NASA Finally Unveiled 'Quiet' X-59 Supersonic Aircraft

[@bthome123]

I tap out anytime a narrator tells me to “wait till the end to find out”.

[@BlazingShackles]

I skip straight to the last 2 minutes. Oh well, not all of us were born smart.

[@Mika-xt1wc]

@@BlazingShackles Youre the dumdum here. You did just what they wanted😆

[@ObsidianB8]

NAHHHHSAHHHHH

[@drengr2759]

@@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.

[@Mika-xt1wc]

​@@drengr2759 Could be that you are the ultimate dumdum for not using adblocker😂

[@xrysf03]

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.

[@jamesolive3693]

I can remember as a kid growing up on Long Island you would see them fly over going into JFK

[@SETIxy]

waste of time and money.

[@dave23024]

If Lockheed is doing this project, they're doing it at Skunkworks, and this whole video is pure speculation.

[@Genebaket]

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.

[@Thumper68]

Or less fat people

[@Smokeyr67]

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.

[@JSchrumm]

Cheaper fuel and non-greedy airline CEO'S would contribute to that goal.

[@fredflinstone8628]

Why can't we have both?

[@Ballissle]

If you have a much shorter flight time then those things will matter less. Plus having more seats makes it cheaper to fly.

[@UrbaneHobbit]

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

[@biggles106]

Narsar.🙄

[@sandgrownun66]

What?

[@anml1969]

Don’t let Boeing anywhere near it.

[@true.is.around]

ruzz troll. look at ip

[@More-Space-In-Ear]

Amen brother 👍

[@rick6893]

🤣🤣🤣

[@davejones4854]

That was FUNNY, TWISTED but it was FUNNY!!!

[@JohnnyBean78]

Exactly. Boeing is poison and toxic.

[@richardhookway]

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.

[@dentalnovember]

I am surprised some kid hasn’t called you a “boomer”.

[@richardhookway]

@@dentalnovember Just as well - a Generation Xer here 🙂

[@r.guerreiro140]

I would love to have such an experience

[@nelsonbergman7706]

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.

[@howardgrover8908]

Boomer here and I enjoyed hearing the sonic boom when I was growing up.

[@davewitter6565]

Looks like affordable transportation for the .01%

[@paladro]

you could say that for almost any military prototype...

[@cliveklg7739]

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.

[@MegaLokopo]

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.

[@ljprep6250]

@@cliveklg7739 Yeah, they got prices down to where the top 10% could afford tickets.

[@cliveklg7739]

@@ljprep6250 more hyperbolic bs with no facts. You don't help your argument with lies like the OP.

[@willamcombs1106]

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. 😂😂

[@antigravityworkshop1436]

Maybe it will drop nude bombs.

[@timmainson]

That was Rocky & Bullwinkle ;) The explosive in Get Smart had no name. (I'm embarrassed for knowing. that LOL)

[@chrisward4576]

@@timmainson Pretty sure that was Boris and Natasha.....it just dawned on me how old I am😦😎

[@willamcombs1106]

@@chrisward4576 I was thinking it was in the get smart movie the nude bomb but now I believe you're correct. Thanks.

[@willamcombs1106]

@@timmainson you're right.

[@breeze5440]

I hate when AI drag things out. I'm seeing too many channels do this now

[@DZ-zc3gi]

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.

[@matthiaskreuz9812]

Faster medical response, i'm dying from laughter 😂

[@giuseppe.turitto]

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.

[@MikeInExile]

You're not considering being able to transport organs around much more quickly for the Gift of Life and other organ donor programs.

[@matthiaskreuz9812]

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.

[@DonEmbrey]

Laugh all you want, you’re way behind.

[@mrbamfo5000]

They're not flying a jet like that any significant distance for any patient with the possible exception of a national leader.

[@justanotherfella4585]

This fellas pronunciation of NASA is more than I can take.

[@7000fps]

it iz AI voice

[@sandgrownun66]

It's a robot. It doesn't know any better.

[@oobs35]

YES!!! he spells it NARSA too

[@sandgrownun66]

@@oobs35 The robot doesn't spell anything. It pronounces NASA with a long "a".

