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

How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

bscholl.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 112 posts

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sandworm101 wrote: post #14
wayne wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a fad, but the current trend in US public aviation is increasing premium cabins and premium revenue: https://simpleflying.com/why-us-carriers-doubling-down-premi... This is the reason Delta and United and doing well right now and Southwest and the LCCs are struggling. It wasn't true just a few years ago, but if this continues as a trend, I could see an airline sacrificing fuel efficiency for a dramaticall…

It isnt a trend. This is marketing. Thirty years ago, the a380 was pitched as having room for luxury too. The new plane is always going to have more legroom, wider aisles and better air conditioning than anything before. But it never happens. The pitch to actual operators is the square-feet of floorspace and how many seats can be crammed into that space at given price points. Just like concord, this thing only makes…

> It isnt a trend. This is marketing

They’re citing historic data. It absolutely is a trend that premium travel is an increasing slice of post-Covid American air travel.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#32

Post by signatoremo »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #27
SkyMarshal wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true for domestic coast-to-coast flights, but not for transoceanic ones across the Atlantic, or especially the Pacific, or north-south across hemispheres, that can take 8+ hours. Flight time is a higher portion of the total travel time in those cases, and seems like the main market for Boom, especially if they initially target Business Class flyers who do those kinds of trips regularly.

Boom XB-1 did 750 mph air speed. If I've got an 8 hour flight at 561 mph in an A380 that's a reduction to 5.984 hours when I move to the Boom XB-1. Who cares about saving 1.1 hours on a transatlantic flight. There is a reason why Concorde's cruise speed was 1,341 mph. So when Boom makes a commercial airliner that hits 1000+ mph with the same availability and turnaround time as a typical passenger plane then I'll pay…

XB-1 is only the demonstrator. They aim to produce commercial airline that can cruise at 1.7 Mach. NYC to London in 3.30h instead of 6h.

Rich people can already buy private jet that is much more comfortable than supersonic one.

https://boomsupersonic.com/overture

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#33

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sandworm101 wrote: post #29
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re describing a lay-flat seat. (If you let them know you don’t want to be disturbed, they won’t.)

Are you kidding? On a commercial flight, between the safety briefs, seatbelt warnings, and "turn on/off your devices" there are constant announcements. And the stupid entertainment systems you cannot turn off, or at least that spring to flashing life again after each pointless announcement. I wore my ear defenders on united once, and was woken mid-flight by a steward informing me they were not allowed as i wouldnt be…

> on united

Yeah I found your problem :P.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#34

Post by dylan604 »

notahacker wrote: post #11
_moof wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in aerospace and I don't find this development strategy unusual prima facie . I don't know if Boom is explicitly doing rapid spiral development, but this is what it would look like from the outside - a development vehicle that doesn't resemble the final vehicle design in many ways, but does have strategically selected commonality to validate and buy down risk on specific subsystems and operational concepts. Th…

Yeah. The demonstrator was to validate some basic concepts they were promoting about being able to achieve supersonic flight without supersonic booms. It achieved that at relatively low cost, and gave them something to brag about, an indication of baseline competence at certifying airframes and possibly ticked off some investor boxes. There wasn't much more to be learned about large passenger jets using their intende…

I wonder what kind of liability it would be to sell a one-off prototype plane like that. Guessing it would also have more value has a model in the lobby or on a pole outside headquarters one day than they would earn in selling it.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#35

Post by bangaladore »

dingaling wrote: post #25
Aurornis wrote: post #2

> XB-1 is the world’s first independently-developed supersonic jet, breaking the sound barrier for the first time in January, 2025. It was designed, built, and flown successfully by a team of just 50 people This is a great headline and very impressive. However, it’s also somewhat puzzling to see the company spend so much investment money to build a small prototype plane that doesn’t resemble a commercial airliner in…

It's also largely PR guff. The first privately-developed supersonic aircraft was the Northrop N-156F, forerunner of the F-5, that first flew in 1959. Funded entirely from company funds with no military contract. And it went supersonic in its first flight with no drama. In fact the chase plane for the Boom XB-1 is a T-38, derived from the N-156F. It can outrun the XB-1.

