15 ms·
Boom has orders for 76 of its future supersonic passenger jets
- sfredd1 9y agoAnd no mention of how bad this will be for the environment?
- gdfhhgddhjj 9y agoSeems like it’s aimed at business class. Businesses certainly don’t care about externalities they don’t foot the bill for.
- King-Aaron 9y agoI'm not sure if a business-focused article discussing an order of the aircraft really needs to make mention of it?
- cardamomo 9y agoSimplistic counter-argument: At this point, any article needs to mention the environment if we're going to cut back on carbon pollution as much as we need to.
- ajdlinux 9y agoGiven the financial risks associated with ICAO's commitments for carbon neutral growth of the industry, and potential impact of current and future national/supranational emissions trading and carbon tax policies over the expected lifetime of a plane that's not going into service for a few more years yet, perhaps it's quite relevant even from a business-focused perspective.
- ekianjo 9y agoInsignificant compared to the tens of thousands or airplanes flying daily.
- loeg 9y agoFor over-land flights, you don't think the sonic boom might have any impact on wildlife?
- brianwawok 9y agoWhich land are they flying over?
- loeg 9y agoThey don't have an aircraft yet, obviously. But one of the company's explicit goals is overland flights.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 9y agoApparently non oceanic flights are banned in the US, so it’s currently a non-issue here. Not aware of the EU restrictions.
- loeg 9y agoOne of the explicit goals of Boom the company is to make overland flight viable (which makes the economics of supersonic flight closer to viable).
- valuearb 9y agoHow is a sonic boom 1/40th the volume of Concordes going to affect wildlife?
- loeg 9y agoThat's the question, isn't it? It would be a good idea to find out. (Additionally, I suspect any figure like 1/40th the volume of Concorde is drawn from thin air at this point. They don't have a prototype flying subsonic yet, much less supersonic.)
- hwillis 9y agoIt is worse, but probably not that bad. There's strong evidence that emissions at high altitudes have magnified effects on the atmosphere (~2-4x IIRC) and planes are the second largest source of transportation CO2 besides road vehicles. Supersonic planes fly higher and emit a couple times more pollution. However planes are still like 7% of all transport emissions even when scaled for altitude, and stopping those emissions is incredibly challenging. Plus, frankly, if we get a handle on energy and road vehicles it probably just won't matter. Those two factors would reduce emissions by an order of magnitude. The planet might just be able to sustain air travel without intervention. Also, I like going fast.
- namelost 9y agoSeveral countries have already committed to ban cars with internal combustion engines in the next 10-20 years. London is introducing a new "T-charge" today whereby owners of older and more polluting vehicles have to pay an extra fee to enter central London. I suspect that 'a jet that generates double the pollution so that rich people can get to their destination faster' is dead on arrival.
- hwillis 9y ago> I suspect that 'a jet that generates double the pollution so that rich people can get to their destination faster' is dead on arrival. The Concorde actually burned almost 8x as much fuel per passenger-mile as a 747. However that still only brought it down to 14 passenger-miles per US gallon. In the US the average car gets 25 mpg[1], so they're on the same magnitude. A modern supersonic jet would probably get closer to if not better than an average car, but that's also nullified if you put more people in the car. NB that the ban is on selling, not owning, as far as I know. So yeah on a per-pollution basis it checks out, but the car ban can happen because electric cars are essentially identical and completely substitute-able. I seriously doubt it would happen if electric cars could only drive half the speed of gasoline cars. I could see a carbon tax but I think a ban is very unlikely. Airplanes are just too efficient, and get well over 100 mpg nowadays. [1]: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg.html https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg....
- godelski 9y agoWhat I'm really curious about is how they're going to deal with radiation. At the required altitude your pilots and attendants can't do a normal routine. You'd get too high of a dosage, unless things are shielded. But that is heavier.
- valuearb 9y agoExtra radiation exposure is minor at those altitudes.
