Startups, NASA pursuing supersonic commercial flight
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ย. 2021
- Nearly 20 years after the Concorde made its final commercial flight, new efforts are underway to make supersonic passenger travel viable again. Bill Whitaker reports.
"60 Minutes" is the most successful television broadcast in history. Offering hard-hitting investigative reports, interviews, feature segments and profiles of people in the news, the broadcast began in 1968 and is still a hit, over 50 seasons later, regularly making Nielsen's Top 10.
Subscribe to the “60 Minutes” TH-cam channel: bit.ly/1S7CLRu
Watch full episodes: cbsn.ws/1Qkjo1F
Get more “60 Minutes” from “60 Minutes: Overtime”: cbsn.ws/1KG3sdr
Follow “60 Minutes” on Instagram: bit.ly/23Xv8Ry
Like “60 Minutes” on Facebook: on. 1Xb1Dao
Follow “60 Minutes” on Twitter: bit.ly/1KxUsqX
Subscribe to our newsletter: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
Getting through the Airport in less than three hours appeals to me. Maybe they can figure that out first.
I’ve heard that Pre 9/11 it was less of a hassle because little to no security lines compared to the long windy ones we experience today in major airports
Good luck with that. That requires a lot of discipline. Which humanity seems to be losing. No one wants to wait and no one wants to be patient and no one wants to do their part.
🤣😂😅👍
Our Saudi "friends" did a great job changing our world for the worse on 9/11 didn't they?
My first airport experience was during the COVID scamdemic, literally walked through, took 5 minutes to get to my flight.
Have I been spoiled? 🤣
Reporter: How do you make that happen?
CEO: You keep iterating.
* This man is definitely a software engineer.
An engineer who does not seem to understand entropy or the unintended consequences of his actions. Sure.
He's also soft in the head .
But it’s possible.. is it probable?
how do you surpass the speed of light? you get as close as you possibly can and then you go even faster!
clearly this dude doesn't have to deal with hardware or manufacturing costs 😂
…so many people think a sonic boom is an event that happens when you transition from subsonic to supersonic… they don’t realize that the sonic boom is a wake being dragged behind the aircraft, it doesn’t happen once per flight… it’s always happening but you just hear it once because you are standing in one spot, as it passes you.
Can we simply just have high speed rail like other 1st world nations?
@@kitcoffey7194 supersonic only really makes sense for transatlantic or other long range international travel so why would domestic travel matter at all in this
@@kitcoffey7194 high speed rail gonna take us across the Pacific and Indian oceans is it? 🙄
No, but between major cities in a country.
Hercules Rockerfeller and we can make transatlantic or trans-any ocean for that matter, with supersonic planes because they can wait to go supersonic until they are far enough. Its perfect
If he gets supersonic to 100 dollars, a regular flight would cost five.
possible
yeah that'll never happen. back when concorde was flying it cost $10,000 for a round trip fare from NYC to London
$5k minimum fare ticket
Normal flights on Low Cost carrier in Europe already cost 5 euro on many routes since the 2010s.
No. Eventually subsonic flight will be more expensive than supersonic once. Just like flying prop is more expensive than flying turbofan today
Dad was super fascinated with Concorde, would always talk about it, and so I learned about it. We were so excited when we found out next generation of Concorde is coming, now, he’s gone to heaven, I will now have my mom and brother next to me without dad. I made a promise to take him, if only he lived another 10 years instead of dying at 50.
Love you parents.
When I was a kid I flew with my grandmother on the Concorde to visit family in the UK, that was a unique experience I will never forget. If they can make Boom flights affordable for the less fortunate that would be awesome
Wow but the UK is actually a shell of its former self now
Mr Scholl says "airliners are no faster today than they were when my parents were kids." In this he is correct- in fact, airliners like the 707 and 747 were designed to fly much faster than airliners today. "There's just no good reason for this." - here, Scholl is not correct. There are very good reasons- economic reasons, that getting their faster does not balance out against the higher initial costs, higher fuel usage, higher maintenance costs, and shorter life of all the components and engines which make the aircraft work reliably. Technology can improve those things- but even so the need to remain economically viable is more and more challenging today, not less. We don't necessarily have better technology TODAY to overcome what was the grief of aircraft and operations like the Concorde.
