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

511–520 of 545 posts

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

#511

Post by 1970-01-01 »

runako wrote: post #496
1970-01-01 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

> paired via Starlink What advantage does Starlink provide here? Isn't it a higher-latency, slower connection than most people have access to at home?

Their new goal is just 20ms.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-tries-again-to-reduce-star...

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

#512

Post by nine_k »

mrguyorama wrote: post #508
nine_k wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F-16 is a beauty, but it can't do Mach 2 for a prolonged time; it actually can't even do Mach 1.1 for a prolonged time. F-22 is a marvel, and can fly supersonic for much longer, but its cost is exorbitant, and it's not even produced any more. F-35 is more economical but it literally can fly supersonic for a minute or two with the currently installed engines.

You should be asking yourself why the US would buy a supersonic military aircraft when they've spent the last 70 years moving AWAY from higher speeds because it doesn't provide any value. Why would you spend a single dollar on making your launch platform go a little bit faster when the thing you are launching goes faster than Mach 4? And that was true in the 80s. Power output is important but top speed is not a prior…

I'm not saying that supersonic aircraft is particularly useful. I'm saying that it's not widely presented in the USAF.

I'd say that manned military aircraft should generally be on decline, and manned fighter aircraft, tenfold so. The future belongs to drones that can withstand 30G, and have the "brain" more evenly distributed within the craft to increase survivability, and which can carry extra 1000 lb of payload because they have no human + cockpit + ejector seat + life support system on board.

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

#513

Post by credit_guy »

wnolens wrote: post #368
credit_guy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The air density decreases exponentially with the altitude, while the drag only increases quadratically with speed. It is entirely possible that there is an altitude, maybe 70km, where it is much more economical to fly (at supersonic speeds) than the current subsonic planes. Most likely the CEO of Boom ran the numbers, and the $100 ticket price is doable, at least if you exclude things like profit, capital depreciatio…

> Most likely the CEO of Boom ran the numbers, and the $100 ticket price is doable Most likely it's aspirational, something to market to investors and potential employees.

> something to market to investors and potential employees

Neither the investors nor the potential employees strike me as gullible. By the way, the $100 ticket price target was not for the first aircraft, see [1]:

  > The four hour, $100 dream is Boom’s long-term aim, two or three generations of aircraft down the line.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boom-supersonic-four-hour...

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

#514

Post by manquer »

class3shock wrote: post #501
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…

Taken from the first doubtful comment I found in the post you linked. "Sorry, this is ridiculous, it just wont happen (not ever, just this company). From my experience in the aerospace industry, having a manned prototype aircraft of this scale fly within 2 years, supersonic no less (!!), is an impossibility. It is simply not possible, at least with any sane regard for safety." Many of the comments related to Boom abo…

> you are not going to be able to buy a ticket

You probably want to say i cannot buy a ticket and fly on it as a commercial passenger? . I agree second part is impossible to achieve in Just buying a ticket though, on long delayed products or vaporware is quite common nowadays. Tesla has been selling deposits on vehicles which are years behind schedule, Star Citizen famously has raised > $750m and is under development for 10 years and no release date in sight and there are many other examples in crypto and others that sell tickets like that.

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

#515

Post by manquer »

buryat wrote: post #410
ungreased0675 wrote: post #344

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?

If you're rich and can travel faster, why not? I hope they make a coupe version

Perhaps for Jared Issacman type of billionaire .

Rich people prefer the Rolls or Bentley when being a passenger, Sport/ performance vehicles are only fun if you are driving, I would expect the G650/800 style jets would be the preferred plane even if it is slower when you can travel in style and with your entourage.

Also range would be a consideration to this type of jet for passenger travel. Travel times makes difference only for long distance over the ocean flights, these jets tend to be quite short ranged.

XB-1 is only designed for 1000nm at 2.2 Mach compared to the 7000nm of G650 with cruise speed of 0.92 Mach. Basically XB-1 can fly for 40minutes at a time at its cruise(top?) speed of 2.2Mach

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

#516

Post by manquer »

sofixa wrote: post #432
benced wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of a single aerospace company that is not dual-use. I doubt Boom is building with that in mind but if they're around in 50 years, I'd be shocked if they did not have a thriving defense business. (which I think is good but ymmv)

> I can't think of a single aerospace company that is not dual-use Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are pretty squarely military only.

> Lockheed Martin

Government contractor would be closer i think.

Lockheed Martin Space employs quarter of their total workforce and does both, they built the Hubble, and now working on Orion and so on. Key components of Hubble did come from "dual-use" technology i.e. spy satellites.

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

#517

Post by user_7832 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #378
user_7832 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is risk stacking a commonly used term? I couldn’t find anything relevant on google and I’d love to learn other similar concepts.

It is in the venture capitol / startup world, not sure how much it is used outside of that which was why I took time to explain it. A VC looking at a pitch is trying to understand the risks (a VC investment is basically pricing that risk) and each kind of risk has a different method of evaluation.

Thank you!

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

#518

Post by pintxo »

brookst wrote: post #471
Retric wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s fine to have multiple aims, but asking for investments without trying to be profitable is fraud.

That’s… not true at all. Cooking books and falsifying projections is fraud. Asking for investments with a clear disclaimer that the goal is a social good that won’t be profitable? If that’s fraud, then every major arts institution everywhere is guilty.

There is a reason we usually use the word donation in that context. And don’t call it investments. As those tend to be associated with an expectation to be paid back times x.

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

#519

Post by avemuri »

user_7832 wrote: post #376
ChuckMcM wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is risk stacking a commonly used term? I couldn’t find anything relevant on google and I’d love to learn other similar concepts.

I think Mark Andreeson popularized it, crediting Andy Rachleff

https://x.com/StartupArchive_/status/1850205733440413970

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

#520

Post by StevenWaterman »

manquer wrote: post #515
buryat wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're rich and can travel faster, why not? I hope they make a coupe version

Perhaps for Jared Issacman type of billionaire . Rich people prefer the Rolls or Bentley when being a passenger, Sport/ performance vehicles are only fun if you are driving, I would expect the G650/800 style jets would be the preferred plane even if it is slower when you can travel in style and with your entourage . Also range would be a consideration to this type of jet for passenger travel. Travel times makes diffe…

On the road, you have to go the speed limit whether you're in a rolls or a lambo. You might prefer a lambo if it could get there twice as fast
Post reply on HN