NASA’s quiet supersonic test bed, the X-59, went supersonic for the first time on Friday but despite a large amount of triumphant hoopla created by the organization’s PR department, the fundamental question remains unanswered as of Sunday. We still don’t know how loud it was. The distinctive long and slender jet hit Mach 1.077 in a flight over Edwards Air Force Base but apparently no one was paying attention to whether the boom was the promised “thump.” Turning down the volume will happen after a few more shakedown flights that will push the Mach meter to 1.45 at 55,000 feet, the baseline for sonic thump testing.
“The X-59 achieved supersonic speeds for the first time ever today—a major milestone for NASA’s Quesst mission and an important step toward upcoming flights that will demonstrate its quiet supersonic technology ahead of future community overflights,” NASA said in a brief Facebook post. “Fast now. Quiet soon.” It’s not clear what will be different when the X-59 flies over some preselected towns that will have recording equipment set up to measure what they hope is a socially acceptable “quiet thump.”
The ultimate goal is to demonstrate that enough of the boom can be turned into a thump that civilian supersonic aircraft will be able to break the barrier routinely without ruffling any feathers or anything else below them. The data collected from flights over the towns will be packaged up for distribution to U.S. and international regulators “to help establish new data-driven noise standards to enable a future viable market for supersonic commercial flight over land.”
The volume of the boom would be directly dependent on the weight and wing loading of the vehicle once it goes supersonic. Whether it’s a meteorite, bullet, missile or jet the resulting noise signature would be directly related to the shockwave produced. A 100 seat airliner will be significantly louder than this test vehicle once it goes supersonic. I doubt you can make chocolate out of horse doo-doo.
The X-59 is a $632M — more than half a billion dollars ! — waste of money by NASA. Testing to determine ways to mitigate sonic ‘booms’ has already been done nearly 25 years ago with the SSBD airplane. (Google “Quieting the Boom”). Each and every airplane built to exceed Mach 1 will have its own signature based upon many factors as Tom points out. No matter how much mitigation of the overpressure produced by the X-59, it will have so significant impact on an airplane designed to carry people at speeds above Mach 1. NASA is saying that they want to fly the thing over populated areas to measure the overpressure AND to get people’s opinion on the sound. Swell. Then when Boom Aerospace or any other Company builds a supersonic passenger airplane, IT will have a different signature because it’ll be a different airplane. So tell me, NASA, what the heck are you doing here besides having fun spending our money for naught?
It’s time to get the DOGE boys out on this fraud perpetrated on the US taxpayers.
Everything is impossible until proven otherwise. People were saying NASA was wasting its money in trying to landing humans on the moon in the 60s because it wasn’t possible. Just because something was tried previously, doesn’t mean that more powerful computers and better testing methodologies won’t discover something that wasn’t previously discoverable.
Once something is proven possible, it usually doesn’t take long for others to adapt and build similar things. And since NASA is taxpayer-funded, it means everyone has access to the data they collect and generate, so the time to duplicate (or improve upon) the results is lessened.
I would not call it fraud. Not by a longshot.
While you are correct that every aircraft has a differing shock signature (that the engineers behind this project undoubtedly know), the objective is to gather a data set with a high fineness ratio shape. Hence the X-59s shaping.
This data can then be applied to other projects for scaling and informing their respective shapes. If it works and can scale, great! If not, then we know.
In case you did not know, this is the “research” part of what is called “research & development” in our trade.
I spent 27 years at Edwards AFB involved with flight test, Brian … including working with (then) NASA Dryden (now Armstrong). I’m well aware of what flight ‘research’ is all about. But NOT $632M for what amounts to almost nothing tangible. Give me a break … if you think this research is needed … you pay for it. NASA is famous for supporting “make work” projects … the X-59 is one of ’em. As one of the people involved with the SSBD research airplane … I’m familiar with reducing the noise signature. There will never be a passenger carrying airplane that looks remotely like the X-59 … the predominant reason for the airplane is to gather data on how sonic booms are perceived by the public and NOT some further research on noise mitigation. OH! Maybe NASA Armstrong is now the NASA Flight Learing Center?
At some point, the Government ITSELF needs to go on a diet. The X-59 would be a great place to start. Boom Aerospace will get almost nothing from X-59 “research.”
Chill. I’m an FTE & Engineering Pilot for a living (have been doing it as long as you have too). I am not disagreeing with you.
I was defending the research… not the expendature.
I’ve since looked into your assertion of north of 600M.
We’re both wrong. WAY wrong.
Turns out its more like a billion.
Yes, my friend, I do agree. That is indefensible…especially for a one-off project. Boom’s one-off XB-1 did the job for not even a sliver of that. NASA ought to take notice.
Time for DOGE.
Great … two flight test types agree that the X-59 is a fiasco.
Another example of NASA Armstrong wasting money is the X-57 ‘Maxwell.’ A big pile of money spent, years behind schedule and the taxpayers didn’t even get an airplane out of that “green” fiasco. THAT is what should happen to the X-59 … pull the plug and save a bit of money. At Airventure a few years ago, I “ate” the Project Manager over that one; you shoulda seen him stammering and stuttering trying to defend that one. That same year, NASA had a dog and pony show giving away all manner of ‘swag’ on the X-59 … I still have a few items I give to kids. WHY is NASA paying for that sort of promotional stuff if the research is SO important? I’m sure you get my point? The X-59 is — likewise — YEARS behind schedule … for ONE AIRPLANE !! Frankly, I think the Government is hiding something in their Palmdale facility and using X-59 bucks to mask what they’re doing?