The issue here is that you only look at one side of the coin, and ignore the other.
While most of the thing you wrote are effectively true, there is a other side to this. Is the plain cost being higher, yes, will the fuel draw be higher, yes, will the maintenance cost be higher yes.
But you do miss one important factor.All of those cost are measured by the hour... not km or miles. When you divide the cost with the speed, the equation look very different.
The statement that aircraft fly slower today is only partly true. If you compare a 707 with a A320, with is about the same size, then yes its true. But if you compare a 707 with a A350 its really not. Its more economical for longer range aircraft to fly faster.
The reason why aircraft consume more fuel at higher speeds are not the same as for cars. The main reason, and, effectively, really the only reason is mach effects. That is, the closed to mach 1 you fly, the less efficient the aircraft is. This is also true for speeds over mach 1. So a aircraft is more efficient at mach 1.6 than at mach 1.2.
There are several reason why concord was so incredibly thirsty. One reason is that it had a zero bypass engine that was really out of date even when it was designed. A other reason was a very high CAS. This was really a design effect of the engine being zero bypass. The third reason is that Concorde is mostly carring fuel, not passengers. Considering that Concorde carries 52% fuel compare to say a A350 that carries 45% fuel. Despite Concorde having a very heavy frame partly due to the nose configuration.
The reason for this was that they absolutely had to reach over the Atlantic hence range was far more important than fuel economy at the time. The last reason why Concorde is not very fuel economic is that its have a very poor seat layout configuration: it also have a 4+1 cockpit layout, that is very punishing on a small airliner.
The engine RR are making for Boom is effectively a modified gen 3 engine, its in effect the same engine powering the A320.
Because boom will not strech it range much beyond what concord had, but simultaneous have the advantage of a more efficient engine as well as flying with a lower CAS, made available by the larger bypass engine. The fuel load will only need to be about 37%. While that don't sound like a large diffrance, it is. Because it effect the rest of the framework of the airplane. Its sort of a interest on interest effect.
The lower CAS also have a few other benefits. The take of speed is much slower. This reduce noise as well as reduce the power the engine will need, in effect, also making the aircraft lighter. This also lowers the impact of the boom. Firstly, just generally fly slower, reduce the Boom, but also the lower CAS allow the aircraft to break the sound barrier at much higher altitude.
Most of the recording of Concordes sonic boom is on fairly low altitude. The reason is that because of the very high CAS, the airplain can't fly that high at subsonic speeds. Something lime Overture could go all the way up to 18 000meters at mach 0.95, then break the sound barrier at that altitude.
There is more differences. Concorde is very uneconomic at subsonic speed due to the very high CAS, Overture would be.. well not quite as economical as a normal airliner, but not that far of.
While yes, the Overture will still use more fuel than a modern airliner. The diffrance is is not huge. To my calculations the Overture will use about the same fuel per seat as a 737-200.
But to really make it economical, it needs to be larger. Overtures main downfall is the small size.
Agreed but of course we all know the Concorde fatality was not really its fault.
I think you forgot you to mention safety/reduced fatalities...
I wouldn't mind higher ticket prices for faster speeds.
It not just planes, but many segments of our society are artificially held back due to greed. What you call economically viable.
Why would the pharmaceutical industry try to cure any major disease when they can make so much money selling us the treatments.
At the end of the 1980's, I had the chance to fly the SST from NYC to London on New Years eve for $1,500. I had the money; I had no other plans. I "cheaped" myself out of it thinking I would always have another chance. I'm still an idiot
i hope to have that opportunity someday and avenge your loss lol
Same type deal here... In the late 80s I had the opportunity as an airline employee (making
7:28 I love the voiceover immediately when the answer begins
yeah I was thinking the same thing
I love aviation. I'm a total nerd for it, and I've devoted my career to aerospace. Supersonic commercial aviation is an extremely unsustainable business venture. These aircraft use tons of fuel and very few people can afford to fly on them. When engineers have figured out how to fly supersonic in a manner that doesn't involve fossil fuels as the primary energy source, then I'll get excited.
Yes, the engine is the key.
