Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Supersonic Flight Without The Sonic Boom

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the and-half-the-fat dept.

Space 311

fname writes "Here's a story from Spaceflight Now about a new test aircraft that can travel at supersonic speeds without triggering a sonic boom. The technology works by modifying the shape of the plane. Although it's been believed to be possible for a long time, this is the first actual flight test, barring black box projects I suppose."

cancel ×

311 comments

Why? (-1, Troll)

CausticWindow (632215) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894407)

Why is this important? The article seems to leave that important bit out.

Does this somehow preserve the energy better?

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Phosphor3k (542747) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894417)

Never lived near an airbase, eh?

Besides, would you want your military aircraft alerting everyone for miles of your presence?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894441)

The nature of sonic booms is that the plane comes first and then the sound. To be "supersonic", the plane has to be faster than the sound it makes, remember?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894460)

Right, but it still alerts everyone in the area once you pass, so they can be more trigger-happy when the plane is returning home...

But what if... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894465)

I live near the airbase, and I'm talking on the telephone to you (miles away). You'll hear the boom before you see the plane!

Re:But what if... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894534)

Don't know. What if monkeys fly out of your butt?

Re:But what if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894605)

Then you bleed. They've got sharp fingernails.

Re:Why? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894595)

Not to troll you or anything, but when you move faster than the speed of sound you arent worried about them hearing you couse youll be long gone. (you pass them before they hear you)

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894420)

It makes it more practical to have supersonic travel in and around cities, which are notoriously noise sensitive. In the past, the routes for such planes were quite limited. Now, if the cost drops, perhaps we'll see them more in the mainstream.

Oh, and there are likely military applications, as well. Anything to reduce chances of someone hearing you coming can help (although, most times, these planes take off far from their mission).

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894607)

Anything to reduce chances of someone hearing you coming can help

Hmmm, I think the likelyhood of someone hearing you coming is already pretty small IF YOU'RE TRAVELLING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF SOUND.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894426)

evidently, you can't read...

"They foresaw a way to solve the sonic boom problem, and to enable a generation of supersonic aircraft that do not disturb people on the ground."

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894430)

Why is this important?

First paragraph:

Flight tests completed by NASA, with government and industry partners, may have demonstrated a way to reduce the window-rattling impact of sonic booms.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

brokenbeaker (267889) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894432)

It is felt that the SST movement (i.e. concorde) was derailed by the american plane maker (i.e. Boeing) which got enough lawmakers to say that the concorde could not fly over the USA (i.e NY to LA) because of the sonic boom.

if a SST can go supersonic without the boom, then development of new craft could take place, because new markets could open up...

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894453)

When supersonic tests were going on, people in the midwest got real tired of all the booms that spooked their herds and rattled their homes

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

YU Nicks NE Way (129084) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894515)

Uhh...no. Your story is refuted by the fact that the Russian program (which would have suffered none of the enivronmental concerns of the Boeing and Concorde efforts) failed as well, despite being hugely helped by data stolen from the Concorde's testing. The Russian SST died when their test plane crashed horribly at the Paris Air Show. Despite the Russian air fleet's total lack of interest in passenger safety, the Air Ministry decided to kill the project.

The big barrier to SST success has always been economics. It's incredibly expensive to fly faster than sound. Boeing had a quite successful SST program, but cancelled it when it became clear that SSTs would not be economical. Concorde never made money for either of its parent airlines, despite the incredibly expensive tickets for the flights for which it made any sense at all.

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

brokenbeaker (267889) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894633)

I don't think Boeing worried at all about the Russian programme. The Russians were not about the buy Boeing planes, nor were about to sell SST to American carriers for the NY-LA route. Boeing's only worry was the English/French Concorde concertium (sp?).

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894734)

What do you mean by saying that the soviet program would have suffered none of the enivronmental concerns of the Boeing and Concorde efforts?
The soviet plane was just as noisy as the others wasn't it? Also the soviet program died the same death as the more recent boing program when they realized that it was too much of a fuel hog, even more than the concord, to be usefull. There was even a proposal between the soviets and the british to export the more efficent european fuel control system to the soviets but that was blocked. It didn't die because of an airshow accident, that was just the last straw.

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894681)

It is felt that the SST movement (i.e. concorde) was derailed by the american plane maker (i.e. Boeing) which got enough lawmakers to say that the concorde could not fly over the USA (i.e NY to LA) because of the sonic boom.