I'm not sure how strictly privately developed the N-156F is given you could easily argue that reuse of design, knowledge and relationships from existing contracts saved them a lot of money.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#36

Post by dylan604 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30
sidewndr46 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airlines do not dictate airport security. You cannot simply add gates to airports with even an infinite pile of money. It doesn't matter, unless you're going to make flights from nowhere to nowhere. Doesn't sound like a business strategy to me.

> Airlines do not dictate airport security Airlines absolutely choose whether to participate in various programs. Digital ID was cited for a reason. And in some cases, the airlines have substantial control—Delta One has a separate security line at JFK. > You cannot simply add gates to airports with even an infinite pile of money You don’t. You outbid someone else for the existing ones.

> And in some cases, the airlines have substantial control—Delta One has a separate security line at JFK.

I'm actually surprised more airports don't have VIP level gates that the airlines can pay a premium for allowing them to charge a premium to their passengers. It'd be interesting to see where the price could be that would guarantee enough passengers willing to pay the premium for much reduced airport headaches.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#37

Post by dylan604 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #27
SkyMarshal wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true for domestic coast-to-coast flights, but not for transoceanic ones across the Atlantic, or especially the Pacific, or north-south across hemispheres, that can take 8+ hours. Flight time is a higher portion of the total travel time in those cases, and seems like the main market for Boom, especially if they initially target Business Class flyers who do those kinds of trips regularly.

Boom XB-1 did 750 mph air speed. If I've got an 8 hour flight at 561 mph in an A380 that's a reduction to 5.984 hours when I move to the Boom XB-1. Who cares about saving 1.1 hours on a transatlantic flight. There is a reason why Concorde's cruise speed was 1,341 mph. So when Boom makes a commercial airliner that hits 1000+ mph with the same availability and turnaround time as a typical passenger plane then I'll pay…

8 hours - 5.984 hours = 1.1 hours? My math works out to just over 2 hours of time saved.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#38

Post by polishdude20 »

highfrequency wrote: post #10

> We can literally define an airplane parametrically in a configuration file and press a button. In a matter of minutes we have a complete quick-and-dirty analysis of how the whole aircraft performs—as mkBoom flies the aircraft through a full simulated mission (takeoff, climbout, acceleration, cruise, descent, landing). Overnight, mkBoom can run higher-fidelity simulations for a more exact understanding of performanc…

I wonder if they run this through an optimizer then?

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#39

Post by rjsw »

_moof wrote: post #4
Aurornis wrote: post #2

> XB-1 is the world’s first independently-developed supersonic jet, breaking the sound barrier for the first time in January, 2025. It was designed, built, and flown successfully by a team of just 50 people This is a great headline and very impressive. However, it’s also somewhat puzzling to see the company spend so much investment money to build a small prototype plane that doesn’t resemble a commercial airliner in…

I work in aerospace and I don't find this development strategy unusual prima facie . I don't know if Boom is explicitly doing rapid spiral development, but this is what it would look like from the outside - a development vehicle that doesn't resemble the final vehicle design in many ways, but does have strategically selected commonality to validate and buy down risk on specific subsystems and operational concepts. Th…

The HP.115 [1] and BAC 221 [2] were not exact scale replicas of Concorde.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_HP.115 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Delta_2#BAC_221

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#40

Post by dgunay »

sandworm101 wrote: post #17

Forget luxury. Forget speed. Hands down, the best flying experience I've ever had was on a dirty, slow, late and loud C-130. After an announced delay on the ground, I wedged myself between a cargo pallet and the wall, threw a ratchet strap across as a "belt" and passed out on a metal floor with a backpack for a pillow. No in-flight meals. No safety briefs. No entertainment systems. No drink service. Nothing. I don't…

I know it's due to safety but I really wish there were an economy version of the lie flat seat. I'd gladly sleep in a set of bunk beds stacked 3-4 high for an 8 hour flight.
Post reply on HN