9 ms·
It’s a good start but I wouldn’t say the critics are proven wrong already. Even getting the full-scale version flying won’t be enough, you need to make the who
by echoangle 2y ago
It’s a good start but I wouldn’t say the critics are proven wrong already.
Even getting the full-scale version flying won’t be enough, you need to make the whole operation economically viable so it actually makes sense to operate it.
I’m not saying they won’t manage to do it, but they haven’t proven that they will be able to do it today.
- ergocoder 2y agoBasically, the critics: "unless you build a 100B company, we are not wrong" I mean, yeah, sure.
- Retric 2y agoIt’s hard to argue a startup succeed until profits > investment.
- rsanek 2y agoif your only measure of success is monetary profit, then sure. i think that shouldn't be the only metric, and in fact, the focus on that so completely is a big part of the problem with what people term "late-stage capitalism"
- Retric 2y agoStart a social club/co-op/non-profit/religion or whatever and the metrics are different. However, when you’re asking for investments your goal better be profit or you’ve just committed fraud.
- scrumper 2y agoI'd say the opposite actually, that the idea that an established company can lose money and still be considered a success is absolutely a hallmark of late-stage capitalism - and not a very healthy one either. (I know Boom isn't gigantic, and of course it's losing money at this stage which is right and proper. However losing money in aviation is extremely easy and so I think we call it a successful business when it's profitable. Today, it's proven itself a successful prototype engineering endeavor.)
- aeturnum 2y agoThis is only true from the point of capital - if a startup changes the world in a way you like it can be a success to you. Profitability brings a certain approval and sustainability, but don't confuse that with your goals in what you are working on.
- Retric 2y agoIt’s fine to have multiple aims, but asking for investments without trying to be profitable is fraud.
- aeturnum 2y agoI think that depends on what you say to the investors!
- TeMPOraL 2y agoSort of. There's a class of startups that's not meant to be profitable, except maybe by happy accident. Many (most?) tech startups are like that now. After all, the investors don't care about creating profitable companies - they just want to make money, which they're positioned to do in many ways. One of them is to help create profitable companies. Another is to help grow companies to be sold to other companies and/or to the public for maximum value, giving the investors back a large multiple of initial investments, after which... they don't care anymore. It's like with modern husbandry: you can make money selling milk, eggs and meat by sustainably raising animals living comfortable lives, but you can make more money by sticking them in cages, pumping them up with antibiotics and optimized fodder, to maximize production rates and minimize costs. The two approaches are inherently incompatible with each other. And I dare to say, modern startup ecosystem kind of entered the era of "factory farming" some time ago now.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Retric 2y agoAiming to build a company to be bought by Microsoft or whoever is still aiming to be profitable, the product is simply the company’s assets (IP, customer list, etc). It’s unsustainable in that the profit is a one time event, but that doesn’t mean you’re not to turn cash into something worth more than what you spent and then sell that thing.
- buran77 2y agoSuccess should be measured against the stated objectives, the promises made to investors, or general positive influence on society. In this case the objective was "supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly." [0] > Basically, the critics You're being uncharitable and hyperbolizing the criticism to more easily dismiss it. Would you hyperbolize any praise as "identifying another way this won't work is also a success in itself"? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286
- wongarsu 2y agoMy metric for success is simply making more money than they spent. Supersonic planes are already proven technology. We made the Concorde and the Tu-144 in the 70s, and have plenty of supersonic military planes in active service. The assumption was simply that you can't make a profit by selling them as civil aviation planes. That's the assumption Boom is challenging, and to be proven correct they have to turn a profit. And not just an operating profit by selling planes for more than they cost to make but make back the research and development costs as well
- iancmceachern 2y agoNeither of those planes made more money than they cost. The Tu-144 was famously not reasonable at all.
- wongarsu 2y agoHence why everyone thinks supersonic passenger planes are a bad idea. Lots of profitable military supersonic planes, but every existing example of a civilian supersonic plane is only justified as a Cold War dick-measuring contest.
- fastball 2y agoHow do you measure the profitability of military aircraft?
- echoangle 2y agoIf the claim is „we’re going to make supersonic transport available to everyone“, that’s what they chose.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoIt only needs to be economically viable for billionaires bored with collecting yachts and $100 millionaires who want to flex with charter flights. Scheduled commercial service is a pipe dream but not a requirement for success.
- lostlogin 2y agoPlease keep building yachts jets and rockets then. Otherwise they may get into politics.
- justmedep 2y agoConcord was actually a cash cow for all airlines who had them. The only reason why airlines stopped using Concord was because of the crash and the inherent safety issues that were found. But the actual business model worked - limited in scope but it was highly profitable. “That said, the airlines that flew the Concorde did make a profit. Concorde was only ever purchased by two airlines: BA and Air France. While the concept of the Concorde might not have been a worldwide hit, it was certainly a good market fit for these two airlines at the time.” Overall it was obviously a money looser because of the high development costs (paid for by the governments).
