alt.hn

7/1/2026 at 2:26:22 AM

Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2026/06/30/faa-supersonic-flight-no-boom/

by lobbly

7/1/2026 at 4:58:31 AM

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

by bearcobra

7/1/2026 at 4:55:48 AM

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!

by arjie

7/1/2026 at 11:45:14 AM

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?

by smt88

7/1/2026 at 3:18:56 PM

Increased adoption will put price pressure on traditional flights making them more affordable

by 4d4m

7/1/2026 at 5:16:51 AM

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.

by jauntywundrkind

7/1/2026 at 5:21:17 AM

> 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

by vlovich123

7/1/2026 at 9:15:31 AM

It still sounds like what I know of from sonic booms, a very pronounced hard thump. On a small model.

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.

I could be wrong but it seems so so so probable that this is going to make the world quite a lot worse.

by jauntywundrkind

7/1/2026 at 4:04:40 AM

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

by foobarqux

7/1/2026 at 4:24:26 AM

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

by asdfadsfgfdda

7/1/2026 at 5:06:13 AM

> 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.

by foobarqux

7/1/2026 at 5:00:13 PM

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.

by asdfadsfgfdda

7/1/2026 at 9:53:50 PM

Obviously it is assumed we are talking about frequencies in the range of the audio spectrum (which a sonic boom is). Your point has nothing to do with the dB scale.

by foobarqux

7/1/2026 at 4:23:38 AM

Because it's not continuous sound in one spot like a leaf blower is.

by gedy

7/1/2026 at 5:08:36 AM

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.

by foobarqux

7/1/2026 at 5:19:15 AM

People finding a way to tolerate what was previously considered intolerable is pretty much the story of civilization.

by HlessClaudesman

7/1/2026 at 5:29:18 AM

I'd argue that civilization is the story of people finding ways to overcome what they previously had to tolerate.

by auntienomen

7/1/2026 at 3:24:16 PM

If supersonic flight is so expensive that less than 1% of the population can enjoy it its not clear why the rest of us ought to tolerate it

by michaelmrose

7/1/2026 at 6:00:57 PM

You have to start somewhere before you can build towards an economy of scale that makes it affordable. If people used your same logic about regular airplanes, we wouldn't be using them today.

by ranger_danger

7/1/2026 at 6:57:38 PM

Supersonic flight will never be suitable for the masses compared to normal flight due to basic physics. It will always require much more expensive planes and more fuel.

It's not more viable now wealth inequality just means that there are more rich people to benefit.

by michaelmrose

7/1/2026 at 4:41:54 AM

> 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/

by LargoLasskhyfv

7/1/2026 at 3:27:21 PM

...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).

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.

by xoa

7/1/2026 at 6:02:29 PM

Most gunshots people hear are not right next to them and so won't be anywhere near 108 dB to them.

by ranger_danger

7/1/2026 at 5:11:09 PM

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.

by IAmGraydon

7/1/2026 at 7:34:19 PM

I believe the supersonic ban is/was on civilian aircraft.

by tsherb

7/1/2026 at 4:05:51 AM

[flagged]

by 7e

7/1/2026 at 4:36:59 AM

> 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?

by kshacker

7/1/2026 at 4:33:39 AM

Why are there multiple users with similar usernames posting hyper-negative comments?

by Robotbeat

7/1/2026 at 3:48:01 AM

Not sure how this does anything to alter the laws of physics. But I guess it's a step in the right direction.

by mattas

7/1/2026 at 3:54:40 AM

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

by majorchord

7/1/2026 at 4:32:22 AM

They’re no longer sonic booms under the appropriate conditions. They still make some noise, as does, for example, high speed rail.

by Robotbeat

7/1/2026 at 5:44:55 AM

They are in fact the same. 108dB loud.

by foobarqux

7/2/2026 at 4:15:31 AM

A sonic boom and a loud sound are not, in fact, the same thing.

by Robotbeat

7/1/2026 at 5:14:15 AM

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.

by anjel

7/1/2026 at 4:17:43 AM

[dead]

by jacobgold

7/1/2026 at 4:02:32 AM

If you really want to make an impact on the noise floor, ban gasoline leaf blowers.

by imglorp

7/1/2026 at 5:06:27 AM

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.

by dstroot

7/1/2026 at 9:17:18 AM

Hey, DC resident. We've banned gas leaf blowers.

Maybe perhaps possibly, but this is not my experience at all, ever.

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.

by jauntywundrkind

7/1/2026 at 3:26:12 PM

Gas blowers pollute which is the primary reason to ban them.

by michaelmrose

7/1/2026 at 6:22:11 PM

How many gas blowers do I have to run to be one Taylor Swift?

by nullocator

7/1/2026 at 9:10:32 PM

I love the idea of "one Taylor Swift" becoming a standard unit of measurement for pollution!

by ryandrake

7/1/2026 at 4:56:57 AM

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.

by weinzierl

7/1/2026 at 4:48:34 AM

>> ban gasoline leaf blowers

These things are indeed "The Devil's Hairdryer"

by tanseydavid

7/1/2026 at 4:56:10 AM

Air quality, too. Leaf blowers re-suspend carcinogens like brake dust and other fine particulate matter. Honestly just an awful practice all around.

by bloudermilk

7/1/2026 at 4:07:09 AM

The proposed limit is around the level of standing right next to a leaf blower.

by foobarqux

7/1/2026 at 4:24:03 AM

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.

by imglorp

7/1/2026 at 5:10:39 AM

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.

by foobarqux

7/1/2026 at 9:20:58 AM

Yeah, and it's entirely unexpected. Just, out of the blue, boom. A deep shaking sound wave blasts you.

