Live data from Hacker News

Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

johncoogan.com

121–130 of 150 posts

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#121
If I were a VC, Boom wold be the easiest investment decision ever.

Here's the 3 questions I'd ask myself: 1. can they make it? 2. can they sell it? 3. if they make it and they sell it, could others copycat them, then out-execute and take the prize away from them?

The easiest to answer is 3. Out of all the unicorn startups of the last 2 decades, this one is the by far the one with the highest barriers of entry for the competition. The only ones coming close are SpaceX and Tesla. Why? Let's say Boom makes the first sale in 2025. If anyone wants to enter the market, they won't have a product for at least 10 years, and Boom can already be at jet 2.0 by that time, well into the R&D cycle for 3.0.

The first question: can they make it? Concorde was introduced in "prod" 45 years ago, but had the first flight 7 years prior. Technology has made huge advances in half a century. Obviously computers in general, and computational fluid dynamics in particular are many, many orders of magnitude above what was available in the mid-60's. But other things experienced impressive progress as well: theoretical CFD, materials, manufacturing to name just a few. Jet engines are also much more efficient, and what's super-important: Boom need to just buy them form some suppliers, they don't need to invent them as was the case with Concorde. There are basically only 3 suppliers out there (General Electric, Pratt&Whitney and Rolls Royce), but their competition is fierce, which means the engines are both extreme quality and reasonable price.

Finally, if they make it, will they sell it? Yes, the market for business jets can't wait for a supersonic jet, no matter what price level. A Gulfstream G700 comes at $75MM, and it goes without saying that it is subsonic. Think of all those billionaires who spend hundreds of millions on luxury yachts. A supersonic private jet would be the most exalted form of conspicuous consumption. Do you gather Abramovich will sign up for one?

Concorde could not target this market segment, since it was made with government money. But a VC-backed startup most surely can.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#122

If I were a VC, Boom wold be the easiest investment decision ever. Here's the 3 questions I'd ask myself: 1. can they make it? 2. can they sell it? 3. if they make it and they sell it, could others copycat them, then out-execute and take the prize away from them? The easiest to answer is 3. Out of all the unicorn startups of the last 2 decades, this one is the by far the one with the highest barriers of entry for the…

You seemed to have given positive answers to those 3 question yourself. It seems that Boom just had to pick the right topic.

Theranos undoubtedly convinced VC all 3 questions. I wonder how much VC had brought that onto themselves.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#123

If I were a VC, Boom wold be the easiest investment decision ever. Here's the 3 questions I'd ask myself: 1. can they make it? 2. can they sell it? 3. if they make it and they sell it, could others copycat them, then out-execute and take the prize away from them? The easiest to answer is 3. Out of all the unicorn startups of the last 2 decades, this one is the by far the one with the highest barriers of entry for the…

G700 has long legs. It can fly from New York to Hong Kong without a stop. Plus, it doesn't have to reduce it's speed when flying over land.

A Boom aircraft would presumably only be able to use it's selling point on routes over open water. That completely shuts out almost all of the Asia market - it's range isn't great enough to make it from Asia to the US, and most other routes Asians fly mainly cross land.

The only buyers would be American east coast billionaires that go to Europe often and European billionaires that come to the US often. Are there enough of these?

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#124

If I were a VC, Boom wold be the easiest investment decision ever. Here's the 3 questions I'd ask myself: 1. can they make it? 2. can they sell it? 3. if they make it and they sell it, could others copycat them, then out-execute and take the prize away from them? The easiest to answer is 3. Out of all the unicorn startups of the last 2 decades, this one is the by far the one with the highest barriers of entry for the…

Their sub-scale prototype was claimed to be ready in 2019 at one point. And as far as I know its still has not flown.

So as for the 'can they make it', I am very skeptical. Even assuming they can make it, can they make enough of them fast enough to actually be a return on investment.

Even assuming that, is the market large in-enough that a real manufacturing line is going to be possible?

Could the company exist maybe, will it be widely profitable, questionable.

In my opinion the coming revolution in Electric airplanes is going to be 100x more disruptive and with a much larger importunity for profit.

