NASA has awarded Lockheed Martin a contract for the preliminary design of a “low boom” flight demonstration aircraft, which it hopes will be the first step towards a new supersonic passenger jet.
The project is the first in a series of ‘X-planes’ that are part of NASA’s New Aviation Horizons initiative. A key factor will be the development of Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) that will diminish the loud sonic booms traditionally associated with supersonic flight. According to NASA, the aim is to create a supersonic “heartbeat” that will deliver a soft thump rather than a disruptive boom.
“NASA is working hard to make flight greener, safer and quieter – all while developing aircraft that travel faster, and building an aviation system that operates more efficiently,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.
Lockheed Martin will receive about $20 million over 17 months for QueSST preliminary design work. The US defence giant will lead a team that includes subcontractors GE Aviation of Cincinnati and California-based Tri Models Inc. Alongside design and construction, the project will also include a Low Boom Flight Demonstration (LBFD) phase that will involve community feedback on the quieter supersonic design.
“It’s worth noting that it’s been almost 70 years since Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in the Bell X-1 as part of our predecessor agency’s high speed research,” said Bolden.
“Now we’re continuing that supersonic X-plane legacy with this preliminary design award for a quieter supersonic jet with an aim toward passenger flight.”
Overland commercial supersonic flight was banned in the US in 1971 over concerns arising from the noise pollution of sonic booms, as well as the detrimental effect of engine exhaust on the ozone layer. As part of the 10-year New Aviation Horizons initiative, NASA has set goals to reduce fuel use, emissions and noise through innovations in aircraft design that depart from the conventional tube-and-wing aircraft shape.
It would be rather nice if we could kick off a Concorde 2 as well.
I agree with you. A quieter and more fuel efficient Concorde.
Getting away from tube and wing design ?so do my eyes decieve ,the artists impression is a tube and wing design .
As to pollution ,to go that fast you use more fuel per passenger mile ,no arguments .
Will we ban flights over our land like the Americans did for us ,i am sure the fact we built the first and only successful supersonic passenger craft still rankles with them .
Why not ask us to build the next one ,we have the experience ,or would it go the way of the TSR2 .
Always keep politicians out of technical projects .
On our side of the pond, we have a saying (in Texas): you have all the gold, we have the oil. If you build an eight foot tall fence around Texas (to keep whatever in or out), if we like it we will buy it. Enough said. Apparently you failed to read the part where NASA is working hard to reduce the “boom” to a mild thump like a heartbeat. Surely you blokes can read over there.
Tech and Engineering arguments are always useful and interesting, but perhaps now appropriate to reflect on what caused Concorde 1’s demise: not always what you read in the papers e.g. 9/11 causing major loss of flight-fares agnostic passengers; training of Air France pilots (an uncomfortable topic); 100% guarantee of “clean” runways, etc. With such an expensive aircraft, the risk assessment of all factors will need to be at space-travel level, although NASA has not always got this right in the past.
I do remember that the US was all gung-ho about supersonic flight all the time Boeing were trying to develop their mach 3 Concorde killer. When that failed (they eventually realised that a plane made of stainless steel was not going to fly) suddenly things changed . I remember being on a sailing boat, mid channel, when Concorde went over at full tilt. The boom could be heard, but only because of the dead quiet.
Just a comment. The space station is going pretty fast and not using too much fuel.