On one hand I think we should applaud when regulators target the specific issue (like noise or pollution level) vs using some other metric to achieve their desired outcome. On the other hand I don’t have a ton of faith that current administration will set the targets at levels that have the general public’s interest in mind
I kind of do have that faith. Sean Duffy's reality TV career hasn't really hampered the transportation agencies<p>I think staff at the agencies as well as industry staff are very passionate about what they do in their respective domains, and even with the agency heads being industry plans or uncredentialed susceptible to regulatory capture, I still think I can appreciate the willingness to revisit old prohibitions in combination with modern advances.
This is so exciting. The only ones I know working on this are Boom (unless they’ve pivoted entirely into AI DC turbines). Between this and the wind-turbine-blade air transporter it’s an exciting time for aviation. Now if we can only transition off leaded fuel!
Also NASA / Lockheed Martin <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission/quesst/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nasa.gov/mission/quesst/</a>
Why is this an exciting time for aviation? Or more specifically, why should I (a person who never spends more than $2,000 on air travel) be excited?
Assuming Boom or someone else makes it, it's potentially interesting if you routinely fly business/first class today. Which is thousands of dollars for trans-oceanic flights. So, yeah, if you're looking for bargain economy fares this likely won't ever be for you.
Increased adoption will put price pressure on traditional flights making them more affordable
Not particularly knowledgable about this, but I was under the impression the front of the bus subsidizes the back. So if the front opts for more expensive supersonic flights then the back will have to increase in cost to make it profitable to fly subsonic flights at all.
Why? They already have price pressure due to some people not having enough money. If the people currently flying business class all move to SSTs, won't the airlines now have to charge <i>more</i> for coach seats fitted in their place because they were previously making much more profit per square area from business passengers?
that seems very unlikely. margins are already quite thin, and the airlines are making most of their money with the higher fare tiers. if you remove some of those customers, then its entirely possible that the base fare will increase in response.
This will free manufacturers to build supersonic private jets for the superwealthy to cruise over flyover America. With normal steerage air travel becoming increasingly unaffordable for the average person, I can't see airlines buying supersonic airliners given fuel costs, they couldn't fill them for what they would have to charge.
0.11 pound per square foot is what is being proposed. That's 108 decibels. Which is between standing next to a lawn mower and standing next to a car horn. I don't see how anyone will tolerate that in practice.<p><a href="https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/db" rel="nofollow">https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/db</a>
Back in the 1960s (!) the military would fly supersonic over the town I lived in. I always enjoyed the boom. I would also open the window during a thunderstorm or go sit on the porch because I enjoyed the incredible electric display and the booms.
It’s not accurate to convert .1 psf to dB because it’s an impulsive shape, not a continuous tone. And human loudness perception depends on how smooth (low frequency) the shape is
> It’s not accurate to convert .1 psf to dB because it’s an impulsive shape, not a continuous tone. And human loudness perception depends on how smooth (low frequency) the shape is<p>Sorry can you explain more? It's just the definition of dB (?)<p>And it's less impulsive than you imagine, go to youtube to listen to the sonic boom + continuous roar.<p>The FAA has no criteria about the "texture" of the sound and there is no reason to believe the allowed planes will differ substantially in this respect compared to every other supersonic aircraft in the past.
On a typical day, the atmospheric pressure varies by maybe 150 Pa, or 3 psf. By definition, that’s 137 dB. But it’s imperceptible because the rate of change is so low.
My only experience with a sonic boom was in D.C. a few years ago when fighters were scrambled to intercept a learjet which had depressurized and everyone onboard was unconscious. I believe it ultimately crashed somewhere in VA or WV. Anyway, my windows were open and the "blast" was startlingly loud, but not like a detonation. More of a gentler push like a large fireworks explosion. It was both a loud sound and a pressure wave sufficient to move the curtains in the windows. There were emergency services responding all over the city looking for the source of an explosion.<p>I guess we'll get used to it if that kind of things becomes routine? I'm not sure.