Getting 1/4 of the MPG per passenger compared to a subsonic plane also had something to do with it. The extra cost for fuel alone is going to double the price of most airline tickets.

That means you're in a niche market, which reduces the number of customers and impacts economy of scale. This increases maintenence costs and R&D and manufacturing overhead to very high levels. That's how you get $10,000 one-way fares across the Atlantic on the Concorde.

To compound the problem, most domestic flights just aren't that long. If you take a 1500-mile trip that needs a connection (as many do with the hub-and-spoke system), it can easily take you 9 hours to get from your home to your destination address, and only about 3 of those hours is in the air. An SST would cut that trip down to 7-1/2 or 8 hours at the cost of 4X the fuel usage. It just doesn't make any sense on the vast majority of flights.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

QEDog (610238) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894438)

Why is this important?

This is important because the main reason super sonic airplanes are not used more often for civils is because of the sonic boom. The sonic booms can be very loud and disturbs urban areas. The Concord, for example, had to wait to be very far away from populated areas before getting into super sonic speeds. This rwas costly, since the Concord was design to have optimal fuel efficiency at super sonic speeds.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

trompete (651953) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894565)

The Concorde was also removed from service because of its limited availability, due to ticket costs, its aging fleet, and its travelling through the Ozone layer. The first two would have to be fixed before SSTs became mainstream aircraft.

Very LOUD? (3, Interesting)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894578)

You're joking, right? the sonic boom from an aircraft can be ahelluva lot more than "loud." When I was a teen sharing a very rural house trailer we once experienced a "sonic boom" firsthand. Actually, it was TWO house trailers, joined at their middle by a "family room" type partition, forming an H-shaped structure. And when the boom happened, it made both trailers rock back and forth like a stick of dynamite had just gone off across the street.

Sonic booms can be a helluva lot more than just "loud" or "annoying." They can implode outbuildings, knock shit off shelves, break windows... and toss around house trailers like a blast from a hurricane.

Re:Why? (0, Redundant)

dracocat (554744) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894445)

Most countires (including the U.S.) have banned overland supersondic flight due to noise problems.

Not having a sonic boom will open the door for over-land civilian supersonic flight.

Just think. Los Angeles to New York in 3 hours.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Gherald (682277) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894490)

> Just think. Los Angeles to New York in 3 hours.

What!? I've been getting about 120ms average.

Re:Why? (0, Redundant)

JanneM (7445) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894446)

The noise problem is one of the major reasons supersonic passenger aircraft never took off. The Concorde, for example, is simply not allowed to fly to most potential destinations, due to the noise levels.

And, well, yes, not using up energy to produce an impressive bang certainly improves energy use somewhat; that is not the reason for this developmen, though.

No supersonic flight over land (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894455)

Ever wonder why the Concord only flew at supersonic speeds over water, and not land? Because they couldn't - it's too disruptive. A supersonic craft without a sonic boom would enable flight over land.

Re:No supersonic flight over land (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894510)

> Ever wonder why the Concord only flew at supersonic speeds over water, and not land?

No.

Re:No supersonic flight over land (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894545)

What I'd like to see is a supersonic plane flying at a very low altitude over water.

I'd just like to see the waterspray as so brilliantly described by Tom Clancy.

Re:Why? (1)

the_pooh_experience (596177) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894457)

Forget preserving energy better. This is good for two reasons:

1.) Military people can have fast jest (read "attack planes") that don't alert the person on the ground (read "those who aren't killed by the bomb that will be dropped on them") as to whether there is a jet above them.
2.) One of the biggest problems with commercial super-sonic airlines is that people didn't want them flying over their house (the major reason such flights were primarily only over the Atlantic Ocean). If the sonic boom didn't exist, presumably people wouldn't be as adverse to such a situation.

That being said, the article doesn't indicate that the sonic boom is gone, it indicates the sonic boom is not as loud. In fact, the article states that they had to compare a "traditional" sonic boom to the "new" sonic boom to verify that there was a change... It seems a big step, but not to the finish line.

Re:Why? (1)

gordyf (23004) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894592)

In fact, the article states that they had to compare a "traditional" sonic boom to the "new" sonic boom to verify that there was a change.

