NASA moves a step closer to supersonic passenger flights | CNN
www.cnn.com
A new study by NASA’s Glenn Research Center has looked at the possibility of supersonic passenger jets. Its “high-speed strategy” is mooting commercial flights that travel at up to Mach 4 – over 3,000 miles per hour – starting with transoceanic routes.

In July, Lockheed Martin completed the build of NASA’s X-59 test aircraft, which is designed to turn sonic booms into mere thumps, in the hope of making overland supersonic flight a possibility. Ground tests and a first test flight are planned for later in the year. NASA aims to have enough data to hand over to US regulators in 2027.

  • alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer]English
    1•9 months ago

    If NASA was a profitable enterprise, it wouldn’t require external funding, and Lockheed and co would be doing that research themselves to keep that profit for themselves.

    NASA isn’t like CNSA or Roscosmos in that they don’t make their own rockets. It exists first and foremost to funnel money to aerospace contractors by either directly contracting with them or providing R&D in cases where cost/risk is greater than expected profit.

    A similar relationship exists with publicly funded universities selling patents to pharma.

      • alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer]English
        1•9 months ago

        Just because a river flows south doesn’t mean you couldn’t find an eddy in the currents that flows north for a few seconds.

        But the water still has nowhere to flow but south. If the cost was less than expected return, these companies would do this research internally. Even if for just one moment, one tiny aspect of the program did make a profit, it wouldn’t change the nature of the system.

        • @LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          1•9 months ago

          But we’re not talking about the nature of the system here, we’re talking about this specific instance.

          And I don’t agree they’d necessarily do it internally, sometimes talent is the biggest blocker, not money. They can contract out a team of highly qualified engineers from NASA for a project here and there, when they need it. Hiring people is extremely expensive and having those people do nothing between projects is even more so.

          • alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer]English
            0•9 months ago

            we’re not talking about the nature of the system here, we’re talking about this specific instance.

            If I buy a million lotto tickets that have a 50% payout, it would be incomplete if not deceptive to point at one ticket and say “Well you might win 100 bucks, we don’t really know” instead of “the reason they’re selling you those tickets is because the risk and expense is greater than the payout.”

            Hiring people is extremely expensive and having those people do nothing between projects is even more so.

            That’s still an example of NASA eating an expense of R&D while Lockheed gets the profits.