21 ms·

XB-1 Supersonic Rollout

248 points by tomovo 6y ago

Someone1234 6y ago
How does this seek to overcome the problem that killed Concorde: Civilian sonic booms over populations are illegal, and most places aircraft want to fly to/from are cities? Concorde found a kinda niche between the East Coast of the US and European cities near the sea, but it really doesn't feel sustainable for an entire aircraft class to be limited to only that route (and wasn't for Concorde). If it doesn't go supersonic then what is the USP?
- failuser 6y ago
  We might be at the point when it can be legal again, just make sure you don’t fly supersonic above mansions of people with actual power.
- jagger27 6y ago
  Their FAQ section^0 says this: > Overture flights will focus on 500+ primarily transoceanic routes that benefit from supersonic speeds—such as New York to London or San Francisco to Tokyo. Overture won't generate a sonic boom over land cruising at subsonic speeds. Its passengers won't even notice breaking through the "sound barrier," which will be inaudible and uneventful. So I guess they haven't really solved physics. edit: in an economic way. [0]: https://boomsupersonic.com/contact#faq-section https://boomsupersonic.com/contact#faq-section
  - JacobDotVI 6y ago
    there is also ongoing research into making the boom less audible & turbulent over land, which would enable cross-country flights: >Graves explains that SonicBAT is an unusual test in that it uses a typical military aircraft with its loud sonic boom to help engineers better understand the sounds from future quiet supersonic aircraft >"We're hoping we can eventually lower sonic booms to a low rumble," he said. "The goal is to eventually accommodate jets that can fly from New York to Los Angeles in two hours." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-supersonic-technology-designed-to-reduce-sonic-booms https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-supersonic-technology-desig... I'd hope that Boom is also working on such an approach
    - lumost 6y ago
      WRT to the US. I'd be curious if anyone has done a route analysis on trans-continental flights to minimize overheard booms. Once you're 200 miles from the coasts there is a lot of open space to fly through.
      - qppo 6y ago
        I think you'd be hard pressed to find a path where the boom cone's carpet doesn't pass over a moderately populated area and can be navigated by the aircraft at supersonic speeds. The US is not sparse east of the Missippi, which is more like 750 miles from the coast.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Once you're 200 miles from the coasts there is a lot of open space to fly through. That's really only true west of about a North-South line through the eastern edge of the Texas panhandle. From there east, there's still some open space (not a lot once you hit the Mississippi River), but you'd have to dodge around to make path not going over population concentrations.
        ed25519FUUU 6y ago
        I think that’s why they specifically call out O’hare to London, and SF to Tokyo, routes that take them over the ocean.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    NASA has solved physics, though: https://www.nasa.gov/X59 https://www.nasa.gov/X59 The Low-boom Flight Demonstration mission has two goals: 1) design and build a piloted, large-scale supersonic X-plane with technology that reduces the loudness of a sonic boom to that of a gentle thump; and 2) fly the X-plane over select U.S. communities to gather data on human responses to the low-boom flights and deliver that data set to U.S. and international regulators. Using this data, new sound-based rules regarding supersonic flight over land can be written and adopted, which would open the doors to new commercial cargo and passenger markets to provide faster-than-sound air travel.
    - uranium 6y ago
      NASA has a goal to solve physics; we'll see how they do.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > NASA has solved physics, though: "NASA has a project to test whether the physics can be adequately finessed" would be more accurate description of what is on that page than "NASA has solved the physics".
  - nopzor 6y ago
    that's an interestingly worded statement. in concorde, the passengers didn't even notice breaking through the sound barrier either. regarding sonic booms over land, their plan iirc is to reduce the noise level to the point where they can lobby to change legislation.
- fotbr 6y ago
  The theory is that they can reduce the supersonic shockwave to the point where supersonic flight over populated areas can be legalized again.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- jankassens 6y ago
  Without any deeper knowledge, there might also be a good amount of business travel between Australia/East Asia and the US West coast?
- billclerico 6y ago
  I think it is more likely that the economics killed Concord ($20k per seat), not the route, and it appears that Boom thinks like they can deliver a luxury, supersonic experience at a far cheaper, business class price. And if transoceanic supersonic travel becomes popular, pressure will mount to define overland supersonic corridors, or manufacturers will invest to reduce the noise, or both.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    In its later years I believe BA and Air France found that perceived costs of a Concorde ticket were actually more expensive than what they were charging, so they increased prices to match perceptions and then Concorde was fairly profitable. By the time Concorde was actually retired, 9/11 dented air travel demand in general and the thing was a flying dinosaur with not a big enough market to justify an upgraded version of the plane.
    - nickik 6y ago
      It was only ever close to profit because it didn't have to finance its own development.
      - bobthepanda 6y ago
        The context is pretty clearly talking about operating profit, not the profitability of the program as a whole.
      - kenneth 6y ago
        It's not necessary to account for R&D costs if the R&D has other benefits (e.g. putting Airbus on the map as an alternative manufacturer to Boeing, giving Europe technology with military implications independent of its reliance on the USA, etc.)
  - trhway 6y ago
    >pressure will mount to define overland supersonic corridors yes, that definitely need to happen. I wonder whether the sonic boom public scare is just based on the fact that the majority of the public has never experienced it. I grew up on a Navy base in USSR, and we regularly had fighters booming at the altitudes much lower than the altitude normal for the commercial supersonic travel. It was just fun for us children. May be you'd not want the boom echoing/bouncing through the Manhattan concrete mazes, yet at 20km altitude over rural areas there should be no issues. Also there are large swaths of less populated lands in other countries who may be open to having such corridors over these areas. And back in Concorde times, there weren't such a big rich markets like China who has different approach to clearing of permitting/regulation issues for example when it comes to public transportation infrastructure.
- Voloskaya 6y ago
  > How does this seek to overcome the problem that killed Concorde This did not single handedly killed the Concorde, there are plenty of routes with substantial flying time over unpopulated areas. Presumably if the cost of maintenance and the fuel consumption were lower it could still be flying. So assuming Boom fixes those 2 points, then not being able to go supersonic over land just lowers efficiency but does not mean it's not viable.
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  There were a lot of potential buyers for Concorde in other parts of the world. They backed out when the operating costs came out, and the range was found to be lower than expected (though BA managed to increase it through operational improvements). Whether supersonic travel is still relevant is another question, but there buyers then, maybe there would be now too. https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b
- gok 6y ago
  Primarily they are targeting transoceanic routes. Transoceanic demand has increased substantially in recent years. Transatlantic traffic has doubled since Concorde went out of service. Transpacific travel has grown even more, and Concorde was unable to compete there.
  - lumost 6y ago
    Transpacific and trans-hemisphere super sonic flights would be an interesting. the demand to fly to Asia from North America is likely higher than currently observed due to lack of interest in 12-24 hour flights. With careful planning the fastest I can get to Australia/New Zealand is ~18-24 hours flight time - on a 10 day vacation that's ~40% of my vacation time including recovery from an 18 hour flight. I'd be fine flying 6 hours to the west coast then hopping on a supersonic flight for a 2-3x premium ( still expensive, but worthwhile every few years ).
    - mc32 6y ago
      Asia-North America. Would they do a polar trajectory? Or would they worry too much about the radiation?
      - stetrain 6y ago
