NASA Just Solved the Super Sonic Flight Problem

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Thanks for Watching! Check out the Laifen Wave Toothbrush TODAY! bit.ly/3xuNKkt or Buy on Amazon: bit.ly/3JeCrzx

[@lettersandnumbersuc]

Nasa lol… Is a scam. Earth is flat. You disagree? Name any device that proves any earth rotation… Suprise, there isn’t any…

[@lettersandnumbersuc]

search the challenger crew is still alive. NASA claims the challenge crew all have twin brothers and sisters. This is not a joke. This is literally what NASA claims. Wake the F up.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

Skipping too many details - such as the crash flight having missing landing gear spacers, meaning it drifted off centerline and hit the debris that had fallen off a US aircraft. If it ran down the centerline, it would never have hit the debris. The US regulators and the Noise - Concorde was nowhere near as loud as maade out - the 'tests' that 'proved' the noise of sonic booms were done with a fighter jet at low level over a major city, and not at the Concorde's 60,000ft flight level, or over the farmland it was to fly over. Those 'tests', were biased through Boeing's interference and 'funding', because Boeing had already failed at making a US SSC.

[@amritbhupal8514]

Right now all resources should be focused on how to provide green air travel rather then pursue a supersonic plane thats highly unlikely to be commercialised and if it is will only be used by the very wealthy

[@kandismueller7716]

I worked on the Concorde as a Braniff flight attendant because Braniff had a promotional interchange with Air France and British Airways in the late 70s. Braniff only flew it sub-sonic and we only flew it between Dallas and Washington DC. The week that I worked on it the flights were always brim-full. I sat in the aft jump seat (facing aft) and take-offs were especially thrilling. It felt and sounded like a rocket ship with my body thrown against the seat harness! Because we remained sub-sonic over the US, even at our cruising altitude the plane never leveled off. Pushing those carts uphill from the aft galley was a bit of a chore. No, really, I was very lucky to experience the Concorde!

[@Morecreativemind]

That's super cool that you've Been on it!

[@alainabogle]

this a flex lol and i love it

[@gkindustrialmachine1]

I would love to see your stewardess outfit... the 70's I miss. Was it polyester ...bell bottoms and of course a scarf.

[@PapaWheelie1]

I would be more impressed if they could double the speed of the TSA lines

[@chrisjenkins9978]

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😅

[@Chris.Brisson]

The 12 passengers of the next supersonic service will not be encumbered by TSA lines.

[@sparkysho-ze7nm]

Or reduce unemployment lines

[@emilysmith6897]

Or better yet, just abolish it.

[@associatedblacksheepandmisfits]

Audio vox is extremely muffled

[@dustinandrews89019]

As someone with a toddler and family 4,000 miles away cutting the travel time down from 4 hours to two is a big deal. Though as someone with a toddler I might not be able to afford it...

[@Istandby666]

The effects of sonic booms on the public was first tested in Tulsa, Oklahoma. After blowing out windows and tearing roofs off houses. The AIr Force moved just North of Oklahoma City for further testing. Now the Mojave desert is the only legal place to break the sound barrier in the states.

[@josephbryant8799]

Slight correction, Aerion is no longer building their supersonic business jet, the company has been defunct as of 2021

[@potatoradio]

1961 a Douglass DC8 became the first supersonic airliner.

[@tz8785]

...during a test flight when not in level flight.

[@sarkhori]

As long as the flight is long enough to justify it, the fuel burn rate wouldn't necessarily be hugely different if the plane were higher up - most of the fuel burn on the Concorde was keeping that speed up against the friction of the atmosphere - fly higher, less friction. Only works for long flights, though....

[@jamescobban857]

For a lower ticket price, less sonic boom risk, and far less GHG emission into the Stratosphere, Starship, a transport solution that is already under construction, can deliver passengers anywhere within 10,000km in 50 minutes.

[@tonycosta3302]

I recall the TU144 was incredibly loud inside, so much so that you could barely have a conversation. And the air show crash was actually a result of a French surveillance airplane flying above (it was he reason the TU144 take off was delayed as the French had to wait for the surveillance airplane to get in position). When they climbed, their radar sounded a collision warning causing them to level off abruptly, stressing the plane beyond its design. The French and Soviets settled the case quietly as it was an embarrassment for both.

