[HN Gopher] Boom Supersonic to break sound barrier during histor...
___________________________________________________________________
Boom Supersonic to break sound barrier during historic test flight
today
Author : bemmu
Score : 67 points
Date : 2025-01-28 13:32 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.space.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.space.com)
| mzs wrote:
| https://boomsupersonic.com/
|
| https://www.youtube.com/live/-qisIViAHwI
| kachapopopow wrote:
| [flagged]
| nom wrote:
| A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing for
| approximately everyone who needs to fly.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Reminder that these flights will not be accessible to normal
| people except for rare circumstances same way concord was
| effectively an attraction rather than a tool.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| This. If time didn't matter, people would use trains instead
| of short distance flights. And many do! Many European cities
| that are a 2 hour flight apart also have an ~8-9 hour train
| connection, which is much less hassle and stress than the
| flight, but people who have to travel a lot will care about
| the time savings of even a few hours because it adds up over
| time.
|
| Lots of people have to regularly travel between Europe and
| US, and if they can save 50% of the travel time, it ends up
| being a significant amount of time. I believe the market for
| these flights aren't families going on a holiday, rather
| people who have to travel on business 3-4 times a month.
| Earw0rm wrote:
| "have to" being, to some extent, a function of these
| flights being priced at a heavy discount relative to their
| environmental impact.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| That's a fair statement. I'm not well versed enough in
| commercial aviation to be able to judge how much flights
| would cost with externalities priced in.
| Earw0rm wrote:
| It's debatable.
|
| The IEA have an estimate of EUR190 per tonne. Which is
| EUR400 per passenger on a return transatlantic flight
| (assuming no mark-up). But there are already some taxes
| and surcharges on flights, and some of that is carbon-
| related, so a "full cost" price wouldn't be EUR400 more
| than today's. AIUI they use a "harm" model to try and
| land on that number, i.e. X gigatons of carbon => Y
| amount of climate change => Z economic damage.
|
| Another way to look at it is "if each tonne of carbon can
| be burned only once, and in a scenario where future
| carbon is committed towards manufacture renewables (or
| nuclear capacity), how many kWh of renewable/nuclear
| electricity can be bought with 1t of carbon". That yields
| a much larger number.
|
| Or you can look at it through a carbon capture and
| storage lens. Industrial CCS yields a much lower number,
| but it's talking about capturing from factory boiler
| exhaust streams, where you can have the plant capture the
| CO2 at source. Not an option on a jet airliner. Direct
| air capture (ground-based stations mopping up aircraft
| exhaust) is an order of magnitude more expensive,
| currently in the $1000/tonne range, you're trying to
| vacuum gas out of the air that's at a 400ppm
| concentration by mass.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Concorde would probably struggle in the post-9/11 airport
| security world; the days of showing up at the airport just
| before the flight are long gone for most folks.
|
| A 2-3 hour reduction in flight time is appealing _on its own_
| , but probably not at a significant price increase.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _days of showing up at the airport just before the flight
| are long gone for most folks_
|
| I show up 20 minutes before boarding, often later, at my
| small-town airport. For international flights out of JFK,
| I'll show up 2 to 3 hours before, but there is still a
| world of difference between a lounge you can walk around
| and shower in and even the most luxurious lay-flat suites.
|
| NYC > SFO is 2 hours at Mach 1.7; if I'm not checking a bag
| that's an entire day returned both ways.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Boom isn't gonna be at small town airports anytime soon.
|
| The lounge thing, IMO, is also a challenge for Boom. It's
| gonna be a cramped plane. The folks shelling out that
| sort of coin for a flight expect certain amenities on it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Boom isn't gonna be at small town airports anytime
| soon_
|
| If I'm carry-on only, I try to show up to domestic
| flights out of JFK an hour before boarding. Between
| Digital ID and Clear, it's a fuss if security takes
| longer than 15 minutes from entering the airport.
|
| > _folks shelling out that sort of coin for a flight
| expect certain amenities on it_
|
| Less cramped than Concorde. At $20k NYC <> SFO, I could
| see it selling out. You're only on board for 2 to 3
| hours. At $10k or less (Concorde was $13k, inflation
| adjusted) it's crossing into prices paid for a lay-flat
| seat as it is.
| ghc wrote:
| > the entire premise of 2-3 hour faster flights over the
| atlantic is just not that appealing
|
| Clearly you don't have kids.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| [flagged]
| ghc wrote:
| Those are pretty short flights though. My kids get antsy
| when the flight is 7+ hours. I agree though that short
| (<6h) flights are no issue.
