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

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#81

Post by MichaelZuo »

XorNot wrote: post #80
goodcanadian wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computational simulations have been involved in aircraft design for decades. However, at some point you still have to verify the simulations with real world tests. I think (as a non-expert) the main reason no aerodynamically novel aircraft have been developed lately is because we have essentially optimised designs, already. To be clear, I am not saying that we can't do better. I am saying that the manufacturing (and…

It happens every now and again on here: someone comes up with like a 2% improvement in aerodynamics, and people are unimpressed. Meanwhile airlines are basically scrambling to get it rolled into their next-gen purchases because it's the biggest improvement in costs in a decade.

A 2% improvement that only costs 2% more to manufacture, sure.

A 2% improvement that costs 200% more to manufacture would be nonsensical to seriously propose.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#82

Post by rkomorn »

goodcanadian wrote: post #79
torginus wrote: post #75

It's weird how analog the entire field of aerospace has been - I remember reading articles in the 2000s (and before), of how computational simulations a are going to unlock crazy new never before seen designs, controllable via novel control surfaces only possible thanks to novel control surfaces whose position is determined via literal supercomputers onboard the plane. And how X-planes are going to become unnecessary…

Computational simulations have been involved in aircraft design for decades. However, at some point you still have to verify the simulations with real world tests. I think (as a non-expert) the main reason no aerodynamically novel aircraft have been developed lately is because we have essentially optimised designs, already. To be clear, I am not saying that we can't do better. I am saying that the manufacturing (and…

I think there's also a lot of "if we don't change too much, we have a pretty good chance to not face issues getting the aircraft certified", and "if we change the aircraft too much it'll cause issues where airports have to alter their infrastructure" (which is relevant for things like the blended wing research that's popped up recently).

There's a ton of legacy in overall airline/aircraft operations that discourages big changes.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#83

Post by pxeger1 »

ricardobeat wrote: post #77
TheHideout wrote: post #48

AKA they're doing what every other aerospace company has been doing for decades, multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization [0] with simulation in the loop. If you were to ask them how they're leveraging Design of Experiments I bet it'd be met with "design of what?". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidisciplinary_design_optim...

Which non-military aircraft have been developed with these methods in the past 20 years?

Boeing 787

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#84

Post by notahacker »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19
notahacker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Premium cabins tend to be a very small proportion of overall seats and are about overcharging for a little extra legroom and service rather than trading off operational flexibility for unique luxury though. Big difference between charging 3x economy rates for 2x the space for a carefully estimated proportion of seats in a mixed configuration (no brainer) and hoping your layout is so good it justifies thirstier, less…

> Premium cabins tend to be a very small proportion of overall seats Most of the profit on a plane is made in business class. If airlines could fly an all-business configuration, they would. The problem is the smallest planes that can do high-paying routes like LON-NYC are bigger than that customer set. So the airline throws in economy seats, often barely breaking even on those, to fill space. In a world with small a…

Smaller jet aircraft on the same route generally means relatively expensive operating costs: some costs like landing slots and pilots are essentially fixed, whilst others like maintenance, fuel and capital costs don't scale down linearly. The marginal profit on an individual economy class seat might be small, but 100+ of them cover a large portion of the fixed and semi-fixed costs of operating the aircraft, and are relatively easy to fill.

Long range business jets which can comfortably accommodate a typical narrowbody business class cabin exist: nobody is certifying them for all-business class scheduled flights because it wouldn't be profitable to do so; likewise the all-premium 32 seat A318 configuration hasn't been adopted anywhere except the NYC/LON route it didn't really have the range for because it wouldn't be profitable elsewhere. Boom's bet is that supersonic changes that.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#85

Post by TheHideout »

saagarjha wrote: post #69
TheHideout wrote: post #48

AKA they're doing what every other aerospace company has been doing for decades, multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization [0] with simulation in the loop. If you were to ask them how they're leveraging Design of Experiments I bet it'd be met with "design of what?". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidisciplinary_design_optim...

I’m a little confused how this differs from standard constraint optimization.

In standard constraint optimization you know the constraints at compile time. In MDO many constraints are generated at runtime and constantly change as you search for solutions.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#86

Post by pbh101 »

dylan604 wrote: post #54
pbh101 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s probably a classist risk to this (recall the uproar over the residential building in NYC that had separate entrances for different unit classes), let alone the logistics are needed at whole-airport level to support it which is difficult to retrofit.

Just build an entirely different terminal instead of shoeing it into the same building as the terminals for the plebes. Out of sight, out of mind. The classist risk is already there with the pricing they have for first class seats. By making first class only planes, you can have economy only planes like Spirit. Then nobody would be complaining about first class since nobody would see first class. I see no downsides w…

Ah, I was referring to loading the same plane from different gates, which I’ve been told exists at some airports (boarding from business/first lounge one floor above the standard gate)

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#87

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

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…

> There wasn't much more to be learned about large passenger jets using their intended custom engines from a small GEJ85 powered platform,

This is key to me.

I'm a layman in Aviation, so I'll unpack that.

The Boom XB-1 demonstrator (1) uses GEJ85: the General Electric J85 engines, as seen on military jets (2).

This is not the desired production jet's "Symphony" engine (3), which at a guess has to be both larger and more efficient?

So whatever is to be learned from the demonstrator, it doesn't tell us much about the final engine design.

In fact, all I know about this desired engine, is that Rolls-Royce isn't making it. (4)

Are they still planning to design the engines in-house? If they're making good progress, why are we hearing about how they're replacing excel as a design tool.

As I said in the other comment:

I'm not an expert, but this seems like the engine is on the critical path to success, and also high chance of failure. i.e. Without engines, they have nothing but a glider.

And if Rolls-Royce thinks that it's either not technically or commercially feasible, then who can do it?

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_XB-1

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J85

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Symphony

4) https://www.space.com/boom-supersonic-rolls-royce-engine-spl...

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#88

Post by XorNot »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #81
XorNot wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happens every now and again on here: someone comes up with like a 2% improvement in aerodynamics, and people are unimpressed. Meanwhile airlines are basically scrambling to get it rolled into their next-gen purchases because it's the biggest improvement in costs in a decade.

A 2% improvement that only costs 2% more to manufacture, sure. A 2% improvement that costs 200% more to manufacture would be nonsensical to seriously propose.

You cannot possibly know that without knowing the operational lifetime of a plane and it's expected return. An airline doesn't buy a plane planning to break even on the purchase cost, for example.

Which basically proves my original point.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#89

Post by klysm »

TheHideout wrote: post #48

AKA they're doing what every other aerospace company has been doing for decades, multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization [0] with simulation in the loop. If you were to ask them how they're leveraging Design of Experiments I bet it'd be met with "design of what?". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidisciplinary_design_optim...

On what basis do you think nobody on the team understands DoE?

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#90

Post by MichaelZuo »

XorNot wrote: post #88
MichaelZuo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 2% improvement that only costs 2% more to manufacture, sure. A 2% improvement that costs 200% more to manufacture would be nonsensical to seriously propose.

You cannot possibly know that without knowing the operational lifetime of a plane and it's expected return. An airline doesn't buy a plane planning to break even on the purchase cost, for example. Which basically proves my original point.

Do you not understand what the word manufacture means?

It literally doesn’t matter what the “operational lifetime” or “expected return” is if it costs 200% more to manufacture for only 2% improvements.

It won’t ever get far enough in the design process for it to even be an issue.

Post reply on HN