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.

          • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It would still take you 2-3 days, assuming normal operation with stops along the way. If the fastest train that exists on the planet right now ran from NYC to L.A. and was able to go from 0 to top speed instantly, and maintain that speed the entire trip, it would still take 10 hours to get there. Trains don’t operate that way though, so realistically it’s 3 days worth of travel. It’s almost 3000 miles to cross the USA.

        • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just because buses and trains don’t make sense for trans continental journeys, doesn’t mean they can’t be used for shorter journeys. There’s a bunch of areas in North America where is does make sense and could eliminate many flights.

          • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s true. They’re talking about building a high speed rail from Portland to Seattle right now, and I think that would be awesome. Decades ago California spent billions to build a high speed rail from Fresno to San Francisco, which would have solved a lot of problems for both cities, but as far as I know, they never even laid a single mile of track.

      • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are technologies already starting to roll out which will make flying the least ecologically damaging means of public transport for long and medium length journeys, I wrote a comment about it already but they’re building a faculty that turns captured carbon into jet fuel it’s really clever stuff.

        • strawberry@artemis.camp
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah but captured carbon gas is stupid expensive, and I imagine it’ll be worse for jet fuel. porsches recaptured carbon gas is like $40 a gallon

          • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The first computers cost millions and the one I’m holding in my hand is basically worthlesss. capture and conversion are both fairly simple processes so we will see a lot of reduction in cost once engineering pathways are established especially when tied to excess power generation from renewables - instead of wasting excess capacity divert it to a nearby carbon capture plant.

            If a system like this manages to make fuel cheaper than standard fuel types then we’ll see them spring up everywhere, it could be a total game changer. Worse ways there’s an expensive alternative for use cases where electric planes aren’t feasible and we learn a lot about atmospheric carbon in the process.

            The air force have been doing studies and they’re really keen on it, fuel security is the main reason but it wouldn’t have got this far if it wasn’t at least somewhat economically viable.

            • strawberry@artemis.camp
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree with you 100% that it will get cheaper, though I think that gas will soon be something only rich people can afford for their fancy cars. the rest of us peasants will be stuck with our shitty electric cars