| stetrain wrote:
| Or aren't interested in buying $10k+ tickets for their kids.
| For most people this would simply not be an option.
| notahacker wrote:
| And for many people in that bracket there's the possibility
| a chartered private jet will be better for their kids to
| sleep on, and they might more than make up the time going
| to the nearest airfield to their actual destinations rather
| than NYC-LHR
| ghc wrote:
| I was assuming the end goal was to make supersonic flight
| way cheaper than it was for Concorde?
| stetrain wrote:
| Even if Boom achieves their goal of bringing a certified
| airliner to production, it's still going to be a
| relatively small plane. 64-80 passengers according to
| their website.
|
| That means the cost of the plane, crew, fuel, etc. will
| be split among a small number of passengers. Fuel burn at
| supersonic speeds is also going to be higher per
| passenger mile than traditional airliners.
|
| No matter what this is going to end up as a premium
| option with a premium price tag. Modern high capacity
| airliners are optimized for efficiency and that
| translates to low ticket costs.
| ghc wrote:
| I'm sure you're right that they're overselling with the
| vision of bringing tickets down to $100, but if what you
| say about number of passengers is strictly true no
| airline would fly the Embraer 175 or CRJ-900, right?
|
| According to the data I could find, the Overture is
| advertised as having fuel efficiency similar to the
| Embraer 175, while carrying the same number of
| passengers.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Have you done an 8 hour flight in economy? It's absolutely
| miserable. Noise pollution over the Atlantic affects literally
| noone.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Yes and if you're talking about economy you will never be
| able to set foot on a plane like this either. There are
| proposals to have this over land as well which I am very
| strongly against to the point of not wanting a company like
| this to be successful.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _There are proposals to have this over land as well which
| I am very strongly against to the point of not wanting a
| company like this to be successful_
|
| Air NIMBY!
|
| On a serious note, the only way this gets overland approval
| is if it's comparably loud to existing options. Which given
| the work that's been done on sonic booms, and some of the
| old kit that still flies, isn't as hard as you'd think.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Are you unfamiliar with the work NASA is doing on sonic
| boom reductions? Or are you too cynical to care?
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Very familiar, but even regular planes are loud as hell
| already since I happen to live between the airport and a
| holdover route.
| Peanuts99 wrote:
| It likely has an affect on whales and other marine animals as
| shown by a number of studies previously.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| I've completely forgot about this! It also affects other
| airplane systems (mostly pito tubes) which can cause the
| autopilot to disconnect or master caution to go off which
| have been known to lead to confusion and major incidents in
| the past.
| postexitus wrote:
| It's not like they are flying at 1000 feet above the ocean.
| at between 30-40k feet, if you can hear the jet engines,
| you are a lucky whale!
| kachapopopow wrote:
| You can in fact hear super sonic flight above you even at
| 30 to 40k feet, think of the noise that spacex falcon
| rockets produce, but it's hard to compare legitimate
| explosions going off every millisecond to a needle
| piercing the sky.
| mmustapic wrote:
| You can pay for business or first class. Supersonic flights
| won't be cheaper.
| RetpolineDrama wrote:
| Are you lost? Do you know where you are?
| jack_riminton wrote:
| This is just luddism out of envy
| kachapopopow wrote:
| I guess you've missed the hint.
| cnlevy wrote:
| I just love spending time in rush hour traffic \s
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Having to drive in bumper to bumper traffic versus chilling
| in a large chair either working on a laptop, watching a movie
| or just sleeping (or well if you can't afford it in which
| case this is very irreverent due to ticket prices).
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Large????
| kachapopopow wrote:
| I'm assuming large here because that's what the tickets
| will cost for super sonic flight.
| stetrain wrote:
| The original comment was comparing this service to
| current first-class airline service.
| yread wrote:
| > chilling in a large chair either working on a laptop,
| watching a movie or just sleeping
|
| Are you talking about trains?
| stetrain wrote:
| They're comparing to first class on existing airliners.
| stetrain wrote:
| There are known, demonstrated ways to reduce rush hour
| traffic that decrease energy and emissions per person.
|
| Supersonic flight will likely increase emissions per person
| by a larger proportion than the time saved per person. It's a
| brute-force energy-wasting solution to the problem.
| ipdashc wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| Not sure I follow, unfortunately.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| True! I like that idea.
| rob74 wrote:
| > _just run it only over the ocean_
|
| If you look at the Overture's website
| (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 wrote:
| The reasons why planes don't fly faster is efficiency.
