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!
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 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.
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.
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
Sorry can you explain more? It's just the definition of dB (?)
And it's less impulsive than you imagine, go to youtube to listen to the sonic boom + continuous roar.
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.
There is a substantial noise beyond the initial boom which is very loud even relative to the main boom. But even just a half second of a car horn going off right next to you every so often is intolerable.
> no more skiing, endless smoke inhalation from wildfires, etc.
I wonder what our ancestors did, lets say 500 years back. Did they have wildfires? Skiing?
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?
The title of the article is misleading, there will still be booms:
> Several U.S. companies are working on a new generation of luxurious supersonic passenger aircraft with much quieter sonic booms and improved fuel efficiency
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.
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.
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.
The initial boom is less than a second but it's like standing right next to the leafblower (not across the street) and is accompanied a lasting thundering-noise which is also extremely loud.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 inhabitable 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.
I don’t need a plane that flies faster. I need an airline that puts pure service before profit.
My parents immigrated to the US in the 80s. They didn't steal anyone's land. Can I complain about rich people wasting fuel, polluting the air, and creating peace-shattering sounds?
And about the stolen land, what should we do about it? Never complain about anything? Have no laws?
Give all of your stolen land back, make all the reparations you owe people, and then go back to lecturing people online.
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!
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
The people speaking against this seem to be being flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742078
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.
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”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48741654#48742029
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.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/db
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
Sorry can you explain more? It's just the definition of dB (?)
And it's less impulsive than you imagine, go to youtube to listen to the sonic boom + continuous roar.
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.
Because it's not continuous sound in one spot like a leaf blower is.
There is a substantial noise beyond the initial boom which is very loud even relative to the main boom. But even just a half second of a car horn going off right next to you every so often is intolerable.
People finding a way to tolerate what was previously considered intolerable is pretty much the story of civilization.
I'd argue that civilization is the story of people finding ways to overcome what they previously had to tolerate.
> That's 108 decibels. > I don't see how anyone will tolerate that in practice.
Oh! Really?
https://earinc.com/gunfire-noise-level-reference-chart/
[flagged]
> no more skiing, endless smoke inhalation from wildfires, etc.
I wonder what our ancestors did, lets say 500 years back. Did they have wildfires? Skiing?
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?
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:
> 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.
They are in fact the same. 108dB loud.
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.
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]
If you really want to make an impact on the noise floor, ban gasoline leaf blowers.
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.
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.
>> ban gasoline leaf blowers
These things are indeed "The Devil's Hairdryer"
Air quality, too. Leaf blowers re-suspend carcinogens like brake dust and other fine particulate matter. Honestly just an awful practice all around.
Weed wackers too
Up next is boom's line of of landscape blowers
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.
It's not the hearing damage, it's the psychological stress.
The initial boom is less than a second but it's like standing right next to the leafblower (not across the street) and is accompanied a lasting thundering-noise which is also extremely loud.
[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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
Go back to reddit to post your anti progress stuff. HN was supposed to be about tech and startups and improving the world.
It's basically unbearable at this point. Every single thread is full of this stuff. It's incredibly sad.
[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 inhabitable 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.
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.
At this point, airlines make most of their actual profit from credit cards.
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:
https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-releases/2025-12-09-0...
[flagged]
No NIMBYism on stolen land.
Put that on a T-shirt!
My parents immigrated to the US in the 80s. They didn't steal anyone's land. Can I complain about rich people wasting fuel, polluting the air, and creating peace-shattering sounds?
And about the stolen land, what should we do about it? Never complain about anything? Have no laws?
Give all of your stolen land back, make all the reparations you owe people, and then go back to lecturing people online.
By immigrating, your parents(and you) took on the shared responsibility for the countries wrongdoings and great deeds.
When people talk about this stuff, it isn't about apportioning blame.
I'm not big on the stolen land thing because it's turtles all the way down, but this idea of divvying up blame makes no sense. We are all citizens.
If anything the parents have more responsibility by making a conscious choice vs simply being born in the US.
I don't agree with this point of view either.
Nimbyism is generally against a public good (low income housing, powerlines, etc)but there is nothing public or good about this.
Calling this nimbyism is billionaire psyop lol
Their claim is the boom won't actually reach ground level for overland flights due to how they're profiled.
Of course that's the theory. The Trump Admin just allowed for a fairly audible boom.
Where is this claim?