Because it's not continuous sound in one spot like a leaf blower is.
> That's 108 decibels.
> I don't see how anyone will tolerate that in practice.<p>Oh! Really?<p><a href="https://earinc.com/gunfire-noise-level-reference-chart/" rel="nofollow">https://earinc.com/gunfire-noise-level-reference-chart/</a>
...yes, really? Gun fire is indeed stupendously, dangerously loud, which is why we have suppressors and heavy hearing protection for them. And there are indeed significant public/legal fights around outdoor gun ranges that end up near habitation (even if it's not the range's fault at all but rather because construction moved towards it).<p>So I'm not really seeing how that's an argument that people not wearing earpro would be fine with regular 108 dB booms over where they live/work. People aren't happy even about small engine noise and rightfully so, and it's one of a few core reasons for switching to electric.
also, there are neighborhoods with extended amounts of gun violence and discharges and I can't say that the residents "don't mind it"
Most gunshots people hear are not right next to them and so won't be anywhere near 108 dB to them.
The people speaking against this seem to be being flagged. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742093">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742093</a> <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742078">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742078</a><p>I do think this is ridiculously anti-social. Sonic booms are incredibly disruptive. This might be better, perhaps, but all odds are on this still shaking your house pretty significantly when it goes overhead.
> This might be better, perhaps, but all odds are on this still shaking your house pretty significantly when it goes overhead.<p>Source? Here’s anectodal evidence from someone who experienced this first hand and describes it very differently from “omg so antisocial, it’ll be so loud”: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48741654#48742029">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48741654#48742029</a>
It still sounds like what I know of from sonic booms, a very pronounced hard thump. On a small model.<p>Having your whole house shake a couple times a day seems not ideal. The fighter jets I've heard were one of the most visceral full body experiences I've ever felt, all reality vibrating from the impact of the boom.<p>I could be wrong but it seems so so so probable that this is going to make the world quite a lot worse.
I’m not really seeing any real arguments in those comments. They shouldn’t be flagged. But they’re fine being downvoted for being reflexively, substancelessly critical in a cliched way.
That's funny - I had no idea it was actually banned in the first place. I live near a number of large military bases and hear the fighter jets break the sound barrier on a somewhat regular basis.
Are you sure you're actually hearing sonic booms? The low-bypass turbofan engines used on most current tactical aircraft are quite loud even in subsonic flight. F-35 and F/A-18 fighters overfly my house occasionally and while I don't mind the noise they're definitely much louder than airliners. They generally only go supersonic over designated training ranges away from heavily populated areas.
I believe the supersonic ban is/was on civilian aircraft.
Not sure how this does anything to alter the laws of physics. But I guess it's a step in the right direction.
The title of the article is misleading, there will still be booms:<p>> Several U.S. companies are working on a new generation of luxurious supersonic passenger aircraft with much quieter sonic booms and improved fuel efficiency
They’re no longer sonic booms under the appropriate conditions. They still make some noise, as does, for example, high speed rail.
I lived in the area where boom did their flight tests and the local news would announce days when they were testing. FWIW, I think they used scaled down aircraft so production aircraft may vary, but the boom was more of a thump. It comes on quick though, so some potential for startling, not on account of volume so much as sonic attack.
<a href="https://www.iflscience.com/nasa-image-shows-xb-1-jet-break-the-sound-barrier-without-producing-audible-sonic-boom-78293" rel="nofollow">https://www.iflscience.com/nasa-image-shows-xb-1-jet-break-t...</a>
[flagged]
> no more skiing, endless smoke inhalation from wildfires, etc.<p>I wonder what our ancestors did, lets say 500 years back. Did they have wildfires? Skiing?<p>I get the point about humans causing unprecedented harm to the planet. However, the examples themselves are not perfect. I know skiing may be age old, but not as an activity enjoyed by millions, and the fact we build ski resorts may be contributing to some bad things, no?
