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

131–140 of 545 posts

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

#131

Post by kypro »

mandevil wrote: post #100
ceejayoz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boom also requires afterburners, at least for now. You can watch them kick in on the telemetry (which goes from "100%" to "A/B" for all three engines) at the bottom of the video around the 58:35 mark. https://www.youtube.com/live/-qisIViAHwI?feature=shared&t=35...

Boom is not currently flying their intended engines, the Symphony, which does not exist yet. (1) The XB-1 is flying with J85's just like a T-38 has, and just like a T-38 it can go supersonic with afterburners. If the Symphony is able to meet its design goals, it will not need afterburners for any part of flight. How much they will be able to deliver on that remains the biggest open technical question for Boom. (2) 1:…

> how much will people pay for civil supersonic?

Do we know how much more it's likely to cost? I could easily see people paying 1.5x - 2x.

Anything beyond 2x I imagine would start to price out the average person and anything beyond 5x would probably price out the vast majority of potential customers.

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

#132

Post by cromulent »

cromulent wrote: post #121

“Currently, all civil aircraft flights are prohibited from operating above Mach one speeds over land in the United States.” [1] Mike Bannister’s excellent book Concorde talks at length about how “handsomely profitable” the BA service was (as opposed to the Air France one) from 1984 until the 2000 crash and subsequent grounding put them in to a spiral where keeping enough people certified was too expensive. One part o…

Started reading the book again :). The $5k fares were the transatlantic ones. They made a lot of money doing day trips to Venice, Helsinki, Cairo, etc - places only Concorde could do in a day.

“Lord King’s edict that the aircraft had to be profitable within two-and-a-half years had been realised. There were times, in fact, when the seven aircraft in the fleet would contribute around 40 per cent of BA’s entire profits”.

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

#133

Post by creer »

adastra22 wrote: post #130
creer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has not been supersonic civil aviation but "supersonic" is not the interesting point here. "Supersonic" is easy and solved often in aviation. The question is what else can they do to make it work. And there is no aircraft yet, just a scale model. Progress sure but not because "supersonic". The new engine would be more interesting. And how is this a civilian aircraft? It is a cool one-off single seater with thre…

Supersonic is “easy” in the sense that rocket design is “easy.” Orbital rockets were still out of reach of non-government-funded efforts until SpaceX, and supersonic flight is still the sole domain of government contractors now. Boom is changing that.

Easy of course in the sense that that many aerospace engineers and aircraft have done it all over the world for many years. And most "government contractors" in the capitalist world are civilian private companies, many of which build both military and civilian aircraft and started small.

Which means, for example, that even this small private company knew pretty well what to look for in wind tunnel tests and other materials work. Their first transonic and supersonic flight was stable, did not destroy the aircraft, did not kill the engines, etc. Even, presumably, broke through the sound barrier the first time they tried - and was fully expected to.

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

#134

Post by adastra22 »

teractiveodular wrote: post #98
bangaroo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nope. commercial and private jets generally cap out around mach 0.9 i am very rusty on the economics and details of supersonic commercial flight, but the general gist as i recall is: - going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify for how much time it saves. there is less case in the 2000s for "having to be in london in 3 hours from NY" than there previously was, too. - noise restric…

Air travel is more popular than ever and 2024 broke basically all records. Why would there be less case for faster flights? Supersonic flight will be the preserve of the 0.1%, but the vast majority of private jets can't fly trans-continental (without stops along the way) and there are people out there paying $50k per flight for Etihad's The Residence suites. So, yes, there are people who will pay for this.

Would you pay $5k to fly basic economy?

Air travel is popular, but extremely price sensitive. Ryanair and its ilk have shown that people will suffer humiliation to save even $50 on ticket prices.

Supersonic will have to serve the rich, who are willing to pay to fly private. But how big is that market? Especially if you’re still going to raise prices 2-3x?

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

#135

Post by crowcroft »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #126
drysine wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't do things like A380?

