Exclusive look at NASA's low-boom supersonic plane 

Same here. If you ever go to Toulouse, France I highly recommend going to the museum there to see them in real life. I was super excited to see one in real life.

Airplane 547 mph Speed of sound 761 mph Do the math

I’ve been on Concorde (pre wheelchair ) but never flown on it sadly. This is the Cyrano De Bergerac of planes it looks intriguing but I’d fly on it if I had the money

As a passenger, you would not notice any difference between sub or supersonic flight. That said, you'd definitely notice arriving many hours earlier than your friends who took the normal fight 😁

Wouldn’t it be like $750-$800 usd per person?

Thank you!

Thank you

Appreciate you!

Thank you captain! Fly away now!!

CNET just isn’t what it used to be.. as a matter of fact it wasn’t much more than advertising

Just checked that for fun. Paris is six hours ahead of New York so if you have breakfast at 8 AM and take off for the eight hours and twenty minute flight at 9 AM you will arrive in New York at 11.20 AM By the time you have cleared NY immigration it'll be time for bed :-)

but will there be forthmeal

What about elevenses?

@@AnthonyHigham6414001080 Don't you mean PM?

@@marrqi7wini54 No, try the numbers on a clock face. Slightly surprised me. Of interest, if Concorde was still flying you'd arrive, with a 9 AM departure from Paris, at 06:30 AM in New York. Paris to NY was 3:30, dam that aircraft was fast.

The future is looking bright 🌞 ✨️

Awesomeness! What was your departure time? (if remembered)

@@bar9501 We left Paris at 6:30pm if I remember correctly. I'd need to find my tkt receipt to be certain.

Might be because we went from 1 to 42 in literacy..and RU-vidrs can't build planes.

Would seem unlikely that you could translate those proportions to scale . Even a bizjet would be so ungainly as to be impractical.

Everyone would have to sit single file, and it sounds like longer is better for the sound issue.

@@layton3503 They'll find a way to make it worse, like your thighs will have to bend behind your torso and your calves will have to point upwards. I swear they purposely make the seats as uncomfortable as lecture hall seats at my old (VERY OLD) college.

@@boedillard8807 Trying being 6'3" or even taller.. Even in buisness class I have to sit either sideways or with my knees up on the back of the seat ... and even then it feels like my kneecaps are going to pop out. My last flight from Seattle to Charlotte was 8 hours of wishing I had sprung for first class and not hated every moment both ways because I had someone who constantly was flopping about in their seat hammering my poor knees.

No way, people are already complaining about the emissions from planes, adding room will reduce capacity and increase emissions

You do get that for a plane to go super sonic. If they left the east coast, at super sonic. They would over shoot the west coast. That why we built the Concord to bend in half. Cost, 850 million with 350 million more.

I was listening to that thinking 'is this poor research or just dumbed down for the masses' in I reckon its the latter

French taxpayers

Also "Early days of aviation" - power flight had been around for 39 years by the time Yeager and his inanimate carbon rod broke the sound barrier. We fought two world wars with planes by then.

Also, she literally interviews CNET's aviation reporter...why didn't he do the video?

@@daleyoung5200 I reckon it is the first, there is no research here, it is essentially an advertisement, and it proves the point of the suspicious quality of NASA's work.

Yes, only for the low price of 79,99

Pretty sure that the sim they are using in this video is x plane 11

No, that would cause a fps-boom.

This man asking the real questions

What you described is essentially how we speed up the production process and make the construction of the aircraft stronger and longer lasting for a fraction of the time and cost.

That's so cool

prices will come down

I think people consider time more precious than small money saving. It will be expensive at first , but for someone who needs to get somewhere across continents in less time less time spent is more important

@@abinjosephkk8611 that was exactly concorde's selling point

@@abinjosephkk8611 that's a failure in time-management skills. The industry has been moving more towards luxurious accommodations over any subsequent speed gains via arrival times.