        Existing flight routes between Asia and North America often fly over the arctic already: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/winter-winds-how-singapore-airlines-new-worlds-longest-flight-is-saving-time-and-fuel-by-flying-farther/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/winter-winds-how-singapor...
      - BurningFrog 6y ago
        Not if it crosses a landmass, I guess.
      - bobthepanda 6y ago
        I don't think the planned Boom plane has the range to go trans-Pacific. Maybe with a stopover in Honolulu to refuel (which could still be substantially faster)
- griffinkelly 6y ago
  Concorde had a bunch of publicly tours around Asia. There are a few that could make sense-- HK to Tokyo? Tokyo to Singapore? The fuel requirements from the US to Asia are pretty intense, so I'm interested to see how they solve that issue. Sonic booms haven't always been illegal in the US (1973?). My dad grew up near O'hare, and he said you'd occasionally hear them when it was still a military base. Its just annoying, but for people who live near airports, jet noise is already annoying? I think as long as jets just boom over specific areas, it would minimize the public nuisance.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    We heard sonic booms routinely growing up in the 1990s in small-town Missouri, presumably from nearby air force bases. It was little more than a curiosity, and never enough to rattle windows or really affect anyone much beyond perhaps a brief startling.
    - ajmurmann 6y ago
      I grew up not far from an Air Force base on Germany. We got sonic booms multiple times a day. It was super shitty. We never had windows break, but as a young child I started to cry every time it happened. My grandfather woke up from his naps from them quite regularly which sucked especially when he was dying of cancer.
      - tshaddox 6y ago
        I wonder what the difference is. Airplane size/speed/altitude?
        ajmurmann 6y ago
        Most likely altitude. I recall that they used to practice flying at low altitude. Much more interesting than our anecdata is probably the Oklahoma City Sonic Boom study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests > the NORC reported that 73% of subjects in the study said that they could live indefinitely with eight sonic booms per day, while 25% said that they couldn't. About 3% of the population telephoned, sued, or wrote protest letters, but Oklahoma City surgeons and hospitals filed no complaints. However, with the city population at 500,000, that 3% figure represented 15,000 upset individuals. There were 9,594 complaints of damage to buildings, 4,629 formal damage claims, and 229 claims for a total of $12,845.32, mostly for broken glass and cracked plaster.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  It's for Emirati playboys to continue their game of oneupsmanship while they still have money to burn.
- seany 6y ago
  Lobby to make them legal again? The restriction is stupid to start with.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    Why do you think its stupid?
- moralestapia 6y ago
  >[...] the problem that killed Concorde: Civilian sonic booms over populations are illegal Did this killed the Concorde? I don't know the story well, but I always though it was because it was never a profitable venture but it was kept because it was good PR. Then the accident happened and it was just not worth it anymore ...
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Concorde was profitable. It initially wasn't, but then BA and Air France found out that customers thought Concorde was more expensive than it actually was. Once they increased prices to customer expectation the Concorde was fairly profitable. https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-from-the-concorde/#:~:text=Concorde%20ticket%20prices%20were%20doubled,price%2C%20sales%20were%20very%20strong https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-.... The major issue with Concorde by the time of its retirement was that it was very old and outdated, among other things needing a 3-person crew. The market for new Concordes was not large enough for a next-egeneration update to be profitable. And 9/11 had dented air travel demand.
    - moralestapia 6y ago
      >https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson- https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-.... Thanks! I did not know about that.
- Swizec 6y ago
  Concorde’s other problem was newfangled airport security. Why spend 5x on tickets for a 3h flight if you spend 2h at airports anyway? The day is wasted to travel regardless.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > The day is wasted to travel regardless. This doesn't add up. At the moment when I fly from the UK to New York I leave my house at 6 AM and could be in the city by just after lunch. With supersonic, including airport and transfer times, I could literally get up at my normal time in the UK and arrive to get a full working day in New York. None of the day is wasted.
    - Swizec 6y ago
      You’re right it works in one direction. Now add to that 5x pricing. Worth it? In the other direction it’s harder. Too short to sleep on the plane, too long to get a full day. If you want to be in London at 9am, you’re leaving NYC at 2am-ish for a supersonic flight. (1h transit to airport, 2h at airport, 3h flight, 1h transit to London)
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > If you want to be in London at 9am, you’re leaving NYC at 2am-ish for a supersonic flight. (1h transit to airport, 2h at airport, 3h flight, 1h transit to London) I'm not sure what you mean - that gets you into London at 2pm not 9am (2am + 1 + 2 + 3 = 9am New York = 2pm London.) To get into London at 9am you'd need to leave New York City at 10pm (9am - 1 - 3 - 2 = 3am London = 10pm New York. Which seems fine you're doing it overnight no days lost? You'd not get tons of sleep that night but you're not wasting a day either way. Could leave at 8pm and get two hours's sleep in the arrivals lounge! And leaving at 10pm instead of 5pm as you have to now makes all the difference because it now isn't interfering with your day at all! That was the goal wasn't it? Makes it worth it?
        Swizec 6y ago
- acomjean 6y ago
  They literally named the company “boom” so they must have thought about it.
wiz21c 6y ago
Is it me or is it a military plane ?
- jagger27 6y ago
  It's a 1/3 scale prototype of their passenger jet.
  - carabiner 6y ago
    It's not a "scale" prototype since it has a different configuration from the passenger jet: https://aviationvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Boom-Technology-Unveils-Supersonic-Demonstrator-1200x900.jpg https://aviationvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Boom-Te... It'd be scale if it was the exact aircraft except every linear dimension was shrunk down. But having a different number of windows, different inlets etc. makes it a smaller concept demonstrator.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      It can still be 1/3rd of the scale, even if it's not a "scale model"
      - carabiner 6y ago
        Not when the configuration is drastically different. "Scale" has a very specific meaning in engineering. It's like saying a motorcycle is a 1/3 scale version of a car just because it uses the same motor. It still demonstrates that the heart of the vehicle works, but it's not a scaled version of it. Here's an actual scale model in aerospace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHz2B_4g2tM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHz2B_4g2tM
        nicoburns 6y ago
        A motorcycle is not a "1/3 scale version" of a car, but it is "1/3 the scale" of a car (assuming a car is roughly 3 times larger). Scale is not just used in engineering. For example a zoo might have a scale comparison of different animals.
vosper 6y ago
If you just want to see the plane, and not have an epileptic episode, then don't watch "the best part" video, watch the "XB-1 up close" clip from further down the page instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bRx2dpooCQ&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bRx2dpooCQ&feature=youtu.be
- sneak 6y ago
  Their stroboscopic unveil video reminds me of a slightly less polished version of the best Apple ad in recent memory, the one for the red iPhone 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5FIAniosZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5FIAniosZU
  - skavi 6y ago
    Wow, seeing what they were seemingly going for just makes there attempt appear even worse.
    - sneak 6y ago
      They have the edit all backwards. They should have started with tight shots showing abstract lines and reflections, but instead they showed the whole body outline/shape, dimly, in the first third of the video while the music was still building. So close, yet so far away. Cargo cult speed ramping.
  - samplatt 6y ago
    Never seen that ad before... TBH I really like it. Though watching it on silent kinda made me feel like it was an ad for a new Star Wars movie.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - neilpanchal 6y ago
