10 ms·

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 pe

by 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/
  - mcny 8y ago
    I was one of the idiots who didn't understand the Dropbox monetization strategy. Until recently, I thought the strategy was "whales" like in a casino would pay for everyone. I think I couldn't get past the idea that they were giving something that keeps costing them money away for free forever. What I didn't realize is how "sticky" something like Dropbox can be. I don't think I can get most people who use Dropbox and pay $80 a year to switch to Google drive and pay $50 a year. They have a workflow there. I guess I'm trying to justify my reaction to Dropbox. Frankly, I still don't understand why Dropbox turned down acquisition offer from Apple. I still don't get it. I don't remember laughing at Dropbox though. It was more bewilderment than anything.
  - idontpost 8y ago
    It's a little weird that he includes Columbus there. Columbus was many things and genius wasn't one of them. Persistent, egomaniacal, outrageously cruel to the point that the Spanish crown threw him in prison, extremely bad at basic arithmetic -- but not genius. More importantly though, who is Fulton?
    - brokensegue 8y ago
      presumably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fulton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fulton
worldsayshi 8y ago
To have any chance of taking control of our collective carbon footprint we need to move away from technology like this not towards it. And until we can manifest fundamentally different technology for air travel we should collectively and rapidly scale down our dependence on long distance commute. Fossil fuel driven flight is not viable in a sustainable future. We need to understand this.
- losteric 8y ago
  Why is that an absolute? Can't biofuel sources be refined into jet fuel? I understand that subsidies currently create perverse incentives in that industry, but I struggle to see why bioengineered carbon-neutral jet fuel is fundamentally not viable. That thinking seems very closed-minded.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Biofuels have been a disaster inasmuch as we've destroyed enormous amounts of rainforest to grow them, releasing quite a bit of carbon in the process (and destroying wildlife habitat, of course)
    - losteric 8y ago
      That'd not an argument that carbon-neutral supersonic jets are impossible and should be abandoned. Biofuels doesn't necessarily mean subsidized corn fields... for example, algae and bacteria grown under specialized LEDs powered by renewable energy are another path forward. Perfect is the enemy of the good. We can research supersonic jets in addition to better electric storage and propulsion systems.
      - worldsayshi 8y ago
        > Perfect is the enemy of the good. This saying is not suitable here because unsustainable technology isn't good. It's simply not worth the cost and we are borrowing from the future. If the venture would be unprofitable up until the point when it would be sustainable would we still push money into it? I say we should treat any venture that is unsustainable the same way we treat those that are unprofitable. But we don't. We allow unsustainable ventures to carry on without ever becoming sustainable. Which means that it is constantly borrowing (stealing) means from everyone else.
CalRobert 8y ago
"Yikes, when did HN become so full of haters?" When it became clear that there was absolutely no way this could work for more than a token number of flights without absolutely devastating consequences to the planet we live on.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  You can’t disrupt physics. It is the most unforgiving regulator.
- golemotron 8y ago
  The earth is not as fragile as you've been led to believe.
- unknownkadath 8y ago
  Not to mention that many of us have a "better" idea what to do with 100 million dollars and would gladly trade some our founder's equity for the opportunity!
darkpuma 8y ago
> "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." What is the environmental impact of "regularly" commuting on an intercontinental supersonic jet, compared to simply using video conferencing? Humanity doesn't need a new Concorde. The only real upside I could possibly see is faster transport for organ transplants, and how often is that actually going to happen?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > What is the environmental impact of "regularly" commuting on an intercontinental supersonic jet, compared to simply using video conferencing? For any serious discussions, video conferencing is a garbage replacement for in-person meetings. If anything, the latter is becoming more impactful as lower-level functions get clearly displaced to the former. As others have mentioned, jet fuel doesn’t have to be carbon additive.
- justapassenger 8y ago
  > Humanity doesn't need a new Concorde I think you have a typo - you don’t need a new Concorde.
paulcole 8y ago
I'm with you! We've basically wrecked the planet already. At least let these super-rich dudes have some fun while it lasts.
headmelted 8y ago
"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" Jeez, this again. What is it about we tech folk that allows a little aptitude to let our ego get so far out of whack? I'm not that special. You're not that special. Your weapon engineer is not that special. There's a bunch of guys and gals in Hong Kong/Canada/Iceland/wherever who are just as capable of doing the same job without intercontinental commuting. As others have said, the Internet exists, which mitigates the need for international travel like you've suggested anyway (which is absurd, not least for the environmental damage this implies). "Tesla won in cars and SpaceX won in rockets" I'm a fan, but this very much remains to be seen.
- mlevental 8y ago
  >What is it about we tech folk that allows a little aptitude to let our ego get so far out of whack? it's startup culture nonsense
  - Aeolun 8y ago
    What is it about corporate that makes everyone say ‘This is the way it’s always been done, so there cannot possibly be a better way.’? Lets enjoy laughing at them after they fail, rather than before.
    - headmelted 8y ago
