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

181–190 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#181

Post by kilroy123 »

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…

Very skeptical this little company can go all the way with this. Look at how hard it is to get a new automobile company up and running. Tesla almost went completely bankrupt more than once.

I do think there is a need and market for faster than sound air travel. We have the technology to even minimize the sonic booms for over land travel.

Still, it would take an enormous amount of capital to get a new company up and running. I would love to see an innovated tesla-like company in the aerospace industry though. It's badly needed, IMO.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#182

Post by esaym »

Looks interesting. Anyone know what kind of tech the IT systems are built on? I'd be interested in sending a resume. I actually used to have a valid A&P mechanic's license. Always wanted to do software development for airlines but the large enterprise style environment has always turned me off.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#183

Post by petercooper »

zokier wrote: post #176
petercooper wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't the deaths-per-km generally zero prior to the first accident of any airliner?

How may airliners are in service for 24 years before their first fatal accident? (The 717 is up to 17 years. The A340 is almost at 24.)

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#185

Post by esaym »

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…

I think I've only heard one in my life. It was on surfside beach TX where I lived at the time. I was on a dock and heard a really low thunder sound. I can't say that it was "loud" like it would hurt your ears, but it really rattled everything around me (including my insides). And with that the neighbor's dogs came running over to me with their tails between their legs, and off in the distance I could here a jet really cuttin' through some wind.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#186

Post by cylinder »

kilroy123 wrote: post #181
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…

Very skeptical this little company can go all the way with this. Look at how hard it is to get a new automobile company up and running. Tesla almost went completely bankrupt more than once. I do think there is a need and market for faster than sound air travel. We have the technology to even minimize the sonic booms for over land travel. Still, it would take an enormous amount of capital to get a new company up and r…

I honestly started laughing halfway through scrolling because I thought this was satire mocking the startup scene. Wow.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#187

Post by ant6n »

jessaustin wrote: post #154
jsprogrammer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but these were 1980s-era fighter/trainer jets flying at probably 1000 ft., and it only shook the whole house when they flew pretty close. Other times one might only hear the boom when outside. I think a passenger craft of recent design of recent materials, flying at 40k ft. could do much better, even before routing to avoid populated areas. I don't think anyone, even those who live on ranches in the Dakotas, re…

I don't think people have the right to pollute noise everywhere.

And I do wish humans where mindful about the noise pollution the dump where 'nobody lives'. The noise emitted by shipping vessels is having a harming effect on sea life.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#188

Post by jessaustin »

sjm-lbm wrote: post #172
jessaustin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At least one real-world test was conducted about how people acclimate to sonic booms[1] with an eye towards seeing how people would take SST airliners. It didn't go very well. In general, it seems that enough people do think it a hardship to kick up a fuss that will keep SSTs from being a reality over the US for awhile. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests

You're right, it has been awhile since the mid-60s. If we were talking about flying F-104s and B-58s, that would be very relevant information. As I understand it, Boom are developing a new aircraft. They're probably aware of that test and indeed lots of other information about supersonic flight.

This whole "engineering vs physics" question reminds me of the misunderstandings people have of modern radio technology. Yes, in the 1920s they had to divide the spectrum into exclusive-use bands so that any particular use could transmit and receive clearly, but that was a limitation of engineering, not of physics. In the 2010s that is not a limitation we face, in general. Likewise, I expect that with modern materials and engineering software, progress can be made on the sonic boom issue.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#189

Post by bscholl »

kilroy123 wrote: post #181
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…

Very skeptical this little company can go all the way with this. Look at how hard it is to get a new automobile company up and running. Tesla almost went completely bankrupt more than once. I do think there is a need and market for faster than sound air travel. We have the technology to even minimize the sonic booms for over land travel. Still, it would take an enormous amount of capital to get a new company up and r…

Yes, we've taken a lot of inspiration from what Elon has accomplished at SpaceX and Tesla. Supersonics are technically challenging and capitally intensive. But the world should have faster travel—and it doesn't look like the big aerospace companies are about to make it happen. (I'm a founder at Boom)

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#190

Post by [deleted] »

ejcx wrote: post #34

I'm reminded of the first half of "Web Design: The First Hundred Years"[0]. Commercial planes have not gotten faster and have in fact gotten slower. I personally agree with the sentiment of the blog post, that a 5 hour flight across the atlantic is fast enough but it's still neat to see startups getting in to this space. 0 - http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm

[deleted]
Post reply on HN