Hi, and welcome to the Neil Ashton Podcast.
In each episode, we explained some of the fascinating ways
that science and engineering are changing the world around us.
We talked to leading engineers from elite level sports like
cycling and Formula One to some of the world's top academics to
understand how fluid dynamics, machine learning, supercomputing
are bringing in a new era of discovery.
We also hear some of their life stories, their career advice.
The lessons they've learned on the way that I hope will be
helpful to you too. So sit back and enjoy this
episode. Hi, and welcome back to the Neil
Ashton Podcast. Today's episode is one that is
focusing on a topic that I think is interesting to so many people
and that is on supersonic flight, supersonic travel.
I'm speaking to Peter Cohen, who is a who is a legend within NASA
for all that he's done for for the supersonic program over the
past three decades. And I wanted to speak to him
firstly because when I spoke to some to some colleagues and
people I work with at NASA, they all recommended to speak to
Peter as he is a fountain of knowledge on this program.
We didn't really get into actually a focus on him himself.
This was more of a topic on the NASA program.
Although people tell me that he is a private pilot and has some
amazing stories to tell. But in, in this particular
episode, we focus more on on the actual NASA programs and what
they're doing. And, and that is absolutely
fascinating. We start the conversation going
back and looking at how, how did we get to Concorde, you know,
that incredible aircraft that was the first to go supersonic
for, you know, passenger travel. And then talking, you know, why,
why did it stop? What was the commercial reasons?
What was the technical reasons? And then we transition into what
makes supersonic travel difficult?
What are the engineering challenges from a noise
perspective, from a regulatory perspective, from an
aerodynamics perspective, and going through step by step in
that process. And, and for anybody here who is
an engineer, I think you'll find that particularly interesting
talking about the specifics of how they overcame some of the
issues with the Sonic boom. And then we start to go through
and talk on the Pacific Quest program.
So this is NASA's project to develop a prototype, the X59
aircraft that is currently in the process of being built.
That will be a a test to to essentially validate all the
work that's been done and to give data to the aviation
authorities to be able to set the regulatory environment for
commercial entities to go and build and hopefully release
these aircraft. So we're at a really interesting
time. This project has been going on
for quite a while and it feels like we're getting very close
now to some very key tests that will dictate this.
And we finish off with some discussion around, of course,
hypersonic travel. Of course, if you can do
supersonic, the logical question is, couldn't you do hypersonic?
And then at the end, as I ask most people on this podcast,
some sort of words of wisdom, I guess, to to people who are
aspiring aeronautics professionals.
So this for me was personally one of the really interesting
episodes. I love the idea of supersonic
travel and Peter is such a great communicator and it was an honor
to to have him on the. So sit back and enjoy this
episode with Peter Cohen on supersonic travel.
So maybe we could begin. I mean, this is, I think for
most people a fascinating topic. But probably the one thing that
people think of when we talk about supersonic travel is
Concorde. So maybe as a bit of a starter,
could you, maybe, I know this is difficult, summarize the history
of supersonic travel. How did we get to the Concorde
program? Sure.
It's it's it's really is it? It actually is a fascinating
history. I mean, question 1947, we had
the first supersonic flight, the Bell X1 out at what it was in
Murak or Edwards Air Force Base. And you know, somebody heard of
Sonic boom then maybe. So that's a little interesting
history, but you know, from there very rapid development of
supersonic military aircraft. You know, in the US we had the
Century series fighters. But you know, in in Britain it
was, they were, it was the Lightning and other supersonic
aircraft. And so supersonic flight became
pretty common pretty quickly in the 1950s.
And, you know, pretty much as soon as the basics were
understood, people started thinking about, well, we should
have, you know, the next step in, in supersonic travel, in
travel should be supersonic travel.
So there were studies done in all all over the world, really.
But, you know, because there were English, the English
studies sued and, and British Aerospace began working on
designs and, you know, eventually came to the, the
common program, the, the English, you know, the British
French program to build the Concorde.
So, you know, along that way, along the way, as supersonic
flight became more popular, you know, initially Sonic booms were
kind of a novelty. You know, they'd do them at air
shows and people would get all excited about them.
But you know, as cop, as the airplanes began to use training
more and more often, you started having complaints of damage and,
you know, noise, noise complaints.
And you know when people, when some people really started to
think about. You know, regular supersonic
operations, I think they were thinking of, we really were
thinking about, you know, the entire air transportation market
would become supersonic and people would begin to think
about the number of overflights that that would involve.
The number of Sonic boom exposures that that people
would, you know, would hear would become would become a
problem. So.
It led to a number of studies. Which involves community tests
of people's response to Sonic boom.
And most notably, there was a, a very long test with many, many
exposures done in Oklahoma City in the mid 1960s, but was
actually sponsored by the, by the USFAA.
And, you know, it became quite apparent that regular Sonic boom
exposure would not be, would not be, you know, you know, would
not be tolerable. So as Concorde development
continued, you know, we also had the USSST program and that's
really what drove a lot of the the Sonic boom testing in the US
was trying to understand the. Impact of the the USSST which
was going to be much bigger and and potentially much louder in
terms of Sonic boom than the Concorde.
So eventually, you know, Concorde did fly, but in, and I
think it was 1968, maybe 1969 was was first flight commercial
service started in 76. But in between those two times
the FAA put in a ban on supersonic flight over land.
They couldn't they there was that idea that if you could
quiet the boom enough, you could, you could fly over land
supersonic, but they didn't know what how quiet it would need to
be. So eventually they just said,
you know, no, no Sonic, no, no supersonic flight means no Sonic
booms means nobody's going to get annoyed.
So that, that was in 19, 1973 that that ban was put in place
internationally. There are other countries that
ban supersonic flight, but pretty much everybody sticks to
the what the international Civil Aviation agreed to was they
didn't put in a law, but they or, or a standard, but they said
nobody should experience a, a negative impact, an unacceptable
situation as they called it, due to Sonic boom noise.
So, you know, so by the mid 1970s we had, we had Concorde
operations on a very limited scale and we had all the rules
put in place and that that, that that continued into the two
2000s when Concorde operation ceased.
And but the research and, and trying to understand how to
affect the Sonic boom, how to make it quieter.
And you know, that continued all along through a number of
programs. So was it the case that it was
almost a shock to the Concorde developers to have this ban
because from what I guess it was imposed after the aircraft had
essentially been designed, were was the assumption that they
would be allowed to fly anywhere?
