7 ms·
Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic f
by bscholl 11y ago
Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly.
Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.
- elinchrome 11y agoHow does the environmental impact per passenger compare to a modern passenger jet? Do you actually think most anyone can afford $5000 round trip to London?
- bscholl 11y agoWe have the same gas mileage (fuel per seat mile) as a lay-flat bed in business class. Since the aircraft can do nearly 3X as many trips in the same time, on net it's better. That's just the start of course—with more innovation on fuel efficiency the price and emissions both come down. $5,000 is what a business class ticket NY/London costs today, and many business travelers are able to do that routinely. This compares to up to $20k on Concorde. We will get the $5,000 way down over time—this is just the start.
- foobarqux 11y agoWhat is the biggest line item in your costs? Fuel?
- krisoft 11y agoDeveloping an airplane, I would guess.
- rabidonrails 11y agoI heard it was the little bags of peanuts :P
- foobarqux 11y agoI meant operating costs.
- Someone 11y ago"Since the aircraft can do nearly 3X as many trips in the same time" Isn't that a bit optimistic? I would think it's closer to 2X. 2.6 times the airspeed, but why would turnaround time at the airport be any lower than for a comparably modern 'slow' airplane? For example, 6 hour flight plus 1 hour turnaround time versus 2.3 hours plus 1 hour turnaround time is more or less a factor of 2. For longer flights, the ratio goes up a bit, but getting it over 2.5? I doubt it, at "the 2.6 times as fast as a typical passenger jet" level.
- erikpukinskis 11y agoBoarding should be faster, since it's only 40 seats and, ostensibly, roomier.
- cma 11y agoSame would apply to an all business class lay-flat flight.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mmcclure 11y ago> Do you actually think most anyone can afford $5000 round trip to London? I'm genuinely curious where you got "most anyone" from their marketing copy. I read it as "affordable for people flying business class," but that might be because I was thinking in the context of Concorde pricing. Edit: Derp, totally glossed over that part of the parent comment.
- mathieuh 11y ago> Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly From the original comment.
- bscholl 11y ago$5,000 isn't an "everyone every time" price, of course. But it's low enough for routine business travel. With more innovation (this is just V1!), we can improve fuel economy and reduce prices further.
- jacobush 11y agoWasn't the V1 subsonic and V2 supersonic? Sorry...
- mbesto 11y ago> Do you actually think most anyone can afford $5000 round trip to London? $5k is fairly standard for a first class ticket purchased a few weeks out. It's also much cheaper than a private jet and would yield the same, or similar, or possibly better results. Here's another interesting subtle side effect. People on this plane would see it as an exclusive networking "club". I can easily see finance professionals and executives loving this the whole concept.
- ADRIANFR 11y agoIs SFO-NYC a feasible route for Boom?
- bscholl 11y agoUnfortunately, there's a ban on supersonic travel over land in the US since the 1970s. When this is reversed, we can fly SFO-JFK in about 2:20.
- JoshTriplett 11y agoWhat's the regulatory situation in countries other than the US? Europe, Asia, Canada, Mexico, South America?
- bscholl 11y agoIt's complicated and unclear, unfortunately. We'll have to see how things unfold when the airplanes are flying.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoMight be an idea to spend a little more time on that. The engineering is not the hard part here. Without regulatory support and approval you don't have a product or a market, so "Let's worry about that after we get the prototype working" may not be a fully viable strategy.
- bertil 11y agoWould it make sense for you to fly West from SFO, turn around, go super-sonic over the ocean and fly towards NY — then again, decelerate over the Atlantic, and turn back? i.e. what is the distance from the shore you can boom?
