3 ms·

So funny thing is you're in a thread about aerospace. If I might hazard a guess, discussing the concrete reasons why you think this is a scam can help educate c

So funny thing is you're in a thread about aerospace. If I might hazard a guess, discussing the concrete reasons why you think this is a scam can help educate curious readers about the challenges in this field and can probably start a discussion on the technical details of supersonic aircraft that has less emotional and more technical content. It doesn't always work out that way though shrug. From my own context, the work of certifying the airframe alone takes forever, let alone prototyping another engine and one that requires the thrust requirements a supersonic aircraft needs, so I too am really dubious of the timelines. But I'm curious why you think this is a scam as opposed to general exuberance, or why you think innovation in this space in particular is unlikely. There's other variables here like United's purchase; we all know companies like Theranos have defrauded established players like Walgreens, but do you think United did not do their due diligence here? (I'm also deeply curious on why you feel that high-level criticism of the idea is relevant for this forum but the details of your criticism are not. I feel it'll teach me a lot about what motivates folks to use HN these days, but that's just my own curiosity.)

class3shock 3y ago
I guess my criticism is high level because, in my mind, the timeframe they market and what they claim to be trying to do in it, is so beyond what is reasonable that touching on simple aspects of the project, such as all the steps they need to go through before getting to their goal, is adequate to highlight unrealistic marketing for what it is. If you look at some of my other answers I go more in depth on specific topics to provide more technical content. If you are curious to learn something more you can always ask? Alot of my posts are questions. Edit: I wrote this and then saw there was more to your post I missed (or got added? maybe I'm having a stroke, do you smell toast?), will respond in below.
class3shock 3y ago
I wouldn't call it a scam, I think it's like alot of start ups. It looks good, has lots of cool marketing, and "in theory" could work. But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response. If by "innovation in this space" you mean supersonic commercial air travel, then not really. I could see someone making a couple planes that get bought by the saudi's and a few billionares but if you are talking in terms of eventually reaching all commercial air travel... that's a long way off if ever. Going faster takes you in the wrong direction in terms of efficiency (and thus cost and environmental impact), sound, manufacturability (and thus cost), maintenance (and thus cost), you get the picture. As for United, I'm sure it sounded good at some point to someone. I guess we can check back in 5 years and see how that investment is going.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  >But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response. What are the technical reasons they are behind schedule? Is the physics problem just too difficult, and the problem they've set out to solve just too hard without, idk, government backing?
  - class3shock 3y ago
    It's not really one thing it's that it takes time and immense resources to put planes/engines through the engineering process and get certified. The 737 Max, took something like a year from conception to beginning of certification, another 3 years for the first prototype, 2 more years to get certified and go into production. 6 years total an that was: 1. Only a plane modification, not a brand new plane in a novel space, 2. Being designed and built by an organization 100x the size that lives in that space. 3. Was not also hinging on designing brand new engines. On the technical side, engines are very difficult to get right. You are often operating at or beyond material temperature limits, relying on complex analysis that take years to perform and then years to validate with actual testing, and then pushing parts to fatigue limits in service.
    - sashank_1509 3y ago
      you realize this is a non comment that just says “this is complicated” right? Sure it’s complicated but if SpaceX could start falcon design in 2002 and send one to suborbital flight by 2007, I don’t see why Boom cannot. Maybe their execution is not on par with SpaceX, maybe it’s mismanaged but that’s a different thing entirely compared to your view of “It’s so complex, so many different factors etc etc”. You realize you could have made the exact same argument about spaceX and Boeing/ ULA. ULA had stupidly long timelines to bring a rocket to production, no plans ever to make it reusable and now they’ve been disrupted, perhaps permanently. All they have is a few government contracts keeping them alive. If Boom succeeds it will be similar, people will laugh Boeing and their bloated timelines off the room, Boeing will only be alive due to some govt contracts and Boom will thrive.

class3shock 3y ago

I guess my criticism is high level because, in my mind, the timeframe they market and what they claim to be trying to do in it, is so beyond what is reasonable that touching on simple aspects of the project, such as all the steps they need to go through before getting to their goal, is adequate to highlight unrealistic marketing for what it is. If you look at some of my other answers I go more in depth on specific topics to provide more technical content. If you are curious to learn something more you can always ask? Alot of my posts are questions. Edit: I wrote this and then saw there was more to your post I missed (or got added? maybe I'm having a stroke, do you smell toast?), will respond in below.

class3shock 3y ago

I wouldn't call it a scam, I think it's like alot of start ups. It looks good, has lots of cool marketing, and "in theory" could work. But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response. If by "innovation in this space" you mean supersonic commercial air travel, then not really. I could see someone making a couple planes that get bought by the saudi's and a few billionares but if you are talking in terms of eventually reaching all commercial air travel... that's a long way off if ever. Going faster takes you in the wrong direction in terms of efficiency (and thus cost and environmental impact), sound, manufacturability (and thus cost), maintenance (and thus cost), you get the picture. As for United, I'm sure it sounded good at some point to someone. I guess we can check back in 5 years and see how that investment is going.

remarkEon 3y ago
>But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response. What are the technical reasons they are behind schedule? Is the physics problem just too difficult, and the problem they've set out to solve just too hard without, idk, government backing?
- class3shock 3y ago
  It's not really one thing it's that it takes time and immense resources to put planes/engines through the engineering process and get certified. The 737 Max, took something like a year from conception to beginning of certification, another 3 years for the first prototype, 2 more years to get certified and go into production. 6 years total an that was: 1. Only a plane modification, not a brand new plane in a novel space, 2. Being designed and built by an organization 100x the size that lives in that space. 3. Was not also hinging on designing brand new engines. On the technical side, engines are very difficult to get right. You are often operating at or beyond material temperature limits, relying on complex analysis that take years to perform and then years to validate with actual testing, and then pushing parts to fatigue limits in service.
  - sashank_1509 3y ago
    you realize this is a non comment that just says “this is complicated” right? Sure it’s complicated but if SpaceX could start falcon design in 2002 and send one to suborbital flight by 2007, I don’t see why Boom cannot. Maybe their execution is not on par with SpaceX, maybe it’s mismanaged but that’s a different thing entirely compared to your view of “It’s so complex, so many different factors etc etc”. You realize you could have made the exact same argument about spaceX and Boeing/ ULA. ULA had stupidly long timelines to bring a rocket to production, no plans ever to make it reusable and now they’ve been disrupted, perhaps permanently. All they have is a few government contracts keeping them alive. If Boom succeeds it will be similar, people will laugh Boeing and their bloated timelines off the room, Boeing will only be alive due to some govt contracts and Boom will thrive.