Live data from Hacker News

Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

johncoogan.com

131–140 of 150 posts

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#131

> To put that into perspective, a Tesla travels at 250 miles per hour Is this how you write super-relatable PR pieces now?

I'd also like to know which Tesla can get to 250mph (400kmh). The 100PD tops out at a "measly" 155. Only the most extreme hypercars can reach 250mph, and even out of those, a small handful are road legal.

> The Model S Plaid's official top speed is rated at 200 mph (321.9 kph), according to Elon Musk and Tesla,

P100D is no longer the newest generation

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#132

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…

Rocket power transport it’s nonsense once you consider how much time the on boarding and outboarding is

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#133

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…

Unsure how feasible it is, but Boom does expect to have cross pacific flights as well as flights over land due to various improvements to the tech.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#134
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't care. No one is banning supersonic travel, just supersonic travel over land. If it can't be made to work economically over the long oceanic routes then it is a dumb idea that deserves to die. Again. If it works over water then it can stay there.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#135

Can anybody tell how such a plane will sound like over land? Growing up in Europe in the 90s, we regularly saw fighter jets doing maneuver and we called the noise they make a sonic boom: a loud, scratching and thundering noise that seems to come from the wrong direction. But I've also heard that planes almost never flew supersonic over civilian areas and an actual sonic boom sounds like a double clap, and is much mor…

Former USAFE member here. You weren't hearing a sonic boom, just the normal engine noise. If I recall correctly, we would do supersonic training off the coast of Spain. Flying supersonic over populated areas would do things like break windows in people's houses and that's not good.

The engine noise you heard was loud because military aircraft are normally exempt from sound level limits (when non-supersonic). And the engines for the F-16, Tornado, etc. were designed in the 1970s. Even for modern military engines, performance comes first. So they are still going to be loud.

The chart in this PDF shows that for the F-16, the allowed exposure time could be as short as 21 seconds with the older "muff + plugs" hearing protection. They're just LOUD (and I have the tinnitus to prove it)

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/av...

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#136

Can supersonic aircraft be as big as the 747 etc jumbos without much worse energy requirements? Or does the fuel consumption rise by a factor? I can see the Concorde had almost mach2 as top speed? Is there another Sonic boom at mach2,3 etc? Unless it's a fuel efficient mach3, there's not much point to it, most flying time improvements should be done on checking in and boarding, the flight itself for flights less than…

Going that fast requires significantly more energy. You start to worry about things like the cross section of the aircraft (which is why fast plane commonly have knife-edge wings) and smooth airflow over the fuselage.

One of the advantages of the composite construction being used by Boom is you don't have those thousands of rivets sticking out. And panel gaps. Which is why the 787 is as fuel-efficient as it is compared to traditional aluminum bodied aircraft.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#137
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Rocket power transport it’s nonsense once you consider how much time the on boarding and outboarding is

There are some technical details to work out, but 1 hour to anywhere in the world is feasible with a ballistic missile, and impossible to beat with a supersonic aircraft. Whether those details can be ironed out to provide it commerically remains to be seen, but ballistic missile technology was proven in the 1970s. The ridiculous part isn't because of how long it takes to get on and off a spaceship. Even if it took 3 hours to get on and three more to get off, 7 hours would still beat 17 hours in a plane going Sydney to London.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this succeeds, it won't just be for rich people. Anything technological goes down in price over time. And there are huge benefits to modes of affordable travel become faster, which the article details.

That is even worse .

Not if the fuel comes from carbon-neutral sources.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#139
post #112

> but there’s a good chance that engineers could lower the boom from 105 decibels to just 70 decibels. At that volume, US lawmakers might revisit the speed limit if it means getting from California to Washington DC in half the time. "good chance"..."might revisit" Talk about a wing and a prayer...

Yeah, sure, the 20 flyover state Senators whose constituents will have to hear the plane pass by (and never land) are going to vote in favor of a plan to make life more convenient for 2 Democrats from California.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#140
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rocket power transport it’s nonsense once you consider how much time the on boarding and outboarding is

There are some technical details to work out, but 1 hour to anywhere in the world is feasible with a ballistic missile, and impossible to beat with a supersonic aircraft. Whether those details can be ironed out to provide it commerically remains to be seen, but ballistic missile technology was proven in the 1970s. The ridiculous part isn't because of how long it takes to get on and off a spaceship. Even if it took 3…

But would it be comfortable?

edit: I meant 7 hours of which experience exactly compared to 17 hours of whatever class at whatever price per flight?

Post reply on HN