401–410 of 545 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Endless pessimism, even in the face of evidence to the contrary is a hallmark of HN. Thank you for continuing the tradition. May you never hold out hope for anything positive in the future.
It's not pessimism to correctly describe reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Endless pessimism, even in the face of evidence to the contrary is a hallmark of HN. Thank you for continuing the tradition. May you never hold out hope for anything positive in the future.
Blind optimism is just as obnoxious as blind pessimism - both are based on ignorance. Boom still hasn't solved the 2 hardest problems after nearly a decade. Currently regulations prohibit supersonic flight over land. It's a total guess whether or not they'll be able to overcome this, but I remain skeptical both of their noise claims and their ability to overturn legislation. Also they don't have a real plan for an en…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
A British Airways first class LHR-JFK roundtrip is $10K today for an 8h flight. Supersonic would be 3h.
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.
I didn't see any data on the loudness of the sonic boom. Isn't an important part of the idea here to diminish that significantly?
I think you are confusing Boom with NASA’s QUESST project. https://www.nasa.gov/mission/quesst/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No tax dollars behind it" is directionally true since it wasn't built by one of the Primes, but not literally true. As is the wont of every company these days, they've extracted tens/hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds.. $200 million in North Carolina for production: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy-tracker/nc-... $60 million from the US Air Force for development: https://www.aerospacetestinginter…
I think these types of arguments are somewhat disingenuous when it's referring to tax breaks on future taxes. It doesn't harm the state at all because the company wouldn't have located in the state in the first place without it. It just acts to remove the drag on the company being successful. If they're successful then the amount of tax revenue the state will get will be tremendous. So there's no downsides. And it al…
> "In addition, the state set aside in the state budget (via HB 334) $106.7 million for the site and roads improvement and for constructing hangers at the project site. "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Not taking away from your point, just for comparison: A British Airways first class LHR-JFK roundtrip is $10K today for an 8h flight. Supersonic would be 3h.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that specifically one of the types of travel predicted to be made possible by reusable rockets capable of landing on the ground? From Florida to Japan in 45 minutes type of thing
Reaction Engines in the UK spent over 35 years working mostly on that concept (though when they eventually went bust trying to scale up last year I think they were focused on reusable space launch business model which is ironically more realistic)
Why are some camera shots so dull? Is that a HDR problem?
Yes I noticed this for a lot of the ground shots - looks like they've made a mistake and we're seeing the uncorrected log curve output of the camera, and they've forgotten to load (or enable) a LUT (look up table) for the conversion to linear. It's basically just missing half of the image processing, normally you'd only output to that to a recorder if you were going to apply all the grading later in post production (…
Does Boom have a public roadmap? How much of a jump is it between building a fighter jet clone and building a passenger sized aircraft? I suspect it’s a massive jump. How much of the technology and testing is transferable? I also suspect not much. They’re going to spend an immense amount of money testing this aircraft, will it get them closer to passenger service as a result?