6 ms·

This is so exciting. The only ones I know working on this are Boom (unless they’ve pivoted entirely into AI DC turbines). Between this and the wind-turbine-blad

by arjie 4mo ago

This is so exciting. The only ones I know working on this are Boom (unless they’ve pivoted entirely into AI DC turbines). Between this and the wind-turbine-blade air transporter it’s an exciting time for aviation. Now if we can only transition off leaded fuel!

fanf2 4mo ago
Also NASA / Lockheed Martin https://www.nasa.gov/mission/quesst/ https://www.nasa.gov/mission/quesst/
smt88 4mo ago
Why is this an exciting time for aviation? Or more specifically, why should I (a person who never spends more than $2,000 on air travel) be excited?
- 4d4m 4mo ago
  Increased adoption will put price pressure on traditional flights making them more affordable
  - convolvatron 4mo ago
    that seems very unlikely. margins are already quite thin, and the airlines are making most of their money with the higher fare tiers. if you remove some of those customers, then its entirely possible that the base fare will increase in response.
    - lokar 4mo ago
      This big airlines in the US loose money overall operating flights. They make it up on loyalty programs and credit cards.
      - nradov 4mo ago
        Exactly. Now they even make decisions on which routes to offer based on how likely they are to attract customers who use their branded credit cards. The analytics around this are quite sophisticated.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
  - harmmonica 4mo ago
    Not particularly knowledgable about this, but I was under the impression the front of the bus subsidizes the back. So if the front opts for more expensive supersonic flights then the back will have to increase in cost to make it profitable to fly subsonic flights at all.
    - mschild 4mo ago
      Economy and business seem to be on the same total sum level for revenue. Economy needs more passengers but I doubt you could make an all business class flight at the size of a typical airplane and sell enough tickets to make up for the lost economy passengers. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel/our-insights/the-economics-of-an-airline-flight https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel/our-insights/the-...
  - dboreham 4mo ago
    Why? They already have price pressure due to some people not having enough money. If the people currently flying business class all move to SSTs, won't the airlines now have to charge more for coach seats fitted in their place because they were previously making much more profit per square area from business passengers?
    - petesergeant 4mo ago
      > If the people currently flying business class all move to SSTs Which is vanishingly unlikely for almost all routes. A proper premium F or J experience that takes a few more hours is going to be a better deal for most people than a Y-like experience that shaves some hours off, like Concorde was. For a similar parallel, look at luxury travel. Private for the short hops, but the premium cabins on premium carriers are the better experience for longer journeys unless you're one of the truly tiny number of people flying a G6.
- ghaff 4mo ago
  Assuming Boom or someone else makes it, it's potentially interesting if you routinely fly business/first class today. Which is thousands of dollars for trans-oceanic flights. So, yeah, if you're looking for bargain economy fares this likely won't ever be for you.
- satvikpendem 4mo ago
  Because I can get somewhere faster for the same price over time.
- redsocksfan45 4mo ago
  [dead]
idontwantthis 4mo ago
Are you talking about Windrunner? I’m pretty plugged in to aviation news and I had to look up what you were talking about. That seems like an odd thing to be excited about along with Boom. Do they have any kind of prototype yet? I don’t see any major stories about them since 2025.
pkulak 4mo ago
> This is so exciting. How exactly? Purely on a tech basis? Because it's not solving a real problem anyone has. Some millionaire who wants to go from NYC to LA a couple hours faster is not a problem worth solving. And certainly not when it's less efficient, and inconveniences everyone in the flight path with a very loud noise.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- anon7000 4mo ago
  Not immediately. But small changes add up over a long period. Air travel is currently hard limited by the sound barrier & fuel efficiency. I can’t easily visit my family on the other side of the country for a weekend because it takes a full day to travel. Faster travel time makes a lot of places feel much closer together, which I think is generally a good thing. Supersonic flight is one example, rockets are another. Neither are commercially viable… yet. But people get excited about technology like this because these investments are required for it to be possible in the future. Saying it’s not a problem worth solving is ridiculous. You’re suggesting that humanity is never and should never get faster at traveling between point A and point B. But many places on the planet are still very far apart.
  - remh 4mo ago
    Don't want to be a downer and I fly regularly myself, but I think right now Air Travel is limited by 1 thing: the supply of carbon neutral fuel. A few weeks of war in Iran showed us the impact of reduced availability of oil. The rise in the number of amplitude of climate events show us that a lot of what we do is not sustainable.
    - Grombobulous 4mo ago
      Is there a good estimation of how long the world has left of actual commercially viable oil that can be refined into jet fuel? Even disregarding climate impact (which we shouldn’t) it seems like supersonic flight is just the wrong direction to be going in. If the commercial aviation industry is to survive beyond a century or two they probably need to find a different energy source for planes. Also, it’s just not like the train to plane transition where passengers experienced 5-10x average speed improvements. The maximum amount of time you can save for a round trip flight is about a day. There’s just a limit to how much value that has. Business travelers can work on the plane, leisure travelers can just take another day off. I mean, speaking of trains, flights sometimes gave a hard time competing with those, too. There are a lot of situations where going a little slower isn’t a problem.

by arjie 4mo ago

fanf2 4mo ago

Also NASA / Lockheed Martin https://www.nasa.gov/mission/quesst/ https://www.nasa.gov/mission/quesst/

smt88 4mo ago

Why is this an exciting time for aviation? Or more specifically, why should I (a person who never spends more than $2,000 on air travel) be excited?