@@OriginalBernieBro I know, right? It's so dumb. If you want to travel across continents, you have high-speed, pretty much instant communication, to communicate and plan your trip. I don't care how much money I have, unless I have billions, spending $15,000 to go to Europe when I could spend $1,500 or less on a very luxurious and comfortable flight that gives me a lot of hours to just relax before I get there is much better. I see very little use for supersonic flight, and the uses I see are very very specific.

Basically this but unpiloted and with weapons. As a backup for hyper sonic missiles.

CCP: quick download this video, we will build one in 2022!!!

Probably X-59s but capable of going underwater and to space 😂

Well they cloned Dolly the sheep almost thirty years ago so it's probably unimaginable

Placement of the passenger sit 😎

THANK YOU! Some people don't understand the decibel scale. The sound reduction achieved here (if successful) is MASSIVELY quieter than what the Concorde produced.

A commercial plane needs a lot of system redundancies in order to be safe, like 2 or more pilots, and be able to land in case something fails. Since the plane has that front camera and screen instead of a window, if it fails that would make it extremely hard to land it safetly. This doesn't mean it will not he adapted for commercial planes but it's quite unlikely (also consider factors like passenger comfort, passenger cargo, engine efficiency, etc.).

there is a specific reason to why it is long not because of the sonic boom but something more fundamental, also I agree there will be epic designs.

lol True

Damn u ok? :(

Or vehicles passing on the bridge under which we'll all sleep, sooner or later in this "leading democracy".

@@lesterryanmd huh?

They won't. Pointless millions of dollars spent so rich people can fly faster.... cool. Good job NASA, really taking the world's problems head on there

it makes sense for businessmen, though; time IS money, especially when dealing with lots of it. In catering to businesses eventually technology will be developed to then cater to the masses, as they have that firm economic base to work with, enabling expansion.

@@PlaySA Exactly, this only applies to the ultra rich who want to jet around faster. Economy class is all about fuel per passenger which supersonic will never be able to address no matter how "efficient". Unless a totally different method of flight is invented, most of us won't be going much faster any time soon. It's essentially just Concorde 2.0 (and also why they only really care about the sonic boom since that's not letting them fly exactly where they want to)

If I am correct, at supersonic speeds a thin slow moving layer of air forms around the plane reducing drag and fuel consumption. It is the afterburnes that consume the most fuel. If the engineers can make a supercruising jet which can go supersonic without using the afterburnes the average fuel consumption is reduced. The layer of air forming around the fuselage on the blackbird was a problem for the engines and it would reduce the thrust. The issue was fixed during development. The F-22 Raptor can supercruise at mach 1,2-1,5.

No it’s mostly the sound. Fuel economy does make things more expensive, but rich people would pay for it. The problem with supersonic jets is most places you couldn’t even fly to because they wouldn’t let you due to noise.

@@none--other and yeay high

Scale it up, and passengers can sit in the long part.

By the time you get to your seat, you're nearly there.

This is about lifting a law, so that the super rich can have even more fun...

6

I mean it's kind of hard NOT to create a sonic boom as it's caused by compression on the leading edge of the wing.. So even a flying dart with tiny wings is still going to cause a sonic boom just less of one.

@@SilvaDreams ? Was that a response to my comment? Or just an additional comment

Did you watch the video? it clearly explains what this vehicles purpose is, the comparison is unavoidable

Let’s scale this plane up to fly 100 people lmao

For anyone who has lived in the midwest, you have heard thunder. Not so different. Having lived overseas where complaints from finicky suburbanite publics are not taken so seriously, we just get used to it.

I hear them weekly multiple times because Lockheed skunkworks is right down the street along with nasa. I’m Palmdale ca and they fly the b-2 from Northrop flying around sometimes too and that is fun to watch

Too bad it crashed in France, killing 109 souls on-board Concorde, and 4 people on the ground. None of the engineers & technical experts thought to harden the engine cover to prevent metal debris penetrating into it (like it did on the runway in France causing the crash), or, to prevent blades breaking & piercing thru the engine casing, damaging fuel tanks, the cabin or the other engines! That's why the Concorde shut down.