Yes, it's called "having a control". They measured them both to see the difference. It's common sense.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

Thagg (9904) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894466)

The reason to do this is to allow supersonic transports to fly over inhabited areas. The sonic boom from the Concorde, for example, is shockingly loud, it would never be tolerated.

What the article doesn't say, but was reported in Aviation Week a few weeks ago, is that this technique (and certainly this airplane) only reduces sonic booms -- it doesn't eliminate them. This demonstration is to show people that the math is right; that the sonic booms can be reduced through shaping. It is still unclear whether it is possible to build a practical airplane with a tolerable (negligible) sonic boom. Perhaps this could be combined with other techniques (the Russians have been working with exciting a plasma in front of the airplane, for instance) and together you could get a minimal boom.

Probably the parent article was questioning the need for supersonic travel at all -- whether it's worth the cost. It will almost certainly be less fuel efficient than subsonic travel. Travel in general is less fuel efficient than staying home. Living is less fuel efficient than dying.

thad

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894471)

Because quite a few larger cities have sound restrictions that will not allow sonic flight within a certain distance of the city. It was this restriction that limited the airports that the concorde could fly into and out of.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894654)

restrictions that will not allow sonic flight within a certain distance of the city.

Thats OK, SEGA went the way of the dodo a long time ago.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894577)

Not every technical advancement needs to be in better energy conversation. This will greatly help with noise pollution and lead to faster commercial plains in the future. Running a subsonic airplane will on the average will use less fuel then an supersonic one and supersonic plains will increase air pollution. But at least it is not making every bison in the midwest going deaf after a bunch of booms that break their eardrums. Sometimes the need for speed is more important then fuel consumption. (Think about an ability to quickly transport a Heart of Liver from a downer in CA to NY much quicker. Heck if I was that Guy In NY I would love to have it flying to me at supersonic speeds compared to subsonic.

What does... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894409)

What does Guile think about these developments?

Re:What does... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894709)

Didn't you get the memo? He lost against Blanka and retired to New Zealand more than 8 years ago.

Astro Glass

Where's the Earth Shattering Kaboom!?!? (5, Funny)

Raybies (223750) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894421)

There's supposed to an Earth shattering kaboom?!?!

Re:Where's the Earth Shattering Kaboom!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894436)

After the first flight (when the Earth shattered), they stopped using them. It was a pain to put the Earth back together again.

Re:Where's the Earth Shattering Kaboom!?!? (4, Funny)

Karellen (104380) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894669)

That makes me very angry! It's obscuring my view of Venus!

Summary misleading (5, Informative)

prestomation (583502) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894428)

It seems it merely muffles the sonic boom. The technology doesn't completely silence it.

Re:Summary misleading (0, Offtopic)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894485)

Linux: The ULTIMATE price-performance ratio!!

Wouldn't that make it zero?

Re:Summary misleading (1)

G33kDragon (699950) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894488)

Ah, but would you have read the article had the title been something like "A little less 'boom' at supersonic speeds!" :D

Re:Summary misleading (1)

sniser2 (624542) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894763)

I haven't RTFA. but I guess with enough muffling it'd be effectively silent for those on the ground..

It REDUCES, does not prevent the Sonic Boom. (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894437)

The article states that the boom is reduced because the merging of the pressure waves does not combine into a shock wave(s) as readily.

There is still a sonic boom.

Proud day for you and your family! (4, Funny)

Kedisar (705040) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894440)

Wh00t! Now I can run outside and not have to worry about being blown through my house by a sonic boom! Now if we can just do something about those G5s...

It doesn't elimanate the boom... (5, Interesting)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894450)

It just modifies it so it isn't as annoying. (Spreading the force over a larger area.)

Very useful, yes, but you would still hear it going overhead. (Though I suppose the 'boom' fades as you move away from the plane, and this could speed that up...)

Re:It doesn't elimanate the boom... (-1, Troll)

dracocat (554744) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894487)

What the hell?

From the poster of the article:
Here's a story from Spaceflight Now about a new test aircraft that can travel at supersonic speeds without triggering a sonic boom.

From the article:
... the team showed modifying an aircraft's shape can also change the shape of its sonic boom, thereby reducing loudness.

Please please enlighten me on how reducing loudness = no sonic boom?
Gay. Gay. Gay.

