were burning leaves in the street. Decatur, Illinois, in the early 60s. BOOM !!!
We do not need Mach 1 plus for passenger airplanes. What we need is bigger seats and more legroom stop trying to pack us in like a cattle car.
Or less fat people
Speak for yourself. As an Australian I'd love to see a long range mach 1 + aircraft introduced, rather than spending 24 hours on a plane just to get to the UK.
Cheaper fuel and non-greedy airline CEO'S would contribute to that goal.
Why can't we have both?
If you have a much shorter flight time then those things will matter less.
Plus having more seats makes it cheaper to fly.
Don’t let Boeing anywhere near it.
ruzz troll. look at ip
Amen brother 👍
🤣🤣🤣
That was FUNNY, TWISTED but it was FUNNY!!!
Exactly. Boeing is poison and toxic.
I tap out anytime a narrator tells me to “wait till the end to find out”.
I skip straight to the last 2 minutes. Oh well, not all of us were born smart.
@@BlazingShackles Youre the dumdum here. You did just what they wanted😆
NAHHHHSAHHHHH
@@Mika-xt1wc They don't make money if you skip their stupid video. you can skip to the last minute, get the info you wanted, and leave a downvote. They desperately need you to watch their 10 minutes of fluff so they can get a couple ads in. They don't get a dime if you skip past their worthless rambling, so you're the "dumdum" for not understanding the point @BlazingShackles was making.
@@drengr2759 Could be that you are the ultimate dumdum for not using adblocker😂
The AI wants you to hear its perfect voice. The AI doesn’t understand that you want to hear what a sonic boom sounds like
Narsar.🙄
What?
I hate when AI drag things out. I'm seeing too many channels do this now
Upvoting to hopefully make this the first comment
I used to love hearing the sonic boom when I was a child. We lived on the flight path in Devon, UK. I used to occasionally think about the passengers on board heading to New York, a place that I had only seen in films.
I am surprised some kid hasn’t called you a “boomer”.
@@dentalnovember Just as well - a Generation Xer here 🙂
I would love to have such an experience
When I was a child I lived near McDonald-Douglas and they would test their jets. The sonic booms didn't bother me. I called them the Sound of Freedom.
Boomer here and I enjoyed hearing the sonic boom when I was growing up.
I started school in Abilene, Texas where Dyess Air Force Base was located. Sonic booms were just a way of life. I don't remember anybody getting upset over them.
What year was this? Abilene is in the middle of oil fields and agriculture where no-one was upset about a little "background" noise. I was raised in the Panhandle of Texas in the early '60s and heard sonic booms often from B-58s out of Carswell AFB on their missions in the test areas in west Texas.
@@williamhudson4938 uh last i checked the b58 isn't exactly capable of going supersonic lol
@@sahibdipsandhu "uh last i checked the b58 isn't exactly capable of going supersonic lol"
are you thinking of the B52? The B58 Hustler was America's first supersonic bomber that was designed to fly at mach 2. So...maybe check again.
@@machupikachu1085yup. The hustler was supersonic, awesome aircraft.
It’s a flying dishwasher!
Looks like affordable transportation for the .01%
you could say that for almost any military prototype...
This plane isn't meant for passenger transport. It is a proof of concept design, as a basis for building passenger planes. And it was't just the 1% flying on the concorde.
Just like shoes were a few hundred years ago. And then horses and carriages, and cars, and then planes not too much later. Just like income tax was originally, this is for the 0.01 percent today, but in ten years flying will be cheaper and faster than ever before.
@@cliveklg7739 Yeah, they got prices down to where the top 10% could afford tickets.
@@ljprep6250 more hyperbolic bs with no facts. You don't help your argument with lies like the OP.
concorde wasnt discontinued because of the sound of breaking the sound barrier. during its uk tour it passed over my house in england about 10 miles from mcr airport. it was not deafening nor did it rattle windows.
I lived near Holloman AFB for 5yrs and those f35s would knock the pictures off my walls every day. Granted, they were breaking the sound barrier a couple hundred feet AGL.