| rob74 wrote:
| I'm aware of that, but if your selling point is speed,
| you'll have to sacrifice the efficiency, CO2 emissions be
| damned...
| kachapopopow wrote:
| CO2 emissions aren't the problem, mostly the cost of
| operation making these that much more inaccessible to
| even the 1%.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I would love a 2-3 hour faster flight over the Atlantic when I
| visit family. Or even more saving when going over the Pacific.
| But yes, it will be affordable for only a very small group of
| people I am not part of. I can't even afford first class for
| these flights.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Business class is the way, it would be much cheaper if first-
| class didn't exist since I genuinely never felt so out of
| place when being there. But I guess the amount of money you
| can get from first-class customers surpasses the amount you
| can get from business class customers.
| dboreham wrote:
| Quick note that first class transatlantic doesn't really
| exist now. Lufthansa is the only carrier left iirc.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _don 't want boom supersonic to succeed_
|
| You'd prefer we buy them from China? If the physics works, it
| works and will happen.
|
| > _military (and concord I guess) have had this technology for
| nearly a millennium_
|
| _Since_ the millennium, maybe? Charlemagne wasn't flying in a
| supersonic PJ.
|
| And no, the military has _not_ obviously solved large-body,
| sustained and fuel-efficient ( _i.e._ non-afterburning) flight.
| The USAF didn't get supercruise until the F-22 [1]. (The
| Concorde is the only non-military example.) It's a tremendously
| new technology, as are modern numerical methods for fuselage
| and shockwave modelling.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Supersonic flight will never be more efficient than
| traditional flights. And sorry I meant that I don't want any
| super sonic plane company to be successful.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Supersonic flight will never be more efficient than
| traditional flights_
|
| Efficient by what metric? Fuel use? That's the new master
| of our existence, our six-proton czar?
|
| If there is one way to kill sympathy and support for
| climate-change action, it's by not only insisting but
| actually hoping that living standards don't improve (or
| regress) because it reduces emissions.
|
| Instead of seeing a new super-premium air-travel market
| that can pay for the scaling of synergic jet fuels, you're
| essentially hoping that technologies that could _e.g._
| single-handedly eliminate the organ-transplant geographic
| mismatch problem do not exist. I'm surprised there isn't an
| element of shame to such views.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| I'm the last person you'd use climate change as an
| argument, I'm generally just frightened by the amount of
| problems that the governments will have to ignore before
| they can have their first commercial flight bleeding into
| ground flights.
|
| It's the typical cyclist versus cars problem. I like
| cycling and I don't like driving and nothing will change
| that.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _first commercial flight bleeding into ground flights_
|
| ?
|
| > _I like cycling and I don 't like driving and nothing
| will change that_
|
| Nothing has to. If you started advocating for banning
| cars, on the other hand, you'd expect to see an anti-
| cycling lobby crop up.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| oh I got distracted writing that, I meant real problems
| with supersonic flight lose relevance and start opening
| ways to have super sonic flights over ground just to save
| some time.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _super sonic flights over ground just to save some
| time_
|
| That's the intention. My question is why others' time is
| of so little value to you?
| kachapopopow wrote:
| I don't know, I just never felt the pressure of time past
| the age of around 17 so I cannot relate anymore. I
| started to enjoy live significantly more by not worrying
| about such things.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Interesting. For me and I suspect many others, the
| relationship goes the other way. Time was of no
| importance when I was a child, but as an adult it is
| everything. I have finite time to spend with elderly
| parents, dying friends, and quickly growing children.
|
| An hour I spend stuck in traffic we're at a airport is a
| conversation I'll never be able to have with a loved one
| when they're gone.
| mmustapic wrote:
| > Efficient by what metric? Fuel use? That's the new
| master of our existence, our six-proton czar?
|
| If it can be cheap at supersonic speeds, it will be much
| cheaper at subsonic, always. And use less fuel. The only
| advantage you get is speed.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I agree it's not a big deal over the Atlantic, but over the
| Pacific it could really be huge.
|
| Flights halfway around the world are _looong_. I 've been to
| Australia once, and honestly not sure I'll ever be back. Just
| because it is a _lot_ of time in a seat.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Over the arctic is probably the ideal route for flights like
| this considering it solves the problem of it being very very
| cold and normal flight sensors don't work in supersonic
| flights anyway so that wouldn't be an issue either.
| nradov wrote:
| The military does not have relatively silent supersonic flight.
| Only a few US military aircraft models are even capable of
| supersonic flight, and they're plenty loud. In order to avoid
| complaints they normally they only fly that fast over
| designated exercise areas.
