25 ms·

Boom Supersonic raises $100M, aims for 2019 test flights

180 points by yurisagalov 8y ago

davidivadavid 8y ago
Is that nearly enough money to do what they intend? Edit: To be clear — I find the prospect of affordable supersonic flight super exciting. But, knowing 0 about the aviation industry, what's the secret sauce that makes this believable (e.g. budget at least one order of magnitude lower than competing products)?
- ghaff 8y ago
  No? Not directly comparable but perhaps useful as an indicator of general magnitude, the Boeing 787 had a development cost of $16 billion. Assuming it costs 1/10th as much, that's still over $1 billion.
  - nradov 8y ago
    An industry analyst estimated that it costs about $400M to develop a subsonic light business jet. A supersonic aircraft would cost more due to greater technical risk. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honda-jet/honda-faces-long-haul-to-recoup-jet-costs-idUSKBN16Y0CD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honda-jet/honda-faces-lon... But $100M might suffice to build a scale model experimental technology demonstrator.
- MrMember 8y ago
  $141 million and 100 employees seems pretty light for what their goals are.
  - probsabot18150 8y ago
    I totally disagree. It's plenty to demonstrate and build most of the technology. It will take much more money to bring it to market, but that's primarily regulations and validation of umpteen edge cases/fatigue life, and proving that you've done so to the FAA. Source/disclaimer: Aerospace engineer that builds rocket engines for a startup. As for the market... As a simple person, I probably won't ever pay that for any flight. Businesses may think it is worth it. As for comments to the effect, "physics hasn't changed since the concorde failed," no, but materials and manufacturing really have. Turbine engines have evolved a lot since then. That companies like Boeing do not build such aircraft doesn't tell you anything, any more than studying the success of Apple in embedded systems tells you whether or not there is a market for them. Perhaps a poor example since embedded systems are not a disruption, but my point is that entrenched incumbents may not pivot simply because they are doing well where they are, and all the more so in a more heavily regulated market. In short, I think it will be interesting to see how it turns out. For any aerospace startup, the hardest part is raising enough money to stay afloat and focus on their work. $100M starts to build enough momentum that they have a real shot. The question now is what they do with that shot.
    - lloyddobbler 8y ago
      > As for comments to the effect, "physics hasn't changed since the concorde failed," no, but materials and manufacturing really have. Turbine engines have evolved a lot since then. That companies like Boeing do not build such aircraft doesn't tell you anything, any more than studying the success of Apple in embedded systems tells you whether or not there is a market for them. Perhaps a poor example since embedded systems are not a disruption, but my point is that entrenched incumbents may not pivot simply because they are doing well where they are, and all the more so in a more heavily regulated market. This. So much this. The specious argument about physics really irks me. - Time between the first commercial air travel (1914) and when Concorde began development (1962): 48 years - Time between when Concorde began development and today: 57 years Translation: Concorde's tech is OLD. Think of how much aviation technology advanced in the 48 years between the first commercial passenger flight and Concorde beginning development. Now think about how much it inevitably has advanced in the 57 years since Concorde's technology was developed. The founders of Boom have openly stated that they intend to build a more fuel-efficient aircraft, leveraging technological advances to provide exponential increases in efficiency. If they can't do that, the economics don't work out - plain and simple. But they're making a pretty good case that they can to date, and this funding will help them further demonstrate that their plans have promise. As an aviation geek, I personally hope they succeed.
- danielvf 8y ago
  It should be enough to get one prototype aircraft flying. After that, they would need raise or finance more.
  - larkeith 8y ago
    The prototype is also 1/3 scale, which should help.
- notahacker 8y ago
  $100m is the sticker price for one Boeing 737, an evolutionary design with research and manufacturing costs amortised over an order book of thousands This is money to keep Boom afloat to the next raise, but that's not exactly unusual in SV startups which are a lot less capital intensive than aerospace
  - motivated_gear 8y ago
    How a company begins to how it gets to sell products for $100m is fascinating. Boeing built their first plane soley because they had bought another plane, subsequently crashed it and then posited that it would be faster to build a brand new plane instead of waiting for parts. They sold a couple to the navy who then said "Yeah we'll take 50". Obviously Boom is doing something orders of magnitude more technically complex than a simple bi-plane but maybe, if they're scrappy enough, they can pull it off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#History
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      They sold a couple to the navy who then said "Yeah we'll take 50" I wonder if Boom could get a boost by convincing it that the Boom jet can be useful. Certainly not for troop transport, but maybe it can be used to move field commanders around quickly in times of crisis.
      - donarb 8y ago
        Fighter jets can already do that should there ever be a need.
      - njarboe 8y ago
        "Certainly not for troop transport" For special ops I could definitely see such purchases. Just not at a large scale.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      Aviation has moved on a bit since Boeing was founded over 100 years ago, and their client base is looking for any potential vendor to be the precise opposite of "scrappy". To put things into perspective, nearly all airlines outside Russia and China find proven, modern, thoroughly-tested and performant airframes from state-funded Russian and Chinese conglomerates with very attractive pricing and financing a bit too "scrappy" in terms of the available ongoing support for operations to even consider. A new entrant is going to need to spend $20bn+ to get a single aircraft ready, and they they're going to need to sell a couple of hundred to get close to breaking even. A brilliant outcome would be a gulf state liking the novelty of the concept enough to say "we'll take 50" and even that didn't translate to many further sales for the A380
- ummonk 8y ago
  No. It's a couple orders of magnitude too low.
ryanwaggoner 8y ago
I hate being an armchair critic, but Boom brings it out in me. It’s so arrogant to claim that you’re going to deliver a commercial supersonic airliner for pennies in just a few years. They haven’t even flown a scale model, built a full-scale model, etc, and they’ll need to innovate many different areas at once, from manufacturing to aerodynamic design to propulsion, etc. They could easily spend billions of dollars and 10-15 years on all that before they get to certification, which is incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Established companies like Boeing and Airbus that have been building jets for many decades don’t have a magic wand, and it takes them much longer and more money to incrementally improve their planes, not to mention entering an entirely new category where tons of innovation is required. Why are people so convinced some random startup with no experience is going to be able to do the impossible? It’s not enough to point at SpaceX and say “they did it, so we can too!” It’s a totally different product category, market, and regulatory environment. I wish there was a way to short the stock of private companies.
- jpatokal 8y ago