- bradleyjg 11y agoSonic booms are continuous while going faster than the speed of sound. It isn't just something that happens when you cross the barrier.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Pyxl101 11y agoExciting work! I'd be glad if supersonic flight was a reality again. How do you plan to tackle the challenge of opposition to supersonic flight? Overland supersonic flight has been banned in US and Europe because the loud noise of sonic booms annoyed residents that the planes flew over. Coastal residents continued to object to supersonic flight. Is there a path to offering transcontinental flights again, and if not, will the program be viable with only trans-oceanic flights? (I notice NYC/London highlighted in the marketing materials) Alternatively, is there a viable way to make supersonic flight quiet enough to fly overland? (That would be a game changer!)
- bscholl 11y agoThanks! We are very excited to be doing this. We're starting out focused on long flights that are mostly over water, like New York - London or San Francisco - Shanghai. Around an airport, our airplane will be about as quiet as other new aircraft. The sonic boom will also be much quieter—and we'll continue to make future iterations even quieter. It's hard to say exactly when, but I expect the supersonic overland ban will be reversed in the coming years.
- privong 11y ago> It's hard to say exactly when, but I expect the supersonic overland ban will be reversed in the coming years. Can you elaborate on this? Is there a significant lobbying effort for this or is it something the FAA is considering of their own volition, to stimulate activity in this area?
- maaku 11y agoNASA Ames has been doing some great research (in the bay area no less) on boomless supersonic crafts. There are basically two strategies: either modify the fuselage to disrupt the boom wavefront, or redirect the wavefront by going supersonic at a nontraditional attack angle. Both work.
- voltagex_ 11y agois SYD -> SFO too far?
- JoshTriplett 11y agoObviously, shortening an international flight provides the highest value for your first major route. How well can this scale down to domestic flights? Turning a 3-4 hour flight into a 60-90 minute flight, or a 90 minute flight into a 30 minute flight, appeals quite a bit. EDIT: your answer at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11330935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11330935 applies here. Do you have concrete plans to change those regulations? Do you have solutions for the problems addressed by those regulations (e.g. noise)? Will this scale down well if you have to reach a certain altitude first?
- bscholl 11y agoSupersonics help most on long international flights. So that's the first focus. San Francisco - Los Angeles, so much time is spent on takeoff and landing that faster cruise doesn't help much. Hyperloop, self driving cars can help with these shorter trips. As far as regulations, our first aircraft is much quieter than Concorde, and it will get quieter with future iterations. Altitude helps, but quieting the boom is mostly about nuances of aircraft shape. Eventually, when you can get from San Fran to Tokyo faster than San Fran to New York, the rules will get updated.
- kazinator 11y ago> a 90 minute flight into a 30 minute flight, appeals quite a bit. It does appeal, but then you have to factor in the travel to and from the airports on both ends, and various additional inherent delays.
- maho 11y agoI'm curious, since you posted a route and a ticket price: Will you be operating Boom as a new airline, or do you plan to sell your plane to other airlines?
- bscholl 11y agoWe're teaming with existing and new airlines to bring aircraft into service. Posted ticket prices are based on what's profitable for airlines with the efficiency and performance of the airplane. Airlines will set the final prices, but we hope they will make tickets as affordable as possible!
- JoshTriplett 11y agoFor the price you quoted, what will the seating situation be? Comparable to existing international coach, or somewhere between coach and business class? Do you have approximate seating charts and spacing? Will that vary by airline, or do you plan to standardize it?
- bscholl 11y agoWe're baselining an experience better than domestic first class. One seat on each side of aisle, so everyone gets a window and aisle. There's more footroom and more headroom than the typical first class on a 737 or A320. But this is something airlines can customize.
- JoshTriplett 11y agoAh, I see; it wasn't obvious from the pictures on your site that the plane is significantly smaller, closer to commuter-jet sized than 747-sized. What's the total plane seat capacity?
- ocdtrekkie 11y agoIn case you didn't see earlier comments, they said it was 40 seats.
- nharada 11y agoWhy do you think that other established players haven't entered this space (i.e. Boeing, etc)?
