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

Technology

34984 readers
87 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
[–] strawberry@artemis.camp 83 points 1 year ago (4 children)

america will do anything but invest in public transport huh

[–] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about bitch about the actual wasteful military spending instead of scientific research into physics and understanding the dynamics of sonic booms. Nasa has like .1% of the military budget ffs.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

US defense budget was 752.9B for 2022, whereas NASA's was 24.8B

So NASA's funding amounts to 3.29% of the Defense budget (about 1/30)

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2638711/the-department-of-defense-releases-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2022-defense-budg/

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2022_budget_summary.pdf

I agree with you, but it's nice to nail down the numbers

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Airplanes are public transportation though

[–] strawberry@artemis.camp 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I mean ig but u know what I mean

trains, busses and shit
l

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are you going to ride the bus from NYC to L.A.?

[–] strawberry@artemis.camp 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

It would still take you 2-3 days, assuming normal operation with stops along the way. If the fastest train that exists on the planet right now ran from NYC to L.A. and was able to go from 0 to top speed instantly, and maintain that speed the entire trip, it would still take 10 hours to get there. Trains don't operate that way though, so realistically it's 3 days worth of travel. It's almost 3000 miles to cross the USA.

[–] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just because buses and trains don't make sense for trans continental journeys, doesn't mean they can't be used for shorter journeys. There's a bunch of areas in North America where is does make sense and could eliminate many flights.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

That's true. They're talking about building a high speed rail from Portland to Seattle right now, and I think that would be awesome. Decades ago California spent billions to build a high speed rail from Fresno to San Francisco, which would have solved a lot of problems for both cities, but as far as I know, they never even laid a single mile of track.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are technologies already starting to roll out which will make flying the least ecologically damaging means of public transport for long and medium length journeys, I wrote a comment about it already but they're building a faculty that turns captured carbon into jet fuel it's really clever stuff.

[–] strawberry@artemis.camp 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah but captured carbon gas is stupid expensive, and I imagine it'll be worse for jet fuel. porsches recaptured carbon gas is like $40 a gallon

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The first computers cost millions and the one I'm holding in my hand is basically worthlesss. capture and conversion are both fairly simple processes so we will see a lot of reduction in cost once engineering pathways are established especially when tied to excess power generation from renewables - instead of wasting excess capacity divert it to a nearby carbon capture plant.

If a system like this manages to make fuel cheaper than standard fuel types then we'll see them spring up everywhere, it could be a total game changer. Worse ways there's an expensive alternative for use cases where electric planes aren't feasible and we learn a lot about atmospheric carbon in the process.

The air force have been doing studies and they're really keen on it, fuel security is the main reason but it wouldn't have got this far if it wasn't at least somewhat economically viable.

[–] strawberry@artemis.camp 2 points 1 year ago

I agree with you 100% that it will get cheaper, though I think that gas will soon be something only rich people can afford for their fancy cars. the rest of us peasants will be stuck with our shitty electric cars

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Trans and busses and shit can cross oceans?

Not with that attitude.

[–] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Use them where they make sense, they can still eliminate many flights.

[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Public transportation is run by the State.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

So there are very few countries where trains or buses are public transport?

[–] twogems@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or it's own people. Which is stupid, because the brain drain will catch up technology wise.

[–] LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago

By investing into research of this airplane, the bulk of the costs are going to be manhours.

How is paying engineers going to cause brain drain?

[–] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We can tell it's already effecting you by trying to suggest nasa is a waste, when we spend 100 times it's budget on wasted military contracts or the fact we do have a tax bracket that allows someone to even become a billionaire instead of taking back excessive wealth stolen from workers in predatory labor markets. There are other areas we should be getting this money for the public and it sure as hell shouldn't be from aeronautic or space research ffs.

[–] strawberry@artemis.camp 3 points 1 year ago

that's actually a very good point

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Also NASA has created endless bits of research that benefit everyone and the economy, the fact I'm typing this from my phone is only really possible because NASA 'wasted' money going to space.