@@davids1inwestholl45 heinsight herold

32 miles per second? Thats mach 155. Thats greater than the solar system’s escape velocity lol

I hear the project, has been postponed

It made a lifetime impression!

What else for? Military wouldn't have much use from it. Maybe for these fancy hypersonic cruise missiles. The civilian sector on the other hand has a lot to gain. And with Boeing starting to clearly lag behind in the passenger jet market, I wouldn't be surprised to see a supersonic Boeing 808 in this decade.

Bruh dude, it'll present more problems for the military than it solves. With the kind of shape it has, it's not gonna be very stealthy, very maneuverable or carry a lot of weapons

I mean honestly their end goal should be for travel? Why else would they care about changing the shape of the boom. The Concord people got tired of it being loud AF. It seems they are trying to solve this issue with a working model.

Surveillance

@@chino3796 Satellites are better in every single way at that.

That was due to the afterburners/reheats, engine design, and quantity of engines. Those four engines were massive turbojets designed for a bomber without noise considered. A modern SST would use 3 or less non afterburning turbofans designed for low noise.

@@BrapBrapDorito Modern SSTs are more than likely only going to require two engines. Considering we can make jet engines capable of producing over 40,000lbs of thrust without the reheats, i'm sure we can make an engine doing 35,000lbs of thrust dry and 45,000 to 50,000lbs wet. Oh, wait. I just described the F135 turbofans.

@@Optimaloptimus Wierdly enough, the closest one to production (the boom overture) has switched to a quad engine design citing cheaper engines, easier maintenance, and quieter engines (probably due to their lower thrust setting needed with more engines) I guess the reason large SSTs seemingly don’t use less than 3 engines is because to make twin engines generate that much thrust and be efficient at supersonic speeds, they would have to be massively loud as a medium bypass is the reasonable limit for supersonic travel, meaning the core would be absolutely enormous. Remember these things need to carry 60+ passengers very comfortably while generating enough thrust to push a jumbo jet along because of the force needed for transonic acceleration.

@@BrapBrapDorito Actually the design of the engines is less of a priority compared to the fuselage. The better you design the body itself, the less thrust you will actually need to get the body to go through the transonic and supersonic range. Which is the exact reason the Concorde was a delta winged aircraft since deltas are good at subsonic, transonic, and supersonic, they could even be good at hypersonic if you want to include that. The Concorde for 34,000lbs of thrust on reheat, it was still capable of Mach 2 flight. That's very good in terms of aircraft design. The real challenge is making the engines quieter. And honestly. We have both the research and the technology to achieve that in at least two short years. The military doesn't care about noise, especially since it's extremely good as a weapon. But commercially we have found ways of defeaning the sounds of the engine tenfold. The 787s for example have far less insulation and sound deafening materials than you would normally need in past aircraft from the 1990s all because the sound from the engines themselves were reduced by more than half, a flight on the 787 is almost silent, you couldn't hear the engines. For that reason, we could lower cost of the plane and increase revenue thanks to the decrease in weight and less maintenance requirements. To make it simple, your argument does not exist, it's already been answered. Also, Boom supersonic's overture is essentially just giving us a second Concorde with all the drawbacks minus maintenance. In my opinion the Overture will not last until they completely redesign it into something more akin to an X-59. Afterall, the size of the F-5/T-38 engines didn't matter considering how deafeningly loud those lil J85s are.