@@user-pj8hp9jd7t when you consider you can fit the uk into washington state twice with room for ireland, they didnt really have time to hit full throttle lol..
True the Concorde wasnt discontinued because of the sonic boom, but the reason why you never got affected by it was because the Concorde was only allowed to fly at supersonic speed on top of the ocean, this means by the the time they where close to your home the plane was already at subsonic speed.
The biggest issue with the fact that they where only allowed to fly at supersonic speed on top of the ocean, was that limited the number of routes, pretty much no LA to Berlin, all because those engines the best fuel consumption happens at supersonic speed (if I remeber well it was 1.7 Mach), at lower speeds they where just burning the fuel.
A fly LA to Paris with the Concorde (a route they once had), flying over the US at subsonic speed meant having to land by Chicago or NYC to reload fuel and keep the flight, making it non practical, that is why that route was canceled as well many other routes.
Exactly. Im on the M4 Corridor 20 miles from Heathrow. Used to love seeing Concorde come over every day at 1pm as a kid. It was not that loud. But the crackle from the engines was really cool.
@@giuseppe.turitto Some serious misrepresentations there fellah. For a start Concorde flew at Mach 2. And it did so using 'Supercruise' (ie supersonic flight without afterburners) for 3,000 miles. No other aircraft got anywhere close to that capability. Hilarious how the Yanks thought they invented 'Supercruise' with the F-22 when the EE Lightning was doing it in the '50s followed by Concorde in the '60s.
As for the stops 'for fuel' in the USA? Well not quite true. It was to pick up more passengers.
Who remembers the show, Get Smart? I remember they had something called the Hush-A-Boom. That's what they should call this plane as a nod to Get Smart. 😂😂
Maybe it will drop nude bombs.
That was Rocky & Bullwinkle ;) The explosive in Get Smart had no name. (I'm embarrassed for knowing. that LOL)
@@timmainson Pretty sure that was Boris and Natasha.....it just dawned on me how old I am😦😎
@@chrisward4576 I was thinking it was in the get smart movie the nude bomb but now I believe you're correct. Thanks.
@@timmainson you're right.
If NASA/Boeing accomplishment with Starliner are anything to go by, can only hope that NASA's involvement with Lockheed Martin has better results.
NASA LOCKHEED MARTIN 10101010110✅✅✅✅
BOEING 0000000 grade f for FAILURE❌❌
Sounds like a good thing, but frankly we are having trouble with the quality & safety of subsonic flights now.
Hopefully Lockheed-Martin is a better operation than Boeing now.
"We" ?! ... its only Boeing...
Less delay in the airport is good enough😂
You don’t understand much.
Uninformed comment.
I just hope Boeing fixes their problems & do more than virtue signal with lip service.
the thought of not having a visual reference of any kind in front of you at those heights and those speeds is truly terrifying and would no less require nerves of steel to get into a extremely fast box without windows.
Absolutely this is why DEI will be the defining criteria for HR hiring managers. My last flight took place in April 2024, it will be the last time I will ever fly. Unless of course Trump is elected and he manages to undo 12 yrs of Obama/Biden destruction of the US. LOL I don’t chase after rainbows and unicorns either.
WHEN A Pilot flies into a cloud he has NO VISUAL reference.. It's like someone painted the windows white.. I have flown when I couldn't see a meter down the nose The wings are gone from sight...hehe.. This happens every day I promise you it doesn't matter how fast you are going losing sight gets your attention every time... but we do it safely most times.. it's called instrument flying. They have a camera that helps this plane to see forward. my question is what happens when you get a bug that goes splat on the camera and covers the view...lol..
What happens if the cameras short out? Particularly on final approach.
@@nickbeckwith6211 A lot of prayer...lol
@@thrillchaser9492 exactly my point, pilots are trained and encouraged to rely and trust their instrument clusters over their visual and other physical senses because it can't be fooled as easily as a humans senses can however in case of catastrophic failure being the bug splat on the camera rendering instruments useless you have a second life line being your windows. lol
God help ya going at those speeds only to experience a glitch, lag or a screen freeze rendering the image useless. lol
Faster medical response, i'm dying from laughter 😂
Yes is a silly argument, but imagine if we had a way to fly a pacient that had been in a bad accident to a medical center that can take care of it in matter of minutes, not hours. This research if succesful can lead to improve aviation and the creation of medical fast response services. But I think is only a dream.