[@jublywubly]

He/it pronounced loads of words incorrectly, but NASA was by far the most incorrect and annoying one.

[@NKBobcat]

They had Karen's back in 1971!

[@kenandbarbie-b6c]

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.

[@Gunnl]

"We" ?! ... its only Boeing...

[@xpxp2839]

Less delay in the airport is good enough😂

[@DonEmbrey]

You don’t understand much.

[@jakemensik2842]

Uninformed comment.

[@kenandbarbie-b6c]

I just hope Boeing fixes their problems & do more than virtue signal with lip service.

[@billmullins6833]

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.

[@williamhudson4938]

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]

@@williamhudson4938 uh last i checked the b58 isn't exactly capable of going supersonic lol

[@machupikachu1085]

@@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.

[@Rockoblocko]

@@machupikachu1085yup. The hustler was supersonic, awesome aircraft.

[@waynewallace6630]

It’s a flying dishwasher!

[@TRICK-OR-TREAT236]

HOW DID NASA BECOME NAWSA AND WHY ? 😂 🤣 😂

[@machupikachu1085]

Because AI voice overs.

[@fredtedstedman]

unveiled in January ??? thats 6 months ago .

[@totalutternutter]

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.

[@chuckfarley567]

Hummm....Billion dollar lawn dart.......

[@rf7192]

Why can't passenger airline companies pay these airplane manufacturers 247.5 million dollars to develop the technology and planes? Why must the taxpayers always foot all the bills. Yes, I know there is going to be some "military" use of the technologies....but this presentation is all about future air transportation.

[@manuelalejandrorodriguezba4791]

Great machine. but what would happen if the front camera fails or the screen that the pilots uses to see to the front.

[@smacksman]

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 ... '

[@crowbar357]

Closes his eyes.

[@dirtycatmechanic]

Pam doesn’t even know what fuel it uses.

[@TheDwightMamba]

All I see is my tax dollars avoiding high-speed rail.

[@kirkjohnson6638]

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.

[@TheDwightMamba]

@@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.

[@kirkjohnson6638]

@@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]

@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!

[@TheDwightMamba]

@@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.

[@NEKRWSPHERE]

1. Single engine - a very bad idea particularly for transatlantic flights. Particularly for a plane that is as glide-friendly as a curling iron. 2. Pilots front view is a screen. Awesome until it fails making landing impossible. Safety redundancy issues? Definitely.

[@moonbear1st]

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.

[@user-pj8hp9jd7t]

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.

[@moonbear1st]

@@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..

[@giuseppe.turitto]

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.

[@dj_paultuk7052]

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.

[@1chish]

@@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.

[@rochus_wagner]

LOL! 🤣🙃😂The Soviet TU-160 is the White Swan, which was designed in the 70s of the last century and has been produced in series since the 80s. the modernized version, so that if seats were added, it would be able to double the passenger capacity of the Concord. This "Spaghetti" flies with one person and we spend billions on it, is that right?..aren't we ridiculous?🤔(the Russians are helping, you have to talk to Putin and he will give you Titanium)

[@OfficerChungus]

Rapid medical response lol

[@JamesHughes-ij6cr]

We could have that if insurance company's would step out of the way.

[@Dhannibal01]

If NASA/Boeing accomplishment with Starliner are anything to go by, can only hope that NASA's involvement with Lockheed Martin has better results.

[@dinahwhite3929]

NASA LOCKHEED MARTIN 10101010110✅✅✅✅ BOEING 0000000 grade f for FAILURE❌❌

[@user-bm2xf6io3c]

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.

[@keithbalding7258]

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.

[@user-bm2xf6io3c]

@@keithbalding7258 Thanks! I did not know that.

[@tonamg53]

@@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.

[@tlcetc4506]

Only those two things, huh? I think she forget something. What about the hard work of the taxpayers and their $$$???

[@paulmorissette5863]

..entire...team.

[@fuzzysniper]

​@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.

[@RobertEMuir]

Let's face the reality...this was never intended for passenger flight. This is military. Plane and simple.

[@dentalnovember]

You understand

[@lightbox617]

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.