I still think Fossil Fuel will be even more cheaper than it is today, similar to the coal.
for some reason it still hasnt been depleted and more oil reserves still been discovered everywhere, especially deep sea oil which is only been extracted fairly recent.
Yes, that was my first objection too.
Also :
I am no expert, but I would think the cost of aquiring the plane is just a fraction of the cost of operating it throughout its lifespan, is just a fraction. Fuel, personel, ground fees etc. Is probably a larger component.
@@andersestes that is certainly a factor. Depending on the types of powerplants and other unique systems being used on that aircraft, there may be advanced specialty training in addition to an Airframe & Powerplant certificate required to be able to maintain the fleet. There would also be a very limited number of airports that would even offer these flights.
I love the technology in theory, and I'm a big proponent for innovation in aerospace. However, I just don't see this being a successful venture.
That is impossible, will never happen, Yes Aviation are Gross polluters, folks don't see it.
I’ll believe it when it happens and stays in business. The Concorde had so many issues with profitability, required maintenance, perfect long runways, fare costs….
In fairness, the goal of the Concorde was 'Make it happen'. This time around, the goal is 'Make it affordable'. If they succeed, they will likely stay in business. Unless, of course, the goal starts slipping from the later to the former.
@@ptrinch No, this time around is “Make it happen again” then “Make it affordable”.
Yes, concord was way ahead of its times, but the biggest hurdle more than maintenance was Noise.
Just from looking at it, I don't have a lot of faith in that "Boom" concept. Just looks like a scaled down Concorde 2.0. A lot of the technology involved is probably more reliable at this point, but the fact they have put no effort into making a plane that addresses the sonic boom issue shows me that the intention of this plane is to do nothing substantive toward innovation in this design space except possibly from a business perspective.
Oh boy, I can't wait to save 3 hours 15 years from now!
Yupp! See you in 2035 (at best)!! 😂🤣😅
This was awesome. Love the enthusiasm of all the engineers.
His lying
I hope these guys succeed.
@Widow's Son that’s exactly what I was thinking
This innovation stuff just seems like a way to accelerate problems rather than solutions. Promteheus sharing fire so to speak. I am fine with strange people not being able to visit my town at supersonic speed. Thanks.
@Widow's Son I like your positive attitude
@@cacapeepeepoopoohead1632 well that was a lot of Concorde footage spliced with prototypes sitting on jacks in hangars........ we all know how the Concorde ended it's career.
@Widow's Son newsflash; supersonic flight isn’t new. The challenge is making the fuel efficient.
The airport taxes alone make $100 a trip unrealistic
That statement in and of itself makes me doubt his dream. On the path we are currently on, $100 'decades out' from now will get you a Happy Meal and a side coffee (with a biodegradable toy of course).
I’m still not convinced that this could ever be affordable to the average person but nevertheless it will be exciting to see this technology used again. Hopefully they can find a way to limit noice pollution near neighborhoods this time
They won’t, the company is called BOOM
Eventually, such modes of transportation will be affordable to the masses. It just might take a 100 years. The question is: Do people have the patience to sustain such flights long enough for it to become affordable and marketable to the masses? Concorde seems to answer that question with a NO.
Although it took almost a century, flight tickets are finally at prices affordable to even lower class citizens. In the 1940s, regular commercial flights (half the speed of modern flights by the way) were about the same price at the time as a Supersonic flight would be today.
@@fortherepublic9878 That would be very cool to see happen with supersonic flights if the variables allowed it. I think similar to commercial flights their might be some luxury aspects that will need to be dropped in order to make tickets more economical but I assume the hours saved would be more than enough to convince consumers who fly overseas
@@jarjarbinks6018 That’s another problem in itself. You’d have to find routes with enough customers, enough WEALTHY customers who are willing to pay for the flights frequently. Otherwise, the routes will just lose money. And eventually cease.
Concorde quickly managed to secure many different routes. Singapore ~ Bahrain ~ London, London ~ Orlando, London ~ Caribbean Islands, New York ~ Paris/London. But eventually, in its last 20 years, Concorde ended up just flying the New York to London/Paris route. That’s probably THE most popular intercontinental route. And look what happened to the Concorde nonetheless.
But then again, to your argument’s credit, a lot has changed since 2002. So maybe Boom would be able to work with just the top 10 or 20 most popular intercontinental routes.