I don't think Musk competencies (Tesla, SpaceX) have any interest in Supersonic Jet engines. Musk himself has often talked about wanting to build a Supersonic Electric Jet for shorter domestic route. Something that could really fundamentally change the industry.

The competition for Boom from that direction is actually rocket power transport in the form of Starship.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#125

Wikipedia notes that a 1/3 scale Boom demonstrator plane is expected to begin flight testing in 2021. Otherwise, it sounds like they've produced zero planes that actually fly so far. Even the hype-ridden article admits that their founder/CEO has zero experience delivering real-world physical products. Then there's the huge "SPACEX KILLER" banner at the top of that article...which has zero logic behind it, and is foll…

Pretty sure at one point that demonstrator was supposed to fly in 2019 if I remember correctly.

The same kind of delay for the main plane would put it close to 2030.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#126
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Concorde was profitable Your own article points out that it really, really wasn't, especially not for the parties investing in its development, not their customers who profited mainly because they got the aircraft at knockdown prices (and operated it without any supersonic competition) in what was later described as one of the worst deals ever negotiated by any government $3bn was spent developing an aircraft they…

But it jump started Airbus, a hugely successful aircraft manufacturer, the difference between Airbus and Boeing is the dependence on fly-by-wire a technology that was first used outside the military in Concorde. So yes it was £3BN down but Airbus supports > 100,000 jobs in Britain, France and Germany. If you compare it to the current Space Launch System, which is a vapourware project which exists to provide a channel…

> But it jump started Airbus, a hugely successful aircraft manufacturer

Yes but that was also very, very lucky. Claiming this is some inevitable legacy of Concord is nonsense.

Airbus almost failed like so many other British-French-German partnerships of the time.

Using Airbus to claim Concord is a success is a huge strech.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#127
post #3

> Boom plans to use fuel made from carbon removed from the atmosphere, meaning that supersonic travel will be carbon neutral from day one. If this is economically viable - say, within a factor of 3 of current fuel prices - it sounds like it would be the solution to climate change. I am skeptical.

It’s not BOOM but Rolls Royce have an idea of using one of their Small Modular Reactors to generate synthetic aviation fuel at only double the cost of normal stuff. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rolls-Royce-on-t...

I love nuclear energy more then 99.9% o people and even I don't believe this will happen.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#128
post #111
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rather more a consequence of the very bad handling by the FAA of the sonic booms campaign over Oklahoma City in 1964, and subsequent bad PR associated with supersonic aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests

You ignore the fact that sonic booms are really fucking annoying, so I will dispute your claim and say that there is no way to put lipstick on this pig and say it was mishandled by the FAA. The booms annoyed everyone. This issue is further compounded by the fact that there is no useful purpose served by supersonic passenger flight; it causes little inconvenience for a small benefit to a infinitesimal fraction of the…

Its still an insane dumb regulatory response to ban all super-sonic travel.

Its totally unnecessary and restrictive and will block and hinder many of the technologies that could overcome the initial problem.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#129
post #58
post #33

Am I the only one here thinking this is an unwanted future ? Aerospace is already profiting to few rich people on earth and represents 2% of global emissions and this is saying "well we need to go faster consuming yet huge amount of fuel" for the wealthiest. Please stop these technos solutionists gadget and start to think real problems like the climate crisis.

So, according to the article, Boom intends to make their plane carbon neutral from day 1 (by using fuel generated from atmospheric carbon). Clearly that is intended to address concerns like yours. Does that change your opinion in any way? If so, how does it change? If not, then why not?

I not against Boom but this claim to me is not credible. Maybe they will do this for their testing of the airplane. The claim that all their planes will fly with such fuel is not currently credible.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always entertaining to see techno-luddites on HN - where the average person is wealthy and probably drives a gasoline car for most daily activities. This is like criticizing the automobile back when only the ultra wealthy could afford them and most people still road around on horse or foot.

The people posting here may be wealthy, but I’d wager the vast majority aren’t Concorde wealthy

There is a difference being potentially Concorde wealthy and actually choosing to spend money to fly in one.

Also, some of use are not exactly Concorde young haha.

Post reply on HN