[TomSwirly]

Funny, I'm rooting against them entirely.

But then I believe the human-caused climate emergency exists and is important enough to do something about.

However, it's pretty clear that I'm in a tiny minority, and we'll keep obsessively consuming and burning fossil fuels until it's all destroyed.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I believe the human-caused climate emergency exists and is important enough to do something about

How is being a Luddite an answer to a novel problem?

Boom is developing supersonic passenger jets. That involves a myriad of thermodynamic, aerospace, materials, tooling and other R&D. Nobody is saying if Boom makes an aircraft every hundred millionaire has a right to one. That’s the point of regulation.

Arguing we should ban even thinking about new technology on the grounds that it might make climate change worse is dogmatic adherence to a cultlike level.

[soapboxrocket]

I'd love to see your math.

I don't have any math to support my belief just a little bit of logic, but it works like this: 1) 787 burns X lbs of fuel per hour in flight 2) 787 takes Y hours to fly from point A to point B at Mach 0.85 3) X lbs of fuel * Y hours = Z polution 4) Boom burns Xf lbs of fule per hour in flight (could actually be less because it's smaller or could be higher because of additional needed thrust) 5) Boom takes Y.85 to fly from point A to point B at Mach 1 6) (Xf) of fuel (Y*.85) hours = H pollution

So as long H is less than Z then Boom would be decreasing the impact on the environment. Now I know that there are a lot of missing numbers in here like passenger count production impacts, etc. But the solution you seem to imply is that flight just shouldn't happen and I'm not sure this is an option so if Boom can reduce the amount of pollution created by flying then it seems like something you should be for not against.

[thedrbrian]

I’d be surprised if boom could be more efficient per passenger mile. Remember kinetic energy goes up with the square of speed so doubling the speed requires four times the energy.

This is why your airliner is about 100 to 150 mpg per passenger but a container vessel is 1000mpg per tonne of cargo.

[tobinfricke]

> Remember kinetic energy goes up with the square of speed

More relevant is that drag goes up with the square of speed generally... in the subsonic regime... I'm not sure what happens across the sound barrier, but I believe it gets worse.

There is a wikipedia article on the topic (of course): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

"Concorde, a supersonic transport, managed about 17 passenger-miles to the Imperial gallon, which is 16.7 L/100 km per passenger; similar to a business jet, but much worse than a subsonic turbofan aircraft. Airbus states a fuel rate consumption of their A380 at less than 3 L/100 km per passenger"

But the real comparison should not be between subsonic and supersonic trans-ocean business trips. It should be between taking the trip or not taking the trip at all. The best way to reduce emissions is to avoid long-distance air travel completely.

[timwaagh]

its important to be realistic about it and realize that whatever is going on is not being caused by the very few flying in superironic jets, but the many living in concrete houses, driving, heating their houses, having children etc. we have 6 billion people on this planet all producing CO2. of those, approximately 0% will ever fly business class. I know it's not a truth people like to hear, because climate activism is supposed to be for the people, but ultimately those are going to get punished by it, not billionaires and their jets.