[@LadiesMan-bo2cc]

Just glad Boeing isn’t building any

[@codebycarlos]

Not sure if it's just me but audio sounds muffled?

[@captjack2112]

He's not a real person but an AI generated FBI planted climate energy seller😎🙈🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@TestTest-eb8jr]

Let's say the audio is suboptimal....

[@WTH1812]

Innovation has its own unique costs. How fast did Russians need to get to Kazakstan? How many supersonic planes will the market support? Spare parts? What is the range? What routes will be available? Profitable? How much faster can airlines go bankrupt this time? You didn't mention the toxic fuel of the Concordski. Tesla's Cybertruck is proving to be a herd of White Elephants combined in each rust bucket. EV's are just finding out some major issues: zero resale value, energy grid stress, charging time, range constraints, "booming" sales, Chinese lemons swamping the market, overcapacity, sales volume plateaus, data collection, ...,

[@boxxdrmtb]

Yeah I'm a minute into this and I came right to the comments. At first I thought it was some weird effect cuz they were going supersonic and it was slurring the speech or something 😜

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

apologies! we are working on a new set and recording setup... need to dial things in!

[@sunkeyavad6528]

And this video just solved acoustic time travel. It's audio is from 30 years ago.

[@danielrichards4927]

Audio is definitely messed up…usually not an issue on his videos. I assume there was just an issue and not enough time to fix it this time.

[@garyleo14]

3:12 that crash happened in 1973 not 63

[@paulgracey4697]

I spent most of my high school years of 1967-60 in San Diego, when military jets at Miramar and North Island regularly broke the sound barrier over populated and non-populated areas. It was the height of the Cold War after all. Learning to drive with the occasional sonic boom rattling my nerves was a hazard on top of the no seatbelts cars we had then. But I want to tell you about the 1967 trip I took to the Expo 67 Worlds Fair in Montreal Canada. A model of the Concorde was of course prominently displayed at the French and British pavilions, but it was there that the Russians made known that they would be building one too. I saw their Model TU-144 and did not expect that it was a real project. After all I had seen their display of color TVs that were built around an export version of the RCA shadow mask picture tube that also had been the basis of the Hitachi color TV I saw in a bar in the Tokyo Ginza in 1963 when there with the U.S. Navy ship I served aboard. The U.S. pavillion had a model SST too, as I recall, that could have solved the profitability issue, should it have been built. Swing wing, for much better landing and take-off performance, and 300 passenger capable, at least on paper. It represented our American pride of aerospace primacy. But for our government to build and test such a beast back then was going to impact that other program we had been spending roughly 4% of our GDP upon, the Apollo manned missions to the Moon. We did not want to fail at that one. So maybe that prohibition against supersonic overflights had been a product of of a governmental ruling with ulterior motives. It was well known that the airlines flying the Concorde hoped to add several inland cities on both sides of the Atlantic to their flight plans for it, which would have meant around a hundred of them being built. Had those factors have been possible, we might still be seeing them in the skies today.

[@blue_beephang-glider5417]

Solar Airship One excites me much more. Any fast plane puts you in an aluminum tube with sardine can seating. Airships you could walk around in, have panoramic views, proper dining and bedrooms. comfort with an ever-changing view, for me thanks.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

Don't forget the USA's Boeing SST, killed in 1971 because of skyrocketing fuel prices and environmental concerns

[@leftcoaster67]

Lockheed L2000 for the same project. Maybe they should have backed Lockheeds more realistic performance.

[@woltews]

Sonic booms are not the problem, the problem is with GHG restrictions we will be using less dense energy sources ( compare the best battery in w/kg to regular gas ) and Since the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed, an object doubling its speed requires four times as much energy.

[@simontillson482]

That’s just for static drag. If you include the supersonic drag, power is more like velocity cubed. That’s why supersonic flight is a dead-end. The amount of extra power required to go supersonic is just stupid and makes it horribly inefficient.

[@friendlyone2706]

@@simontillson482 If speed is the object, you pay the price. That's why most people no longer use boats to cross the Pacific.

[@jehiahmaduro6827]

@@friendlyone2706 That is an Awesome point! Were we the people of yesteryear we would think "Why are these young people hurrying to jet set across the Atlantic? The Queen Mary, "Blue Ribbon Atlantic Crossing Holder" can get there in a blistering 4 days. What's the point of going faster? It is clean, efficient and most of all safe!

