Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#51

Post by whinvik »

rgmerk wrote: post #36
whinvik wrote: post #24

It's very disappointing to see how skeptical HN has become about new technology. Making aircrafts is hard, making supersonic aircraft even harder and making a new supersonic aircraft company hardest of all. That there's progress by Boom should be encouraged. Otherwise we are just saying that aircrafts will continue to be the domain of Airbus and Boeing only who don't have much incentive to innovate.

The point is that there isn’t progress on the most critical part of a viable aircraft - the engine. Some of us who weren’t born yesterday have seen this rodeo before, and when a startup aircraft manufacturer switches engines it tends to indicate their concept isn’t viable. The fact that Boom are proposing to build their own engine, rather than partnering with an established engine manufacturer, tends to suggest that…

Ok I will bite. Commercial engine manufacturers are also an oligopoly so they also have very little incentive to innovate like aircraft manufacturers. The only way to incentivize them is to bring a big pot of gold. I remember Boom tried but one of the engine manufacturers initially signed on then withdrew.

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#52

Post by kitd »

goodSteveramos wrote: post #39
kitd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely made up nonsense with no evidence Citation?

this is a really funny comment if you think about it. Instead of simply presenting the evidence, you demand that he prove there is none. Quite a bold demand. got to respect that on some level. If you disagree, prove there isn't any evidence that Im right.

Not so. He is the one who made the original statement. The onus of proof is on him to show what is "completely made up". It's a fairly extreme statement after all.

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#53

Post by whinvik »

mmustapic wrote: post #29
whinvik wrote: post #24

It's very disappointing to see how skeptical HN has become about new technology. Making aircrafts is hard, making supersonic aircraft even harder and making a new supersonic aircraft company hardest of all. That there's progress by Boom should be encouraged. Otherwise we are just saying that aircrafts will continue to be the domain of Airbus and Boeing only who don't have much incentive to innovate.

The technology was already solved decades ago, we had the Concorde. Supersonic flight is well understood. The hard part is to make a supersonic aircraft that's commercially viable. Personally, I'm very skeptical when they say things like "zero carbon" or "anywhere in the world for $100", very difficult to believe them. The only progress they made for now is building a single seat supersonic plane that maybe will fly.…

Yes parts of it were solved decades ago but Boom is not doing exactly the same thing. Concorde for example had an afterburner.

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#54

Post by [deleted] »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #50
perihelions wrote: post #38

- "And it is built specifically for use with Sustainable Aviation Fuel, a cleaner alternative to ordinary jet fuel — albeit one that costs several times more right now." I've been thinking about this for a while, in the context of multiple different startups. There's this (anti)pattern I see repeatedly: a startup says they're doing something that's an obviously an overwhelmingly bad idea from a business sense, but th…

Building for SAF is actually one of the plus points I see in this. It's generally purer than old-fashioned stuff, and the wider industry has already committed to switching to it on all the legacy machines, so there is likely some benefits at the design stage to assuming this better quality fuel is available, which it almost certainly will be.

[deleted]

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#55

Post by Adrig »

mmustapic wrote: post #29
whinvik wrote: post #24

It's very disappointing to see how skeptical HN has become about new technology. Making aircrafts is hard, making supersonic aircraft even harder and making a new supersonic aircraft company hardest of all. That there's progress by Boom should be encouraged. Otherwise we are just saying that aircrafts will continue to be the domain of Airbus and Boeing only who don't have much incentive to innovate.

The technology was already solved decades ago, we had the Concorde. Supersonic flight is well understood. The hard part is to make a supersonic aircraft that's commercially viable. Personally, I'm very skeptical when they say things like "zero carbon" or "anywhere in the world for $100", very difficult to believe them. The only progress they made for now is building a single seat supersonic plane that maybe will fly.…

Innovation doesn't stop once you manage to make something fly. Aerodynamics simulations, science of materials, engine design or manufacturing innovation like metal 3D printing are some of the areas that can completely revolutionize how we look at previous problems.

