6 ms·

I'm enthusiastic about what Boom are setting out to achieve, but it's my understanding that the technological/engineering challenges to supersonic flight is jus

I'm enthusiastic about what Boom are setting out to achieve, but it's my understanding that the technological/engineering challenges to supersonic flight is just one hurdle – the other being the geopolitical issues that arise from negotiating flight paths over various country's air space. The economics of the Concorde were significantly impacted when India prohibited Singapore Airlines / British Airways from flying over Indian airspace[1]. [1] https://www.heritageconcorde.com/singapore-airlines-concorde-operations https://www.heritageconcorde.com/singapore-airlines-concorde...

kylehotchkiss 2y ago
Good thing the oceans don’t care. The most viable routes are mostly oceanic. LA-Singapore could be done mostly supersonic and then slowed down once closer.
- ctippett 2y ago
  Not that I disagree with you, but I'd argue the most viable route would be one the Concorde already served: New York to London over the North Atlantic.
  - dmix 2y ago
    Market enviornments change though. There's probably a lot more people with disposable income in the higher end and plane travel has exploded since then. But gov controls and red tape on this sort of thing probably tripled, especially around environment/airport development+nimby politics/aircraft regulations, so it's probably 50/50 vs the 1970s-80s.
    - kylehotchkiss 2y ago
      I eagerly awaiting saving 500,000 Amex points and having a chance to fly supersonic.
  - onion2k 2y ago
    That's less true now than it was in the 1980s.
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    Concorde got a pass because it was British and even then it was controversial. Boom will still have to meet all noise pollution rules now and in the future. Noise rules are designed for normal passenger aircraft, they will not get any exceptions. I don't doubt that they can make something much quieter than Concorde but can they make it as quiet as subsonic aircraft?
- Gare 2y ago
  Sure, but Concorde was hella loud even in subsonic regime.
  - fortran77 2y ago
    I grew up in Cedarhurst, NY, 3 miles from Kennedy Airport. The Concorde at subsonic speeds was very loud. It was a loud, window-rattling rumble. But the worst of all were the 707s. They _screamed_. If I was outside when one went over Runway 31R/13L, I'd have to cover my ears.
    - mrlonglong 2y ago
      Yes, back in the 80s I could hear aeroplanes fly over. Nowadays they're far too quiet to hear.
- KolmogorovComp 2y ago
  In the meantime we got 9/11, and all the security procedures that goes with it. It is nowadays much slower to fly than before, and that time is mostly incompressible, making the benefits of supersonic flight less incentive.
  - happyopossum 2y ago
    I fly a fair amount, and I haven't been in a situation where I had to arrive at the airport 90 minutes before a flight in years - typically 1 hour is plenty of time, and if I weren't optimizing for low-stress, could get away with 45 minutes most days for domestic flights. 90 minutes out of 17.5 hours of travel ( 16 hour flight from SFO to Singapore) represents a small amount of 'incompressible' time - cutting that 16 hour flight down to 8 or 10 would make a HUGE difference, especially given timezone/IDL issues.
    - rkagerer 2y ago
      Air Canada just announced today it's inreasing check-in cutoff time to 1hr - roughly meaning if you don't get to the counter at least 1hr early you're out of luck. Not sure if it impacts those who travel without luggage and check-in online. I contrast this to when I used to be able to (long ago) roll up to the airport a mere 20mins before takeoff time.