[@Piecenotwar]

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.

[@hugoa1978]

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.

[@ogearbox6132]

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.

[@thrillchaser9492]

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..

[@nickbeckwith6211]

What happens if the cameras short out? Particularly on final approach.

[@thrillchaser9492]

@@nickbeckwith6211 A lot of prayer...lol

[@hugoa1978]

@@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

[@wlieu12]

no doubt we can build quiet sst (as shown here) by going smaller, lighter, thinner, sleeker. meanwhile, the population is getting more numerous, more fat, each hoarding more stuff to travel. the plane and the usage will not intersect.

[@seandees9432]

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

[@imrytebeehyneu]

But doesn't it look like a jet fighter than a airline with the engine at the top instead of the bottom?

[@caltiki3090]

Amazing they didn’t need ELON to do it…..LOL !!

[@Worldofourown2024]

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.

[@NickatLateNite]

Get hit with a CME and you'll be flying in a submarine... Yikes!

[@jimsimpson1006]

I've always maintained that Concorde was defeated by jealousy.

[@jbird6609]

High maintenance and 2 accidents condemned the aircraft. Ridership fell and it became an economic failure.

[@nixl3518]

Perhaps you missed the event of the crash!

[@animaltvi9515]

​@@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 .

[@MyFluffyClouds]

|I agree.

[@billmullins6833]

@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.

[@mariano7699]

Talking about the future whilst using paleolitic measurement units. Excited Neanderthals switched on perplexed mod.

[@plane_guy6051]

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?

[@MegaLokopo]

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.

[@Jpilgrim30]

Yeah because actual vision is unnecessary and cameras or electronics systems in general never go down 🙄 Talk about literally flying blind

[@notyouraveragegoldenpotato]

No live view out the front windscreen? Hard nope

[@tdw5933]

Gotta be able to see,a camera can fail for a number of reasons

[@fredflinstone8628]

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.

[@tdw5933]

@@fredflinstone8628 both pilot errors.

[@susanschofield2705]

@@tdw5933the error being pilot unable to believe the instruments right in front of them

[@andrewwilks2700]

Sonic booms are the sound of freedom. Only prissy cry babies don't like them.

[@JesusFollower43]

Jesus loves you all

[@PeterH-be1xe]

لا إله إلا الله، ومحمد رسول الله.

[@larryspencer994]

lol This is a weapon. Just like when the HE - 111 was built. They said it was for commercial use.

[@johngring765]

100% agree! The unveiling was presented for public support but clearly the big picture is always for a military application.

[@Haywire-Alguire]

No windows to see where the hell your going. What happens if the visual screen malfunctions ??

[@paulbriggs3072]

Won't happen. The screens will be made by Dell and run by Microsoft. What could fail?

[@MegaLokopo]

What do pilots already do when their instruments fail? They rely on the other redundant systems to keep the airplane in the air.

[@davidjacques-n5w]

the sound of "leaf blowers" is much more disturbing and we have to here it in the streets during minutes. The concord was only a half-second

[@donadams8345]

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]

Sonic booms weren't ever common. Who told you that?

[@donadams8345]

@@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.

[@lqr824]

@@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?

[@donadams8345]

@@lqr824 You're a flat out liar. Cite your stats.

[@crowbar357]

@@lqr824 He did say where I lived, that qualify his statement, you'r the whiner.

[@tonygoochafanchi578]

No need for a useless history lesson or fluff. This is a horrible waste of time and click bait

[@robh3895]

Where is the R you say in NASA?

[@macjim]

I’m pretty sure that is an artificial voiceover, a computer generated voice.

[@7000fps]

A I voice

[@gerardobernardi9705]

Beautiful!!!! But is it capable of flying???? 😂😂😂😂😂

[@hoffmaestro88]

Boeing has left the chat…

[@L3HMANNN]

Boeing needs to close it's doors.

[@annalorree]

😂

[@joelshack85]

Nothing is ever top secret. There are no profits being top secret

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

Stall speed 700mph

[@IlyaLts]

Remove this stupid background music.

[@BigMacOrange]

Sir, how pointy should we make it? YES!

