NASA 'quiet' supersonic jet is nearly ready for flight
- Reference: 1688752874
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/07/07/nasa_quiet_supersonic_jet/
- Source link:
The X-59 is the centerpiece of NASA's Quiet Supersonic Technology or "Quesst" project to reinvigorate civilian use of aircraft that break the sound barrier, and this week NASA [1]said the Skunk Works team at Lockheed Martin, who are building the craft, have wheeled it out to the flight line to begin ground checks before an estimated nine months of safety flight tests.
Once the first [2]phase of the X-59's development ends it'll be handed over to NASA to prove it can fly over land at mach speeds without leaving a community-disturbing sonic boom in its wake. Instead, NASA hopes the X-59's unique design will create a "sonic thump" that's just about as loud as a car door being slammed from 20 feet away – quieter than a bouncing basketball, the sound of two hands clapping, or nearby thunder.
[3]
NASA's explanation of how loud the X-59 should be
The X-59 will hopefully accomplish its quiet supersonic flight (with a max speed of mach 1.4, 925 mph or 1,488 kph) through its unique design, which NASA says prevents shockwaves created by flying faster than sound.
"The X-59 is shaped in a way that prevents the shockwaves from coming together, resulting in a gentle sonic thump," NASA [4]said [PDF]. "Normally, these shockwaves merge and generate disruptive sonic booms heard on the ground for miles on either side of the aircraft's flight path."
[5]
It could be quietly flying over you as early as 2025.
Flight of the Son of Concorde
Once fully assembled and ready for flight, the single-seat [6]X-59 [PDF] will be just shy of 100 feet (30.5m) long, with a hard-swept wingspan of just 29.5 feet (9m) and a height of just 14 feet (4.25 meters). It will be able to cruise at 55,000 feet and, as mentioned above, has a cruising speed of mach 1.4.
That's a bit smaller, lower, and slower than the famous (or infamous, depending on where you lived) [7]Concorde supersonic jet that was used for passenger flights between 1976 and 2003. The 100-passenger craft cruised at 60,000 feet and a speed of mach 2 – around 1,350 miles per hour (2,173 kph).
[8]
[9]
Those speeds allowed the Concorde to make some incredibly speedy flights, shuttling from New York to London in just under three hours.
While considerably higher than the cruising altitude of today's subsonic commercial jets, between 33,000 and 42,000 feet, the Concorde still left [10]incredible noise in its wake, leading to the US government [11]banning non-military supersonic flights over land in 1973.
[12]
The X-59 on the flight line
"It's a rule that many people today aren't aware of, yet it's at the heart of what our Quesst mission with its quiet supersonic X-59 airplane is all about," said Peter Coen, Quesst mission integration manager at NASA.
When flights over select US cities get underway, NASA will be polling locals on the ground to get their response to the sound left in the X-59's wake.
[13]NASA to tear the wings off plane in the name of sustainability
[14]Virgin Galactic flies final test before opening for business
[15]China aims to pair J-20 stealth fighter with 'loyal wingman' battle drone
[16]Japan's aerospace agency hooks up with Boeing to make planes quieter when they land
By 2027, NASA hopes to have data from the X-59 experiment over to regulators "for their use in considering new sound-based rules regarding quiet supersonic flight over land," the space agency said. If it's successful, NASA said it hopes US and international regulators will undo, or at least modify, the 1973 ban. That, of course, would require a whole new generation of aircraft to be created too.
Lockheed hadn't responded to questions about the aircraft or when its first test flights may occur at the time of publication.
[17]
NASA wasn't specific about whether the X-59 and future supersonic aircraft would be as fuel-hungry as the Concorde, which consumed approximately 5,638 gallons, or 25,629 liters, of fuel per hour of flight – but the space agency did tell us: "Because the Quesst mission is focused on the sonic boom challenge, the X-59 is not intended to be used as a tool to conduct research into other challenges of supersonic flight such as landing and takeoff noise, emissions and fuel burn. These challenges are being explored in other NASA research.
