5 ms·

[flagged]

by kachapopopow 2y ago

[flagged]

nom 2y ago
A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing for approximately everyone who needs to fly.
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  Reminder that these flights will not be accessible to normal people except for rare circumstances same way concord was effectively an attraction rather than a tool.
- short_sells_poo 2y ago
  This. If time didn't matter, people would use trains instead of short distance flights. And many do! Many European cities that are a 2 hour flight apart also have an ~8-9 hour train connection, which is much less hassle and stress than the flight, but people who have to travel a lot will care about the time savings of even a few hours because it adds up over time. Lots of people have to regularly travel between Europe and US, and if they can save 50% of the travel time, it ends up being a significant amount of time. I believe the market for these flights aren't families going on a holiday, rather people who have to travel on business 3-4 times a month.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    "have to" being, to some extent, a function of these flights being priced at a heavy discount relative to their environmental impact.
    - short_sells_poo 2y ago
      That's a fair statement. I'm not well versed enough in commercial aviation to be able to judge how much flights would cost with externalities priced in.
      - Earw0rm 2y ago
        It's debatable. The IEA have an estimate of €190 per tonne. Which is €400 per passenger on a return transatlantic flight (assuming no mark-up). But there are already some taxes and surcharges on flights, and some of that is carbon-related, so a "full cost" price wouldn't be €400 more than today's. AIUI they use a "harm" model to try and land on that number, i.e. X gigatons of carbon => Y amount of climate change => Z economic damage. Another way to look at it is "if each tonne of carbon can be burned only once, and in a scenario where future carbon is committed towards manufacture renewables (or nuclear capacity), how many kWh of renewable/nuclear electricity can be bought with 1t of carbon". That yields a much larger number. Or you can look at it through a carbon capture and storage lens. Industrial CCS yields a much lower number, but it's talking about capturing from factory boiler exhaust streams, where you can have the plant capture the CO2 at source. Not an option on a jet airliner. Direct air capture (ground-based stations mopping up aircraft exhaust) is an order of magnitude more expensive, currently in the $1000/tonne range, you're trying to vacuum gas out of the air that's at a 400ppm concentration by mass.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Concorde would probably struggle in the post-9/11 airport security world; the days of showing up at the airport just before the flight are long gone for most folks. A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing on its own, but probably not at a significant price increase.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > days of showing up at the airport just before the flight are long gone for most folks I show up 20 minutes before boarding, often later, at my small-town airport. For international flights out of JFK, I’ll show up 2 to 3 hours before, but there is still a world of difference between a lounge you can walk around and shower in and even the most luxurious lay-flat suites. NYC > SFO is 2 hours at Mach 1.7; if I’m not checking a bag that’s an entire day returned both ways.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Boom isn’t gonna be at small town airports anytime soon. The lounge thing, IMO, is also a challenge for Boom. It’s gonna be a cramped plane. The folks shelling out that sort of coin for a flight expect certain amenities on it.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Boom isn’t gonna be at small town airports anytime soon If I’m carry-on only, I try to show up to domestic flights out of JFK an hour before boarding. Between Digital ID and Clear, it’s a fuss if security takes longer than 15 minutes from entering the airport. > folks shelling out that sort of coin for a flight expect certain amenities on it Less cramped than Concorde. At $20k NYC <> SFO, I could see it selling out. You’re only on board for 2 to 3 hours. At $10k or less (Concorde was $13k, inflation adjusted) it’s crossing into prices paid for a lay-flat seat as it is.
ghc 2y ago
> the entire premise of 2-3 hour faster flights over the atlantic is just not that appealing Clearly you don't have kids.
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghc 2y ago
    Those are pretty short flights though. My kids get antsy when the flight is 7+ hours. I agree though that short (<6h) flights are no issue.
- stetrain 2y ago
  Or aren't interested in buying $10k+ tickets for their kids. For most people this would simply not be an option.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    And for many people in that bracket there's the possibility a chartered private jet will be better for their kids to sleep on, and they might more than make up the time going to the nearest airfield to their actual destinations rather than NYC-LHR
  - ghc 2y ago
    I was assuming the end goal was to make supersonic flight way cheaper than it was for Concorde?
    - stetrain 2y ago
      Even if Boom achieves their goal of bringing a certified airliner to production, it's still going to be a relatively small plane. 64-80 passengers according to their website. That means the cost of the plane, crew, fuel, etc. will be split among a small number of passengers. Fuel burn at supersonic speeds is also going to be higher per passenger mile than traditional airliners. No matter what this is going to end up as a premium option with a premium price tag. Modern high capacity airliners are optimized for efficiency and that translates to low ticket costs.