Re:It doesn't elimanate the boom... (1)

evil imp (620472) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894602)

You are obviously a troll, no one reads the article on slashdot! Nice try, troll man, but we're on to you!

Re:It doesn't elimanate the boom... (1)

dracocat (554744) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894618)

ahahaaha.. silly me. I was assuming the poster read the article before he posted it...

Re:It doesn't elimanate the boom... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894651)

Please please enlighten me on how reducing loudness = no sonic boom?
Gay. Gay. Gay.


Explain again why you need to use "gay" as a derogatory term?

offtopic: gay (4, Insightful)

PurpleBob (63566) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894758)

Please please enlighten me on how reducing loudness = no sonic boom?
Gay. Gay. Gay.


Was it entirely necessary to bring your rebuttal down to a middle-school level, by including that last line?

Aurora did this in the 1990s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894464)

You fools.

This is early 1990s technology.

Aurora has had this incorporated since the beginning.

But then again, I'm drunk and saying too much. So ignore all this.

Discovery Wings channel show touches on this (4, Informative)

RT Alec (608475) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894467)

I happened to notice a show (On The Edge [discovery.com] ) on the Discovery Wings [discovery.com] channel covering a lot of this. Not as in depth, of course, but interesting nonetheless.

Guns? (3, Funny)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894469)

Now all i need is a way to reshape the bullet in-flight for my high powered rifle and presto, the perfect assasination ;)

Re:Guns? (1)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894506)

Now all i need is a way to reshape the bullet in-flight for my high powered rifle and presto, the perfect assasination ;)
Use a silencer bud.

Re:Guns? (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894552)

A silencer will silence the initial noise of the weapon, but a supersonic round is going to make a nice loud crack as it goes by...

Re:Guns? (2, Interesting)

iCat (690740) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894700)

Which is why there are sub-sonic bullets in the black ops arsenal.

Re:Guns? (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894769)

sub-sonic bullets in the black ops arsenal At your local sporting goods store, too. They include .22LR and .45 Auto. rj

Re:Guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894766)

You can't put a silencer on high-power rifle, they only work on handguns which use way less gun powder than a rifle

Re:Guns? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894507)

subsonic ammunition and a coke bottle filled w/ cotton balls which has had the bottom sawed off.

Re:Guns? (1, Informative)

op51n (544058) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894583)

They're not modifying the shape in flight. So all you'd need is a modified bullet before you fired it.
But you'd probably run into many problems, hence they haven't done it?

Also, I'm not clear on this, but I suspect a silencer would slow a bullet enough that it wouldn't be supersonic, so that wouldn't be viable.
Plus using a coke bottle filled with anything to silence a gun would probably result in it exploding, most cobbled together silencers do so.

Re:Guns? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894653)

If modifying the shape of the bullet is a problem (for example if it can wobble around in the barrel as it slides out) they could add a jacket to it that peels off after it leaves the barrel revealing the optomized shape. I know they already do this for flachet rounds.
In reality, there are probably more important characteristics to design the shape of the bullet around than how much noise it makes
I dont think silencers slow the bullet down any signifigant ammount, they just capture the hot gas leaving the barrel behind the bullet and release it slowly.

You can't tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894477)

... that the vision of supersonic flying cars didn't float through your mind when you read the article :)

Concord (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894478)

So, when can we throw out the Concord and whatnot and get transcontinental supersonic flight to boot?

no. (4, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894743)

So, when can we throw out the Concord and whatnot and get transcontinental supersonic flight to boot?

You don't need to throw it out, it just needs a nose job. Witness:

Honk, honk!

You only want to throw the thing out when maintaining it costs more than developing and buying a new one. While it might be hard to modify the concord's swiveling nose this way, it's worth looking into.

The next modification needed is to the law, so that flights that don't make too much noise can fly over the contenetal US. If you can get from New York to California supersonically, people will want to do it and will pay for the above mentioned development and building.

Real Estate Bargains (2, Funny)

sssmashy (612587) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894491)

In related news, real estate prices for residential property located near military airbases just jumped by 10%.

It then plummeted by 20% as investors realized that this technology was just in the prototype phase and unlikely to be implemented on a large scale for decades.

Re:Real Estate Bargains (1)

G33kDragon (699950) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894533)

...then plummeted another 70% when investors realized 51% of the new technology was based on percents.