And then when they put that ban in, it was almost, yeah, too
late to really change the fundamental design or
principles. Yeah, there's a lot, There's a
lot to that actually. You know, I think, I think
everybody kind, you know, in the early development of supersonic
aircraft, you know, there was kind of the there was very much
kind of this is in the US, but as globally as well.
You know, people thought, you know, technology advancement,
all technology advancement was good and that in the 60s that
changed. And Sonic the, the advent of
Sonic boom, you know, the possibility of, of regular
exposure to Sonic boom was a part of that, that change.
So, you know, certainly the US manufacturers and and.
British Aerospace and and aerospace Yao, you know, they,
they, they expected that they would fly over land supersonic
and that the airplanes would be used as.
As regular air transport so. I don't know if it was a.
Shock, you know, but but I'm sure they began to realize that
sentiment was building against, you know, exposing people to
this new sound and it definitely, you know, it
definitely hurt the market, you know, for the aircraft.
I yeah, I suppose what I'm getting to because my second
question was really why, Why did Concord ultimately stop and and
fail in some extent? And I'm just wondering to that
point, was it an economic reason?
Was it a technology reason? And is there anything that is
essentially because they couldn't fly over land, they
just destroyed the economic model and what what caused
Concorde essentially to? To, you know, not I've, I've
studied, I haven't really studied the, the marketing of
it, but you know, there's a couple of things.
You know, one of the things that that NASA really believes and,
and kind of the supersonic community believes that if
you're going to have regular supersonic air transportation,
you have to the airlines have to be able to operate the airplane
as they would any other airplane.
So limiting it to just certain over water routes limits the
market and limits the effectiveness of the airplane.
So that was a definite strike against, you know, Concorde.
It was, you know, it was a marvel, you know, to, you know,
again, you know, essentially the design was pretty much in place.
You know, a few years after the first supersonic flight through
head of supersonic airliner fantastic.
But you know, so the technology that was incorporated in it in
it was was somewhat immature for airliner technology.
And then we had, you know, we had a couple of fuel crises and
then, you know, after the, after the accident.
There was a, there was a downturn, another economic
downturn, which you know, kind of limited the operation.
So eventually, you know, being able to continue an operation
with, with such such a small number of aircraft serving such
a small market, I think you know, the, the airline's best,
you know, but basically it was not, it was not economically
viable for them to continue so. There was regulation, there was
technology and there was economics.
That all went into, I think, the end of the the Concorde's
commercial operation. Yeah, it is.
I've, I've been on Concorde, not when he was flying, but in the
museum and I'm always amazed at how small it is, how tight the
seats are compared now you know, to, to to an aircraft how very
and obviously how expensive the, the tickets were.
So it was, yeah, I guess as you say it was, it was a novelty for
sure. And I'm sure that helped for a
while. But I guess it would be
interesting even if it didn't stop for that reason.
Would, would there be the pressure because of the I guess
now like first class travel is so much about luxury and, and
the size of the cabins and all this and you go into Concorde
and you're in this tiny little. Seat well, that's an interesting
again, NASA does studies and we're we're we talk to companies
that do studies and that that's a factor.
But you know, you look at, you know when given the opportunity
to get there sooner, most people will choose sooner in in the
long run, so. Yeah.
I from NASA's perspective, we're, we're NASA's perspective,
you know, from the big picture for NASA, we're trying to
innovate and do things that improve air travel for, you
know, for the, for the traveling public.
And so our mantra is kind of, you know, yeah, getting there
faster, yeah, over long distances is, is a marked
improvement in the experience of the, the, the air traveler.
So, you know, that's if we can do that in a way that is
affordable, sustainable, and, you know, acceptable,
environmentally acceptable, then if if we can put those
technologies in place, then you know, there's a market there
that would definitely be of interest to manufacturers.
I mean, it's for sure, I mean, I, I travel quite a lot to the
US for conferences or for meetings.
And there is no doubt that the length of time it takes to
travel from Europe to the USI think does limit how closely
those countries can work together.
Whereas I know that my US colleagues who have to fly from,
let's say, California to Washington, it's still a six
hour flight. But anything I think less than 5
or 6 hours is a different psychological, different jet lag
different, just everything compared to 10 hours or, you
know, 8 or 10 hours. So I can totally see why the
increasing business or or closeness that I'm sure there's
economic benefits from making air travel faster, you know,
promote people to maybe, yeah, stay in touch more easily.
Yeah, that's, that's, you know, again, that's kind of NASA's
part of NASA's vision is, you know, it it, it makes a smaller
world if you can get there in in half the time.
Yeah. So what what the high level as
we go towards speaking about the, you know, the NASA
programs, could you maybe just explain to people the high level
factors that makes supersonic passenger jets technologically
challenging? What is it about the nature of
supersonic travel? A challenge from a noise point
of view, From a fuel efficiency compared to transonic aircraft?
Well, I mean the the so yeah, so we, we look at we look at as
there are barriers, you know, that need to be overcome to make
supersonic travel, you know, as I said, you know, economically
viable and and environmentally acceptable.
So we kind of lumped them into categories.
One of them is Sonic boom. You know, we have to be able to
fly over land without disturbing people.
So we can talk a little bit more about about how we do that.
But, you know, just right now. So the airplane needs to be
shaped to to reduce the sound of the Sonic boom.
And that that's not a whole lot different from, you know, the
what a supersonic, what Concorde would look like.
But there are some things, you know, to go faster obviously
requires more energy. So, you know, there's no,
there's no getting around the fact that it needs more fuel.
So but balancing, you know, the fuel burn at high speed versus
the fuel burn at at low speed and getting that that that
integrated design that. Is efficient as possible, burns
as less fuel but as little fuel as possible across the speed
regime. That's, that's a key technology
challenge to one of the things that that, yeah, is, is maybe
people don't realize is, you know, current subsonic air
airplanes have those great big turbofan engines.
So they're accelerating a lot of air, just a small amount to
create the thrust that they need.
And that's, that's both efficient and quiet at subsonic
speeds. As you get to higher speeds, you
need your jet has to be faster, you need to accelerate less air
more, you know to create the thrust that you need to go
supersonic speed. So you can't have a high bypass
turbofan. So coming up with an engine
design that is again matches the the requirements of low speed
and high speed, but is also for take off and.
Landing can can. Effectively operate quietly so
with the lowest jet velocity you know, the, the speed the, the
jet coming out of the tailpipe as, as you can so that that
requires some unique engine design emissions is a problem.
You know that the, the, the Mach, the Mach number of the
airplane, the higher the Mach number, the higher you fly.