bongodongobob 2y ago
Have you done an 8 hour flight in economy? It's absolutely miserable. Noise pollution over the Atlantic affects literally noone.
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  Yes and if you're talking about economy you will never be able to set foot on a plane like this either. There are proposals to have this over land as well which I am very strongly against to the point of not wanting a company like this to be successful.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > There are proposals to have this over land as well which I am very strongly against to the point of not wanting a company like this to be successful Air NIMBY! On a serious note, the only way this gets overland approval is if it’s comparably loud to existing options. Which given the work that’s been done on sonic booms, and some of the old kit that still flies, isn’t as hard as you’d think.
  - rockemsockem 2y ago
    Are you unfamiliar with the work NASA is doing on sonic boom reductions? Or are you too cynical to care?
    - kachapopopow 2y ago
      Very familiar, but even regular planes are loud as hell already since I happen to live between the airport and a holdover route.
      - rockemsockem 2y ago
        Idk what altitude planes are at in a location like yours, but there is certainly going to be an altitude limit on supersonic flight over land.
  - 2y ago
RetpolineDrama 2y ago
Are you lost? Do you know where you are?
jack_riminton 2y ago
This is just luddism out of envy
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  I guess you've missed the hint.
cnlevy 2y ago
I just love spending time in rush hour traffic \s
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  Having to drive in bumper to bumper traffic versus chilling in a large chair either working on a laptop, watching a movie or just sleeping (or well if you can't afford it in which case this is very irreverent due to ticket prices).
  - rockemsockem 2y ago
    Large????
    - kachapopopow 2y ago
      I'm assuming large here because that's what the tickets will cost for super sonic flight.
      - rockemsockem 2y ago
        You have no reliable way to project the cost of supersonic flight 50 years in the future. It will come down. That's all I'm certain of. I'm sure people told the Wright brothers similar things. You're simply being extremely short-sighted. Which is very ironic since you're also talking about climate change concerns around this post.
    - stetrain 2y ago
      The original comment was comparing this service to current first-class airline service.
  - yread 2y ago
    > chilling in a large chair either working on a laptop, watching a movie or just sleeping Are you talking about trains?
ipdashc 2y ago
Even if the noise pollution can be solved (or, as others have said, just run it only over the ocean), I don't see how this thing wouldn't pump out an immense amount of CO2. It's definitely cool and would make flying nicer, but in an era where we're trying to decarbonize, get sustainable aviation fuel going, optimize flight paths to avoid contrail warming, etc... I can't lie, there is a big part of me that hopes it doesn't work out.
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  The biggest problem in my opinion is the same problem concord had. You had to have two planes in every source location in case one of them has problems because your customers *will not accept a delay*.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > You had to have two planes in every source location in case one of them has problems because your customers will not accept a delay I’ve never seen this cited as a major problem for the Concorde. Assuming the tickets are under $50k, it wouldn’t be a problem today—someone paying $10 to 30k for first class isn’t kept a back-up jet for their convenience. Flying was immature in the Concorde’s era.
  - rob74 2y ago
    That makes sense - if someone plans to fly London - New York for an important meeting, arriving there two hours late because the supersonic plane was switched for a subsonic one is not an option. Of course, nowadays they could just jump on a Zoom call instead, but where's the fun in that?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > in an era where we're trying to decarbonize, get sustainable aviation fuel going You don’t see an ultrapremium flight option improving chances for synthetic jet fuel?
  - ipdashc 2y ago
rqtwteye 2y ago
I would love a 2-3 hour faster flight over the Atlantic when I visit family. Or even more saving when going over the Pacific. But yes, it will be affordable for only a very small group of people I am not part of. I can't even afford first class for these flights.
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  Business class is the way, it would be much cheaper if first-class didn't exist since I genuinely never felt so out of place when being there. But I guess the amount of money you can get from first-class customers surpasses the amount you can get from business class customers.
  - dboreham 2y ago
