8 ms·

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 technica

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
        A car consumes exponentially more fuel than a horse
  - larkeith 8y ago
    This is equivocation - parent was discussing the founders' integrity in the sense of whether they are running a scam, not the broader moral integrity of developing this technology. While I am dubious about commercial supersonic flight (at least without significant investments in reducing emissions, though avoiding afterburning should already help), improved designs will at the very least lead to developments in the field, and possibly in related fields such as suborbital flight and spaceplanes.
    - smt88 8y ago
      You can be dismissive by saying it's equivocal, but I explicitly mentioned that I was broadly considering all definitions of integrity that I've personally used. It may not be a dishonest company, but lots of harm can be done honestly.
  - FiveSquared25 8y ago
    This an’t Woodstock ;)
  - gammateam 8y ago
    Neither is slave labor for every consumer electronics play So you done yet? I would love this
- danielvf 8y ago
  Great to hear! Thanks! I’m excited for them to pull it off.
yinyinwu 8y ago
The technology around Supersonics has existed for nearly half a century. The Concorde supersonic plane was flown in 1969 - nearly nearly a half century ago. At the time, one of the big cost was gas. Significant improvements has been made to materials to improve gas efficiency for supersonics. Boom can use the Tesla approach by starting with business class customers to prove the demand then moving down the latter to consumers. Tokyo could be a weekend trip if the flight was five hours.
- notahacker 8y ago
  The "Tesla approach" doesn't work at all with aerospace: the programme costs are all up front and you want to sell as many units as possible as quickly as possible to recover them, and the major demand all comes from the airlines. Scaling to meet demand is much less of a worry than having a product being in demand. Business aviation is a less lucrative market than commercial, and business-only commercial flights is a market which has almost completely failed to make any profit. In automotive terms, not only are there are a lot more people buying buses than cars, you also don't make a higher profit on the cars either unless you're the interiors outfitter....
  - yinyinwu 8y ago
    On a commercial plan, business travelers accounts for >70% of an airline's profits. My read on the article is that Boom is targeting the business customers on a commercial flight and faster transit time is one of the biggest wants for business travelers.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      They're a large part of some airlines' profits because there's a small number of people willing to pay silly prices on most routes at most times of day. That doesn't translate particularly well to less frequent 55 business class seat flights on most of those routes; even if the flights are shorter the arrival times are probably a lot less convenient for most of the executives. The all-business class model has struggled to be economically viable even on ideal routes like London-NY. Those economy seats give you a lot more flexibility when the business class seats aren't selling. (And as ghaff pointed out business travellers /= business class; most people travelling on business have an economy ticket sized budget)
ummonk 8y ago
I've been in an adjacent industry and am nearly always a skeptic about these sorts of things. With Boom specifically though, I don't think they're a scam. Their developmental timeline is definitely optimistic, but assuming they're able to get continued funding as needed (i.e. billions of dollars), I expect they'll succeed.

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
      A car consumes exponentially more fuel than a horse
- larkeith 8y ago
  This is equivocation - parent was discussing the founders' integrity in the sense of whether they are running a scam, not the broader moral integrity of developing this technology. While I am dubious about commercial supersonic flight (at least without significant investments in reducing emissions, though avoiding afterburning should already help), improved designs will at the very least lead to developments in the field, and possibly in related fields such as suborbital flight and spaceplanes.
  - smt88 8y ago
    You can be dismissive by saying it's equivocal, but I explicitly mentioned that I was broadly considering all definitions of integrity that I've personally used. It may not be a dishonest company, but lots of harm can be done honestly.
- FiveSquared25 8y ago
  This an’t Woodstock ;)
- gammateam 8y ago
  Neither is slave labor for every consumer electronics play So you done yet? I would love this
danielvf 8y ago
Great to hear! Thanks! I’m excited for them to pull it off.

yinyinwu 8y ago

The technology around Supersonics has existed for nearly half a century. The Concorde supersonic plane was flown in 1969 - nearly nearly a half century ago. At the time, one of the big cost was gas. Significant improvements has been made to materials to improve gas efficiency for supersonics. Boom can use the Tesla approach by starting with business class customers to prove the demand then moving down the latter to consumers. Tokyo could be a weekend trip if the flight was five hours.

notahacker 8y ago
The "Tesla approach" doesn't work at all with aerospace: the programme costs are all up front and you want to sell as many units as possible as quickly as possible to recover them, and the major demand all comes from the airlines. Scaling to meet demand is much less of a worry than having a product being in demand. Business aviation is a less lucrative market than commercial, and business-only commercial flights is a market which has almost completely failed to make any profit. In automotive terms, not only are there are a lot more people buying buses than cars, you also don't make a higher profit on the cars either unless you're the interiors outfitter....
- yinyinwu 8y ago
  On a commercial plan, business travelers accounts for >70% of an airline's profits. My read on the article is that Boom is targeting the business customers on a commercial flight and faster transit time is one of the biggest wants for business travelers.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    They're a large part of some airlines' profits because there's a small number of people willing to pay silly prices on most routes at most times of day. That doesn't translate particularly well to less frequent 55 business class seat flights on most of those routes; even if the flights are shorter the arrival times are probably a lot less convenient for most of the executives. The all-business class model has struggled to be economically viable even on ideal routes like London-NY. Those economy seats give you a lot more flexibility when the business class seats aren't selling. (And as ghaff pointed out business travellers /= business class; most people travelling on business have an economy ticket sized budget)

ummonk 8y ago

I've been in an adjacent industry and am nearly always a skeptic about these sorts of things. With Boom specifically though, I don't think they're a scam. Their developmental timeline is definitely optimistic, but assuming they're able to get continued funding as needed (i.e. billions of dollars), I expect they'll succeed.