- godelski 9y agoFor passengers, yes. Workers, no. The Concord had 12-15uSv/hr [1] (2-3x a long haul flight). The lower bound and best case, workers are fine. Upper bound and European (which are stricter than American, but we're talking international flights) standards are 1mSv (whole body) or 50mSv (effective to skin) [2]. So we're between 4166hrs/yr and 66.6hrs/yr working that would be allowed. Because it is international they'd probably go with the lowest common denominator, at 1mSv/yr dosage allowed (50mSv/yr for American radiation workers, 150 for Astronauts). And we're just talking flight, not adding the nominal background radiation, which is going to reduce the number of hours even more. So in short, no, the extra radiation exposure at those altitudes is not minor. It has to be considered if you are going to hire people to fly your plane and attend to your passengers. Airlines already consider radiation exposure. No one wants to do massive medical payouts 30 years from now. [1] http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:in-flight-health-cabin-radiation http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:in-flight-heal... [2] http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Doses_Limits.htm http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Doses_Limits.htm Addendum: 1Sv in a year is a 5.5% increase of cancer over your entire lifetime. 1Sv in an hour will probably kill you.
- techdragon 9y agoThis is the most interesting question I've seen in a while. While I'm confident that material choices could provide some protection based on decades of spaceflight engineering and research into lightweight radiation protection methods. However it's the kind of hidden issue I can honestly imagine no one thinking about until it's far too late, which could make it a significant Achilles heel in terms of practical operation of these planes by airlines.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- olympus 9y agoI wish Boom the best of luck in getting a working product, but they need to fix their marketing. There is absolutely no way that plane tickets will cost 75% less than Concorde tickets, unless something drastic changes from the norm of air travel- either severe baggage restrictions, extremely cramped seating, or different fuel. Even with all the greatest computer model, one thing remains the same: it takes a massive amount of thrust to maintain supersonic flight. EVERY airplane that is/was capable of supersonic cruise (SR-71, XB-70, F-22, Concorde) have/had comically oversized engines compared to what design rules of thumb would suggest. New technologies enable slightly more efficient airframes and slightly more efficient engines, we are talking about a few percent overall. So, I can see tickets being 20% less than they were in the Concorde's day. Part of the reason I think they have mis-calculated a number is that they might be calculating a flight cost that includes fuel only and doesn't include other things an airline has to price into a ticket- namely insurance and maintenance. Insurance for the first supersonic passenger plane since the Concorde is guaranteed to be higher than a 767. Maintenance is going to be crazy as well- flying at Mach 2.2 places different stresses on an airplane, and they break a lot. All of the current supercruising airplanes are/were maintenance nightmares. Don't think that technology can "magic away" all the maintenance issues that come up with sustained stress on your engines, skin friction, and cooling issues. Unless something else changes, there is no way you'll be able to buy a NY to London plane ticket for 75% less than a Concorde. How might they get there? Packing people in like sardines, or replacing normal baggage space with extra seats, would both get more paying seats on board, but would be a big setback from what business class passengers expect. Or maybe there is some magic fuel out there that is lighter than Jet-A/B and delivers more thrust and is safe enough for use in a passenger jet. The existence of magic fuel is unlikely, so be prepared for one of two things- 1. your tickets cost more than expected, or 2. you are packed in like a sardine. Again, I'm glad that someone is trying to make a supersonic passenger jet, but hyperbolic marketing ultimately hurts you in the long run when it becomes obvious that you can't live up to expectations.
- rst 9y agoI'm inclined to be skeptical of the prospects of this for all sorts of reasons (airport noise, viability of the "all premium" business concept). But they are now reporting contracts with airlines, including nonrefundable deposits, and the airlines that put money down are presumably familiar with all the costs you mention, and probably had someone go over the math.
- sharpercoder 9y agoI wonder about noise concerns. The concorde only reached supersonic flight on the ocean, not on land because of the sonic boom.
- rsynnott 9y agoPresumably they’d only do trans-oceanic flights.
- greglindahl 9y agoTheir FAQ says: > Boom's airliner is designed to maximize efficiency while producing a “boom” at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's. So I don't think they have that presumption.
- stereo 9y agoDubai or Singapore to Heathrow or CDG are over land and still have plenty of potential.
- kijin 9y agoTrans-Pacific routes could also use supersonic planes, since longer distances mean even more time savings (Tokyo to Los Angeles in 5 hours instead of 10) and there's virtually nobody underneath to complain about the noise.