    I want a printed specification or datasheet in a tabulated form, written by engineers along with isometric and orthogonal views (side/top/back/bottom), preferably with dimensions. I am good after that. Perhaps on a nice card stock from Red River Paper company. Color is good, although black and white will do. Completely satiated and satistfied. Ready to buy the damn thing.
ForHackernews 6y ago
Is there any evidence airlines would pay for this? Pre-covid, the dominant trend over decades has been for cheaper, cheaper, cheaper flights. Hardly anyone pays for first class, but will they pay three to four times as much to arrive a few hours earlier?
- vosper 6y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted, this seems like the crucial question. Even here in New Zealand we have experienced a huge tourism boom (pre-Covid) over the past 15 years. For most people getting here meant taking one or more really long-haul flights. It didn't seem to put a whole lot of people off: we had 3.7m tourist arrivals in 2017, without supersonic jets. Our population is only 5m. (On a personal level I hope there isn't a market of even more people who want to come here who'll be enabled by greatly shorter flight times. We had more than enough tourists already, TYVM. But economically, we won't be able to resist because jobs)
  - jdminhbg 6y ago
    > It didn't seem to put a whole lot of people off: we had 3.7m tourist arrivals in 2017, without supersonic jets. Our population is only 5m. I think you might underestimate how many people would visit if the long-haul flights weren't an obstacle. Pre-covid Iceland, easily reachable from Europe and the NE US, had over 1M arrivals on a population of only 300k: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Iceland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Iceland
    - vosper 6y ago
      Iceland is a little bit more "on the way" than NZ is - it can be a stopping point on a trip to Europe or the US. But I think you must be right. If the trip becomes less burdensome more people will want to come. The obvious (to me) response is to set a target tourist number, and raise the arrival fee until we get approximately that number of tourists. But now we're getting into policy :)
- levi-turner 6y ago
dingaling 6y ago
> the world’s first independently developed supersonic jet Nope: https://www.jimbede.com/bd--10.html https://www.jimbede.com/bd--10.html
- larkeith 6y ago
  Well, IIRC no BD-10 ever actually went supersonic.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
failuser 6y ago
Wait, they are going to sell those to airlines, not to individuals? Ticket price will put them in competition with private subsonic planes, not with airlines.
- rst 6y ago
  The announced target market is airlines (and they've already got commitments from some; Virgin has announced publicly); projected fares are comparable to business class on transoceanic flights (their initial target market, to avoid regulatory issues with sonic booms on over-land routes). But I'm sure if someone else is able to write a check for the purchase price, and it doesn't bounce, they'll be happy to cash it.
  - new_realist 6y ago
    Virgin is bankrupt.
    - aero-glide 6y ago
      Bankruptcy doesn't always mean the company is closing down, it can also be for reorganization
- frakkingcylons 6y ago
  What? Private transoceanic flights cost much more than a business class ticket.
  - failuser 6y ago
    We’ll see, but I don’t trust their assumption that they can make the price comparable to business class unless it’s heavily subsidized.
dzhiurgis 6y ago
He mentions $100 for anywhere in the world. How realistic is that? Also wonder how will they compete with SpaceX Starship who’s probably going to be operational sooner and be even faster.
- ranieuwe 6y ago
  Not very. This is from their FAQ for the airplane that XB-1 is input for: > Our focus with Overture is to develop and build a commercial supersonic airliner for anyone who can afford a business-class ticket, not a private jet.
- valusr 6y ago
  It's hard to imagine that. Not to be a downer, but when was the last time we all could buy an Economy ticket for that price to anywhere in the world?
- jariel 6y ago
  It's total rubbish. He says that because that's the kind of weird koolaid that 'inspires people' and investors apparently. It also takes the edge off of 'this is for rich people' and makes it more about the plebes. It's pure communications koolaid, Valley Style.
Animats 6y ago
It looks like the Douglas X-3, from 1952.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_X-3_Stiletto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_X-3_Stiletto
- major505 6y ago
  I was thinking the same. Doing a turn in a plane like this seens like hard work.
  - nopzor 6y ago
    at the risk of over simplifying the point i'm trying to make: the shorter the wings the easier it is to turn. longer wings are better for lift (which is why gliders have super long wings), and shorter wings are better for maneuvering.
- ChuckMcM 6y ago
  That is exactly what I thought as well. On the one hand, that makes a lot of sense as in, "Let's build a supersonic platform based on one that we know works to prove to ourselves that we can actually build a supersonic plane." But the marketing spin around "Hey we made a copy of this plane that was built 60 years ago and we think it will work." Just doesn't have the same flair :-) Still, as NASA has shown time and again, if you have a reliable air frame that is well characterized, and you instrument the crap out of it, then you can set it up a wide variety of aeronautical experiments and collect really valuable data that feels more trustworthy then "theoretical results" from a 10K core parallel computer doing CFD analysis. If they are smart (and we can presume they are) they are doing both and updating their CFD models with data from XB-1 so that they are more confident that Overture will work. That said, to be really "ground breaking" they really should use the "low boom" technology that NASA has been researching to make a plane that can fly supersonic over land. That would actually be a new spin on the old Concorde business plan where it opens up more routes. Just the "hey it will be cheaper" bet doesn't leave a lot of room for an assumption fail late in the certification process.
  - tobinfricke 6y ago
the_duke 6y ago
Affordable supersonic aircraft seem like a great technological achievement, and I'm all for it. But would the impact be that high? Cutting flight time by 40-45% is nice, but end to end travel time includes driving to/from the airport and immigration, which does not change. Let's look at JFK-LHR (New York - London). The flight time is cut from 6.5h to 3.5h. Let's add 2 hours overhead at each end (somewhat ... optimistic), which makes it 10.5h vs 7.5h. LA-Sydney is 14.5h vs 8.5h, or 18.5h vs 12.5h end to end. Is that difference really going to change if you take the trip or not? Would you be willing to pay a significant markup for that? Seems like the market would be constrained to relatively high profile business travel.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  LA-Sydney would become as doable as Chicago-London, and one of these trips today is much, much easier than the other. The target per cost is equivalent to today's business class. Some people might jump at that. And we have no idea what a non-premium Boom cabin might look like.
  - vkou 6y ago
    No, it won't. This plane promises a range of 4,500 nautical miles. LAX to SYD is 6,500 nautical miles. You can stop to refuel in Hawaii, but that will eat much of your time savings.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      I didn't take the parent comment to be talking about Boom specifically, but supersonic in general.
- bufferoverflow 6y ago
  > travel to/from the airport and immigration, which does not change. Musk's The Boring Company is working on changing the speed of travel to the airport. Midtown Manhattan to JFK is around 45 minutes to drive. But it's only 11 miles away. If you can travel in a straight line at 80 mph, it should only take 8.3 minutes). And rich people who buy flights like that can already take helicopters and have separate immigration/customs gates without lines and checks.
phkahler 6y ago
I noticed in the first video at 13:00 he says their team has former employees from other places like SpaceX, NASA, Amazon, and one other I cant remember, but the image shown has logos from those companies and Boeing. Had to wonder if not saying Boeing was deliberate given the problems they've been having.
umvi 6y ago
Is most supersonic airframe tech military classified or something?
- areoform 6y ago
  Airframes and the like automatically fall under ITAR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
- Roboprog 6y ago
  Uneconomical, dragging a huge cone of air along with your plane. The pressure Wave in front of the moving plane moves away at the speed of sound, so it just stacks up.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > pressure Wave in front of the moving plane moves away at the speed of sound, so it just stacks up This is a description of trans-sonic flight.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
one2know 6y ago
Suprising they don't have an overhead gantry and part jigs. They are using a forklift and a $100 chain hoist to move the wing around. And it looks like they are using 3d printed plastic parts on the plane?