@@fortherepublic9878 It will be very interesting to see what becomes of boom. It also seems to be more reliant on private funding than its Concorde predecessor which tells me that investors may be more confident/bullish this time around
I lived in Brooklyn situated near those projects you see early in this video's footage as the concorde takes off from JFK. Back then i was well into Aviation, and was lucky enough to see those Concorde flights. coming into JFK and Departing. One thing i gota say.. unless your familiar with the sound of rockets taking off into space, you have no idea just how loud the concorde was taking off on full afterburners. It was something to behold both visually and audibly. Its rolls royce engine roared nothing like a normal commercial airliners TurboFan jet Engines. THEY WERE LOUD!!!!..
Those were Olympus 593 engines.
History is littered with dreamers like this. There is no way this will happen.
Can we get high speed rail like other countries though? In my lifetime?
@@kitcoffey7194 By "we" if you mean New Zealand (where I live) the answer is definitely no. If you mean the USA, I suspect the answer is the same.
That ‘safety concern’ was hardly Concorde’s fault.
The runway debris came from a US airliner which had been poorly maintained.
Great story! When I was in fourth grade in 1969, I used to read about the SST in scholastic book service newsletter. Great job.
That's absolutely fascinating!
Really? I can’t wait for the sonic booms again… no thank you
And not to mention that 99% of people won’t be able to use it because.. wait for it… it’s too expensive.
It doesn’t make economic sense to invest in sonic travel hence why Concorde was shut down.
They’ll probably crash a lot
Earth is flat
Air travel didn't become faster in the past 50 years but it did become cheaper.
Speed = Power = Fuel = Cost
No free lunches.
Good luck though.
Odd that the video says "1 Year Ago" for the post date (so referening "sometime next year" around the 12 minute mark in the clip would make it 2022). It's now Oct 2023 and the X-59 still has not flown and is currently scheduled for 2024 at the earliest.
The concorde was awesome. Commercially not, but technologically or inspirationally, it has been unparalleled. Especially considering it started in the mid 70’s.
Becoming an engineering student has made me realise how some Tech Entrerpreneurs have unrealistic goals especially with the issues to do with Mechanical Engineering. Sure in software the limitation is our imagination but in the physical world some forces will take trendemendous time and effort to overcome.
Also most of these new "innovations" were explored in 1960s. Heck even the hyperloop idea was look at in the 1920s. Nothing is original these days.
Very true. Work hard enough on a piece of software and you'll get what you want. Mother nature doesn't always play so nice.
An F18 outfitted with Nasa engines flew over my house in Houston....it was AWESOME! I noticed the sound difference (and fat rain afterwards) before the news reported the flights....how I KNEW it was something special flying above ⚠️ so cool! Like a train with no horn and a ripple/tearing noise
Takes a lot of guts to name an airliner "BOOM".
why?
@@thegr8rambino because crashes are far more likely by air than high speed rail, which is far safer, would be far superior, and so many other countries have it... and why can't we just have the safe cheap quiet option ever in America
I can imagine travelling twice the speed of sound,my schedule will be: going for lunch in LA,dinner in London and spend the night in Nairobi.😕😕😕
Simple life 😠
The technical limitations of such an ambitious project are so great that if they got costs per person @ $100k per flight I'd still be impressed.
Or nationwide high speed rail FOR EVERYONE
@@kitcoffey7194 ikr. These muh roads 😥ppl are the same ones that want to use taxpayer funds for fukin mars missions. Ridiculous.
New York to Paris, New York to Douala, New York to Luanda, New York to Stavanger... This flights will be cool
When Concorde finally finished aviation went back wards today we have materials that can make strong and half the weight
That was the tragic part of Concorde's retirement, because we were taking a step back instead of forward. We had supersonic jet and we lost it. The airline market is too volatile for an expensive supersonic jet to be profitable. Fuel price changes, economic down turns, terrorism, and environmental issues. The latest shock to the airline industry is the global pandemic we're going through.
I do hope that the next generation of supersonic jet's comeback will be fuel efficient, safe, profitable for airlines, and eventually affordable.
Sure. But the taxpayer shouldn’t be funding it.
