Can supersonic aircraft be as big as the 747 etc jumbos without much worse energy requirements? Or does the fuel consumption rise by a factor? I can see the Concorde had almost mach2 as top speed? Is there another Sonic boom at mach2,3 etc? Unless it's a fuel efficient mach3, there's not much point to it, most flying time improvements should be done on checking in and boarding, the flight itself for flights less than…
There is only one boom, when you cross the sound barrier.
Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
81–90 of 150 posts
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you have said the same thing about the Tesla roadster 20 years ago?
No, because physics. Electric engines are twice more energy efficient than their ICE cousins. Supersonic jets are 2-3 times less energy efficient than 'normal' jets, and all methods to make them carbon neutral can be applied to both modes of transport.
You are forgetting one thing: how the electricity is generated. Nuclear reactor is clean, hydro energy from waterfall in Norway is even better. Or a coal power plant in Germany. Electric engine might be super efficient. But at the end it could also be coal powered vehicle.
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#83"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?
Even today's airline industry is unsustainable and can only continue to function because it's heavily subsidised.
Fossil fuel for airplanes is tax-free and cheaper than petrol, e.g. $3.31/gal w/o taxes in California [0] vs. $2.06/gal (average) for jet fuel [1].
Using atmospheric carbon to generate fuel is significantly more expensive than that as even just capturing the CO² costs more than the crude oil used for jet fuel [2].
The claim of "carbon neutral fuel" basically rests on super optimistic assumptions already. The cost can only be competitive if a world-wide carbon tax on the order of $200/metric ton is implemented, which is very unrealistic.
[0] https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transp...
[1] https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/
[2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/carbon-en...
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#84> Boom is building for reliability from day one, and by simplifying the design of the plane and using software solutions wherever possible, they should be able to avoid many of the pitfalls that the Concorde faced. Oh boy. Given softwares track record when it comes to reliability and safety I think that's a mistake. I do trust engineers, I don't trust software engineers.
What do you mean? Airbus planes have been using software very heavily ( fly by wire for instance) since the first models, and recent ones ( A350) have pretty serious server rooms onboard. Just because Boeing are incompetent and criminally negligible doesn't mean that airplanes shouldn't use any software.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72
We still don't know what went wrong there.
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#85Am 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.
If this succeeds, it won't just be for rich people. Anything technological goes down in price over time. And there are huge benefits to modes of affordable travel become faster, which the article details.
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#86"...where Concorde failed?" Hold on, when did Concorde "fail"? Concorde was profitable: https://simpleflying.com/did-british-airways-make-a-profit-f... ---- The reasons for Concorde's discontinuation are legion - I think even if it weren't for the 2000 Air France crash it would have been discontinued simply due to the age of the fleet, what other airlines are still running 50+ year-old airframes today? Let alone thos…
> Concorde was profitable Your own article points out that it really, really wasn't, especially not for the parties investing in its development, not their customers who profited mainly because they got the aircraft at knockdown prices (and operated it without any supersonic competition) in what was later described as one of the worst deals ever negotiated by any government $3bn was spent developing an aircraft they…
"$3bn was spent developing an aircraft they hoped would be the next generation of flight"
When we compare money spent on development, commercial projects will always win because they get to offload infrastructure, prerequisites and fundamental research onto the government.
The first iPhone offered navigation but didn't have to foot the bill for GPS satellites. In the advent of personal car, car companies didn't pay for highways (but train companies do).
The current crop of Fusion start-ups are benefiting from decades of research, and training spend on scientists - they would have no-one to hire!
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#87"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…
I assume Boom will be owning the global IP on the carbon neutral fuel. because otherwise all other planes will equally carbon neutral.
"I assume Boom will be owning the global IP on the carbon neutral fuel"
How would they come to posses it? I don't think it's patentable given the breadth of the topic and amount of research already published.
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Can you explain?
Even today's airline industry is unsustainable and can only continue to function because it's heavily subsidised. Fossil fuel for airplanes is tax-free and cheaper than petrol, e.g. $3.31/gal w/o taxes in California [0] vs. $2.06/gal (average) for jet fuel [1]. Using atmospheric carbon to generate fuel is significantly more expensive than that as even just capturing the CO² costs more than the crude oil used for jet…
"Fossil fuel for airplanes is tax-free and cheaper than petrol, e.g. $3.31/gal w/o taxes in California [0] vs. $2.06/gal (average) for jet fuel [1]."
This is total insanity, why are we doing this
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume Boom will be owning the global IP on the carbon neutral fuel. because otherwise all other planes will equally carbon neutral.
"I assume Boom will be owning the global IP on the carbon neutral fuel" How would they come to posses it? I don't think it's patentable given the breadth of the topic and amount of research already published.
Exactly, which means the carbon neutrality claim is just PR...
Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The people posting here may be wealthy, but I’d wager the vast majority aren’t Concorde wealthy
Are you talking about buying one or traveling in one? Latter is very accessible at least according to projections.