[@dannygoldsmithmagic]

The muffled audio makes this very difficult to watch

[@stanmitchell3375]

You are deaf

[@davidbangsdemocracy5455]

muffled? better speakers needed?

[@simontillson482]

I got the same here. The audio recorded inside the plane sounded like his microphone was inside a cushion. Not good at all, quite annoying to try to understand. Even his studio audio is extremely bass-heavy. Very unusual for this channel - it’s normally fine.

[@snakezdewiggle6084]

Its fine here. Tales off above 6k, a little muddy below 800.

[@sparkysho-ze7nm]

Not

[@donaldduck5731]

Employing Inertia drives and not relying on aerodynamics means we can leave earths atmosphere and accelerate to any velocity before reentering at our destination.

[@larryscott3982]

Single engine transatlantic flight may be another hurdle. Regulations for Transoceanic flights for twin engine jet passenger aircraft had to be carefully drafted after reliability of twin engine jets proven. Single engine is a whole nuther issue for passenger service. “ETOPS, originally short for Extended-Range Twin Operations Performance Standards, or more recently just plain Extended operations, is the rating that allows twin-engined aircraft to fly long distances; particularly over large bodies of water like oceans.”

[@andrewday3206]

Watching this video I couldn’t help but think of two options. The expensive supersonic aircraft would be for low volume passengers. The ultra efficient aircraft would be for everyone else. In the future I could see the blended wing body with very high bypass ratio geared turbofans being possible. Both could possibly utilize rotating detonation turbines for the power section. The blended wing body might have a contra-rotating bypass fan like the NK-93 for maximum efficiency. The NK-93 was never funded enough to reach market but highlighted a possible path forward solving the noise issue of the CFM RISE and other propfans.

[@jameskunzman4585]

To increase fuel efficiency pilots throttle back slightly in a tailwind and throttle up slightly in a headwind affecting true airspeed, (TAS) accordingly.

[@petehutzel3778]

Ricky As an aging engineer who once worked in aero, I really like your channel and most of your articles. But on this one, I have to part company with you. In the '50s and '60s, I was growing up a bit south of Wright Patt AFB. They regularly flew supersonic boom busters over our farm. As a kid, I found it exciting, even tho a close pass would bring me to my knees. I doubt that the general public is willing to live with that on a daily basis. In terms of time saved, I doubt that supersonic can make a big reduction in travel times. If you are flying NYC to London, you will likely spend much more time in ground transport at each end plus endless waiting in each airport. Having flown our of NYC hundreds of times, I can say that none of my trips would have been materially shortened by supersonic. Most of my time was on the ground at each end. If we wish to shorten air travel times, we should focus first on the ground legs. Pete Hutzel

[@GROGU123]

Everytime I think of the Concorde, I think of "The Parent Trap" with Lindsey Lohan. They used the Concorde to get to London faster than the regular airline and profess his love for their mom.

[@thehobbyguy7089]

The fuel cost may not be what you think it will be. Consider the idea of the current adaptive cycle engines coming online for military jets, they make supersonic flight possible without using afterburners or even better fuelless engine designs using heat exchangers instead of dumping masses of fuel into the airstream.

[@simontillson482]

No matter what engines you use, supersonic flight is always going to be way less efficient than subsonic. This argument doesn’t work I’m afraid.

[@thehobbyguy7089]

@@simontillson482 I am not saying supersonic flight would be less energy-intensive than subsonic flight, just his baseline comparison looking at Concorde consumption levels vs the technological advancements we have today is off and will not be as prohibitive as he imagines.

[@simontillson482]

@@thehobbyguy7089 Very true. The gap with modern technology is narrower, but it’s still wide enough to make it impractical. As mentioned in the video, even military jets only use supersonic flight to avoid interception and avoid it for cruise wherever possible, because it reduces their range so drastically. Honestly, I can’t see any reason for commercial supersonic flight. It just makes no sense. For long haul flights, the actual flight time is not a big proportion of the door-to-door time anyway, so even for business class, the cost/benefit ratio is very poor. It’s pretty much a gimmick at this point and will probably remain that way due to increasingly tighter controls on emissions and efficiency.

[@friendlyone2706]

@@simontillson482 You remind me of the college professor who said we didn't need a new delivery service whose motto was "When it absolutely, positively, has to get there overnight." The professor was wrong. The student became rich. Sometimes people absolutely, positively have to get there faster.