  There's nothing "impossible" about Boom's plans, commercial hypersonic flight has been done before decades ago and -- like with SpaceX -- tech advances since then have made the job easier, not harder. It will still be extraordinary expensive and difficult, so I wish them luck.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    No, it is effectively impossible for their planes to be legally flying by 2025, which is what they’re claiming. Edit: to be clear, I wish them luck too, but I think they’re being dishonest with their timelines. The YC / startup culture is the polar opposite of the FAA culture, which is basically “move slow and make sure nothing breaks, and if it does, carefully examine the situation and change the rules so it doesn’t break again” Here’s a good overview of the certification process: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2006-12-18/aircraft-certification-process https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-internation... Zero chance that some random startup is going to have these flying with passengers in 2025. They follow a very long line of startups that have burned through billions of dollars and almost all failed. I’d be surprised if there was more than one or two new airplane companies in the past three decades that have survived without bankruptcy, state subsidies, etc. And none of them were trying to do something nearly so technically challenging. All that said, I hope to eat a giant humble pie on my 2025 supersonic flight to London!
danielvf 8y ago
I’m always conflicted when I hear about Boom. I’m cheering for them, but I can’t help feeling like it’s a scam. Then again, there is nothing impossible technicaly about civilian supersonic flight...
- lifekaizen 8y ago
  No scam, I know Blake and they’ve been in Colorado building for years. It might not make it, but it won’t be for lack of trying or integrity.
  - smt88 8y ago
    Trying to resurrect a gas-guzzling technology in the face of irreversible climate change is not "integrity" by any definition I've ever used. This is a technology that could only benefit people wealthy enough to afford it. There isn't even a nice story to tell about how it helps humans as a whole.
    - motivated_gear 8y ago
      The R&D that went into your phone can be derived from wall street types buying cell phones in the 90s. As technology gets better, the probability that it will become affordable to the masses increases greatly. It's not guaranteed, but its definitely non-zero.
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        The miniaturization of transistors ain't jet science.
      - smt88 8y ago
        We don't even want it to become affordable to the masses because it uses exponentially more fuel. That's part of the problem.
        motivated_gear 8y ago
cyberferret 8y ago
Technically, I am sure it is possible with todays manufacturing, material and 3D printing capabilities etc., but I am thinking the biggest battles Boom faces will be regulatory. Getting the aircraft certified by every country's aviation body is going to be massive (unless they restrict flights to within the US only, which will basically negate the positives of international supersonic flight). Then there are the battles against various environmental lobbying groups, like Concorde had to do, who will try to enforce curfews and restrictions on supersonic flights over populated areas.
- sseveran 8y ago
  The will not be able to fly overland in most places while going supersonic for the foreseeable future. The real demand for this plane is going to be long haul business travel where flights are 10+ hours and those of us doing it regularly are already forking over 4 - 7K per ticket normally. Fortunately if you look at the world most of the cities you will want to fly to are basically on the coast, or a short distance inland.
adpirz 8y ago
Can anyone with a relevant background, a la aerospace engineering, begin to speculate as to how this team could accomplish such lofty goals on what very much seems like a shoestring budget? FTA, there's mention of "efficient aerodynamics, advanced composite materials, and an efficient propulsion system," but that seems to be the general arch of aerospace engineering anyway -- what's the secret to 10x more efficient R&D?
- nostrademons 8y ago
  The technology's existed since the 1960s - the Concorde flew for 27 years. They're hiring a bunch of engineers out of existing aerospace companies to do the actual work - these companies all know how to build SSTs, they just don't think it's worth it. What's changed is the market. It wasn't economical to run the Concorde for most of its service lifespan, because demand for fast business travel was limited and fuel prices were high. Then globalization and income inequality happened. There are a lot of very lucrative fields right now where it's beneficial to be in SF in the morning and Shanghai for dinner, then back to SF for the next morning. And fuel prices are on their way back down. They can probably build it a bit more efficiently than in the days of the Concorde, Tu-144, and Boeing 2707, but the real driver here is the existence of wealthy firms who will pay a lot to shlep their employees across the globe in a day.
  - ridgeguy 8y ago
    >Then globalization and income inequality happened. Yeah, I think this is the new driver for SST. There's now a class of customers who can easily afford whatever the ticket price will be, so a market is assured. Unfortunate for those of us who would prefer not to hear sonic booms day and night.
- benmowa 8y ago
  I'd say they cant produce a low enough signature with the nacelles on the bottom as currently displayed. see all aircraft in this nasa clip from April 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPd0OHrmCBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPd0OHrmCBc
- 8y ago
staunch 8y ago
I actually think supersonic is the opposite of the direction to take air travel. The current speed of 500mph is already incredibly fast given the size of the planet. Even 200mph is sufficient. The real problem is comfort. Planes are incredibly uncomfortable, even if you pay thousands of upgraded seating. I'd rather flights take 2-4x as long but be 10-20x more comfortable. I'd like to see true innovation, using high-speed blimps or massive ocean-going ground effect airplanes, hovercraft, or something. I'd rather take 1 day "air cruise" to Europe than a 4 hour hair-raising rollercoaster ride.
- cyberferret 8y ago
  When I walked through Concorde (both the prototype 002 at Yeovilton Museum in the UK and the ex-BA one at the Museum of Flight in Seattle), I was struck by how tiny and cramped the passenger cabin was. Personally, as attractive as supersonic flight is to a former pilot like me, I would far rather spend time in a wide body cabin and arrive a few hours later than suffer the claustrophobia of sitting in a skinny tube. From what I have seen, the Boom concept jet has a similar fuselage profile to Concorde.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    My dad got switched to a Concorde once and his reaction relative to his usual 747 (probably) first class was cool to do once but meh. Less space and it got him into London at rush hour rather than having a nice dinner on the plane. And first class in those days, modulo first class lounge that got turned into more business class seating at some point, was much less comfortable than modern business class much less first class where it exists. It would be nice if transPacific were faster (though that has its own set of range problems) but I don't find flying business class from the US East Coast to Europe a particular hardship.
- fhbdukfrh 8y ago
  Sounds like what you long for are the halcyon days of luxury air travel. The problem was it was not much more comfortable and far more dangerous, Plus took way longer
- 8y ago
Tuxer 8y ago
Given the current emissions of air travel I find fairly repulsive to spend that much money designing a new airplane going completely in the wrong direction in terms of fuel efficiency. There is no way ( regardless of altitude, unless you’re going in LEO ) to avoid the huge drag losses of going supersonic, so most of that ticket price is going to go towards fuel. If this ever flies and there is a kerosene carbon tax, that plane is dead.
- wbl 8y ago
  Biomass gasification plus GTL.
- notahacker 8y ago
  In the scope of aerospace $100m is pocket money. It's the lack of fuel efficiency which has killed off various other exploratory supersonic flight programmes from ever going anywhere. Ultimately to be successful they have to convince airlines the extra speed will convince passengers to pay for the extra fuel. I think that's unlikely in the near future, and Boom will have to raise a lot more to convince people otherwise.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    It's not pocket money, it's pocket lint.
    - colechristensen 8y ago
      It is on the order of the cost of a single aircraft. Comparable would be Tesla raising $100,000
      - ryacko 8y ago
        Single aircraft plus development costs.
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
        Minus R&D, facilities build out. And even then we're still talking a smaller body - 737, 757, not so much a 777/787.
avar 8y ago