Why are there multiple users with similar usernames posting hyper-negative comments?
If sonic booms become a routine occurrence over America, I expect to see a backlash against supersonic flight unifying everyone between chemtrail conspiracy theorists and the greenpeace. The anti data center backlash we have today will look like child's play.
[dead]
[dead]
If you really want to make an impact on the noise floor, ban gasoline leaf blowers.
I was 100% in your camp until my neighbor bought an electric blower. The loud, high pitched whine is somehow louder and more ear piercing than a gas blower.
Hey, DC resident. We've banned gas leaf blowers.<p>Maybe perhaps possibly, but this is not my experience at all, ever.<p>Even if you are sensitive and impacted, even if someone buys a particularly shrill one: I can sit indoors and hear gas leaf blowing from blocks away. At least the disturbance you are hearing is localized.
Gas blowers pollute which is the primary reason to ban them.
I have a special seething hatred for leafblowers. The noise to utility ratio is so high.
As someone who grew up near an US military base with constant low altitude aircraft noise: No thank you, I'd prefer the leaf blower any time.
Air quality, too. Leaf blowers re-suspend carcinogens like brake dust and other fine particulate matter. Honestly just an awful practice all around.
>> ban gasoline leaf blowers<p>These things are indeed "The Devil's Hairdryer"
The proposed limit is around the level of standing right next to a leaf blower.
That's fine. The occasional boom, assuming business success this time, will last a few seconds. Leaf blowers last for hours in some neighborhoods.<p>It's not the hearing damage, it's the psychological stress.
Weed wackers too
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
As I understand it the noise pollution stuff is due to really old tech. The new stuff should be much better performing to basically eliminate the sonic boom and the regulatory changes are reflecting that.<p>On a site like HN this kind of progress should be praised not denigrated as antisocial.
It's reflective of the gradual dawning that while technology is amazing and exciting and can help people, under current systems it's more likely to be used to benefit the thousand or so richest people in the world and fuck everyone else over. Could we make supersonic jets more quiet and less disruptive? Yeah, probably. But why would a single cent be spent on that? The people flying in them don't give a single shit. They would only get quieter as a side effect of an improvement that somehow increases return.
Because it’s not up to them. Look at Tesla: started with an overpriced roadster to sell to rich people and ended up with a budget electric car.<p>Starting with the high end where there’s demand and revenues to justify R&D generally eventually filters out to enrich everyone because that’s fundamentally a larger market to go after. There’s a million problems these supersonic aircraft will have to solve so even if supersonic travel never becomes affordable, other inventions still move things forward. Case in point: the space race and race to the moon - so many technology booms in the 60s-90s because of fundamental R&D done in service of tech that had nothing to do with daily life.
Here’s an example of a life saving application you could imagine being enabled: there’s a huge problem with getting organ donors’ organs to meet supply where demand is (why there’s state level registries instead of a national one). If there’s constantly these jets buzzing about, you could imagine regulations that require them to aid emergency personnel transporting organs when such transports come up - it’s not like you’re transporting anything big / you don’t actually need to transport people - just make sure every flight can appropriately have it attached and then you toss it on when it needs to go somewhere better than is available in the local vicinity (and heavy fines and pilots losing licenses if they detour from their declared destination).
The 'new stuff' is split into two categories:<p>1. Better, real-time atmospheric data that allows use of boom-refraction flight profiles to prevent the boom reaching the ground. This is a trick that Concorde sometimes used when conditions were right, but only works up to about Mach 1.2. This is what Boom used for quieter flights.<p>2. Crazy 1950s-style airframe shaping with the X-59 that reduces boom but is impractical for an actual commercial transport. This is intended to establish a baseline for tolerable routine boom intensity, but we don't yet know how to make a commercial airframe with the same quietness.<p>Nothing is really new.