- doh 9y agoIn USA, all supersonic flight over land by civil aircraft has been prohibited by regulation introduced in March 1973. [0] Without changes in the legislation, airlines can only offer supersonic flights over the ocean. [0] https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/supersonic_aircraft_noise/media/noise_policy_on_supersonics.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap...
- SOLAR_FIELDS 9y agoNot necessarily a dealbreaker. Concorde did ok with British airways flying out of NY. Assuming the rules don’t change there are plenty of viable routes out of Houston, NY, and SFO.
- mmel 9y agoWhoever chose that name for the company really didn't think things through.
- greglindahl 9y agoHow did you figure that out? Looks like getting permission to make quiet sonic booms over land is a key part of their business model: > Boom's airliner is designed to maximize efficiency while producing a “boom” at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's. Did you also predict the failure of the iPad in the marketplace, due to its unfortunate name?
- beisner 9y agoI think he was referring to the fact that the name might make people think the planes explode.
- greglindahl 9y agoI got that. Some people thought that iPad would fail because it sounded like a feminine sanitary product.
- kelnos 9y ago"Boom" is also associated with the sound of an explosion. You don't want your planes associated with explosions. I think the mass market has a much stronger association boom=explosion than boom=sonic boom.
- mmel 9y agoThere is a huge difference between sounding like an advanced feminine product, which from your follow up post is what you're getting at with the iPad comment, and using BOOM in the name of a company in an industry that has lots of dramatic media coverage and footage of mid-air explosions, landing explosions, explosions just after take off, and so on.
- return0 9y agoimagine a picture of an airplane and BOOM next to it. Tell me what 97% of the people think it is.
- Gustomaximus 9y agoI love that a small company is and can challenge the big guys faster flight. For risks, aside from generally achieving the promised goals is there a big risk Boeing or Airbus copy this and have better sale channels to take over this as soon as the concept is proven. Boom development seems to have happened really quickly. I imagine the resources of the bigger companies can throw with their fiance and general engineer/production systems at this quickly if boom proves the concept.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 9y agoFor the end consumer in this realm there is only victory, regardless of what happens to Boom. If 4 hour transatlantic flights become a viable option again I frankly don’t care who succeeded or failed to get to that point. I do enjoy watching companies like Boom, because this is the kind of underdog chutzpah that the word “courage” is supposed to describe.
- rtpg 9y ago4 hours combined with airport waits ends up becoming something like 6 hours right? Is there a big difference in practicality between 6 hours and 10 hours? Feels like you still lose the day to travel for the most part.
- dgudkov 9y agoYes, there is. If it's 6 hours you can make it two way for a meeting in one day without breaking your sleeping schedule. If it's 10 hours, you can't.
- pc86 9y agoYou can if you sleep on the return flight (or sleep on the first flight and have time in your schedule to shower/change after you land). The advantage is not with when you sleep, it's with where. With 6 hour flights you can sleep in your bed at home. You can't do that with the 10 hour flights unless you break your sleep schedule.
- linenumber 9y agoThis is bad for ozone layer and for all of us who live bellow it. We should be trying to make electric aircraft not this - 5k ticket and using some with old missile engine.
- visarga 9y agoSo, has anyone wondered what happens when a Boom plane goes "boom!" ? How could they call a plane something that means "explosion"?
- mysterydip 9y agoMy assumption is the “boom” refers to the sonic boom encountered when transitioning to supersonic speeds.
- repsilat 9y agoNot when transitioning -- sonic booms ("a sonic boom"?) are/is emitted continually at supersonic speeds.
- hwillis 9y agoThis is true, but there's also a significant shock when crossing the sound barrier as the shockwave front draws up against the body of the plane. That was one of the biggest factors in why it took so long to break the sound barrier- you've gotta blast right through it. Around the sound barrier the rapidly changing air pressure pulls on the plane in weird ways, for instance literally twisting the wings off spitfires. They couldn't predict most of those problems ahead of time.
- kccqzy 9y agoI suspect the company is named after the sonic boom, not the explosion “boom.”