It's somewhat out of date, but I found this ~hour long podcast interview with the founder and CEO of Boom from August 2017 really informative: http://www.airplanegeeks.com/2017/08/02/463-boom-supersonic/ http://www.airplanegeeks.com/2017/08/02/463-boom-supersonic/ It goes into some of the technical and regulatory hurdles Boom is facing, among other things.
illegalsmile 8y ago
Out of the 55 people on that plane how many actually need to save 50% of the flight time if they're already flying business or first? Would this development not be better put towards smaller and faster planes rather than trying to transport ~55 people at a time? Make a small passenger jet that can do New York to London in 3 hours and it could possibly be profitable as a niche private jet not unlike Gulf/Lear/etc... Growing up seeing the Concorde land and take off I would love to be on a supersonic flight at some point in my life.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nostrademons 8y ago
  The price point listed in the article is about $5000 for what's normally a 6+ hour flight. That much private jet time ranges for $15K-$50K, so it's a fundamentally different market. I'd be similarly skeptical if it was just for consumer vacations, but there are a lot of business travelers who need to attend short meetings in faraway locations. My wife has 3 cross-country business trips scheduled this month alone, each of which is only for 1-2 days worth of meetings but takes about 4 days including travel time. In one case, she has a meeting in San Francisco in the morning and a dinner in NYC in the evening, and her employer's flying her out the day before so she can call into the SF meeting from NYC and still attend the NYC dinner, because it's physically impossible to make both of them. It'll probably be a while before any SST is certified to travel over land, but the demand is there. I could see this being very handy for business travelers who regularly need to do NYC <-> London or SF <-> Tokyo <-> Shanghai.
speeq 8y ago
Aerion is developing a supersonic (business) jet as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC6utYmM4_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC6utYmM4_o
- sierdolij 8y ago
  TBH: Aerion has more money, better tech and better technical, monetary and partner backing. Boom's timeline is extremely unrealistic. Aerion will fly around 2024 (give them an extra year as complex product timelines slip), and they have first-mover advantage. Aerion has flown numerous airfoil cross-sections on the bellies of research jets and is likely working on PoC for tech & subsystems, and design. Boom's website is mostly PR & wire-frames.. ambiguously indistinguishable from a scam without seeing other forms of validation (i.e., results (full-scale jigs in that hanger in Denver), partnerships, hires, orders). If Boom wants to secure more funding and orders, they're going to need publish more info to facilitate due-diligence. http://www.fortworthbusiness.com/news/bass-backed-aerion-gives-roadmap-to-supersonic-goal-with-lockheed/article_76f091cc-d0c0-11e8-85e2-d703466408c4.html http://www.fortworthbusiness.com/news/bass-backed-aerion-giv... https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1 https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1 (oh boy, strips of carbon fiber and a 1m x 3m hand-laid cross-section)
  - tim333 8y ago
    Or they could crack ahead in the manner described in the article.
jostmey 8y ago
Reducing flight time is not the same as reducing travel time. The real killer with respect to travel time are layovers airport delays. Cheaper airplanes capable of flying farther will reduce the number of layovers, and the big airlines know this. The market for supersonic planes will be small. On a side note, why aren't there more startups trying to reduce passenger time at the airport instead of focusing on faster airplanes?
- jonawesomegreen 8y ago
  I think the value proposition is much clearer for 12+ hour flights, mostly on Asia Pacific routes, rather than something like NY - London. Saving 7+ hours flying LA - Sydney or LA - Singapore would be a huge win and I think appeal to people flying business on those routes. It certainly would have for me when I was flying Toronto - Seoul regularly.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Some people would pay a lot to be able to fly from New York to London (or the other way around), have a 2-3 hour meeting and fly back before bed time. Stay in the same time zone and wake up with your own house.
- fenwick67 8y ago
  > The real killer with respect to travel time are layovers airport delays For international flights, actual flight time can be brutal. I have colleagues who regularly take 14 hour flights. Some people would gladly pay extra to shave a few hours off of that.
  - paulcole 8y ago
    Are they paying out of their own pocket? It's pretty easy to say they'd pay if it's the company picking up the tab.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      If a firm can justify 14 hour flights for X people, it can justify supersonic flights for some large fraction of X.
theothermkn 8y ago
What's interesting to me about this is that no major airline wants to go supersonic, for two reasons. First, because of the cost of development, and, second, because you lose a significant fraction of business class revenue to your supersonic fleet, raising the costs of tickets for leisure travelers and affecting routing. However, you don't want to be subsonic if another carrier is supersonic, because then they get your business class revenue. It'll be interesting to see what happens if they make it.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  What's interesting to me about this is that no major airline wants to go supersonic JAL is already a Boom investor.
- tim333 8y ago
  Branson/Virgin wanted to but BA refused to sell the concordes they were scrapping: >Virgin described BA's refusal to sell the planes instead of retiring them for good as "an act of industrial vandalism",...https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2855774/Virgin-bitter-as-Concorde-dream-fades.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2855774/Virgin-bitter-as... Airlines don't go supersonic because there are no aircraft.
avichal 8y ago
Obligatory quarterly post from me about optimism (or lack thereof on HN)! :) It's unfortunate that so many people come out of the woodwork to tell people their ideas are terrible or won't work without actually understanding the idea, technology, or risk-adjusted return that investors may be considering. It's far far more interesting to consider how things may work or what you may be missing. I've listed a mini-FAQ at the bottom about Boom. I'm an investor in every Boom round, from before they were in YC so am clearly biased, but also know the company very well. Props to everyone in the thread who is asking genuine questions and actually trying to understand what the team is building. References ----- Dropbox launch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 Coinbase launch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4703443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4703443 A 2012 thread discussing comment negativity where: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4363717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4363717 A classic thread from 2012 where PG talks about negative comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4396747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4396747 Mini-FAQ ----- 1. Isn't the most important part of reducing flight times the pre-flight experience (security, airport delays, etc.)? Yes, you are correct. However, the long haul international market that is about 10% of the overall number of flights in the world is still a HUGE opportunity where the bulk of time is spent in the air. Boom is most effective in these longer 8-hour+ flight situations like SFO-Tokyo, LA-Syndney, etc. On these routes you would save a day round trip. For many people an extra day in the office or an extra day with family is a tremendous win. Most people don't realize but travel to Hawaii 10x-ed in the decade after the jet engine became common because Hawaii became a five hour flight from the West Coast instead of an eight hour flight. Imagine if you could get from SFO to Japan or China as fast as SFO-NYC. 2 - How can do this for so cheap? It will be capital intensive to get to the final plane, probably ~$2B. Most of this can be financed with debt, however, because there are many billions in pre-orders from airlines already. This round gets you to fly a one-third scale version of the plane and be ready to raise an even bigger round to build the full scale plane and get to FAA certification in the series C. The Boom team has been very smart in their go to market by maximizing the amount of already FAA approved technology that goes on the first plane. For example, the carbon fiber composite is the same as that used on the 787. Fast tracking the components because they're already FAA approved dramatically reduces costs. 3 - What qualifications does this team have? How can they possibly pull this off? The team includes 80 technical experts and leaders from Airbus, Boeing, SpaceX, Gulfstream, NASA, and Lockheed. Collectively, the team has made key contributions to 40+ successful air and space vehicles the SpaceX Falcon 9, Airbus A380, and the SR-71 Blackbird. The team has led the development of many planes that have gone from 0 to FAA approved and launched. Hope the above is helpful to people reading through and wondering how this makes any sense. I think Boom is a once in a lifetime, category creating company (like SpaceX or Tesla). Happy to answer more questions if you have any.