- chipsa 6y ago
  One off tech demo plane, vs their even a prototype of their production plane.
mberning 6y ago
I think this is very cool, but their song and dance about making nothing seem foreign and allowing people to experience other cultures is actually backwards. If they are successful they will enable and accelerate the further dilution of distinct cultures. It’s very sad to travel to other parts of the world and find it to be tainted with many of the global brands and customs that you already know.
Pompidou 6y ago
Je me sens volé.
duckfruit 6y ago
Always love hearing from Boom. By far the most impressive YC startup I know of. In a sea of interchangeable SaaS and mobile app ventures, they are out there doing hard things and actually trying to make a reality the kind of future we all dream about. Inspirational. They certainly have some daunting challenges to overcome but hope they pull through. I'm rooting for them.
- diminish 6y ago
  > hard things by hard things, you refer to non-software; thinking writing software isn't hard :thinking
  - hxegon 6y ago
    I... honestly can't make heads or tails of this sentence
    - necovek 6y ago
      While not perfectly worded, it's clear to me GP points out how "building software" is not considered "hard" by the parent (hard as in complicated). Assuming you are not simply being sarcastic over their "chat" form, of course.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        I think the OP as a valid view, but I'd refine it a bit: building software can be "hard" in the same way building a supersonic jet is, but "interchangeable SaaS and mobile app ventures" are not hard this way. The difficulty in the latter tends to be in code bureaucracy, not in the domain of the problem the product is trying to solve. Which is to say, it's a bit self-inflicted.
        diminish 6y ago
        > in a sea of interchangeable SaaS and mobile app ventures, they are out there doing hard things. This is a bit offensive against saas and mobile apps and has a wrong vision that software is easy and hardware is hard. 1. A supersonic jet also may include saas & mobile apps at some point in addition to a lot of software. 2. With competition, supersonic jets may also prove interchangeable, unless GP wants monopoly.
mark-r 6y ago
I can't imagine a worse time to launch a new aircraft. The airlines are all bleeding hard due to Covid.
- scarier 6y ago
  The nice thing is they still likely have a number of years before the full-scale passenger version goes into production. I doubt COVID will have a significant impact on their long-term success or failure.
- aero-glide 6y ago
  The commercial version is expected to be operational at 2029
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  The ultra rich are still traveling and many would probably love 3.5 hour trips across the Atlantic.
  - sschueller 6y ago
    Maybe we shouldn't have any ultra rich. Most of them got there by exploiting others and fly so much that they pollute as much as a small town.
    - aero-glide 6y ago
      Was bored so tried the math. Assume small town is 5000 people. 5000 * 20tons co2 (average US emissions per capita) = 100,000 tons of co2/year. Cessna Citation produces 6 tons for every 3 hour flight. Lets say, there are 3 people each flight. So 2 tons per person per flight. If someone takes the private jet _every day of the year_, thats 700 tons. Still a far cry from 100,000 tons from a small town.
      - sschueller 6y ago
        Maybe a bit exaggerated but the super rich produce a lot of CO2 compared to an average person. People like Elon Musk have gulfstreams. Elon has a gulfstream G550 which outputs 9,432 lbs / 5 mT per hour. He traveled 150,000 miles in 2018.
exabrial 6y ago
I hear thunder all spring. I don't really yell at the weather. How much louder/jarring is a sonic boom to a thunder clap in the vicinity?
- coolspot 6y ago
  From my memories 25 years back, supersonic fighter jet plane flying over at altitude of ~1km was like a loud thunder that is close. Very fun if you are kid.
ARandomerDude 6y ago
Interesting that they used the J85...it even looks like a 3-engine T-38.
joelthelion 6y ago
So it's the year 2020, climate change is already causing major disasters regularly, and if we don't make major changes real quick, it's going to end the world as we know it in a matter of decades. And yet here we are, admiring a plane that will probably burn ten times as much fossil fuel as a regular plane, which is already far too much.
- MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
  > it's going to end the world as we know it in a matter of decades You’re not helping your cause by making exaggerated claims unsupported by science or reason.
  - joelthelion 6y ago
    I invite you to read up on climate change. All credible sources point to hundreds of millions of displaced people, large swathes of land rendered inhabitable, etc. To me that's ending the world as we know it. And it's not me saying it, it's the best experts on the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#On_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#On_h...
    - the-dude 6y ago
      The climate has been changing for thousands of years, people used to live on the bottom of the North Sea. You would be able to walk from mainland Europe to the UK. The best experts basically all rely on subsidies for their livelyhood. Furthermore, we can only measure and calculate properly for a couple of decades. And finally, don't you see the biblical theme of your message?
      - XMPPwocky 6y ago
        > The climate has been changing for thousands of years, people used to live on the bottom of the North Sea. You would be able to walk from mainland Europe to the UK. In the winter, my house was cold. In the summer, it became hot. The next winter, it got cold again. Now my house is on fire. But it's fine, because it's just becoming hot again. The temperature of my house is always changing, you see. > The best experts basically all rely on subsidies for their livelyhood. What's a good neutral source you'd recommend, then? > Furthermore, we can only measure and calculate properly for a couple of decades. Says who? And measure and calculate what? > And finally, don't you see the biblical theme of your message? what
nickik 6y ago
I like this company and have looked at them for a while, but I am not sure if they are all that viable. I believe you will see supersonic electric jets capturing overland routes, I think think overland will happen otherwise. Electric planes will fly higher and thus have far less of a sonic boom problem. Even some shorter range over the ocean routes are possible. Battery technology is improving fast and electric planes have inherent operational cost advantages. I also think Starship without a first stage can compete in this already not very big market and with a first stage they can do routes that would be impossible for Overture. Boom often compares itself to SpaceX, but I don't know if you can replicate SpaceX in the air domain. Space was much less sophisticated and much less commercial. And as I said, SpaceX is now going after the same market with rocket technology, so the difference between air and space domain is shrinking. I wish them luck but who knows if any of these are gone work out anytime soon.
einpoklum 6y ago
Their motivation is silly: > The world is better off when families can spend more time together Yeah, almost no families in the world have the money to fly anywhere business class, in their life, ever. More importantly, it's ridiculous to rely on flight as part of the daily routine of a family - for multiple reasons, not the least of which being the environmental one. > businesses have more opportunities to succeed in our global economy This is the actual motivation, I would think. > and world leaders can foster greater understanding in person. Well, this point itself is debatable, especially considering certain current world leaders, but basically it's the same as the previous pont. So the motivation is: "Let rich/powerful organizations ferry important people around faster to further their interests." Not so romantic, but it's a legitimate reason to work on a high-end product or service, I guess.
- nickpp 6y ago
  Carriers when first cell phone appeared: "Families can communicate more" You: "No family can afford it" Countless services we take today for granted have been introduced initially as toys for the ultra rich, then made their way to the general consumer. It's a good thing.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    False analogy. Mobile phones were expensive because the R&D was expensive and the production technology immature. Flying people requires a lot of energy because of physical constraints, and the potential economies on fuel use, while existent, are strongly constrained.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      Extracting and storing energy from nature is also a technological problem. Also solved using R&D.
vijaybritto 6y ago
Why is there not a single clip of it flying?? Its confusing why they aren't showing it. Its the only purpose of the aircraft!
voldacar 6y ago
It's an absolutely gorgeous airplane. For that reason alone I hope they succeed

