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

How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

bscholl.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 112 posts

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#91

Post by sidewndr46 »

dylan604 wrote: post #37
sidewndr46 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boom XB-1 did 750 mph air speed. If I've got an 8 hour flight at 561 mph in an A380 that's a reduction to 5.984 hours when I move to the Boom XB-1. Who cares about saving 1.1 hours on a transatlantic flight. There is a reason why Concorde's cruise speed was 1,341 mph. So when Boom makes a commercial airliner that hits 1000+ mph with the same availability and turnaround time as a typical passenger plane then I'll pay…

8 hours - 5.984 hours = 1.1 hours? My math works out to just over 2 hours of time saved.

My mistake, it is 2 hours of time saved.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#92

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> time is wasted with security, boarding, taxi-ing, waiting at the destination for a gate to unload, etc. Airlines can optimise for this. Digital ID virtually eliminates security lines. Paying up for gate, t/o and landing spots takes care of the latter. There is a cost tradeoff for service in the airline business. An all-business airline flying Booms would almost necessarily have to pay up to negate these issues. (Th…

Airlines do not dictate airport security. You cannot simply add gates to airports with even an infinite pile of money. It doesn't matter, unless you're going to make flights from nowhere to nowhere. Doesn't sound like a business strategy to me.

> You cannot simply add gates to airports with even an infinite pile of money.

I was once on a short internal US flight. We recognised an "elder statesman" politician, a Senator who owned property in the area of the city that we were going to.

He was seated at the front, and was given the opportunity to leave the aircraft a minute before anyone else - no luggage beyond a briefcase. Of course, by the time we deplaned he was nowhere to be seen, by then he was likely in the back his car already. Who needs a separate gate when the VIP can be guided through ahead of the rest, through some usually-closed door?

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#93

Post by dylan604 »

pbh101 wrote: post #86
dylan604 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just build an entirely different terminal instead of shoeing it into the same building as the terminals for the plebes. Out of sight, out of mind. The classist risk is already there with the pricing they have for first class seats. By making first class only planes, you can have economy only planes like Spirit. Then nobody would be complaining about first class since nobody would see first class. I see no downsides w…

Ah, I was referring to loading the same plane from different gates, which I’ve been told exists at some airports (boarding from business/first lounge one floor above the standard gate)

That's what you would consider classist? How about a lavatory for use only for first class. How about "closing" off the first class part of the plane with a little curtain? None of this suggests to me the airlines are trying to not be classist

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#94

Post by fbd_0100 »

tinfever wrote: post #68

Anyone know what their simulation stack might be using? From the modest amount I know, mechanical engineering usually dislike their CAD tool and Ansys FEA simulations don't always converge. So how on earth are they simulating an entire aircraft with a single command? When they say simulate, so they actually mean just using ideal mathematical models in Matlab?

I work in this space. Most likely it is a huge conglomeration of commercial CFD, FEA, and CAD softwares, custom in-house codes, and empirical aircraft design curves all stitched together with some python.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#95

Post by fbd_0100 »

class3shock wrote: post #55

TLDR: We changed our plane design and lost range, we used ai in helping tweak our engine design to get back our range, we were successful in our computer models. This article is just another from what are fundamentally hardware companies proclaiming how they're implementing "ai" and it's doing so much to help to gather more stock/venture investors but with no actual substance. Everything he discusses taking into acco…

Agree on most points. However as someone who has worked on new aircraft I can tell you that friction/mis-communication/finger-pointing between airframe and powerplant manufacturer is a huge issue. There is a common saying in the industry, that you should never design a new airframe and a new powerplant at the same time. Each new aircraft certification program should be one or the other

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#96

Post by XorNot »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #90
XorNot wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot possibly know that without knowing the operational lifetime of a plane and it's expected return. An airline doesn't buy a plane planning to break even on the purchase cost, for example. Which basically proves my original point.