Tiktaalik 8y ago
Has Boom Supersonic solved the problem that when the government tested the impact of frequent sonic booms on the populated centres in the 1960s it drove people nuts, caused building damage, and people hated it? https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/when-the-faa-blasted-oklahoma-city-with-sonic-booms-for-1649589210 https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/when-the-faa-blasted-oklahom... I assume Boom is like so many startups in that they have ignored history and have barreled ahead anyway.
- ch4ch4 8y ago
  Just don't go supersonic until the plane is over the ocean?
- avichal 8y ago
  They are going to fly transoceanic routes to start so they don't have to worry about sonic booms over population centers.
- api_or_ipa 8y ago
  The US has banned overland commercial supersonic flights, so yea, going cross country is still an issue but there's still very lucrative oceanic routes that would be unaffected. Also, there's large, sparsely settled parts of the US, Canada and Russia that aircraft routinely fly great circle routes over where sonic booms would be of little to no concern.
- tim333 8y ago
  From their FAQ: >What about the sonic boom? >Boom's airliner is designed to maximize efficiency while producing a “boom” at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's. ...
- deepnotderp 8y ago
  Has the esteemed commenter considered that perhaps they aren't total idiots and since the 1960s low volume sonic boom airframes have been built? E.g. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lowboom/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lowboom/index.html
griffinkelly 8y ago
The one thing that the article doesnt mention is how Boom is going to overcome fuel capacity issues traveling to Asia. Concorde was never intended for trans-Pacific flight. They're going to need to either create an aerial refueling system, or land somewhere.
valj 8y ago
Yikes, when did HN become so full of haters? This is easily one of the most exciting startups out there at the moment. It would be a game changer for so many people living in Europe and Asia who would love to live outside the US and commute to the US regularly for work. Is it the everyman's plane? Certainly not. But it essentially makes living in Tokyo/Hong Kong/Singapore/Sydney and working in SF much closer to living in New York and working in SF (which a lot of senior executives and investors do). Imagine if Australia East Coast was a 6hr flight and 5hr time difference to SF. New York is a 6hr flight and a 3hr time difference to SF. Seems a lot different all of a sudden doesn't it? Focussing on gas is the complete wrong way of looking at this. Humans and our ideas are the ultimate resource, not gas. When we work together we solve problems, and the weapon engineer who had to relocate back to HK to raise kids near family can often be the difference between a breakthrough we all benefit from and nothing at all. Having these senior people able to work locally can enable them to seed their hometowns with thriving local offices that train new generations of talent. Tesla won in cars and SpaceX won in rockets (both very complex industries) over very well established incumbents. Don't underestimate how much organizational dynamics can weigh on a company. Do you think the best people at Boeing are going to risk the next decade of their career working on a plane that might only do 300 orders when they could go get easy promotion working on the next 787? Good luck to the team at Boom!!
- lj3 8y ago
  > Yikes, when did HN become so full of haters? Since at least 2007. I'm sure we all remember the warm reception the Dropbox Show HN[0] got? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    > "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan s/laughed/jeered/
    - 8y ago
nawgszy 8y ago
I find it amusing that planes like the Concorde were shelved once and now we have emerging businesses trying to capitalize on that dead market.
- trothamel 8y ago
  I find it amusing that video game consoles like the Atari 2600 were shelved once and now we have emerging businesses like Nintendo trying to capitalize on that dead market.
notjustanymike 8y ago
Hey if the founder of PayPal can launch his own convertible into Mars orbit, then I can believe in the return of supersonic commercial flight!
ggm 8y ago
Some people say what did for the SST/Concord/tu144 was sunk cost. I read that BA was running at profit ignoring sunk cost when the fire blew the model apart. But it was a niche product. So, if boom reoccupied the niche and can leverage the now long amortized sunk costs of supersonic research with some twists to get fuel cost and noise under control.. maybe they can be profitable. I'd fly in one if it made sense cost wise (frequent business traveller intercontinental for twenty years) but I am also believing this is a terrible model for high altitude AGW consequences
NoblePublius 8y ago
Fly from NYC to London for $4000 in uber lux first class aboard a spacious, comfortable 787 or A380. Or spend 5x that to get there in half the time aboard a cramped super sonic jet. I don’t get it. If you make existing planes nicer, people will complain that the ride is too short. And it will be much, much cheaper.
jayalpha 8y ago
"Yikes, when did HN become so full of haters?" Well, it will likely fail. But it is great to finance such "blue sky" projects. Only in the US. "Focussing on gas is the complete wrong way of looking at this. Humans and our ideas are the ultimate resource, not gas." Some people would disagree: https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-state-economy-except-at-a-very-basic-level/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-sta...
chriselles 8y ago
Being an aviation buff, I think Boom Supersonic is incredibly exciting. Being a history buff(especially aviation), I wonder where it sits in terms of possibility <—> probability of repeating the tech industry(Microsoft related ties) enabled Eclipse Aviation debacle. Eclipse Aviation was founded late in the Dot Com Tech bubble with a promise of cheaper Very Light Jet(VLJ) private ownership and air taxis. Boom Supersonic was founded late in the current tech bubble with a promise of faster business class/first class travel. My primary concerns would be the fuel burn per passenger seat miles and shorter maintenance intervals required based on current engine technology. Is Boom SuperSonics a possible indicator of late tech bubble drawing board excess? I’m actually not trying to be negative, because everything beautiful, cool, and fast is awesome. I’m just concerned about a possible echoing of the Eclipse historical speedbump.
myrandomcomment 8y ago
I make 2 week trips almost every month from the Bay Area to APAC. I waste 2-3 days in airplanes. I am all for this. It is unrealistic to think it will not happen. The only question is will a space company get there first (virgin) where it is up and down in less then 2 hours to the other side of the world. Those that are making such a big issue with the CO2 lack persecptive. This will happen. The focuse for CO2 should be on the cars on the road and the energy plants and factories that are not green, not something that is overall a small percent of the carbon foot print. Removed the ground transport, factories and power plants that are not green and you are majorly net negiavte on CO2 output. The tech for this is going to advance, period. Focus on the things that has the largest foot print and the tech is ripe for the change (electric cars charged by wind/solar/hydro/geothermal/nuclear power plants).