- bscholl 11y agoThere's a lot of scorched earth in supersonics, since Concorde wasn't an economic success and the Boeing SST project was cancelled. Since then, there has been research on 300 seat Mach 2.4-Mach 3 vehicles, but these are extremely challenging. To make this happen and happen soon, you have to start much smaller than the established players usually consider. We're at 40 seats—that's the minimum economic size. Supersonics are hard, so it pays to start as small as you can and scale up over time.
- pacificmint 11y agoI had always thought that the small size of the Concorde was what made the per seat cost so expensive and held the Concorde back economically. So my expectation was that to be economically successful, you'd have to build a supersonic plane that carried more people. Clearly you know more about this than me, but can you elaborate on why my view isn't correct?
- bscholl 11y agoActually, Concorde was too big: 100 seats. It worked NY/London but at ~$20k/seat they couldn't fill enough seats several times daily on other routes. Which means you can't have many airplanes, which means no economies of scale. With 40 seats and business class prices, the Boom airplane works on many more routes, which means we can make a lot of airplanes and enjoy economies of scale. Looking into the future, as fuel efficiency further improves, per seat costs come down, and it will make sense to make ever larger aircraft. It's a virtuous cycle that will eventually allow supersonic flight at economy prices.
- jacquesm 11y ago> It worked NY/London but at ~$20k/seat they couldn't fill enough seats several times daily on other routes. Your price is way off. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3805507/ http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...
- danohuiginn 11y agoHow many of these would you need to sell (or operate) to recover the development costs?
- rsync 11y agoWhat will your pilots do, just as a for instance, if ... say a lone Cessna asks tower for his ground speed ... and then a bit later a navy F-18 pilot also asks tower for his ground speed ? What will they do in that situation ?
- bluehawk 11y agoHilarious context, for those who haven't read it yet: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/favorite-sr-71-story-1079127041 http://oppositelock.kinja.com/favorite-sr-71-story-107912704...
- gregingelmo 11y agoOh man what hilarious story! Thanks for posting it.
- schwarrrtz 11y agoi think that depends on how badass the copilot is
- ceocoder 11y agospecially if the F-18 pilot is making sure that every bug smasher from Mount Whitney to the Mojave knows what true speed is. I've read and re-read that story so many times, each reading results in a fresh batch of goosebumps. I'd love to read the book (Sled Driver, I think?), but it is over $500 on Amazon. I wish they either ordered another print OR published as an ebook.
- btilly 11y agoElon Musk says that eventually we will move to VTOL supersonic electric jets, but he is too busy with other projects to implement it. Have you thought about this idea, and in what time frame do you think someone might try to implement it? Elon's basic idea is that air-breathing jets are limited to altitudes at which oxygen tops out, and then are mostly fighting drag from nitrogen. Electric ones can go to higher altitudes and experience less drag at much higher speeds. However wings designed to do that won't help you get off the ground, therefore you need vertical take off and landing. Which eliminates the need for a large airport, allowing you to locate more conveniently to major cities.
- schwarrrtz 11y agoThe specific energy of kerosene is ~40 MJ/kg [0] while the specific energy of lithium ion batteries is ~1 MJ/kg [1]. Unsure how much energy you'd save from the difference in drag, but I'd guess that significant improvements in electric energy storage would be required to make an electric plane doable. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Properties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Properties [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery
- bscholl 11y agoexactly
- schiffern 11y agoAnd yet Musk claims transcontinental range (NY-LA) would be possible with 400 Wh/kg batteries and mid-70% battery mass fraction. http://www.aviation.com/general-aviation/elon-musk-toying-designs-electric-jet/ http://www.aviation.com/general-aviation/elon-musk-toying-de...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- schwarrrtz 11y agoA 70% battery mass fraction seems like a huge engineering challenge for an aircraft. I did a quick calculation of fuel mass fraction for the various Boeing 777 models [0] which ranged from ~13% to ~36%. Not saying it's impossible. Just hard. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Specifications
- neurotech1 11y agoWhat type of intake design are you using? Comparable to the F-22A fixed square intakes? Are you using current turbofan engines (GE F110?) or something exotic?
