[mmustapic]

The technology was already solved decades ago, we had the Concorde. Supersonic flight is well understood. The hard part is to make a supersonic aircraft that's commercially viable.

Personally, I'm very skeptical when they say things like "zero carbon" or "anywhere in the world for $100", very difficult to believe them. The only progress they made for now is building a single seat supersonic plane that maybe will fly. We have lots of those already.

[Adrig]

Innovation doesn't stop once you manage to make something fly. Aerodynamics simulations, science of materials, engine design or manufacturing innovation like metal 3D printing are some of the areas that can completely revolutionize how we look at previous problems.

[mmustapic]

Are they doing something like that? If true, how will this solve the main problems of supersonic commercial flights, that being cost, noise and pollution?

[credit_guy]

Cost is mainly due to fuel consumption. Concorde was extremely efficient in cruise mode, but horrible during the takeoff phase. And unfortunately, at takeoff it was also the heaviest, having full tanks, so the problem was compounded.

If a new design can solve the takeoff problem, then you actually solve four problems: overall fuel consumption (so lower cost), less pollution (because you burn less fuel) are two. The other two come from the ability to efficiently fly subsonic, which is what Boom claim to be able to do (when they'll be able to fly, obviously). You don't have noise, and you have access to some routes that are partially overland. For example, you could fly from NYC to various cities in Europe other than London and Paris. Maybe Frankfurt, or Berlin, or Madrid, or Rome. 90% of the flight will still be over water, but you can have 10% over land without producing the sonic boom.

[hef19898]

Magic start-up disruption, of course.

[whinvik]

Yes parts of it were solved decades ago but Boom is not doing exactly the same thing. Concorde for example had an afterburner.

[mmustapic]

Concorde used afterburners for take-off and while transitioning to supersonic, then it cruised at Mach 2 without afterburners.

The thing with Boom is that they are saying "we are doing this new great thing", and it's not new, Concorde did it. How are they specifically going to be better than Concorde? Just not using afterburners during taking off? Are they going to be cheaper? How? Just by saying they will?

That's why I understand that people don't care about this technology, because it's nothing new, and there's no proof Boom is doing something radically different that will solve the main problems of supersonic travel.

[cycomanic]

On top of that nobody needs it. The issue is that supersonic jets are really anachronistic, it's the most wasteful way of flying and it doesn't even buy you much time for most distances because you have to fly subsonic over land.

[avidphantasm]

It feels like Boom is a product of the zero interest rate frothy market, where there was lots of money chasing “disruptive” technologies, which breeds not-so-good ideas. In particular, Boom seems to have attracted investment because it purports to solve a classic rich guy problem: how to fly overseas a bit faster, but at a price premium. They still have some momentum from the zero-interest rate environment, but how long can that last?

[mmustapic]

Exactly, unless they propose a radically new technology, subsonic will always be much much cheaper and efficient.

[avar]

Their plans include minimizing the sonic boom, and to convince the FAA to lift that restriction.

[aeternum]

More fuel efficient and noise minimization.