NASA’s X-59 quiet supersonic aircraft begins taxi tests

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Commercial viability and demand

  • Debate centers on whether any supersonic passenger service can be truly commercial and sustainable rather than a prestige project.
  • Some argue many travelers would pay ~2–3× normal fares to cut long flights in half, especially when flight time is only part of total trip cost.
  • Others note real-world pricing rarely scales linearly with fuel burn, and that high-price “convenience” segments are already strongly served by business and first class.

Concorde economics and public subsidy

  • Concorde is cited both as a near-miss and as a clear failure:
    • One side: it operated for ~30 years, made operating profit after development sunk costs, and showed that “version 2” with better tech might work.
    • Other side: it never covered development, needed heavy ongoing state subsidies, and effectively had taxpayers funding a luxury service for the rich.
  • Some see that subsidy as justified R&D/prestige spending; others see it as a poor use of public funds, especially given climate and noise impacts.

Technology, noise, and regulations

  • Key differences vs Concorde: modern composites, better aerodynamics, and much more powerful simulation tools.
  • X‑59’s goal is to reshape the shockwave so there’s a “sonic thump” instead of a boom, potentially enabling overland supersonic flight.
  • Commenters distinguish NASA’s approach (“don’t create a boom at all”) from commercial concepts like Boom’s that aim to redirect or diffuse it.
  • Regulatory change (e.g., U.S. overland supersonic bans) is seen as a major gating factor for any commercial rollout.

Alternatives and market segments

  • Some argue that wealthy travelers already have private jets; others counter that the price gap between first class and charter is huge, leaving room for a faster commercial product.
  • Several posters say they now prefer slower but more pleasant trains; comfort and low stress beat speed for many trips.
  • A tangent on Starship “point-to-point” concludes it faces massive hurdles: extreme noise, safety, off‑shore spaceports, medical limitations from G‑loads.

X‑59 design questions

  • The extremely long nose and small forward windows prompt questions about stability and visibility.
  • NASA’s solution is a camera-based enhanced vision system; loss of that system would fall under emergency procedures, with speculation about redundancy and instrument landing.
  • The odd proportions are widely acknowledged as aerodynamically driven: if it achieves its noise goals, the awkward look is considered acceptable.

NASA’s role

  • X‑59 is framed as a research demonstrator, not an operational product: a technology and data pathfinder for a potential “Concorde 2.0,” more civil than military in intent.