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

211–220 of 545 posts

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

#211

Post by pfdietz »

mppm wrote: post #65
Ajedi32 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going fast enough, you don't need lift. But judging by "in four hours" I'm guessing he's imagining something somewhere in between those two extremes. High enough to substantially reduce drag, low enough that you don't need to approach orbital velocity to maintain altitude.

"Fast enough" is very nearly orbital speed, though. Suborbital range is very short on the lower end, and increases rapidly and nonlinearly later. E.g. if you can boost to 2km/s (~ Mach 7), this gives you, I kid you not, around 200km of ballistic range. It's either atmospheric flight or orbital flight, and there's nothing really useful in between.

One possibility is a trajectory that's a series of skips.

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

#212

Post by mkoubaa »

belter wrote: post #80
mrtksn wrote: post #76

How cool is that, hopefully will pressure Airbus into developing one too. So far they did silly concept vides only. I'm also quite worried about Airbus after winning against Boeing becoming complacent since Chinese or Russians are not even close.

How do you make this profitable?

Could this thing take a polar route from New York to Hong Kong?

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

#213

Post by jjk166 »

mppm wrote: post #55
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.

Once you get out of the atmosphere, lift is ~0 too.

There actually is still significant lift. We define the edge of the atmosphere to be where the lift to drag ratio of a plane would be less than 1 below orbital velocity (ie if you were going fast enough to lift your weight with conventional wings you'd be in orbit), so you can't fly conventionally in space but lift might still be generating a force which is significant compared to your craft's weight.

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

#214

Post by itsoktocry »

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…

This is a long way from a supersonic passenger flight, isn't it?

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

#215

Post by tastyfreeze »

crowcroft wrote: post #135
tastyfreeze wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More of the same but bigger? While it is a feat of engineering to make an aircraft the size of an A380 it is essentially the same design as every other commercial airliner, not revolutionary.

Super impressive, but I agree with this, it was an easier project to plot on a spreadsheet and forecast a path to profitability. Using current technology and looking back at the Concorde to make any predictions on supersonic passenger travel generates a spreadsheet with a lot of red on it.

If somebody wants to burn their time and money trying I am totally cool with it. If they succeed in their vision they will be handsomely rewarded and transport gets faster. If they fail they still tried to make the future more amazing.

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

#216

Post by JumpCrisscross »

alamortsubite wrote: post #198
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> could easily see people paying 1.5x - 2x People pay more than that for domestic first class, which doesn’t even have lay-flat seats. $2,500 or even $5k for a New York San Francisco 2-hour flight would absolutely sell.

A number of US carriers offer lay-flat seats for at least some of their coast-to-coast domestic flights. UA has over a half dozen Dreamliners flying back and forth daily, all with Polaris cabins. I know AA and Delta have routes with them, too. I agree, a two-hour flight time would be better!

> number of US carriers offer lay-flat seats for at least some of their coast-to-coast domestic flights

They're limited. And I regularly see them going for $4k+.

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

#217

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SahAssar wrote: post #160
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> New York to Sydney for $100 in 4 hours? My bullshit alarm is blaring LA to Sydney is $10k on a good day for lie flat. You could probably charge $15 even 20k a seat and (a) turn a profit (b) filling the plane.

Did you miss the part you quoted that said "$100 in 4 hours"? It does not say $100k.

> It does not say $100k

>> You could probably charge $15 even 20k a seat

Neither do I.

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

#218

Post by ghufran_syed »

mikeyouse wrote: post #162
thereddaikon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concorde was a large program backed by two governments and designed and built by nationalized aerospace companies. This is a strictly private affair, so no tax dollars behind it, just private funds. The end goal is also to be much more efficient than Concorde, which was a pretty brute forced effort which multiple large afterburning engines. They hope to make the production model capable of supercruise.

"No tax dollars behind it" is directionally true since it wasn't built by one of the Primes, but not literally true. As is the wont of every company these days, they've extracted tens/hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds.. $200 million in North Carolina for production: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy-tracker/nc-... $60 million from the US Air Force for development: https://www.aerospacetestinginter…

The $200 million in north carolina is a discount on future taxes for when they start production. - seems a little unfair to count it against the company when they haven't even started production yet.

And the total amount of private funding raised to date is $700 million - so maybe 10% of funding to date is from the government? Seems like a good deal for the government?

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

#219

Post by ghaff »

senordevnyc wrote: post #206
ghaff wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I suspect a lot of people here get really excited at the idea of supersonic flight but would never pay the business class+ premium themselves.

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

#220

Post by JumpCrisscross »

senko wrote: post #172
ghaff wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical. Trans-Pacific would be interesting for some because that's a long time in a plane even with lie-flat seating. But then you need a lot of range because once you have to refuel you've cut into your time advantage. NYC to London or Paris? Sure. But now you still need to find people willing and able to spend $5K+ each way. I'd like to do it but realistically I'm not going to.

First class NY to Paris in a couple of weeks, one way, is ~$6k "best overall", with $10k for "fastest" (checked a random flight on Skyscanner).

> First class NY to Paris in a couple of weeks, one way, is ~$6k "best overall", with $10k for "fastest"

La Première will regularly go for $20k one way.

Post reply on HN