248 points by tomovo 6y ago

How does this seek to overcome the problem that killed Concorde: Civilian sonic booms over populations are illegal, and most places aircraft want to fly to/from are cities? Concorde found a kinda niche between the East Coast of the US and European cities near the sea, but it really doesn't feel sustainable for an entire aircraft class to be limited to only that route (and wasn't for Concorde). If it doesn't go supersonic then what is the USP?

failuser 6y ago
We might be at the point when it can be legal again, just make sure you don’t fly supersonic above mansions of people with actual power.
jagger27 6y ago
Their FAQ section^0 says this: > Overture flights will focus on 500+ primarily transoceanic routes that benefit from supersonic speeds—such as New York to London or San Francisco to Tokyo. Overture won't generate a sonic boom over land cruising at subsonic speeds. Its passengers won't even notice breaking through the "sound barrier," which will be inaudible and uneventful. So I guess they haven't really solved physics. edit: in an economic way. [0]: https://boomsupersonic.com/contact#faq-section https://boomsupersonic.com/contact#faq-section
- JacobDotVI 6y ago
  there is also ongoing research into making the boom less audible & turbulent over land, which would enable cross-country flights: >Graves explains that SonicBAT is an unusual test in that it uses a typical military aircraft with its loud sonic boom to help engineers better understand the sounds from future quiet supersonic aircraft >"We're hoping we can eventually lower sonic booms to a low rumble," he said. "The goal is to eventually accommodate jets that can fly from New York to Los Angeles in two hours." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-supersonic-technology-designed-to-reduce-sonic-booms https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-supersonic-technology-desig... I'd hope that Boom is also working on such an approach
  - lumost 6y ago
    WRT to the US. I'd be curious if anyone has done a route analysis on trans-continental flights to minimize overheard booms. Once you're 200 miles from the coasts there is a lot of open space to fly through.
    - qppo 6y ago
      I think you'd be hard pressed to find a path where the boom cone's carpet doesn't pass over a moderately populated area and can be navigated by the aircraft at supersonic speeds. The US is not sparse east of the Missippi, which is more like 750 miles from the coast.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Once you're 200 miles from the coasts there is a lot of open space to fly through. That's really only true west of about a North-South line through the eastern edge of the Texas panhandle. From there east, there's still some open space (not a lot once you hit the Mississippi River), but you'd have to dodge around to make path not going over population concentrations.
      - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
        I think that’s why they specifically call out O’hare to London, and SF to Tokyo, routes that take them over the ocean.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  NASA has solved physics, though: https://www.nasa.gov/X59 https://www.nasa.gov/X59 The Low-boom Flight Demonstration mission has two goals: 1) design and build a piloted, large-scale supersonic X-plane with technology that reduces the loudness of a sonic boom to that of a gentle thump; and 2) fly the X-plane over select U.S. communities to gather data on human responses to the low-boom flights and deliver that data set to U.S. and international regulators. Using this data, new sound-based rules regarding supersonic flight over land can be written and adopted, which would open the doors to new commercial cargo and passenger markets to provide faster-than-sound air travel.
  - uranium 6y ago
    NASA has a goal to solve physics; we'll see how they do.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > NASA has solved physics, though: "NASA has a project to test whether the physics can be adequately finessed" would be more accurate description of what is on that page than "NASA has solved the physics".
- nopzor 6y ago
  that's an interestingly worded statement. in concorde, the passengers didn't even notice breaking through the sound barrier either. regarding sonic booms over land, their plan iirc is to reduce the noise level to the point where they can lobby to change legislation.
fotbr 6y ago
The theory is that they can reduce the supersonic shockwave to the point where supersonic flight over populated areas can be legalized again.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jankassens 6y ago
Without any deeper knowledge, there might also be a good amount of business travel between Australia/East Asia and the US West coast?
billclerico 6y ago
I think it is more likely that the economics killed Concord ($20k per seat), not the route, and it appears that Boom thinks like they can deliver a luxury, supersonic experience at a far cheaper, business class price. And if transoceanic supersonic travel becomes popular, pressure will mount to define overland supersonic corridors, or manufacturers will invest to reduce the noise, or both.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  In its later years I believe BA and Air France found that perceived costs of a Concorde ticket were actually more expensive than what they were charging, so they increased prices to match perceptions and then Concorde was fairly profitable. By the time Concorde was actually retired, 9/11 dented air travel demand in general and the thing was a flying dinosaur with not a big enough market to justify an upgraded version of the plane.
  - nickik 6y ago
    It was only ever close to profit because it didn't have to finance its own development.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      The context is pretty clearly talking about operating profit, not the profitability of the program as a whole.
    - kenneth 6y ago
      It's not necessary to account for R&D costs if the R&D has other benefits (e.g. putting Airbus on the map as an alternative manufacturer to Boeing, giving Europe technology with military implications independent of its reliance on the USA, etc.)
- trhway 6y ago
  >pressure will mount to define overland supersonic corridors yes, that definitely need to happen. I wonder whether the sonic boom public scare is just based on the fact that the majority of the public has never experienced it. I grew up on a Navy base in USSR, and we regularly had fighters booming at the altitudes much lower than the altitude normal for the commercial supersonic travel. It was just fun for us children. May be you'd not want the boom echoing/bouncing through the Manhattan concrete mazes, yet at 20km altitude over rural areas there should be no issues. Also there are large swaths of less populated lands in other countries who may be open to having such corridors over these areas. And back in Concorde times, there weren't such a big rich markets like China who has different approach to clearing of permitting/regulation issues for example when it comes to public transportation infrastructure.
Voloskaya 6y ago
> How does this seek to overcome the problem that killed Concorde This did not single handedly killed the Concorde, there are plenty of routes with substantial flying time over unpopulated areas. Presumably if the cost of maintenance and the fuel consumption were lower it could still be flying. So assuming Boom fixes those 2 points, then not being able to go supersonic over land just lowers efficiency but does not mean it's not viable.
rich_sasha 6y ago
There were a lot of potential buyers for Concorde in other parts of the world. They backed out when the operating costs came out, and the range was found to be lower than expected (though BA managed to increase it through operational improvements). Whether supersonic travel is still relevant is another question, but there buyers then, maybe there would be now too. https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b
gok 6y ago
Primarily they are targeting transoceanic routes. Transoceanic demand has increased substantially in recent years. Transatlantic traffic has doubled since Concorde went out of service. Transpacific travel has grown even more, and Concorde was unable to compete there.
- lumost 6y ago
  Transpacific and trans-hemisphere super sonic flights would be an interesting. the demand to fly to Asia from North America is likely higher than currently observed due to lack of interest in 12-24 hour flights. With careful planning the fastest I can get to Australia/New Zealand is ~18-24 hours flight time - on a 10 day vacation that's ~40% of my vacation time including recovery from an 18 hour flight. I'd be fine flying 6 hours to the west coast then hopping on a supersonic flight for a 2-3x premium ( still expensive, but worthwhile every few years ).
  - mc32 6y ago
    Asia-North America. Would they do a polar trajectory? Or would they worry too much about the radiation?
    - stetrain 6y ago
      Existing flight routes between Asia and North America often fly over the arctic already: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/winter-winds-how-singapore-airlines-new-worlds-longest-flight-is-saving-time-and-fuel-by-flying-farther/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/winter-winds-how-singapor...
    - BurningFrog 6y ago
      Not if it crosses a landmass, I guess.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      I don't think the planned Boom plane has the range to go trans-Pacific. Maybe with a stopover in Honolulu to refuel (which could still be substantially faster)
griffinkelly 6y ago
Concorde had a bunch of publicly tours around Asia. There are a few that could make sense-- HK to Tokyo? Tokyo to Singapore? The fuel requirements from the US to Asia are pretty intense, so I'm interested to see how they solve that issue. Sonic booms haven't always been illegal in the US (1973?). My dad grew up near O'hare, and he said you'd occasionally hear them when it was still a military base. Its just annoying, but for people who live near airports, jet noise is already annoying? I think as long as jets just boom over specific areas, it would minimize the public nuisance.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  We heard sonic booms routinely growing up in the 1990s in small-town Missouri, presumably from nearby air force bases. It was little more than a curiosity, and never enough to rattle windows or really affect anyone much beyond perhaps a brief startling.
  - ajmurmann 6y ago
    I grew up not far from an Air Force base on Germany. We got sonic booms multiple times a day. It was super shitty. We never had windows break, but as a young child I started to cry every time it happened. My grandfather woke up from his naps from them quite regularly which sucked especially when he was dying of cancer.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      I wonder what the difference is. Airplane size/speed/altitude?
      - ajmurmann 6y ago
        Most likely altitude. I recall that they used to practice flying at low altitude. Much more interesting than our anecdata is probably the Oklahoma City Sonic Boom study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests > the NORC reported that 73% of subjects in the study said that they could live indefinitely with eight sonic booms per day, while 25% said that they couldn't. About 3% of the population telephoned, sued, or wrote protest letters, but Oklahoma City surgeons and hospitals filed no complaints. However, with the city population at 500,000, that 3% figure represented 15,000 upset individuals. There were 9,594 complaints of damage to buildings, 4,629 formal damage claims, and 229 claims for a total of $12,845.32, mostly for broken glass and cracked plaster.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
It's for Emirati playboys to continue their game of oneupsmanship while they still have money to burn.
seany 6y ago
Lobby to make them legal again? The restriction is stupid to start with.
- sumedh 6y ago
  Why do you think its stupid?
moralestapia 6y ago
>[...] the problem that killed Concorde: Civilian sonic booms over populations are illegal Did this killed the Concorde? I don't know the story well, but I always though it was because it was never a profitable venture but it was kept because it was good PR. Then the accident happened and it was just not worth it anymore ...
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Concorde was profitable. It initially wasn't, but then BA and Air France found out that customers thought Concorde was more expensive than it actually was. Once they increased prices to customer expectation the Concorde was fairly profitable. https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-from-the-concorde/#:~:text=Concorde%20ticket%20prices%20were%20doubled,price%2C%20sales%20were%20very%20strong https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-.... The major issue with Concorde by the time of its retirement was that it was very old and outdated, among other things needing a 3-person crew. The market for new Concordes was not large enough for a next-egeneration update to be profitable. And 9/11 had dented air travel demand.
  - moralestapia 6y ago
    >https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson- https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-.... Thanks! I did not know about that.
Swizec 6y ago
Concorde’s other problem was newfangled airport security. Why spend 5x on tickets for a 3h flight if you spend 2h at airports anyway? The day is wasted to travel regardless.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > The day is wasted to travel regardless. This doesn't add up. At the moment when I fly from the UK to New York I leave my house at 6 AM and could be in the city by just after lunch. With supersonic, including airport and transfer times, I could literally get up at my normal time in the UK and arrive to get a full working day in New York. None of the day is wasted.
  - Swizec 6y ago
    You’re right it works in one direction. Now add to that 5x pricing. Worth it? In the other direction it’s harder. Too short to sleep on the plane, too long to get a full day. If you want to be in London at 9am, you’re leaving NYC at 2am-ish for a supersonic flight. (1h transit to airport, 2h at airport, 3h flight, 1h transit to London)
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > If you want to be in London at 9am, you’re leaving NYC at 2am-ish for a supersonic flight. (1h transit to airport, 2h at airport, 3h flight, 1h transit to London) I'm not sure what you mean - that gets you into London at 2pm not 9am (2am + 1 + 2 + 3 = 9am New York = 2pm London.) To get into London at 9am you'd need to leave New York City at 10pm (9am - 1 - 3 - 2 = 3am London = 10pm New York. Which seems fine you're doing it overnight no days lost? You'd not get tons of sleep that night but you're not wasting a day either way. Could leave at 8pm and get two hours's sleep in the arrivals lounge! And leaving at 10pm instead of 5pm as you have to now makes all the difference because it now isn't interfering with your day at all! That was the goal wasn't it? Makes it worth it?
      - Swizec 6y ago
acomjean 6y ago
They literally named the company “boom” so they must have thought about it.

