![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/2QNz7bkA1V.png)
Yes, they would reduce the overpressure. By how much I’m not sure, but that’s part of the research.
Yes, they would reduce the overpressure. By how much I’m not sure, but that’s part of the research.
They’re promising a perceived 75 dB level, equivalent to the volume of a dishwasher. Sonic booms are normally about 110 dB or about a jackhammer or a rock concert
And it’s not like you’d hear it all the time, just once in a while and only if you’re in the flight path.
I’m spooked by the fact that you have no idea how the US enriches uranium, or the difference between a power pressurized water reactor and a fast “breeder” reactor (if you were thinking of plutonium) or a centrifuge.
The US enriches uranium using a gas-centrifuge. The US also no longer recycles spent nuclear fuel, but France does.
My personal theory: to offset activity losses and show shareholders that they can still drive engagement.
NASA has no control of flight paths. The FAA also doesn’t specify sonic-boom allowed flight paths. They just outright ban it (with a few exceptions) for any boom that could reach anywhere in the US.
FAA also doesn’t want to deal with people complaining about sonic booms like they did back in the 50s when this all started (they received tens of thousands of complaints) so they have an interest in making sure NASA lives up to their promises.