Lockheed Skunk Works and NASA flew their X-59 quiet supersonic prototype for the first time on Tuesday, making the short hop from Hangar 42 at Palmdale to NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California. According to Lockheed Martin, the plane flew as expected but the real testing will be done at Edwards, where the hoped-for result is a commercially marketable adaptation that emits a socially acceptable thump rather than a cacophonous boom when it goes supersonic. Presumably that vision-blocking needle nose (a nose-mounted camera and cockpit monitor substitute) has something to do with that, but aerodynamics are just part of the program.
The test scheme will not only determine how little noise the X-59 can make but how much noise people on the ground can take before getting on the phone to complain. “The X-59’s successful development and flight testing will inform the establishment of new data-driven acceptable noise thresholds related to supersonic commercial flight over land, paving the way for a new generation of supersonic aircraft that can efficiently and sustainably transport passengers and cargo twice as fast as aircraft today,” the company’s news release said. The program is expected to cost $632 million, and the first flight is more than a year behind schedule.
The first supersonic flights will take place at Edwards, and it would appear they will employ the same sort of data-driven approach that privately funded Boom Supersonic is using to muffle its sonic booms. Atmospheric conditions play a big role, and the boom has to occur at “the optimal speed and altitude for a quiet boom.” No specific timeline has been released, but Lockheed Martin said the first supersonic trials will happen “over the coming months.”
The taxpayers of the U.S. are paying $632M for an airplane “more than a year behind schedule.” I guess! This program started in 2016, was first funded in 2018 and was supposed to fly FIVE YEARS AGO in 2020! Further, the pure research this airplane is supposed to be doing has already been done by … um … NASA and DARPA, et al. way back in 2003 by an airplane dubbed “SSBD” — Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstrator — over … um … Edwards AFB. You can see that highly modified F-5E airplane with a very long nose at the Valiant Air Command museum in TItusville, FL. The results of that program have already been published.
See: ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20050165091/downloads/20050165091.pdf
And … ‘Atmospheric conditions play a big role and the boom has to occur at “the optimal speed and altitude for a quiet boom.” ‘ I’m sure airlines will have a full-time meteorology department staff to determine which days any passenger carrying airplane employing sonic boom mitigation designs will be able to fly without peeping off the ‘natives’ below it.
With firsthand knowledge of the SSBD program, I’m here to tell all that this program is a make work scam and someone’s pet project. Beyond meteorology issues, each and every airplane design seeking sonic boom overpressure reduction will have to be separately tested. NASA Armstrong would be better served if they were doing research on a real-world matter transporter! (sic).
$632M is nearly 3/4 of a BILLION dollars! That money could have been better spent on more meaningful aeronautical research. But — hey — this program is being brought to you by the same people that spent nearly $100M on the X-57 Maxwell which never flew. At least the X-59 has now flown. But, I digress. It’s no wonder that it’s been 56 years since NASA went to the moon (sigh). They’re too busy ‘flying’ off to tangents.
It’s time to turn the money spigot off to NASA Armstrong and provide some adult supervision. Carefully chosen strong words to be sure.
Forgot … there’ even a well-done 388 page book about the SSBD program and airplane:
See: http://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/quietingtheboom-ebook.pdf
Forgot … there’ even a well-done 388 page book about the SSBD program and airplane:
See: nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/quietingtheboom-ebook.pdf
Larry: Thanks for all the background, that was some useful perspective. So I have to ask if you think that this project is going to lead to anything at all or is it just going to fizzle?
I also might add that on June 6, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to repeal the 52 year old ban on supersonic flight over land in the U.S. contained in 14 CFR 91.817. Just prior, on May 14, 2025, both the members of the House and Senate initiated the Supersonic Aviation Modernization Act (HR 3410 and S 1759). It’s estimated that there’s only a 29% chance of that Act passing. Fine and dandy either way but the X-59 program was initiated nearly 10 years earlier … were those actions an action to support of or a reaction to justify the ‘research’ effort? See the problem? The X-59 is the aviation equivalent of insider trading.
Further, if you go to the Boom Aerospace (slick) website, you’d see that ‘boomless flight’ will allow the over land transit time from LA to DC to be reduced from 4.35 hours to 3.15 hours by moving at M1.3 over land. Who in their right ming thinks spewing all that extra CO2 (IF you believe that scam?) into the atmosphere from four engines over the population is worth it. Suspicious that Boom chose LA to DC as an example, too, huh! Boom built their own airplane — the XB-1 — tested it at Mojave and RE-proved the SSBD mitigation theory … so WHAT THE HELL IS NASA DOING WITH THE (now) LATE TO THE GAME X-59 except wasting our money? We have already figured out that an airplane with a pointy nose will lessen the shock wave.
NASA would be better served if they were working on the calculations to determine the size of the debris field (ala Space Shuttle Columbia) when one of Boom’s jets disintegrates at speed rather than worrying about noise mitigation.
If it ever evolves into a commercial transport, it will definitely require a longer jetway for passenger boarding.
That is very true!
It might lead to a marginal improvement in our understanding of shock wave production and propagation, but supersonic flight still involves a large drag increase thus a large fuel consumption increase for the same trips. If efficiency matters, going past .85M or so is not gonna be marketable.
You bring up a very different but no less salient point which I didn’t address earlier, DougD. So on the one hand, we’re subsidizing electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, corn fuel and all manner of crazy programs to save fossil fuel energy while — at the same time — NASA is trying to figure out how to lower the sonic boom overpressure of supersonic airplanes so that the well-heeled can get to London 30 minutes sooner without making Joe E. Peon below mad.. Worse, the Concorde — flying over the ocean — didn’t need a $632M program to allow it to fly supersonically over land; they just slowed down. The X-1 had to have a rocket engine because jets of the time couldn’t supply enough thrust to get past the high drag of supersonic flight. Supersonic flight IS a fuel guzzler in seat miles/pound of fuel.
