
Supersonic jets are making a comeback. Here's what that means for air passengers
It's the first step in Boom's ambitious goal to have supersonic airliners carry passengers by 2029.
But what exactly is supersonic travel? There are good reasons why it's not more common, despite the hype.
The Mach number is defined as a plane's speed divided by the speed that sound waves move through the air. To 'break the sound barrier' means to fly faster than the speed of sound, with Mach numbers greater than 1.
The Mach number is an important ratio: as a plane flies, it disturbs the air in front of it. These disturbances move at the speed of sound. In supersonic flight these disturbances combine to form shock waves around the vehicle.
When people say you can see a fighter jet before you hear it, they're referring to supersonic flight: fighter jets can travel at around Mach 2.
The sound from the fighter jet is trapped inside its shock wave; until the shock wave moves to your position on the ground, you won't hear the plane.
For efficiency reasons, most passenger jets cruise slightly slower than the speed of sound, at around Mach 0.8 (this is subsonic flight).
Boom plans to build an airliner called Overture that can fly at Mach 1.7. Flying supersonically can drastically decrease flight times. The company claims a trip from New York to Rome on Overture could take just four hours and 40 minutes, instead of eight hours.
Boom isn't the only company working on this lofty goal. American firm Spike Aerospace is also developing a supersonic business jet, with the tagline 'delivering the world in half the time'.
This is the value proposition of supersonic passenger travel.
In limited ways, it did already exist in the 20th century. However, due to timing, bad luck and the laws of physics, it didn't continue.
Designs for supersonic airliners began in the mid-20th century, and by the 1970s we had supersonic passenger flight.
There was the little-known Russian Tupolev-144 and Concorde, a Franco-British supersonic airliner operated by British Airways and Air France from 1976 to 2003.
Concorde had a capacity of up to 128 passengers and cruised at Mach 2. It regularly travelled from London to New York in around three hours. The flights were expensive, mainly shuttling business people and the rich and famous.
Concorde was designed in the 1960s when it seemed like supersonic passenger transport was going to be the next big thing.
Instead, the Boeing 747 entered commercial service in 1970. Cheap, large and efficient airliners like it blew Concorde out of the water.
Designed to cruise efficiently at supersonic speeds, Concorde was extremely fuel inefficient when taking off and accelerating. Concorde's expensive, 'gas guzzling' nature was a complaint levelled against it for most of its lifetime.
A catastrophic 1973 Paris air show crash of the competing Russian airliner, Tupolev Tu-144, also shifted public perception on supersonic flight safety at a time when many airlines were considering whether or not to purchase Concordes.
Only 20 Concordes were manufactured out of the planned 100. It is still disputed today whether Concorde ever made money for the airlines who operated it.
Remember the fighter jets? When a plane travels supersonically, its shock waves propagate to the ground, causing loud disturbances called sonic booms. In extreme cases they can shatter windows and damage buildings.
In the early 1970s, sonic boom concerns led the United States government to ban supersonic passenger flight over land in the US. This hurt the Concorde's potential market, hence its only two regular routes were trans-Atlantic flights principally over the water.
The Concorde was also a very loud plane at takeoff, since it needed a lot of thrust to leave the ground.
A future for supersonic travel relies on solving some or all of the issues Concorde faced.
NASA and Lockheed Martin's Quesst project aims to show sonic boom can be dissipated to manageable levels. They plan to fly their X-59 supersonic aircraft over US cities and gauge responses from citizens.
Quesst aims to use the geometry of the X-59, with a long elongated nose, to dissipate sonic booms to a weak 'thump', hopefully allowing supersonic airliners to travel over land in the future.
Spike Aerospace's Spike S-512 Diplomat concept also aims to be a 'quiet' supersonic aircraft with a less disruptive sonic boom.
Boom Supersonic doesn't plan to fly supersonically over land. Its plan is to fly over land at Mach 0.94, which it claims will allow 20% faster overland travel than standard passenger airliners, even subsonically.
It also claim the design of its engines will ensure Overture is no louder than modern subsonic airliners when it takes off.
In terms of gas-guzzling, it plans to use up to 100% sustainable aviation fuel to reduce emissions and its carbon footprint.
Concorde was made of aluminium using design tools available in the 1960s. Modern design methods and modern aerospace materials such as titanium and carbon fibre should also allow Overture and similar craft to weigh much less than Concorde, improving efficiency.
