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

391–400 of 545 posts

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

#391

Post by lostlogin »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #284
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.

It only needs to be economically viable for billionaires bored with collecting yachts and $100 millionaires who want to flex with charter flights. Scheduled commercial service is a pipe dream but not a requirement for success.

Please keep building yachts jets and rockets then. Otherwise they may get into politics.

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

#392

Post by rbanffy »

chgs wrote: post #247
rbanffy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only do people not need hypersonic flight, We do. It takes me more than 14 hours and two flights to visit my son in Brazil. Even if there was a direct flight, it wouldn't be much less than that. At this time, very few people visit places more than 10 hours away from their homes. Knowing places faraway and different expands one's horizons. You learn that there are different ways of living, different ways of thin…

If there’s no direct flight now it seems unlikely there’s enough demand to justify a supersonic flight.

I can take one subsonic leg to the nearest hub (Amsterdam, London, Paris) and fly from there. It’s that second leg that kills the joy of travelling.

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

#393

Post by tobinfricke »

brucehoult wrote: post #357
iancmceachern wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of those planes made more money than they cost. The Tu-144 was famously not reasonable at all.

Concorde at least made more money than it cost to operate (and maintain). The TU-144 made 102 commercial flights, with 55 of those carrying passengers -- the others I assume were cargo. Not 102 flights per day or month -- 102 flights TOTAL between the first commercial flight in December 1975 and retirement from passenger service in 1978 and from all commercial service in 1983. With 16 built, that's an average of 6 fl…

What cargo would justify a supersonic flight?

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

#394

Post by lostlogin »

chii wrote: post #381
fastball wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you measure the profitability of military aircraft?

Taxpayers willing to pay for it, and at a cost that's inclusive of the profit for the builders.

Wouldn’t that make the Tu-144 a success? And make every government purchase ever, successful?

Could we at least limit it to choices made by elected governments?

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

#395

Post by chii »

lostlogin wrote: post #394
chii wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxpayers willing to pay for it, and at a cost that's inclusive of the profit for the builders.

Wouldn’t that make the Tu-144 a success? And make every government purchase ever, successful? Could we at least limit it to choices made by elected governments?

> And make every government purchase ever, successful?

yes. From the POV of the supplier, every gov't contract is going to be profitable.

That's why the military industrial complex is so big, and profitable. It's why some people go into politics to extend it. Esp. in america.

> How do you measure the profitability of military aircraft?

what you truly meant is how to do you measure the value obtained from a purchase of a military aircraft. And scholars have studied this for centuries and not arrived at a true answer.

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

#396

Post by mattclarkdotnet »

tobinfricke wrote: post #393
brucehoult wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concorde at least made more money than it cost to operate (and maintain). The TU-144 made 102 commercial flights, with 55 of those carrying passengers -- the others I assume were cargo. Not 102 flights per day or month -- 102 flights TOTAL between the first commercial flight in December 1975 and retirement from passenger service in 1978 and from all commercial service in 1983. With 16 built, that's an average of 6 fl…

What cargo would justify a supersonic flight?

Anything high value and perishable, like sushi grade fish for example. Or did you mean morally justifiable?

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

#397

Post by adastra22 »

chgs wrote: post #243
adastra22 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you pay $5k to fly basic economy? Air travel is popular, but extremely price sensitive. Ryanair and its ilk have shown that people will suffer humiliation to save even $50 on ticket prices. Supersonic will have to serve the rich, who are willing to pay to fly private. But how big is that market? Especially if you’re still going to raise prices 2-3x?

There are thousands of business and first class seats sold between London and New York every day, most in the 5k plus per leg range.

Would they pay that much to fly economy, for a flight half as long? I'm skeptical. (Comparable first-class tickets would be $20k - $50k.)

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

#399

Post by rob74 »

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…

> Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one.

Not only that, but the XB-1 uses "stock" engines, while for the full-scale Overture they want to develop (and build) an all-new supersonic-capable engine. So one more challenge to put on the stack...

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

#400

Post by yard2010 »

jameslk wrote: post #115

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…

This is one of the precious little gifts of living in the future. You get to see what (some) people want to achieve and a few actually make this. It's literally people turning their time and resources into magic. Sure, most of the time they fail and you never hear of them again, but the few that can make something that seems virtually impossible happen are a living standard.

To me, life is a sand box. And my dream is that it would be the reality for everyone.

Post reply on HN