You're not considering being able to transport organs around much more quickly for the Gift of Life and other organ donor programs.
Guys, I apriciate your thinking, but flying supersonic is super expensive. There are already jetplanes in service doing just this. And they are almost as fast as sound.
Laugh all you want, you’re way behind.
They're not flying a jet like that any significant distance for any patient with the possible exception of a national leader.
This fellas pronunciation of NASA is more than I can take.
it iz AI voice
It's a robot. It doesn't know any better.
YES!!! he spells it NARSA too
@@oobs35 The robot doesn't spell anything. It pronounces NASA with a long "a".
He/it pronounced loads of words incorrectly, but NASA was by far the most incorrect and annoying one.
Fun fact: Every 3 decibels, the intensity of the sound *doubles*. From 75 to 105 decibels, the sound pressure has doubled 10 times! That makes the Concorde's sonic boom 1024 tiems louder than the new proposed line of jets.
Yes, but. The human ear is only capable of detecting a 3db change in level. Every time you increase the volume on your audio system so you can just hear a difference in volume you are increasing the level by 3db.
@@keithbalding7258 Thanks! I did not know that.
@@keithbalding7258but decibel is not an absolute scale but a relative.
Yes, +3 db is barely audible but +10db is basically double the volume to our ears.
Also depends on which frequency you are hearing too. For example, 200 Hz and 1000 Hz both playing at 60 db, one will drive you nuts while the other one is quite tolerable.
When i worked at lockheed martin in palmdale i had access to a 2nd floor mezzane overlooking the area were they were assembling the X-59 it was interesting to observe the progress over time as it was assembled
But doesn't it look like a jet fighter than a airline with the engine at the top instead of the bottom?
There was a day when sonic booms were common. We were used to it and when the jets were high altitude it really wasn't a problem. There are always people that won't like anything you do. You find this with people that build houses next to airports then complain about the noise the airplanes make taking off and landing at the airport, go figure that one!
Sonic booms weren't ever common. Who told you that?
@@lqr824 I see you're an "expert" on the topic. Well, you're not. I'm 73 years old and I lived in those days. Where I lived they were common. Go badger someone else.
@@donadams8345 In no country on the planet, in any year in history, did even 10% of the citizens even hear even one sonic boom. Sonic booms have never been common.
Maybe the very few percent that lived near a military training base might hear them at times but not even military jets flew supersonic with any regularity. But go back and read your comment. You didn't SAY they were common around military training, you said common full stop, no qualifications whatsoever, and now you're whining because you've been called out as a liar. Have been such a whiner all your 73 years?
@@lqr824 You're a flat out liar. Cite your stats.
@user-vf4pu8qp9d call 911 man, you're having a stroke
unveiled in January ??? thats 6 months ago .
They've probably had it secretly for 40 years already but are unveiling it publicly now because secretly they have something newer that makes it obsolete.
It's basically an X world flight simulator with a small computer screen. Sure we can all handle 75 more decibels of noise while wearing noise canceling headphones.
I bet the only purpose was massive kickbacks as any other expensive projects. Business as usual. But they needed to show something before it goes to an archive.
As a New Yorker I used to love when the Concord flew into JFK. I lifeguarded Rockaway Beach the summers of 87,88 and 89 and watched the Concord fly in the morning.
Great machine. but what would happen if the front camera fails or the screen that the pilots uses to see to the front.
As the old joke goes with the pilot of the new airliner welcomes his passengers aboard ' This plane is fully automated and nothing can go wrong ... go wrong .. go wrong ... '
Let's face the reality...this was never intended for passenger flight. This is military. Plane and simple.
You understand
So the solution to the sonic boom problem is to build a plane that's really, really pointy. Jeez, who the hell would have ever guessed that?
The shape of the plane isn't the hard part. It is much harder to find a material strong and light enough. And to design engines and a cockpit that don't get in the way of each other or the design of the plane.