The sound of a sonic boom is pretty loud. I grew up near a base and heard them all the time.
You also feel the boom go through your body.
Yeah maybe we should restore funding to the EPA to track noise that Reagan removed in the '80s for no legitimate reason. Turns out noise actually affects quality of life and health, pass it on.
@@kitcoffey7194 10,000,000 Americans living with debilitating tinnitus and hyperacusis can attest. I worry that these guys will not meet their goal of making it truly quiet on the ground, but go ahead and get the law removed anyway. Billionaires and their plans have a way of mowing down the public without concern.
@@kitcoffey7194 lol you're an idiot making everything political
"NASA pursuing supersonic coffee maker"
"NASA get funding for super secret symbiote research thanks o popularity of spiderman movies"
3:34 my boy all up in the side of the plane..i thought he was stuck lol
sooooo the engine doesn’t exist yet, the fuel FOR that engine doesn’t exist yet…. best of luck buddy.
i’m hoping you pull it off!
This is fascinating; the future of travel is exciting! Regarding the future of speedy land travel, I'd also like to hear about trains. 🚄🚅
That’s more of a Shelbyville idea 🚝
Without proper knowledge, you can only be optimistic
Is X59 is gorgeous! Good luck guys!
I remember sonic booms back in the sixties. They could be real chest thumpers. One middle east country used sonic booms to send a message to their adversaries. It would break windows and give old people heart attacks. One step shy of dropping bombs I guess.
as much as I want this to happen, I doubt that it will make it to the market given the fact that current airlines are already retiring their A380s due to its bad fuel efficiency. (I don't think I need to tell everyone that supersonic jets consumes more fuel than the A380s)
Great that they focused on the harmful impact of the sonic boom. But not so great that they devoted very little to no time at all to the topic of fuel consumption and its environmental (emissions) impact.
Thank you!!! This
I cannot get enough of watching specials like this. Futuristic
I remember reading them in Popular Science. Since don't have flying cars or robots, I can say without a doubt that most didn't come true.
They were already testing these in Houston a couple of years ago.
Boom, if proven theoretically to be cost effective and functional, will likely be bought out by Boeing or another major OEM that has the existing resources to procure affordable materials and produce this thing at scale ASAP. Otherwise, there will have to be unimaginable amounts of cash pouring in from extremely patient investors to make this possible and sustainable. Godspeed to these folks that still have the courage to take a dream project from paper to reality. 👍
My money says Boom will enter history more like Nikola Motors than Tesla Motors.
@@zanetaylor7 Yeah, I'm right there with you. One look at the prototype, and it looks uninspired. The CEO's stated motivation for wanting to bring supersonic air travel back also didn't seem to come from a very enlightened basis, either.
That didn't happen with the Concorde. No reason it would be bought out here. Doesn't mean it won't happen, it's just not as likely as you think. The closest analogy would be Tesla and it's still independent.
Available around 2035!! By then I plan to be going to Mars for spring break.
Earth is flat
Earth is round
@@TechnoBro999 what about the Russian going to space do Putin know the earth is flat
Earth is a shapeshifting trapezoid
The connection on this planet are getting tighter and tighter
Nice to see we're going back to the moon and bringing back super sonic jets.
This prior Amazon guy needs to be more of an engineer and less of a salesman. The fundamental problem here is engineering not desire or hype.
Question; can the sound barrier be broken made by non-aircraft?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThrustSSC
yeah, you dont need to be a plane to travel at high speeds
ever heard of a bullet?
All rockets do (big ones that go to orbit..
Development of Concorde began in 1955. By 1969 Concorde was entering a world where speed alone just wasn't enough. Fuel consumption, noise, capacity and range; Concorde seemed to have been designed by people who didn't dream in the real world, as if everyone had money to burn while polluting the air, as fast as possible. Now it's 2021 and I'm seeing it all again.
Yes, ironically burning money is the biggest pollutant... and, engineers often fail to keep their business.
The fact that the British Concorde was the only supersonic passenger plane is just as amazing as how long ago it first took flight.
Wasn't that also a French effort
@@neomacawofficial3119 Good to know.
Some of it was French of course. The engines were pretty much all British being derived from earlier Olympus versions (as used in the Avro Vulcan).