- bscholl 11y agoReally good questions. We aren't sharing the details of the technical design quite yet (but will have more to say as we approach first flight). Regarding engines: our first prototype (1/3 scale) flies with an off-the-shelf GE engine. For the product airplane, we're taking an existing subsonic engine and adapting it for supersonic flight. (Sorry, I know that's vague—much more to say about this in due time.)
- nether 11y agoHow are you reducing the boom? Are you widening part of the forebody to increase the local air temp & mach no to weaken the shock? What about redirecting the shock?
- bscholl 11y agoSonic boom physics are subtle and counter-intuitive. High level, you: (1) keep the airplane as small and light as possible (reduces total shock energy) (2) carefully shape the fuselage and wings, so the shocks don't combine as strongly
- dghughes 11y agoNASA and Boeing have a design that has the engines on the upper part of the wings saying it reflects most of the boom upward. (see ninth paragraph) https://www.nasa.gov/aero/centers_tackle_sonic_boom.html https://www.nasa.gov/aero/centers_tackle_sonic_boom.html
- Bluestrike2 11y agoIt's such a silly thing, but I love the name.
- bscholl 11y agoThanks! :-)
- rdl 11y agoI wonder if you should just sell exclusivity per company. Imagine if Goldman Sachs were the only bank in NYC with supersonic transport for staff and customers for 5-10y. That might be worth more to them than $5k per seat on every flight. Maybe also to a law firm. Etc. Exclusivity within a vertical is worth huge practical and status advantages.
- bscholl 11y agoTBH we really don't want to lock people out. I was disappointed that I never got to fly Concorde, not even once, and we want to open this to everyone (eventually make it routine).
- foobarqux 11y agoWho are your investors?
- reso 11y agoGiven that sonic booms are one of the main reasons the Concorde didn't work, is calling your company "Boom" the best idea? Half-kidding. Having said that, I'm a huge Concorde fanboy, and I really hope you guys can make affordable supersonic travel a reality!
- dsyko 11y agoAlso given the association that "boom" has with explosions, a very bold name choice.
- shrewduser 11y agoi am also perplexed
- niccolop 10y agoWasn't one of the issues with Concorde that is was just too expensive as well, in terms of running it (from a fuel stand point) and maintenance? Notwithstanding the accidents.
- melvinmt 11y agoHow instrumental was YC in the development of Boom (money/advice wise)?
- bscholl 11y agoYC has been awesome and supportive in so many ways, far beyond money. 5 stars, would do again!! :-)
- Inthenameofmine 11y agoWhat's your opinion on the Skylon engine? http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html
- robert_foss 11y agoI'm very curious about this too.
- bvi 11y agoHonest / naive question. How do you even start an aerospace company "in your basement"?
- Animats 11y ago1. How much money do you need to get to first flight? 2. How much money do you have?
- astrodust 11y agoOr more accurately: How many cargo containers full of money do you have?
- putzdown 11y agoTerrific premise; I hope you succeed. But advice: 1. "boom" is not the right name. Explosions. Annoying/scary sonic boom. These are not the associations you're looking for. Try "glide," "zip"—something along those lines. 2. In your very first team picture I see a grumpy-looking fellow with hands in pockets. A few images on he's still there, now joined by another grump with crossed arms. These people look disengaged and/or disgruntled. Call me shallow, but it just doesn't look right for a team supposedly revolutionizing aviation. Ask your team to look engaged when taking PR photos. Or if there's a deeper attitude/team dynamics issue there, man fix it now. I don't want my life "booming" into oblivion because some guy was fed up.
- blairanderson 11y agoPlease do not tell people what to do. Its a waste of bandwidth. Thank you.
- jessaustin 10y agoUpvoted for irony.