@@Optimaloptimus You are mostly correct, especially about the wings. (which is why the new overture design uses a clipped gullwing delta). However on the subject of the overture, the engines were a large part of the Concorde’s failure (the Concorde was banned from many airports for its sheer noise level, and it was designed to fly supersonic over lane and sea while the overture is designed to be supersonic purely overseas) the issue comes down to the fact the Concorde could be extremely optimized because of low fuel costs and the interior being average at best. The overture has to contend with extremely high fuel costs and the interior must be very luxurious now to satisfy customers high ticket prices. This means aircraft weight will be substantially higher, and engine thrust levels must be lower than on many aircraft as to reduce noise. Which ultimately brings us back to a quad engine design, which can (in theory) deliver more thrust and less noise than a comparable twin and trijet, while making manufacturing far easier as the engines aren’t as stressed overall. See, the concorde was designed to be an all around jet that was never designed to make a substantial profit as it was more of a government program to show off the capabilities of a few countries. The overture is essentially following the only way the concorde was successful/profitable in its later years, operating long haul routes at insane speeds for high prices, but with the advantage of easier maintenance and not being restricted to extremely few niche airports.

Yeah, right? I really liked that objective rock music! And the part where they criticized that only rich people were and will be able to fly supersonic even though the development is funded with public funding/tax money! Oh, wait... they didn't criticize that? How convenient. They also didn't talk about the fact that supersonic planes are less safe during landing and take off or that they create way more pollution. Smarter Every Day, huh? I thought you were a critical thinker. Yet you failed to recognize that this video does not contain ANY critique or critical thinking at all. Now... maybe... just go back to playing with your baseball cap for 5-year-olds.

I used the skip button.

Agree

Agreed. CNET manage to make a potentially interesting subject unwatchable.

Hi Hi go good things and science. And go good machines. And go A groups and go good groups and Department s. Go good Library's and volumes. And go Kodak's and good video groups. And go good things and work grouos and tv groups and films. And go Safe things and smart things. Mr. Branch & Assoc

Go good things and smart things and go Intelligent things. And go good times. And go good hobbys and go Great. And go sciences. And go a group s and A flight groups.

@@derriusbranch8620 ???

She's pretty easy on the eyes too!

Except the British and French did it 52 years ago without computers.

@@AnthonyHigham6414001080 flew supersonic speed with almost non boom??

@@AnthonyHigham6414001080 I mean, if you're just talking about supersonic flights, the US military did it 74 years ago with even less technology... And the Soviets had the first supersonic transport flight 52 years ago. The Concorde's first successful transatlantic flight in late 1973 (48 years ago), followed by entering regular service in 1976 (45 years ago).

@@AnthonyHigham6414001080 Also, did those British/French Concordes have the ability to fly supersonic speeds with next to no sonic boom, registering under 75 decibels? Just the takeoff of the Concorde could hit up to 120 decibels (with the sonic boom often much louder than just the decibel measurements, as tone/pitch can make things of lesser decibel measurements sound louder than higher ones). Here's a quote from an article that discusses sonic boom decibels over land - "Since decibels are on a logarithmic scale, *a noise limit of 80 decibels, say, would allow supersonic jets overland that are roughly 100 times quieter than the Concorde.* It would sound about as loud as a lawn mower or motorcycle, and only last about half a second." So, producing a brief, 75 decibel sonic boom over land would be exponentially quieter & less damaging than that which the Concorde produced.

HECKA yea

they tend to make the acronym word up because it sounds cool, and decide on the meaning later 😂

​@@airplanemode101 It seems like the case here.

Don’t forget file prices going up

Let’s not forget that beast GUZZLED fuel

Fule*

It's probably built to a much higher standard than your mass manufactured, planned obsolescence integrated, cheapest possible component with highest possible markup composed commercial viewing device like a TV or monitor. On top of that, it probably also has backups.

Can you guys understand *imagine? Of course there's always 0.1% of that happening but not 0. You guys are kill joy Even if that monitor was built in high standards it still not indestructible, everything man made is vulnerable.

The decibel scale is logarithmic, so what seem like small changes in numbers can actually be pretty significant.

Those of us in the quiet country aren't so forgiving. We moved out here for a reason! 75db sounds pretty good though.

@@Version135 you’re taking about the railroads if not mistaken?

