3 ms·

I 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,

I 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 ago
Is 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Thank you!
- avemuri 2y ago
  I 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...
- postexitus 2y ago
  If that's the case, what was the point of the test flight anyway? What were they exactly testing?
  - notahacker 2y ago
    They were testing (at a different scale, with a different powerplant) their air intakes for the engine which are designed to enable conventional turbofan engines to operate at supersonic speed, plus some control systems. And no doubt demonstrating to investors that they could fly something at supersonic speed before they ask for the funds to design and build a new powerplant and airliner-scale airframe... It was originally envisaged as a maiden flight that would happen within a couple of years of founding, but aerospace is hard.
    - rob74 2y ago
      When taking another look at the Wikipedia articles for the XB-1 and the Overture, I also noticed that both of them mention the fact that the XB-1 still uses the original trijet engine configuration planned for the Overture, which has however since been changed to a quad-jet (https://airinsight.com/boom-supersonic-radically-changes-overture-design/ https://airinsight.com/boom-supersonic-radically-changes-ove...). So the XB-1 is even less representative of the full-scale Overture than I thought...
      - notahacker 2y ago
        they're early enough in their program to switch the Overture again to twinjets :) (only half joking, if it turns out that adjacent engines in the quadjet configuration have a negative impact on their intake technology, a twinjet would work more similarly to the trijet...)

user_7832 2y ago

Is 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Thank you!
avemuri 2y ago
I 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...

postexitus 2y ago
If that's the case, what was the point of the test flight anyway? What were they exactly testing?
- notahacker 2y ago
  They were testing (at a different scale, with a different powerplant) their air intakes for the engine which are designed to enable conventional turbofan engines to operate at supersonic speed, plus some control systems. And no doubt demonstrating to investors that they could fly something at supersonic speed before they ask for the funds to design and build a new powerplant and airliner-scale airframe... It was originally envisaged as a maiden flight that would happen within a couple of years of founding, but aerospace is hard.
  - rob74 2y ago
    When taking another look at the Wikipedia articles for the XB-1 and the Overture, I also noticed that both of them mention the fact that the XB-1 still uses the original trijet engine configuration planned for the Overture, which has however since been changed to a quad-jet (https://airinsight.com/boom-supersonic-radically-changes-overture-design/ https://airinsight.com/boom-supersonic-radically-changes-ove...). So the XB-1 is even less representative of the full-scale Overture than I thought...
    - notahacker 2y ago
      they're early enough in their program to switch the Overture again to twinjets :) (only half joking, if it turns out that adjacent engines in the quadjet configuration have a negative impact on their intake technology, a twinjet would work more similarly to the trijet...)