Eventually you're, you're up in the stratosphere where the
emissions of the engine can have a magnified effect on, on the
ozone layer and the, you know, the, the, the, the quality of
the atmosphere. So paying attention to the, the,
how the fuel is burned in the engine, the combustion process
and making a, a burner, a combustor in the airplane that
is, that is as creates as little emissions as possible.
Is, is, is a major challenge for supersonic aircraft.
If we go back into the 1990s when there was the High Speed
research program, emissions was one of the big focuses.
Of that effort and the technology that kind of found
its start in that program is now in a lot of the engines that you
see on subsonic. Airplanes.
So it's kind of made full circle.
And now we're. Looking at it again, can we, can
we improve it even more to get a big, a bigger impact if we start
using those on the, on supersonic aircraft again?
So there's that and there's operations, you know, how do
you, you operate the airplane? How do you mix the, the fleet
together so that supersonic aircraft can fly as fast as it
can for as long as it can without having an impact on, on
the, on the subsonic of the subsonic traffic.
So there's, there's a lot of, there's a lot of technology
factors. You know that that that that
need to be addressed airport noise.
Sonic boom and emissions are kind of the three real barriers
to actually opening the market. I think you know to to even a
supersonic business aircraft. Well, I'm glad you mentioned
that because that was one of the things I was to ask you about
from a, you know, conceptual design point of view.
When you do the numbers and you figure out the maps on, you
know, what's the, the best size or how many passengers can you
put on this thing? What do the, what do the sums
ultimately drive you to? I, I'm guessing not a 300 person
aircraft like you would see now, but much smaller.
So could you maybe talk about how the aircraft design maths
work out in that point? Of view so you know we're we're
doing the X 59 now we didn't start out to do a demonstrator.
We we started out to in the in the early 2000s, we had just
flown the shape Sonic boom demonstrator and kind of proved
that this approach for quieting Sonic boom works in a real
atmosphere. And there was a lot of kind of
innovative thinking going on then about, you know, how we
would, you know, how, how we could advance from where our our
state of knowledge on, on quieting Sonic boom to really
getting to something that was not only worked well, but was
what was practical in a design. So we had some ideas.
We had new CFD, we had faster computers, we had design systems
which enable us to do better optimization.
And we really thought we could make a major change in the in
the loudness of the supersonic aircraft.
So what we did is we worked with NASA, worked with Boeing and
Lockheed in two separate studies to say, OK, if we have this
technology and we incorporate it in a future design, you know,
what, what, what's, what's practical.
And what we wound up with was a about 100 passenger airplanes,
so something about the same size as as Concorde that flies at
about Mach 1.82 to 3 engines. And, you know, 40. 500 or so
miles range, so you know, trans Pacific, but but barely that all
kind of fit and enabled us to make an airplane that met the
boom requirements, met the landing and take off noise
requirements and the admissions requirements and was it was was
much more efficient at cruise than Concord.
So the those boom shaping technology, the wanting wanting
to meet the noise requirements all kind of and and trying to
make the airplane out of materials that that don't have
to be, you know, we don't have to use special materials for
high heat. We want we have a propulsion
system that's balanced for take off the landing and supersonic
flight, say about Mach 1.8 is is the range that is the speed that
you want to go for. So it's a little slower than
Concorde, but it's still twice as fast as current subsonic
airliners. And is that where still you
think the sweet spot is in terms of the aircraft, the the most
practical aircraft, that's what you started off with it is that
still the case that around 100 passengers 1.8 is that, is that
really what all the sort of analysis studies converge to?
There have been more studies, more market studies since then
and, and well, just recently we've actually, you know, so
there's actually a kind of another community of researchers
and, and companies that are pushing for faster travel.
So Mach 4 or Mach 5. And so NASA commissioned some,
some more recent studies that, you know, since this is kind of
being driven by the high speed, the higher speed community, we
set the Mach range at Mach 2 to four and four and a half.
You know what, what's the best answer in that speed range?
Well, all the best designs came out to be Mach 2.
You know, So what they're kind of saying is, you know, and
they're, what we really were seeing was those, those designs
were, were somewhat impractical because they were constrained to
be Mach 2. So we felt confident that, you
know, if we had stretched that envelope down to Mach 1.7 or so,
we would have found even, you know, we would kind of confirmed
our, our previous results. So the answer is yes.
I think generally studies still seem to point to that, yeah,
kind of given what we what we know in, in, in terms of
technology and and given the the challenges of higher speed
flight that for the first products that that bring kind of
bring back supersonic flight that 1.71.8 mock range is, is
kind of the sweet spot. OK.
And just to maybe, Oh no, please go.
Ahead, Oh, take boom. You know, Boom Supersonic is is
trying to build a essentially a successor to Concorde smaller,
but you know, it's kind of kind of that same mission supersonic
overwater flight only they started out, you know, talking
about Mach 2.4 and their current design is Mach 1.7.
So. That also kind of confirms where
where the technology will take you.
Yeah. And just maybe for people's
sense, is this actually let let's maybe go through.
Could you just briefly introduce the NASA program?
You know, there is a specific NASA program with a certain name
And so could you maybe just briefly introduce, you know,
what is that? And the X59 I know it there's
like a a specific project, isn't there?
Yes. So again, after we, well, we,
we, we kind of, we proved this technology to us at least.
So in, in our Boeing and Lockheed studies, we, we did
designs, you know, conceptual designs, we did a lot of CFD
analysis and then eventually we tested those designs in wind
tunnels. So small scale models, really
trying to test what we did. We did a number of tests, but
the focus of the test was, did we get the quiet boom design
right? And we, and lo and behold, we,
we've matched our, our predictions, our CFD matched our
prediction, our, our experiment almost perfectly.
So we knew that technology could work.
And so there was, there was a lot of excitement about taking
the next step. Well, let's, let's try and fly
it. But you know, we were very
confident in the CFD. So, you know, we weren't going
to actually prove the technology in flight.
We, you know, we could demonstrate it in flight, but
you know, what we learned from flight would be, you know, how
robust is it? You know, does it change in
different weather conditions? You know, what speed ranges work
best? You know, kind of that
information like that, which was, you know, exciting science
to do, but was not. A.