While Boom is currently receiving a lot of interest, with orders from many airlines, Concorde did have similar commitment before it become available. Most of it didn't eventuate.
Additionally, Concorde was the product of an analog era when the idea of flying to London or New York for the day for an important business meeting seemed like a necessary thing. In a world of remote work and video meetings, is there still a need for a supersonic airliner in the 2020s?
For now, supersonic airliners like Overture are likely to remain in the realm of the rich and famous, like Concorde did. But with modern technological advances, it will be interesting to see whether supersonic passenger travel once again becomes reality — or even goes mainstream. Only time will tell.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Wealthiest Suburb in Each of America's 50 Largest Metro Areas
Rocky89 / You might have some familiarity with the nation's 50 wealthiest suburbs, as ranked by GOBankingRates in July 2025. But what about the wealthiest suburbs in the 50 largest U.S. metros — such as Miami, Los Angeles and New York? Discover More: GOBankingRates Original Research Center View Next: Mark Cuban Says Trump's Executive Order To Lower Medication Costs Has a 'Real Shot' -- Here's Why For this study, GOBankingRates used the U.S. Census 2023 American Community Survey to find the 50 largest metropolitan areas by population and identify the cities with the highest average household incomes within each Metropolitan Statistical Area (as defined by the Census). Qualifying suburbs must have a minimum of 5,000 households and not be principal cities. Each suburb's 2022 and 2023 household mean incomes were sourced and the CPI inflation calculator was used to find the 2022 household mean income's value in 2023. The Zillow Home Value Index was referenced to source each suburb's average single-family home value in 2025. The one-year change in dollar amount and percent was calculated for the inflation-adjusted household mean income and the single-family home value. The rankings for each suburb are based on population, with the most populated MSA first. Alex Potemkin / Getty Images/iStockphoto Key Findings Scarsdale, which ranked as the wealthiest suburb in the nation, is obviously therefore the wealthiest suburb in New York City. Over the course of one year, the household mean income in Scarsdale increased by 2.45% while home values went up by 4.60%. The wealthiest suburbs in the five biggest cities are Scarsdale (New York City), Palos Verdes Estates (Los Angeles), Hinsdale (Chicago), University Park (Dallas) and West University Place (Houston). The wealthiest suburbs in the Midwest have average incomes of $161,000 on the low end (Mason, Ohio) and as high as $376,000 (Hinsdale). Four Florida suburbs ranked in the top 50 with average incomes above $180,000: Pinecrest (#9), Keystone (#18), Lake Butler (#22) and Nocatee (#39). Here are the wealthiest suburbs in the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, ranked by population. Find Out: I Asked ChatGPT If a Recession Is Coming Soon — Here's What It Said Learn More: Here's How Much Every Tax Bracket Would Gain — or Lose — Under Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Alex Potemkin / Getty Images/iStockphoto 1. Scarsdale, New York Suburb of: New York City (19.8 million) Household mean income 2023: $601,193 Household mean income 1-year growth change (%): 2.45% Average home value June 2025: $1,607,856 One-year home value change (%): 4.60% That's Interesting: J.P. Morgan Offers 3 Reasons the US Dollar Is Losing Value — and Why It Might Be Good for Your Wallet joebelanger / Getty Images/iStockphoto 2. Palos Verdes Estates, California


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Trump administration wants to squash clean energy. How bad will it be for California?
