281–290 of 545 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, the critics: "unless you build a 100B company, we are not wrong" I mean, yeah, sure.
It’s hard to argue a startup succeed until profits > investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s hard to argue a startup succeed until profits > investment.
if your only measure of success is monetary profit, then sure. i think that shouldn't be the only metric, and in fact, the focus on that so completely is a big part of the problem with what people term "late-stage capitalism"
(I know Boom isn't gigantic, and of course it's losing money at this stage which is right and proper. However losing money in aviation is extremely easy and so I think we call it a successful business when it's profitable. Today, it's proven itself a successful prototype engineering endeavor.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s hard to argue a startup succeed until profits > investment.
This is only true from the point of capital - if a startup changes the world in a way you like it can be a success to you. Profitability brings a certain approval and sustainability, but don't confuse that with your goals in what you are working on.
Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286 I remember seeing this post about Boom going through YC, 9 years ago. It's really cool to see the founder laying out what he wanted to accomplish in the comments and then seeing it happen today. Especially fun looking back at those comments saying it couldn't be done and all the haranguing over the name "Boom" :) Congrats to…
It’s a good start but I wouldn’t say the critics are proven wrong already. Even getting the full-scale version flying won’t be enough, you need to make the whole operation economically viable so it actually makes sense to operate it. I’m not saying they won’t manage to do it, but they haven’t proven that they will be able to do it today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Noticeable is certainly a way of putting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests >However, in the first 14 weeks, 147 windows in the city's two tallest buildings, the First National Bank and Liberty National Bank, were broken. If a sonic boom is "noticeable", that's one thing. But the problem is that even from cruising altitude they're shockingly loud. If the sonic boom is merely bearable, th…
Right, and making an improvement is a big part of Boom's marketing. (It's in their name?!) I'm surprised I didn't hear them make any comments about it in the video during the flight as they crossed the sound barrier each time. Unless I missed it?
I haven't seen anyone directly address it in the comments here (or in the video): was an audible sonic boom noticeable on the ground during today's test flight?
Noticeable is certainly a way of putting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests >However, in the first 14 weeks, 147 windows in the city's two tallest buildings, the First National Bank and Liberty National Bank, were broken. If a sonic boom is "noticeable", that's one thing. But the problem is that even from cruising altitude they're shockingly loud. If the sonic boom is merely bearable, th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, and making an improvement is a big part of Boom's marketing. (It's in their name?!) I'm surprised I didn't hear them make any comments about it in the video during the flight as they crossed the sound barrier each time. Unless I missed it?
It's not something they probably want to draw attention to (despite the name), because it is a barrier to allowing these kinds of flights over land.
Now, Boom might say (have they? I'm not following them) that the XB-1 is a demonstrator that they can do supersonic flight, and that the sonic boom reduction work will follow on. In that case asking what today's boom was is not that interesting.
The chase planes also went supersonic, so they would have contributed to the sonic boom, which might complicate that analysis (well, there would be at most 3 pairs of sonic booms, and it should be possible to tell which ones correspond to which planes).
For those wanting to jump to where it goes supersonic, it happens a little after minute 11 on the flight time. The camera shots are clearer during subsonic flight, then it gets fairly blurry. The takeoff and climb were interesting to see; also before it goes supersonic the shots from the air are remarkably clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also had a three person crew, and post 9/11 was the start of structurally higher oil prices, both of which were a death knell. The true nail in the coffin was the development of the lie flat business seat, which meant that you could cross the Atlantic in three hours in a plush but cramped seat, or spend less money to sleep for six on a redeye and arrive well rested. At that point three hours was not a compelling e…
> and post 9/11 ... Two-thirds of BA's Concorde regular passengers died on 9/11. The service never recovered financially from that loss.