      Who here is saying that? And who or what in the thread is "corporate"? "Lets enjoy laughing at them after they fail, rather than before" Suggesting someone apply a little humility to their worldview is a pretty far cry from laughing at them for having goals. I also don't know why you would laugh at someone for failing, it seems a bit harsh.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> I'm not that special. You're not that special. Your weapon engineer is not that special. There are a few target markets that are special. Celebs are each unique, their earning power is tied to this uniqueness. Such an aircraft is great if you want to film in the UK but spend your weekends in NY. Much of Concorde's passenger base fit this profile. Then there are the truly wealthy. There might actually be an environmental argument for them to use this aircraft. Compare it against the carbon footprint of someone flying on Emirates in that airborne apartment they sell on the A380. I'd bet that a semi-normal seat on this rocket will be less carbon intensive than one of those giant first class seats on a slower aircraft. Maybe a few people opting for a less-opulent but far faster option might actually reduce net carbon emissions.
FireBeyond 8y ago
{deleted} - largely due to me misreading "mid 2020s" as "mid 2020" for delivery of new planes and being highly skeptical of the ability to go from 0 to airliner in 5-6 years.
- ricardobeat 8y ago
  SpaceX spent less than 100mm year until 2012, and delivered something that cost others billions to create. As mentioned elsewhere, there is a lot of inertia in older/larger corporations.
  - refurb 8y ago
    SpaceX retrofitted used rockets. That’s a big distinction from building new aircraft from scratch.
    - jordanthoms 8y ago
      Um... what? The Falcon 1 and 9 were built from scratch, at least as much as anything is. They developed their own rocket engines and most of the components as usual aerospace components were too expensive to hit the price they were targeting. Boom is certainly an extremely risky startup (as was SpaceX)... but isn't that what venture capital is for?
    - colordrops 8y ago
      You might be thinking of Orbital, which uses retrofitted cores, or ULA, which uses Russian engines.
pstuart 8y ago
> 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 Bad example.
freddie_mercury 8y ago
I think you are underestimating the impact, especially over a long period of time, of constant 5-hour time shifts. Flying faster doesn't reduce the effects of jet lag.
rb666 8y ago
Are you just completely bonkers? If we start considering Atlantic flights normal and pleasant for commuting than we can completely give up on ever saving the planet. Regular aviation is already extremely pressing on our CO2 output, supersonic flight is way way worse!!
- jamougha 8y ago
  CO2 emissions from international flights will be capped at 2020 levels by international agreement so supersonic flight will have no net effect on emissions. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/A39_CORSIA_FAQ2.aspx https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/A39_CORS...
- dang 8y ago
  Please edit personal swipes and name calling out of your posts here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rayiner 8y ago
Note the key difference between Space X and Boom. Space X took well-understood rocket engine technology and made it cheaper. It didn’t try to fight fundamental physics. Boom is entering an area where the large incumbents have failed because the physics doesn’t work with the economics. And there hasn’t been fundamental changes in the physics since those prior efforts. It’s a different bet.
- hobofan 8y ago
  > Space X took well-understood rocket engine technology and made it cheaper. That was one part of their strategy, but the ultimate goal was always to make it cheaper through reuse and not through cheaper production. > It didn’t try to fight fundamental physics. Tell that to all the people who claimed that the way SpaceX does the landing of their rockets would never work out because of the "fuel economics", "the way the engine is designed", etc.. Before SpaceX actually achieved it, there were a lot of people out there who doubted that their approach is feasible.
  - justapassenger 8y ago
    Did SpaceX actually proved that their economics work? We do know that they sell them much cheaper than competition, but do we know when/if VC money stopped paying for the difference?
- sah2ed 8y ago
  > Note the key difference between Space X and Boom. Space X took well-understood rocket engine technology and made it cheaper. It didn’t try to fight fundamental physics. That's quite a revisionist characterization of SpaceX's 15-year toil, which many had described as impossible. Elon Musk said it best in March 2017 [0][1] when they achieved the revolutionary feat of successfully landing a reused rocket: “It’s the difference between having airplanes that you threw away after every flight, verses reusing them multiple times." “It’s been 15 years to get to this point, I’m sort of at a loss for words. This is a great day, not just for SpaceX but for the space industry as a whole, in proving that something could be done that many people said was impossible.” I certainly wouldn't call something that had never been done before by anyone a well-understood technology. > And there hasn’t been fundamental changes in the physics since those prior efforts. It’s a different bet. You may be correct on the physics, but you are ignoring other dimensions that could make this endeavor feasible. The first Concorde flew 50 years ago. Our understanding of CFD, materials science, manufacturing techniques etc has progressed significantly from what they were 50 years ago. [0]: https://www.recode.net/2017/3/30/15131514/spacex-space-history-success-reusing-rocket-elon-musk https://www.recode.net/2017/3/30/15131514/spacex-space-histo... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1800&v=xsZSXav4wI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1800&v=xsZSXav4w...
cylinder 8y ago
Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. We are facing an environmental crisis due to fossil fuels consumption and here you are flippantly offering intercontinental commuting for work. For some reason, you think people who work in America can't find space in its giant, mostly empty landmass and instead need to commute on supersonic jets from Asia. Wtf?