Before President Donald Trump was elected for the second time, catastrophic wildfires sent electricity prices soaring and posed one of the biggest continuing threats to energy affordability in California. Today, there's another major factor. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has thrown up roadblocks for clean energy development at a time when electricity demand is rising. In nearly a dozen policy directives, the administration is ending subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar and adding regulatory hurdles that could slow new development. These actions, some renewable energy advocates say, could drive up electricity prices even more nationwide and especially in California, a state pushing new large-scale wind and solar projects in its race to ensure homes and businesses are powered solely by clean energy sources by 2045. 'It's going to hurt affordability for literally every person in this country," said Merrian Borgeson, California climate and energy policy director with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Trump has repeatedly complained that wind and solar farms are eyesores that take up too much space and are too reliant on government subsidies. His administration has quickly reversed policies promoting renewable energy, while clearing hurdles for gas- and coal-fired power sources. 'We will develop the liquid gold that is right under our feet, including American oil and natural gas,' Trump wrote on social media. 'And we will also embrace nuclear, clean coal, hydropower, which is fantastic, and every other form of affordable energy to get it done.' However, Trump's view of renewables overlooks how much less expensive experts say they are to develop compared to gas and coal. A June report from Lazard asset management firm found that 'utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation,' even with no government subsidies, and that the cost of building new gas turbines had reached a 10-year high. 'It costs less to build a new clean energy power plant than to just operate an existing fossil fuel plant,' said Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at UC Berkeley. The actual impacts of Trump's policies to utility bills, if any, aren't yet known because most have yet to be implemented. One of the most impactful changes may be the abrupt end of tax credits that can save clean energy developers at least 30% on costs. That tax credit was slated to begin phasing out in 2032, but the Trump administration has changed the deadline to Dec. 31, 2025. The American Clean Power-California is urging state agencies to speed up approvals of projects currently under review so that they qualify for the federal tax credits before they sunset. Without the tax credits, developers could be paying between $400 million to $650 million more per gigawatt of large-scale solar or wind resources currently in the pipeline, according to an association memo submitted to the CPUC. That could boost costs by as much as 60% over the lifetime of a project, according to the association. These aren't direct costs to ratepayers but could eventually filter into utility bills. Utilities pass the costs of buying energy directly to customers. For example, roughly 38% of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. residential bills go toward power the company generates and power it buys from power producers. PG&E spokesperson Lynsey Paulo said that the company is currently not aware of any impacts to new power projects related to changes in federal policies. The company 'met our residential and small business customers' electricity use with 98% greenhouse-gas free electricity in 2024,' she said. PG&E will continue adding greenhouse gas-free sources of electricity 'to reduce emissions across our energy system and make progress toward our goal of net-zero emissions by 2040 at the lowest possible cost,' she said. Alex Jackson, executive director of the power association said there is now a race among developers to qualify for the subsidies and tax breaks before they expire. But he said the state has a lot of tools to push projects forward despite federal policies. 'California is a big state. It has a lot of influence,' Jackson said. 'It's not helpless in this fight.' State regulators this summer fast-tracked a massive new solar project in Fresno County slated to include more than 3 million solar panels and the largest solar energy battery storage system in the world. Called the Darden Clean Energy Project, it was the first project approved in a new process designed to reduce regulatory hurdles. The project developer, a subsidiary of San Francisco-based Intersect Power, didn't respond to a request for comment from the Chronicle. But Borgeson said that the project is unlikely to face federal pushback because it is on private land and primarily required state approval. A California Public Utilities Commission spokesperson said there are 'hundreds' of clean energy projects currently in the pipeline. 'We are actively assessing how recent changes in federal tax, tariff, and land use policy may impact the long-term prospect for projects planning to come online to serve California – but so far 2025 has continued to see robust development of new resources,' said Terrie Prosper, CPUC spokesperson. But it's not just heavily Democratic California that relies on clean energy sources. Wind is an important power source in states like Texas and Oklahoma, and solar power is critical in sunny states like Arizona and Nevada. In an Aug. 4 letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo warned that new federal policies toward clean energy had already stalled important solar energy projects for the state and would harm his state's 'business-friendly environment.' 'Solar energy development on federal land fuels Nevada's economy,' he wrote. Many energy experts are hopeful that California will continue using its economic clout to continue fueling the clean energy boom despite federal headwinds. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently reported that the state brought a record amount of clean energy online in 2024 – about 7,000 megawatts – boasting in a news release that the state 'has never added so much capacity to our grid in such a short amount of time.' The state must triple the amount of clean energy to meet its 2045 goal – and solar is a significant part of that. Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president for California at the Environmental Working Group, criticized California for slashing incentives for rooftop solar at a time when energy demand is rising and the federal government is hostile. 'We can't place all the blame on Trump. Newsom has unwisely engaged in a zero sum game of pitting one form of renewable energy against another (rooftop vs utility scale),' Del Chiaro said. With the many hurdles it is creating for large-scale projects, the federal government 'has a great deal of power to slow and delay clean energy projects, which results in higher costs,' Kammen said. Even so, Kammen said he doesn't expect it to impact utility bills in part because electricity prices are influenced by many other factors including natural gas markets. Plus, momentum for new clean energy projects is strong because 'it costs less to build a new clean energy power plant than to just operate an existing fossil fuel plant,' he said. 'The clean energy transition has left the station,' Kammen said.