Do you not understand what the word manufacture means? It literally doesn’t matter what the “operational lifetime” or “expected return” is if it costs 200% more to manufacture for only 2% improvements. It won’t ever get far enough in the design process for it to even be an issue.

Setting aside that you pulled that number out of your ass to argue against it, if something produces 400X it's purchase cost over it's operational life time, a 2% improvement takes that to 408X it's purchase cost for only a 2X increase in initial outlay, meaning it pays for itself 4 fold.

But very few innovations have that sort of effect on manufacturing cost to start with.

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#97

Post by avmich »

johnvanommen wrote: post #65
dreamcompiler wrote: post #57

> At Boom, every engineer is expected to code and to leverage AI. As an engineer I find "leveraging AI" to be a very troubling idea. I'd want to know detailed specifics of just what management believes AI should be used for before I accepted such a job. As a passenger, I damn well don't want to fly on an airplane designed with software that can't count the number of bs in blueberry.

I listened to the podcast that the founder did about a week ago. It reminded me of how retired folks in the middle class open a restaurant when they don't know anything about running a restaurant. Except this dude isn't investing $1M on a McDonalds, he's investing hundreds of millions. He seemed almost proud of his inexperience, and nearly said that it gave him an "advantage" because existing engineers weren't willin…

SpaceX did Falcon-1 a few times cheaper than assumed, and that was the first aerospace experience for Elon. Turned out impressively good...

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#98

Post by MichaelZuo »

XorNot wrote: post #96
MichaelZuo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not understand what the word manufacture means? It literally doesn’t matter what the “operational lifetime” or “expected return” is if it costs 200% more to manufacture for only 2% improvements. It won’t ever get far enough in the design process for it to even be an issue.

Setting aside that you pulled that number out of your ass to argue against it, if something produces 400X it's purchase cost over it's operational life time, a 2% improvement takes that to 408X it's purchase cost for only a 2X increase in initial outlay, meaning it pays for itself 4 fold. But very few innovations have that sort of effect on manufacturing cost to start with.

This doesn’t make sense as a reply.

How is your own opinion, on another user’s example number, even relevant enough to be “setting aside” in the first place?

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#99

Post by everybodyknows »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #87
notahacker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. The demonstrator was to validate some basic concepts they were promoting about being able to achieve supersonic flight without supersonic booms. It achieved that at relatively low cost, and gave them something to brag about, an indication of baseline competence at certifying airframes and possibly ticked off some investor boxes. There wasn't much more to be learned about large passenger jets using their intende…

> There wasn't much more to be learned about large passenger jets using their intended custom engines from a small GEJ85 powered platform, This is key to me. I'm a layman in Aviation, so I'll unpack that. The Boom XB-1 demonstrator (1) uses GEJ85: the General Electric J85 engines, as seen on military jets (2). This is not the desired production jet's "Symphony" engine (3), which at a guess has to be both larger and m…

From [4]: > Rolls-Royce's work over the last few years

So Rolls sank several years of investigation into it before cutting their losses.

From [3]: > Boom aims for production of the engine to begin in 2025 at the Overture factory at Greensboro, North Carolina

Mark your calendar ...

Re: How Boom uses software to accelerate hardware development

#100

Post by sidewndr46 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30
sidewndr46 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airlines do not dictate airport security. You cannot simply add gates to airports with even an infinite pile of money. It doesn't matter, unless you're going to make flights from nowhere to nowhere. Doesn't sound like a business strategy to me.

> Airlines do not dictate airport security Airlines absolutely choose whether to participate in various programs. Digital ID was cited for a reason. And in some cases, the airlines have substantial control—Delta One has a separate security line at JFK. > You cannot simply add gates to airports with even an infinite pile of money You don’t. You outbid someone else for the existing ones.

Participation in a program does not dictate whether any specific passenger or non-specific passenger can get through TSA in any fixed amount of time. TSA may unilaterally impose any security measures upon any passenger of a commercial flight and may also unilaterally prohibit any passenger from boarding a commercial flight.

No such restriction exists upon private jets

Post reply on HN