NASA’s X-59 quiet supersonic aircraft begins taxi tests
37 comments
·July 19, 2025widforss
It looks like the pilot barely sees out the window? Does it rely on cameras or does it föy by itself?
Tankenstein
It relies on cameras.
Wikipedia: The flush cockpit means that the long and pointed nose-cone will obstruct all forward vision. The X-59 will use an enhanced flight vision system (EVS), consisting of a forward 4K camera with a 33° by 19° angle of view, which will compensate for the lack of forward visibility.
ivape
What happens if the camera stops working?
phs318u
Same thing that happens when flying through storms or clouds - fly by instrument.
burnt-resistor
RUD.
erikerikson
Is any super sonic flight truly commercially viable/sustainable or is this just a skunkworks front?
epicureanideal
Even if supersonic flight were 2.4x less fuel efficient than regular flights, based on Concorde vs other aircraft, if that translated into 2.4x ticket prices, a lot of people would still pay it.
$1000 vs $2400 to get to Europe in 6 hours instead of 12? A lot of people who just hate those long flights would pay for it, especially given that flights are only a portion of total vacation cost, together with hotels, etc.
Or for a flight inside the US, $1000 rather than $400, but to get from coast to coast in 3 hours rather than 6, may be very worth it for some people.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/107206/how-clos...
hnlmorg
The concord was heavily subsidised. Those ticket prices didn’t cover the cost of the service.
It was also far less pleasant a ride than even most economy class tickets for long hall flights. The space was more cramped and it was much louder inside the cabin. Personally, Id rather spend more for nicer seats on a longer flight than worse seats on a shorter flight. And a lot of people with money felt the same.
Design changes might help with the passenger comfort problem but when the plane is already running at a loss, it’s a hard sell asking for more R&D costs (which would be massive) to redevelop the concord.
jauntywundrkind
Worth mentioning that no one intends to make commercial jets go Concorde fast (mach 2) again, to my knowledge.
Boom is talking about "Boomless Cruise" being up to mach 1.3. they are trying to bounce the downward going sound waves off the atmosphere, bouncing them back up. It seems to be significantly speed dependent? https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-ann...
erikerikson
The Concorde and what I understand to be it's lack of viability was exactly what I was thinking about - it motivated my question. What's different now?
bawolff
They did fly them for 33 years. Even if it didn't work out in the end its not exactly an abject failure. I could imagine slightly better business plan, etc could make all the difference.
After all, concorde design started almost 75 years ago, surely we've learned a thing or two on how to design aircrafts with lower maintenance & operating costs in that time.
pests
I remember seeing something from Boom (now renamed?) which was an YN company years ago. I recall them developing some technology to solve the noise problem - somehow bouncing the sound off the atmosphere or similar IIRC? I do think its viability has increased over the years, just everyone has this default "it wont work" mindset because of the failure that was Concorde.
adgjlsfhk1
the biggest difference is that composites and better computers probably make designing and manufacturing a good design a lot more feasible
burnt-resistor
X-59 appears to be the only known active research demonstrator as XB-1 was retired.
Boom claims to have completed their Overture facilities and plans to unveil a completed aircraft this year.[0]
supportengineer
It will be sustainable by influencers alone
panick21_
If the overland regulation changed, there would very likely be Supersonic business jets after a decade or too.
Boom the only company trying to seriously do it, and they are facing a major uphill battle and will need many billions more.
And this NASA project doesn't really solve the problem, because its primary way to avoid the noise, is to reduce what would be cabin space for the already limited space. So that makes commercial viability even worse.
burnt-resistor
14 CFR 91.817 was changed in the US, sort of, by executive order (depending on if this is legal) and by a proposed bill Supersonic Aviation Modernization Act (SAMA) H.R.3410
https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/breaking-the-sound-barrier-...
NooneAtAll3
Reminder that NASA's X-59 (which tests redirecting shockwave mostly upwards) is different from Boom Airspace's XB-1 (which tests flying slower than speed of sound down on the surface)
kaptainscarlet
They should use a Starship rather. Much quicker. The only hurdle would be the price.
consumer451
> The only hurdle would be the price.
This is not the only hurdle. You can have an airport right next to a major city, with hundreds of arrivals and departures each day.
The same cannot be said for a Starship spaceport. Due to very loud launch, sonic booms on landing [0], and the danger of dropping a Starship onto populated areas, it would likely need to be offshore. That requires a boat, so now boarding a Starship involves thinking about sea states, taking a ferry ride on each side, and more.
Starship is super cool, but point to point Starship is a bit of a fantasy when you start to get to the nitty gritty.
[0] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/11/starships-sound-stud... (TL;DR: Super Heavy's sonic booms are 110 dB when standing 20 km from the booster.)
wat10000
And the dying in a fireball. Starship’s design seems fundamentally impossible to make safe.
somenameforme
That's akin to saying that it seems fundamentally impossible to make landing rockets safe which, in fact, is exactly what Boeing/Lockheed were saying when SpaceX was first revolutionizing that space as well.
wat10000
I’m not aware of any rocket landing safe enough for human use. NASA nixed the idea of propulsive landing for Dragon 2 for this reason. It’s extremely difficult to make safe, since just about any reasonable engine configuration means guaranteed death if a single engine fails at a critical moment. Compare with modern airliners where an engine can fail at any point in flight and the plane can land safely.
So yes, I agree, it is akin to saying that.
The distance from front wheel to the end of the beak is impressive, its sooo engine-side heavy I guess. Curious if it requires a lot more tender landing procedure