I worked on this. Pretty cool project. It is a test bed for both commercial and defense projects.
Sir, how pointy should we make it?
YES!
What's your point?
Pam doesn’t even know what fuel it uses.
But if you look at the shape of the X-59 it's obvious that to get the reduction in the sonic boom level it has had to have a really extreme pointy shape - 100ft long with a 30ft wingspan. Concorde was already very pointy, with a 200ft long fuselage and an 85 ft wingspan for 100 seats capacity. To scale up the X-59 proportionately for a 100 seat passenger jet it would be like 300ft long with a 90ft wingspan. That's a huge plane for 100 seats. Although very pointy planes fly very well at high speed they don't generate much lift at low speeds, so need really long runways to take-off and land. This would be even more true with a plane that's 300ft long.
Not true, or close to reality in aircraft engineering!!
@@nicholasklangos9704 ?
@@nicholasklangos9704It is true if the surface area of the aircraft increases, the leading edge has to increase proportional to the area of the fuselage and wing area, probably incredibly difficult to scale up.
That virtual cockpit better function flawlessly 100% of the time
My dishwasher must be much quieter than yours.In the late 1980's I saw an add in the NYT offering a New Years Eve flight from NYC to London and back for $1,500. I had the money (just barely) but not the attitude to spend the money. I'm still conflicted over the choice.
As you get older you realise that you need to take some opportunities as they arise because there’s no guarantee you will get a second chance to take them.
Imagine being able to say you flew on Concord, as the years pass the amount of people able to say that diminishes, there will never be another first supersonic passenger jet.
Looks like it borrowed a lot of parts from the F-16. Also a sonic boom is not just noise pollution problem but also one of efficiency. It takes energy to make sound, and a sound that loud takes a lot of energy to produce. It is very much like the wake of a boat where a large wake is both taking a lot of energy and reducing the boat/ships efficiency that created it. Minimize the wake minimizes the boom and maximizes efficiency.
This country has a lot of crude oil that hasn’t been developed yet and until technology brings us a better faster way of traveling than why not use our resources “Rising water lifts all boats”
It started life as an F-18, but it is a whole new aircraft now.
@@Rockoblocko That landing gear is clearly F-16, not F-18.
@@larrybremer4930 it has components from several different aircraft, the F-16 being one of them. But what do I know, I’m only a NASA AFRC engineer working on the project.
@@Rockoblocko Just saying F-16 was the only recognizable parts sir. And thanks for your service. My stepdad was an engineer on the shuttle program right up until the instant the last flight lifted off.
Nothing like a passenger plane.
It’s not! It’s a technology demonstration jet! Goofball!
I think you might be the goof it isn't realistic making that shape big enough for passengers and certainly not financially viable just like Concorde even though fuel was cheaper and emissions weren't much of a concern.
I remember when the Space Shuttle landed in Southern California. The sonic booms felt like a bump but it wasn't bad.
The original design was by Lockheed Martin and she gives no credit to those ingenious, hard-working people! Way to go Pam! Lol
Let's hope there's a secondary, completely separate, front camera system in the event the primary craps out.
I used to believe that no system would be implemented in commercial aviation without a certain level of redundancy, but Boeing and airbus really like proving me wrong. I will say though, after the first few crashes I am sure the government agencies will step in and make those systems redundant and much safer.
Makes me think of Lindberg's periscope in the Spirit of St. Louis.
I remember the Cold War days when the military used supersonic jets with impunity on training flights in Europe. Some of them were stratospheric, not low level, and their boom was quite subdued even with technology of the day. The only problem was that the boom came without warning and it was this element of surprise that made it a nuisance. So, a lot of psychology is involved here. Just like with the Concorde. Its most annoying feature was that it was made in Europe.
The Concorde ate jet fuel like a land yacht car from the 70's. There's a reason it didn't fly from Vancouver, LA or SFO airports to Asia. Cutting that flight time would have been amazing. Concorde was inspired technology, but it had its drawbacks. Cost per hour of flight time in its 4100 mile flight range was its Achilles' heel
@@captlazer5509 First class plus 20% as I recall. It was marginal technology - if London weather was poor you had to decide half an hour ahead to divert into Paris or vice versa. There was not enough fuel to go around and then divert, but this margin was somehow made legal - they had more cojones those days. It did not really matter because the idea was that Concorde was iteration no.1, to be followed by better versions. Like the moon landings would continue after the first batch. What could possibly go wrong, right?
