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

131–140 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#131

Post by mikeryan »

jonknee wrote: post #65
czinck wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Funny I had assumed that Boom was the name of the "airline" but on second look the name seems to be both an airline and the name of the plane?

Or is the 5k just a price point for selling the plane? Now I'm confused what these guys do...

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#132

Post by rdl »

jessaustin wrote: post #117
rdl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of that route would be over the Pacific, so it would be fine, too (although ex-West Coast US). It might be a fuel issue on distance, but probably not. Also potentially an ETOPS range issue. However, there are three big issues with transpac: (not impossible issues, but strong reasons why NYC-LON is ideal as MVP) 1) Greater number of destination cities on each side; for transatlantic, NYC-LON really is the main ma…

NYC-PEK or NYC-PVG would be awesome, but there's a lot of inland there. A lot of really sparsely populated inland. How politically influential are the Siberian fur trappers this route [0] overflies? Enough to counteract the fat overflight fees that Russia likes to charge? [0] http://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper/rout...

You are right -- there would be a bit of extra subsonic about 150km into Canada, but it would work.

Flight time at 2.2 would still suck, but there could be a market. Probably depends on the total traffic between the city pairs, since some fraction would pay for supersonic coach-size business vs subsonic business/first.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#133

Post by kriro »

Naming aside this seems to be positioned really well. 5k NYC/London in that time is quite the game changer. I like how they position it to cater to the busy executive who'd love to spend more time with their family.

How can you position it so well and chose such a bad name :D Either way really excited for this even though I'm likely to fly on it 0 times.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#134

Post by monk_e_boy »

URSpider94 wrote: post #124
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.

This. That's why silicon valley. That's why working remotely doesn't work very well for most people. Non verbal communication is very important for trust.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#135

Post by unclebucknasty »

mmcclure wrote: post #95
NickM wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Case in point: Soylent

I still don't get that name choice. I'm guessing it's tongue-in-cheek, but in the back of my mind I still can't help wonder whether it'll turn out to be some sick prank. Then, it's like "well, it was right there on the label".

I know the chances of that are next to nil, but why even put that image in potential customer's heads?

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#136

Post by kbenson »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #73
AdamFernandez wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn't associate it with anything negative the first time when I saw the headline. Didn't even think about it being a bad name till I read the comment. Not sure as many people will think it is negative as you think.

Well, what they think when they first see it, and what they think after it's made the rounds of the late shows (Kimmel, Colbert, Fallon, etc) might be entirely different. This is low hanging fruit.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#137

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

#138

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

#139

Post by ant6n »

lnanek2 wrote: post #88
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.

If being there in person gives you a 2% better chance to close a million dollar deal, then it already makes sense to blow $20k on the ticket.

You mean a million dollar profit deal

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#140

Post by api_or_ipa »

No where does it mention proposed range. This is a big deal: with thirsty supersonic cruise, your fuel mass fraction will exponentially grow according to the Rocket Equation. Simply put, the more fuel you carry, the more fuel you must carry to bring that fuel along.

Flying twice the distance will mean >>2x the fuel. LON-NYC might be attainable, but tran-pacific will certainly be difficult.

Post reply on HN