4 ms·

Let's get realistic, shall we? Any new jet costs billion plus USD to develop. This was even true for the Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100, even more so for the Bomba

by chx 9y ago

Let's get realistic, shall we? Any new jet costs billion plus USD to develop. This was even true for the Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100, even more so for the Bombardier C Series. And these were relatively minor adjustments over existing tech, not an entirely new design for faster-than-sound travel. If you consider groundbreaking planes, like the 787 program, that was 32 billion. Boom, according to Crunchbase has raised $35.24M in 3 Rounds from 13 Investors. That's ... nothing. A rounding error in the budget to develop something like this. The CIA reportedly spent 3.7 billion to develop the SR-71 engine. And that was really long ago. What do you want to do with 35 million? 35 billion would be a much, much realistic number. This is not an industry to disrupt. If you intend to fly in the UK, EU, USA, Australia then you need to certify with the FAA/EASA/CASA etc and you can't pull a fast one with those.

asdfologist 9y ago
That sounds precisely the kind of industry that needs to get disrupted.
- chx 9y ago
  I would guess that's what HN says. I am, however, an ancient -- by the measures of HN anyways -- frequent flier who really likes the current safety record of commercial flight. With Uber, it is understandable venture capitalists funded a fantastic trick shamelessly called "sharing economy", rolling back most advances labor achieved in a century. But with flying safety is too important for a similarly illegal company to get anywhere. Or in other words, breaking the law gets somewhere with the taxi industry because they are relatively small and weak but good luck trying to break the federal regulations set by the FAA. Many tried to be creative already but they didn't get anywhere and that was just getting creative with existing planes. I will get the popcorn as you people try to disrupt the freakin' FAA -- and even if Thiel and the like can get Trump / GOP led Congress to intervene, there's the EASA as well. For that's the really expensive part. You can build an app and release it (probably full of bugs) for real cheap and disrupt an industry (spits) but building a plane to such exacting standard as these authorities demand is a different world that techbros will find impenetrable, and, again, thanks God for that. And don't tell me they are not, here's the photo: https://boomsupersonic.com/assets/team-page-hero-photo-cdf1527228921f4dfca7c9f59786a4fc.jpg https://boomsupersonic.com/assets/team-page-hero-photo-cdf15... there's a grand total of two women and one black man on the pic among, I didn't bother to count how many white techbros.
wellboy 9y ago
Interesting, how can space x invent several new rockets for a few billion while a jet takes 10x more?
fragmede 9y ago
Maybe if the definition of "disrupt" is limited to swooping in, ignoring regulations, and ending up like Uber, at the top of a $50 billion industry only because the existing businesses were too successful at making the rules for themselves. Regulatory capture of taxi commissions lead to stagnation in the industry (and credit card machines that were always mysteriously broken). However, the linked article discusses taking 20 hours to go from London to Sydney as this huge improvement over the status quo by shaving off 4 hours. I mean, yeah, 20 hours and no layover is better than 24 hours with a stop, but the "disruption" there is to make a jet that goes twice as fast, and take 10 hours to get there instead of 20. That also (issue of sonic boom over land aside) makes it a 3 hour flight from LA to NYC, or 3.5 hours from NYC to London, or 45 mins SFO to LAX, if that's even enough time to get up to speed. SpaceX has managed to "disrupt" rockets, lowering launch costs by $300 million/launch, with an architecture the incumbents had rejected with reusable 1st-stage on the launch vehicle, and for cheaper than the space shuttle cost (with the benefit of some advancements in technology since 1972). Their Series A round was $20M. Reporting that the CIA spent an estimated $3.7 billion to develop the engines for what's still the fastest airplane ever at the height of the cold war era, is an interesting fact to mention because the SR-71 is a fascinating airplane, but hardly relevant to Boom's possible cost, since they're not bankrolled by a government who is fighting the cold war against the USSR. Tantalizingly though, the SR-71's reputed top speed was Mach 3.5. At that speed, Sydney to London would take less than 6 hours!

by chx 9y ago

asdfologist 9y ago

That sounds precisely the kind of industry that needs to get disrupted.

chx 9y ago
I would guess that's what HN says. I am, however, an ancient -- by the measures of HN anyways -- frequent flier who really likes the current safety record of commercial flight. With Uber, it is understandable venture capitalists funded a fantastic trick shamelessly called "sharing economy", rolling back most advances labor achieved in a century. But with flying safety is too important for a similarly illegal company to get anywhere. Or in other words, breaking the law gets somewhere with the taxi industry because they are relatively small and weak but good luck trying to break the federal regulations set by the FAA. Many tried to be creative already but they didn't get anywhere and that was just getting creative with existing planes. I will get the popcorn as you people try to disrupt the freakin' FAA -- and even if Thiel and the like can get Trump / GOP led Congress to intervene, there's the EASA as well. For that's the really expensive part. You can build an app and release it (probably full of bugs) for real cheap and disrupt an industry (spits) but building a plane to such exacting standard as these authorities demand is a different world that techbros will find impenetrable, and, again, thanks God for that. And don't tell me they are not, here's the photo: https://boomsupersonic.com/assets/team-page-hero-photo-cdf1527228921f4dfca7c9f59786a4fc.jpg https://boomsupersonic.com/assets/team-page-hero-photo-cdf15... there's a grand total of two women and one black man on the pic among, I didn't bother to count how many white techbros.

wellboy 9y ago

Interesting, how can space x invent several new rockets for a few billion while a jet takes 10x more?

fragmede 9y ago

Maybe if the definition of "disrupt" is limited to swooping in, ignoring regulations, and ending up like Uber, at the top of a $50 billion industry only because the existing businesses were too successful at making the rules for themselves. Regulatory capture of taxi commissions lead to stagnation in the industry (and credit card machines that were always mysteriously broken). However, the linked article discusses taking 20 hours to go from London to Sydney as this huge improvement over the status quo by shaving off 4 hours. I mean, yeah, 20 hours and no layover is better than 24 hours with a stop, but the "disruption" there is to make a jet that goes twice as fast, and take 10 hours to get there instead of 20. That also (issue of sonic boom over land aside) makes it a 3 hour flight from LA to NYC, or 3.5 hours from NYC to London, or 45 mins SFO to LAX, if that's even enough time to get up to speed. SpaceX has managed to "disrupt" rockets, lowering launch costs by $300 million/launch, with an architecture the incumbents had rejected with reusable 1st-stage on the launch vehicle, and for cheaper than the space shuttle cost (with the benefit of some advancements in technology since 1972). Their Series A round was $20M. Reporting that the CIA spent an estimated $3.7 billion to develop the engines for what's still the fastest airplane ever at the height of the cold war era, is an interesting fact to mention because the SR-71 is a fascinating airplane, but hardly relevant to Boom's possible cost, since they're not bankrolled by a government who is fighting the cold war against the USSR. Tantalizingly though, the SR-71's reputed top speed was Mach 3.5. At that speed, Sydney to London would take less than 6 hours!