Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#91

Post by qayxc » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:12 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #24

thedrbrian wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not BOOM but Rolls Royce have an idea of using one of their Small Modular Reactors to generate synthetic aviation fuel at only double the cost of normal stuff. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rolls-Royce-on-t...

So, if you remove the nuclear and couple it with wind or solar, it may end up cheaper than the liquid dinosaur stuff.

Unlikely. The cost involved would still be substantially higher than fossil fuel.

The required energy scales quadratically with speed. That's just basic physics and there's no way around it.

The real question we should ask ourselves is whether it's even worth it just to shave off a couple of hours on a trip that shouldn't be a regular occurrence anyway?

If you take the entire trip - that is door-to-door - into consideration, the time savings you pay for with about 6.25x the energy use comes down to 30% or so:

• 1 hour to get to the airport

• 1.5 hours security checks, check-in, getting on the plane

• 6 hours flight time

• 1.5 hours security checks, customs, getting out of the airport

• 1 hour airport to destination

That's 11 hours total for the subsonic flight and ~7.5 hours for the supersonic flight (assuming >mach 2.2 for the entire duration of the flight). That's a net time saving of 3.5 hours or ~32% faster for >6.25 the energy expense.

How does that make any sense?

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#92

Post by rbanffy » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:27 PM UTC

qayxc wrote: post #91

rbanffy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if you remove the nuclear and couple it with wind or solar, it may end up cheaper than the liquid dinosaur stuff.

Unlikely. The cost involved would still be substantially higher than fossil fuel. The required energy scales quadratically with speed. That's just basic physics and there's no way around it. The real question we should ask ourselves is whether it's even worth it just to shave off a couple of hours on a trip that shouldn't be a regular occurrence anyway? If you take the entire trip - that is door-to-door - into consid…

Supersonic doesn’t make too much sense for short flights, but I routinely fly 10+ hour routes and it’d be wonderful if I could shave 5 hours from the total flight time. If they can do LA or SF to Tokyo or Taipei, it’ll make a miserable trip into a bearable one.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#93

Post by user-the-name » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:27 PM UTC

lnsru wrote: post #82

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And?

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#94

Post by user-the-name » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:28 PM UTC

ignoramous wrote: post #65

user-the-name wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% correct. The last thing we need is more inefficient aviation for the super-rich.

Historically, things that were only meant for the super rich eventually got commoditised for everyone. And: Under current capitalist regimes, this is how humans push the envelope of possibilities, like it or not. Climate crisis is urgent but token efforts to strike down nascent businesses on the cutting-edge such as Boom is not how the world solves it (discounting the fact that Boom has a path forward to be carbon-ne…

> Historically, things that were only meant for the super rich eventually got commoditised for everyone

That would make the situation much, much worse.

> Under current capitalist regimes, this is how humans push the envelope of possibilities, like it or not

"Not" would be the choice there. This is exactly the reason why we are in this crisis.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#95

Post by rbanffy » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:29 PM UTC

mikro2nd wrote: post #55

rbanffy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A supersonic transport can carry twice as many passengers per day as a subsonic widebody.

How does cost per passenger-km compare?

Ticket should cost anything between 2 to 4 times a normal one. If it works, it’ll capture a lot of business and first class tickets from normal airliners

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#96

Post by user-the-name » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:29 PM UTC

mcherm wrote: post #58

D2man wrote: post #33

Am 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.

So, according to the article, Boom intends to make their plane carbon neutral from day 1 (by using fuel generated from atmospheric carbon). Clearly that is intended to address concerns like yours. Does that change your opinion in any way? If so, how does it change? If not, then why not?

No. That fuel could be used for other things, to offset more emissions, rather than wasting it on the ultra rich.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#97

Post by user-the-name » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:30 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #85

D2man wrote: post #33

Am 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.

That is even worse.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#98

Post by cpursley » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:35 PM UTC

user-the-name wrote: post #96

mcherm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, according to the article, Boom intends to make their plane carbon neutral from day 1 (by using fuel generated from atmospheric carbon). Clearly that is intended to address concerns like yours. Does that change your opinion in any way? If so, how does it change? If not, then why not?

No. That fuel could be used for other things, to offset more emissions, rather than wasting it on the ultra rich.

Have you considered that it could be used by more than just the ultra rich. For example, medical flights. Or emergency family travel (like when my mother was dying last month and I was on the other side of the world and missed my chance to see her alive due to lenghty air travel).

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#99

Post by Zanni » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:45 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #92

qayxc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely. The cost involved would still be substantially higher than fossil fuel. The required energy scales quadratically with speed. That's just basic physics and there's no way around it. The real question we should ask ourselves is whether it's even worth it just to shave off a couple of hours on a trip that shouldn't be a regular occurrence anyway? If you take the entire trip - that is door-to-door - into consid…

Supersonic doesn’t make too much sense for short flights, but I routinely fly 10+ hour routes and it’d be wonderful if I could shave 5 hours from the total flight time. If they can do LA or SF to Tokyo or Taipei, it’ll make a miserable trip into a bearable one.

Exactly. Anything over five hours is very unpleasant for me. Over eight hours and I'll actually segment the trip with a hotel stay in between. Turning a 10-hour flight into a five-hour flight would save me a full day.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#100

Post by Zanni » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 12:50 PM UTC

j-pb wrote: post #27

> 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.

By "software solutions," I believe they mean simulating wind tunnels so they can rapidly iterate. Once they have something that works, they still build a physical prototype and test it. There's no real software risk. (See bullet 1 under "Why Did The Concorde Fail.) There's another article on Boom that talks about this approach.