wiz21c 6y ago

Is it me or is it a military plane ?

jagger27 6y ago
It's a 1/3 scale prototype of their passenger jet.
- carabiner 6y ago
  It's not a "scale" prototype since it has a different configuration from the passenger jet: https://aviationvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Boom-Technology-Unveils-Supersonic-Demonstrator-1200x900.jpg https://aviationvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Boom-Te... It'd be scale if it was the exact aircraft except every linear dimension was shrunk down. But having a different number of windows, different inlets etc. makes it a smaller concept demonstrator.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    It can still be 1/3rd of the scale, even if it's not a "scale model"
    - carabiner 6y ago
      Not when the configuration is drastically different. "Scale" has a very specific meaning in engineering. It's like saying a motorcycle is a 1/3 scale version of a car just because it uses the same motor. It still demonstrates that the heart of the vehicle works, but it's not a scaled version of it. Here's an actual scale model in aerospace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHz2B_4g2tM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHz2B_4g2tM
      - nicoburns 6y ago
        A motorcycle is not a "1/3 scale version" of a car, but it is "1/3 the scale" of a car (assuming a car is roughly 3 times larger). Scale is not just used in engineering. For example a zoo might have a scale comparison of different animals.

vosper 6y ago

If you just want to see the plane, and not have an epileptic episode, then don't watch "the best part" video, watch the "XB-1 up close" clip from further down the page instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bRx2dpooCQ&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bRx2dpooCQ&feature=youtu.be

sneak 6y ago
Their stroboscopic unveil video reminds me of a slightly less polished version of the best Apple ad in recent memory, the one for the red iPhone 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5FIAniosZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5FIAniosZU
- skavi 6y ago
  Wow, seeing what they were seemingly going for just makes there attempt appear even worse.
  - sneak 6y ago
    They have the edit all backwards. They should have started with tight shots showing abstract lines and reflections, but instead they showed the whole body outline/shape, dimly, in the first third of the video while the music was still building. So close, yet so far away. Cargo cult speed ramping.
- samplatt 6y ago
  Never seen that ad before... TBH I really like it. Though watching it on silent kinda made me feel like it was an ad for a new Star Wars movie.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- neilpanchal 6y ago
  I want a printed specification or datasheet in a tabulated form, written by engineers along with isometric and orthogonal views (side/top/back/bottom), preferably with dimensions. I am good after that. Perhaps on a nice card stock from Red River Paper company. Color is good, although black and white will do. Completely satiated and satistfied. Ready to buy the damn thing.

