371–380 of 488 posts
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.
What's your opinion on the Skylon engine? http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon Musk says that eventually we will move to VTOL supersonic electric jets, but he is too busy with other projects to implement it. Have you thought about this idea, and in what time frame do you think someone might try to implement it? Elon's basic idea is that air-breathing jets are limited to altitudes at which oxygen tops out, and then are mostly fighting drag from nitrogen. Electric ones can go to higher altit…
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
That's good news for ozone layer. Luckily this seems to be only a few guys, a wish, and a rendering.
> That's good news for ozone layer. Luckily this seems to be only a few guys, a wish, and a rendering. Sorry, what connection does this have with the ozone layer? The most sense I can make of your comment is that you're concerned about CO2 emissions from supersonic flight and don't understand the difference between global warming and ozone depletion.
I thought it was common knowledge. We learned about ozone layer hazards (and SST was among the most destructive ones) in elementary school (7th or 8th grade, Europe) when we learned about ozone layer.
Is it just me or "Boom" sounds like the worst-name-ever for an airline? I'm serious. My immediate association for "boom" is an explosion sound, not a sonic boom. I would feel just as comfortable flying an airline called "Bang", "Crash", "Kaboom", "Blast" or "OhMyGodWeAreGoingDown". Please, do rethink that name, I dream of shorter trips to Bora Bora every single day of my life (not serious now).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, Concorde was too big : 100 seats. It worked NY/London but at ~$20k/seat they couldn't fill enough seats several times daily on other routes. Which means you can't have many airplanes, which means no economies of scale. With 40 seats and business class prices, the Boom airplane works on many more routes, which means we can make a lot of airplanes and enjoy economies of scale. Looking into the future, as fuel…
> It worked NY/London but at ~$20k/seat they couldn't fill enough seats several times daily on other routes. Your price is way off. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...
Given the existence of business class only BA NY to City of London flights, there probably is a market for expensive supersonic routes, but it's probably still pretty small. International lawyers may value the back and forth in a day, but most people who fly business/first are probably fine with comfortable seating and a nice meal even if it takes a bit longer.
Can you carry enough fuel to do a non-stop flight from NYC to HKG or SIN or SYD? (You give SFO-SYD as an example, so NYC-HKG should be possible I suspect.)
The return route is often done over the Pacific (because of prevailing wind patterns), so there would not necessarily be a need to sonic boom over southeast China.
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.
The work in supersonic flight is fighting drag, which while many times larger that for subsonic does not have an appreciable weight dependency. Why would flying longer require more than proportionally additional fuel?
I'd rather enjoy the comfort of flying with Boeing. Track record means a lot and they have the balls to say they are working on a prototype like they are building an Android app.
loool, the article highlighting arrogance of SV is real.
tldr: no way I'm getting on this plane and neither should you, it looks dangerous as fuck.