- wallacoloo 11y ago> "boom" is not the right name. Explosions. Annoying/scary sonic boom. These are not the associations you're looking for. Try "glide," "zip"—something along those lines. I'd have to disagree. The way I associate these words causes me to think of something "revolutionary" when I hear "boom". i.e., it's shaking up the market. Contrary to that, "glide" and "zip" (I know these are just examples) sound more soothing and definitely not attention-grabbing. If the aim of the company were to provide luxurious flight, then maybe that would be fitting. But as I see it, the company really does mean to shake things up, in which case their name is already fitting. Obviously, everyone has their own opinions, but I thought sharing an opposing perspective would be useful in showing that it's definitely not a one-sided topic.
- SeeDave 10y ago>2. In your very first team picture I see a grumpy-looking fellow with hands in pockets. A few images on he's still there, now joined by another grump with crossed arms. These people look disengaged and/or disgruntled. Call me shallow, but it just doesn't look right for a team supposedly revolutionizing aviation. Ask your team to look engaged when taking PR photos. Or if there's a deeper attitude/team dynamics issue there, man fix it now. I don't want my life "booming" into oblivion because some guy was fed up. I too have found that grumpiness and negativity are so toxic, counterproductive, and worse than useless that they are up there in terms of dealbreakers.
- big_al337 11y agoIm thrilled to see something like this taking flight, congrats! I have two questions: 1) Can you tell us about your start-up process? Aside from your all-star team, I can't even imagine how you could have brought this to reality. I can't even imagine how much capital and space a prototype would have taken. At what point did you decide that it was time to apply to YC? Were there other investors? How much design work did you have completed/prototyped when you starting talking to investors? (sorry I know this is 5 questions) 2) Are you hiring?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mathattack 11y agoGreat idea. The airline industry needs innovation around product and service to get out of it's current race to mediocrity. 2 questions: 1) Why 2.2 times the speed of sound? (Why not aim higher?) 2) Where will you get the capital? Seems like a very big ask compared to the typical company coming out of YC. Again - good luck! I would love to clip 4 hours from the SF to NYC flight.
- bscholl 11y agoSpeed: Mach 2.2 is the fastest speed possible with known technology already accepted by the FAA. At that speed, you can have good takeoff performance (and comply with airport noise restrictions) and good cruise performance. We'd to build a faster V2 or V3, in due time. Capital: I can't comment quite yet. (Sorry)
- vonklaus 11y agoPeter Theil regularly uses lack of aerospace innovation as a yardstick for slowing progress in Technology all the time[0]. He'd pretty much have to at least take the meeting. [0] One example is the end of the future oped he wrote. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/278758/end-future-peter-thiel http://www.nationalreview.com/article/278758/end-future-pete...
- vonklaus 11y agoPeter Theil regularly uses lack of aerospace innovation as a yardstick for slowing progress in Technology all the time[0]. He'd pretty much have to at least take the meeting. [0] One example is the end of the future oped he wrote. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/278758/end-future-peter-thiel http://www.nationalreview.com/article/278758/end-future-pete...
- an_account_name 10y agoOkay, I'm assuming you can comment now, but we already know. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11346947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11346947
- mark-r 11y ago
- FLUX-YOU 11y agoWhat are you looking to build from scratch vs OTS? Anything interesting in the avionics dept?
- designtofly 11y agoFrom the Bloomberg article: "Boom’s software can also run millions of computer simulations a day on its designs, so the startup doesn’t have to spend months tweaking things in wind tunnels." Can you elaborate what computer simulations this is referring to?
- bscholl 11y agoThere's computational fluid dynamics—which are very good today especially at supersonic conditions. Also, we have some design optimization tools we've built in-house which let us quickly explore many alternatives and zero-in on the best design.
- schoen 11y agoAre there other areas you or other readers can think of in which a technology that was previously available or in use went away entirely with no replacement?
