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.

  • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    People fly first class, people fly businees class. Some have the money.

    Also, for some, the time saved is worth much more than what the ticket costs, especially in business (expensive consultants?).

    why is NASA doing this with tax dollars

    The resulting aircraft/technology can be sold to commercial aviation and/or be used for military purposes

    something obvious

    NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, so it’s kinda in scope

      • zoe@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        taxpayer money is free, no there’s no loss to begin with

            • If NASA was a profitable enterprise, it wouldn’t require external funding, and Lockheed and co would be doing that research themselves to keep that profit for themselves.

              NASA isn’t like CNSA or Roscosmos in that they don’t make their own rockets. It exists first and foremost to funnel money to aerospace contractors by either directly contracting with them or providing R&D in cases where cost/risk is greater than expected profit.

              A similar relationship exists with publicly funded universities selling patents to pharma.

              • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The fact that it’s not profitable overall doesn’t mean there can never be any profit from anything.

                • Just because a river flows south doesn’t mean you couldn’t find an eddy in the currents that flows north for a few seconds.

                  But the water still has nowhere to flow but south. If the cost was less than expected return, these companies would do this research internally. Even if for just one moment, one tiny aspect of the program did make a profit, it wouldn’t change the nature of the system.

                  • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    But we’re not talking about the nature of the system here, we’re talking about this specific instance.

                    And I don’t agree they’d necessarily do it internally, sometimes talent is the biggest blocker, not money. They can contract out a team of highly qualified engineers from NASA for a project here and there, when they need it. Hiring people is extremely expensive and having those people do nothing between projects is even more so.

    • _MusicJunkie@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Concorde wasn’t profitable in the long run. Nowadays with video conferencing, even less people need to show up to a transatlantic business meeting.

      Unlikely this makes financial sense.

      • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Great it’s cool research though and should continue, if you want to bitch about wasted taxes go comment on military threads and comment there where billions are wasted on shit contracts that never materialize due to incompetent base mangers who can’t distinguish vapor ware proposals from real tech. Don’t bitch about scientific research that’s just fucking dumb.

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but that was decades ago.

        Without the boom, these planes can fly possibly more profitable routes, for example, drawing parallels is hard with such a time-distance

    • Gargleblaster@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The resulting aircraft/technology can be sold to commercial aviation and/or be used for military purposes

      That is what companies like Boeing and Lockheed are for.

      NASA has no business making airplanes for rich passengers.