Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidw | Hacker News Reader

I don't really care much one way or the other, but the article does address this.

The actual externality is the noise/pressure wave, not the speed. It makes sense to regulate as close to externalities as possible, rather than banning sort of related upstream things.

In other words, if they can do supersonic without booms that cause problems, go for it. If they're unable to, well, then they keep flying so as to not produce them.

View on HN

I can only assume you’re being downvoted because folks are thinking that you can’t go supersonic without making a boom. While this may be true, it doesn’t change the fact that you make a good point - regulation should be made as close to externalities as possible. If it makes the upstream thing impossible, then fine, but let’s actually regulate what we want to regulate.

I saw that, I find that hard to believe unless they are flying extremely high. I think height was also mentioned.

But doesn't flying that high damage the ozone or something ? I thought that was one of the many reasons the concord was stopped (Yes, I know the real reason was financial). If so, many planes flying that high could cause other issues.

But some people will see if this happens.

> But doesn't flying that high damage the ozone or something

Well, then add that to the list of things that are prohibited, I guess and let them see if they can make it work.

Regulate the things we actually don't want, rather than the adjacent things.

What an unusually sane point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com