[@paulbriggs3072]

What's your point?

[@chichomancho1791]

super sonic flight for four and bull cart for the rest of population.

[@cam35mm]

Meh...nothing burger

[@jamesleyda365]

Yep🤘

[@CptnSavage]

It's a waste of time, waste of money and not necessary. As one person noted below, wider seats, more leg room, and reduced airfares would be much more appreciated! ! !

[@Your_TribalChief]

Whenever fighter jets go supersonic it burst people's eardrums and worse cases for older people The only waste of money and time right here is you.

[@colehensley7844]

Those things will matter much less if you’re spending half the time in the airplane.

[@bladeshred01]

​@@colehensley7844 exactly, in and out....we aren't on a scenic train 🤣

[@bobsaget9675]

Idk, I'll keep my leg space if you can get me there twice as fast. At 6'5 I woukd complain once with shorter time in the air.

[@PatrickDuffy-u3s]

Looks like it will hold 1 passenger, the pilot. Incredible waste of taxpayer money. No chance it will ever be used in passenger transport.

[@fredflinstone8628]

Are you always this clueless?

[@DrewWithington]

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.

[@nicholasklangos9704]

Not true, or close to reality in aircraft engineering!!

[@DrewWithington]

@@nicholasklangos9704 ?

[@Piecenotwar]

@@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.

[@Expat47]

Get to the point. You're droning on and on and on and o.....

[@dhackens]

How many trillion dollar's did that cost us tax payer ?

[@apeshitcrazyman]

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.

[@MrPot-on4wk]

Why are we still caring about fuel propelled aircraft and not what we really have. Anti gravity propulsion

[@CDee-if9og]

Got to keep the gullible happy.This is child's play compared to what they've really got.

[@MrRotaryrockets]

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 .

[@Thumper68]

It wasn’t trying to be the fastest. It’s useless though

[@bradley3549]

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.

[@MrRotaryrockets]

and no chute oh lovely..

[@fredflinstone8628]

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.

[@Three_Random_Words]

finally there's the RAT - ram air turbine.

[@ElectricEye-dl4di]

BS

[@peterf2451]

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.

[@captlazer5509]

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

[@peterf2451]

@@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?

[@captlazer5509]

@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.

[@MIck-M]

'NARSA' 🤦‍♂ AI isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. One of the more irritating ones though for sure.

[@allenstewart5624]

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.

[@worldcitizen242]

Imagine all the technology that is being kept away from us...

[@larrybremer4930]

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.

[@gargar8196]

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”

[@Rockoblocko]

It started life as an F-18, but it is a whole new aircraft now.

[@larrybremer4930]

@@Rockoblocko That landing gear is clearly F-16, not F-18.

[@Rockoblocko]

@@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.

[@larrybremer4930]

@@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.

[@terrortorn]

Supersonic passenger flight was reached with Concorde in the 70's

[@jr8163]

Nothing like a passenger plane.

[@nicholasklangos9704]

It’s not! It’s a technology demonstration jet! Goofball!

[@robertappleby6683]

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.

[@redeemed4th]

please release the Anti-Gravity technology already, i know they have it already

[@CDee-if9og]

You see it already.The things folk are adamant that wee green men are flying around in are exactly that.

[@syfieldsjr1576]

The original design was by Lockheed Martin and she gives no credit to those ingenious, hard-working people! Way to go Pam! Lol

[@niclast7600]

this looks like something from the 70's.

[@alanroberts703]

there is no R in Nasa

[@andrewherbert7108]

There's no R in data. 👍

[@7000fps]

A I VOICE

[@rogerrussell9544]

Thankfully it wasn't Boeing, the doors might stay put where they belong.

[@gcarlton]

The Concord had a per passenger fuel consumption (17 mpg) around 3-5 times that of other commercial aircraft during its run and comparable carbon footprint. This is the aspect of Supersonic transport conveniently never mentioned by proponents of this technology. How about designing a bigger plane that has twice the per passenger seating room/ comfort, 3X the fuel economy, half the carbon footprint at half the per passenger ticket cost? That’s the plane I want NASA/ Lockheed to build. We don’t need another aircraft to cater to rich celebrities’/CEO vanity. For regular air travel no one needs to go NY to London in 3 hours.