Program that was getting much traction with, with, with NASA
or with, you know, our, our, our budget people in the, in the
government. In parallel to all this work, we
were doing research on how people respond to the sound from
supersonic aircraft. So we had done laboratory
studies where we built these simulators which essentially
create a Sonic boom or a quiet Sonic thump, you know, in a lab
situation. We had, we had found that, you
know, the numbers that we were getting in our designs, we were
able to get to in our designs were kind of at the threshold
where people really stopped, almost stopped noticing the
sound. So what, what, what really sold
us was we really wanted to understand how, how people in a
community, you know, going about their daily lives would respond
to the sound, what level, what sound level would be acceptable.
And that's where we got the, the traction.
So that's what became the quest mission.
That's the the current big NASA activity.
So what we're doing is, and the best way to generate that sound
in a community is to use an aircraft that creates a
representative sound. So the Quest mission kind of has
three phases. The first phase, well, all
phases are active now. The focus right now is building
the X59 aircraft. It's a unique.
Technology. It's a demonstrator aircraft.
It's a research aircraft. It's not a prototype for, for a
supersonic airliner, but it does create a sound that's similar to
what we think the sounds of the future supersonic aircraft will
be. So we're designing that
airplane. We've, we've contracted with
Lockheed Martin to build the airplane for us.
Their contract runs through getting the airplane in the air,
doing all the envelope expansion, as we call it, you
know, the safety of flight checks.
And then they'll essentially hand us the keys and the
airplane will become NASA's property in the second phase of
the of the effort. We're going to take that
airplane, we're going to try, we'll make sure that the sound
that we're getting is what we expected.
So we call that acoustic validation.
Is it loud enough? Can we vary it enough?
You know, does is it affected by the atmosphere?
Things like that. We really want to understand
that sound that we make because eventually we want people to
hear that sound. And that's phase three.
So phase three, we'll take the X 59 and we'll go to different
communities. Right now that we've got 5 or 6
tests planned. It's something in different
places in the United States. We haven't picked those places
yet, but we're we're, we're narrowing it down if you wish.
But so the idea is to is to expose a community to the sounds
of quiet supersonic flight at different noise levels, have
surveys, have microphones in the community to measure the sound,
have people taking surveys child how they respond to the sound.
So we can create a a data set that's describes how you know
what, at what sound level it is, is the sound acceptable and what
sound level is it annoying. In parallel to that, we're
working with the International Civil Aviation Organization,
particularly their Committee on Aviation Environmental
Protection, because those are the people that write the rules
for noise from, from aircraft. The current regulations for take
off and landing noise all come from ICAO.
They're implemented by, you know, in the UK it's CAA and the
US it's FAA. But ICAO, all those groups
participate in ICAO. They set the standard.
So the Quest mission, the main goal of the Quest mission is to
give ICAO the data that they can use to set the limit of sound
for future supersonic aircraft. So to to create that standard
that that manufacturers could then design airplanes to.
OK, I I see that's, that's really interesting.
So what you're basically saying is, you know, they have to be
conservative in nature when it comes to rules, the rules today
that they need, they need as realistic data as possible to
make an informed decision. And So what your project will do
is help set the foundations, which I then guess when
commercial companies like Boom or others want to certify their
aircraft, they will be certifying to those noise levels
and I guess a certain distance away and a certain height.
And it it's all the parameters I guess of how they measure.
It so the so the the standard. Has has a yeah, it's kind of
that's three elements. It's a metric.
So what are you going to measure?
What, what, what, what, what's the best way of measuring the,
the, the people's response? What, what number?
What process is a procedure? You know, so everybody who
applies for a type certificate, you know, has to go through the
same procedure. So it's consistent and then
there's a limit, you know what, what's the value of the metric
that that you can choose. So the quest mission really
helps to inform all three of those elements.
You know, we'll be getting a lot of data.
So we we've got some candidate metrics, you know, we'll be able
to test which metric works best when we're doing that acoustic
validation phase that's kind of that kind of mimics what the
certification process would look like.
So we'll get it. We'll be getting data that can
help the define that certification process.
And then when we do the community testing, we'll be
actually getting the data that will help support defining the
limit. You know, because NASA, NASA can
give, you know, we've got a good reputation as being honest
scientific, an honest scientific community.
We can give that data. We're, you know, we're pulling
in as much of the international community as we can so that they
understand what we're doing. But, you know, it's, it's
essentially creating that data. But then again, it's up to ICAO
and and the international community to define what the the
actual limits and the actual procedure are going to be.
So I'm sure the most difficult question is the timeline of of
this. So when is the when is the
aircraft expect to be handed over to you from Lockheed to be
able to start doing some of that validation?
Yes, yeah. So yeah, we've, we've
experienced delays, very exciting though we just had our
first engine runs. So we've started the engine on
the airplane for the first time. So that's kind of a a big step
forward in, in kind of the last phase before we fly.
We have, we have to do all this, this really integrated testing
where we're essentially the airplane is completely alive and
we're running all the systems and, and making sure
everything's talking to each other.
So once we got that done, then we, you know, of course you, you
do taxi test 1st and you drive around, you know, gradually
increasing speed and then you have first flight.
So originally we had planned to hopefully do first flight this
year, but we've had some delays in getting, getting to the point
where we could do the, the engine run.
So now we're looking at sometime next year for first flight the
the phase one, the this envelope expansion phases is planned for
about a year. So, you know, things go well
sometime early in 2026, maybe we'll get the we'll get the keys
to the airplane and. We'll be able to start our start
our acoustic, you know, our acoustic testing.
So would it be fair to say that, you know, realistically assuming
various factors, 20-30 could be when the international community
would have, could set new rules, they've done all the tests,
you've given them all the data, they've debated it and they've
set and written these new rules. Is that approximately or you
think it? Could be faster than that.
It's interesting the Kate, this, this committee on aviation bio
protection, they, they have a three-year cycle.
So they have a meeting and at the meeting all the decisions
based on the work that's gone on in the previous three years are
are finalized and accepted and then given to the ICAO Council
for final approval. So actually the the 13th Cape
cycle is just coming to an end now.
So in February of 2025 will be the Cape 13 meeting.
So. 2028 is the next one, 2031 is Cape 15 and that is our
target for, well that is that is ICAO's target now for bringing
the standard forward to the council for approval.
So we are on a timeline to deliver that data.
To give in, in, in, in in a timely enough manner, to give
them plenty of time to review it, debate it.
And then finish writing the standard to bring forward a Cape
15 meeting in 2031. OK, Yeah.
So maybe before we go any further, I guess we should
actually talk about what visually is probably the most
distinguishing feature the the sort of long nose, which if I
understand correctly was one of the technologies that has been
able to reduce the the Sonic boom.
Could you maybe talk a little bit about the physics and how
this helps to reduce the the noise?