Someone in senior management at NASA needs to start calculating ROI … Return on Investment. LOT’s of flight test programs provide a decent ROI in one way or another … the X-59 ain’t one of ’em.
Not yet mentioned IS the ‘green’ aspect of building a supersonic passenger carrying airplane. Forget about the minor savings of time between A and B for a second and examine the amount of fuel required to exceed M1.0. In an age where people are prancing around saying we have less than a decade to live as a civilization, what the heck difference does going fast gonna make. The whole notion is nutty and makes ME nutty. I CAN’T “chill” over the X-59!
Ah yes, the X-57 “Maxwell”.
An overpriced, DEI-driven zero-result jobs program, just like the also-cancelled X-66.
At my employer, we do not have the luxury of limitless spending on test projects. Otherwise, we’d spend ourselves into bankruptcy.
When we develop test plans & matrices, our project engineers have to be able to justify every 0.1 of ground & flight time requested; the SMEs justifying every test point, and our maintenance, mod and instrumentation SMEs justifying their requirements for the test.
For those downvoting us, lets be clear. We’re not saying this is a pointless & irrelevant project. Indeed, we are merely being critical of the extreme cost of the program. Brother Larry and I believe this kind of data gathering can likely be done for a fraction of the cost.
Last- What’s a “Maxwell” anyeays?
We built the SSBD (Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstrator) airplane in St Augustine out of a worn out F-5E ‘Aggressor’ airplane. The costs were shared by the company, NASA, DARPA, NAVY, et al. The total was so low they didn’t even calculate it, Brian. Prodominantly, DARPA provided $9M under their QSP (Quiet Supersonic Programs). It now sits in Titusville at the Valiant Air Museum for anyone interested. AND … the airplane was tested AT NASA Dryden at Edwards nearly 25 years ago. So the same people who are flushing all this money already KNOW about quieting the boom. Along comes THIS nutty program with costs SO high that they’re indefensible. Frankly, I think someone at NASA needs to ‘hang’ over costs and ROI.
That was a good project. The X-29 is also another example of a project that yielded a great return for the money…among many others.
It’s a darned shame that so many NASA initiatives today turn into jobs programs; the worst part is that you can’t really blame it on other advances in technology but bureaucrats who add other stuff to these projects because they can get away with it.
I used to do stuff with the (insert military branch) community. Same thing. Overbloated make-work science projects on problems that we at the OEM’s already had solutions for.
Too bad I can’t message you privately; I am sure we can talk this stuff for days! (note to the moderator…can you arrange for email exchange?)
If you think Boom will ever build their imaginary airplane (which still doesn’t have an engine), I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
We agree … I used Boom as a potential user of the research but I doubt if they’ll be successful before they run out of other people’s money.
Look here, guys. Of ALL the airplane projects I worked over all my many years at Edwards … the X-59 is the top of the Matterhorn as far as waste of money. THAT is why I am SO adamant and SO outspoken on it.
And when they crash, it will just be another expensive, taxpayer statistic in the aviation history books.
Hummm.
The X-59 doesn’t look like a Cessna. Doesn’t look like a F-15. Doesn’t look like a cub. And you’re suggesting that the X-59 will have its own unique signature? Remarkable insight sir. You need to be working at NASA!
The SSBD resulted in roughly a 25-30% reduction in the front positive over pressure. Roughly a 5-6db lower perceived loudness depending on the analysis method.
What are the comparable numbers for the X-59?
I agreed with everything you said until the last sentence. Please… Get a grip!
Why not just buy a straight up Citation X where you have enough fuel to fly a couple of thousand miles and you can actually see out the windows while carrying passengers in relative comfort and no sonic boom? And you don’t even have to straddle the edge of space to do it.
NASA = Never A Straight Answer.
And if the DOGE boys are true to form, they’ll spend roughly $1.3B (with a B) to claim that the project has no value to the Monster Truck crowd, so it should be discontinued.
Closely resembles the Douglas X-3 Stiletto, super sized, up at the USAF museum.
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195754/douglas-x-3-stiletto/
Hopefully we won’t see the X-59 on a clip like this in the Caribbean.
https://truthsocial.com/@CitizenFreePress/posts/116711704834455679
I read some coverage elsewhere that said that for the early supersonic test flights, they had an F-15 chase plane, so the boom from the F-15 prevents measurement of the X-59’s sound profile. First they need to make sure the plane flies properly. Then they can get to doing the sound tests.
This so called “flight test program” now gets nuttier !! NOW I find out that they’re flying the X-59 with an F-15 chase plane. It’s normal to always have a ‘chase’ on flight programs BUT … if you’re flying the airplane to determine its noise footprint, the F-15 chase is hosing up the data! “The aircraft will target a cruising speed of Mach 1.4 (925mph/1,489km/h) at approximately 55,000ft, the baseline conditions for its eventual community overflight campaign, and will again be accompanied by a chase plane.” And, flying a very pointy airplane supersonically at 55K’ is also pointless.
So they’re saying that they want to reduce “ground-level noise to an estimated 75 perceived decibels, roughly equivalent to a car door closing.” There are a lot of other ways to do that without spending a billion bucks for one airplane!