3 ms·

Replying to point 1 (especially with this argument) while completely ignoring point 2 makes very little sense to me.

• TeMPOraL 10mo ago
  Even with airport overhead, there's plenty of routes a supersonic plane could drop from 4-8h bucket to 2-3h bucket, and that is still something business flyers would pay for.
  • filleduchaos 10mo ago
    Like which ones? Bear in mind that despite carefully worded PR, Boom has very much not somehow surmounted the laws of physics to eliminate the sonic boom that caused the Mach 2+ Concorde to be banned from going supersonic over land.
    • fragmede 10mo ago
      NASA seems to think it's possible though. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160007348/downloads/20160007348.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160007348/downloads/20...
      • labcomputer 10mo ago
        Yea, but only for speeds up to Mach 1.3… theoretically. Not Mach 2.0 flights. And they only demonstrated the effect up to Mach 1.1. Saving only one hour on a transcontinental (US) flight doesn’t seem all that impressive.
      • filleduchaos 10mo ago
        See the pesky thing is that if you actually read the paper you've been linking as opposed to just running with "NASA said it's possible", you'll notice that like I alluded to, at Mach 1.3 (theoretically!) "boomless flight" is much slower than Concorde's Mach 2+ cruise that the company certainly wants you to think of when you do your back-of-the-napkin supersonic flight time savings maths. And that's on top of requiring optimal atmospheric conditions, so not even a guarantee to begin with. The laws of physics funnily enough are not something you can "move fast and break" or PR-speak your way around.