Yeah, sure. Yeah.
So, you know, of course, Sonic boom is the result of of shock
waves. Shock waves are instantaneous
pressure changes that occur when an aircraft is flying faster
than the speed of sound. Essentially, You know, for
normal aircraft, the subsonic aircraft, it's creating a
pressure change and essentially. That's being communicated in
front of the airplane because. Pressure changes like a sound
it, it all travels at the speed of sound, so that that's racing
out in front of the airplane and kind of the air is starting to
get out of the way. Well, if you're going faster
than sound, you know the air doesn't know the plane is coming
essentially. So you get.
An. Instantaneous pressure change
called called the shockwave. Whether it's created by an
airplane or a rifle bullet, it doesn't matter.
It's it's anything faster than sound creates an instantaneous
pressure change. If you look at an airplane,
anytime the flow is going over, it has to make a turn.
As it goes over some part of the airplane, you create a
shockwave. So there's a shockwave on the
nose near the airplane. There's a shockwave on the nose
is one on the canopy, the engine inlets.
Anything that sticks out from the airplane creates a
shockwave. So if you can visualize those
shock waves, which we can do, we've developed some really
interesting technology. Plus, it's been able to be able
to do it in the wind tunnel for a while, but now we can do it in
flight. You can actually see through
what's called schlieren imaging. You can see the shock waves.
And if you could. See them, you'll, what you see
is they're all different strengths and they're all kind
of randomly spaced along the airplane wherever the components
are because of that, because the shock waves, the different
strengths as that signal. And again, that signal travels
out in 3 dimensions. Some of it travels towards the
ground and that's what we're most interested in.
But as it's as that signal is traveling, because those waves
of different strength, they're actually starting to pile up on
each other. So in a short distance from the
airplane, all those shock waves have piled up into two on, you
know, no shock, what becomes called the no shock, the first
leading one and then the tail shock.
And that's a very stable acoustic system.
Travels to the ground, it's getting attenuated, it's getting
weaker and weaker as it reaches as as it goes towards the
ground. But still when it reaches the
ground, you hear 2 very rapid pressure changes which you hear
as Bang Bang. You know of, of, of a Sonic
boom. So what we found is the best
approach, the the approach that seems to work and and can be
integrated into a practical airplane is to keep those shock
waves from merging. So the whole shape of the X 59
that long nose is, is it's all designed to create a systems of
system of shock waves near the airplane where the shocks are
relatively the same strength and relatively evenly spaced along
along the length of the airplane.
So this the initial system has all these shock waves in it.
And because they're, they're similar in strength, they don't
merge as the signal travels to the ground.
They just get the each, each individual shock gets
attenuated. And that's actually more of a
benefit because you get in down into the denser atmosphere, the
shock start to get smeared a little bit more.
So by the time you get to the ground, you're left with kind of
this gradual pressurized instead of instead of the sharp pressure
increase. So you hear a thump or, or a
thud, thud instead of that, that very disturbing bang, bang.
So if you look at the the X 59, it has a lot of features that we
learned about when we did those airliner studies that long.
The long slender nose sets up most of the forward part of of
the acoustic signature if you wish.
And then at the back end you wrote you just kind of it, it
becomes much more complicated. So you're really trying to
manage the shocks and there's a little bit more than just having
them be the strain, same strength.
You can kind of get them to cancel each other a little bit.
So integrating the engine, so it's like the engine on the X
59, it's mounted on top of the aircraft.
So to prevent the shockwave from the engine inlet from kind of
impeding, impinging on the bottom signature, the signature
that travels to the ground, the the tail of the airplane is kind
of unique on the X59. We've got a little canard, we've
got a conventional horizontal tail and then a little T tail.
Each of those features helps us generate the lift we need and
helps us trim the airplane, but minimizes the impact of those
features on the on the Sonic boom.
They just look nice as well. I have to say the aircraft
actually looks quite nice, which always helps, right I.
Think yeah, exactly right. Well, this is an adage in
aircraft design that if it looks good, it is good.
Yeah, of course, Concord famously had to, you know, tweak
the nose for visibility. How about on on this type of
design, what what's the visibility?
And for the pilots, what's their opinion?
It's bad. We, we, we have, we have a new
approach that's it's and thank you for asking the question
because it's really one of the one of the unique features that
NASA has contributed to the design of the X 59 is our
external vision system. So rather than having a forward
facing window, we have a camera that sticks out from the, from
the nose, It's just rounded on the forward fuselage and it
creates a high definitions, high definition camera, creates a
high definition visual image for the pilot that's displayed on a
screen in front of the in front of his seat.
It's a really interesting technology.
We've, we've, we've flown it in kind of demonstration flights on
subsonic airplanes. And we found that it gives the,
the cameras and the screens have reached the point where they can
give the pilot the same visual acuity as they would have with
normal, with their eyesight, their eyes looking through the,
looking through the window. We did a study where there was a
pilot, you know, flying the airplane and then there was a
pilot in the, in the back looking at the screen.
And we flew against opposing traffic.
And it turned out that the pilot in the back could actually, you
know, would generally pick out the targets faster or earlier
further away than the pilot in the front.
But that's not the end of it. I mean, if you've got this
screen in front of you, you can mix the radar, infrared, you
know, other sensor features in to really improve situational
awareness. You know, for people who fly,
you might not see an airplane, but when when air traffic
controller says, you know, you've got traffic 12:00, two
miles and you look in that direction.
Your chances of. Seeing it are much better than
if you just kind of, you know, generally looking well, just
imagine if if instead of the control of saying it, you know,
the radar system put a little circle on your screen and said,
hey, there's an airplane out here.
You, you, you would always be able to, to, to see the traffic.
So it's a unique technology. It enables the supersonic
aircraft to be designed without having a complicated heavy nose
drooping system. But it's also something that you
know could have applications in other in other types of aircraft
as well. How much?
How much is the pilot or the flying experience influencing
the design? You know, if you're a car, if
you were, if you're designing a car, you actually think about
driver comfort. You think about how easy it is
to drive the car, to look out the window to the experience.
I I always got the impression that planes were designed almost
without any consideration for the pilot, but I guess that's
maybe not true. I'm just wondering for this how
much you factor in the pilot's feedback and their needs.
So, you know, human factors is a big part of aircraft design now.
And I think, you know, maybe, you know, when the first
airplanes came out, there was less attention to, you know,
just give them the instruments. But now I think that's a big
part of, you know, how do you design the, the, the aircraft
instrument panel? How do you display information
so the pilot can make maximum use of it?