    Quick note that first class transatlantic doesn't really exist now. Lufthansa is the only carrier left iirc.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> don't want boom supersonic to succeed You’d prefer we buy them from China? If the physics works, it works and will happen. > military (and concord I guess) have had this technology for nearly a millennium Since the millennium, maybe? Charlemagne wasn’t flying in a supersonic PJ. And no, the military has not obviously solved large-body, sustained and fuel-efficient (i.e. non-afterburning) flight. The USAF didn’t get supercruise until the F-22 [1]. (The Concorde is the only non-military example.) It’s a tremendously new technology, as are modern numerical methods for fuselage and shockwave modelling. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  Supersonic flight will never be more efficient than traditional flights. And sorry I meant that I don't want any super sonic plane company to be successful.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Supersonic flight will never be more efficient than traditional flights Efficient by what metric? Fuel use? That’s the new master of our existence, our six-proton czar? If there is one way to kill sympathy and support for climate-change action, it’s by not only insisting but actually hoping that living standards don’t improve (or regress) because it reduces emissions. Instead of seeing a new super-premium air-travel market that can pay for the scaling of synergic jet fuels, you’re essentially hoping that technologies that could e.g. single-handedly eliminate the organ-transplant geographic mismatch problem do not exist. I’m surprised there isn’t an element of shame to such views.
    - kachapopopow 2y ago
      I'm the last person you'd use climate change as an argument, I'm generally just frightened by the amount of problems that the governments will have to ignore before they can have their first commercial flight bleeding into ground flights. It's the typical cyclist versus cars problem. I like cycling and I don't like driving and nothing will change that.
crazygringo 2y ago
I agree it's not a big deal over the Atlantic, but over the Pacific it could really be huge. Flights halfway around the world are looong. I've been to Australia once, and honestly not sure I'll ever be back. Just because it is a lot of time in a seat.
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  Over the arctic is probably the ideal route for flights like this considering it solves the problem of it being very very cold and normal flight sensors don't work in supersonic flights anyway so that wouldn't be an issue either.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nradov 2y ago
The military does not have relatively silent supersonic flight. Only a few US military aircraft models are even capable of supersonic flight, and they're plenty loud. In order to avoid complaints they normally they only fly that fast over designated exercise areas. The Boom aircraft incorporates some quiet supersonic technology but until they actually test it they won't know whether it's actually quiet enough.
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  'commercial' military planes - no, prototypes - yes.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Prototypes - no. There is the X-59 but that's civilian (operated by NASA), not military. Some of the research results from the X-59 program are being used by Boom and future military designs.
    - kachapopopow 2y ago
      Obviously as some point the military would have researched this technology, that's not even a question. We will make know more in few decades or so once that information is declassified.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > military does not have relatively silent supersonic flight We have one plane—soon to be retired—that can supercruise, i.e. sustain supersonic flight without afterburners, the F-22 [1]. It’s absolutely incorrect to treat this technology as anything but bleeding edge. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
  - nradov 2y ago
    Ability to supercruise mainly only matters for fuel efficiency. It makes little difference to the shock wave volume on the ground. If a Raptor cruises overhead at Mach 1.5 you're going to notice.
agloe_dreams 2y ago
This whole 1% focus is just silly. The Concorde was expensive because everything around it was expensive, not just the nature of high speed flight. They built 20 planes total and never actually capitalized on large scale cost savings. The planes also used afterburner and burned a ton of fuel doing it. There is nothing stopping current transcontinential flights from being supersonic. Heck, the time savings can lead to cost savings as well.
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  The planes are now flying slower than ever in the name of efficiency. Large container boats are sailing slower than ever for the same reason.
- notahacker 2y ago
  > They built 20 planes total and never actually capitalized on large scale cost savings. They never capitalized on large scale cost savings because there was no demand for large scale operation: most of the planes built were given away at nominal fees! Boom's stated intent is to enable the aircraft to be profitable at business/first class prices, which is absolutely targeting the 1%. The engine will have better fuel efficiency than Concorde's afterburner-supported turbojet but that isn't saying much, and everything else about the operating economics (small capacity for long haul to major airports, niche type rating, clean sheet airframe and engine design from new OEM hoping to amortise development costs over a relatively small production run) screams expensive
mguerville 2y ago
I think the appeal can also be that suddenly a weekend in Paris/Rome/(choose your destination) is as feasible (time-wise, if not budget-wise) and logistically light as a trip to Cancun. I for one don't usually go to Europe unless I can spend at least 4-5 days there, just to make the lengthy journey 'worthwhile', but I'm done cross-US weekend trips numerous times.