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#56

Post by mmustapic »

whinvik wrote: post #53
mmustapic wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology was already solved decades ago, we had the Concorde. Supersonic flight is well understood. The hard part is to make a supersonic aircraft that's commercially viable. Personally, I'm very skeptical when they say things like "zero carbon" or "anywhere in the world for $100", very difficult to believe them. The only progress they made for now is building a single seat supersonic plane that maybe will fly.…

Yes parts of it were solved decades ago but Boom is not doing exactly the same thing. Concorde for example had an afterburner.

Concorde used afterburners for take-off and while transitioning to supersonic, then it cruised at Mach 2 without afterburners.

The thing with Boom is that they are saying "we are doing this new great thing", and it's not new, Concorde did it. How are they specifically going to be better than Concorde? Just not using afterburners during taking off? Are they going to be cheaper? How? Just by saying they will?

That's why I understand that people don't care about this technology, because it's nothing new, and there's no proof Boom is doing something radically different that will solve the main problems of supersonic travel.

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#57

Post by Gatsky »

whinvik wrote: post #24

It's very disappointing to see how skeptical HN has become about new technology. Making aircrafts is hard, making supersonic aircraft even harder and making a new supersonic aircraft company hardest of all. That there's progress by Boom should be encouraged. Otherwise we are just saying that aircrafts will continue to be the domain of Airbus and Boeing only who don't have much incentive to innovate.

Yeah it seems a bit of a downer, but it’s mostly just noise. How many of us would actually invest money in Boom right now? Basically none. How many of us would short it if we could? Basically none.

The fact that Boom exists at all suggests sufficient optimism about new technology is out there somewhere.

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#58

Post by mmustapic »

Adrig wrote: post #55
mmustapic wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology was already solved decades ago, we had the Concorde. Supersonic flight is well understood. The hard part is to make a supersonic aircraft that's commercially viable. Personally, I'm very skeptical when they say things like "zero carbon" or "anywhere in the world for $100", very difficult to believe them. The only progress they made for now is building a single seat supersonic plane that maybe will fly.…

Innovation doesn't stop once you manage to make something fly. Aerodynamics simulations, science of materials, engine design or manufacturing innovation like metal 3D printing are some of the areas that can completely revolutionize how we look at previous problems.

Are they doing something like that? If true, how will this solve the main problems of supersonic commercial flights, that being cost, noise and pollution?

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#59

Post by masklinn »

kitd wrote: post #52
goodSteveramos wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a really funny comment if you think about it. Instead of simply presenting the evidence, you demand that he prove there is none. Quite a bold demand. got to respect that on some level. If you disagree, prove there isn't any evidence that Im right.

Not so. He is the one who made the original statement. The onus of proof is on him to show what is "completely made up". It's a fairly extreme statement after all.

No, the original statement is that there is “new technology” which HN is “skeptical of”.

The evidentiary requirements for a dismissal are no higher than what they dismiss. Which in this case is a PR bit completely devoid of evidence, so 0.

But if you’ re interested in evidence I actually scratched a bit at one of the names mentioned, and I can’t say I’m impressed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33983419#33996877

Re: Boom takes the wraps off its supersonic Symphony engine design

#60

Post by kelnos »

perihelions wrote: post #38

- "And it is built specifically for use with Sustainable Aviation Fuel, a cleaner alternative to ordinary jet fuel — albeit one that costs several times more right now." I've been thinking about this for a while, in the context of multiple different startups. There's this (anti)pattern I see repeatedly: a startup says they're doing something that's an obviously an overwhelmingly bad idea from a business sense, but th…

I was clicking through the partner pages on their website, and noticed a disclaimer "... subject to availability". So I assume the implication is that, while it's designed for use with SAF, it can run on conventional aviation fuels as well.

What fuel to put in it will presumably be up to the airline, not Boom, so Boom can get the "credit" for building something "intended for" SAF, but the airline will get the flak if the end up not using it.

Post reply on HN