this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
395 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

34989 readers
35 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There will never be a fuel efficient way to travel at supersonic speeds using combustion technology. This is planet destroying tech. It won't matter in 100 years when everyone is dead. This has no trickle down benefits, nor is it cutting edge. This targets an established market by trying to make it half tolerable for parasitic billionaires to further destroy the world. Supersonic commercial flight was done already. This is 1960's technology with some CAD tools added. Trickle down, it did not. It did however prove exactly the market it is designed to enable. This is a toy for criminals that shouldn't exist; the careless egomaniac destroyers of the World. This is only for the people that are constantly flying and have carbon footprints the size of small countries. It is criminal that this is developed at all right now. It is kind of interesting from an engineering perspective, but we are currently in the biggest deviation in earth's climate since it has been tracked. We stepped over a cliff and have no clue when we'll hit the bottom. The last thing we need is some stupid asshole that chose to make this problem enabled to make it worse.

[–] LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aviation is one of the smallest contributions to greenhouse gas emissions as-is: in 2016 it was 1.9% of global emissions.

The danger the rich pose to the planet isn't being first in line for the second generation of supersonic transoceanic flights.

The danger the rich pose to the planet is them keeping coal and natural gas plants open longer because they personally profit from it. It's them keeping their taxes low, reducing our ability to fund renewable energy. It's them fighting tooth and nail against any new energy efficiency regulation (remember the incandescent lightbulb ban fight?) because it "hurts profits." It's them fighting against public transportation.

This? This isn't even in the top 50 of their ills against the climate. The hate for the rich is well placed. Applying that hate to basic science is dangerously misplaced. The rich love when people push-back on funding science efforts.

[–] ptman@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem is that those emissions cause more warming at that altitude. So fly just above treetops, please. https://oncarbon.app/articles/non-co2-effects-aviation you need to at least triple it

[–] LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you flew above treetops, you'd consume considerably more fuel because of air friction.

[–] ptman@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, forgot the interrobang. But really, air travel is a problem. It needs to be minimized. Not increased. Especially not increased in amount of greenhouse gas emissions per distance flown per person

[–] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

There are already ways of making jet fuel from captured carbon, as the chemistry continues to evolve we absolutely will see carbon neutral flights becoming more common.

I know doom feels good and I'm very susceptible to it myself but the reality is we're probably going to make it through this, it kinda sucks really because it means we do need to plan for the future after all.