180 points by yurisagalov 8y ago

Is that nearly enough money to do what they intend? Edit: To be clear — I find the prospect of affordable supersonic flight super exciting. But, knowing 0 about the aviation industry, what's the secret sauce that makes this believable (e.g. budget at least one order of magnitude lower than competing products)?

ghaff 8y ago
No? Not directly comparable but perhaps useful as an indicator of general magnitude, the Boeing 787 had a development cost of $16 billion. Assuming it costs 1/10th as much, that's still over $1 billion.
- nradov 8y ago
  An industry analyst estimated that it costs about $400M to develop a subsonic light business jet. A supersonic aircraft would cost more due to greater technical risk. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honda-jet/honda-faces-long-haul-to-recoup-jet-costs-idUSKBN16Y0CD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honda-jet/honda-faces-lon... But $100M might suffice to build a scale model experimental technology demonstrator.
MrMember 8y ago
$141 million and 100 employees seems pretty light for what their goals are.
- probsabot18150 8y ago
  I totally disagree. It's plenty to demonstrate and build most of the technology. It will take much more money to bring it to market, but that's primarily regulations and validation of umpteen edge cases/fatigue life, and proving that you've done so to the FAA. Source/disclaimer: Aerospace engineer that builds rocket engines for a startup. As for the market... As a simple person, I probably won't ever pay that for any flight. Businesses may think it is worth it. As for comments to the effect, "physics hasn't changed since the concorde failed," no, but materials and manufacturing really have. Turbine engines have evolved a lot since then. That companies like Boeing do not build such aircraft doesn't tell you anything, any more than studying the success of Apple in embedded systems tells you whether or not there is a market for them. Perhaps a poor example since embedded systems are not a disruption, but my point is that entrenched incumbents may not pivot simply because they are doing well where they are, and all the more so in a more heavily regulated market. In short, I think it will be interesting to see how it turns out. For any aerospace startup, the hardest part is raising enough money to stay afloat and focus on their work. $100M starts to build enough momentum that they have a real shot. The question now is what they do with that shot.
  - lloyddobbler 8y ago
    > As for comments to the effect, "physics hasn't changed since the concorde failed," no, but materials and manufacturing really have. Turbine engines have evolved a lot since then. That companies like Boeing do not build such aircraft doesn't tell you anything, any more than studying the success of Apple in embedded systems tells you whether or not there is a market for them. Perhaps a poor example since embedded systems are not a disruption, but my point is that entrenched incumbents may not pivot simply because they are doing well where they are, and all the more so in a more heavily regulated market. This. So much this. The specious argument about physics really irks me. - Time between the first commercial air travel (1914) and when Concorde began development (1962): 48 years - Time between when Concorde began development and today: 57 years Translation: Concorde's tech is OLD. Think of how much aviation technology advanced in the 48 years between the first commercial passenger flight and Concorde beginning development. Now think about how much it inevitably has advanced in the 57 years since Concorde's technology was developed. The founders of Boom have openly stated that they intend to build a more fuel-efficient aircraft, leveraging technological advances to provide exponential increases in efficiency. If they can't do that, the economics don't work out - plain and simple. But they're making a pretty good case that they can to date, and this funding will help them further demonstrate that their plans have promise. As an aviation geek, I personally hope they succeed.
danielvf 8y ago
It should be enough to get one prototype aircraft flying. After that, they would need raise or finance more.
- larkeith 8y ago
  The prototype is also 1/3 scale, which should help.
notahacker 8y ago
$100m is the sticker price for one Boeing 737, an evolutionary design with research and manufacturing costs amortised over an order book of thousands This is money to keep Boom afloat to the next raise, but that's not exactly unusual in SV startups which are a lot less capital intensive than aerospace
- motivated_gear 8y ago
  How a company begins to how it gets to sell products for $100m is fascinating. Boeing built their first plane soley because they had bought another plane, subsequently crashed it and then posited that it would be faster to build a brand new plane instead of waiting for parts. They sold a couple to the navy who then said "Yeah we'll take 50". Obviously Boom is doing something orders of magnitude more technically complex than a simple bi-plane but maybe, if they're scrappy enough, they can pull it off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#History
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    They sold a couple to the navy who then said "Yeah we'll take 50" I wonder if Boom could get a boost by convincing it that the Boom jet can be useful. Certainly not for troop transport, but maybe it can be used to move field commanders around quickly in times of crisis.
    - donarb 8y ago
      Fighter jets can already do that should there ever be a need.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      "Certainly not for troop transport" For special ops I could definitely see such purchases. Just not at a large scale.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    Aviation has moved on a bit since Boeing was founded over 100 years ago, and their client base is looking for any potential vendor to be the precise opposite of "scrappy". To put things into perspective, nearly all airlines outside Russia and China find proven, modern, thoroughly-tested and performant airframes from state-funded Russian and Chinese conglomerates with very attractive pricing and financing a bit too "scrappy" in terms of the available ongoing support for operations to even consider. A new entrant is going to need to spend $20bn+ to get a single aircraft ready, and they they're going to need to sell a couple of hundred to get close to breaking even. A brilliant outcome would be a gulf state liking the novelty of the concept enough to say "we'll take 50" and even that didn't translate to many further sales for the A380
ummonk 8y ago
No. It's a couple orders of magnitude too low.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago

I hate being an armchair critic, but Boom brings it out in me. It’s so arrogant to claim that you’re going to deliver a commercial supersonic airliner for pennies in just a few years. They haven’t even flown a scale model, built a full-scale model, etc, and they’ll need to innovate many different areas at once, from manufacturing to aerodynamic design to propulsion, etc. They could easily spend billions of dollars and 10-15 years on all that before they get to certification, which is incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Established companies like Boeing and Airbus that have been building jets for many decades don’t have a magic wand, and it takes them much longer and more money to incrementally improve their planes, not to mention entering an entirely new category where tons of innovation is required. Why are people so convinced some random startup with no experience is going to be able to do the impossible? It’s not enough to point at SpaceX and say “they did it, so we can too!” It’s a totally different product category, market, and regulatory environment. I wish there was a way to short the stock of private companies.

jpatokal 8y ago
There's nothing "impossible" about Boom's plans, commercial hypersonic flight has been done before decades ago and -- like with SpaceX -- tech advances since then have made the job easier, not harder. It will still be extraordinary expensive and difficult, so I wish them luck.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  No, it is effectively impossible for their planes to be legally flying by 2025, which is what they’re claiming. Edit: to be clear, I wish them luck too, but I think they’re being dishonest with their timelines. The YC / startup culture is the polar opposite of the FAA culture, which is basically “move slow and make sure nothing breaks, and if it does, carefully examine the situation and change the rules so it doesn’t break again” Here’s a good overview of the certification process: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2006-12-18/aircraft-certification-process https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-internation... Zero chance that some random startup is going to have these flying with passengers in 2025. They follow a very long line of startups that have burned through billions of dollars and almost all failed. I’d be surprised if there was more than one or two new airplane companies in the past three decades that have survived without bankruptcy, state subsidies, etc. And none of them were trying to do something nearly so technically challenging. All that said, I hope to eat a giant humble pie on my 2025 supersonic flight to London!

