Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 545 posts

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#201

Post by senordevnyc »

jameslk wrote: post #115

Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286 I remember seeing this post about Boom going through YC, 9 years ago. It's really cool to see the founder laying out what he wanted to accomplish in the comments and then seeing it happen today. Especially fun looking back at those comments saying it couldn't be done and all the haranguing over the name "Boom" :) Congrats to…

I’ve been one of the skeptical commenters (under another username), not because I think it’s technically impossible, or because I hate innovation or bold bets, but because I don’t think the economics make sense, and their original timelines and cost estimates were off by an order of magnitude, at least. Aviation is littered with startups that burned through hundreds of millions over the course of a decade or two and then disappeared.

And as others have pointed out, this is cool, but hardly novel, and after nine years and hundreds of millions, they’ve only accomplished the easiest part of what they need to accomplish in order to carry commercial passengers on supersonic flights. Regular passenger jets built by the most experienced companies in the world take tens of billions and decades to go from conception to flying. Boom has decades ahead of them before they’re going to reach the finish line.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#203

Post by jonsen »

gopalv wrote: post #178
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA to New York or San Francisco to Honolulu in 2 to 3 hours would be a game changer. You could probably fill a plane at least once a day on those routes for a handsome profit.

NYC to LA in 3 hours would be an 8 AM flight which would land at 8 AM, same day. Just mind boggling to think of, no trouble finding 100 people daily who want to do a day-trip to California.

Once I flew north-west at the time of sunset. I had the view of the most beautiful big red sun right at the edge a sea of snow white clouds for more than an hour.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#204

Post by bookofjoe »

This thread:

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.htm...

which covers over a decade, contains many hundreds of entries from Concorde pilots, crew, flight engineers, cabin crew, maintenance personnel, and air traffic control recounting anecdotes and amazing things about the plane and events surrounding it. I started reading it and spent about three absorbing hours fascinated and amazed, unable to stop until it was time to go to bed.

I'm going to resume when I have a few more hours, it's gold.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#205

Post by ghaff »

senordevnyc wrote: post #201
jameslk wrote: post #115

Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286 I remember seeing this post about Boom going through YC, 9 years ago. It's really cool to see the founder laying out what he wanted to accomplish in the comments and then seeing it happen today. Especially fun looking back at those comments saying it couldn't be done and all the haranguing over the name "Boom" :) Congrats to…

I’ve been one of the skeptical commenters (under another username), not because I think it’s technically impossible, or because I hate innovation or bold bets, but because I don’t think the economics make sense, and their original timelines and cost estimates were off by an order of magnitude, at least. Aviation is littered with startups that burned through hundreds of millions over the course of a decade or two and…

Not that I care as much these days, but would I have liked routine Mach 2 flight that my company would have paid for when I was traveling a lot? Absolutely. But that wasn't in the cards.

And the relatively fewer flights I take today for relatively longer trips in general, I mostly look at paying an extra $5K and think "I could do a lot more interesting things with that money than be more comfortable for some hours" (or hypothetically, save a few hours). And I suspect most people here would be in the same boat if it came to putting cash down on the barrel.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#206

Post by senordevnyc »

ghaff wrote: post #193
ethbr1 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd expect for trans-oceanic, you'd have people scheduling their travel around limited flights, given the unique offering. I.e. you aren't trying to figure out "How do I 100% capacity a 8:17am daily flight?" (traditional subsonic carriers) but rather "How much demand is there per week/month?" (Boom) If the flight is Wednesdays-only, then folks line their travel up on Wednesday. Because the alternative is a much longe…

There are usually at least daily flights on most routes. Business travelers, in particular, aren't going to wait a few days to take a flight that's a few hours faster. Absolutely no one is heading out 5 days early to shave 3 or 4 hours off their flight time. Even for tourism, I wouldn't.

Especially at 2-3x the cost

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#207

Post by sedatk »

vonmoltke wrote: post #169
sedatk wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concorde experiences one fatal crash in 27 years: entire product line gets cancelled. Meanwhile, Boeing 737 MAX... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The product line was effectively cancelled by the oil crisis of 1973 and severe economic issues in the mid 70s. It had nothing to do with a crash (of an airplane; there was a market crash involved).

I still feel like it was on the path to repopularization when it crashed, and wasn't given a second chance.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#208

Post by pfdietz »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #40
Ajedi32 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you get out of the atmosphere, drag (and fuel consumption) is ~0. So theoretically possible, but I'm not sure if that's what he was talking about. Certainly Overture won't be capable of that.

Fair, I hadn't considered the intercontinental ballistic passenger missile approach.

> Fair, I hadn't considered the intercontinental ballistic passenger missile approach.

The terminal deceleration on an ICBM trajectory would be lethal. Ballistic passenger transport at global distances has to be almost orbital so the entry is sufficiently shallow.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#209

Post by reaperducer »

alex_duf wrote: post #120
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you make this profitable? Selling it for more than it costs to build. Computer-based modelling, advances in our understanding of supersonic flight and sonic booms and a mature civil (and private) aviation industry make the profit case much more compelling than it was for the Concorde. (The real test will be in their engine.)

I assume the question was about the questionable economics of running a super-sonic airplane profitably. The Concorde was notorious for bleeding money. Maybe the premium aspect will be enough, given that we have a bigger and bigger chasm between rich and poor, or maybe the economics of running it won't compete against sub-sonic, lower fuel consumption planes.

The Concorde was notorious for bleeding money.

I see this stated all the time on HN, yet there's a whole section at the top of this very comments thread where people are talking about how very profitable the Concorde was.

One person quoted the line "There were times, in fact, when the seven aircraft in the fleet would contribute around 40 per cent of BA’s entire profits."

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#210

Post by bubblethink »

gopalv wrote: post #178
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA to New York or San Francisco to Honolulu in 2 to 3 hours would be a game changer. You could probably fill a plane at least once a day on those routes for a handsome profit.

NYC to LA in 3 hours would be an 8 AM flight which would land at 8 AM, same day. Just mind boggling to think of, no trouble finding 100 people daily who want to do a day-trip to California.

Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGvYKtiwHlA
Post reply on HN