- andrewmp1 11y agoLots of questions here: What are your goals/timelines with regards to funding (Very different than SAAS)? For a new plane won't you need hundreds of millions of dollars before you even get a prototype flying? Why haven't Boeing/Lockheed/Northrup built a plane to fly supersonic ? Is the execution of building a new plane or patents going to be your path to success ? Wasn't Warren Buffet investing in this space a few years back ?
- la6470 11y agoIs it possible to raise a plane to space and just enough to fly at Mach 3 without friction for the major part of the flight and then gently enter the earth atmosphere to glide down to the final destination?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ocdtrekkie 11y agoThis is so exciting. When I was younger, one of my big to-do list items was to someday ride on the Concorde. That dream is no longer possible, but flying on one of your planes might be! I was amazed to see the regression in flight technology from cancelling the only supersonic passenger plane without a successor. Glad to see someone taking up the reins.
- jonathankoren 11y agoWasn't the problem that made the Concorde uneconomical fuel prices? While a barrel of oil is currently trading at around $41, I don't think many economists believe that this is a long term trend, and expect prices to rise back to around $80 - $100. Isn't this a strategic problem?
- holri 11y agoWhat about CO2 emissions?
- briandear 11y agoAre CO2 emissions really a concern? If 5000 of these planes were flying, as a proportion of global CO2, it would be undetectable if they reduced the plane's emissions by 50%. Then you'd have the argument of how much of that CO2 had any measurable effect on climate -- and that would assume that effect was deleterious. A lot of assumptions to bet a revolutionary aircraft design upon. Adding CO2 reduction engineering to an already difficult project means less resources available to actually get the thing to work. Imagine if The Apollo program had to worry about CO2 emissions on top of just trying to get a rocket to launch. You also could argue some economy of scale efficiencies. If one flight on this plane caused just 3 passengers to forego a private jet trip for the same distance, you'd save 3 private jet's worth of flights. Given the time savings, this project would certainly disrupt a segment of the private jet market. A 777 burns 1680 gallons per hour with 365 maximum passengers. A Gulfstream G650 burns about 865 gallons per hour.. holding a max of 18 passengers. So the G650 is burning 48 gallons per hour, per passenger while the 777 is doing 4.6 gallons per hour per passenger. We're assuming fully loaded for comparison but we all know that a G650 is rarely flying a 18 pax capacity, generally it's in an 11 seat configuration. So as you can see, even if the fuel efficiency were half of a 777, it would still be a massive efficiency compared to a G650 and thus a net gain for those concerned about CO2.
- holri 10y agoIf 1969 the planet would have been at stake because of CO2, it would have been better to not fly to the moon but rather use the resources to save the planet.
- rwmj 11y agoWhy do you bother having pilots on board? Why not have the majority of the flight directed automatically, perhaps assisted by a ground manager dealing with several planes at once?
- jessaustin 10y agoSavvy passengers might value someone with "skin in the game".
- rwmj 10y agoI think you may mean "naive passengers will be reassured by two men in suits". Savvy passengers would know how pilot error is the main cause of crashes.
- jessaustin 10y agoThat will be a fair statement once there are any commercial (or general aviation!) passenger flights for which all flight operations take place without human intervention. We don't live in that world yet. Saddling an already risky endeavor with the additional risk of having to invent a completely new class of control software is really too much to ask. If you think this will be easy, why not just start by outfitting e.g. simple four-passenger Cessnas with your amazing new software that obviates pilots? There's got to be a market there, for something that works. Then when you've got that handled, move up to bigger and faster planes.
- rwmj 10y agoHence why I said "ground manager dealing with several planes at once".
- jessaustin 10y agoSo this is like USAF's drone guys in mobile homes out in the Nevada desert? One notes that they don't handle aircraft with passengers either. Your idea isn't bad in general, and someday it will probably be accomplished in some form, but we're not anywhere close to that yet. Independent joint probabilities multiply, so the last thing a highly speculative aircraft needs is a highly speculative pilot arrangement.