      - ghaff 2y ago
        >I used to be able to (long ago) roll up to the airport a mere 20mins before takeoff time. I worked for a guy once when I was working in downtown Boston for a bit and the times I traveled with him he would absolutely drive me crazy by not wanting to grab a cab to the airport until well under an hour before flight time. Today, I usually breeze through security in a few minutes with TSA Pre for early morning flights. I still arrive about 2 hours in advance because I find it more relaxing and my limo company pretty much wants that much slack anyway. (I rarely check luggage.)
      - 0x457 2y ago
        > Not sure if it impacts those who travel without luggage and check-in online. If you checked in online and have no luggage, you just need to make in time before your boarding gate closes.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Supersonic uses a lot more fuel. It's highly unlikely LA - Singapore can be done on a single tank. Adding a stop for refueling negates much of the time benefit.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> other being the geopolitical issues that arise from negotiating flight paths over various country's air space Overture targets ICAO Stage 5 noise levels, the most stringent international noise standard [1]. [1] https://hmmh.com/resources/news-insights/blog/stage-5-aircraft-noise-standards-approved-us-mean-airports/ https://hmmh.com/resources/news-insights/blog/stage-5-aircra...
- foobarqux 2y ago
  This is a lie. They write "Overture’s takeoffs will blend in with existing long-haul fleets, resulting in a quieter experience for both passengers and airport communities, meeting or exceeding ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) requirements for all subsonic aircraft operating over land and at or near airports." Note that they are talking about takeoffs (and presumably landings) only where there isn't any sonic boom anyway, not cruising.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > This is a lie Hell of a claim with zero evidence. By your logic, I could disprove the Sun by not observing it at night. Yes, the ICAO rules are for takeoff and landing. When subsonic planes are the loudest. Concorde, for example, couldn’t have met these requirements. We don’t know what Boom are targeting for in-flight noise. But we can guess, based on its parity with ICAO take-off and landing requirements, that it aims to match subsonic noise levels on the ground. There is strong evidence we can soften and disperse a high-altitude boom [1]. Whether it’s doable by Boom is an open question. So no, it’s not a lie. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/nasas-supersonic-x-59-quesst-coming-together-at-famed-factory/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/nasas-su...
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      What? I cited their own document to show that your claim was not about the sonic-boom noise (which is what people are worried about). You say yourself "we don’t know what Boom are targeting for in-flight noise". What do you mean about "its parity with ICAO take-off and landing requirements"?
paxys 2y ago
Well the second one isn't really their hurdle. Its up to the airlines and governments to squabble with each other on flight routing.
benced 2y ago
A lot of these regulations are regulation on speed not noise. I expect some governments will be amenable to changing their speed restrictions to decibel restrictions (which Boom claims they can comply with). If not, there's always trans-oceanic flights.

