Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban
by davidw on Monday June 13, 2016 @05:22PM
(#11897769)
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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban
by mindslight on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:55PM
(#11899649)
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.