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

311–320 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#311

Post by Inthenameofmine »

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.

I wonder how Virtual and augmented reality will change that. Just being able to Skype or use Whatsup with my clients during the day, ad-hock, has hugely changed the way I build business relationships.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#313

Post by theothermkn »

nharada wrote: post #226
bscholl wrote: post #192

Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly. Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.

Why do you think that other established players haven't entered this space (i.e. Boeing, etc)?

Nobody wants to be first in this space. Because of the fuel costs of supersonic travel (the flow is inherently dissipative above Mach 1), the margins are too tight for anything but business class travel. As soon as you have a supersonic option, you've moved business class out of your subsonic fleet, along with that revenue. With the loss of the effective subsidy of business class, coach costs go up, and the market shrinks due to elasticity of demand.

That said, if your competitor fields a supersonic option, you have to, too, because you'll just lose business class to your comp, which is worse than losing it to yourself.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#314

Post by Axsuul »

jonknee wrote: post #268
nether wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people did SpaceX start with? Certainly not the thousands of workers it has today. Everything you said about requiring a "national scale corp" was said about launching rockets to orbit as well. Looking at Boom's roster they have some seriously experienced industry vets working for them or advising them. This isn't just fresh grads. They've been through FAA/EASA cert trials of new aircraft, testing and unders…

SpaceX has also had a lot of stuff blow up. That's fine with a rocket, but it's a company killer with a new plane.

I wouldn't put a passenger jet in the same category as rockets when it comes "things that could blow up". The safety factor of an airplane is substantially higher than a rocket. The Concorde was even one of the safest jets before it had its first hull loss in 2000 due to a metal strip on the runway that punctured its fuel tank. Boom's jet is more likely to fail due to external factors such as human error or negligence.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#315

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#316

Post by neurotech1 »

JorgeGT wrote: post #128
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....

A CJ610 engine doesn't have complicated electronics to integrate, and would allow aerodynamic test data from a subscale model. For comparison, the two J85 engines in a F-5E could push it to over M1.4 at altitude.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#317

Post by manarth »

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.

Does $15,000 matter, to people earning $50,000 a day?

Does $15,000 matter, as a business expense on a billion-dollar deal?

I agree tele-presence makes sense, but when $15,000 means as much as the price of a Starbucks coffee means to you and I, the price is so irrelevant, it's like us meeting for coffee, saying to each other "I'll get the bill", and then thinking it's more effort than it's worth to even bother expensing it.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#319

Post by putzdown »

bscholl wrote: post #192

Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly. Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.

Terrific premise; I hope you succeed. But advice:

1. "boom" is not the right name. Explosions. Annoying/scary sonic boom. These are not the associations you're looking for. Try "glide," "zip"—something along those lines.

2. In your very first team picture I see a grumpy-looking fellow with hands in pockets. A few images on he's still there, now joined by another grump with crossed arms. These people look disengaged and/or disgruntled. Call me shallow, but it just doesn't look right for a team supposedly revolutionizing aviation. Ask your team to look engaged when taking PR photos. Or if there's a deeper attitude/team dynamics issue there, man fix it now. I don't want my life "booming" into oblivion because some guy was fed up.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#320

Post by flashman »

WatchDog wrote: post #301
schwarrrtz wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specific energy of kerosene is ~40 MJ/kg [0] while the specific energy of lithium ion batteries is ~1 MJ/kg [1]. Unsure how much energy you'd save from the difference in drag, but I'd guess that significant improvements in electric energy storage would be required to make an electric plane doable. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Properties [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

Plus a conventional airplane sheds weight as it travels.

Nothing that recoverable drop-tank batteries can't solve. I'm mostly kidding.
Post reply on HN