- anovikov 2y agoIt worked because not just the development costs were paid for by the government, but acquisition costs were, too. Planes were given to the airlines for free, completely paid for by the states. Also, only be BA made good profit on it and only after mid-1980s. Air France could barely break even. If not the PR effect that put those airlines above all others as the only ones flying supersonically, they'd never make any sense to either of them. These days, they'd certainly not be viable as private planes are now much more available and much cheaper than they used to be back in the day and these save a lot more time than supersonic flights. BA fare for LHR-JFK roundtrip was 10K pounds back in 2000, $15.2K at the average exchange rate, that's $28K inflation adjusted! Who'd pay that kind of money today for a commercial flight?
- Jakob 2y agoNot taking away from your point, just for comparison: A British Airways first class LHR-JFK roundtrip is $10K today for an 8h flight. Supersonic would be 3h.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwaway2037 2y agoIs Boom aiming to be faster than the Concorde? I don't think so. Their website says: > Overture will carry 64-80 passengers at Mach 1.7 Concorde flew NYC<->LON in 3.5 hours. I guess Boom will fly the route in about 4 hours. Also, regular commercial flights on NYC<->LON are currently 7 hours. Also, using Google Flights, I priced LHR<->JFK on first class about T+1month for 7 days (Mon->Mon). It is about 5.3K USD round trip. I am surprised that it is so cheap. I guess that route is very competitive. I don't understand the excitement on HN about Boom. The market is tiny. This is a terrible investment. What is the global demand for this aeroplane (if they ever build it)? Maybe... max 200. Look at the order book from the 1960s when the Concorde first flew. Less than 100 total orders. Are people forgetting about how incredibly loud is a sonic boom? It is unlikely that it will get rights to fly over land, just like the Concorde. Also, it is terrible for the environment. The Concorde burned fuel (passenger miles per liter) at roughly twice the rate of non-supersonic aeroplanes. (Various edits.)
- ChuckMcM 2y agoI don't disagree that it's proof they will succeed, it is however proof that they can build a supersonic aircraft. That is no small thing. Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one. In terms of 'risk stacking'[1] they are definitely a big step closer to being in successful. [1] Risk Stacking is the set of risks a company faces between the current time and being operational. Technology risk is always level 1 (can they build what they say they can build), after that comes market risk (will people buy it with enough margin for both continued operation of the company as well as further development), and the third is execution risk (can they operate efficiently enough to create a net positive economic product.)
- user_7832 2y agoIs risk stacking a commonly used term? I couldn’t find anything relevant on google and I’d love to learn other similar concepts.
- ChuckMcM 2y agoIt is in the venture capitol / startup world, not sure how much it is used outside of that which was why I took time to explain it. A VC looking at a pitch is trying to understand the risks (a VC investment is basically pricing that risk) and each kind of risk has a different method of evaluation.
- user_7832 2y agoThank you!
- avemuri 2y agoI think Mark Andreeson popularized it, crediting Andy Rachleff https://x.com/StartupArchive_/status/1850205733440413970 https://x.com/StartupArchive_/status/1850205733440413970
- rob74 2y ago> Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one. Not only that, but the XB-1 uses "stock" engines, while for the full-scale Overture they want to develop (and build) an all-new supersonic-capable engine. So one more challenge to put on the stack...
- seltzered_ 2y agoYou also have to make it environmentally sustainable like they did when they talked about a partnership with Prometheus fuels back in 2019, even then what's the point compared to regular planes if these "are likely to burn between 4.5 and 7.5X more fuel than subsonic aircraft in 2035." [0] [0]: https://bsky.app/profile/rutherdan.bsky.social/post/3lgstwvvdvs2s https://bsky.app/profile/rutherdan.bsky.social/post/3lgstwvv... -> 2021 NASA assessment https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205009400 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205009400
- steveoscaro 2y agoYou don’t “have to” make it environmentally sustainable…
- willlma 2y agoI'm so glad that buried deep in the HN commments in an individual who cares about the environment. In the other conversations I've seen about this no one mentions or thinks about fuel consumption. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills sometimes. It's like "Yay! We figured out another way to accelerate the disastrous consequences of climate change. Go us!"
- metacritic12 2y agoI would say the critics are already on average proven wrong in the sense that they were betting on something that had a prior of 90% chance of being true. And now those odds might be say 50%. If they were betting people, they would have lost half their money already, while the people betting it would come true have already made 4x. In that competitive sense, they're already wrong. It takes little skill to predict something like "it won't snow on New York on 3/15/2025". Whereas if you said it will snow on 3/15/2025, and it's true, that's skill.
- echoangle 2y agoYou think there’s now a 50% chance of boom bringing access to supersonic air travel to everyone? I’ll give them 10%.
- johncalvinyoung 2y agoProbably optimism talking, but I'd put Boom's chances of bringing to market an airliner capable of supersonic travel at equal-to-first-class-ticket-prices at 60%. Now I'd put their wilder hopes of eventually taking over the subsonic economy market at considerably below 1%. But I'm hopeful for that $5-10k ticket to London within the next twenty years.