Air travel revolutionized the world, bringing everyone on Earth a little closer together. Airplanes themselves are marvels of engineering, a testament to humankind’s ability to literally expand our horizons. So how’s the actual business of sitting down in a cramped seat in a metal tube for hours on end listening to a crying baby these days? Not that great, really.
That was the main appeal of supersonic commercial travel — you wouldn’t have to be on the plane as long. Breaking the sound barrier like a fighter jet, a supersonic flight could get you from New York to London in just three hours. Going in the right direction across time zones, you might actually arrive at your destination before you left.
Yet despite the obvious appeal of fast travel, no supersonic commercial jet has flown since 2003. Why in the world did we, as a civilization, decide that flying at paltry subsonic speeds was the better way to go?
The promise — and pitfalls — of supersonic flight
The Soviet Union first flew the Tupolev Tu-144 in 1968, which could achieve an astonishing Mach 2.15. A joint enterprise by France and the U.K. countered with the legendary Concorde with its first test flight in 1969. Though slightly slower than the Russian plane at Mach 2.04, the Concorde was far less problematic and outlived it by decades. Still over twice the speed of a subsonic jet and cruising at double the altitude, the Concorde heralded a new age of travel.
Except, it didn’t. Flying fast comes with a major downside in the form of explosive shock waves known as sonic booms. At their worst, these are powerful enough to shatter glass, which is a rather large problem in, say, an entire city. These supersonic flights are also extremely noisy, violating strict noise pollution standards. For these reasons, the Concorde was limited to transoceanic travel from London to New York and Paris to New York, only occasionally (and briefly) experimenting with any other routes at all. That severely restricted the demand for the aircraft, resulting in just 20 being produced, six of which never flew passengers.
On top of that, the Concorde was fuel thirsty, with twice the burn of a Boeing 747, which was bad for both the environment and costs. In today’s money, a round trip ticket would cost a passenger the equivalent of $66,000. Suddenly, that crying baby on the subsonic flight didn’t sound so bad.
Could we have supersonic again one day?
With dwindling interest plus rising maintenance costs over the decades, the Concorde only needed one bad day to get pulled out of the air. That day sadly came on July 25, 2000, when 113 passengers died in a crash. With public confidence shattered, the last Concorde flew in 2003.
Is there any way we might see supersonic planes return one day? Actually, yes! NASA is right now on a quest to do just that, specifically its Quesst mission to develop a plane that produces what terms mere sonic thumps rather than full-on sonic booms. If it can nail that technology down, transcontinental flights over populated areas would become feasible, making a much stronger business case.
In fact, a number of startups are already picking up this challenge to produce supersonic commercial jets again. Just this year, Boom Supersonic successfully tested its XB-1 jet, purportedly without any sonic booms, and the company has already sold several dozen (still unproduced) planes to United Airlines, American Airlines, and Japan Airlines. Various other companies are in the development stages as well. If all goes well, you might just be able to arrive before you left soon.