"Thanks to projects like NASA's Commercial Supersonic Technology (CST), the agency continues to be a leader in exploring technology to make supersonic flight more sustainable and environmentally friendly. NASA is also directly addressing climate and ozone impacts of future supersonic aircraft." ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/nasa-x-59-moves-closer-to-runway
[2] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lowboom/mission
[3] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/07/07/x-59-sonic-thump.jpg
[4] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/quesst-litho.pdf
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZKiK-DrihatoY9uoqYWihgAAAtE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/quietSuperSonic/P22-01661%20Product%20Card%20X-59.pdf
[7] https://www.britishairways.com/en-us/information/about-ba/history-and-heritage/celebrating-concorde
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZKiK-DrihatoY9uoqYWihgAAAtE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZKiK-DrihatoY9uoqYWihgAAAtE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2019/08/how-concorde-pushed-limits-then-pushed-them-too-far
[11] https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/nasas-quesst-reassessing-a-50-year-supersonic-speed-limit
[12] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/07/07/x-59-flight-line.jpg
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/14/nasa_boeing_xplane/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/26/virgin_galactic_pulls_off_last/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/03/china_loyal_wingman_drone_plan/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/20/jaxa_boeing_acoustic_research/
[17] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZKiK-DrihatoY9uoqYWihgAAAtE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: As much political as technical
A complete analysis will be important.
Back when Concorde was still flying, BA used to get regular complaints about the noise. So regular that they even got complaints on days when the Concorde wasn't flying. I'm not finding the reference, I think I saw that in a PPRuNe thread.
Re: As much political as technical
My StepFather worked on the avionics for the QSRA at NASA AMES (where I basically grew up in the late 80s).
https://www.flyingmag.com/the-quiet-little-life-of-nasas-qsra/
The QSRA was ideally a solution for "puddle jumps" with a jet engine:
* Blowing exhaust Over the wing to create lift.
* Reducing the sound footprint by using the wing to reduce downward noise.
This is handled largely by Turboprops (my last flight from SF to Sac was nice) but the idea was to make jets faster and more... amenable to the locals.
Going supersonic is cute, but NASA's point is: If we can do $foo,then $bar is trivial.
Guess I'll pay my taxes next year.
I'm actually disappointed
Re: As much political as technical
Funny thing is that back when the F-4 Phantoms were flying out of Moffett Field (1960s) they often left sonic booms behind. At least three or four per week. I do not remember any of the adults complaining about it at all, and of course the kids loved it! Most of us hated the P-3 Orions constantly circling ovehead, sometimes just one or two minutes apart for hours ... That was really irritating noise. The Wind Tunnel[0] turning on at around 3AM (lower 'leccy rates at that hour) was annoying the first couple times, until I knew what it was ... then I just rolled over and went back to sleep. Science has always soothed my soul.
I grew up on the Palo Alto side of San Antonio Road, right under the pattern.
[0] It was capable of high Mach numbers, and is thus on topic. The complex is now hypersonic capable.
The nose on that thing is so long, that even at supersonic speeds, it will arrive 10 minutes ahead of the rest of the airplane!
Sir Arthur Marshall
Sir Arthur Marshall, whose eponymous company produced Concorde's nose cone was quite proud of the fact that the first part of Concorde to reach the destination was made by Marshalls
My first thought was "I wonder if that's reinforced enough to survive skewering a goose at take-off speed?"
Gut feeling is it'll collapse like a used condom after hitting a bird at anything resembling speed... that is one LONG lever!
Concorde, so loud
When I lived under the Concorde flight path (Slough, Brentford) I found that there was no volume setting on the TV that could compete. It was always fun in pub beer gardens if your friends weren't expecting it.
Re: Concorde, so loud
On a similar note, during the 80s both my house and school where on the RAF Wittering flight path, so we constantly had aircraft flying over, mostly Harriers with some other bigger stuff at times, I think there were about 10-20 flights a day, after a while we didn’t notice them apart from the teachers having to stop talking when one flew over as nobody could hear what was being said.
Re: Concorde, so loud
SAP Training centre used to be alongside Heathrow on the North side and classes always paused when Concorde was taking off.
less-noisy maybe but still un-sound
I think have read on in past Reg comments somewhere a comparison between the UK/France govt sponsored development of the Concorde and the US Boeing sponsored development of the 747 - which both took place at approximately the same time - the former being a complete financial failure while the latter became an huge financial success lasting for decades. How has the US sunk this low?
NASA should simply not be in the business of developing commercial passenger aircraft. It's only being done by NASA because it has no commercial value so neither Boeing nor Airbus would ever take on that risk. NASA might as well take down this website now - climate dot nasa dot gov : "Global Climate Change, Vital Signs of the Planet, Understanding Our Planet to Benefit Humankind".
Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound
It is an easy way to research quiet military jets which would have considerable advantages?
Just what we needed. Another plane to pump huge amounts of CO2 into the air so the very rich can travel a bit faster.
As much political as technical
"NASA will provide a complete analysis of the community response data" - right.
So this is all about "if we generate booms that don't stand out quite so much and give less reason to take offence, will folks still find other reasons to do so?"
Of course flying a modest-sized airplane at modest-supersonic speeds is not going to skew those public perceptions, how could any cynic imagine so?