NASA fires up super-quiet supersonic X-59 aircraft
- Reference: 1731043571
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/11/08/nasa_fires_up_x_59/
- Source link:
The X-59 Quiet Supersonic Technology (Quesst) airplane has been designed to generate what the agency refers to as a shaped sonic boom, or " [1]sonic thump " [PDF] – rather than the sonic booms that have caused civilian supersonic flight over land to be banned in the US and most other countries. The X-59 is supposed to generate a brief burst of noise at 75 perceived loudness decibels (PLdB), compared to over 100 decibels generated by Concorde and military aircraft.
The noise level is described in NASA's testing as comparable to a car door being slammed on the other side of the street, or the sound of distant thunder.
[2]
"The first phase of the engine tests was really a warmup to make sure that everything looked good prior to running the engine," [3]explained Jay Brandon, NASA's X-59 chief engineer, this week.
[4]
[5]
"Then we moved to the actual first engine start. That took the engine out of the preservation mode that it had been in since installation on the aircraft. It was the first check to see that it was operating properly and that all the systems it impacted – hydraulics, electrical system, environmental control systems, etc. – seemed to be working."
The aircraft – shown in the video below, and [6]unveiled in January at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works in Palmdale, California – is designed to cruise at about Mach 1.4 (1,070 miles or 1,700 km per hour) at 55,000 feet (16.7 km). The high altitude will reduce the sound generated by going supersonic.
[7]
[8]Youtube Video
It uses a modified F414-GE-100 engine, similar to that in the F-18 Super Hornet, built on top of the plane to reduce ground noise, and rests on landing gear taken from an F-16 fighter. The rest of the airframe is custom made – a very odd design that doesn't even allow the pilot a forward-facing windshield.
[9]NASA, Lockheed Martin reveal subtly supersonic X-59 plane
[10]NASA 'quiet' supersonic jet is nearly ready for flight
[11]Concorde? Pffft. NASA wants a Mach 4 passenger jet
[12]NASA to tear the wings off plane in the name of sustainability
In order to minimize the sound generated by going supersonic, the nose of the aircraft stretches almost a third of the 99.7 foot (30 metre) length of the craft. This means the nose is too long for the pilot to see the ground, so external cameras – which NASA has dubbed the "eXternal Vision System" – provide a view for the enclosed operator.
[13]
Who are you calling big nose? ... The X-59. Source: NASA
As you can imagine, this design poses considerable barriers to the X-59 design ever being scaled up to the size of a passenger jet. But it could provide ideas for startups seeking to get into supersonic aircraft, and have applications for military jets as well. One of NASA's goals with the X-59 is to establish a standard for acceptable noise levels for supersonic flight over land, so that such travel might one day be viable.
The ban on supersonic flight over populated areas limited Concorde to relatively few inter-continental routes over water, which severely impacted its commercial potential.
Once the engine testing is done, NASA will try taxiing tests, then subsonic flight, before zooming up to Mach 1.4. Once that has been accomplished, the aircraft will be flown over six US communities to see how the sound is perceived in different geographical conditions. Local residents will be polled on the levels of noise.
[14]
"The success of these runs will be the start of the culmination of the last eight years of my career," declared Paul Dees, NASA's deputy propulsion lead for the X-59.
"This isn't the end of the excitement, but a small stepping stone to the beginning. It's like the first note of a symphony, where years of teamwork behind the scenes are now being put to the test to prove our efforts have been effective, and the notes will continue to play a harmonious song to flight." ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205002229/downloads/Accepted_Doebler_Rathsam_sonic_thump_scale_v9_camera_ready_nocoverpage_nologos.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Zy3vWzK4FuHbq-6fef4biAAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/x-59-fires-up-its-engine-for-first-time-on-its-way-to-takeoff/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zy3vWzK4FuHbq-6fef4biAAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zy3vWzK4FuHbq-6fef4biAAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205002229/downloads/Accepted_Doebler_Rathsam_sonic_thump_scale_v9_camera_ready_nocoverpage_nologos.pdf
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zy3vWzK4FuHbq-6fef4biAAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0j_yQrZS4E
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/13/nasa_lockheed_martin_x59/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/07/nasa_quiet_supersonic_jet/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/24/never_mind_the_concorde_nasa/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/14/nasa_boeing_xplane/
[13] https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/11/07/x59.jpg
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zy3vWzK4FuHbq-6fef4biAAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: "external cameras [..] provide a view for the enclosed operator"
Yes it is surprising that they actually put in a physical meat bag pilot . Technology already exists to fly remotely so what is the requirement to have a human being doing any of the flying.
I imagine that when flying well over Mach One there is not a lot of actual physical guidance of the aircraft. Basically it's flying in a straight line at a set altitude. Since there are no passengers on board the landing phase is no longer critical, and no need for their reassurance, so that can easily be handled remotely as well.
