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

121–130 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#121

Post by petercooper »

mapleoin wrote: post #87
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.

It gets scarier, they compare it to the Concorde based on price: Unlike Concorde, flying Boom is affordable—the same price as business class. Ok, so the Concorde had some critical engineering faults, making it cheaper definitely sounds more secure.

Prior to the (2000) accident, Concorde had been arguably the safest operational passenger airliner in the world in passenger deaths-per-kilometres travelled with zero

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#122

Post by ant6n »

btown wrote: post #96
ant6n wrote: post #68

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.

In the financial world, where the physical presence of a trusted deal quarterback (who may fill that role for multiple deals at once) makes all the difference, the answer is a resounding yes. I love telepresence as much as anyone, but the reality is that nothing replaces a good firm handshake at the right moment, and nothing will unless we start living the majority of our waking hours in VR.

So tele-presence needs to be good enough to transmit that good, firm handshake.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#123

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#124

Post by URSpider94 »

ant6n wrote: post #68

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.

You have just described a huge fraction of my adult life. Take my word for it, being there in person is still the only way to close critical business deals.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#125

Post by rdl »

ant6n wrote: post #68

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.

Telepresence will definitely be a greater and greater percentage of the market. The overall meeting-market is also expanding. I think the subset of the market which ends up as in person meetings will continue to expand for a long time.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#126

Post by jsprogrammer »

jessaustin wrote: post #71
aidenn0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they could make it quiet enough to go over land, transcontinental US flights would be great; LA/NY in 2.5 hours would likely have a pretty high demand. [edit] As someone who flies LA/DC fairly regularly I do have to mention my favorite record of the SR-71 doing that flight in under 65 minutes.

I wonder if the "no booms over land" rule will always remain in force. When I was a child, the planes from Whiteman AFB broke that rule quite often. It was interesting to hear the boom over the phone when speaking with a school friend who lived say eight miles away, and then immediately hear the whole house shaking when the plane got to my end of the circuit. It would have been annoying at night, I suppose, but durin…

You may not have minded your entire house shaking, but most would probably quickly grow to resent such unnecessary disruption.

It's a good way to kick everyone in a large region out of their zone. If this was a constant occurrence, work may quickly cease, or become greatly diminished.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#127

Post by robotresearcher »

ido wrote: post #79
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…

The top speed of a 747 is 0.85 Mach, so it should cut the duration by more than 2x.

Speed only matters for the cruise part of the flight. The first and last 45 mins, plus airport time are not different. The slowdown portion of a Mach 2.2 flight will be even longer.

(edit: maybe not much on the slow-down: see Concorde data via link below)

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#128

Post by JorgeGT »

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.

What does not inspire confidence in me is that they are toying around with what appears to be a small General Electric CJ610 turbojet engine, developed in the 60s from the earlier J85. Doesn't seem like the best propulsive plant for a supersonic airliner!

Their engine: http://boom.aero/assets/press-bg-7481f004eff02964a90134c6a46... Reference picture: http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t301/planedr2k7/100_0177....

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#129

Post by monk_e_boy »

saganus wrote: post #66
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.

We used to have concord fly over our house at supersonic speeds and the BOOM BOOM was fucking annoying day in day out.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#130

Post by davidad_ »

philrapo wrote: post #86
bduerst wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is there any reason you can't fly subsonic over land, then accelerate to supersonic over the ocean?

Supersonic-capable aircraft tend to be absurdly fuel-inefficient when operating subsonic (for aerodynamic reasons I don't really understand).
Post reply on HN