Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

johncoogan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 150 posts

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#31

Post by Sebb767 »

rbanffy wrote: post #21
Stratoscope wrote: post #8

I will never understand why Boom chose such a terrible name. Of course it is a novelty to hear a sonic boom once or twice, but who wants to hear them repeatedly? I imagine they will fly mostly overwater like Concorde, but why remind people on the ground of the most annoying thing that a supersonic flight does? Much worse, as safe and reliable as they can build and fly these airplanes, eventually there will be a fligh…

> I will never understand why Boom chose such a terrible name. It’ll be the core of countless jokes. I remember a TV series called “Fireball XL5” about a spaceship with that name and I always found it amusing someone would want to board something named like that.

Spaceships always land as a fireball (atmospheric re-entry), so it's a fitting name IMO.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#32

Post by AngryData »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #14
henrikschroder wrote: post #2

> 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.

Yeah it sounds pretty suspect to me. The lowest powered cars I could find that would do 250 MPH were around 800HP, most were 1000+.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#33

Post by D2man »

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.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#34

Post by sofixa »

j-pb wrote: post #27

> Boom is building for reliability from day one, and by simplifying the design of the plane and using software solutions wherever possible, they should be able to avoid many of the pitfalls that the Concorde faced. Oh boy. Given softwares track record when it comes to reliability and safety I think that's a mistake. I do trust engineers, I don't trust software engineers.

What do you mean? Airbus planes have been using software very heavily ( fly by wire for instance) since the first models, and recent ones ( A350) have pretty serious server rooms onboard.

Just because Boeing are incompetent and criminally negligible doesn't mean that airplanes shouldn't use any software.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#35

Post by sweetheart »

hannob wrote: post #29

"Boom is leveraging advances in engine design that yield greater fuel efficiency, which will mean cheaper ticket prices. But they aren’t stopping there. Boom plans to use fuel made from carbon removed from the atmosphere, meaning that supersonic travel will be carbon neutral from day one." You can have cheap tickets and don't give a shit about the climate or you can claim you use extra expensive synfuels made from ca…

Why not? Can you explain?

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#37

Post by speedgoose »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #14
henrikschroder wrote: post #2

> 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.

Also, the hyper cars that can reach 400km/h cannot travel at such speeds. They don't have enough range and their tires would blow relatively quickly.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#38

Post by cnlevy »

sofixa wrote: post #36

One of the main reasons the US banned supersonic flights overland is that the only plane capable of them wasn't American. The ban came only after Boeing abandoned their plans for a competitor.

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

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#39

Post by whazor »

hannob wrote: post #29

"Boom is leveraging advances in engine design that yield greater fuel efficiency, which will mean cheaper ticket prices. But they aren’t stopping there. Boom plans to use fuel made from carbon removed from the atmosphere, meaning that supersonic travel will be carbon neutral from day one." You can have cheap tickets and don't give a shit about the climate or you can claim you use extra expensive synfuels made from ca…

Cheaper than Concorde is still very expensive I assume.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#40

Post by lukebutton »

hannob wrote: post #29

"Boom is leveraging advances in engine design that yield greater fuel efficiency, which will mean cheaper ticket prices. But they aren’t stopping there. Boom plans to use fuel made from carbon removed from the atmosphere, meaning that supersonic travel will be carbon neutral from day one." You can have cheap tickets and don't give a shit about the climate or you can claim you use extra expensive synfuels made from ca…

Why can't you have both?
Post reply on HN