|
| The Boom aircraft incorporates some quiet supersonic technology
| but until they actually test it they won't know whether it's
| actually quiet enough.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| 'commercial' military planes - no, prototypes - yes.
| nradov wrote:
| Prototypes - no. There is the X-59 but that's civilian
| (operated by NASA), not military. Some of the research
| results from the X-59 program are being used by Boom and
| future military designs.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Obviously as some point the military would have
| researched this technology, that's not even a question.
| We will make know more in few decades or so once that
| information is declassified.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _military does not have relatively silent supersonic
| flight_
|
| We have _one_ plane--soon to be retired--that can
| supercruise, _i.e._ sustain supersonic flight without
| afterburners, the F-22 [1]. It's absolutely incorrect to
| treat this technology as anything but bleeding edge.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
| nradov wrote:
| Ability to supercruise mainly only matters for fuel
| efficiency. It makes little difference to the shock wave
| volume on the ground. If a Raptor cruises overhead at Mach
| 1.5 you're going to notice.
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| This whole 1% focus is just silly.
|
| The Concorde was expensive because everything around it was
| expensive, not just the nature of high speed flight. They built
| 20 planes total and never actually capitalized on large scale
| cost savings. The planes also used afterburner and burned a ton
| of fuel doing it. There is nothing stopping current
| transcontinential flights from being supersonic. Heck, the time
| savings can lead to cost savings as well.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| The planes are now flying slower than ever in the name of
| efficiency. Large container boats are sailing slower than
| ever for the same reason.
| notahacker wrote:
| > They built 20 planes total and never actually capitalized
| on large scale cost savings.
|
| They never capitalized on large scale cost savings because
| there was no demand for large scale operation: most of the
| planes built were given away at nominal fees!
|
| Boom's stated intent is to enable the aircraft to be
| profitable at business/first class prices, which is
| _absolutely_ targeting the 1%. The engine will have better
| fuel efficiency than Concorde 's afterburner-supported
| turbojet but that isn't saying much, and everything else
| about the operating economics (small capacity for long haul
| to major airports, niche type rating, clean sheet airframe
| _and engine_ design from new OEM hoping to amortise
| development costs over a relatively small production run)
| screams expensive
| mguerville wrote:
| I think the appeal can also be that suddenly a weekend in
| Paris/Rome/(choose your destination) is as feasible (time-wise,
| if not budget-wise) and logistically light as a trip to Cancun.
| I for one don't usually go to Europe unless I can spend at
| least 4-5 days there, just to make the lengthy journey
| 'worthwhile', but I'm done cross-US weekend trips numerous
| times.
| jrexilius wrote:
| I really hope they are successful. So sad not to have this option
| for ocean crossing flights.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| It's not going to be an option, tickets will be tens of
| thousands of dollars
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _tickets will be tens of thousands of dollars_
|
| So about what a Golden Era international flight cost,
| inflation adjusted [1]. Not bad.
|
| [1] https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-
| airports/history-o...
| wkat4242 wrote:
| It's what a private jet charter costs now. I bet rich execs
| prefer that despite the longer flying time. Getting direct
| to your destination, not having to rub shoulders with
| random people, stuff like that. It's also what killed the
| Concorde. Not enough comfort for the price.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _what a private jet charter costs now_
|
| No, it's not. A domestic non-transcontinental charter
| costs about as much as a top-of-the-line international
| first-class ticket (~$25k).
| wkat4242 wrote:
| True but I was thinking about what a boom ticket would
| cost. Should have clarified though.
|
| But also that charter is more expensive than I thought
| then yes. Though top execs rarely travel alone of course.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| It's obviously not going to be competing with prices from
| 60 years ago, it'll be competing with prices from today.
| Probably with first class tickets and private charter
| flights. I'm sure there's probably a suitable niche in
| there somewhere.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| In what way will this be better than the Concorde? Definitely not
| cheaper.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Definitely not cheaper_
|
| Why?
| nradov wrote:
| It could be better in the sense of actually flying, which the
| Concorde no longer does. Newer technology and lessons learned
| from the Concorde will probably also make it safer although
| that's harder to predict.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> In what way will this be better than the Concorde?
|
| Well it's a modern design for one. IIRC the Concorde was given
| an exemption to one of the FAA standards in the US that
| requires that a catastrophic engine failure not be able to
| affect another engine. The Concorde could not meet this due to
| the way the engines were paired right next to each other, and
| that is one contributing factor to the last crash - one engine
| failed and took out the other on the same side. This new design
| is probably going to be cheaper in terms of maintenance as
| well, which was another problem with Concorde.
