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

61–70 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#61

Post by AdamFernandez »

NickM wrote: post #35
themgt wrote: post #3

Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.

"Bad" names can attract lots of attention. Perhaps they're more interested in turning heads than setting up the best possible brand connotations.

The best possible brand connotations are an interesting way of putting it. When you are trying to get a company off the ground (figuratively) that is experimental in nature and will require a lot of capital investment, why hinder yourself with this 'bad' name right out of the gate? There are any number of edgy names they could have picked that people didn't associate with the last thing you want to have happen on an airplane. It is just unnecessary, and not well thought out. Even if the intent was to get attention, I wonder how many people at Boom talked to the founders and said: "Are we sure about 'Boom'?"

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#62

Post by ckinnan »

meritt wrote: post #21

Fastest jet in the world still doesn't solve tarmac delays at JFK.

Correct-- the real problem with air travel isn't the flight time but the terrible and inefficient process on the ground with security, customs, baggage claim. I'd much prefer a longer flight in a slower, less aerodynamic plane that was safer and roomier.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#63

Post by ohitsdom »

rdl wrote: post #9

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an alre…

> has made this economic.

That remains to be seen. They don't even have an engine yet, so this is still firmly in the "we'll see" category.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#64

Post by StavrosK »

rdl wrote: post #9

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an alre…

> single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart.

Was the LON-NYC flight time the problem, though? I think that to go door-to-door right now you spend 50% of the time in the air and the other 50% on the ground.

With this company, you'll be spending 3.5 hours in the air and 8 hours getting to and from airports and through security.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#65

Post by jonknee »

czinck wrote: post #26
themgt wrote: post #3

Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.

And I'm sure the TSA agents will love a bunch of people saying "boom" at the airport, although maybe if it desensitizes them to it it's a good thing.

You don't say "Boeing" when you go through TSA as it is. That said, this thing will never fly.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#66

Post by saganus »

themgt wrote: post #3

Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.

If they wanted to associate with a sonic boom..

Maybe.. SonicBee or something cuter?

Agreed that Boom is not a name I would immediately associate with sonic boom instead of ka-boom.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#67

Post by [deleted] »

NickM wrote: post #35
themgt wrote: post #3

Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.

"Bad" names can attract lots of attention. Perhaps they're more interested in turning heads than setting up the best possible brand connotations.

[deleted]

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#68

Post by ant6n »

It describes their values as something like 'fly long distance in the morning, do a bunch of meetings there, and be back before the end of the day'. Does it make sense to travel 20,000km on one day to make a bunch of meetings, spending 15,000$?

I feel that better tele-presence just makes more sense.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#69

Post by jonknee »

bscholl wrote: post #54
tommynicholas wrote: post #32

Super smart - make good margins on a use case for the wealthy to subsidize R&D and development of scale economics, hopefully eventually get that price down so we can all use it. Hope it works! (Writing this just to pre-empt the inevitable $5,000 THIS IS ONLY RICH PEOPLE comments :) )

Exactly. Already, this is way more affordable than private jets or Concorde. We'll keep innovating on fuel efficiency, so prices can keep coming down.

The major difference here is the Concorde was real and actually flew. A few guys with a cardboard mockup of a cockpit can toss out any number for what it will cost for a ticket.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#70

Post by oddeyed »

jondiggsit wrote: post #44
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 p…

Personally, I live in the present.

Snarkiness aside, I think you're mistaken. You can't say 'industrial use' or 'industrial output' and absolve yourself of responsibility. The electronics that you wrote this comment on were all built with yucky industrial machines, running on yucky industrial oil which had to pulled out of the ground by yucky, messy drilling machines. And the kicker is that people did all of that because they knew that you would buy the resulting device.

If no one bought them, they wouldn't make them! The industrial output is all there for your benefit. If we all decided that protecting the planet was more important and invested in making slower, more efficient travel more comfortable, then it would make a big difference.

EDIT: Also the kale salad thing - since you bring up industrial output from cattle farming being a major pollutant then surely you have just made an argument for eating kale salad instead of a tasty burger?

Post reply on HN