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

301–310 of 545 posts

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

#301

Post by class3shock »

This is literally a company designed to separate investors from money so aerospace engineers can have fun, which I guess is better than many startups. At the end of the day though there is no way they are designing, prototyping, getting FAA approval for, and going to manufacturing on a plane and engine by 2030. It's not unlikely, it's just not feasible which literally anyone who bothers to look at the FAA website would be able to tell.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific...

"By comparison, the certification of a new aircraft type can take between 5 and 9 years."

And that is just for the plane, engine certification is its own process and just as arduous.

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

#302

Post by buran77 »

ergocoder wrote: post #266
echoangle wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Basically, the critics: "unless you build a 100B company, we are not wrong" I mean, yeah, sure.

Success should be measured against the stated objectives, the promises made to investors, or general positive influence on society. In this case the objective was "supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly." [0]

> Basically, the critics

You're being uncharitable and hyperbolizing the criticism to more easily dismiss it. Would you hyperbolize any praise as "identifying another way this won't work is also a success in itself"?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286

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

#303

Post by AnarchismIsCool »

actionfromafar wrote: post #117
thepaulmcbride wrote: post #112

The angle of attack at both takeoff and touch down is pretty wild!

I can't let go of the suspicion that this could become some kind of military (drone or not) airframe.

They have some interest in a "special mission" version, a common aerospace euphemism for militarized.

They also claim to be a potential candidate for a next gen Air Force One.

That's the game with aerospace startups though. The CEO gets everyone wrapped around a "vision" for some gonna-save-humanity green peace machine (insert obligatory disaster response mission) and then once everyone is hooked you look up one day from your cruise missile design and wonder WTF just happened...

Source: have worked for several of these kinds of startups, have seen this happen pretty much everywhere.

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

#304

Post by theodric »

class3shock wrote: post #301

This is literally a company designed to separate investors from money so aerospace engineers can have fun, which I guess is better than many startups. At the end of the day though there is no way they are designing, prototyping, getting FAA approval for, and going to manufacturing on a plane and engine by 2030. It's not unlikely, it's just not feasible which literally anyone who bothers to look at the FAA website wou…

Wait until they pull out their Trump card

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

#305

Post by aeturnum »

Retric wrote: post #283
aeturnum wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s fine to have multiple aims, but asking for investments without trying to be profitable is fraud.

I think that depends on what you say to the investors!

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

#306

Post by stouset »

nine_k wrote: post #300
stouset wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way do you think building a new but still-uneconomic supersonic plane is going to change the world for the better?

Uber and Lyft are largely still unprofitable, but they definitely have changed the landscape, as many would argue, to the better.

The cost of putting a single car and driver-for-hire on the streets is a handful of dollars, so it's easy to do many of them at a loss. The cost of putting a single instance of a new airplane design of this scale into the air with even a single paying passenger is in the range of billions if not tens-of-billions of dollars.

This is not even remotely comparable.

But just for comparison, Aérospatiale and BAC actually built a real supersonic plane (Concorde) and managed to fly and operate that plane for decades. It's hard to find much measurable impact on the world at all. What do you propose would be different here, given that the discussion is already presuming a world in which they haven't succeeded economically?

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

#307

Post by nine_k »

hugs wrote: post #291
cryptonector wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP was asking about this flight's sonic boom. That's the whole point of Boom: to make supersonic airplanes with small sonic booms.

First confirmation I've found so far on this exact question: "XB-1 is supersonic! (No boom audible here, as expected)" - Jon Ostrower https://bsky.app/profile/jonostrower.com/post/3lgsvea6zbs2x Raises more questions though, because there were two other chase planes. Did the other planes stay below the sound barrier at all times? Edit to add: Was no audible boom expected because of the planes themselves or because of…

With planes being long enough away from the demonstrator, and speed of sound relatively low (about 330 m/s), the booms of all three planes should be separate enough, e.g. a good 100 ms away from one another, even if all three went supersonic and were dragging their respective shock waves.

The distance between the planes appeared to be around 30-50 m at the supersonic transition time, as much as I can estimate the size of the planes. A sound recording made under the flight path should allow to measure how many dB was the demonstrator's boom.

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

#308

Post by wongarsu »

ergocoder wrote: post #266
echoangle wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Basically, the critics: "unless you build a 100B company, we are not wrong" I mean, yeah, sure.

My metric for success is simply making more money than they spent.

Supersonic planes are already proven technology. We made the Concorde and the Tu-144 in the 70s, and have plenty of supersonic military planes in active service. The assumption was simply that you can't make a profit by selling them as civil aviation planes. That's the assumption Boom is challenging, and to be proven correct they have to turn a profit. And not just an operating profit by selling planes for more than they cost to make but make back the research and development costs as well

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

#309

Post by meiraleal »

nine_k wrote: post #300
stouset wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way do you think building a new but still-uneconomic supersonic plane is going to change the world for the better?

Uber and Lyft are largely still unprofitable, but they definitely have changed the landscape, as many would argue, to the better.

Uber is not unprofitable, there are so many people that got rich off it, they just max out salaries and compensations.

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

#310

Post by hamandcheese »

ctippett wrote: post #280
chgs wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I flew from Heathrow it was 45 minutes from car to take off, and that was with a 20 minute door close. It doesn’t take 2 hours to go through security , certainly not in the first class section in any case.

Ah yes, let's use the timeline for a first class passenger as the average for how long it takes to go from check-in to take off.

That is the correct benchmark for potential Boom customers.
Post reply on HN