[@simontillson482]

@@friendlyone2706 Good point. Maybe it does make sense for the ultra-rich or executives with unlimited expense accounts. I did deliberately use the business class in my discussion for this reason. I ignored the idiot class deliberately… 🤓

[@Istandby666]

Growing up around Edwards Air Force Base and the Mach tunnel. I grew up listening to and feeling sonic booms, in fact it's one of the biggest things I miss about the desert.

[@drockjr]

12:06. It took 12 minutes to get to some semblance of what the title proclaimed

[@icosthop9998]

...And

[@drockjr]

@@icosthop9998 someone needs reading comprehension skills

[@snakezdewiggle6084]

And... NASA have Not "solved" anything. He just spouted a bunch numbers. Yep, that's 17 minutes I'll never get back.

[@karthikd03]

Yeah I've been seeing recently two bit da Vinci just uploads clickbait videos which never really show what the title says

[@RipRoaringGarage]

And incomplete if not false info. The Paris Air Show crash was a mid air near miss with a Dassault chase plane that was not in the briefing, causing the Tupolev pilot to react, over pitching and causing a stall. But channels like this, with zero connection of experience is how urban legends spread. Pseudo sciency, be smarty pants type channels. I wouldnt care if KZbin didnt keep shoving this channel in my recommended for weeks now.

[@melivey4196]

Hey Richey, I’m glad you covered this, but consider me unimpressed. The tech gives the rich another way to amuse themselves at environmental expense. Mostly it allows them to divorce themselves from the reality that the rest of us face. The fuel burn is unconscionable in the midst of our exponentiating co2 crisis. And can you imagine the effect on wildlife and wilderness areas when even the sound of a car door (loudly) closing (at arms’s length) will disrupt the activities of the critters on the ground and in the air?

[@andyroid7339]

totally agree! And I thought that I was the only person who considered this aspect. I regularly make such points in the comments of many videos. I suppose we are faced with the question: 'Do we continue to develop our engineering with the prospect that innovations will be found which might actually help the planet or do we stop where we are?' My feeling is the former because we have the ability to 'think' our way out of trouble. The only thing missing is the drive to do this.

[@friendlyone2706]

First the rich experience new options... then those options become more common and the costs lessen. True of modern indoor plumbing, color TV, standard airline flights... and can be true here as well. Unless resentment of the luckier is allowed to lessen the visions of creators.

[@melivey4196]

@@friendlyone2706Thanks for your thought on this, which has largely been true of consumer goods. And I don’t care so much about the extraordinary expense that people are willing to incur, but if one were to step back a bit from the supersonic transport product, the objective viewpoint will almost certainly see this tech as an extraordinary creation of harmful environmental byproducts. Please excuse me if it brings to mind folks taking helicopter rides to see the last of the melting glaciers - even as the helicopter exhaust contributes in its own small way to the glaciers melting. Am I off base?

[@friendlyone2706]

@@melivey4196 We have been told warming is bad, bad, bad. That it would repeat the floods that seem to have flowed at the end of the younger dryas. That it would increase desertification. When was Earth as warm as the temperature increase we are told to fear? A few centuries ago during a period text books written in the 1950's called the medieval optimum. Back then warmer times increased ocean water evaporation, bumper crops, little war anywhere, then within a year cold happened, crops failed, starvation, wars of desperation, less rainfall. Was there ever a time of "dangerously warm" weather for a long period of time during our Age of Mammals? Look up the average temperatures of the last 8 million years --current continental arrangement, only garden of Eden wonderful world wide. Some of this information is available on line. You might have to look at some older printed encyclopedias and other print reference books. But all of it is available on line if you know how to dig. Remember, what you see as a melted glacier, animals see as improved living quarters. It's all about doing your own homework and digging deep. I've been reading science books & publications since the 1950's. Along with many other topics. In 1965, it was widely believed too many cars spewing fossil fuel exhaust would bring on an ice age within 30 years. I'm sure you heard that before. Any idea what experimental evidence change the prognosis? The eight million year graph shows steady weather until about 2.5 million years ago. We have (so far) never returned to the benign world of 10 to 3 million years ago. Not even close. We've had frequent ice ages with only very, very brief warming periods. Looking at the graph, we are overdue for another killing ice age. Pray it doesn't come in your life time. I'm old enough, I'll probably miss it, but my grandchildren might not be so lucky. Complex hydrocarbons do seem to cause warming. CO2 is not a complex hydrocarbon. Since CO2's effect is defined by a logarithmic curve, it's effect on weather is trivial. Most green plants get barely enough CO2. Commercial greenhouses buy CO2 generators so they need less water and fewer insecticides.