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.

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

#136

Post by adastra22 »

dylan604 wrote: post #79
hnuser123456 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair, I hadn't considered the intercontinental ballistic passenger missile approach.

Isn't that specifically one of the types of travel predicted to be made possible by reusable rockets capable of landing on the ground? From Florida to Japan in 45 minutes type of thing

Yes point to point travel was a market for Starship. I think they’ve mostly backed off that though, as Starlink offers an easier market opportunity and just as much revenue potential.

The supersonic plane would have advantages over the rocket approach though. Rockers require long, inconvenient transfers to offshore launch facilities. (But would have the selling point of a microgravity transit.)

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

#137

Post by JumpCrisscross »

EA-3167 wrote: post #128
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who are these people who wouldn't rather take a sleeping pill or futz around on their laptop instead? Me. Time is time. A lay-flat seat intercontinental is already $10+ k within weeks of departure, point to point. Not having to plan around sleeping on the plane or whatnot makes international trips feel domestic.

I suppose the question is whether you feel like spending 3-5 times as much for the same flight, to save a bit of that time. Perhaps you would be, but I think you can understand how most wouldn't, even if they could. That is of course assuming that unlike Concorde, this can do single-hop journeys longer than a trans-Atlantic flight.

> whether you feel like spending 3-5 times as much for the same flight, to save a bit of that time

Plenty of people do for comfort. And these seats don’t look horrendous.

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

#138

Post by adastra22 »

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.

GP is not talking about a ballistic trajectory though.

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

#139

Post by bangaroo »

teractiveodular wrote: post #98
bangaroo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nope. commercial and private jets generally cap out around mach 0.9 i am very rusty on the economics and details of supersonic commercial flight, but the general gist as i recall is: - going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify for how much time it saves. there is less case in the 2000s for "having to be in london in 3 hours from NY" than there previously was, too. - noise restric…

Air travel is more popular than ever and 2024 broke basically all records. Why would there be less case for faster flights? Supersonic flight will be the preserve of the 0.1%, but the vast majority of private jets can't fly trans-continental (without stops along the way) and there are people out there paying $50k per flight for Etihad's The Residence suites. So, yes, there are people who will pay for this.

the way i've heard it explained is functionally that the ultra rich are either leaning towards things like those private suites onboard a large plane, or flying in a private jet.

people don't mind the experience of flying in a plane or the time it takes for the most part - they mind being uncomfortably crammed into a seat for hours on end with another person spilling into their lap in a loud, stuffy cabin. otherwise, it's just hanging out in a different place than you usually do.

at the point you're paying for a resort hotel room with a shower, bed, privacy, internet and a tv in the air... who cares if you spend a few extra hours? the only example of a supersonic airliner that i can point to, the concorde, was actually fairly uncomfortable and cramped because of the way it was designed. it's likely (though i've been wrong before) that future supersonic planes would make similar tradeoffs to try and minimize weight and drag and maximize fuel economy - you will trade comfort for speed.

i think most of the people you're talking about would prefer 8 hours in a private hotel room (or full on private jet) with a full bar, bottle service, a shower and fancy meals to 2-3 hours cramped in a relatively small cabin after the novelty wears off. given how much easier it is to effectively meet across the ocean without traveling, the market for ultra-fast flights to get a one-day trip over with is also likely smaller.

i can't say i know any of these facts for certain, but previously when discussing the return of supersonic flights with folks who know better than i, this was the general sentiment. it makes reasonable sense to me on its face.

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

#140

Post by EncomLab »

thereddaikon wrote: post #129
dylan604 wrote: post #6

I know nothing about Boom. Why is this impressive? We've achieved supersonic for passengers before. Are we meant to be interested just because someone is taking up the mantle again, or is there some new design that makes it impressive?

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.

Concorde used supercruise for most of the flight - afterburners were only used for departure and for transonic acceleration.
Post reply on HN