On a typical day, the atmospheric pressure varies by maybe 150 Pa, or 3 psf. By definition, that’s 137 dB. But it’s imperceptible because the rate of change is so low.
It’s not accurate to convert .1 psf to dB because it’s an impulsive shape, not a continuous tone. And human loudness perception depends on how smooth (low frequency) the shape is
The engine load is probably a steady, consistent magnitude. While a landing load is rapid and variable. Also, you need to design legs for wind loading after landing, which can be high if you want to launch often.
I think the original plan was to convert the heat back into electricity with a turbine. So the higher temperature of sand would greatly improve thermodynamic efficiency.
Yes a storm could damage the coal plant with some small probability. But now you have replaced the coal plant with batteries + solar. Solar will be disabled by every large storm due to cloud cover. The grid will certainly be less reliable.
Pilots still fight turbulence today, usually by changing altitude. If this system allows the plane to stay at optimal (but turbulent) altitude, it could save fuel.
Private car insurance companies are pretty sophisticated, so they certainly know if a certain vehicle is causing higher claims and will price accordingly.
But, IMHO, the legal minimum liability insurance policy is way too low. A serious car accident could easily cause millions in personal injury damage. Most US states require only ~$50k personal injury coverage.
In theory, a faster airplane is more productive (fly passengers farther in the same amount of time). So crew and capex costs are lower per mile. Maybe a crew can fly New York-London and then fly back, vs a subsonic airliner with a crew that flies one way, stays a day for crew rest, then flies back.
There are many in CA that are ridiculous. Most are not related to safety, but likely due to lobbying from some industry.
Fire sprinklers are required in single family homes. The very small incremental safety benefit is far outweighed by the initial cost, maintenance cost, and potential failures (more plumbing to leak). If you really wanted to improve fire safety, make it cheaper to replace 1950s-era houses with new construction!
Solar panels are required for new homes, which ironically adds a small amount of fire risk (like all electrical devices). This is required in areas with cloudy conditions, or houses that are shaded by trees. The cost per watt is ridiculous compared to how cost-efficient utility scale solar has become. Not to mention the safety risk to solar workers on a second-story house.
Just in plumbing code, there are several ridiculous restrictions. Some jurisdictions allow air admittance valves, others do not at all. ABS pipe is illegal for commercial buildings, but just fine for residential. IPC allows 1.5" vents for toilets, but UPC requires 2".
These are gas-cooled reactors, and much lower power output. Existing designs for Navy reactors are all pressurized water reactors that produce hundreds of MW.
There's also a challenge in waste heat. Ships have basically unlimited seawater, but they are probably designing this to use minimal (or no?) water.
Depends on the customer. An occasional (1/year) flyer? Probably not. A frequent flyer? Yes, by direct observation and indirect anecdotes. There are also very sophisticated customers, like large businesses. They definitely look at cancellations and delays when selecting an airline.
It's a glider, but a glider capable of mach 3 flight. So, approach speeds will be much faster than a typical glider. Probably higher speed than an airliner. That would be dangerous to land off field.
Also, it could mean the vehicle is exposed to aerodynamic conditions it is not designed for, operating outside of the flight envelope.