[@katanaridingremy]

Not a bad video. Would have liked more on the engineering side of these new planes but cool to know they exist

[@SkepticalCaveman]

I'm more interested in electric planes. Quick swappable Aluminium Air batteries could make long distance EV planes viable. The battery is very light making it perfect for planes, just split it in many small modules so that swapping them out is easy. Charging a plane takes too much time anyway so battery swapping is the way to go.

[@friendlyone2706]

Batteries are secondary stored energy and therefore always for inefficient than direct energy production. But, if government grants are your objective, battery powered planes can be profitable. If you're on Mars, battery powered might be more efficient than carrying your own solar panels.

[@justinterested5819]

@@friendlyone2706 Depends on where you get the energy from. Sure, putting a generator and a battery between an engine and the wheels doesnt make sense most of the time. But if you want to use other forms of energy (be it renewables (sun, wind, water, waves, biomass), or other types of fuels that cant be used for mobile applications (coal, trash, nuclear power)), a battery is often more efficient than power to fuel applications. Even here on earth.

[@friendlyone2706]

@@justinterested5819 Batteries do have their uses. And going downhill can be recharged -- even on the moon and Mars.

[@BradAkersphotography]

Great job Ricky, but I feel if you’re going to adjust for today’s dollars. Fuel cost should be adjusted as well. zero chance a Concord and a 777 both cost the same per passenger mile. The slide before gave the 777 4.7x passenger mile advantage!

[@scottthomas3792]

As a teenager in the '70s, I was in the ground relatively close to an aircraft breaking the sound barrier....a sonic boom is impressive....

[@yosefross]

One word: Starship. All of these developments are truly exciting, but by the time it arrives commercially, Starship will be whizzing 800 people at a time around in a fraction of the flight time, and since it's designed to be massed produced at a crazy scale, it'll probably even be cheaper! And you get to float in outer space for a few minutes as the cherry on top!

[@anonymous13141]

Apart of the technical issues (ie noise emissions, safety) My understanding on what partly of not almost entirely killed the supersonic travelling was just fuel cost and operation cost. Now there's additional carbon tax. I am not sure how commercially viable is this idea.

[@Life_is_miraculus]

Exactly but one of the reasons it economically failed was because the US and several other countries restricted the route that a super sonic plane can travel due to sound complaints from residence (during the testing) with this new nasa method we could open lot more routes on top of that i think they might initially start as luxury type of plane marketed for rich people who by saving few hours of travel time could earn several times the ticket price......well just my guess but these planes atleast at the beginning might be exempted from carbon tax and hopefully one day bio fules become cheap alternative for petrol as electric planes are almost impossible within this century

[@bearcubdaycare]

​@@Life_is_miraculusBoom has said they're targeting 100% SAF (sustainable aviation fuel).

[@Life_is_miraculus]

@@bearcubdaycare yea but honestly I think that's just bs atleast for now the only way they could do that at present is using bio fules but the cost will shot up the roof adding it on top of the high fuel expense of supersonic jets.....it's suicide for any real company so i think it's either just marketing gimmick just like how Elon promising self driving cars for 10 years 😅

[@friendlyone2706]

@@bearcubdaycare Meaning only those with private jets will experience reliable, fast travel to anywhere they choose. The rest of us will stay home, taking their word for what is happening elsewhere -- happy little ostriches with restricted flight options.

[@atrumluminarium]

Keep in mind, we have CFD and better material science now compared to the 60s. We also have more mature engines like ramjets, scramjets and rotating detonation engines.

[@JegaSingam]

Wondering if speakers, mounted on the exterior of the plane can provide a sound cancelling effect. Perhaps, it might be no good for propagating shock waves.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

14:03 Scaling up - Yep, once it's flyable and flying, Lockheed probly start looking at scaling up. Hmm... here's radical idea! Put passenger seating below and forward of pilot (in 747 deck configuration) ! Be a Monster, though!