[flagged]

nom 2y ago

A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing for approximately everyone who needs to fly.

kachapopopow 2y ago
Reminder that these flights will not be accessible to normal people except for rare circumstances same way concord was effectively an attraction rather than a tool.
short_sells_poo 2y ago
This. If time didn't matter, people would use trains instead of short distance flights. And many do! Many European cities that are a 2 hour flight apart also have an ~8-9 hour train connection, which is much less hassle and stress than the flight, but people who have to travel a lot will care about the time savings of even a few hours because it adds up over time. Lots of people have to regularly travel between Europe and US, and if they can save 50% of the travel time, it ends up being a significant amount of time. I believe the market for these flights aren't families going on a holiday, rather people who have to travel on business 3-4 times a month.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  "have to" being, to some extent, a function of these flights being priced at a heavy discount relative to their environmental impact.
  - short_sells_poo 2y ago
    That's a fair statement. I'm not well versed enough in commercial aviation to be able to judge how much flights would cost with externalities priced in.
    - Earw0rm 2y ago
      It's debatable. The IEA have an estimate of €190 per tonne. Which is €400 per passenger on a return transatlantic flight (assuming no mark-up). But there are already some taxes and surcharges on flights, and some of that is carbon-related, so a "full cost" price wouldn't be €400 more than today's. AIUI they use a "harm" model to try and land on that number, i.e. X gigatons of carbon => Y amount of climate change => Z economic damage. Another way to look at it is "if each tonne of carbon can be burned only once, and in a scenario where future carbon is committed towards manufacture renewables (or nuclear capacity), how many kWh of renewable/nuclear electricity can be bought with 1t of carbon". That yields a much larger number. Or you can look at it through a carbon capture and storage lens. Industrial CCS yields a much lower number, but it's talking about capturing from factory boiler exhaust streams, where you can have the plant capture the CO2 at source. Not an option on a jet airliner. Direct air capture (ground-based stations mopping up aircraft exhaust) is an order of magnitude more expensive, currently in the $1000/tonne range, you're trying to vacuum gas out of the air that's at a 400ppm concentration by mass.
ceejayoz 2y ago
Concorde would probably struggle in the post-9/11 airport security world; the days of showing up at the airport just before the flight are long gone for most folks. A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing on its own, but probably not at a significant price increase.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > days of showing up at the airport just before the flight are long gone for most folks I show up 20 minutes before boarding, often later, at my small-town airport. For international flights out of JFK, I’ll show up 2 to 3 hours before, but there is still a world of difference between a lounge you can walk around and shower in and even the most luxurious lay-flat suites. NYC > SFO is 2 hours at Mach 1.7; if I’m not checking a bag that’s an entire day returned both ways.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Boom isn’t gonna be at small town airports anytime soon. The lounge thing, IMO, is also a challenge for Boom. It’s gonna be a cramped plane. The folks shelling out that sort of coin for a flight expect certain amenities on it.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Boom isn’t gonna be at small town airports anytime soon If I’m carry-on only, I try to show up to domestic flights out of JFK an hour before boarding. Between Digital ID and Clear, it’s a fuss if security takes longer than 15 minutes from entering the airport. > folks shelling out that sort of coin for a flight expect certain amenities on it Less cramped than Concorde. At $20k NYC <> SFO, I could see it selling out. You’re only on board for 2 to 3 hours. At $10k or less (Concorde was $13k, inflation adjusted) it’s crossing into prices paid for a lay-flat seat as it is.

ghc 2y ago

> the entire premise of 2-3 hour faster flights over the atlantic is just not that appealing Clearly you don't have kids.

kachapopopow 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ghc 2y ago
  Those are pretty short flights though. My kids get antsy when the flight is 7+ hours. I agree though that short (<6h) flights are no issue.
stetrain 2y ago
Or aren't interested in buying $10k+ tickets for their kids. For most people this would simply not be an option.
- notahacker 2y ago
  And for many people in that bracket there's the possibility a chartered private jet will be better for their kids to sleep on, and they might more than make up the time going to the nearest airfield to their actual destinations rather than NYC-LHR
- ghc 2y ago
  I was assuming the end goal was to make supersonic flight way cheaper than it was for Concorde?
  - stetrain 2y ago
    Even if Boom achieves their goal of bringing a certified airliner to production, it's still going to be a relatively small plane. 64-80 passengers according to their website. That means the cost of the plane, crew, fuel, etc. will be split among a small number of passengers. Fuel burn at supersonic speeds is also going to be higher per passenger mile than traditional airliners. No matter what this is going to end up as a premium option with a premium price tag. Modern high capacity airliners are optimized for efficiency and that translates to low ticket costs.