danielvf 8y ago

I’m always conflicted when I hear about Boom. I’m cheering for them, but I can’t help feeling like it’s a scam. Then again, there is nothing impossible technicaly about civilian supersonic flight...

lifekaizen 8y ago
No scam, I know Blake and they’ve been in Colorado building for years. It might not make it, but it won’t be for lack of trying or integrity.
- smt88 8y ago
  Trying to resurrect a gas-guzzling technology in the face of irreversible climate change is not "integrity" by any definition I've ever used. This is a technology that could only benefit people wealthy enough to afford it. There isn't even a nice story to tell about how it helps humans as a whole.
  - motivated_gear 8y ago
    The R&D that went into your phone can be derived from wall street types buying cell phones in the 90s. As technology gets better, the probability that it will become affordable to the masses increases greatly. It's not guaranteed, but its definitely non-zero.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      The miniaturization of transistors ain't jet science.
    - smt88 8y ago
      We don't even want it to become affordable to the masses because it uses exponentially more fuel. That's part of the problem.
      - motivated_gear 8y ago

cyberferret 8y ago

Technically, I am sure it is possible with todays manufacturing, material and 3D printing capabilities etc., but I am thinking the biggest battles Boom faces will be regulatory. Getting the aircraft certified by every country's aviation body is going to be massive (unless they restrict flights to within the US only, which will basically negate the positives of international supersonic flight). Then there are the battles against various environmental lobbying groups, like Concorde had to do, who will try to enforce curfews and restrictions on supersonic flights over populated areas.

sseveran 8y ago
The will not be able to fly overland in most places while going supersonic for the foreseeable future. The real demand for this plane is going to be long haul business travel where flights are 10+ hours and those of us doing it regularly are already forking over 4 - 7K per ticket normally. Fortunately if you look at the world most of the cities you will want to fly to are basically on the coast, or a short distance inland.

adpirz 8y ago

Can anyone with a relevant background, a la aerospace engineering, begin to speculate as to how this team could accomplish such lofty goals on what very much seems like a shoestring budget? FTA, there's mention of "efficient aerodynamics, advanced composite materials, and an efficient propulsion system," but that seems to be the general arch of aerospace engineering anyway -- what's the secret to 10x more efficient R&D?

nostrademons 8y ago
The technology's existed since the 1960s - the Concorde flew for 27 years. They're hiring a bunch of engineers out of existing aerospace companies to do the actual work - these companies all know how to build SSTs, they just don't think it's worth it. What's changed is the market. It wasn't economical to run the Concorde for most of its service lifespan, because demand for fast business travel was limited and fuel prices were high. Then globalization and income inequality happened. There are a lot of very lucrative fields right now where it's beneficial to be in SF in the morning and Shanghai for dinner, then back to SF for the next morning. And fuel prices are on their way back down. They can probably build it a bit more efficiently than in the days of the Concorde, Tu-144, and Boeing 2707, but the real driver here is the existence of wealthy firms who will pay a lot to shlep their employees across the globe in a day.
- ridgeguy 8y ago
  >Then globalization and income inequality happened. Yeah, I think this is the new driver for SST. There's now a class of customers who can easily afford whatever the ticket price will be, so a market is assured. Unfortunate for those of us who would prefer not to hear sonic booms day and night.
benmowa 8y ago
I'd say they cant produce a low enough signature with the nacelles on the bottom as currently displayed. see all aircraft in this nasa clip from April 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPd0OHrmCBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPd0OHrmCBc
8y ago

staunch 8y ago

I actually think supersonic is the opposite of the direction to take air travel. The current speed of 500mph is already incredibly fast given the size of the planet. Even 200mph is sufficient. The real problem is comfort. Planes are incredibly uncomfortable, even if you pay thousands of upgraded seating. I'd rather flights take 2-4x as long but be 10-20x more comfortable. I'd like to see true innovation, using high-speed blimps or massive ocean-going ground effect airplanes, hovercraft, or something. I'd rather take 1 day "air cruise" to Europe than a 4 hour hair-raising rollercoaster ride.

cyberferret 8y ago
When I walked through Concorde (both the prototype 002 at Yeovilton Museum in the UK and the ex-BA one at the Museum of Flight in Seattle), I was struck by how tiny and cramped the passenger cabin was. Personally, as attractive as supersonic flight is to a former pilot like me, I would far rather spend time in a wide body cabin and arrive a few hours later than suffer the claustrophobia of sitting in a skinny tube. From what I have seen, the Boom concept jet has a similar fuselage profile to Concorde.
- ghaff 8y ago
  My dad got switched to a Concorde once and his reaction relative to his usual 747 (probably) first class was cool to do once but meh. Less space and it got him into London at rush hour rather than having a nice dinner on the plane. And first class in those days, modulo first class lounge that got turned into more business class seating at some point, was much less comfortable than modern business class much less first class where it exists. It would be nice if transPacific were faster (though that has its own set of range problems) but I don't find flying business class from the US East Coast to Europe a particular hardship.
fhbdukfrh 8y ago
Sounds like what you long for are the halcyon days of luxury air travel. The problem was it was not much more comfortable and far more dangerous, Plus took way longer
8y ago

Tuxer 8y ago

Given the current emissions of air travel I find fairly repulsive to spend that much money designing a new airplane going completely in the wrong direction in terms of fuel efficiency. There is no way ( regardless of altitude, unless you’re going in LEO ) to avoid the huge drag losses of going supersonic, so most of that ticket price is going to go towards fuel. If this ever flies and there is a kerosene carbon tax, that plane is dead.

wbl 8y ago
Biomass gasification plus GTL.
notahacker 8y ago
In the scope of aerospace $100m is pocket money. It's the lack of fuel efficiency which has killed off various other exploratory supersonic flight programmes from ever going anywhere. Ultimately to be successful they have to convince airlines the extra speed will convince passengers to pay for the extra fuel. I think that's unlikely in the near future, and Boom will have to raise a lot more to convince people otherwise.
- astrodust 8y ago
  It's not pocket money, it's pocket lint.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    It is on the order of the cost of a single aircraft. Comparable would be Tesla raising $100,000
    - ryacko 8y ago
      Single aircraft plus development costs.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      Minus R&D, facilities build out. And even then we're still talking a smaller body - 737, 757, not so much a 777/787.