[@baldytail]

My dad went on the first commercial flight of Concorde ie hired rather than a scheduled flight, think they flew over the Bay of Biscay and then back to Heathrow. Seriously jealous to this day as it was massively expensive by the time I could afford to travel and now not an oiption.

[@Mobile_Dom]

as someone that does the london to LA trip more often than I thought I would, I wouldn't mind doing london to LA in under 6 hours, that's fro sure, I'm also down to have planes with fewer seats crammed in

[@urbanstrencan]

Surprised that the Concorde got canceled, after the crash and high prices for running it, why they didn't try to update it with new engines and new tech?

[@michaelrivera9822]

Been waiting my entire aerospace career to build one. Alot of talk and demonstration happened since the 1990's

[@boxxdrmtb]

Please pull this video and fix the audio and re-release I can't watch this. It looks like a great video.

[@barryon8706]

Just use a ballistic trajectory, vertical take off / vertical landing so the shockwaves are nearly parallel to the ground. The airlines can make it proitable by charging a premium for the air sickness bags. 😀

[@DavidCoxDallas]

SpaceX released a KZbin video in 2017, "Starship | Earth to Earth," suggesting much faster possible transport: less than an hour between any 2 places on the planet - half an hour for most trips. might be worth a look.

[@Drakuba]

my hopes and dreams are with Hermeus. Real Engineering did a vid on their engine and why its "only mach5, but around the world in few hours, flying on the edge of space sounds hella fun :)

[@Neeboopsh]

audio is muffled. and for the "get better speakers! change your settings!" rebuttals. i can just open up any other video produced by twobitdavinci and they are markedly better, as are every other normal video i watch right now, same setup edit: clears up a bit with more higher frequency at about 8:10

[@SP4CEBAR]

I can't wait for the time when Hermeus and Starship Earth To Earth become competitors

[@jehiahmaduro6827]

I can see Hermes becoming a VIP Superjet. Maybe for the Sultan of Brunei or King Abdula of Abu Dhabi. Such a jet is as much statement of wealth as it is a strategic military transport.😊

[@detroitmissioncontrol2070]

Keep up the great work on educating the public

[@davidfgranger]

Giving the Tesla Clustertruck as an example of "throwing out the rulebook and starting over". Well that's going to age like milk isn't it.

[@staipari6244]

Great video. Would love to see you break down the aerodynamic design used in formula one. How it works and what could it be like in the future.

[@5GentleGiants]

DO NOT LET HYPERSONIC BECOME COMMERCIAL, YOU WON’T EVER HAVE PEACE AND QUIET IN YOU HOME AGAIN

[@MattPerdeck]

All the projects for supersonic planes you mention are for business jets. Not sure you'll get to do your supersonic flight if these go into service, even at $14000. Plus, what would be the point anyway in supersonic airliners for the masses? NY to LA: 1 hour travel to airport, check in 2h before flight, fly 2.5h, 1 hour travel from airport to city = 6.5h. On a far cheaper subsonic flight, that would be 9h. Is that really worth the expense if you're not super rich?

[@OneWildTurkey]

Business flight: Helicopter from downtown Manhattan to JFK, 5 minutes ($200). no TSA, arrive moments before flight, 2.5 hour flight time, helicopter to destination from airport, another 5 minutes depending on destination. Less than 3 hours not 6.5

[@bobthegoat7090]

Could we get a video about the actual engineering? I really want to know exactly how that long nose and other parts of the engineering make a quieter supersonic boom. Good video, just didn't think I would get a video about history.

[@LordNementon]

Concorde, oh yeah

[@davidmccarthy6061]

A good exercise to figure out the issues so I wish them luck. The real problem will be economic feasibility for the operating airlines given the much reduce occupancy. Concorde had very limited routes and a great many airports that could not accommodate it, besides the very expensive ticket cost. Now we have virtual meetings and many fewer people that must travel.

[@poporbit2432]

Seems to me combining two shock waves out of phase 180 degrees is the only real solution. How this can be done is the challenge.

[@Green_Light-gd5kv]

cant they just fly the jet over the ocean temporarily if they are on a coastal city then circle back at sonic speeds?

[@Robbedem]

The ban on supersonic travel in the USA is an example of bad law making. The supersonic travel isn't a problem, the sonic boom was. So instead they should have banned travel that created more than x amount of noise.

