Overview of Sonic Boom Reduction Efforts on the Lockheed Martin N+2 Supersonic Validations Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the N+2 Supersonic Validations contract with NASA, Lockheed Martin has developed system-level solutions to the barriers to supersonic commercial flight, with a particular focus on the technology required to design and validate shaped sonic boom vehicles for acceptably quiet flight over land. LM’s past experience, commercial design and analysis tool advances, commercial partner expertise and NASA methodologies were successfully combined in the shaped boom design process. In the second phase of the N+2 program, we continued the work started in Phase 1 by improving low-boom performance over the full boom carpet and adding fidelity to the design in key areas including structures and aeroelastics. NASA’s support for extensive validation testing uncovered the cause of prior long-standing difficulties with sonic boom wind tunnel measurement, and resulted in the development of a “spatial averaging” solution that combines better than required accuracy with an order-of-magnitude improvement in productivity. The LM 1044 configuration designed and tested during this program has demonstrated that it is possible to develop an environmentally compliant, practical, and high efficiency supersonic transport aircraft for the next generation of air travelers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it