You know in in a in a safe manner?
You know, one, one thing unique about the the X 59 is it's, it's
an X plane. So you know, with the X-plane
approach, the idea is we have. We have certain key things that
we want to demonstrate and for an X plane you really want to
make that as small a set of things as as possible.
So for us, it's. It's all about, it's all about
the Sonic boom. So, you know, besides the shape
of the airplane, the airplane is kind of a.
You know a. Mishmash of parts from from
other airplanes here. We've got F16 landing gear,
we've got an engine from an F18, etcetera.
So the X-plane you know, just try and make it work.
So we did not spend a lot of a lot of energy on, on human
factors, but we did, you know, look at it.
So we got our pilots involved early.
On, you know, we knew, you know, we wouldn't have the screen, but
you know, we knew kind of beyond that kind of wanted to look
pretty much like a, a modern fighter aircraft inside as a
single seat airplane. But you know, the pilots got in.
We have a, we have a really very sophisticated, we have actually
have two, one at Lockheed, one at NASA, really very
sophisticated simulators. So that we put them in the
simulators, you know, with, with, with, you know, the
cockpit design in there and they were able to interact with it,
give feedback and then, you know, the, the design was
updated. Yeah, as, as we went along.
So it's it's, it's it's it's it's.
It's not a huge factor for the X 59.
It's a big factor for, you know, actual commercial aircraft.
So I was actually wondering as maybe a bit of a tangent,
there's obviously a lot of discussion about computational
fluid dynamics reducing the reliance of wind tunnel
technology. You know, if you can do more in
CFD and I believe for this program, CFD was a a big factor
in being able to, you know, iterate quickly and, and
visually see what what was going on.
But I was actually wondering, you mentioned about simulators
because obviously normally there's wind tunnel to CFD, but
then you have to do a flight test, you know, you actually
need to go out and do it. How much have simulator
technology advanced that you can model some of the sort of flight
test behavior through a simulator?
Is that getting also more and more accurate?
Much. More sophisticated, yeah.
And, you know, again, for X 59, it's, it's, it's, it's, you
know, it's a unique airplane that, you know, the design will
create some interesting, you know, some, some flight
characteristics that are not typical of, of, of fighters or,
or transports. So we really wanted to
understand how, you know, how, how those things worked and, and
how the pilot would interact with them.
So getting a simulation. So there's, there's so much
simulation that goes on now. There's, there's simulation
without the pilot, there's simulation with the pilot,
there's simulation without hardware, you know, like, like
the control actuation and the simulation with hardware.
So, you know, the whole simulation process is, is a huge
part of the, the aircraft design process right now.
So you know, like for X59, we, we did a lot of analysis, we did
do some wind tunnel testing. You know, there's still, there's
still design, there's still points in the flight envelope
where the CFD is not all that great.
So you like to augment your CFD analysis with with testing, but
you know, compared to previous designs, we didn't do a lot of
boom tunnel testing. As a matter of fact, we
finalized the low boom design, the boom, you know, quite boom
design of the X59 without doing wind tunnel test of the of the
geometry. So, you know, that's how far the
CFD has come. We put all this stuff in the in
the in the simulator. You know, it's been iterated on
a few times. So, you know, we're, we're,
we're, we're going into flight test with a very good idea of
what, what the pilot will experience flying the airplane
throughout the flight envelope. Yeah, it's, it is amazing how
the technology is sort of, yeah, moved on from that point of
view. Just maybe I'm trying to think
of a few questions, more practical questions.
So the noise, as you say, going over the the idea is it's a sort
of soft thump, which is less. It's something like, you know,
we used to everyday sounds like, you know, I guess drones just.
Distant Thunder or, you know, somebody's car door closing.
And we compare the the sound to to sounds like that.
But what about take off landing? I meant the, you know, you can
go on YouTube now and look at Concorde, it taking off and you
know, it was an absolute racket, smoke billowing out of the
engines. You know, like a real difference
to to like a normal aircraft. What what what's the not for the
X59 now? But I mean more just for like
theoretical design concepts. How much is the the engine
noise? Because it's, as you say, it's
not a conventional engine. How much is that different or
limiting factor? It's, it's again, we talked
about it earlier. It's one of it's another kind of
barrier technology that you know that we, we made a lot of
advances in the yeah, again, the X50 it's not, not an X 59.
We're just using existing engine, but as part of the, the
bigger technology program in, in NASA aeronautics, we call it's a
commercial supersonic technology project.
Airport noise is, is one of our, one of our, our big efforts.
So, you know, we're looking at the, the, the engine cycle, you
know, so we can't have a super high bypass engine, but at Mach
1.7 we can have some higher, we can have much higher bypass, you
know, much more fan component than the Concorde did.
So that's that's a major help. Our jet that you know, the jet
coming out of the back of the engine at subsonic that take off
is actually subsonic. It's not like Concorde was the
jet was fast coming out faster than the speed of sound, which
creates noise, you know, of its own.
So our jet is subsonic. We've got nozzle technologies
with which mix faster flow with slower flow.
So the aggregate results coming out the back end is slower.
And there's a whole idea of, you know, the propulsion
installation. Can you use that to, to help
reduce noise? So all of those things are being
studied and you know, we, we think again, we've, we've just,
we've done testing, but we think we've got a solution that can
make subsonic air, supersonic aircraft as quiet as the current
limits for noise for subsonic aircraft.
So that's a, that's a big improvement relative to where
Concorde was. So I guess the, the big question
on most people's minds is what, what do you think is the
likelihood of a commercial version of this?
What is the, there's obviously the research going on you're
doing, there's companies like Boom, but from what I could
gather, Boom, that design looked more like a traditional or more
traditional design than than, than what you have, I mean.
Yeah. So, so boom boom's approach is
kind of unique. They, they want it.
They, they, they, they, they, you know, they see that there's
a market now that they would like to capitalize.
They've talked about their next generation of airplane
incorporating, you know, boom shaping again.
They, they don't want to commit to doing a design for a low boom
aircraft without having a standard in place.
As a matter of fact, if they don't want to commit really to,
well, they're kind of committed, but they're work, They're
working with ICAO and the FAA is working with ICAO to put a noise
rule in place for supersonic aircraft landing, a take off
noise rule in place for supersonic aircraft.
So that would give them that certainty.
