Live data from Hacker News

Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

airwaysmag.com

251–254 of 254 posts

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a pretty big stretch. I don't see a direct link between the award Alexander Graham Bell got in 1880 and the research output of Bell Labs in the 1940s. Bell Telephone existed as a corporation prior to the award from the French government. "Bell Labs" didn't exist as a separate entity with that name until the 1920s.

In 1880, the French government awarded Alexander Bell about $300k which he used to fund Volta Laboratory (Alexander Graham Bell Laboratory) in Washington, D.C. but AT&T took control of its patents (Bell System) by 1889.

I still don't see how that is a real link between the research that was done over 40 years later at Bell Labs in New York and New Jersey (where most of the important research took place). It is also true that Bell Telephone existed prior to the award.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#252
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, but it's certainly the first question every investor asked, so we can assume they have (or at least had) a pretty good answer, no?

I know some people involved in Boom. They simply have no understanding of the physical limitations of supersonic flight. Surprise, they’re all software engineers.

And supersonic flight is really a hardware / physics / materials science problem than a software one. (again: see Concorde)

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#253
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely asking: Of all the possible efforts that the aeronautic industry can make in 2022, do you think supersonic planes is making the top of the list of what the world need? If so, why?

Not OP but I think advancements are not exclusive. Going faster is one of the big advancements, but probably not the biggest. Going 2x faster is obviously a good thing, everything else being equal. Costs can potentially go down as you can run 2x the flights per day. People enjoy flights more. The difference between a 2.5 hour and 5 hours flight is a lot. A 6 hour and 12 hour flight, a lot. Making flights cheaper is s…

>Going 2x faster is obviously a good thing, everything else being equal. Costs can potentially go down as you can run 2x the flights per day. People enjoy flights more.

Unfortunately due to where you can fly supersonic, you're pretty much limited to over water routes. NYC-LON is probably the most financially viable route - but a 3.5-4hr flying time, you can't actually really fly a decent red eye. Ask anyone who has done DEN-NYC. It's a pretty brutal experience.

You leave NYC at midnight, get in at 8:30AM local with a 5 hour time change. You might have gotten an hour of sleep. Sure, some people might pay it, but most would happily leave at 8:30PM and hopefully get 4 hours of sleep.

This was the same problem with Concorde - how do you justify 3-5x the ticket price to arrive less well rested? Who's 4 hours are worth that? It's a pretty small club.

There's a limited amount of daytime flights you can run, but you're going to wind up either running aircraft turns unprofitably to position the plane for your profitable times or having more aircraft than you want sitting on the ground.

Ultimately, it just doesn't really make economic sense. Yes, people value frequency, but they also value money. On NY-LON there's probably 15+ flights a day anyway.

>The difference between a 2.5 hour and 5 hours flight is a lot. A 6 hour and 12 hour flight, a lot.

Unfortunately there's a devil in these details - the plane can't fly a 6 hour supersonic flight. Their rosiest projections are 4,250nm - that puts FCO (Rome) out of reach). That flight is blocked at 8h20m. Of that, especially in NY, 1.5 hours is probably taxiing/climb out/descent. Boom can't do anything about that (except flying out of undesirable airports...)

On shorter flights, that becomes a large percentage of the flying time. I.e. NY-MIA that you could conceivably detour over the water to fly supersonic on, and maybe trim 30 minutes off the total flying time.

Ultimately, the airports where you can fly supersonic to for the majority of the flight are very limited even if you solved the economic challenges.

I still remember hearing the sonic booms from Concorde out on long island - no way frequent supersonic flights get tolerated when they're not well overwater.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, then it fits even better. I could have sworn someone had been launching on borrowed Russian engines, but maybe that was Boeing.

I think the story is that Elon wanted russian engines and they snubbed him so he got vindictive, like he does, but this time in a good way.

He wanted to buy some Russian rockets to send a greenhouse to Mars, but they did not take him very seriously and quoted very high prices. After that is when he got serious about starting SpaceX.
Post reply on HN