Crazy, isn’t it !! 🫤 If EVER there was a Governmental DOGE candidate … the X-59 is surely IT !!! 😣 Oh Elon … are ya listenin’ ?
Unless the Skunk Works in Palmdale is masking some other program with this cockamamie idea, it’s time to pull the plug on this thang, NOW. Frankly, I think someone at NASA needs to lose their job over this waste of money, too. I confronted the Program Manager of the X-57 Maxwell at Airventure a couple of years ago … ya’ll shoulda seen the shades of red his face turned when I shoved the facts of that waste up his … well … you know. Can you spell stammering and stuttering?
Say … maybe supersonic flight overpressure mitigation is lessened by papering the outside of the jet with money ? I was involved with flight test at Edwards AFB for 27 years. THIS program is a waste of money travesty and little more. If Boom Aerospace wants to build a supersonic passenger carrying jet, let THEM do all the support work to allow the FAA to subsequently publish FARs enabling same. NASA ought to be ashamed of itself for getting involved with the X-59.
I appreciate Larry S’s perspective. The two loudest airplanes I’ve been around dring takeoff are the B-1 and the Concorde. The X-59 may (from what little I could glean from the video) might be a contender as well. As an unrelated aside, another good use for that 3/4 of a billion dollars would be feeding all the children who will be undernourished or starving when their SNAP benefits expire in 2 days.
Another sad example of what can be done at the expense of what should be done.
It’s obscene to be funding another over budget and overdue toy when millions are struggling to survive between loss of SNAP benefits, unaffordable healthcare costs, and child care to mention just three.
I am deeply opposed to the Mars program which is spending billions for no tangible benefit when we have existential problems at home. I loved the Apollo program, but we could afford it then and the social problems were not as great. It’s like when people get elected to Congress their brains stop working.
“ I loved the Apollo program, but we could afford it then and the social problems were not as great.”
Perhaps you don’t remember the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, public assassinations; the bombing of the Pentagon and other government buildings by homegrown terrorist; inequality and LBJs “War on Poverty, The Counter Culture and Youth movements, Second Wave Feminism, and the lack of Political Trust and National Identity that quickly faded after the moon shot.
“ the pure research this airplane is supposed to be doing has already been done”
That’s like saying that research performed after the Wright flyer had already been done. I’m sure too, that you could find a 300+ page coffee table book on the Wright flyer, but that doesn’t mean the the WF was the end-all-be-all of aircraft design and testing.
The SSB and its shape, resulted in a reduction of boom of 1/3. Perhaps, the X-59 and its shape, might produce an even greater reduction. Conversely, it may be worse, but you wouldn’t know unless you test the darn thing.
You can argue the dollars spent and the need, but to argue that one design has tested and produced all the data points for all subsequent designs is a little short sighted.
Robert … you’re missing the whole point here. The X-59 isn’t doing follow-on research to test additional overpressure reduction design per se … it’s been built to determine the level of ‘sonic boom’ John Q Public will tolerate. Fine and dandy BUT … any airplane Boom Aerospace or other company might want to certificate will have to stand on its own merit … regardless of what the X-59 ‘boom’ level is. They don’t even know what that level IS yet other than it’ll be less than the SSBD due to the long nose. So, lets say the X-59 generates ‘X’ level of overpressure; what does that have to do with the ‘Y’ overpressure the Boom airplane might produce. What if the X-59 could somehow reduce the overpressure to near zero. How will that help FAA to write a new FAR allowing supersonic flight? See the problem here? Each airplane has to stand on its own merit. Even Boom Aerospace’s test vehicle flown at Mojave has little relevance to the real jet they want to produce and sell. It’s little more than a wag.
As I said above, I spent the bulk of my aviation life supporting flight test. I’m a BIG believer in it. I’m NOT a believer in wasting money on needless and worthless repeat research just to keep NASA and contract workers employed. THIS ridiculously expensive abomination isn’t going to do a darn thing to further supersonic flight other than steal money from REAL research work. Heck … NASA / DARPA coulda flown the SSBD airplane over Texas or wherever they think they need to test the folks boom tolerance down on the ground. AND … after all of that … it’s STILL gonna depend upon atmospheric conditions on any given day. THAT is why I’m so vociferous over this project. NASA — along with its contractor — coulda used the X-57 and X-59 dollars to fix the StarLiner, as an example. If the NASA Administrator(s) were spending their own money, you could bet there’d be no X-59.
An article about using public funds wisely in The Hill said, “In an ideal world, where there are unlimited resources, the bar for using public funds in such circumstances is quite low. Yet just after the nation went through a contentious debt ceiling debate and negotiation, there is an inconsistency between how decisions are made and reality.” Time to pull the plug on the X-59 AND wake up in the future, NASA.
Again, if you want to opine about the cost associated with this program and its perceived value, that’s one thing.
However:
“Further, the pure research this airplane is supposed to be doing has already been done”
The research that has already been done, was on a different airframe with a different design. I’m sure that data points from that previous design have been used in the decision making process for this new design. That new design would need to be tested.
As a member of the flight test community, don’t pretend that an updated airframe doesn’t need to be tested simply because a different airframe has been tested in the past.
If your whole point here is cost associated, make that you whole point.
It’s just madness. Spending huge amounts of money and talent to acheive almost nothing. I think Larry S nailed it with his experience, involvement and understanding of the challenges/costs involved with supersonic flight that no-one will pay for on a commercial basis. The Concorde was fast, elegant, demanding and hideously expensive to operate. The world has moved on to flying cattle cars for Walmart prices. forget the rest.