I'm just very very skeptical I'm going to be able to sit inside or sit on the porch and not know it's going overhead. Which I can do with most planes today. I've only heard a couple supersonic booms in my life & they are incredible & ridiculously disruptive events, in a whole body sort of way that is without compare, even if I'm deep inside a heavy massive brick building.<p>This definitely feels like a Time Machine Morlock/Eloi, Battle Angle Alita Tiphares, Neuromancer Freeside situation, of the extreme rich untouchably far far overhead dumping endless waste noise pollution and din down onto the earth.<p>This administration in particular seems to absolutely not give a rat about anyone but the ultra-rich or the brownshirted anti-social and I have no confidence they are doing this based on any form of reasoned or sensible approach. This is an administration whose modus operandi is to roll coal, drill everything, cancel every green energy project (by spending billions if they have to buy out the already underway installations), go to war against vaccines/mRNA, etc etc. There's no baseline upon which to expect reasonable or smart or safe.
Is that why you flagged the parent comment for critiquing progress?
[flagged]
Yep!!! It really has changed and has become exhausting. The most flippant, negative, cynical, and antagonistic replies nowadays, rather than genuine curiosity about the news or optimism.<p>Too bad because HN has been my “home” on the internet for 15 years.
And the comment you’re replying to, which is entirely a reasonable opinion, was flagged, proving their point. I’ve been here for 18 years and similarly alienated by the cynicism here.
moving fast and breaking things is a perfectly viable strategy when the things being broken aren't personally relevant. in fact this conversation moved so fast that within two comments we went from "external experience of this tech is not pleasant" to "hn is becoming reddit". how am I meant to believe that first guy is degenerating the conversation by sharing his perspective, when his replies do nothing but point at him?
[flagged]
Seriously what has happened to HN? This is ridiculous? are these genuine posts or some attack by bad actors to destroy a community.<p>Go back to reddit to post your anti progress stuff. HN was supposed to be about tech and startups and improving the world.<p>It's basically unbearable at this point. Every single thread is full of this stuff. It's incredibly sad.
your response doesn't help you make your case. instead of complaining and namecalling the commenter, how about engaging with the comment as the others are doing. if you don't want this place to turn into reddit, then you should not act like you are on reddit.<p>the mark of a good discussion is that you can respond to a contrary opinion without getting triggered by it.<p>you seem to have decided that this is progress, but others are clearly not convinced. for myself i don't know if this is the progress we need. but then i believe that the most important progress we need to make is to be more civil to each other and work towards social unity, so that we can discuss technical progress without constantly getting angry at each other, because that, in the end is the biggest obstacle to any progress.<p>so instead of being part of the problem and making things worse by complaining, try being a part of the solution and engage with the commenters in an earnest but well meaning manner. disagree, ask them to substantiate their claim, or provide counter evidence, but don't derail the discussion with a futile rant.
supersonic flight is not significantly faster than regular flight relative to other modes of transportation. it's not anti progress to be clear eyed out about tradeoffs and costs, especially when the negative side effects primarily don't affect the user of a product but everyone around them.<p>just because you want to blast your music out loud on a speaker in the subway and i think that's antisocial, doesn't mean i'm anti progress for music technology
[flagged]
Given that I just read this comment after getting off a connecting flight that had me waiting on a fully boarded plane in 100 degree Phoenix weather for half an hour, it’s pretty poignant. I read an article earlier today about how Phoenix may not be <i>inhabitable</i> in twenty years, and I’m here to tell you that it’s already insufferable no matter how well the A/C was or was not working on that plane.<p>I don’t need a plane that flies faster. I need an airline that puts pure service before profit.
There is no profit, which is why their is no service.
The average profit margin is 4% on flying.<p>At this point, airlines make most of their actual <i>profit</i> from credit cards.<p>I forget who said it, but "airlines are banks that happen to fly planes" is true, at least profit wise.
Good news, airlines already barely profit:<p><a href="https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-releases/2025-12-09-01/" rel="nofollow">https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-releases/2025-12-09-0...</a>
[flagged]