this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
47 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

967 readers
83 users here now

A tech news sub for communists

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Wasn't the problem with concord that it traveled too fast to travel on most flightpaths because the sonic boom could damage buildings on the ground below?

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That and fuel consumption. However, given that high speed rail is making domestic flights largely irrelevant at this point, it might make sense to focus specifically on long haul flights.

[–] ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

... Gives thousand mile stare in not having low speed rail

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

as a Canadian I can relate

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You can mitigate both problems vastly with design - especially (all kinds of) noise levels, which were an afterthought with Concord (which was still used 27 years).

The sonic booms alone don't need to be so huge & take do much energy.

Still don't think we need such (or that many) planes tho - but if we (for some reason) do & there is negligible difference to subsonic ones, why not.