by valj 8y ago

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/
- mcny 8y ago
  I was one of the idiots who didn't understand the Dropbox monetization strategy. Until recently, I thought the strategy was "whales" like in a casino would pay for everyone. I think I couldn't get past the idea that they were giving something that keeps costing them money away for free forever. What I didn't realize is how "sticky" something like Dropbox can be. I don't think I can get most people who use Dropbox and pay $80 a year to switch to Google drive and pay $50 a year. They have a workflow there. I guess I'm trying to justify my reaction to Dropbox. Frankly, I still don't understand why Dropbox turned down acquisition offer from Apple. I still don't get it. I don't remember laughing at Dropbox though. It was more bewilderment than anything.
- idontpost 8y ago
  It's a little weird that he includes Columbus there. Columbus was many things and genius wasn't one of them. Persistent, egomaniacal, outrageously cruel to the point that the Spanish crown threw him in prison, extremely bad at basic arithmetic -- but not genius. More importantly though, who is Fulton?
  - brokensegue 8y ago
    presumably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fulton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fulton

worldsayshi 8y ago

To have any chance of taking control of our collective carbon footprint we need to move away from technology like this not towards it. And until we can manifest fundamentally different technology for air travel we should collectively and rapidly scale down our dependence on long distance commute. Fossil fuel driven flight is not viable in a sustainable future. We need to understand this.