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
The UK Shows How Not To Do Online Age Verification
The first week of implementation for the U.K.'s Online Safety Act (OSA) has been anything but smooth. Upon going into effect on July 25, popular online services ranging from X to Discord and even Spotify, requiring users to show ID before engaging with content on their platforms. Users turned in droves to downloading virtual private network (VPN) apps to avoid the requirements of the law and browse with their privacy intact. It's a very American response to the imposition of the British government's age verification rules, and it led the U.K.'s Secretary for Science and Technology Peter Kyle to suggest on live TV that every time an adult uses a VPN, it leads to the harm of a child online. U.S. advocates of similar digital regulations should take notice of how badly this is going. The aim of protecting children online is a worthy goal, but it is impossible to ignore the OSA's nature, which is a thinly veiled effort to normalize censorship in the U.K. and expand surveillance of British citizens and guests within their borders. A boy participates in an online lesson for his kindergarten class while schools remain closed to help slow the spread of COVID-19, in Chicago, Ill., on April 3, 2020. A boy participates in an online lesson for his kindergarten class while schools remain closed to help slow the spread of COVID-19, in Chicago, Ill., on April 3, of the primary problems with the Online Safety Act lies in its overly broad language regarding the types of content it polices. The text requires sites that host pornography and other content deemed "harmful," whatever that means, to verify that users are over the age of 18. With penalties as steep as 10 percent of global revenue and potential jail time for repeat offenses by firms, platforms are understandably overcorrecting and taking an overzealous approach to requiring ID checks in hopes of avoiding liability. For example, in order to access your Spotify account, users will need to submit their ID so that they can listen to music again on the platform, or risk their account being scrubbed. The distinction here is worth highlighting, because while some music can be profane, you can see how the law flattens graphic video content and audio content, or, put more simply, words. It's no shock that users are soundly rejecting this approach by the U.K. government by turning to VPNs. These services, such as ExpressVPN or Surfshark, have quietly empowered individuals to take control of their digital privacy, whether to protect themselves on public Wi-Fi, avoid algorithmic price discrimination, or download large peer-to-peer files online. And yes, people use VPNs to access explicit content or simply new music that is geoblocked. When a new album by your favorite band drops, Australians are usually jamming to it 12 hours before most Americans. Originally designed in the 1990s to help businesses secure remote connections, VPNs are a critical and mainstream tool for everyday internet users seeking to protect themselves in an increasingly surveilled online world. By encrypting data and masking IP addresses, VPNs shield users from hackers, corporate trackers, and even government surveillance. In an era where data is currency and digital freedom is under threat, VPNs are not a fringe convenience or an indication of nefarious activity by the user. It may only be a matter of time before the United Kingdom considers restricting VPNs altogether. They make total control infeasible. That's why Secretary Kyle had to appeal to Brits with a scare tactic about harming children with VPNs. The government passed a law that standard digital tech makes a mockery of, and that most online users under 50 know how to bypass. VPNs aren't the only way users are skirting age verification requirements. Video gamers playing Death Stranding have tapped into more creative solutions for getting past such regulations by leveraging the in-game photo modes to fool age verification software. When U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently told President Donald Trump, "We've had free speech for a long time, so, er, we are very proud of that," one had to wonder—what exactly is he proud of? Is he referring to the 30 people a day his government arrests for posting "offensive" things online? Or perhaps he is proud of the fact that his government was threatening Americans with criminal charges for not complying with his government's Online Safety Act? And while the OSA was done under the guise of protecting kids online, the government is also inexplicably engaged in a Streisand effect moment, with its agency announcing it was investigating four companies operating 34 pornographic websites. Essentially, by calling it out, the regulator told minors where they can go to access pornographic content without the need to utilize age verification. The Online Safety Act is a masterclass in unintended consequences and symbolic rulemaking. Britons are pushing back with a petition to repeal the law, which has already gathered over 450,000 signatures. American lawmakers would be wise to pay attention and avoid making the same mistakes in Congress. We can protect children without sacrificing the foundational principles of a free and open internet. James Czerniawski is the head of emerging technology policy at The Consumer Choice Center. His work has been featured in the New York Post, Newsmax, U.S. News and World Report, and more. Follow him on X/Twitter @JamesCz19. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.