avar 8y ago

It's somewhat out of date, but I found this ~hour long podcast interview with the founder and CEO of Boom from August 2017 really informative: http://www.airplanegeeks.com/2017/08/02/463-boom-supersonic/ http://www.airplanegeeks.com/2017/08/02/463-boom-supersonic/ It goes into some of the technical and regulatory hurdles Boom is facing, among other things.

illegalsmile 8y ago

Out of the 55 people on that plane how many actually need to save 50% of the flight time if they're already flying business or first? Would this development not be better put towards smaller and faster planes rather than trying to transport ~55 people at a time? Make a small passenger jet that can do New York to London in 3 hours and it could possibly be profitable as a niche private jet not unlike Gulf/Lear/etc... Growing up seeing the Concorde land and take off I would love to be on a supersonic flight at some point in my life.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nostrademons 8y ago
The price point listed in the article is about $5000 for what's normally a 6+ hour flight. That much private jet time ranges for $15K-$50K, so it's a fundamentally different market. I'd be similarly skeptical if it was just for consumer vacations, but there are a lot of business travelers who need to attend short meetings in faraway locations. My wife has 3 cross-country business trips scheduled this month alone, each of which is only for 1-2 days worth of meetings but takes about 4 days including travel time. In one case, she has a meeting in San Francisco in the morning and a dinner in NYC in the evening, and her employer's flying her out the day before so she can call into the SF meeting from NYC and still attend the NYC dinner, because it's physically impossible to make both of them. It'll probably be a while before any SST is certified to travel over land, but the demand is there. I could see this being very handy for business travelers who regularly need to do NYC <-> London or SF <-> Tokyo <-> Shanghai.

speeq 8y ago

Aerion is developing a supersonic (business) jet as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC6utYmM4_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC6utYmM4_o

sierdolij 8y ago
TBH: Aerion has more money, better tech and better technical, monetary and partner backing. Boom's timeline is extremely unrealistic. Aerion will fly around 2024 (give them an extra year as complex product timelines slip), and they have first-mover advantage. Aerion has flown numerous airfoil cross-sections on the bellies of research jets and is likely working on PoC for tech & subsystems, and design. Boom's website is mostly PR & wire-frames.. ambiguously indistinguishable from a scam without seeing other forms of validation (i.e., results (full-scale jigs in that hanger in Denver), partnerships, hires, orders). If Boom wants to secure more funding and orders, they're going to need publish more info to facilitate due-diligence. http://www.fortworthbusiness.com/news/bass-backed-aerion-gives-roadmap-to-supersonic-goal-with-lockheed/article_76f091cc-d0c0-11e8-85e2-d703466408c4.html http://www.fortworthbusiness.com/news/bass-backed-aerion-giv... https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1 https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1 (oh boy, strips of carbon fiber and a 1m x 3m hand-laid cross-section)
- tim333 8y ago
  Or they could crack ahead in the manner described in the article.

jostmey 8y ago

Reducing flight time is not the same as reducing travel time. The real killer with respect to travel time are layovers airport delays. Cheaper airplanes capable of flying farther will reduce the number of layovers, and the big airlines know this. The market for supersonic planes will be small. On a side note, why aren't there more startups trying to reduce passenger time at the airport instead of focusing on faster airplanes?

jonawesomegreen 8y ago
I think the value proposition is much clearer for 12+ hour flights, mostly on Asia Pacific routes, rather than something like NY - London. Saving 7+ hours flying LA - Sydney or LA - Singapore would be a huge win and I think appeal to people flying business on those routes. It certainly would have for me when I was flying Toronto - Seoul regularly.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Some people would pay a lot to be able to fly from New York to London (or the other way around), have a 2-3 hour meeting and fly back before bed time. Stay in the same time zone and wake up with your own house.
fenwick67 8y ago
> The real killer with respect to travel time are layovers airport delays For international flights, actual flight time can be brutal. I have colleagues who regularly take 14 hour flights. Some people would gladly pay extra to shave a few hours off of that.
- paulcole 8y ago
  Are they paying out of their own pocket? It's pretty easy to say they'd pay if it's the company picking up the tab.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    If a firm can justify 14 hour flights for X people, it can justify supersonic flights for some large fraction of X.

theothermkn 8y ago

What's interesting to me about this is that no major airline wants to go supersonic, for two reasons. First, because of the cost of development, and, second, because you lose a significant fraction of business class revenue to your supersonic fleet, raising the costs of tickets for leisure travelers and affecting routing. However, you don't want to be subsonic if another carrier is supersonic, because then they get your business class revenue. It'll be interesting to see what happens if they make it.

reaperducer 8y ago
What's interesting to me about this is that no major airline wants to go supersonic JAL is already a Boom investor.
tim333 8y ago
Branson/Virgin wanted to but BA refused to sell the concordes they were scrapping: >Virgin described BA's refusal to sell the planes instead of retiring them for good as "an act of industrial vandalism",...https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2855774/Virgin-bitter-as-Concorde-dream-fades.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2855774/Virgin-bitter-as... Airlines don't go supersonic because there are no aircraft.

avichal 8y ago

Obligatory quarterly post from me about optimism (or lack thereof on HN)! :) It's unfortunate that so many people come out of the woodwork to tell people their ideas are terrible or won't work without actually understanding the idea, technology, or risk-adjusted return that investors may be considering. It's far far more interesting to consider how things may work or what you may be missing. I've listed a mini-FAQ at the bottom about Boom. I'm an investor in every Boom round, from before they were in YC so am clearly biased, but also know the company very well. Props to everyone in the thread who is asking genuine questions and actually trying to understand what the team is building. References ----- Dropbox launch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 Coinbase launch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4703443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4703443 A 2012 thread discussing comment negativity where: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4363717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4363717 A classic thread from 2012 where PG talks about negative comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4396747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4396747 Mini-FAQ ----- 1. Isn't the most important part of reducing flight times the pre-flight experience (security, airport delays, etc.)? Yes, you are correct. However, the long haul international market that is about 10% of the overall number of flights in the world is still a HUGE opportunity where the bulk of time is spent in the air. Boom is most effective in these longer 8-hour+ flight situations like SFO-Tokyo, LA-Syndney, etc. On these routes you would save a day round trip. For many people an extra day in the office or an extra day with family is a tremendous win. Most people don't realize but travel to Hawaii 10x-ed in the decade after the jet engine became common because Hawaii became a five hour flight from the West Coast instead of an eight hour flight. Imagine if you could get from SFO to Japan or China as fast as SFO-NYC. 2 - How can do this for so cheap? It will be capital intensive to get to the final plane, probably ~$2B. Most of this can be financed with debt, however, because there are many billions in pre-orders from airlines already. This round gets you to fly a one-third scale version of the plane and be ready to raise an even bigger round to build the full scale plane and get to FAA certification in the series C. The Boom team has been very smart in their go to market by maximizing the amount of already FAA approved technology that goes on the first plane. For example, the carbon fiber composite is the same as that used on the 787. Fast tracking the components because they're already FAA approved dramatically reduces costs. 3 - What qualifications does this team have? How can they possibly pull this off? The team includes 80 technical experts and leaders from Airbus, Boeing, SpaceX, Gulfstream, NASA, and Lockheed. Collectively, the team has made key contributions to 40+ successful air and space vehicles the SpaceX Falcon 9, Airbus A380, and the SR-71 Blackbird. The team has led the development of many planes that have gone from 0 to FAA approved and launched. Hope the above is helpful to people reading through and wondering how this makes any sense. I think Boom is a once in a lifetime, category creating company (like SpaceX or Tesla). Happy to answer more questions if you have any.