I do not see a viable, affordable airline providing supersonic travel anytime soon. The logistics and expense is just to much to overcome at this point in time.
Despite the United order, I think Boom is going to be a bust. They don't even have an engine yet. The Lockheed Martin version is much further along.
@@4seeableTV agreed.
“Dreaming big” is easy. Good leadership and engineering feats are the X factor and they’re anything but easy.
They did this in Galveston, Tx 2 years ago
MAKE IT HAPPEN
One of the reasons for the Concord's demise was fuel consumption. I was very disappointed that there was no mention of it, and more so even the most optimistic "vaporware" prediction of the carbon footprint in terms of mass (kilograms) per passenger mile.
*Concorde's
It's true that Concorde was incredibly inneficient when flying subsonically. It used to burn 1-3 tonnes of fuel just taxying to the runway, however, when at altitude, it was incredibly efficient. What other aircraft can cruise at Mach 2, without using afterburner for nearly 4hrs?!, effectively halving the time a subsonic aircraft would take (8hrs approx). Concorde burned approx 50% of its fuel getting to altitude and speed, but once it was there, it would purr along with barely any effort or thirst for 3 or 4 hrs until it was time to descend for landing.
The sonic boom was one of the main gripes in both the UK and USA.
@@Aeronaut1975 : I didn't know about its fuel burn taxing. Climbing to cruising altitude and passing through the transsonic range is always very energy intensive for all aircraft. While cruising at Mach 2 burns less fuel than passing through the transsonic region, its fuel burn there was still more than twice the "passenger miles per gallon" than typical Mach 0.84 jetliners.
All engines are far more efficient than they were 20 years ago.
If this had the range for transpacific like la to somewhere in Asia, I feel like that would be where you see the most benefit of reduced time
Yes, and from West Coast and East Coast to Europe!
My father was in the last Concorde flight London to DC.
12:14 I recognise that Flight Sim 😉
Just build us a halfway decent rail network, FFS.
Yeah, and a halfway decent Post Office network, too.
Let's Go Brandon. Inflation Nation..
Make antigravity flying craft already. Nobody trying to die in plane crashes anymore. It’s 2021 figure it out or let the tech out already govt.
I’m happy flying from london to nyc in 7-8 hours. Pick a good flight and sleep on the way. Would getting there In 2-3 hours be safe?
Agreed 👍, give me first/ business class for below 3K$ I'm cool with 8 hours it takes...
does the altitude of the plane breaking the sound barrier have differ in the loudness and effects of the “boom?”
Of course.
Boom is a terrible name for a commercial supersonic airliner. It emphasizes the sonic boom.
Like Zoom?
It’s a nikola 2.0 or Theranos 2.0 whatever you like better lol
I’m trying to say boom is a scam.
Earth is flat
The sound of something exploding
@@roccosiffredi6427 the earth is flat
He's overpromising...sounds like Elizabeth Holmes
When I was a kid in France I remember the price of the ticket for the Concorde from Paris to NY . It was 30000 Francs return and the minimum wage was 1300 Francs so 25 times the minthly minimum wage . Today the minimum wage is 1300€ ( 1500$) so in today’s money Concorde would be between 35 and 40000 $ for Paris to NY return .
So cool
Flight time isnt what kills travel time🤦♂️ Sure, make something that goes mach 5, you are still stuck at the airport for 6 hours.
What airport are you going to where you are stuck for 6 hours? Delays are one thing but if you are talking security its never been 1-2 hrs at worst for me at any of the busiest airports around America.
@@jlee104 layovers are often longer than the actual flight
@@oneillam1990 That has nothing to do with flight time. That has more to do with you flying out of a small regional airport that doesnt have direct, nonstop routes. At the end of the day if I am flying from LAX to London its a 12hr flight. The time I spend at the airport getting in and out will usually combiner to 3-4 hours but if the flight in the future is 6hrs I'll save 6 hours, whats not to celebrate about that?
@@jlee104 re-read the original comment
It would be great to have commercial supersonic flights again.
Space Aliens; “Silly hairless monkeys, combustion jet transportation is for kids.”
Others had designs to do this 15 years ago...I believe one of them was a Rutan design; however, the FCC said you cannot fly supersonic over the continental US...has that changed? The New York to LA in 3 hours is not possible until that ruling changes.