And these are not fight jets heading of into dog fights a la WW1
It would be interesting to know what purpose the pilot
Great until
You hit the queue to get through customs...
I'm all for faster and shinier, but it's 2024, not 1964 and this just feels redundant.
Re: Great until
Meanwhile the planet burns.
Re: Meanwhile the planet burns.
But... His Trumpiness has said that it does not exist... and he can't lie now can he? {sarcasm overdrive}
Then his sidekick Musk will purloin the design (and to hell with copyrights and trademarks) and tell the world that HE alone invented it all. (just like he did with Tesla even though the history books say differently)
Fellow Regtards, get used to the official (sic) history books being re-written over the next 4 years. Slavery was a good thing, Global warming is fake news, etc etc etc.
Trump and his pals behind Project 2025 are setting out to dumb down a whole generation of young people in the USA. If you dare ask questions or point out a lie, you WILL be sent to Room 101 for re-indoctrination. You have been warned.
Posting AC but even though I'm not in the USA, I see the local FBI office (you probably have one in the US Embassy) or the CIA to come knocking at the door before we see the end of Trump/Vance/Don Jnr/Barron as POTUS (or Trump will repeal the 19th and 22nd amendments) while taking away the vote from 150Million+ women.
We are doomed.
Why would that pose difficulties for a passenger jet?
Yeah there are probably FAA regulations requiring pilots to be able to see the ground, but those were probably written in the 1950s when a grainy black and white feed was the best they could get. Now you could have them in a virtual cockpit that allowed them far better vision than they have in today's cockpits. Add some redundancy with two separate systems of cameras and displays so that if one goes out you can still safely fly and you're fine.
Yes a nose that long is probably a pain for parking at a gate, but they could use the slots designed for 747s that have multiple entrances and just use the back jetbridge for the front of that plane behind the long nose. They'd only be flying these things into the biggest airports, and it isn't like anyone is going to bother with a Chicago to Salt Lake City flight at supersonic speed - saving one hour in the air when you consider how much time is required getting to the airport, going through security, then waiting at the gate makes that pointless. It'd be cross country flights and international flights that use it - i.e. all the airports that already have gates set up for 747s.
Re: Why would that pose difficulties for a passenger jet?
Might be a practical problem it the physics of turning a sonic boom into a sonic thump require the tapered nose to be half the plane even when scaling up. MIght work, but the passenger capacity in relation to the dead weight of the hardware would be ridiculously low. The seats would be super expensive. Of course they were on the Concorde, too, and it wasn't terribly succesful commercially.
Re: Why would that pose difficulties for a passenger jet?
The seats would be super expensive. Of course they were on the Concorde, too, and it wasn't terribly succesful commercially.
Concorde was very interesting: They found that people were willing to pay more than they were being charged. Once they put the prices up, Concorde became viable*.
* Yes, I am excluding the minor issue of development costs that were written off by the French & British governments.
Re: Why would that pose difficulties for a passenger jet?
"The flight deck windshield must provide sufficient external vision to permit the pilot to safely perform any maneuvers within the operating limits of the aircraft and, at the same time, afford an unobstructed view of the flight instruments and other critical components and displays from the same eye position."
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_25_773-1.pdf
Technically you only need side vision, now it does go on to talk about forward vision in the next section but it uses the word "should" instead of "must" which have quite different meanings in law. The FAA will probably ask you to explain your decision if you chose to ignore the "should" section.
Re: Why would that pose difficulties for a passenger jet?
Part of me wishes that they would take inspiration from Pinocchio on the nose and make it telescopic/extend in flight.
All sorts of sci-fi possibilities open up then.
Re: Why would that pose difficulties for a passenger jet?
Surely Concorde already solved this problem with the famous "droop snoot". Of course with a nose this long they might have to go one better and have a second hinge in the other direction to prevent the nose from touching the ground. Or multiple hinges so that the nose curls up under the body like a butterfly's proboscis :-D
Re: Technically you only need side vision
Just like 'The Spirit of St Louis'...
Re: Why would that pose difficulties for a passenger jet?
When piloting most tailwheel aircraft, forward vision for ground operation is non existent. It's normal to weave the path of the aircraft from side to side so you can see ahead looking sideways.
Lightning
In the vid that green-body shot without the nose looks a bit like a Lightning, my all-time favourite plane.
SPV
With the video cameras, shouldn't the pilot be seated facing backwards?
Re: SPV
SIG
It seems emissions isn't an issue any longer.
how come its not communist or socialist for nasa to developer supersonic pax aircraft and then "give" the technology to manuf ?
"external cameras [..] provide a view for the enclosed operator"
Sounds like an ideal setup for remote, drone-like operation.
I understand this is a test prototype. I wonder what a full-size, 500-person passenger jet could look like.