[@OneWildTurkey]

Since when do legislators have common sense?

[@Robbedem]

@@OneWildTurkey since before they could be legally bought I guess. ;)

[@OneWildTurkey]

@@Robbedem 💯😃

[@thomaslanders2073]

This aircraft will probably never advance to the stage of commercial production. Doomed to remain a test prototype at best 🙄

[@CaseAgainstFaith1]

While it would be foolish to say "never", I can't see it being anything but a tiny niche for the foreseeable future. When all you could do on a plane was read or watch movies or sleep, people would be willing to pay a fair amount more for a quicker flight. Now that you can do most anything on a computer during a flight, paying much more for a quicker flight just isn't worth it. Sure, maybe some people will do it occasionally. But again, almost certainly nothing but a tiny niche for the foreseeable future.

[@noam65]

How long from NY to Sydney? NY to Delhi?

[@bobnomura2068]

The shape of the X-59 Isn't all that good for packing in the passengers. Perhaps a smaller super-expensive private 10 to 20 passenger plane ? With that super-long snout, current passenger plane ramps couldn't reach the cabin doorways.

[@pokemongo-py6yq]

I hate it, especially the company that wants to lift the ban on supersonic flight above land. Flying at supersonic speeds induces so much more drag, even high performance military jets don't often cruise at supersonic speed because it demands burning more fuel to offset the drag. Love it when NASA makes cool tech, but I'm betting and hoping each of those supersonic flight startups are just scams.

[@simontillson482]

Indeed, just think of the seed money required for a supersonic plane. 10s of millions per year, over 3 years from hype to fail. That’s a good 30 million for these scammers. Better than getting a real job… Venture capitalists are complicit in these scams - they’re taking a 10% cut and all they have to do is find some rose-tinted glasses wearing schmucks to invest.

[@simontillson482]

This is, pardon my french, total bollocks. Why would we want such lower fuel efficiency and passenger carrying capacity? It makes no sense whatsoever.

[@danbhakta]

90 minutes across the pond...sounds awesome...until they tell you to arrive 3 hours early for international flights.

[@sparkysho-ze7nm]

Ty for takin time to teach lil ones proper oral care

[@turningpoint4238]

I've been flying for 30 odd years and it's got worse over the years not better. Not holding my breath for any improvements anytime soon.

[@PaulADAigle]

The engineering aspect is interesting, but why are we still putting so much into more CO2 emissions? We need to work on making an electric propulsion that can go fast and far, not more of the same costly burning we've been doing for years.

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

Seems like NASA is always solving problems for everyone

[@jantjarks7946]

Every billionaire. Else?

[@bearcubdaycare]

​@@jantjarks7946 As the video said, the new supersonic companies are targeting leisure travel, not just business. (And most business people aren't billionaires, but people whose families would be happy to see them home faster.)

[@jantjarks7946]

@@bearcubdaycare Who said that it's about the passengers? 😉

[@Istandby666]

I would never fly on the Concord. 1) too expensive, 2) too cramped

[@pietroantonelli6961]

Absolutely love your channel... I don't think it's a 7000 miles from New York to Linda...

[@21degrees]

You are correct. It is half that distance, so 7000 miles round trip. Ultimately the limited range was the main reason no American airline purchased it. It could not go from London to Texas directly and it was a business failure.

[@Mr2Reviews]

I think SpaceX will achieve point to point commercial services before quiet supersonic planes imo. NY to LA in 2 hours? How cute. Starship will do US to the other side of the world in 90 mins.

[@rachaelsdaddy]

0:39 in and already wrong. Supersonice flight has been continuing since the concord was retired. F-18, F-15, F-16, B-2, F-22, F-35, and the coolest of all the SR-71. All supersonic. And I think there are even SR-71 has a couple still in service and I think the A10 tank killer is super sonic but I'm not sure. Supersonic passenger flight is a different story. The Concord was a very odd bird and had several problems to start with. Since before it retired there have been attempts to make a better supersonic jetliner but there were several challenges to overcome. I know, I worked on the High Speed Civil Transport project before it died in the '90s. It will be interesting to see how those challenges are met and interesting if you know any of them.

[@frankbauerful]

The real problem of today's air travel is that check in takes over 1h and requires you to strip to your underwear. And often the airport is hours away. So 1h flight time comes with 4h pre and post flight time.