The work, the work with ICAO really started because there was
a group of companies that really felt that they could bring to
bring a supersonic business jet product, business aircraft
product to market if they had a regulation on on how loud that
it needed to be when it flew over land or how quiet it needed
to be when it flew over land. So there's, there's definitely
that market out there in the near term for a smaller
aircraft. NASA is still bullish on.
You know, if we continue this, continue down this path, there
are technology solutions out there which could make it
possible to, to design A, an airliner that could, you know,
serve a supersonic market. So what's what's stopping it?
So let's imagine the rules come out and they are essentially
aligned to what you already know from your simulations.
I, you know, because I presume you already have a, an estimate
and all all the flight test is doing really is proving it out.
I guess you know, you have analytical methods.
So let's just assume that they agree with your numbers.
Is it is the technology ready? Is it a case that, you know, a
Bombardier, a Boeing, or whoever the the company is can just
basically do it? I know, I know.
I'm massively oversimplifying things here.
Or is there still something missing that?
So I, I think that that for a, for a smaller aircraft, a
business type aircraft, the technology is very close.
The, the, the, the, the, the, the key challenge really for,
for a near term product is the engine, because you need, you
need something that, that gives you the efficiency that need.
And, but we'll meet that, that new landing and take off noise
rule. It's possible you could do it
with a, with a modification to an existing engine, change the,
change the front end, change the back end.
But more than likely you're going to need a, a new engine.
And and that's even that's magnified a little bit more for
the, for the larger product. You really need kind of a, a, a
bigger step in technology, in engine technology to to be able
to make the airplane meet noise and emissions limits.
For by big and small are you talking small being the hundred
person? No, I'm talking small being
yeah, the next step for Gulfstream say, yeah, an
airplane that's, you know, room for it, maybe 810 passengers or
maybe, maybe, maybe up to 50 like Boom was imagining with 40.
I can't remember exactly where their target is, but so that's
the smaller airplane. The the what we're thinking
about for the first generation of you know, airliner products
would be 100 seat around 100 seat airplane.
OK. So, So what I understand you're
saying that it's, it's the engine technology in some ways
that is the the more challenging technology and it obviously gets
a more important or challenging, the bigger, the heavier that it
becomes. Think of it as a business to can
be can afford to be a little less efficient because there's
people willing to pay for speed. But the airliner needs
efficiency, quiet and low emissions, which is a which
takes a new set of technologies. There there's ideas.
Out there, there's technologies. That kind of the the infant
level, infancy level, but they need to be mature.
And is there any, you know, how the economics work when when
something aligns to something else, there's double the reason
to do it? Is there any similar reason,
like a military reason or another reason that aligns this?
Or is this quite unique in some ways for a passenger supersonic?
The the, the military is not really interested in quieting
quiet that they they would look to have supersonic speeds.
They don't, It doesn't seem to be a a major requirement for
military missions, you know, at the moment, because if you look
what's out there now, the airplanes can go supersonic, but
not very supersonic. They don't certainly don't
cruise supersonic. Yeah, if they could do it, would
they? Yeah, maybe.
But yeah, they obviously, you know, other tech, other
requirements, you know, stealth and IR are kind of driving
military designs, which you know, the intersection between
that and low boom design is is not is not there.
So, so it really is, would you say companies are just hedging
their bet or waiting because they're just they're just not
sure when the rules will change. So it's almost hard for them to
put the investment in to start designing something If the
unclear is that also one of the key barriers to it?
Yeah, it comes and goes. I mean, there was, there was,
there was a lot of work going on a few years ago.
Some of the companies have, have put those efforts on the back
burner. Essentially.
I, I, I would say yes, they're waiting for those regulatory
guidance, you know, that, that, that, you know, understanding of
what, of what, what their design requirements will need to be
before they, before they plunge back into to, you know, look
into products. So maybe, and again, this is
always a common question, I must admit I'm guilty of sometimes
thinking the same. And you, you partially answered
it before, but maybe we could be more explicit if let's say the
supersonic 1.8 Mac number is solved.
So, you know, the new rules come out, there is sufficient
economic reason for the for the engine manufacturers to do it.
And a supersonic business jet comes out.
In your mind, what's the technical or economic potential
of a hypersonic passenger Travel?
OK, not 100 people, but you know, 20-30 people.
Mac 5 maxi Is that science fiction?
Is it? Is it?
Is it possible? Is it I wouldn't, I wouldn't put
it in terms of science fiction, but the you know, the challenges
are are are much, much greater than for for supersonic.
You get to you get to very high altitudes and you get to very
high temperatures when you get to Mach 4 and Mach 5.
So, you know, being able to design something that's
reusable, you know that the materials that will last for,
you know, for thousands of flights.
And then so there, you know, then some of the safety
considerations, you know, one of the things that airplanes are
designed for event of a depressurization, you know, the,
the, you know, there's a way to keep people, you know, keep up,
keep up people alive until the airplane gets down.
When there's when you're up at 7080 thousand feet, that's a
huge, huge challenge. So yeah, I know NASA is NASA is,
we have a hypersonics project. They're looking at hypersonics
technology more from the the point of view of, you know what,
what would it be for helping space launch?
You know, what would its applications be in space launch?
But again, we had this whole study looking at, you know, is,
is high speed flight a possibility?
Peter's opinion is it's going to be a very long time before the
technology is ready to even even take, you know, 8 or 10 people
into into, into hypersonic flight.
Yeah, it seems you. Know, maybe, maybe the, you
know, the whole idea of orbital transport, you know, will come
before, before hypersonic flight cause, and again, you know,
getting, getting people on board and making it safe and
economical is a, is a, is a big step.
Yeah, I think the overriding thing for most people is, and
I'm sure you feel the same being so passionately involved in this
project. There's always, normally we're
used to technology adoption being a linear thing.
You know, something gets faster, faster, faster.
And we almost never go backwards, do we?
You know, the internet's got faster, computers have got
faster. It's always a sort of
peculiarity that we did go supersonic and we were doing it
and now we've sort of got backwards.
And I always, I guess that's why for most people, supersonic
travel is such a intriguing thing because they know it used
to be. And I guess some people have
were lucky enough to fly in Concorde and maybe they even
more so wish it were still here. But for people like me, it's,
it's just a fascinating thing that we did it and now, you
know, I guess it's like going to the moon.
You know, we, we did it, but we haven't been back for quite a
while. And but I guess that's also
changing but. You know.
It's it's. Yeah.
I mean, you know, spaceflight did the same thing.
It was, you know, it was we needed that.
We needed that technology. There was a space, there was a
space race. So, you know, it was a stretch.
You know, the moon, the moon landing was a was a big stretch.
