4 ms·

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 am

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
  Not sure I follow, unfortunately.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    You could pass a law that Boom flights must burn only synthetic aviation fuel. (How this hasn’t been proposed for private jets is interesting—every time it comes up the more-extreme “ban private jets” meme starts floating.) You can’t do that for ordinary air travel because consumers have already anchored price expectations and it’s a mass-market product.
    - ipdashc 2y ago
      True! I like that idea.
rob74 2y ago
> just run it only over the ocean If you look at the Overture's website (https://boomsupersonic.com/overture https://boomsupersonic.com/overture), it sounds like that's exactly what they are planning to do - it's advertised as "MACH 1.7 Cruise Speed, 2X Faster over water, 20% Faster over land" - if you take Mach 0.8 as the current cruise speed of subsonic jets, 20% faster would be just barely under the speed of sound.
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  The reasons why planes don't fly faster is efficiency.
  - rob74 2y ago
    I'm aware of that, but if your selling point is speed, you'll have to sacrifice the efficiency, CO2 emissions be damned...
    - kachapopopow 2y ago
      CO2 emissions aren't the problem, mostly the cost of operation making these that much more inaccessible to even the 1%.

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
Not sure I follow, unfortunately.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  You could pass a law that Boom flights must burn only synthetic aviation fuel. (How this hasn’t been proposed for private jets is interesting—every time it comes up the more-extreme “ban private jets” meme starts floating.) You can’t do that for ordinary air travel because consumers have already anchored price expectations and it’s a mass-market product.
  - ipdashc 2y ago
    True! I like that idea.

rob74 2y ago

> just run it only over the ocean If you look at the Overture's website (https://boomsupersonic.com/overture https://boomsupersonic.com/overture), it sounds like that's exactly what they are planning to do - it's advertised as "MACH 1.7 Cruise Speed, 2X Faster over water, 20% Faster over land" - if you take Mach 0.8 as the current cruise speed of subsonic jets, 20% faster would be just barely under the speed of sound.

kachapopopow 2y ago
The reasons why planes don't fly faster is efficiency.
- rob74 2y ago
  I'm aware of that, but if your selling point is speed, you'll have to sacrifice the efficiency, CO2 emissions be damned...
  - kachapopopow 2y ago
    CO2 emissions aren't the problem, mostly the cost of operation making these that much more inaccessible to even the 1%.