4d4m 4mo ago
Increased adoption will put price pressure on traditional flights making them more affordable
- convolvatron 4mo ago
  that seems very unlikely. margins are already quite thin, and the airlines are making most of their money with the higher fare tiers. if you remove some of those customers, then its entirely possible that the base fare will increase in response.
  - lokar 4mo ago
    This big airlines in the US loose money overall operating flights. They make it up on loyalty programs and credit cards.
    - nradov 4mo ago
      Exactly. Now they even make decisions on which routes to offer based on how likely they are to attract customers who use their branded credit cards. The analytics around this are quite sophisticated.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
- harmmonica 4mo ago
  Not particularly knowledgable about this, but I was under the impression the front of the bus subsidizes the back. So if the front opts for more expensive supersonic flights then the back will have to increase in cost to make it profitable to fly subsonic flights at all.
  - mschild 4mo ago
    Economy and business seem to be on the same total sum level for revenue. Economy needs more passengers but I doubt you could make an all business class flight at the size of a typical airplane and sell enough tickets to make up for the lost economy passengers. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel/our-insights/the-economics-of-an-airline-flight https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel/our-insights/the-...
- dboreham 4mo ago
  Why? They already have price pressure due to some people not having enough money. If the people currently flying business class all move to SSTs, won't the airlines now have to charge more for coach seats fitted in their place because they were previously making much more profit per square area from business passengers?
  - petesergeant 4mo ago
    > If the people currently flying business class all move to SSTs Which is vanishingly unlikely for almost all routes. A proper premium F or J experience that takes a few more hours is going to be a better deal for most people than a Y-like experience that shaves some hours off, like Concorde was. For a similar parallel, look at luxury travel. Private for the short hops, but the premium cabins on premium carriers are the better experience for longer journeys unless you're one of the truly tiny number of people flying a G6.
ghaff 4mo ago
Assuming Boom or someone else makes it, it's potentially interesting if you routinely fly business/first class today. Which is thousands of dollars for trans-oceanic flights. So, yeah, if you're looking for bargain economy fares this likely won't ever be for you.
satvikpendem 4mo ago
Because I can get somewhere faster for the same price over time.
redsocksfan45 4mo ago
[dead]

idontwantthis 4mo ago

Are you talking about Windrunner? I’m pretty plugged in to aviation news and I had to look up what you were talking about. That seems like an odd thing to be excited about along with Boom. Do they have any kind of prototype yet? I don’t see any major stories about them since 2025.

pkulak 4mo ago

> This is so exciting. How exactly? Purely on a tech basis? Because it's not solving a real problem anyone has. Some millionaire who wants to go from NYC to LA a couple hours faster is not a problem worth solving. And certainly not when it's less efficient, and inconveniences everyone in the flight path with a very loud noise.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
anon7000 4mo ago
Not immediately. But small changes add up over a long period. Air travel is currently hard limited by the sound barrier & fuel efficiency. I can’t easily visit my family on the other side of the country for a weekend because it takes a full day to travel. Faster travel time makes a lot of places feel much closer together, which I think is generally a good thing. Supersonic flight is one example, rockets are another. Neither are commercially viable… yet. But people get excited about technology like this because these investments are required for it to be possible in the future. Saying it’s not a problem worth solving is ridiculous. You’re suggesting that humanity is never and should never get faster at traveling between point A and point B. But many places on the planet are still very far apart.
- remh 4mo ago
  Don't want to be a downer and I fly regularly myself, but I think right now Air Travel is limited by 1 thing: the supply of carbon neutral fuel. A few weeks of war in Iran showed us the impact of reduced availability of oil. The rise in the number of amplitude of climate events show us that a lot of what we do is not sustainable.
  - Grombobulous 4mo ago
    Is there a good estimation of how long the world has left of actual commercially viable oil that can be refined into jet fuel? Even disregarding climate impact (which we shouldn’t) it seems like supersonic flight is just the wrong direction to be going in. If the commercial aviation industry is to survive beyond a century or two they probably need to find a different energy source for planes. Also, it’s just not like the train to plane transition where passengers experienced 5-10x average speed improvements. The maximum amount of time you can save for a round trip flight is about a day. There’s just a limit to how much value that has. Business travelers can work on the plane, leisure travelers can just take another day off. I mean, speaking of trains, flights sometimes gave a hard time competing with those, too. There are a lot of situations where going a little slower isn’t a problem.