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

391–400 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#391

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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.

This is so exciting. When I was younger, one of my big to-do list items was to someday ride on the Concorde. That dream is no longer possible, but flying on one of your planes might be!

I was amazed to see the regression in flight technology from cancelling the only supersonic passenger plane without a successor. Glad to see someone taking up the reins.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#392

Post by sethhochberg »

ghaff wrote: post #164
ElijahLynn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think that the people that can afford this have Uber helicopter service to/from the airport and all the line skipping extras paid for already. Not sure it is really 8 hours to and from airports/security.

At one point in New York, it was pretty routine for first class passengers on Pan Am to take a helicopter from JFK to the Pan Am building, which had a helipad on the roof. The service may even have been included as part of the fare. (This service was discontinued after an accident though, at least for a time, I believe there was still service to a helipad next to the East River.)

There are still several services providing service to JFK from Manhattan helipads. Blade is one example: https://www.flyblade.com/

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#393

Post by ocdtrekkie »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #323
bscholl wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're baselining an experience better than domestic first class. One seat on each side of aisle, so everyone gets a window and aisle. There's more footroom and more headroom than the typical first class on a 737 or A320. But this is something airlines can customize.

Ah, I see; it wasn't obvious from the pictures on your site that the plane is significantly smaller, closer to commuter-jet sized than 747-sized. What's the total plane seat capacity?

In case you didn't see earlier comments, they said it was 40 seats.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#394

Post by pjscott »

jandrese wrote: post #244
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…

The no commercial sonic booms legislation might go away if it were an American company asking for it. I have no doubt that the Concorde being foreign owned helped speed that legislation through Congress. Of course being a little no-name company won't help matters much here, but I expect that actual production of this would involve a partnership (or probably buyout) with one of the big name companies that have a lot o…

If they can get supersonic passenger planes flying over the ocean again, they won't be an obscure company anymore.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#395

Post by kuprel »

schwarrrtz wrote: post #245
btilly wrote: post #240

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

Specific energy of hydrogen is 142 MJ/kg. Why not a hydrogen fuel cell powered electric jet?

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#396

Post by cpeterso »

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.

What are some positive associations with booms?

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#397

Post by pacificmint »

bscholl wrote: post #338
pacificmint wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had always thought that the small size of the Concorde was what made the per seat cost so expensive and held the Concorde back economically. So my expectation was that to be economically successful, you'd have to build a supersonic plane that carried more people. Clearly you know more about this than me, but can you elaborate on why my view isn't correct?

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…

Thanks for explaining that, I had never looked at it that way. And good luck to your venture.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#398

Post by dsyko »

reso wrote: post #261
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.

Given that sonic booms are one of the main reasons the Concorde didn't work, is calling your company "Boom" the best idea? Half-kidding. Having said that, I'm a huge Concorde fanboy, and I really hope you guys can make affordable supersonic travel a reality!

Also given the association that "boom" has with explosions, a very bold name choice.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#399

Post by [deleted] »

eloff wrote: post #372
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

To be fair, you can manufacture kerosene from renewable electricity. If you use carbon from the atmosphere, it's even completely carbon neutral. Think of it as a less cost efficient, but more energy dense battery. I kind of doubt that batteries are the way to go when energy density matters.

[deleted]

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#400

Post by shrewduser »

dsyko wrote: post #398
reso wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that sonic booms are one of the main reasons the Concorde didn't work, is calling your company "Boom" the best idea? Half-kidding. Having said that, I'm a huge Concorde fanboy, and I really hope you guys can make affordable supersonic travel a reality!

Also given the association that "boom" has with explosions, a very bold name choice.

i am also perplexed
Post reply on HN