[@eligebrown8998]

They unveiled it but won't be ready for another 5 years at least

[@BushMann731]

Sounds like another Boeing product! 😊

[@benjistonehenji9202]

nah nasa and Lockheed aren't letting anything roll out without extra testing and a guarantee its gonna work. they both have too much riding on this and the future of air travel together if this takes off. no pun intended

[@Dhannibal01]

The sonic boom is the sound of freedom.

[@Jack-bs6zb]

You’re confusing sonic booms with flatulance - the freedom to fart is indeed true freedom.

[@PowerScissor]

These channels are ruining KZbin.

[@brennanherbon5598]

What a waste of tax payer dollars

[@captnjim44smith74]

How about American narrators from now on ! We don’t pronounce “mobile” as Europeans do !

[@ianpunter4486]

Oh I don't know! American or European? I prefer someone who speaks English.

[@Vector_Ze]

When will "we" see supersonic passenger flight. Most of us never will, because most of us aren't wealthy. This thing is a horrible idea. It's basic physics, you can't fly supersonic without burning entirely too much fuel. I love NASA, but when I heard about this project years ago, I was ashamed. What a waste!!!

[@alphaomega154]

this is another misleading videos, not only still perpetuating the false understanding of sonic boom, also hyping up something that is RATHER SIMPLE. sonic boom comes from SOUND emission compactions/overlaps emanating from the jet blares when the SOURCE of the sound travel at EXACTLY 1:1 speed of sound. and the TEST with the X59 is just that SIMPLE ELONGATED PLATE UNDERNEATH THE ENGINE EXTENDING BEYOND THE EXHAUST NOZZLE to SHIELD the JET BLARE SOUND EMISSION from directly emitting towards the GROUND. which are where the "disturbed" audience will be. the same tech/METHOD that has been used by many "STEALTH" aircraft to minimize jet engine's sound direct emission downwards. thats the whole hype is.

[@TheMack]

What, no anti-gravity engine from their black projects? That would be real progress for humanity, instead of that coal-burner they call an engine.

[@baybarshan2500]

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 !

[@JAGRAFX]

How is this being coordinated with the flight demo program for the aircrsft prototype being developed by BOOM SUPERSONIC? Does this National effort by NASA eclipse the efforts of Boom and other contractors? Are Boom Supersonic's efforts being obviated by NASA?

[@CosmauNox]

the concorde never flew (regularly) over CONUS, and the noise propaganda was by Boeing being themselves after the utter failure of their SST program. The Concorde was never that noisy, compared to its subsonic and trans-sonic contemporaries : DC-10 and 747 were hellishly noisy.... It'd be nice that a so called serious documentary didn't spout off the same BS 50 years onward...

[@pauladam2853]

The concord was able to cross the Atlantic at 2,4 Mach speed. The X 59 does 1,4 Mach speed. Current comercial aircraft’s such a Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental travel at 0.86 Mach speed. One would expect that NASA would be able to develop a comercial plane that would in every way surpass the Concord. This plane will not cut considerably current travel times. Rather mediocre.

[@marybourgeois5235]

When i was little n in elementary school n not to far from Ellington AFB, we'd constantly hear sonic booms. The astronauts would be in Nasa jets practicing. Talk about JUMP OUT OF YOU DESK!!! That was in the 60s❤

[@museinglis1979]

Mach 1.4?! Why not faster…what’s the point?! It’s barely double of present passenger plane. Hypersonic high altitude craft would be better. Regular sub supersonic flight up to 30,000ft and then switch to hypersonic engines till cruising height (upper stratosphere)…

[@cgrosbeck]

HaHaHa Test platform!!! MACH 1.4 that is slow. Dig deep or know someone in the know!!! This is cover info only!!!!

[@SOUR-DIESEL-OG]

Awesome machine 😊

[@machupikachu1085]

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?

[@lqr824]

It may have done in part, due to lower emissions, less unburnt and partially-burnt fuel and so on.