| pfdietz wrote:
| A cautionary video "Is Commercial Supersonic Doomed to Fail?"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je5R3_br8So
|
| Boom is having to develop their own engines, which is a huge ask,
| especially on the schedule they are promising.
|
| (spoiler: the video's answer is "yes")
| cozzyd wrote:
| That must be mistaken, it is a violation of betteridge's law
| tjpnz wrote:
| I think a lot of people here are missing the point. The idea
| isn't to just replicate Concorde's flights across the Atlantic
| Ocean - or any stretch of water for that matter. Their plan would
| be to have this thing flying over land. The noise issue will be
| solved either through some feat of engineering or political
| lobbying. The cynic in me believes it will be mostly the latter.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| I super do not want even a muffled supersonic boom crashing
| over my house!
|
| It would definitely breed some significant resentment against
| the rich to have my house even gently shaking day by day.
|
| My gut tells me this is in no way a solvable problem. But I too
| fear that after it's built, it'll be the LLM story of "yes we
| had to illegally access & use every book & piece of art in
| existence to train this, but now that we've built it, how could
| we turn back?"
| tjpnz wrote:
| On the plus side you might only need to replace your smashed
| windows on windy days.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| I'm not expecting anywhere near that level of trouble, but
| man, when the F-16 went supersonic over DC in 2023, my
| rowhouse seriously rocked. It was a vibration so wildly
| different than anything I'd felt in a house before, feeling
| like it was coming from everywhere.
|
| Even if you can muffle that sonic boom somewhat, I'm highly
| skeptical it's going to be anything but very noticeable &
| intrusive.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65808194
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| A literal case of "move fast and break things"
| everybodyknows wrote:
| RTF-Website. The intention is to remain subsonic over land:
|
| https://boomsupersonic.com/overture
| DanielHB wrote:
| As someone who travels cross-atlantic semi-occasionally my price
| threshold for a 50% shorter flight is 25% increased cost. This is
| coming from a relatively well off middle-aged software engineer.
|
| It is hard to think that this tech will ever be common besides a
| few "high status" (NY->London) routes like the concord was. It is
| my understanding that fuel costs increase as speed increases so
| there is no way this could ever be cheaper than non-hypersonic
| flights. But of course there is a market even if it is very
| limited, just like there was one for the concord. I expect this
| tech might displace some of the private plane market.
|
| To me it seems more likely that we will see short-haul smaller
| electric aircraft take over for even cheaper costs with more
| stops along the way. Think like NY -> Acores -> London or LA ->
| Hawaii -> Japan.
|
| edit: reading about this it seems the fuel-efficiency calculation
| is not as simple as I thought, there are some savings to be had
| in fuel by going above sound-speed. It seems the lowest fuel-
| efficiency happens at just below speed of sound. I am no expert
| in the subject though.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| Efficiency actually increases the faster you go at some point
| until a certain limit due to being able to ride the 'boom'
| turning the energy required to keep the plane up into energy
| that pushes you forward, there's also special things that
| happen to friction when you pierce the barrier which are still
| being researched. Flying higher also means less molecules
| hitting your cruiser.
| tstrimple wrote:
| Essentially supercavitation in the air?
| zhoujianfu wrote:
| I believe boom has suggested it would only cut about 30% of the
| time off, and cost 3x.. not to mention needing to refuel to
| cross the pacific. :/
| tiahura wrote:
| What's Boom's track record on accurately predicting final
| ticket prices?
| DanielHB wrote:
| I think those values would make it viable for a few routes,
| but what really matters is long term savings. Like if they
| can fly supersonic overland and increase fuel efficiency more
| than traditional sub-sonic jet engines.
|
| To me it seems if those numbers can't get better then the
| endeavor is not going to pay off the investment for the few
| routes that would be able to work at those numbers.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _The only photo of the Concorde flying at supersonic speed_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42834341
| tiahura wrote:
| Am I the only one who wonders about the market for this? How many
| will actually choose 2-4x price vs business class? With inflight
| high speed internet, and video conferencing in general, the
| number of people who can't spare 3 hours (during which they can
| be doing other work) seems small?
| dang wrote:
| Next thread in sequence:
|
| _Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42853633 - Jan 2025 (79
| comments)
| crowcroft wrote:
| What engines are they using? I thought Boom was having to develop
| their own engines after everyone else pulled out, but assuming
| they haven't built their own functional supersonic engine yet?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-28 23:02 UTC)