Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

boom.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#41

Post by ropiku »

beeboop wrote: post #33
ropiku wrote: post #15

One issue with this is the "boom" (from their name). It only works across non-populated areas due to the noise as their sample routes show. It's going to severely limit the opportunity.

I would guess this mostly designed for ocean crossing flights. Their example is NYC to London, as soon as you take off from NYC you're over the ocean. By the time you accelerate to mach 1.12 and are at the appropriate altitude, you'd be far enough away from the city for the boom to not matter.

Exactly, that's what I said. There are may across ocean routes but this means it limits its market and the routes it can run. It also makes less sense to have it as a single private jet.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#43

Post by bscholl »

beeboop wrote: post #33
ropiku wrote: post #15

One issue with this is the "boom" (from their name). It only works across non-populated areas due to the noise as their sample routes show. It's going to severely limit the opportunity.

I would guess this mostly designed for ocean crossing flights. Their example is NYC to London, as soon as you take off from NYC you're over the ocean. By the time you accelerate to mach 1.12 and are at the appropriate altitude, you'd be far enough away from the city for the boom to not matter.

That's correct. We're starting with overwater supersonic because there's no regulatory barrier to launching service. You can make a much quieter sonic boom than Concorde, and eventually supersonic overland will be allowed.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#44

Post by jondiggsit »

staceymakano wrote: post #18

And the environmental impact is... what? Amazing that this is not a consideration, especially since we are now in emergency territory: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/global-wa... It's great for you to leave SF in the morning, go to Sydney to watch the opera and be back in SF by midnight. But is the environmental impact of you doing that worth it for everyone else?

Absolutely worth it. We live in the future. If you can fly half way around the world to watch an opera and be home by midnight, do it.

Riding your bicycle to work isn't going to save the planet, neither is reconsidering a flight.

Environmental concerns should be that of multi-national corporations and governments. The 1% flying around the world isn't killing the planet. It's industrial output from cattle and energy production for electricity (coal, nat gas, oil) and fossil fuels burned for industrial use.

I'm tired of the misplaced moral imperatives. Change needs to happen on a global, industrial scale, not in your decision to eat a locally-grown kale salad.

Wake up people.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#46

Post by josephjrobison »

caractacus wrote: post #23

The photo of the engineer in what is clearly a cardboard mock-up: http://boom.aero/assets/boom-3-cd0822d52cb5c9ecaac404d5cfd09... .... does not inspire confidence.

This is called Lean Design and saves millions http://www.leanconstruction.org/about-us/what-is-lean-constr...

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#48

Post by rubidium »

caractacus wrote: post #23

The photo of the engineer in what is clearly a cardboard mock-up: http://boom.aero/assets/boom-3-cd0822d52cb5c9ecaac404d5cfd09... .... does not inspire confidence.

Cardboard mock-ups are extraordinarily helpful in making real the space that will define the product (as opposed to CAD drawings). They are regularly used in rapid prototyping.

The fact that they aren't waiting before having a final metal frame before testing for instrumentation fit is a plus in my book.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#49

Post by bscholl »

teraflop wrote: post #37
caractacus wrote: post #23

The photo of the engineer in what is clearly a cardboard mock-up: http://boom.aero/assets/boom-3-cd0822d52cb5c9ecaac404d5cfd09... .... does not inspire confidence.

Presumably they're just testing the ergonomics of their seat/cockpit layout, or something along those lines. Unless you're worried that they're actually going to try to build an airplane out of cardboard, I don't see what the problem is.

This is what a scrappy airplane startup looks like in the early days. The wooden mockups validate sizing and ergonomics before you lay down expensive carbon fiber.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#50

Post by bduerst »

danielschonfeld wrote: post #25
sremani wrote: post #14

As tangent, instead of focusing on NYC to London, a Mach 2.2 travel actually will make travel from Americas to Asia more comfortable. US to India and US to China routes benefit the most, and perhaps where people will be interested in paying top-dollar vs. Europe.

I believe the problem with those was always the sonic boom created by flying at > 1 Mach. It shattered windows on the ground. Could be wrong tho

Supersonic flight is banned over populated areas. I'm not sure if it's from shattering windows or not.
Post reply on HN