3 ms·

Everything about Boom has been dumb-shit from Day 1. From their name to their design concept. It's the kind of thing one expects when VCs are seduced by peopl

Everything about Boom has been dumb-shit from Day 1. From their name to their design concept. It's the kind of thing one expects when VCs are seduced by people in fields they don't understand. My view is that if large-scale commercial supersonics has a future, it will be in low-boom types, assuming X-59 does well and overland low-boom supersonic flight is permitted. Renewable or synfuels at acceptable cost will also likely be needed to avoid political suicide. It is a much more expensive proposition for supersonic cruise engines than subsonic so even more critical you get an engine OEM onboard, figure out your market, and get a solid design point nailed down quickly. If you're off even a little bit in efficiency, it will very significantly affect the aircraft's market viability. If I were an engine company, I wouldn't put my own R&D funds into this area yet, and especially not toward Boom's design point. Even more stupid things than Boom: commercial endoatmospheric hypersonics, and SpinLaunch. I can't believe SpinLaunch has funding. The one "science fiction becomes reality" concept that could one day (not today) be viable is sub-orbital (exoatmospheric) point-to-point transport. But there's a long way to go to make that more routine and it's hard to see a path to safety better than subsonics. Subsonic/transonic commercial transport is a real sweet spot. Claimer: I'm a practicing aerospace engineer, and do not work for Boom or their competitors.

pstuart 4y ago
Thanks for the insights. Any links for simple folk like myself to see what the right way might look like?
- V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
  I'm not sure how accessible this is for the layperson, but I thought this report was pretty well done: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20150015837 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20150015837 Also, I didn't really answer your question directly before, but SpaceX-style iteration in this arena is unlikely. Unlike launch, which has high margins, commercial supersonics would be competing by trying to "build a better mousetrap" where "better" means "faster, but more expensive to develop, operate, and has a smaller addressable market". Iteration could build design team competence, but iterating the design itself would be extremely expensive and wouldn't have enough potential payoff to merit the necessary $Billions of pre-production investment.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    It was a wee bit dense, but I appreciate the effort. My naivete as a software guy is that the advancements and cost drop of computational modelling, ML/AI, and 3D printing could enable a small team of smart people the opportunity to "think outside the box".

pstuart 4y ago

Thanks for the insights. Any links for simple folk like myself to see what the right way might look like?

V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
I'm not sure how accessible this is for the layperson, but I thought this report was pretty well done: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20150015837 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20150015837 Also, I didn't really answer your question directly before, but SpaceX-style iteration in this arena is unlikely. Unlike launch, which has high margins, commercial supersonics would be competing by trying to "build a better mousetrap" where "better" means "faster, but more expensive to develop, operate, and has a smaller addressable market". Iteration could build design team competence, but iterating the design itself would be extremely expensive and wouldn't have enough potential payoff to merit the necessary $Billions of pre-production investment.
- pstuart 4y ago
  It was a wee bit dense, but I appreciate the effort. My naivete as a software guy is that the advancements and cost drop of computational modelling, ML/AI, and 3D printing could enable a small team of smart people the opportunity to "think outside the box".