[@OneWildTurkey]

Business flights (not business class) don't require TSA and helicopters aren't much more than the travel time cost plus the vehicle.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

11:18 Proposed aircraft: With capacities under 15 or 20 people, they are merely executive jets that the general public will only see in magazines, &c.

[@NeonNijahn]

8:00 apparently true for this video as well. 😅 love your stuff though but thought it was ironic.

[@HobbesNJoe]

Hat tip to the jazzed-up intro!

[@mhmdnazel1]

I think it will be cheaper to build trains ..China already is coming out with trains that will run 1000km/h ...And the semi vacuum tube system with 4000km/h is planned... 3.2 times the speed of sound... Unless you can build planes faster and cheaper ....Furthermore train stations are more convenient than airports

[@OneWildTurkey]

And after the first tectonic plate shift, they can rebuild the tunnel.

[@kadourimdou43]

Great episode 👍

[@CBR2200]

Seems like the perfect solution for Taylor Swift. Cost is no object, room for one person. Perfect. She just needs to get certified to fly it.

[@ryanpoulter6286]

To the title of the video : no it ain't. I'm willing to reconsider in 5 years once we actually see FAA EAA approvals

[@ulrichraymond8372]

It seems feasible but if if used nuclear fuel, which would not be much. Sure it does come with some risk but there is less chance for an explosion and would be much safer.

[@SteveGouldinSpain]

Wow, why is the audio so duff?

[@mickjulian7499]

sonic boom was never that bad. i would bet if concorde had been a Boeing plane that regulation would never have happened.

[@informationcollectionpost3257]

Wow, I still need a $14,000 ticket to fly at the speed of sound. No way Mr Two Bit Da Vinci! Perhaps the military is interested in this technology & perhaps even funding it. Look at rotary combustion jet engines to learn about a less expensive way to travel at the speed of sound.

[@5GentleGiants]

MAKE NOISE TOLERABLE? SO AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T BREAK YOU WINDOWS

[@dennistucker1153]

Supersonic commercial flight is still 50+ years away.

[@ZoltanVaci0]

The Concord was the perfect epitome of class domination. If you can afford a $14,000 ticket you can burn carbon with a fraction of the efficiency of a normal airplane and as an added bonus you get to let all of the peasants beneath you know with an annoyingly loud boom. The next generation of supersonic jets do largely the same thing, except this time they create venture capital fueled financial bubbles as well. This entire project is a sick joke, especially in a country whose railways are slower now than they were a century ago.

[@MrThacke]

Field momentum vehicles will out class any plane in the future.

[@johnsonrepp]

14k per seat in 1989? How was it not profitable?

[@RagnarokLoW]

a toothbrush with a fucking app. Hell nah.

[@IgorTchouiko]

One thing to remember @TwoBitDaVinci is that a lot of this research is funded by oil companies, especially those in Dubai, to justify and continue fossil fuel extraction. The question is, do we need super sonic flight when we could be investing this wealth and human power into more sustainable tech. Remember, sustainable tech isint sexy or exciting, but it means we get to live another day, and I much rather have that then a drug filled crazy party one night, and a burning world the next.

[@ojeantas5180]

how is the sonic boom an issue over land if a plane has control of its speed. heres an idea, dont go fast over land until you are over sea. then hit the gas and boomboomboom lets go back to my room.

[@WhiskyTangoFox1]

The audio is horrible. I have an extremely good setup, and it’s not my speakers or setup as your other videos sound fine. All the treble is missing.

[@stickynorth]

These projects are cool and all but I am most interested in hydrogen and electric aircraft. Both the adapted reuse of existing airlines refitted for hydrogen like Universal Hydrogen is proposing but also new designs that incorporate it from the get go... Most of the new blended body aircraft including the Bombardier Ecojet design are counting on this being the future of aviation... And I kind of hope it is!

[@davidhorizon8401]

Environmental concerns will surely prevent these from coming to commercial production. To much CO2 added for to few people being moved.

[@bearcubdaycare]

Boom has said they're targeting 100% SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) for their aircraft.

[@icosthop9998]

You need to check your sound system before releasing the videos.

[@nuxli6454]

SpaceX? 🤔 Speed and number of people in one flight? 🤔

[@13thbiosphere]

Using a Raptor to get up to M 5 and then Electric. Turbine takeover at an altitude of 30 km.... Elon is too busy