Nasa to test ‘quiet’ supersonic flights over Texas

As a fluid dynamicist, I'd say closer to the opposite is true. The shapes might look good, but ask a person not trained in basic fluid dynamics to explain what makes a particular shape aerodynamic and they'll likely do poorly.

Boundary layer separation phenomena seems to be inherently unintuitive. I can recall talking about aerodynamics with someone very smart but untrained in the field. They seemed focused on the high pressure zone created in front, with no consideration of the size of the low pressure zone in the back. (In a simplified view of the problem.) If the boundary layer separates prematurely, it creates a larger low pressure zone and increases drag. So the shape of the back of an object matters to its drag. There's a reason airfoils are elongated and not just smooth fronts with abrupt ends.

And the intuitive understanding most people have would not suggest that roughening an object could decrease its drag. But this is a well known phenomena explained by boundary layer separation as well.

(Note that I don't know much anything about supersonic aerodynamics and what I say here is only what I know about subsonic aerodynamics. I am not an aerodynamicist, just a guy who works broadly in fluid dynamics.)

Engineering is a form of Art.

I.e. we have an innate ability to identify a good swimmer's body, because we as a species are (potentially) good swimmers.

A one-way trip on Concorde was about $5000, and for that money, you got an old-school business-class seat (they never updated the interior of Concorde), no overhead bins, no internet access, no entertainment system of any kind. For that same money, you get the all-encompassing cocoon of the modern business-class pod on a 787. It may take twice as long, but you don't care because you're comfortable.

Meantime, we're getting closer to manned hypersonic flight, Mach 5+ with combined cycle engines. Considering the development time necessary for a new airliner, especially with experimental technology like new supersonic engines, I think the LockMarts and Boeings of the world are waiting for more of that technology to mature. It would suck to develop a brand new Mach 2 airliner just in time for someone else to build a Mach 5 airliner.

Also, the Mach 5 designs using ramjets would fly high enough (>80,000 feet) that sonic booms are really not an issue. The SR-71 at Mach 3 and 80,000 feet was virtually inaudible.

Much of the experimentation going on around shaping sonic booms is proving contemporary fluid dynamic models that show that you can "customize" your N-Wave and make the kind of boom you want to make.

Interesting times!

There are Boom engineers lurking around HN, probably one of them can pitch in and comment.

And the chances for electrification are even more remote than for subsonic planes -- at least its conceivable that electric propeller planes could work, in 50 years or so.

That's an odd way to describe the most accessible era of global travel in human history. It's not like first class tickets, which provide a comparable experience at a comparable inflated-adjusted price, aren't available to bring back the 60s.

There are more travelers who want a cheaper ticket than there are those who want, more than cheaper tickets, (a) more comfort or (b) faster travel. Evidence for this is in the demand for cheap tickets with long layovers and repeat flyers in basic economy.

Aside: personally I'm waiting for someone to take up the Avrocar, aka the original flying saucer UFO. It's basically the jet version of the helicopter or quadricopter drone from an aero engineering tradeoff standpoint. At one point the Army thought that they'd stop buying jeeps and start buying flying saucers instead, but the Avrocar project fell apart for dynamical stability reasons. It was just too difficult to keep it in level flight during flying regime transitions, and they weren't able to design a control interface a human could use to compensate. But that was with 50's tech, and I'm pretty sure with modern ML techniques you could design a fly-by-wire feedback response control system that would have no trouble stabilizing Avrocar or an improved version of it, just like Stanford got a helicopter to fly upside down (a very analogous stability regime actually). It would fill the niche for medium-distance drone transport or perhaps short-range personnel transport (like choppers).

And saving fuel is in everyone's best interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Concorde_Project

An incredible achievement of technology and engineering, but an environmental disaster.