Pretty sure you meant FAA, but you're absolutely right. I'm curious what they plan to do about that too.
Does it have the range to make trans- Pacific routes? If so, that might be a big advantage. Concord didn’t have the range.
I fell asleep
Earth is flat
We need to capture one of those aliens, and maybe they can tell us how they do it!
what aliens?
Wow!!
Boom !!!!! I don't know who's idea was, but calling a plane Boom doesn't sound like a good marketing idea 🤣😂🤣
Don't wanna be that party pooper, BUT:
GM invested in Nikola...
Just be careful investing if it sounds to good to be true 😏
I’d love to see a hypersonic commercial plane in my lifetime. 🤔🤔
Well I got to see the supersonic come and go. It turned out to be uneventful. Maybe if I had ridden aboard one it would have been different.
I hope so! Sick of that 9hr fight from the UK to Florida 😬
why don't they just go over water till you can't hear a boom turn around and press the red button to boom over water?
"Has the private sector build a supersonic aircraft?"
"No, governments and military's only."
Only if you don't consider the Dragon capsule an aircraft. Being private sector, it reenters the atmosphere at mach 22 returning from the ISS.
Also the first stage of the falcon 9 goes mach 10.
Yeah, those are not aircraft. They are spacecraft.
Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic ship would qualify though.
SpaceX has received billions in government funding, so it is deceptive to call any part of the Falcon 9 a commercial vehicle. Falcon 1, yes. Falcon 9, no.
How much will it cost? Will this be only for the super rich?
Yes.
Would you jump to the chance to get to your destination in the half the time?
Me: I am good.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Reporter: What is the sonic boom? What generates it?
Also Reporter: Interrupts to talk about him and his boss to the right
This may be the next Theranos. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Even if these jets fly on 100% imaginary fuel (sustainable), there’s NO possible way that the costs for a seat will be in the hundreds of dollars to stay nothing of $100. The cost just to manufacture the plane wouldn’t pencil out for airlines.
Still, I admire his vision and persistence. We need more visionaries transforming their dreams into reality.
Can we just have nationwide high speed rail please already?
Jet planes back in the 60s were expensive too
It would never be $100. Too much greed for that.
@@kitcoffey7194 Good god, no. Every "high speed rail" project in the world is a massive tax money laundering scheme.
Why not just use noise canceling technology, by sending an opposing sound wave pattern which matches the the sonic boom in the oscillating direction? This seems like a MUCHmuch more dependable solve
Sonic booms aren’t oscillation they are pressure waves
Now we know what those mysterious boom sounds were in the last few years. In 2019 New Orleans there were several boom sounds heard over Lakeview.
The tech is great, but how does that fit with the current climate change situation? Faster means more fuel and more carbon.
@Nick Fuentes Banned from Everything I guess you missed the memo.
HIGH SPEED RAIL PLEASE
There was Theranos, Nikola, and others similar; soon Boom will join the hall of shame. The laws of science never seem to apply to greedy and narcissistic entrepreneurs.
Exactly.
People need to quit being suckers to CGI and potemkin machines.
Love innovation, we need more and more of it!
Overselling seats and ordering 200 planes without buying anything , such an ancient privilege of the airline industry.
A plane flying is a tiny piece of the equation. How about processing of passengers? How about processing of luggage? How about landing? How about taking off? How about traffic? How about boarding? How about disembarking? Right now, actual in the air flight time is a small piece of how much time it takes to take trips by air. Long trips seem optimal for this.
It's literally a 66% reduction in flight times. That's not trivial. You certainly wouldn't make the same belittling comment about a 66% INCREASE in flight time. lol
At a curtain point a faster plane loses its practicality. If you just keep continuing to add speed you hit diminishing returns in the atmosphere. Just make a freaking rocket. Our grandfathers planes were faster because they could dump fuel down the drain at little cost. He wants to sell a novelty experience at a common cost. ??
Incredible
Love the idea
Given COVID's never-ending surge, why is anyone concentrating on moving people cheaply and easily from one populous to another?
I absolutely do NOT want people able to go cross country at supersonic speeds for $100, as this guy describes.
Awesome!
Very Exciting!