Yes, a plane with that design will definitely be practical. /sarcasm No, it's not important. It won't be even practical. The necessary shape will make it hard to maneuver around an airport.

Well technology needs to start somewhere

@@Wisewolf_of_Avalon It's not practical and it won't be practical. It's just too long.

@@bobfg3130 Cute

@@momoreview5555 Alright. Scale it up and see what dimensions it will have. Compare that to passenger capacity.

Yes, because nautical miles are very metric...

One of those UAP videos was literally just a Canadian Goose flying, it's speed being exaggerated by the parallax effect.

Maybe these UAPs aren't actually aerial vehicles and instead are optical illusions like most of these videos turn out to be.

Because someday we might be able to fly on one of these… we’ll never get the chance to fly on UAP, unless we get abducted by one!

Don't be a sucker, every one of the videos that have come out lately have already been explained away/de-bunked. People like you are being preyed upon by the un-reputable to get clicks/views just because you "want to believe" and are willing to suspend your critical thinking abilities for that belief.

When actual astronomers/astrophysicists start talking about UAPs showing up on their instruments then we should take it seriously

Well, if you could have the same thing but faster, you probably would get it if you could. It’s like with every high-end thing: you could get something way cheaper that would do the job or you could get something premium giving you extra. And people do buy these. I’m pretty sure billionaires would love a couple of hours of free time that those planes could get them

Could make the argument that 5G isn’t needed either. Or a new pair of fashionable pants. For the very rich there is a market, and if they buy planes, it will make the next generation of planes and tickets cheaper and after 20 years it becomes ubiquitous.

@@MichaelSmith-by3te Counting on mega millionaires and billionaires to be your business base is really stupid. People worth over 100m are less than 1% of 1% of the world population... Those with liquid assets of over 100m make-up less than 1/4% of the 1% of the 1%. And most of those that rich already own their own jet(s). So this is a real stupid way for NASA to spend R&D time and money. NASA should use that money to invest in rockets and vehicles which can get us to Mars - something humanity has never accomplished. Not recreate the Concorde which was developed at the time of the last moon landing. Maybe help Boeing with the new generation of 737's and 777's, and reexamine the 747-8's and 787's so they aren't flying death traps.

@@Mommyandtux Well said. There probably is a small market for supersonic private jets but the technology will never trickle down to the common man so someone is getting NASA to pay for their research. Big Tech, big bribes.

don't be. I worked on electronics in aerospace. design - 1 year. certification - 10 years.

Boeing ones or the real ones?

Trust me, you are definitely smart enough to work at Lockheed. You’d be amazed at some of the people they hire here 😂

Yeeesss!! I just was watching the video and going crazy! , your are right , and also the stupid reason they talked about so why they just didn't fly supersonic over the Atlantic and reduce speed before reaching the US ?!

Chyna

They Probably Already Built & Tested It

Which is a good thing otherwise US would stop innovating...................

My guess is that the cameras have triple redundancy. In addition, the pilot of a companion pacer aircraft could always talk the X plane pilot down. Not a major problem.

@@rodanderson8490 oh wow that's cool. Thank you for explaining ❤

@Marcos Gonzalez that's a UFO joke, lighten up. You just love going around telling people they are wrong. You're so smart that you didn't get the joke.

yeh nah

Example - koaler & kangerroo are spelt with an "a" to replace the "er".

The last helicopter out of Saigon was better though.

USA never had a standing (full time professional) army until after WW2 and never lost a war. Since then USA hasn’t won one against any enemy of consequence. Better off without it, considering the expense?

What's unsafe about it?

If this lil plane does well, there might be an interest from the investors and government for the bigger thing. At least they're building something, not just making 3d models.

It's a test craft. They'll use what they learn from this to design a commercial plane.

Other than population reduction?

russians are sure to be taking notes no?

@@elgracko Russians will strap a vodka booster to anything and call it a day

@@MohammedKhaled-ju7gy yah seriously heheh

If we talk, they kill us…