The people defending this don't seem to know what a sonic boom is like. Even if you diffuse it some, it's a ridiculous force. These are huge jets. This is going to be a new ambient disruption that makes every single day worse, filling the world with din, every day, for possibly billions of people.

This is such a downgrade to the world. While the ultra-rich Tiphares style look down on the world.

by jauntywundrkind

7/1/2026 at 4:38:10 AM

[dead]

by Rekindle8090

7/1/2026 at 4:27:35 AM

Weed wackers too

by donkey_brains

7/1/2026 at 5:17:56 AM

Up next is boom's line of of landscape blowers

by anjel

7/1/2026 at 3:31:16 PM

[dead]

by cligcow

7/1/2026 at 4:01:16 AM

[flagged]

by yulker

7/1/2026 at 4:25:19 AM

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.

by vlovich123

7/1/2026 at 4:37:02 AM

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.

by idle_zealot

7/1/2026 at 5:10:21 AM

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.

by vlovich123

7/1/2026 at 5:49:57 AM

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).

by vlovich123

7/1/2026 at 4:47:57 AM

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.

by dingaling

7/1/2026 at 3:28:55 PM

Is that why you flagged the parent comment for critiquing progress?

by michaelmrose

7/1/2026 at 5:14:08 AM

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.

by jauntywundrkind

7/1/2026 at 4:30:37 AM

[flagged]

by Robotbeat

7/1/2026 at 4:41:08 AM

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.

by atonse

7/1/2026 at 5:05:19 AM

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.

by markbao

7/1/2026 at 4:47:22 AM

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?

by thin_carapace

7/1/2026 at 4:43:20 AM

[flagged]

by MrBuddyCasino

7/1/2026 at 4:40:37 AM

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.

by zpeti

7/1/2026 at 12:46:50 PM

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.

the mark of a good discussion is that you can respond to a contrary opinion without getting triggered by it.

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.

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.

by em-bee

7/1/2026 at 3:57:06 AM

[flagged]

by 7e

7/1/2026 at 4:13:33 AM

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.

by CSSer

7/1/2026 at 4:30:09 AM

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.

by DannyBee

7/1/2026 at 4:55:48 AM

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.

by pibaker

7/1/2026 at 6:22:05 AM

[flagged]

by SidewaysView

7/1/2026 at 4:33:59 PM

WTF? Please don't comment like this on HN. It breaks multiple guidelines. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

by tomhow

7/1/2026 at 3:57:59 AM

[flagged]

by goldfishgold

7/1/2026 at 4:27:00 AM

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.

by brandall10

7/1/2026 at 5:46:04 AM

Where is this claim?

by foobarqux

7/1/2026 at 4:06:30 AM

No NIMBYism on stolen land.

by _m_p

7/1/2026 at 4:07:33 AM

Put that on a T-shirt!

by CSSer

7/1/2026 at 4:10:09 AM

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 smt88

7/1/2026 at 4:54:15 AM

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.

by jaymmartin

7/1/2026 at 4:59:28 AM

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.

by boelboel

7/1/2026 at 11:43:59 AM

I had no agency in being born and raised here. Are you saying that by staying in this country, I’m now responsible for stealing land 200 years ago? And my responsibility for stealing this land means I can’t be upset about supersonic jets?

by smt88

7/1/2026 at 1:52:10 PM

we are as a whole responsible for making the world a better place. everyone with their capacity and their ability to do something. now, i am not trying to judge what you are doing, nor am i suggesting you are not doing enough already. that's not the point. by living in the US you are however in a better position to work on this particular cause than i am living elsewhere. not because you are responsible in the sense of being guilty, but you, and everyone else in the US, is responsible in the sense of there being a wrong that needs to be righted.

otherwise we could just say nobody is responsible because it was all someone else. but if that someone else is not alive anymore then it is up to the current society to step up and fill in. guilt is not required. would you help orphan children whose parents died in an accident even if you were not involved? then why not help these people who have been deprived of their land and are now without the ability to govern themselves? the people of israel got their ancient homeland back after 2 millennia and were allowed to form a sovereign nation long after anyone could reasonably be called responsible for taking their land away. so why not do the same of the native american nations too?

the question is not: are you responsible? but: is there a wrong that needs to be fixed, and are you in a position to contribute to fixing it?

but to your last point: this has nothing to do with being upset about supersonic jets. actually i believe as far as it is reasonable native americans would be upset about noise pollution too, so you would probably be arguing their side here anyways.

by em-bee

7/1/2026 at 4:11:39 AM

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

by staplers

7/1/2026 at 5:53:25 PM

Calling supersonic commercial flight 'nothing good' is certainly an opinion.

by ranger_danger