Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout • Hacker News Board

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#121

Post by grkvlt » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:03 AM UTC

clintonb wrote: post #110

na85 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real problem is that the Concorde wasn't fast enough to justify the cost. Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip. Might as well save several thousand dollars and take a longer flight. I believe they would have to cut the flight time down to about an hour…

> Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip. Security lines weren't a thing until 2001. The Concorde operated from 1976 to 2003. The retirement was due to low passenger count due to a crash in 2000 and 9/11 in 2001.

im guessing if you really need, and can afford, supersonic travel then either it'll be like flying business/first or you'll have top tier ff status with the airline, and queues etc are much less of, or even a non issue.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#122

Post by NickNameNick » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:07 AM UTC

alfalfasprout wrote: post #118

DomenicoMazza wrote: post #18

If I recall correctly the Concorde used about 2 tonnes of fuel rolling on the ground alone.. I wonder how this new aircraft fares for fuel consumption? I believe the Concorde is a marvel. You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! However I don’t think we need more environmentally unsustainable travel.

The reason for that is that the concorde used afterburners (basically, pump fuel into the high speed exhaust for extra thrust) which are incredibly inefficient. Great for a fighter jet where you need a sudden burst of extreme thrust, but not something you want a long-haul airliner to use. Boom uses turbofan engines to reach supersonic speeds which are much, much more efficient. In fact, many airliners could theoretic…

Concorde had afterburners, but only used them for take-off and breaking through Mach 1. And they were optional for both.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#123

Post by catalogia » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:13 AM UTC

dreamcompiler wrote: post #111

DomenicoMazza wrote: post #18

If I recall correctly the Concorde used about 2 tonnes of fuel rolling on the ground alone.. I wonder how this new aircraft fares for fuel consumption? I believe the Concorde is a marvel. You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! However I don’t think we need more environmentally unsustainable travel.

> You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! You can do that in a conventional jet at latitudes far from the equator. You can walk faster than the earth rotates if you're very close to a pole (very very close).

> (very very close).

Eh, within 15 miles or so. 4MPH * 24h = 96 mile circumference circle, 96 miles / 2pi ~= 15 miles.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#124

Post by bogomipz » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:15 AM UTC

na85 wrote: post #102

DomenicoMazza wrote: post #18

If I recall correctly the Concorde used about 2 tonnes of fuel rolling on the ground alone.. I wonder how this new aircraft fares for fuel consumption? I believe the Concorde is a marvel. You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! However I don’t think we need more environmentally unsustainable travel.

I think the real problem is that the Concorde wasn't fast enough to justify the cost. Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip. Might as well save several thousand dollars and take a longer flight. I believe they would have to cut the flight time down to about an hour…

Well for all but the last two years of the Corcorde's existence there was no TSA or security lines. Also I know at JFK at least the Concorde had it's own private departure lounge called the The Concorde Room(it's actually still there) and it also had its' own private jetway as well. So it was definitely a premium experience all the way around.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#125

Post by rootusrootus » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:19 AM UTC

sarim wrote: post #99

What is this?! Aircraft for ants?!!!

The one in the picture is a reduced scale prototype. Then they hope to build a full scale plane. And then roll that out five years from now.

Given how many years we've been hearing about this, I wouldn't hold my breath. I personally give it less than a 50/50 shot at even getting the prototype into the air.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#126

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:25 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #106

axaxs wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still hoping for rail. It's much more carbon friendly, and has the opportunity to be way less stressful. I'd do 18 hours on a NY to LA if I could walk around, eat, talk, sleep, etc over a 5 hour misery ride in an airplane any day.

A single NY-LA route alone would cost over $500 billion. High speed rail is well $100m/mile, just for the track.

[deleted]

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#127

Post by meddlepal » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:40 AM UTC

na85 wrote: post #102

DomenicoMazza wrote: post #18

If I recall correctly the Concorde used about 2 tonnes of fuel rolling on the ground alone.. I wonder how this new aircraft fares for fuel consumption? I believe the Concorde is a marvel. You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! However I don’t think we need more environmentally unsustainable travel.

I think the real problem is that the Concorde wasn't fast enough to justify the cost. Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip. Might as well save several thousand dollars and take a longer flight. I believe they would have to cut the flight time down to about an hour…

It made way more sense as an aircraft when:

1. Communication was not as instantaneous as today and more things required face to face meetings.

2. You could basically walk onto an air plane with minimal security interference.

My dad said he flew the Concorde several times from Europe to NYC for business in the late 70s and early 80's and he said it was worth it in that context.

I should ask him how comfortable it was next time I see him. I've been inside of a Concorde that was turned into a museum piece and it is a pretty cramped airframe. I dunno how modern 2020 people would feel about the compactness.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#128

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:46 AM UTC

callamdelaney wrote: post #75

chemeng wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would leave a long trail of broken windows and reports from the moment you went supersonic in their territory, charting your trajectory. Threat detection is a network, not a single point. However, if you're moving fast enough and the target is close enough, your premise is valid. They would not have time to react. Cruise missiles tend to be used for those mission profiles.

Has it perhaps occured to any of you that flying at below radar altitude at supersonic or above speeds, would be dangerous and would have no benefit? If the enemy doesn't know you're there, you don't need to go fast.

Conversely, if you're fast enough you don't care who knows.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#129

Post by galacticaactual » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:04 AM UTC

pedalpete wrote: post #51

galacticaactual wrote: post #23

As a (pre-Covid) extreme frequent flyer, supersonic and other rapid point to point initiatives are thoroughly unenticing. Part of the reason I loved long flights was the ability to put away the laptop and zone out to a book or movie with some wine before landing, dealing with immigration, hotels, Ubers, and days of frenetic, high stress meetings afterward. The prospect of trying to optimize how fast we can jump from…

You're not doing Sydney->Los Angeles, Santiago->Tokyo type long-haul, are you. When you're continent jumping (excluding Eastern US to Europe) 7hrs at supersonic is long enough to get a movie and relax a bit. When you're getting 16 hour flights on a regular basis, you get used to it, but when you've seen all the movies, you realize how much time you've wasted on a plane.

I used to commute from Sydney to Europe every two weeks. So. Yes. I was doing the long hauls.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#130

Post by _-___________-_ » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:13 AM UTC

grkvlt wrote: post #121

clintonb wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip. Security lines weren't a thing until 2001. The Concorde operated from 1976 to 2003. The retirement was due to low passenger count due to a crash in 2000 and 9/11 in 2001.

im guessing if you really need, and can afford, supersonic travel then either it'll be like flying business/first or you'll have top tier ff status with the airline, and queues etc are much less of, or even a non issue.

Exactly this. Supersonic flight is likely to be more expensive than subsonic flight, and will likely mostly be used by people that fly regularly. Even moderately frequent travellers don't find airports that much of an issue because a) their status allows them to skip most of the horrible parts, and b) they have learned how to travel efficiently.