"Boom is leveraging advances in engine design that yield greater fuel efficiency, which will mean cheaper ticket prices. But they aren’t stopping there. Boom plans to use fuel made from carbon removed from the atmosphere, meaning that supersonic travel will be carbon neutral from day one." You can have cheap tickets and don't give a shit about the climate or you can claim you use extra expensive synfuels made from ca…
Why not? Can you explain?
Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
51–60 of 150 posts
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#52"Boom is leveraging advances in engine design that yield greater fuel efficiency, which will mean cheaper ticket prices. But they aren’t stopping there. Boom plans to use fuel made from carbon removed from the atmosphere, meaning that supersonic travel will be carbon neutral from day one." You can have cheap tickets and don't give a shit about the climate or you can claim you use extra expensive synfuels made from ca…
If you produce so much power - think solar on every rooftop, maybe one day fusion or clean fission becomes available - you will neccessarily have some way to store surplus energy. Especially with solar and wind. I can imagine that one way to do that will be synthetic fuel from air or from trash.
So yes, today it is not feasible (with today's technology and society). But I think it is not more unrealistic than other ideas popular around here, like hyperloop, fusion, or self-driving cars.
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#53Am I the only one here thinking this is an unwanted future ? Aerospace is already profiting to few rich people on earth and represents 2% of global emissions and this is saying "well we need to go faster consuming yet huge amount of fuel" for the wealthiest. Please stop these technos solutionists gadget and start to think real problems like the climate crisis.
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#54Am I the only one here thinking this is an unwanted future ? Aerospace is already profiting to few rich people on earth and represents 2% of global emissions and this is saying "well we need to go faster consuming yet huge amount of fuel" for the wealthiest. Please stop these technos solutionists gadget and start to think real problems like the climate crisis.
This is like criticizing the automobile back when only the ultra wealthy could afford them and most people still road around on horse or foot.
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#55Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#56Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#57Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#58Am I the only one here thinking this is an unwanted future ? Aerospace is already profiting to few rich people on earth and represents 2% of global emissions and this is saying "well we need to go faster consuming yet huge amount of fuel" for the wealthiest. Please stop these technos solutionists gadget and start to think real problems like the climate crisis.
Does that change your opinion in any way? If so, how does it change? If not, then why not?
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#59Am I the only one here thinking this is an unwanted future ? Aerospace is already profiting to few rich people on earth and represents 2% of global emissions and this is saying "well we need to go faster consuming yet huge amount of fuel" for the wealthiest. Please stop these technos solutionists gadget and start to think real problems like the climate crisis.
It's always entertaining to see techno-luddites on HN - where the average person is wealthy and probably drives a gasoline car for most daily activities. This is like criticizing the automobile back when only the ultra wealthy could afford them and most people still road around on horse or foot.
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#60How can one push up the valuation of the company if it´s just doing R/D for years? Aren´t all the original investors and the founder diluted to nothing after two round of funding? Or did the founder start with a couple of million of his own money, meaning he still owned 100% after the first investment rounds? Also, how would this work with YC - don´t they take like 8% for a relatively small amount of funding?