Re:Real Estate Bargains (1)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894586)

But real estate prices near Edwards AFB in Kern County, CA, maintained their value. Residents who bought their homes ten years ago at $50,000.00 can now sell them for %52,000.00. Local real estate agents were actively advertising in the area for business.

Said Ernesto Sanchez (through his interpreter), "It won't affect my quality of life.. I plan on staying right here. Besides, trailers in the next nearest town have risen to $75,000.00, placing them still outside my range."

Another resident, Stf.Sgt. Fred Pierce, said, "Well, it doesn't affect me because I live on base. I'm also about to be transferred to a classified conflict zone in the Middle East."

Local herpetiles were unavailable for comment.

Re:Real Estate Bargains (3, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894597)

And it doesn't effect engine noise, which is what you experience when the planes are taking off and landing.

SST possibilities (3, Insightful)

n3xup (411763) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894495)

Unfortunately, the article never reveals how much they have reduced the sonic boom.

But, this could be great for supersonic transports if the design technolgy is used in future designs. It would mean that we could have supersonic flights from NY to LA lasting only a couple hours! If the noise was reduced enough, the FAA would let them fly over populated areas (like the continental US)

blackbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894498)

this is the first actual flight test, barring black box projects

har har _____ [sourceforge.net]

Yes, but how? (2, Interesting)

OmnipotentEntity (702752) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894501)

I would really like more infomation on this, that article was incredibly short and left me with many questions. Mostly, how are the shock waves being broken up, and how would it affect the drag (ie, would it be a better design for watercraft also?)

But then again, it is a government project, can't expect much in the way of information.
___________

Re:Yes, but how? (4, Informative)

AlecC (512609) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894613)

This was also covered in Flight International (subscribers - I read the paper version in the library), in a bit more depth. The classic sonic boom was described as "N-shaped" and gives a crack-crack effect. This modified it to more of a "table-top", and was said to sound like a long rumble.

Watercraft (4, Interesting)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894636)

would it be a better design for watercraft also?

Judging from the picture, the design borrows heavily from that of watercraft. The bottom of the aircraft has been modified to the point that it resembles the hull of a boat of personal watercraft.

I suspect that it works very similarly to the way that planing hulls(no pun intended) work. Just as a boat's hull spreads its wake outwards from the sides of the hull, this aircraft design likely spreads the aircraft's wake out to the sides more than straight down. This would reduce the pressure wave below the aircraft. I am confident that if the sonic boom was measured from the side on the same plane with the aircrafts altitude the sonic boom would be the same as normal and possibly more intense.

black box?!? (1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894503)

surely you meant "black ops", no?

Because we all know (0, Flamebait)

hysma (546540) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894521)

Because we all know how annoying those sonic booms are that keep us up all night.

must be (1, Funny)

falsification (644190) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894539)

Hmmmm. That must be how the UFO's do it.

Rejected (4, Informative)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894543)

Submited on september 6, 2003:

Northrop [northgrum.com] , working with the Pentagon [defenselink.mil] and NASA [nasa.gov] sucessfully tested a "quiet" supersonic flight [cnn.com] wednesday at California's Edwards Air Force Base [af.mil] . In the tests, an F-5E aircraft [primezone.com] with a modified nose section flew supersonically through the test range, shortly thereafter, an unmodified F-5E [af.mil] flew supersonically through the same airspace, with the sensors showing a clear reduction in the intensity of the sonic boom produced by the F-5E modified fuselage [primezone.com] .

Re:Rejected (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894614)

you didn't mention the conspiracy theory though. Didn't you know that you have to post a link from the NYT, the Register, mention how Bill Gates is the anti-christ, or that there was some conspiracy going on?

Jesus, shame on you.

Re:Rejected (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894774)

Calling bill gates the antichrist is tarnishing lucifer's good name.

Re:Rejected (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894635)

Reason why it was rejected: Article referenced was from MONEY.cnn.com and more than a week old ;-(

Re:Rejected (0, Offtopic)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894667)

Reason why it was rejected: Article referenced was from MONEY.cnn.com and more than a week old ;-(

Lessee, the test was on wednesday, sept 3rd, I submitted it on saturday, sept 6th...

6 - 3 = 3.
1 week = 7 days.

3 - 7 = -4...therefore, LESS than a week old.
Basic math people.

