[Alupis]

There's significant differences between SpaceX and Boom though.

SpaceX got lots of funding because of military/government potential. The US had no domestic capability to place people into orbit. SpaceX also promised cheaper satellite insertion.

Boom promises... ultra-wealthy people a few hours shorter flights?

Concord failed because of cost - few people could afford the ticket price, and even fewer actually needed to cross the ocean a few hours faster.

There's less than zero percent chance Boom will be able to offer cheap "everyday joe" prices on their aircraft. It will fail for the same reasons as Concord...

[ricardobeat]

Falcon 1 was developed entirely with private funding on a budget of $100M. Only later, as it proved flightworthy, government funding came in.

[yeknoda]

100M outright. But billions from the existing knowledge, hired in talent, etc.

[mlindner]

So you're arguing that Boom doesn't have access to existing knowledge? Or that they can't hire in talent?

[Dalewyn]

>Boom promises... ultra-wealthy people a few hours shorter flights?

This along with another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39794935) begs the question: Does everything here have to be a "We Are The 99%" meme?

Practically every bleeding edge advancement is only available to the "wealthy", it's the "wealthy" who pay the First Adopters Tax so eventually the technology might trickle down to the commons.

I say "wealthy" in quotes since those concerned aren't even that particularly richer than most people. Just people with slightly more surplus money in their wallet to throw around.

I get the audience here is primarily FOSS and considers the very notion of money a fucking heresy, but the real world doesn't operate like that.

[fragmede]

slightly is doing a lot of work there. I'll admit I'm doing okay myself, and can afford $300 for a commercial plane ticket every once in a while, but there's a gulf between that, and being able to afford a $4,000 plane ticket, and another jump to $10,000 for a plane ticket, to being ever able to afford a to blow $250k on a trip to see the Titanic, however I'll fated that might be.

There's the top 1%, but there's also a .1% and .01% that is, actually, wealthy. But you're right that there's a weird "can't touch money" vibe in some circles that's weird.

[ericd]

You don't need to go to the .1% or .01% to pay for those more expensive flights, top 1% cutoff (of the US) is >$600k/yr.

[ghaff]

Even in that range. I've flown business class--generally because a client was paying or an upgrade through a combination of miles and 3 digit $s--whenever I'm tempted I come down to thousands of dollars will pay for a lot of meal upgrades and theater on the other side of the pond. It's a lot of money, even for someone who can afford it, to save a few hours or be more comfortable for a day in a metal tube in any case. If it's just pocket change, why not? But maybe now you just fly Netjets.

[Alupis]

Of course not - but this exact idea was tried and failed. What is Boom going to offer that makes it survive? So far, it seems nothing.

There's estimates that if Concord still flew today, Trans-Atlantic ticket prices would start around $10,000. How many people actually want to fly in a cramped cabin for that fee? You can get very luxurious first class cabin space for much less.

Ultimately, Boom will fail just like Concord. After the novelty wears off, there's very few actual customers - and even fewer repeat customers.

[Aeolun]

I think it’s kind of bizarre that all the armchair airplane developers here know how this will end already.

You could, presumably have faith that both the founders and investors have asked themselves the same questions and have come up with an answer that satisfies at least them.

[pas]

know? no, but the data paints a very grotesque landscape of near certain failure.

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/a-cycle-of-misery-the...

Boom was founded by 3 people, 2 software guys and Joe Wilding (who had actual aerospace development experience). Now it's run by the only remaining software guy. sure there's an impressive staff, 700M invested in the company, but it's nowhere near the required many billions. and even after that there's zero guarantee that they can make money.

[imron]

> Boom promises... ultra-wealthy people a few hours shorter flights?

The question I was replying to is not whether they can build a profitable business, but whether they can build their own engine within 5 years.

There's a greater than zero percent chance they can do this if they put in the focus and the effort.

There's also a greater than zero percent chance that they can build a successful engine and then still go bankrupt.

Early SpaceX had funding issues and likely would've gone bankrupt if the 4th launch of the Falcon 1 didn't succeed (the first 3 all failed).

So good luck to Boom. Even if they don't succeed, I'm glad they are going to try.

[Turing_Machine]

> SpaceX got lots of funding because of military/government potential.

Boom has raised a lot of money, including an undisclosed (but presumably large) slug of cash from the Saudis last November.

> There's less than zero percent chance Boom will be able to offer cheap "everyday joe" prices on their aircraft.

You do realize that the history of technology is a long list of failed predictions just like this, right?

That doesn't mean they're going to succeed, of course, but one scoffs at new things at one's own peril.