ForHackernews 6y ago

Is there any evidence airlines would pay for this? Pre-covid, the dominant trend over decades has been for cheaper, cheaper, cheaper flights. Hardly anyone pays for first class, but will they pay three to four times as much to arrive a few hours earlier?

vosper 6y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, this seems like the crucial question. Even here in New Zealand we have experienced a huge tourism boom (pre-Covid) over the past 15 years. For most people getting here meant taking one or more really long-haul flights. It didn't seem to put a whole lot of people off: we had 3.7m tourist arrivals in 2017, without supersonic jets. Our population is only 5m. (On a personal level I hope there isn't a market of even more people who want to come here who'll be enabled by greatly shorter flight times. We had more than enough tourists already, TYVM. But economically, we won't be able to resist because jobs)
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  > It didn't seem to put a whole lot of people off: we had 3.7m tourist arrivals in 2017, without supersonic jets. Our population is only 5m. I think you might underestimate how many people would visit if the long-haul flights weren't an obstacle. Pre-covid Iceland, easily reachable from Europe and the NE US, had over 1M arrivals on a population of only 300k: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Iceland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Iceland
  - vosper 6y ago
    Iceland is a little bit more "on the way" than NZ is - it can be a stopping point on a trip to Europe or the US. But I think you must be right. If the trip becomes less burdensome more people will want to come. The obvious (to me) response is to set a target tourist number, and raise the arrival fee until we get approximately that number of tourists. But now we're getting into policy :)
levi-turner 6y ago

dingaling 6y ago

> the world’s first independently developed supersonic jet Nope: https://www.jimbede.com/bd--10.html https://www.jimbede.com/bd--10.html

larkeith 6y ago
Well, IIRC no BD-10 ever actually went supersonic.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

failuser 6y ago

Wait, they are going to sell those to airlines, not to individuals? Ticket price will put them in competition with private subsonic planes, not with airlines.

rst 6y ago
The announced target market is airlines (and they've already got commitments from some; Virgin has announced publicly); projected fares are comparable to business class on transoceanic flights (their initial target market, to avoid regulatory issues with sonic booms on over-land routes). But I'm sure if someone else is able to write a check for the purchase price, and it doesn't bounce, they'll be happy to cash it.
- new_realist 6y ago
  Virgin is bankrupt.
  - aero-glide 6y ago
    Bankruptcy doesn't always mean the company is closing down, it can also be for reorganization
frakkingcylons 6y ago
What? Private transoceanic flights cost much more than a business class ticket.
- failuser 6y ago
  We’ll see, but I don’t trust their assumption that they can make the price comparable to business class unless it’s heavily subsidized.

dzhiurgis 6y ago

He mentions $100 for anywhere in the world. How realistic is that? Also wonder how will they compete with SpaceX Starship who’s probably going to be operational sooner and be even faster.

ranieuwe 6y ago
Not very. This is from their FAQ for the airplane that XB-1 is input for: > Our focus with Overture is to develop and build a commercial supersonic airliner for anyone who can afford a business-class ticket, not a private jet.
valusr 6y ago
It's hard to imagine that. Not to be a downer, but when was the last time we all could buy an Economy ticket for that price to anywhere in the world?
jariel 6y ago
It's total rubbish. He says that because that's the kind of weird koolaid that 'inspires people' and investors apparently. It also takes the edge off of 'this is for rich people' and makes it more about the plebes. It's pure communications koolaid, Valley Style.

Animats 6y ago

It looks like the Douglas X-3, from 1952.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_X-3_Stiletto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_X-3_Stiletto

major505 6y ago
I was thinking the same. Doing a turn in a plane like this seens like hard work.
- nopzor 6y ago
  at the risk of over simplifying the point i'm trying to make: the shorter the wings the easier it is to turn. longer wings are better for lift (which is why gliders have super long wings), and shorter wings are better for maneuvering.
ChuckMcM 6y ago
That is exactly what I thought as well. On the one hand, that makes a lot of sense as in, "Let's build a supersonic platform based on one that we know works to prove to ourselves that we can actually build a supersonic plane." But the marketing spin around "Hey we made a copy of this plane that was built 60 years ago and we think it will work." Just doesn't have the same flair :-) Still, as NASA has shown time and again, if you have a reliable air frame that is well characterized, and you instrument the crap out of it, then you can set it up a wide variety of aeronautical experiments and collect really valuable data that feels more trustworthy then "theoretical results" from a 10K core parallel computer doing CFD analysis. If they are smart (and we can presume they are) they are doing both and updating their CFD models with data from XB-1 so that they are more confident that Overture will work. That said, to be really "ground breaking" they really should use the "low boom" technology that NASA has been researching to make a plane that can fly supersonic over land. That would actually be a new spin on the old Concorde business plan where it opens up more routes. Just the "hey it will be cheaper" bet doesn't leave a lot of room for an assumption fail late in the certification process.
- tobinfricke 6y ago

the_duke 6y ago

Affordable supersonic aircraft seem like a great technological achievement, and I'm all for it. But would the impact be that high? Cutting flight time by 40-45% is nice, but end to end travel time includes driving to/from the airport and immigration, which does not change. Let's look at JFK-LHR (New York - London). The flight time is cut from 6.5h to 3.5h. Let's add 2 hours overhead at each end (somewhat ... optimistic), which makes it 10.5h vs 7.5h. LA-Sydney is 14.5h vs 8.5h, or 18.5h vs 12.5h end to end. Is that difference really going to change if you take the trip or not? Would you be willing to pay a significant markup for that? Seems like the market would be constrained to relatively high profile business travel.

bobthepanda 6y ago
LA-Sydney would become as doable as Chicago-London, and one of these trips today is much, much easier than the other. The target per cost is equivalent to today's business class. Some people might jump at that. And we have no idea what a non-premium Boom cabin might look like.
- vkou 6y ago
  No, it won't. This plane promises a range of 4,500 nautical miles. LAX to SYD is 6,500 nautical miles. You can stop to refuel in Hawaii, but that will eat much of your time savings.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    I didn't take the parent comment to be talking about Boom specifically, but supersonic in general.
bufferoverflow 6y ago
> travel to/from the airport and immigration, which does not change. Musk's The Boring Company is working on changing the speed of travel to the airport. Midtown Manhattan to JFK is around 45 minutes to drive. But it's only 11 miles away. If you can travel in a straight line at 80 mph, it should only take 8.3 minutes). And rich people who buy flights like that can already take helicopters and have separate immigration/customs gates without lines and checks.

phkahler 6y ago

I noticed in the first video at 13:00 he says their team has former employees from other places like SpaceX, NASA, Amazon, and one other I cant remember, but the image shown has logos from those companies and Boeing. Had to wonder if not saying Boeing was deliberate given the problems they've been having.

umvi 6y ago

Is most supersonic airframe tech military classified or something?

areoform 6y ago
Airframes and the like automatically fall under ITAR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
Roboprog 6y ago
Uneconomical, dragging a huge cone of air along with your plane. The pressure Wave in front of the moving plane moves away at the speed of sound, so it just stacks up.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > pressure Wave in front of the moving plane moves away at the speed of sound, so it just stacks up This is a description of trans-sonic flight.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

one2know 6y ago

Suprising they don't have an overhead gantry and part jigs. They are using a forklift and a $100 chain hoist to move the wing around. And it looks like they are using 3d printed plastic parts on the plane?

chipsa 6y ago
One off tech demo plane, vs their even a prototype of their production plane.

mberning 6y ago

I think this is very cool, but their song and dance about making nothing seem foreign and allowing people to experience other cultures is actually backwards. If they are successful they will enable and accelerate the further dilution of distinct cultures. It’s very sad to travel to other parts of the world and find it to be tainted with many of the global brands and customs that you already know.

