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

481–490 of 545 posts

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

#481

Post by avn2109 »

InTheArena wrote: post #469
throwaway2037 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Boom aiming to be faster than the Concorde? I don't think so. Their website says: > Overture will carry 64-80 passengers at Mach 1.7 Concorde flew NYC LON in 3.5 hours. I guess Boom will fly the route in about 4 hours. Also, regular commercial flights on NYC LON are currently 7 hours. Also, using Google Flights, I priced LHR JFK on first class about T+1month for 7 days (Mon->Mon). It is about 5.3K USD round trip.…

The one new factor is the route fragmentation that occurred over the Atlantic with the 757 and 767 and the fragmentation that occurred over the Pacific with the 777 and 787. These changed from a model where only hub to hub flights where every seat had to be sold to be viable from a financial point of view to enabling many city pairs to work, and airlines still to make a profit, even if the business class seats are no…

You should write more about this on a blog or something, it's interesting and you seem knowledgeable.

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

#482

Post by idlewords »

yard2010 wrote: post #401
idlewords wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not pessimism to correctly describe reality.

There is no such thing as correctly describing reality, the way you describe your reality affects your reality. Reality is mostly perspective.

When people say stuff like this I like to test the claim by kicking them in the shin.

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

#484

Post by 1970-01-01 »

fryd_w wrote: post #449

Boom’s real challenge isn’t just showing they can go supersonic—it’s designing an engine and airframe combo that can operate at scale, hit reasonable ticket prices, and address stricter environmental policies than Concorde ever faced. The XB-1 proves they’re capable of building a small supersonic jet, but the gap between a funded prototype and a viable passenger fleet is enormous. Unless they can tackle those regulat…

>hit reasonable ticket prices

There's much more to this. Their biggest competition may be cheaper Meta headsets paired via Starlink. Why travel as fast as possible when you can simply be there instantly for a fraction of the cost?

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

#485

Post by OnlineGladiator »

noisy_boy wrote: post #442
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrationally optimistic people will tell you they have a device that defies the laws of physics (I mean hard laws, like conservation of energy or the speed of light), and investors will give them money. I have seen this happen enough times I'd actually have to stop to think of the correct number. The point is both are disconnected from reality. What we need are people that aren't full of shit. There is a place betwee…

> There is a place between "everything is impossible" and "everything is possible" that works better for getting things done. Exactly, and we know for sure that Boom are definitely NOT in that place, how?

Well, it's hard to fly a plane without an engine. Just a minor detail though. How hard can the hardest part really be? Also you should always save the hardest part for last if you want to be sure you'll succeed.

It's only been a decade, they're only behind by an order of magnitude on their timeline, and they don't even have a concept of a plan for the critical component. It's fine.

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

#486

Post by throwaway48476 »

nashashmi wrote: post #251
cromulent wrote: post #121

“Currently, all civil aircraft flights are prohibited from operating above Mach one speeds over land in the United States.” [1] Mike Bannister’s excellent book Concorde talks at length about how “handsomely profitable” the BA service was (as opposed to the Air France one) from 1984 until the 2000 crash and subsequent grounding put them in to a spiral where keeping enough people certified was too expensive. One part o…

If Airforce One presidential plane is assigned to a sound-breaker, people will love the sound that comes from it. “Look the president is flying above us” people will say in excitement.

Air force one is always a safe proven design.

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

#487

Post by throwaway48476 »

gus_massa wrote: post #290
dingaling wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and post 9/11 ... Two-thirds of BA's Concorde regular passengers died on 9/11. The service never recovered financially from that loss.

Thats a very interesting observation. Do you have a link with more details?

I can see 2/3 quit flying, but died? Seems unlikely.

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

#489

Post by ghaff »

ethbr1 wrote: post #474
ghaff wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are usually at least daily flights on most routes. Business travelers, in particular, aren't going to wait a few days to take a flight that's a few hours faster. Absolutely no one is heading out 5 days early to shave 3 or 4 hours off their flight time. Even for tourism, I wouldn't.

Depends where Boom's ticket prices fall. If they go for the low-rich market, their target customer moves schedules around themselves. If a CEO can't be in Europe until Wednesday, then the meeting happens Wednesday. And the key thing Boom will be selling is literally unique: fewer hours on a plane. To some, that's a nice to have. To people who hate being on a plane, it's worth a lot. And even lie-flat first class suck…

Color me skeptical. I don't think CEOs have as much schedule flexibility as you think they do. A lot of the time they're traveling to meet with customers, analysts/media, investors, and so forth. And they have a lot of timing constraints. Senior execs tend to travel a lot. It's part of the job description basically along with early morning and late night conference calls and, generally, often grueling hours although some maintain better balance than others.

And trans-Atlantic flights just aren't all that long. I'd pay some premium to avoid a red-eye but not likely $5K-$10K even if I could. That's probably about what I'm paying for a whole 3 week trip today.

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

#490

Post by calmbonsai »

sofixa wrote: post #431
calmbonsai wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until the FAA oversight and permitting regs are updated, it's far too cost and time prohibitive to bring anything (aside from avionics) truly innovative to the GA market. For a vivid example, look at the multi-year certification torture that even a minor new engine design (DeltaHawk https://www.deltahawk.com/ ) must endure, or hell, the comical marathon of low-lead avgas adoption, or even a basic 12V https://www.yout…

> Until the FAA oversight and permitting regs are updated, it's far too cost and time prohibitive to bring anything (aside from avionics) truly innovative to the GA market. Unless you take a look at why those regulations came into place - literally tens of thousands of people dying in fiery crashes. Aviation safety is an incredibly complex topic, and even with the strict regulatory regimes of today, companies like Bo…

I'm not saying the regulatory environment is wrong. I'm saying the market it creates (aside from avionics) is not a good fit for innovation stemming from venture capital due to venture capital's expected return magnitudes and timelines.

I cited three technologies (ICE engine redesign, low-lead gasoline, and lithium batteries) where those timelines for market adoption (outside of GA) were orders of magnitude (decades) shorter.

My comments were solely targeted at GA. Commercial aviation is an entirely different ball game.

Post reply on HN