kylehotchkiss 2y ago

Good thing the oceans don’t care. The most viable routes are mostly oceanic. LA-Singapore could be done mostly supersonic and then slowed down once closer.

ctippett 2y ago
Not that I disagree with you, but I'd argue the most viable route would be one the Concorde already served: New York to London over the North Atlantic.
- dmix 2y ago
  Market enviornments change though. There's probably a lot more people with disposable income in the higher end and plane travel has exploded since then. But gov controls and red tape on this sort of thing probably tripled, especially around environment/airport development+nimby politics/aircraft regulations, so it's probably 50/50 vs the 1970s-80s.
  - kylehotchkiss 2y ago
    I eagerly awaiting saving 500,000 Amex points and having a chance to fly supersonic.
- onion2k 2y ago
  That's less true now than it was in the 1980s.
- zarzavat 2y ago
  Concorde got a pass because it was British and even then it was controversial. Boom will still have to meet all noise pollution rules now and in the future. Noise rules are designed for normal passenger aircraft, they will not get any exceptions. I don't doubt that they can make something much quieter than Concorde but can they make it as quiet as subsonic aircraft?
Gare 2y ago
Sure, but Concorde was hella loud even in subsonic regime.
- fortran77 2y ago
  I grew up in Cedarhurst, NY, 3 miles from Kennedy Airport. The Concorde at subsonic speeds was very loud. It was a loud, window-rattling rumble. But the worst of all were the 707s. They _screamed_. If I was outside when one went over Runway 31R/13L, I'd have to cover my ears.
  - mrlonglong 2y ago
    Yes, back in the 80s I could hear aeroplanes fly over. Nowadays they're far too quiet to hear.
KolmogorovComp 2y ago
In the meantime we got 9/11, and all the security procedures that goes with it. It is nowadays much slower to fly than before, and that time is mostly incompressible, making the benefits of supersonic flight less incentive.
- happyopossum 2y ago
  I fly a fair amount, and I haven't been in a situation where I had to arrive at the airport 90 minutes before a flight in years - typically 1 hour is plenty of time, and if I weren't optimizing for low-stress, could get away with 45 minutes most days for domestic flights. 90 minutes out of 17.5 hours of travel ( 16 hour flight from SFO to Singapore) represents a small amount of 'incompressible' time - cutting that 16 hour flight down to 8 or 10 would make a HUGE difference, especially given timezone/IDL issues.
  - rkagerer 2y ago
    Air Canada just announced today it's inreasing check-in cutoff time to 1hr - roughly meaning if you don't get to the counter at least 1hr early you're out of luck. Not sure if it impacts those who travel without luggage and check-in online. I contrast this to when I used to be able to (long ago) roll up to the airport a mere 20mins before takeoff time.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      >I used to be able to (long ago) roll up to the airport a mere 20mins before takeoff time. I worked for a guy once when I was working in downtown Boston for a bit and the times I traveled with him he would absolutely drive me crazy by not wanting to grab a cab to the airport until well under an hour before flight time. Today, I usually breeze through security in a few minutes with TSA Pre for early morning flights. I still arrive about 2 hours in advance because I find it more relaxing and my limo company pretty much wants that much slack anyway. (I rarely check luggage.)
    - 0x457 2y ago
      > Not sure if it impacts those who travel without luggage and check-in online. If you checked in online and have no luggage, you just need to make in time before your boarding gate closes.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Supersonic uses a lot more fuel. It's highly unlikely LA - Singapore can be done on a single tank. Adding a stop for refueling negates much of the time benefit.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> other being the geopolitical issues that arise from negotiating flight paths over various country's air space Overture targets ICAO Stage 5 noise levels, the most stringent international noise standard [1]. [1] https://hmmh.com/resources/news-insights/blog/stage-5-aircraft-noise-standards-approved-us-mean-airports/ https://hmmh.com/resources/news-insights/blog/stage-5-aircra...

foobarqux 2y ago
This is a lie. They write "Overture’s takeoffs will blend in with existing long-haul fleets, resulting in a quieter experience for both passengers and airport communities, meeting or exceeding ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) requirements for all subsonic aircraft operating over land and at or near airports." Note that they are talking about takeoffs (and presumably landings) only where there isn't any sonic boom anyway, not cruising.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > This is a lie Hell of a claim with zero evidence. By your logic, I could disprove the Sun by not observing it at night. Yes, the ICAO rules are for takeoff and landing. When subsonic planes are the loudest. Concorde, for example, couldn’t have met these requirements. We don’t know what Boom are targeting for in-flight noise. But we can guess, based on its parity with ICAO take-off and landing requirements, that it aims to match subsonic noise levels on the ground. There is strong evidence we can soften and disperse a high-altitude boom [1]. Whether it’s doable by Boom is an open question. So no, it’s not a lie. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/nasas-supersonic-x-59-quesst-coming-together-at-famed-factory/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/nasas-su...
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    What? I cited their own document to show that your claim was not about the sonic-boom noise (which is what people are worried about). You say yourself "we don’t know what Boom are targeting for in-flight noise". What do you mean about "its parity with ICAO take-off and landing requirements"?

paxys 2y ago

Well the second one isn't really their hurdle. Its up to the airlines and governments to squabble with each other on flight routing.

benced 2y ago

A lot of these regulations are regulation on speed not noise. I expect some governments will be amenable to changing their speed restrictions to decibel restrictions (which Boom claims they can comply with). If not, there's always trans-oceanic flights.