@peterf2451 there was love in North America for the Concorde. I was a kid and remember classmates drawing the Concorde and that campy movie Airport 77: The Concorde. Wish the fuel consumption issue could have been solved. Maybe one day a new Concorde will grace us again.
Industrial companies still amaze us and continue to be at the top 🔥
I've always maintained that Concorde was defeated by jealousy.
High maintenance and 2 accidents condemned the aircraft. Ridership fell and it became an economic failure.
Perhaps you missed the event of the crash!
@@jbird6609don't know about the first accident ? But the last on was no fault of concorde it was due to shoddy maintenance on an American airliner that the bit fell off of .
|I agree.
@jbird6609 Concorde didn't "become" an economic failure, it was an economic failure from the get-go. Concorde NEVER turned a profit. If there had been money to be made with an SST you can bet any body part you want U.S. airlines would have clamored for Boeing or Lockheed or somebody to make an American one! The Boeing SST advanced to the full scale mockup stage and the airlines weren't interested in it.
I always liked the sonic booms as a kid, but haven't heard one in years!!
All I see is my tax dollars avoiding high-speed rail.
Nobody wants high speed rail. It's far too costly and impractical for our large country. We just recently got high speed rail from Orlando, FL to the Miami area. There is one stop in Orlando and I think there are either four or five stations in the Miami area. The only people that train actually serves live in Orlando or Miami AND have a frequent need to travel between them. More stops could be added along the way, but the more stops you have, the less the time advantage of the train over a car and the less attractive it is compared to a faster plane.
@@kirkjohnson6638 People go to Orlando OR Miami. Nobody needs both.
But... how long do you think it will take for this scaled down demonstrator plane to become a real-world travel option? Europe is full of high-speed rail and guess what, genius...
They turn a profit.
@@TheDwightMamba The high speed train in FL only travels between Orlando and Miami. Unless you want to go from Orlando to Miami or miami to Orlando, that train is of no use to you. And, that train goes about 80 mph, so it doesn't aave much time over driving.
And, yeah, I've ridden a high speed train in France from Paris to Lyon. It's decent and you can save about $100 or so compared to flying but it takes a bit longer.
The only places that high speed train makes sense in the US is along the northeastern seaboard because that is the only area with enough major cities spaced closely enough to generate fares and where people can save enough time and money to be worth taking the train vs. driving or flying.
As soon as you try to go through the interior of the US, the spacing between major cities makes flying a much better option.
The west coast cold possibly be a good place for a high speed train, but as everyone in CA has been learning for decades, its way to expensive to build. They have been working on it for 45 years and have had to scale it back to a short route between Bakersfield and Merced. According to Google, the high speed rail in CA has already cost over $11.2 billion to go 119 miles through rural lands. When they try to buy suburban and urban land to extend the train between San Diego and Sacramento the costs will skyrocket as will the time needed to negotiate deals with thousands of land owners rather than a few mega land owners in the central valley. By the time they get it done everyone will either be telecommuting, taking their self driving cars while sleeping, or will already be neuralinked into the cyberworld.
@TheDwightMamba Guess what, GENIUS, this isn't Europe. If there was a market for high-speed rail they wouldn't need tax dollars to pay for the things!
@@billmullins6833 are you aware that NASA paid NG $247.5 million for this demonstrator?.... with... um... tax money?
Weird. If the market for supersonic travel was there, why does the government have to pay for it?
Dude called me a genius and went ALL CAPS to do it.
Thank you for proving my statement with your ill-informed statement.
I always loved being surprised as a kid by sonic booms over my town! It would always make us laugh
Hummm....Billion dollar lawn dart.......
My wife lived on Jet Rd, in Sandy Springs, right in the flight line of Dobbins Air Force Base. There were a lot of sonic booms, living so close to the base.