Pompidou 6y ago

Je me sens volé.

duckfruit 6y ago

Always love hearing from Boom. By far the most impressive YC startup I know of. In a sea of interchangeable SaaS and mobile app ventures, they are out there doing hard things and actually trying to make a reality the kind of future we all dream about. Inspirational. They certainly have some daunting challenges to overcome but hope they pull through. I'm rooting for them.

diminish 6y ago
> hard things by hard things, you refer to non-software; thinking writing software isn't hard :thinking
- hxegon 6y ago
  I... honestly can't make heads or tails of this sentence
  - necovek 6y ago
    While not perfectly worded, it's clear to me GP points out how "building software" is not considered "hard" by the parent (hard as in complicated). Assuming you are not simply being sarcastic over their "chat" form, of course.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      I think the OP as a valid view, but I'd refine it a bit: building software can be "hard" in the same way building a supersonic jet is, but "interchangeable SaaS and mobile app ventures" are not hard this way. The difficulty in the latter tends to be in code bureaucracy, not in the domain of the problem the product is trying to solve. Which is to say, it's a bit self-inflicted.
      - diminish 6y ago
        > in a sea of interchangeable SaaS and mobile app ventures, they are out there doing hard things. This is a bit offensive against saas and mobile apps and has a wrong vision that software is easy and hardware is hard. 1. A supersonic jet also may include saas & mobile apps at some point in addition to a lot of software. 2. With competition, supersonic jets may also prove interchangeable, unless GP wants monopoly.

mark-r 6y ago

I can't imagine a worse time to launch a new aircraft. The airlines are all bleeding hard due to Covid.

scarier 6y ago
The nice thing is they still likely have a number of years before the full-scale passenger version goes into production. I doubt COVID will have a significant impact on their long-term success or failure.
aero-glide 6y ago
The commercial version is expected to be operational at 2029
oh_sigh 6y ago
The ultra rich are still traveling and many would probably love 3.5 hour trips across the Atlantic.
- sschueller 6y ago
  Maybe we shouldn't have any ultra rich. Most of them got there by exploiting others and fly so much that they pollute as much as a small town.
  - aero-glide 6y ago
    Was bored so tried the math. Assume small town is 5000 people. 5000 * 20tons co2 (average US emissions per capita) = 100,000 tons of co2/year. Cessna Citation produces 6 tons for every 3 hour flight. Lets say, there are 3 people each flight. So 2 tons per person per flight. If someone takes the private jet _every day of the year_, thats 700 tons. Still a far cry from 100,000 tons from a small town.
    - sschueller 6y ago
      Maybe a bit exaggerated but the super rich produce a lot of CO2 compared to an average person. People like Elon Musk have gulfstreams. Elon has a gulfstream G550 which outputs 9,432 lbs / 5 mT per hour. He traveled 150,000 miles in 2018.

exabrial 6y ago

I hear thunder all spring. I don't really yell at the weather. How much louder/jarring is a sonic boom to a thunder clap in the vicinity?

coolspot 6y ago
From my memories 25 years back, supersonic fighter jet plane flying over at altitude of ~1km was like a loud thunder that is close. Very fun if you are kid.

ARandomerDude 6y ago

Interesting that they used the J85...it even looks like a 3-engine T-38.

joelthelion 6y ago

So it's the year 2020, climate change is already causing major disasters regularly, and if we don't make major changes real quick, it's going to end the world as we know it in a matter of decades. And yet here we are, admiring a plane that will probably burn ten times as much fossil fuel as a regular plane, which is already far too much.

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
> it's going to end the world as we know it in a matter of decades You’re not helping your cause by making exaggerated claims unsupported by science or reason.
- joelthelion 6y ago
  I invite you to read up on climate change. All credible sources point to hundreds of millions of displaced people, large swathes of land rendered inhabitable, etc. To me that's ending the world as we know it. And it's not me saying it, it's the best experts on the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#On_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#On_h...
  - the-dude 6y ago
    The climate has been changing for thousands of years, people used to live on the bottom of the North Sea. You would be able to walk from mainland Europe to the UK. The best experts basically all rely on subsidies for their livelyhood. Furthermore, we can only measure and calculate properly for a couple of decades. And finally, don't you see the biblical theme of your message?
    - XMPPwocky 6y ago
      > The climate has been changing for thousands of years, people used to live on the bottom of the North Sea. You would be able to walk from mainland Europe to the UK. In the winter, my house was cold. In the summer, it became hot. The next winter, it got cold again. Now my house is on fire. But it's fine, because it's just becoming hot again. The temperature of my house is always changing, you see. > The best experts basically all rely on subsidies for their livelyhood. What's a good neutral source you'd recommend, then? > Furthermore, we can only measure and calculate properly for a couple of decades. Says who? And measure and calculate what? > And finally, don't you see the biblical theme of your message? what

nickik 6y ago

I like this company and have looked at them for a while, but I am not sure if they are all that viable. I believe you will see supersonic electric jets capturing overland routes, I think think overland will happen otherwise. Electric planes will fly higher and thus have far less of a sonic boom problem. Even some shorter range over the ocean routes are possible. Battery technology is improving fast and electric planes have inherent operational cost advantages. I also think Starship without a first stage can compete in this already not very big market and with a first stage they can do routes that would be impossible for Overture. Boom often compares itself to SpaceX, but I don't know if you can replicate SpaceX in the air domain. Space was much less sophisticated and much less commercial. And as I said, SpaceX is now going after the same market with rocket technology, so the difference between air and space domain is shrinking. I wish them luck but who knows if any of these are gone work out anytime soon.

einpoklum 6y ago

Their motivation is silly: > The world is better off when families can spend more time together Yeah, almost no families in the world have the money to fly anywhere business class, in their life, ever. More importantly, it's ridiculous to rely on flight as part of the daily routine of a family - for multiple reasons, not the least of which being the environmental one. > businesses have more opportunities to succeed in our global economy This is the actual motivation, I would think. > and world leaders can foster greater understanding in person. Well, this point itself is debatable, especially considering certain current world leaders, but basically it's the same as the previous pont. So the motivation is: "Let rich/powerful organizations ferry important people around faster to further their interests." Not so romantic, but it's a legitimate reason to work on a high-end product or service, I guess.

nickpp 6y ago
Carriers when first cell phone appeared: "Families can communicate more" You: "No family can afford it" Countless services we take today for granted have been introduced initially as toys for the ultra rich, then made their way to the general consumer. It's a good thing.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  False analogy. Mobile phones were expensive because the R&D was expensive and the production technology immature. Flying people requires a lot of energy because of physical constraints, and the potential economies on fuel use, while existent, are strongly constrained.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    Extracting and storing energy from nature is also a technological problem. Also solved using R&D.

vijaybritto 6y ago

Why is there not a single clip of it flying?? Its confusing why they aren't showing it. Its the only purpose of the aircraft!

voldacar 6y ago

It's an absolutely gorgeous airplane. For that reason alone I hope they succeed