Concorde was a big stretch. And you know, maybe we stretched
a little too far, you know, prove that it was practical.
But for a supersonic flight, for example, revealed that there
were some, some things which, you know, which you have to, you
have to create a balance. You know, we like to go faster,
but we can't disturb people's lives.
You know, now we've got aircraft.
Aircraft are going to have to be sustainable.
They have to, you know, not, not contribute to, to, to climate
change. So there's more things to weigh
than just speed, which which, you know, again, kind of puts
barriers in the way of, of, of reaching that goal. 11 quick
question before I'd maybe a completely changed topic battery
technology, it's always been I remember for cars, there was a
point when people said it was never going to be available for
cars electric, you know, they have a a little golf buggy and
that's about it. There's no way it's ever going
to be for a car. And yet suddenly the whole
market started to transform and it really felt like there was a
step change in the adoption of electric.
I haven't been following it as closely, but where do you see
battery? Battery technology for aircraft
propulsion? I don't mean complete.
Background battery guy. But I.
Will say that, you know, in in NASA aeronautics, unique new
sustainable propulsion systems are, you know, are are, are an
area of intense interest. So we have a number of efforts
looking at yeah, battery powered electric flight for smaller
aircraft. We have something called the
electrified propulsion flight demonstration.
It's an effort that's going on right now.
There's there's two contractors, GE and Magne X Magnex has built
a number of electric powered airplanes already investigating,
you know, what it would take to get there.
Would it would it be battery? Would it be hybrid?
Would it use fuel cells? You know, all all those kind of
features towards, you know, making essentially non
combustion propulsion a viable option.
There's there's a lot of work that needs to be done.
But again, you know, like you said, I mean, when people, you
know, a few years ago, people couldn't imagine an electric
car, people couldn't imagine a a rocket that would come back and
land on. On.
The ground. So, so you know, never say, you
know, it's you try to challenge yourself, you know, to be
realistic and think about what you know we can do in the near
term, but you really should never say never.
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, being caught by some
scissors that probably wasn't on people's minds a while ago.
So maybe the maybe the final question for you, which is
you've worked for NASA for for decades now, I guess, you know,
maybe more than 30 years. What advice would you give to
people who are looking to start a career in aeronautics?
But what I know it's probably a question you get a lot, but what
would you be about if you, if you're somebody maybe in the
final years of school, thinking about university, thinking about
career, what would be your advice?
To that, well, I mean, one of the things I always tell people
I know I got a degree in aerospace, aeronautical
engineering, which you know, give me unique set of skills,
obviously, you know which got me into the aerospace business.
There are other degrees, you know, which you should, you
know, electrical engineering, you know, mechanical
engineering, all, you know, all of those things can give you an
opportunity to get into an aerospace field.
You know, for people in school, you know, there's, there's so
many internship opportunities. I, I, you know, I say, you know,
take any, any opportunity that you have to do that, you know,
take it because it, you know, gives you experience to, to help
you, you figure out what you really want to do.
It gives you exposure to how industry works and you meet
people, you know, who could, you know, kind of benefit, get
benefit for you when you start your career.
You know, beyond that, when you get to work, be a team player.
Be willing to do something that puts yourself outside of your
comfort zone. I was, you know, pretty much a
technology guy, you know, very happy doing my little aircraft
design work. My bosses kept pushing me to get
involved more of these multidisciplinary studies that
were going on. And then, you know, gave me, it
was a challenge for me, you know, to get out there and
interact with with people. But.
You know. Definitely gave me a skill set
which was, you know, really very important as I got into the
position where we helped create, I helped create the, the, the
program that eventually led to creation of the quest mission.
So, you know, by being able to work with people and, and, you
know, set common goals and, you know, set up an environment
where you can achieve those goals that, that was an old part
of the background. You know that that exposing
myself to, to just to things outside of, you know, just the,
the typical math and science help me, you know, help, help
set me on that path. And is there any in in now, I
guess as the aerospace industry is changing and the start-ups
around and you know, do you think how valuable is it for
people to, for example, do a PhD and go down the more academic
becoming an expert or how much of it is valuable to also gain
sort of industrial experience? You know, would you, if you're
looking at employing somebody, would you, would you like
somebody who's, you know, worked at different smaller aircraft
manufacturers or companies and bring diverse skills?
Or would you tend to say to people, no, go down the more
academic you know, doing a PhD or maybe becoming a research
scientist? Is there anything?
You've observed there's, there's benefits to, to everything.
Again, I, I talked about being, being able to work as part of a
team, you know, so to me, if I'm hiring people, someone who's had
that kind of experience would be, yeah, would be something
that I would look for, you know, to bring forward.
You know, that said, you know, we've got, we've got people, you
know, that have come to NASA from, from, you know, from
different higher education, you know, from PhDs, from, from
master's programs. And yeah, they're, they're just,
they're, they're brilliant, you know, so that puts them on the
right path to begin with. They've kind of honed that
knowledge. They've already maybe, you know,
got this idea that they can do something new and unique.
And you, you put them with a team that addresses all the
other aspects of that, that new and unique idea is that, and
that's how you get to breakthroughs.
And that's kind of, that's a lot of what happened with the the
design that, you know, the design that led us to.
X59. Well, thank you so much for
taking the time to speak. I mean, what I think I'll do is
I'll put a bunch of links for people to follow because I know
there's lots of, you know, videos and, and, and papers that
have been published on these things that maybe people could
dive into. And of course, you know, the
NASA, NASA website, nasa.gov/quest two s s there's,
there's all kinds of information about the, the project there.
People can sign up for our boarding pass which your, you
know, your date name will be digitally carried aloft on the
1st Friday, the X 59. And, you know, again, it's a
great way to interact with with with, you know, get information
about what's going on at NASA. Great well, I, I certainly hope
that it I'll have the opportunity to fly on a
supersonic aircraft and I, I, I'm sure that if it does happen
it will most likely be thanks to the work that you and your team
has done so anybody listening to this should be thankful of the
work that you and your team are doing because it might help save
us from 8 hour flights across to the US yeah we're.
We're just hoping, you know, again, it's, it's important that
yeah, whatever we do, the public buys into, you know, so getting
their opinion is all, all about all what quest is about.
But we do, you know, for NASA, you know, high speed flight is,
is just is, is part of our the kind of the, the foundational
things that we're, we're working towards.
Yeah. Well, thank you again.
Really appreciate. It was great to talk to you.
And yeah, good luck for the rest of the program.
Pleasure talking to you, Neil.