- rdl 9y agoIf they can make these planes, I don't think selling them will be the problem.
- gumby 9y agoI am typically quite skeptical about these kinds of products, but the phrase "non-refundable deposit" made me read on. I hope they pull it off!
- dingo_bat 9y agoI'm highly skeptical considering Boeing and Airbus haven't been able to make a supersonic plane. This is not software where a couple of smart guys can code something decent up over a pizza-fueled weekend.
- gaius 9y agoBoeing makes supersonics. The just haven't managed to make a commercially viable one. They have the technical ability tho'.
- simonh 9y agoSome skepticism is justified, sure, but at this point making supersonic aircraft isnt rocket science any more. It’s a well understood problem domain and they are using well proven engines. Even if it were rocket science Boeing has been making rockets a lot longer than SpaceX, who are still handed my them their ass.
- paulsutter 9y ago> these reservations include non-refundable down payments Interesting that they forgot to say how large is the down payment
- algorias 9y agoIn absence of a specific number the only sane thing to assume is that it's way closer to $1 than to the cost of the plane. Such an easy and obvious marketing tactic.
- usrusr 9y agoNo way that the actual amount could be allowed to become public if it is individually negotiated per customer.
- rwmj 9y agoWhy are they designing a plane with pilots? Why not automate that, perhaps with a remote option where a pilot sitting on the ground can take over in emergency/unusual situations?
- provost 9y agoBecause we simply can't trust computers & systems engineering 100%. Go read about Flight QF72: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4659526/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what-happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless/ http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4659526/the-untold-story-o...
- rwmj 9y agoYou've mentioned one story, but how about the countless cases where the pilots are the problem?
- dorfsmay 9y agoThose are not mutually exclusive. Automation has made flying much safer, but currently, there are edge cases where human could fix issues if they knew what the airplane was doing and were able to take over. This is not an isolated case.
- javindo 9y agoAs with any automated transport discussion, there's the question of liability. If a pilot is at fault, there's an obvious liability on them. People have an intrinsic trust of a human pilot to sort out an issue if it arises, versus relying on a computer which is a complete black box to the passengers. If a pilot is at fault, it's a forgivable thing - in the worst cases the families have some closure, some level of "the pilot messed up, such is life". If a machine or system is at fault, who's to blame? The engineer? The programmer? The maintenance worker? The airline for procuring a cheap contract?
- dzhiurgis 9y agoAnd there's countless cases where it all starter "autopilot disengaged ..." I don't mind paying 1% of ticket cost to pilots when it's hundreds of life in question. It's very different when you have 500 passengers and 1 passenger in a 35k car.
- theyregreat 9y agoAerion, Boom, Gulfstream, HyperMach and more. It seems crowded for such a niche product with a lengthy, costly and uncertain development cycle.
- tehabe 9y agoThere were over 100 orders for the Concorde in the 1960s and when the first prototype was flying this already went down to 74, but most of them were canceled, so only 14 commercial planes were ever build. I would be sceptical about this project.
- k__ 9y agoI once read they had serious overheating problems.
- madaxe_again 9y agoThey had serious problems, period. As you say, one major problem was that the aircraft skin got really hot from friction - hot enough that they had to build it out of a special titanium alloy, and paint it with heat resistant paint - but that was inadequate. Due to the heating and cooling that occurred each cycle the entire airframe would expand and contract very substantially - over repeat cycles this lead to metal fatigue, and would lead to failure but not for incessant expensive maintenance. For an idea of how much the thing expands, on the final flight of the model now at RNAS Yeovilton, the flight engineer stuck his cap between the engineering console and the bulkhead, where it remains sandwiched by pressure today. Apart from the thermal issues, the entire craft suffered from “so cutting edge it barely works” all over, from special tyre compounds to window seals to the famous drop nose. It was an engineering marvel and nightmare, in one improbable package. It’s frankly surprising it even ever existed. I think the major difference will be that Concorde was a space age plane built with 60’s tech, and these will Be space age planes built with space age tech.
- goeric 9y agoSo excited about this but I do think they may want to re-think their name, especially given Concorde's end.