The "no" is why it isn't really an internalized cost.

It's the same with any sort of pollution - what's the minimum I can pay someone in order to put up a insert smelly, explosive, noisy, etc. factory? Or to put in off-shore windmills which affects peoples' sea views? Or schedule airport takeoffs at 2am?

(I forgot another complication: does the payment go to the landowner or to the resident? Or both?)

Regarding "likely better than a blanket ban", a goal is to develop methods that reduce the effect of the sonic boom "to make overland flight acceptable." This is also better than a blanket ban, and doesn't require a new way to approximate impact costs and manage payments.

> Regarding "likely better than a blanket ban", a goal is to develop methods that reduce the effect of the sonic boom "to make overland flight acceptable." This is also better than a blanket ban, and doesn't require a new way to approximate impact costs and manage payments.

You can't put the cart before the horse. You have to get rid of the ban in order to make the whole thing worthwhile.

I see now that "blanket ban" is an incorrect description. As I understand it, the current prohibition is that supersonic planes (except Concorde) are allowed, so long as they are below a given noise level. Here's the law, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.821 :

> Except for Concorde airplanes having flight time before January 1, 1980, no person may operate in the United States, a civil supersonic airplane that does not comply with Stage 2 noise limits of part 36 in effect on October 13, 1977, using applicable trade-off provisions.

Going back to an article from 1973, at http://elr.info/news-analysis/3/10067/faa-promulgates-strict... :

> The policy underlying this regulation puts the burden of establishing the environmental acceptability of supersonic civil aircraft flight on the proponent, rather than on the affected public. However, the FAA has also made available reasonable opportunity for aircraft manufacturers to prove the environmental acceptability of supersonic flight if they are able to control sonic boom research without harmful effects on the public.

The problem appears to be that airplane manufacturers cannot meet the existing noise level, so instead want the FAA to say what higher level is allowed. This places the cost and responsibility on the government rather than the manufacturers. So of course the manufacturers would like to shift that expense to someone else.

This is silly, you could hear the noise for tens of miles to either side of the flight path. Think about how high the plane was and how far the noise has travelled.

So are you proposing the compensation be one-time and significantly greater than the standard transaction fees on real estate? For reference, they're around $10k on an inexpensive house.

It'd have to be ongoing, I think. It's probably not as simple as a few lines in a comment on HN, no, but is a blanket ban on something potentially useful a good idea, just because it's simple? My inclination is 'no'.

Sure, but the usual outcome of such proposals is merely to placate those affected with less compensation than the actual harm caused, and to erode such payments over time after the affected have lost their veto. Honestly carrying out such a plan costs more than businesses are generally willing to pay, especially when their dollars go much further by corrupting the political process directly.

Blanket bans have costs for people, too, though. In this case, we're not talking about dumping toxic sludge in a river, either, but about a sonic boom.

Pollution is all in the amount. One drop of toxic sludge in the Pacific is okay. One sonic boom a month (like when the Space Shuttle came in, or from military flights), is okay.

What about 1 per day? 10 per day? 100 per day? What are the limits? Who determines the limits? Who bears the burden of dealing with the pollution - sludge or noise - and how are their voices heard?

As I pointed out elsewhere, the existing prohibition does not appear to be a "blanket ban". If your supersonic plane is sufficiently quiet, I believe it is allowed to fly. The problem is that we don't know how to build planes which are that quiet. What's at issue is who pays for figuring out which higher noise levels are acceptable - industry or the government. And industry doesn't like the current government answer.

You're demonstrating my point itself, by switching to a completely different talking point rather than fleshing out methods to earnestly compensate those affected.

Because it's a HN comment, not a scientific study on exactly what the best methods are. Sheez! The point is: if you spend some time thinking about it, you can probably find something that works 'ok' even if it's not perfect, thus 1) allowing supersonic flight and 2) internalizing the cost so that the market functions and there's some consideration of the costs to people in the flight path.

If it were so easy to do, why haven't the aircraft companies been able to propose a solution?