And in this case, I think this would be a valid complaint. This is just an announcement that some people might look into some things. It's also a company that has wanted to build a spaceport in Australia for 20 years, and... hasn't.
For the space port venture they are planning to launch Ukraninan made Zenith rocket (which was used for Sea Launch back then). Looking into their top people - there are also Canadian based Ukraine immigrants, etc. One can see the pattern here. It is a pretty typical style of venture in immigrant communities with its natural advantages and disadvantages.
Wrt. SST to Australia - the best trajectory is ballistic, and Starship 1 hour flight LA to Sydney, 100 pax business or 500 cattle class is the future I think.
With hypothetical hype I mean the assumption this will be used for ballistic pax transport.
What would be the differentiator, if the ballistics dictate a full seat/couch anyways? The cattle in a mesh net, the bizniks in full divan? Would it make sense when any conceivable trip would be three hours max? Not to mention constraints mandated by entities like FAA for ... I don't know ... spatial arrangement regarding speed of evacuation to the emergency chutes, whatever?
edit: Thinking about it, would they even bother? Or would it rather be something like one seat fits all, after the applicants have sworn their fealty to their elonzniak overlord by opting into NetJets style access card? Similar to how Starlink is 99 universal credits everywhere?
i believe in the almighty symmetry breaking power of the price differentiation (or like it was said in one Soviet movie "There is no goal when the society doesn't practice differentiation based on the color of one's pants")
>ballistics dictate a full seat/couch anyways?
technically you're right, and thus instead of 100 (i used 500/100 just based on ballpark comparison of Starship payload volume vs. 747) there would be more like 300+ business - good for SpaceX :)
>applicants have sworn their fealty to their elonzniak overlord by opting into NetJets style access card?
and 1000000 credits gets you around the Moon, couple 00 more - around the Mars. The future is bright. To some.
Uncounted supersonic aircraft startups went bust trying to make own engines (and that with making turbojets actually being easier than modern turbofans)
For everything else, it's sixties-seventies materials, and technology.
In fact, it's much easier for example to get steel, and aluminium alloys withstanding 200C°-300C° than in sixties.
Strong actuators for control surfaces are both better, and easier to make now because of aircraft electrification.
Internal structure can be made easier with composites today than with complex forged parts 60 years ago.
And of course, supersonic aerodynamics is now much easier with computers.
For a supersonic jet, a lot of the compression is done by the intake, so the compression in the engine must be much lower, around 10-20. This is why off the shelf engines don't work very well for supersonic.
The concorde used a pressure ratio 11.3 from the engine, but combined with the intake it was 82 when at cruise. This actually made it very efficient at 43%. During taxi and climb-out however, the low pressure ratio made it a real gas guzzler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Range
And you're right, the ballpark fuel consumption for Concorde says your hourly rate is not that dissimilar in subsonic than in supersonic so you better fly fast quick...