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

91–99 of 99 posts

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

#91

Post by ranger207 »

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…

The business explanation is that their customers, currently, are VC, not airlines

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

#92

Post by simple10 »

Here's the link to Airmade SAF [1]. The company making the "net zero" fuel that Boom wants / hopes customers will use for net zero flights. Tons of marketing hype, but at least it's not a carbon offset bait and switch.

Anybody know how much this fuel is supposed to cost relative to fossil jet fuel?

Boom says they have a deal with Airmade for 5M gallons of SAF per year. [2]

[1] https://www.aircompany.com/sustainable-aviation-fuel/

[2] https://boomsupersonic.com/sustainability

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

#93

Post by avar »

cycomanic wrote: post #69
mmustapic wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

On top of that nobody needs it. The issue is that supersonic jets are really anachronistic, it's the most wasteful way of flying and it doesn't even buy you much time for most distances because you have to fly subsonic over land.

Their plans include minimizing the sonic boom, and to convince the FAA to lift that restriction.

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

#94

Post by OnlineGladiator »

kitd wrote: post #83
masklinn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry, but that wasn't his statement. It was my statement, and it was a reply to the previous unsupported assertion which I quoted here. > It's quite clear that he states that what is presented as new technology is completely made up nonsense. Yes. > He may be right, but he needs to show what in the article is completely made up nonsense so that we know if he is. There is jack shit in the article supporting the exi…

Thank you for replying. And while there is no doubt a lot of PR in the article, PR != "made-up nonsense". I like HN because the standard of discussion > eg reddit. Simply throwing out what are essentially accusations of lies is not good discussion.

> PR != "made-up nonsense"

It really is. I've actually argued with people (multiple times in multiple companies) about the press release containing false information, and they told me "that's just what we do."

What do you think PR is if not making something up to present a positive story? There isn't even a law that says it has to be truthful, so long as you aren't soliciting something. I can make a claim that I developed a working nuclear fusion reactor and put out a press release for it. Anyone with a brain would know it's bullshit but it's still PR. It's completely legal and standard practice.

No offense, but I think you should educate yourself further.

https://www.bu.edu/prlab/2020/04/07/is-pr-inherently-unethic...

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

#95

Post by janef0421 »

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.

Is it progress? I don't think the time required to fly over an ocean is really a major problem. Time-sensitive clients can simply book an overnight flight during time they would be sleeping, and those who would be rich enough to afford supersonic flights can already afford comfortable accommodations on such flights. The benefits would be minimal and would be overwhelmed by the environmental damage and/or waste caused by the high fuel burn.

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

#96

Post by aeternum »

mmustapic wrote: post #56
whinvik wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

More fuel efficient and noise minimization.

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

#97

Post by credit_guy »

mmustapic wrote: post #58
Adrig wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Cost is mainly due to fuel consumption. Concorde was extremely efficient in cruise mode, but horrible during the takeoff phase. And unfortunately, at takeoff it was also the heaviest, having full tanks, so the problem was compounded.

If a new design can solve the takeoff problem, then you actually solve four problems: overall fuel consumption (so lower cost), less pollution (because you burn less fuel) are two. The other two come from the ability to efficiently fly subsonic, which is what Boom claim to be able to do (when they'll be able to fly, obviously). You don't have noise, and you have access to some routes that are partially overland. For example, you could fly from NYC to various cities in Europe other than London and Paris. Maybe Frankfurt, or Berlin, or Madrid, or Rome. 90% of the flight will still be over water, but you can have 10% over land without producing the sonic boom.

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

#98

Post by rosnd »

akiselev wrote: post #42
julienfr112 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

civilian fighter jet ? Is that a US thing ?

Mostly. Ironically the most popular civilian fighter jet is a Soviet era Czech design (the aforementioned L39). Even in the US though, they are relatively limited in where they can fly and require an experimental aircraft authorization. It’s relatively impractical in most of Europe because they’re not allowed to fly above populated areas except to take off and land (at least in the US)

You don't actually have to worry about any of this stuff, if you have the money to buy one of these you also have the money to register it in a third country.

>It’s relatively impractical in most of Europe because they’re not allowed to fly above populated areas except to take off and land (at least in the US)

FWIW this is mostly a US problem.

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

#99

Post by rnk »

ksec wrote: post #84
lajosbacs wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterexample where HN was wrong: the famous Dropbox comment.

Yes. There are far more wrong on HN than right. In fact the Web3 / Crypto example might have been the outliner.

There are random commenters (like me!) saying various things all the time. But there is kind of the weight of the mass of commenters. That's how we got to the semi-consensus (except for the crypto partisans) that web3/crypto seemed to be in a massive bubble with no clear use case and lots of likely fraud. Notice that for the AI boom going on right now this is not going the same was way as web3.
Post reply on HN