And because there are no people in a place, it's completely OK to pollute this place with noise, by burning bunker fuel, dumping unused munitions or mabye even nuclear waste there, ... you see the problem with this mentality?
> And because there are no people in a place, it's completely OK to pollute this place with noise, by burning bunker fuel, dumping unused munitions or mabye even nuclear waste there
Boom won't burn bunker fuel, nor will it dump munitions or nuclear waste, so how is this relevant? Some of those are real problems, but none of them will be made worse by Boom.
Oh, I also doubt fish (or other life in the ocean) won't mind a small increase in temperature in the ocean, or tiny sonar noises a few hundred kilometers away, or an increase in above-surface CO2 levels, or ...
> a small increase in temperature in the ocean, [...] or an increase in above-surface CO2 levels
Those are permanent, globally occuring, chemical phenomena. A sonic boom is a very temporary, very local, mechanical phenomenon. You cannot draw any conclusions from one to the other.
> tiny sonar noises a few hundred kilometers away
Sonar originates from within water, while sonic booms originate in the air. Most of the boom's acoustic energy will probably be reflected by the transition from one medium to the other.
I think marine life will most likely be a lot less disturbed by sonic booms than by naturally occuring storms.
I will bet money that if this plane ever starts carrying passengers, Boom will immediately start lobbying for overland supersonic bans to be lifted. Shareholders would demand it.
Pardon my lack of enthusiasm for yet another fight between privatized gains at the cost of socialized harms.
For sure you hear it above 10km, it just does no destroy a window.
> Supersonic operations over land must be conducted above 30,000 feet or, when below 30,000 feet, in specially designated areas approved by Headquarters United States Air Force, Washington, D.C., and the Federal Aviation Administration.