losteric 8y ago
Why is that an absolute? Can't biofuel sources be refined into jet fuel? I understand that subsidies currently create perverse incentives in that industry, but I struggle to see why bioengineered carbon-neutral jet fuel is fundamentally not viable. That thinking seems very closed-minded.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Biofuels have been a disaster inasmuch as we've destroyed enormous amounts of rainforest to grow them, releasing quite a bit of carbon in the process (and destroying wildlife habitat, of course)
  - losteric 8y ago
    That'd not an argument that carbon-neutral supersonic jets are impossible and should be abandoned. Biofuels doesn't necessarily mean subsidized corn fields... for example, algae and bacteria grown under specialized LEDs powered by renewable energy are another path forward. Perfect is the enemy of the good. We can research supersonic jets in addition to better electric storage and propulsion systems.
    - worldsayshi 8y ago
      > Perfect is the enemy of the good. This saying is not suitable here because unsustainable technology isn't good. It's simply not worth the cost and we are borrowing from the future. If the venture would be unprofitable up until the point when it would be sustainable would we still push money into it? I say we should treat any venture that is unsustainable the same way we treat those that are unprofitable. But we don't. We allow unsustainable ventures to carry on without ever becoming sustainable. Which means that it is constantly borrowing (stealing) means from everyone else.

CalRobert 8y ago

"Yikes, when did HN become so full of haters?" When it became clear that there was absolutely no way this could work for more than a token number of flights without absolutely devastating consequences to the planet we live on.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
You can’t disrupt physics. It is the most unforgiving regulator.
golemotron 8y ago
The earth is not as fragile as you've been led to believe.
unknownkadath 8y ago
Not to mention that many of us have a "better" idea what to do with 100 million dollars and would gladly trade some our founder's equity for the opportunity!

darkpuma 8y ago

> "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." What is the environmental impact of "regularly" commuting on an intercontinental supersonic jet, compared to simply using video conferencing? Humanity doesn't need a new Concorde. The only real upside I could possibly see is faster transport for organ transplants, and how often is that actually going to happen?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> What is the environmental impact of "regularly" commuting on an intercontinental supersonic jet, compared to simply using video conferencing? For any serious discussions, video conferencing is a garbage replacement for in-person meetings. If anything, the latter is becoming more impactful as lower-level functions get clearly displaced to the former. As others have mentioned, jet fuel doesn’t have to be carbon additive.
justapassenger 8y ago
> Humanity doesn't need a new Concorde I think you have a typo - you don’t need a new Concorde.

paulcole 8y ago

I'm with you! We've basically wrecked the planet already. At least let these super-rich dudes have some fun while it lasts.

headmelted 8y ago

"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" Jeez, this again. What is it about we tech folk that allows a little aptitude to let our ego get so far out of whack? I'm not that special. You're not that special. Your weapon engineer is not that special. There's a bunch of guys and gals in Hong Kong/Canada/Iceland/wherever who are just as capable of doing the same job without intercontinental commuting. As others have said, the Internet exists, which mitigates the need for international travel like you've suggested anyway (which is absurd, not least for the environmental damage this implies). "Tesla won in cars and SpaceX won in rockets" I'm a fan, but this very much remains to be seen.

mlevental 8y ago
>What is it about we tech folk that allows a little aptitude to let our ego get so far out of whack? it's startup culture nonsense
- Aeolun 8y ago
  What is it about corporate that makes everyone say ‘This is the way it’s always been done, so there cannot possibly be a better way.’? Lets enjoy laughing at them after they fail, rather than before.
  - headmelted 8y ago
    Who here is saying that? And who or what in the thread is "corporate"? "Lets enjoy laughing at them after they fail, rather than before" Suggesting someone apply a little humility to their worldview is a pretty far cry from laughing at them for having goals. I also don't know why you would laugh at someone for failing, it seems a bit harsh.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> I'm not that special. You're not that special. Your weapon engineer is not that special. There are a few target markets that are special. Celebs are each unique, their earning power is tied to this uniqueness. Such an aircraft is great if you want to film in the UK but spend your weekends in NY. Much of Concorde's passenger base fit this profile. Then there are the truly wealthy. There might actually be an environmental argument for them to use this aircraft. Compare it against the carbon footprint of someone flying on Emirates in that airborne apartment they sell on the A380. I'd bet that a semi-normal seat on this rocket will be less carbon intensive than one of those giant first class seats on a slower aircraft. Maybe a few people opting for a less-opulent but far faster option might actually reduce net carbon emissions.