I hate when this happens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894711)

I hate how petty and arbitrary the editors can seem to be... Your summary is better than the one they accepted...

No reg access to hi-res F-5E photo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894773)

That can serve as my wallpaper for a bit.

Now *that* is one ugly aircraft (1)

BigBadBri (595126) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894546)

Anyone else think it looks like a pelican?

Re:Now *that* is one ugly aircraft (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894561)

Anyone else think it looks like a pelican?

My sister, I thought it looked like a boat...

Re:Now *that* is one ugly aircraft (1)

Brian_rts (87718) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894641)

You saw it too? I've been staring at this thing for a week now from opening to closing and I can't see a god damned thing! Everyone sees this thing except me. But this time I brought a lunch and a soda and I'm not going to leave until I see this sailboat everyone keeps talking about.

Re:Now *that* is one ugly aircraft (1)

Storebj0rn (692884) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894761)

I thought it looked like a whale of some sort. I guess Darwin still knows fluid dynamics better than the rest of us.

Old science (2, Informative)

LiftOp (637065) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894593)

Seabass-George worked out a figure of merit (FM) quite some time ago, relating a sonic boom's relative strength to factors such as the aircraft's height, width, and weight.

B5 Quote (1)

Brian_rts (87718) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894623)

No boom today, boom tomorrow, there is always a boom tomorrow. What?! Look somebody got to have some damn perspective around here. Boom! Sooner or later...BOOM!"

hmmm.... (1, Offtopic)

temojen (678985) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894665)

looks like new use for the old flying boats...

SCO (1, Offtopic)

termos (634980) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894674)

SCO claims to have the copyright on SCOnic...oh wait.

/. Sensationalism? (4, Funny)

Superfreaker (581067) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894680)

I love the headline posted here at /.:
"Supersonic Flight Without The Sonic Boom"

Which is a complete lie when you read the first paragraph of the article stating that they simply reduced the boom created, not eliminated. Fox News' web site does this too.

There is NO way to eliminate a sonic boom as long as the aircraft has either mass or creates friction. It is very doubtful that they are close to creating a massless, frictionless airplane ;-)

Re:/. Sensationalism? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894736)

I'd expect it from Fox "News". Come to think of it, I'd also expect it from Slashdot :-P Never mind... ;)

Fans (1, Offtopic)

kmahan (80459) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894689)

Now if they could just make some computer fans that were quiet. I really hate the sonic booms that come out of them when I power up my machine.

Long time comming (4, Interesting)

Izago909 (637084) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894705)

The future of ultra fast transit isn't in airplanes gliding along, masking their sonic wake. It's with things like multi stage trans-orbital aircraft. A plane could take off using standard jets until it got to the maximum height the jets could support. Then switch over to SCRAM jets and break for the outer atmosphere. Even the prototype SCRAM jets today are capable of flying at many multiples of mach. It just takes the energy to get a plane beyond mach 2 (or so) to begin with. If you stay at the edge of the atmosphere, the very low pressures create little drag compared to today's cruising altitudes. Also, the higher you are, the faster you must go in order to create that critical pressure point. You don't need to totally leave the atmosphere; in fact it's easier that you don't. You won't have nearly as much heat to deal with as reentry, and you won't have to add rockets or thrusters to maneuver in low orbit. Imagine flying form New York to Tokyo so fast that food service isn't needed.

So how loud was it? What about engine noise? (1)

froggle2003 (662676) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894724)

The article didn't say exactly how great the reduction was. If they didn't explicitly mention the magnitude of the reduction then it couldn't have been that spectacular. Looks like they want publicity that they've had some (small) initial success so they can get more funding.

Anyways, jet engines with the thrust to get these craft supersonic have supersonic exhaust and are extremely loud anyways. A jet engine is a standard measurement when discussing/teaching what sound decibels are. A jet engine is way louder than the loudest rock concert. It's usually the loudest thing on such comparitive decibel scales. Even if the aircraft could be made silent, the engine couldn't.

Science? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894748)

.
....poop.

I see.... (-1, Offtopic)

nate nice (672391) | more than 10 years ago | (#6894779)

Your science is crazy!

This sucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894780)

...how are people supposed to admire the speed of a plane when there is no sonic boom? All the sensation is lost :(

fa! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6894782)

You know, for some reason or another, the plane reminds me of Richard Nixon.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...