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

371–380 of 545 posts

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

#371

Post by consp »

steveoscaro wrote: post #360
seltzered_ wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to make it environmentally sustainable like they did when they talked about a partnership with Prometheus fuels back in 2019, even then what's the point compared to regular planes if these "are likely to burn between 4.5 and 7.5X more fuel than subsonic aircraft in 2035." [0] [0]: https://bsky.app/profile/rutherdan.bsky.social/post/3lgstwvv... -> 2021 NASA assessment https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/2020…

You don’t “have to” make it environmentally sustainable…

The next generation will love your idealism.

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

#372

Post by rdlw »

scythe wrote: post #323
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.

I don't see the problem? I was just saying that "not noticeable" is a really high bar to set for a supersonic flight.

But your first sentence reads like a direct answer to the question:

> Was the sonic boom noticeable?

> Noticeable is certainly a way of putting it.

As in, "Yes it was noticeable, and then some." At least, that's how I read it.

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

#373

Post by runarberg »

wongarsu wrote: post #314
kridsdale1 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the target market is those who feel about the opportunity cost of another $5,000 the way you and I do about another $5.00

For companies with executives that travel a lot (visiting different offices or store locations or lots of in-person client visits across the country) it might be literally saving them money. And even if it doesn't save them money, the prestige and the fact that the people who approve the purchase are the same people who get to use it help justify the cost

Honestly if that is all they are hoping for, I sincerely hope they fail spectacularly. The world is unequal as it is and I certainly don’t want the rich flexing their wealth with vanity like this, especially not considering the climate cost of all this, and the fact that we are already in a climate catastrophe that is disproportionately caused by the rich while harming the poor.

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

#374

Post by anovikov »

justmedep wrote: post #341
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.

Concord was actually a cash cow for all airlines who had them. The only reason why airlines stopped using Concord was because of the crash and the inherent safety issues that were found. But the actual business model worked - limited in scope but it was highly profitable. “That said, the airlines that flew the Concorde did make a profit. Concorde was only ever purchased by two airlines: BA and Air France. While the c…

It worked because not just the development costs were paid for by the government, but acquisition costs were, too. Planes were given to the airlines for free, completely paid for by the states.

Also, only be BA made good profit on it and only after mid-1980s. Air France could barely break even.

If not the PR effect that put those airlines above all others as the only ones flying supersonically, they'd never make any sense to either of them.

These days, they'd certainly not be viable as private planes are now much more available and much cheaper than they used to be back in the day and these save a lot more time than supersonic flights. BA fare for LHR-JFK roundtrip was 10K pounds back in 2000, $15.2K at the average exchange rate, that's $28K inflation adjusted! Who'd pay that kind of money today for a commercial flight?

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

#376

Post by user_7832 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #345
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.

I don't disagree that it's proof they will succeed, it is however proof that they can build a supersonic aircraft. That is no small thing. Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one. In terms of 'risk stacking'[1] they are definitely a big step closer to being in successful. [1] Risk Stacking is the set of risks a company faces between t…

Is risk stacking a commonly used term? I couldn’t find anything relevant on google and I’d love to learn other similar concepts.

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

#377

Post by __loam »

nradov wrote: post #363
__loam wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military has had supersonic aircraft since the 1950s, why would they care about this?

The military has never had an operational supersonic transport aircraft. It's not a high enough priority for them to fund development of one from scratch, but if it's available on the civilian market then they'll probably buy a few. There are a few potential missions such as dignitary transport or rapid delivery of special operations teams.

Good argument.

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

#378

Post by ChuckMcM »

user_7832 wrote: post #376
ChuckMcM wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that it's proof they will succeed, it is however proof that they can build a supersonic aircraft. That is no small thing. Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one. In terms of 'risk stacking'[1] they are definitely a big step closer to being in successful. [1] Risk Stacking is the set of risks a company faces between t…

Is risk stacking a commonly used term? I couldn’t find anything relevant on google and I’d love to learn other similar concepts.

It is in the venture capitol / startup world, not sure how much it is used outside of that which was why I took time to explain it. A VC looking at a pitch is trying to understand the risks (a VC investment is basically pricing that risk) and each kind of risk has a different method of evaluation.

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

#379

Post by Animats »

It's nice, but it's basically Scaled Composites, Rutan's old company, building a supersonic fighter plane sized aircraft. That's what Scaled Composites does - build little airplanes as test vehicles. Not always little; they built Stratolaunch.

There have been many supersonic bizjet projects.[1] Spike [2] seems to be the only one other than Boom still alive.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_business_jet

[2] https://www.spikeaerospace.com/

Post reply on HN