FireBeyond 8y ago

{deleted} - largely due to me misreading "mid 2020s" as "mid 2020" for delivery of new planes and being highly skeptical of the ability to go from 0 to airliner in 5-6 years.

ricardobeat 8y ago
SpaceX spent less than 100mm year until 2012, and delivered something that cost others billions to create. As mentioned elsewhere, there is a lot of inertia in older/larger corporations.
- refurb 8y ago
  SpaceX retrofitted used rockets. That’s a big distinction from building new aircraft from scratch.
  - jordanthoms 8y ago
    Um... what? The Falcon 1 and 9 were built from scratch, at least as much as anything is. They developed their own rocket engines and most of the components as usual aerospace components were too expensive to hit the price they were targeting. Boom is certainly an extremely risky startup (as was SpaceX)... but isn't that what venture capital is for?
  - colordrops 8y ago
    You might be thinking of Orbital, which uses retrofitted cores, or ULA, which uses Russian engines.

pstuart 8y ago

> 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 Bad example.

freddie_mercury 8y ago

I think you are underestimating the impact, especially over a long period of time, of constant 5-hour time shifts. Flying faster doesn't reduce the effects of jet lag.

rb666 8y ago

Are you just completely bonkers? If we start considering Atlantic flights normal and pleasant for commuting than we can completely give up on ever saving the planet. Regular aviation is already extremely pressing on our CO2 output, supersonic flight is way way worse!!

jamougha 8y ago
CO2 emissions from international flights will be capped at 2020 levels by international agreement so supersonic flight will have no net effect on emissions. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/A39_CORSIA_FAQ2.aspx https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/A39_CORS...
dang 8y ago
Please edit personal swipes and name calling out of your posts here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rayiner 8y ago

Note the key difference between Space X and Boom. Space X took well-understood rocket engine technology and made it cheaper. It didn’t try to fight fundamental physics. Boom is entering an area where the large incumbents have failed because the physics doesn’t work with the economics. And there hasn’t been fundamental changes in the physics since those prior efforts. It’s a different bet.

hobofan 8y ago
> Space X took well-understood rocket engine technology and made it cheaper. That was one part of their strategy, but the ultimate goal was always to make it cheaper through reuse and not through cheaper production. > It didn’t try to fight fundamental physics. Tell that to all the people who claimed that the way SpaceX does the landing of their rockets would never work out because of the "fuel economics", "the way the engine is designed", etc.. Before SpaceX actually achieved it, there were a lot of people out there who doubted that their approach is feasible.
- justapassenger 8y ago
  Did SpaceX actually proved that their economics work? We do know that they sell them much cheaper than competition, but do we know when/if VC money stopped paying for the difference?
sah2ed 8y ago
> Note the key difference between Space X and Boom. Space X took well-understood rocket engine technology and made it cheaper. It didn’t try to fight fundamental physics. That's quite a revisionist characterization of SpaceX's 15-year toil, which many had described as impossible. Elon Musk said it best in March 2017 [0][1] when they achieved the revolutionary feat of successfully landing a reused rocket: “It’s the difference between having airplanes that you threw away after every flight, verses reusing them multiple times." “It’s been 15 years to get to this point, I’m sort of at a loss for words. This is a great day, not just for SpaceX but for the space industry as a whole, in proving that something could be done that many people said was impossible.” I certainly wouldn't call something that had never been done before by anyone a well-understood technology. > And there hasn’t been fundamental changes in the physics since those prior efforts. It’s a different bet. You may be correct on the physics, but you are ignoring other dimensions that could make this endeavor feasible. The first Concorde flew 50 years ago. Our understanding of CFD, materials science, manufacturing techniques etc has progressed significantly from what they were 50 years ago. [0]: https://www.recode.net/2017/3/30/15131514/spacex-space-history-success-reusing-rocket-elon-musk https://www.recode.net/2017/3/30/15131514/spacex-space-histo... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1800&v=xsZSXav4wI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1800&v=xsZSXav4w...

cylinder 8y ago

Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. We are facing an environmental crisis due to fossil fuels consumption and here you are flippantly offering intercontinental commuting for work. For some reason, you think people who work in America can't find space in its giant, mostly empty landmass and instead need to commute on supersonic jets from Asia. Wtf?