Hacker News Reader

You're wrong on a bunch of points. They've been doing wind tunnel testing of scale models for a while, and they have a wealth of experience from hiring SpaceX, Boeing, Scaled Composites etc. veterans. This is a team with vastly more commercial aerospace engineering engineering than you devoting their time to this project. They're well aware of the regulatory environment, costs, and usual timelines.

Existing companies don't try anything radically new because of risk aversion, corporate inertia, whatever you want to call it. Why didn't NYC YellowCab invent Uber? They've been doing their thing for years and it's been working just fine. Sometimes you need an outsider to take a radical risk, that in all odds will likely fail, but every so often doesn't.

The article we’re commenting on specifically says they’ve started assembling a 1/3rd scale model that they hope to fly this year.

I disagree with the rest of your comment, but I see where you’re coming from. But almost every failed aerospace company has a bunch of people with industry experience. Doesn’t stop nearly all of them from crashing and burning. And even the unicorn that succeeds is very late and way over budget.

Guess we’ll see.

"some random startup with no experience" -- what about the experience of the people who founded the company and those they have hired? does that count as "no experience"?

"to do the impossible" -- since you have not invested any money in this company, why does it bother you so much that they intend to achieve goals you don't believe in? how many people predicted failure for the Wright brothers?

I root for Boom and will applaud all their achievements, because I appreciate ambition and feel grateful to all ambitious entrepreneurs.

There's nothing "impossible" about Boom's plans, commercial hypersonic flight has been done before decades ago and -- like with SpaceX -- tech advances since then have made the job easier, not harder.

It will still be extraordinary expensive and difficult, so I wish them luck.

No, it is effectively impossible for their planes to be legally flying by 2025, which is what they’re claiming.

Edit: to be clear, I wish them luck too, but I think they’re being dishonest with their timelines. The YC / startup culture is the polar opposite of the FAA culture, which is basically “move slow and make sure nothing breaks, and if it does, carefully examine the situation and change the rules so it doesn’t break again”

Here’s a good overview of the certification process: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-internation...

Zero chance that some random startup is going to have these flying with passengers in 2025. They follow a very long line of startups that have burned through billions of dollars and almost all failed. I’d be surprised if there was more than one or two new airplane companies in the past three decades that have survived without bankruptcy, state subsidies, etc. And none of them were trying to do something nearly so technically challenging.

All that said, I hope to eat a giant humble pie on my 2025 supersonic flight to London!

So, lets map the potential outcomes for commercial supersonic flight:

1. Boom (or some other startup) will deliver by 2025.

2. Boom (or some other startup) will deliver, but later.

3. Boeing (or Airbus) will deliver later.

4. No renewed supersonic commercial flights in our lifetime.

I understand you say 1 is impossible. But is 2 out of the question? is 3 more likely that 4? is 3 more likely than 2?

I don't know enough about Boom and supersonic flight, but I personally don't subscribe to the idea that tomorrow is entirely in the hands of today's established institutions.

Most likely scenario is that they either outright fail and fold, or they “succeed” but only by mid-2030s and after at least one bankruptcy. This is a terrible investment.

They at least are trying and are inspired competition

There was supersonic scheduled commercial flight in my lifetime.

There are commercial reasons for Boeing/Airbus to delay (3) even if the economics for supersonic flight were optimistic, though that didn't stop them rolling dice on the A380/787 as well as plenty of skunkworks projects.

Trouble for Boom is that promising (1) might make raising the capital for (2) more difficult. And also the big risk they deliver (2) which is known to be possible and don't sell enough aircraft to recover their costs.

There's no technical reason that prevents Airbus or Boeing from building a supersonic airliner. The problem is not the supersonic plane itself, that's 70 years old tech: it's the cost of operating one profitably. Supersonic jets are gas-guzzlers while the airline industry is a low-margin industry. If airlines can't turn a supersonic airliner in a money printing machine then there's no business case in building one to begin with.

I agree, but they’re going to try and innovate their way out of that. Which might even be possible, but not cheaply and quickly, which is my main beef with them.

True that

I would even go out on a limb and say that someday supersonic flight will be so relatively near to the economics of subsonic flight that it's often the norm. (In the same way that, in the US, you don't see a lot of props on regional flights any longer.) [ADDED: And yeah much higher drag at higher velocities, etc. but let's stipulate "tech."]

However, it's a huge economic hill to climb. Long haul flying is already pretty comfortable if you spend the money. Even on United which has been upgrading domestic routes. Of course, faster is better. But lie flat seating, decent food, and even mini-rooms go a long way towards making lengthy flights comfortable.

So you basically have to get close to those price points, which is the high end of the volume market. A few hours aren't worth that much even to most relatively wealthy folks.

They are if you paying millions a year. Athletes, big corporates, etc.

Those aren't the high-end of the volume market. They're the private jet market which is circa an order of magnitude more expensive and correspondingly smaller.