The sonic boom is the sound of freedom.
You’re confusing sonic booms with flatulance - the freedom to fart is indeed true freedom.
Gorgeous aircraft!! Hurry up and fly!!
Boeing has left the chat…
Boeing needs to close it's doors.
😂
Oh yeah. JUST what the world needs.
Jesus loves you all
لا إله إلا الله، ومحمد رسول الله.
I can only imagine the day watching this & how it will be so antiquated.. whoa!! Onward!
No live view out the front windscreen? Hard nope
Gotta be able to see,a camera can fail for a number of reasons
You do understand that the concept of flying on instruments is essential to commercial airlines...or maybe you don't. Inclement weather, etc. Moreover, spatial disorientation is one of the most common causes of airplane and helicopter crashes with pilots who aren't able to fly on instruments alone. Kobe Bryant crash is a perfect example. Or JFK Jr. is another.
@@fredflinstone8628 both pilot errors.
@@tdw5933the error being pilot unable to believe the instruments right in front of them
I was at the Reno air races and a military jet broke the sound barrier in front of the crowd. It was an accident, he misread the mach meter, it got written up in the papers the next day. It was loud, like a bomb going off nearby, but not earsplitting. The most interesting thing was the air around me suddenly felt solid and pushed me briefly, a very odd sensation.
Rapid medical response lol
We could have that if insurance company's would step out of the way.
Just when I thought we'd be expecting hypersonic passenger flight.
No windows to see where the hell your going. What happens if the visual screen malfunctions ??
Won't happen. The screens will be made by Dell and run by Microsoft. What could fail?
What do pilots already do when their instruments fail? They rely on the other redundant systems to keep the airplane in the air.
One day, not anytime soon, this will be a great necessity
Where is the R you say in NASA?
I’m pretty sure that is an artificial voiceover, a computer generated voice.
A I voice
Stall speed 700mph
I remember i would hear ever evening at 9 pm over devon ... It was not a big deal...i used it as a time to go home as a kid ..😊
They unveiled it but won't be ready for another 5 years at least
Let’s be clear..the paper airplane looks like the Concorde
I just checked and the Canadian Avro Aero could clock out at maximum 2104 km/h or Mach 1.7 that's in 1957-1959 Boys.. P.S. all it would take to kill the x59 is to have a electrical failure and without visuals it would be very hard, if not impossible , to fly that craft.. anywhere .
It wasn’t trying to be the fastest. It’s useless though
Most modern aircraft would crash with a complete electrical failure. They rely entirely on electrical systems to fly at all, regardless of whether you can see or not.
and no chute oh lovely..
Electrical failure...like every plane you have ever flown in. The turbines normally provide electrical power to the aircraft, but they all have a separate back up generator that provides emergency power to essential flight ststems should you lose the engines....with the first step being the ability to attempt a restart of the engine(s). So your comment is irrelevant.
finally there's the RAT - ram air turbine.
Supersonic passenger flight was reached with Concorde in the 70's
I recall the other concern other than sound was the detrimental effect on the ozone layer from constant jet flights over 50 000 feet. Did that problem magically go away?
It may have done in part, due to lower emissions, less unburnt and partially-burnt fuel and so on.
They had Karen's back in 1971!
Nice Skunk work!
there is no R in Nasa
There's no R in data. 👍
A I VOICE
Landing a craft like that and then their screen goes black…
Only those two things, huh? I think she forget something. What about the hard work of the taxpayers and their $$$???
..entire...team.
@paulmorissette5863 she stated "X59 team".
We aren't part of the "team".
You might be, but the majority of us are part of the working masses that the government steals from in order to fund things.
HOW DID NASA BECOME NAWSA AND WHY ? 😂 🤣 😂
Because AI voice overs.
Batteries with at least double capacity/weight as the best we have today make electric boosted supersonic ram air hybrid jets a possibility. Electric motors can push air at a speed into the RAM jet engine for it to work until the plane is going fast enough the motors can be shut off and it flies via supersonic RAM jet power at Mach 5 to its destination.