Tiktaalik 8y ago

Has Boom Supersonic solved the problem that when the government tested the impact of frequent sonic booms on the populated centres in the 1960s it drove people nuts, caused building damage, and people hated it? https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/when-the-faa-blasted-oklahoma-city-with-sonic-booms-for-1649589210 https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/when-the-faa-blasted-oklahom... I assume Boom is like so many startups in that they have ignored history and have barreled ahead anyway.

ch4ch4 8y ago
Just don't go supersonic until the plane is over the ocean?
avichal 8y ago
They are going to fly transoceanic routes to start so they don't have to worry about sonic booms over population centers.
api_or_ipa 8y ago
The US has banned overland commercial supersonic flights, so yea, going cross country is still an issue but there's still very lucrative oceanic routes that would be unaffected. Also, there's large, sparsely settled parts of the US, Canada and Russia that aircraft routinely fly great circle routes over where sonic booms would be of little to no concern.
tim333 8y ago
From their FAQ: >What about the sonic boom? >Boom's airliner is designed to maximize efficiency while producing a “boom” at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's. ...
deepnotderp 8y ago
Has the esteemed commenter considered that perhaps they aren't total idiots and since the 1960s low volume sonic boom airframes have been built? E.g. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lowboom/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lowboom/index.html

griffinkelly 8y ago

The one thing that the article doesnt mention is how Boom is going to overcome fuel capacity issues traveling to Asia. Concorde was never intended for trans-Pacific flight. They're going to need to either create an aerial refueling system, or land somewhere.

valj 8y ago

Yikes, when did HN become so full of haters? This is easily one of the most exciting startups out there at the moment. It would be a game changer for so many people living in Europe and Asia who would love to live outside the US and commute to the US regularly for work. Is it the everyman's plane? Certainly not. But it essentially makes living in Tokyo/Hong Kong/Singapore/Sydney and working in SF much closer to living in New York and working in SF (which a lot of senior executives and investors do). Imagine if Australia East Coast was a 6hr flight and 5hr time difference to SF. New York is a 6hr flight and a 3hr time difference to SF. Seems a lot different all of a sudden doesn't it? Focussing on gas is the complete wrong way of looking at this. Humans and our ideas are the ultimate resource, not gas. When we work together we solve problems, and the weapon engineer who had to relocate back to HK to raise kids near family can often be the difference between a breakthrough we all benefit from and nothing at all. Having these senior people able to work locally can enable them to seed their hometowns with thriving local offices that train new generations of talent. Tesla won in cars and SpaceX won in rockets (both very complex industries) over very well established incumbents. Don't underestimate how much organizational dynamics can weigh on a company. Do you think the best people at Boeing are going to risk the next decade of their career working on a plane that might only do 300 orders when they could go get easy promotion working on the next 787? Good luck to the team at Boom!!

lj3 8y ago
> Yikes, when did HN become so full of haters? Since at least 2007. I'm sure we all remember the warm reception the Dropbox Show HN[0] got? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan s/laughed/jeered/
  - 8y ago

nawgszy 8y ago

I find it amusing that planes like the Concorde were shelved once and now we have emerging businesses trying to capitalize on that dead market.

trothamel 8y ago
I find it amusing that video game consoles like the Atari 2600 were shelved once and now we have emerging businesses like Nintendo trying to capitalize on that dead market.

notjustanymike 8y ago

Hey if the founder of PayPal can launch his own convertible into Mars orbit, then I can believe in the return of supersonic commercial flight!

ggm 8y ago

Some people say what did for the SST/Concord/tu144 was sunk cost. I read that BA was running at profit ignoring sunk cost when the fire blew the model apart. But it was a niche product. So, if boom reoccupied the niche and can leverage the now long amortized sunk costs of supersonic research with some twists to get fuel cost and noise under control.. maybe they can be profitable. I'd fly in one if it made sense cost wise (frequent business traveller intercontinental for twenty years) but I am also believing this is a terrible model for high altitude AGW consequences

NoblePublius 8y ago

Fly from NYC to London for $4000 in uber lux first class aboard a spacious, comfortable 787 or A380. Or spend 5x that to get there in half the time aboard a cramped super sonic jet. I don’t get it. If you make existing planes nicer, people will complain that the ride is too short. And it will be much, much cheaper.

jayalpha 8y ago

"Yikes, when did HN become so full of haters?" Well, it will likely fail. But it is great to finance such "blue sky" projects. Only in the US. "Focussing on gas is the complete wrong way of looking at this. Humans and our ideas are the ultimate resource, not gas." Some people would disagree: https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-state-economy-except-at-a-very-basic-level/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-sta...

chriselles 8y ago

Being an aviation buff, I think Boom Supersonic is incredibly exciting. Being a history buff(especially aviation), I wonder where it sits in terms of possibility <—> probability of repeating the tech industry(Microsoft related ties) enabled Eclipse Aviation debacle. Eclipse Aviation was founded late in the Dot Com Tech bubble with a promise of cheaper Very Light Jet(VLJ) private ownership and air taxis. Boom Supersonic was founded late in the current tech bubble with a promise of faster business class/first class travel. My primary concerns would be the fuel burn per passenger seat miles and shorter maintenance intervals required based on current engine technology. Is Boom SuperSonics a possible indicator of late tech bubble drawing board excess? I’m actually not trying to be negative, because everything beautiful, cool, and fast is awesome. I’m just concerned about a possible echoing of the Eclipse historical speedbump.

myrandomcomment 8y ago

I make 2 week trips almost every month from the Bay Area to APAC. I waste 2-3 days in airplanes. I am all for this. It is unrealistic to think it will not happen. The only question is will a space company get there first (virgin) where it is up and down in less then 2 hours to the other side of the world. Those that are making such a big issue with the CO2 lack persecptive. This will happen. The focuse for CO2 should be on the cars on the road and the energy plants and factories that are not green, not something that is overall a small percent of the carbon foot print. Removed the ground transport, factories and power plants that are not green and you are majorly net negiavte on CO2 output. The tech for this is going to advance, period. Focus on the things that has the largest foot print and the tech is ripe for the change (electric cars charged by wind/solar/hydro/geothermal/nuclear power plants).