bongodongobob 2y ago

Have you done an 8 hour flight in economy? It's absolutely miserable. Noise pollution over the Atlantic affects literally noone.

kachapopopow 2y ago
Yes and if you're talking about economy you will never be able to set foot on a plane like this either. There are proposals to have this over land as well which I am very strongly against to the point of not wanting a company like this to be successful.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > There are proposals to have this over land as well which I am very strongly against to the point of not wanting a company like this to be successful Air NIMBY! On a serious note, the only way this gets overland approval is if it’s comparably loud to existing options. Which given the work that’s been done on sonic booms, and some of the old kit that still flies, isn’t as hard as you’d think.
- rockemsockem 2y ago
  Are you unfamiliar with the work NASA is doing on sonic boom reductions? Or are you too cynical to care?
  - kachapopopow 2y ago
    Very familiar, but even regular planes are loud as hell already since I happen to live between the airport and a holdover route.
    - rockemsockem 2y ago
      Idk what altitude planes are at in a location like yours, but there is certainly going to be an altitude limit on supersonic flight over land.
- 2y ago

RetpolineDrama 2y ago

Are you lost? Do you know where you are?

jack_riminton 2y ago

This is just luddism out of envy

kachapopopow 2y ago
I guess you've missed the hint.

cnlevy 2y ago

I just love spending time in rush hour traffic \s

kachapopopow 2y ago
Having to drive in bumper to bumper traffic versus chilling in a large chair either working on a laptop, watching a movie or just sleeping (or well if you can't afford it in which case this is very irreverent due to ticket prices).
- rockemsockem 2y ago
  Large????
  - kachapopopow 2y ago
    I'm assuming large here because that's what the tickets will cost for super sonic flight.
    - rockemsockem 2y ago
      You have no reliable way to project the cost of supersonic flight 50 years in the future. It will come down. That's all I'm certain of. I'm sure people told the Wright brothers similar things. You're simply being extremely short-sighted. Which is very ironic since you're also talking about climate change concerns around this post.
  - stetrain 2y ago
    The original comment was comparing this service to current first-class airline service.
- yread 2y ago
  > chilling in a large chair either working on a laptop, watching a movie or just sleeping Are you talking about trains?

ipdashc 2y ago

Even if the noise pollution can be solved (or, as others have said, just run it only over the ocean), I don't see how this thing wouldn't pump out an immense amount of CO2. It's definitely cool and would make flying nicer, but in an era where we're trying to decarbonize, get sustainable aviation fuel going, optimize flight paths to avoid contrail warming, etc... I can't lie, there is a big part of me that hopes it doesn't work out.

kachapopopow 2y ago
The biggest problem in my opinion is the same problem concord had. You had to have two planes in every source location in case one of them has problems because your customers *will not accept a delay*.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > You had to have two planes in every source location in case one of them has problems because your customers will not accept a delay I’ve never seen this cited as a major problem for the Concorde. Assuming the tickets are under $50k, it wouldn’t be a problem today—someone paying $10 to 30k for first class isn’t kept a back-up jet for their convenience. Flying was immature in the Concorde’s era.
- rob74 2y ago
  That makes sense - if someone plans to fly London - New York for an important meeting, arriving there two hours late because the supersonic plane was switched for a subsonic one is not an option. Of course, nowadays they could just jump on a Zoom call instead, but where's the fun in that?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> in an era where we're trying to decarbonize, get sustainable aviation fuel going You don’t see an ultrapremium flight option improving chances for synthetic jet fuel?
- ipdashc 2y ago

rqtwteye 2y ago

I would love a 2-3 hour faster flight over the Atlantic when I visit family. Or even more saving when going over the Pacific. But yes, it will be affordable for only a very small group of people I am not part of. I can't even afford first class for these flights.