Pushing air past Mach 2 into the RAM jet isn't going to happen with electric motors my friend. That's a LOT of power needed as well as dealing with the transition from sub to supersonic airflow. I'm waiting for the test results of this 'quiet boom' airplane which I believe isn't going to end up with passenger airliners being made for supersonic travel ever again due to fuel efficiency problems. The military will gain some tech info from it no doubt...but when paying customers are involved...this is going to be WAY too expensive.
I don't think that the narrator has seen the plane. I'm sure that this has been a very long time coming. I hope to be able to see it in person some day. Thank you.
I think the narrator isn't a living person- sounds AI to me.
Thankfully it wasn't Boeing, the doors might stay put where they belong.
Bigger seats, more legroom is what we need
Silent vehicles will not be part of the secret society's space force. Terrance Howard has cracked the ongoing mathematical errors at the highest levels. Now that this barrier is broken, they will make ships that decouple/disconnect from the forces that hold it. There was no need for wings, and shape would not inhibit the ship from traveling through space. These are new only to us. All these things we finally see are 40 to 50 years outdated from the place actually achieved.
The Concorde only flew at supersonic speed over the Atlantic.. I heard some sonic booms as a young boy in the Netherlands when our air force had gotten planes flying faster than the speed of sound. It was not too bad. Just a short loud "Boom!" No windows broke. 😁
Meh...nothing burger
Yep🤘
"Faster freight." LOL 😂
waste of time and money.
The X-59 will sound like a dishwasher exploding for less than a second
🤣👍
How about American narrators from now on ! We don’t pronounce “mobile” as Europeans do !
Oh I don't know! American or European? I prefer someone who speaks English.
this looks like something from the 70's.
How many trillion dollar's did that cost us tax payer ?
It was a NASA project dude, so a fraction of that budget...much less than military spending... and unlike the damn overflowed darpa and skunkworks projects that take billions, and out of the military budget, this is in the hands of real aeronautical engineers and astronauts and scientists.
The screen at 8:16 is the UEFI Shell - hinting at a somewhat modern PC computer (probably x86_64). The UEFI shell is often configured ex factory (on the motherboard) as a "boot profile of last resort" = its appearance usually signals that the PC has failed to find a suitable boot drive with a proper operating system.
What a waste of tax payer dollars
Its not a tech demo for commercial use. It's a military program. The reason why we don't do supersonic commercial travel now is because it's too expensive
Every time the narrator says SONIC BOOM lmao hilarious for some reason
AI voice
All this video did was remind me of what a technical marvel Concorde was.
100 people, drinking Champagne, at Mach-2, at 60,000 feet, for 4,000 miles ...... half a century ago !!!!!
Here's the thing though .... Most people aren't concerned about how long the flight takes as long as the experience is pleasant.
The problem with international flight is the terrible experiences at check-in, customs, waiting around, cramped seats, car parking miles away ....etc. A 5 hour flight isn't a problem. It's the fact that the end to end experience is 10 hours of stress and discomfort.
Awesome machine 😊
as a Kid I used to hear Sonic booms EVERY DAY Army bray and Central FL transplant kid 80s-2000's we Loved it as kids
I was also Born in Concord So Im biased
How difficult is it going to be to land that thing!
I kind of want to see a study which shows the planes impact on the atmosphere.
THe real reason why the Concorde program was cancelled is not due to sonic boom but related everything to economics, it was simply a huge money pit for both Air France and British airways !
low reoccurring cost will be the real milestone, will it be affordable to all as it is now? Thank you for the video.
if i'm not mistaken about the facts from what i just watched. in 1970 the much larger concord PASSENGER plane was too loud with 100 db. And now 50 years later we are only advanced enough to design a plane for a single pilot and 75 db.
6:09 "Opens doors to various applications...shorter shipping times."
For those who don't mind paying an extra $999 for delivery 3 hours earlier.
Yet we still can’t recycle all plastics
ded
Imagine all the technology that is being kept away from us...
Nasa doing amazing things with the little budget compared to military ❤
I actually remember hearing the defening sonic boom!!! Yeah, my father and i were burning leaves in the street. Decatur, Illinois, in the early 60s. BOOM !!!