kachapopopow 2y ago
Business class is the way, it would be much cheaper if first-class didn't exist since I genuinely never felt so out of place when being there. But I guess the amount of money you can get from first-class customers surpasses the amount you can get from business class customers.
- dboreham 2y ago
  Quick note that first class transatlantic doesn't really exist now. Lufthansa is the only carrier left iirc.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> don't want boom supersonic to succeed You’d prefer we buy them from China? If the physics works, it works and will happen. > military (and concord I guess) have had this technology for nearly a millennium Since the millennium, maybe? Charlemagne wasn’t flying in a supersonic PJ. And no, the military has not obviously solved large-body, sustained and fuel-efficient (i.e. non-afterburning) flight. The USAF didn’t get supercruise until the F-22 [1]. (The Concorde is the only non-military example.) It’s a tremendously new technology, as are modern numerical methods for fuselage and shockwave modelling. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

kachapopopow 2y ago
Supersonic flight will never be more efficient than traditional flights. And sorry I meant that I don't want any super sonic plane company to be successful.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Supersonic flight will never be more efficient than traditional flights Efficient by what metric? Fuel use? That’s the new master of our existence, our six-proton czar? If there is one way to kill sympathy and support for climate-change action, it’s by not only insisting but actually hoping that living standards don’t improve (or regress) because it reduces emissions. Instead of seeing a new super-premium air-travel market that can pay for the scaling of synergic jet fuels, you’re essentially hoping that technologies that could e.g. single-handedly eliminate the organ-transplant geographic mismatch problem do not exist. I’m surprised there isn’t an element of shame to such views.
  - kachapopopow 2y ago
    I'm the last person you'd use climate change as an argument, I'm generally just frightened by the amount of problems that the governments will have to ignore before they can have their first commercial flight bleeding into ground flights. It's the typical cyclist versus cars problem. I like cycling and I don't like driving and nothing will change that.

crazygringo 2y ago

I agree it's not a big deal over the Atlantic, but over the Pacific it could really be huge. Flights halfway around the world are looong. I've been to Australia once, and honestly not sure I'll ever be back. Just because it is a lot of time in a seat.

kachapopopow 2y ago
Over the arctic is probably the ideal route for flights like this considering it solves the problem of it being very very cold and normal flight sensors don't work in supersonic flights anyway so that wouldn't be an issue either.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

nradov 2y ago

The military does not have relatively silent supersonic flight. Only a few US military aircraft models are even capable of supersonic flight, and they're plenty loud. In order to avoid complaints they normally they only fly that fast over designated exercise areas. The Boom aircraft incorporates some quiet supersonic technology but until they actually test it they won't know whether it's actually quiet enough.

kachapopopow 2y ago
'commercial' military planes - no, prototypes - yes.
- nradov 2y ago
  Prototypes - no. There is the X-59 but that's civilian (operated by NASA), not military. Some of the research results from the X-59 program are being used by Boom and future military designs.
  - kachapopopow 2y ago
    Obviously as some point the military would have researched this technology, that's not even a question. We will make know more in few decades or so once that information is declassified.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> military does not have relatively silent supersonic flight We have one plane—soon to be retired—that can supercruise, i.e. sustain supersonic flight without afterburners, the F-22 [1]. It’s absolutely incorrect to treat this technology as anything but bleeding edge. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
- nradov 2y ago
  Ability to supercruise mainly only matters for fuel efficiency. It makes little difference to the shock wave volume on the ground. If a Raptor cruises overhead at Mach 1.5 you're going to notice.

agloe_dreams 2y ago

This whole 1% focus is just silly. The Concorde was expensive because everything around it was expensive, not just the nature of high speed flight. They built 20 planes total and never actually capitalized on large scale cost savings. The planes also used afterburner and burned a ton of fuel doing it. There is nothing stopping current transcontinential flights from being supersonic. Heck, the time savings can lead to cost savings as well.

kachapopopow 2y ago
The planes are now flying slower than ever in the name of efficiency. Large container boats are sailing slower than ever for the same reason.
notahacker 2y ago
> They built 20 planes total and never actually capitalized on large scale cost savings. They never capitalized on large scale cost savings because there was no demand for large scale operation: most of the planes built were given away at nominal fees! Boom's stated intent is to enable the aircraft to be profitable at business/first class prices, which is absolutely targeting the 1%. The engine will have better fuel efficiency than Concorde's afterburner-supported turbojet but that isn't saying much, and everything else about the operating economics (small capacity for long haul to major airports, niche type rating, clean sheet airframe and engine design from new OEM hoping to amortise development costs over a relatively small production run) screams expensive

mguerville 2y ago

I think the appeal can also be that suddenly a weekend in Paris/Rome/(choose your destination) is as feasible (time-wise, if not budget-wise) and logistically light as a trip to Cancun. I for one don't usually go to Europe unless I can spend at least 4-5 days there, just to make the lengthy journey 'worthwhile', but I'm done cross-US weekend trips numerous times.