This morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier (https://www.engadget.com/transportation/booms-xb-1-jet-breaks-the-sound-barrier-for-the-first-time-164930546.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJdm0wcBSrYD5JcmWop8fxaotAh8Hy2M08GQl3ecRQ7HfjTrhUxx3tw6vRK1DgpnVWxhhdjM3ix1HCEKzk8JFzpIKx1mEdZZD17yCd-YSyFO2sQSC1TyvkNa_6XS4goVXDQmKwMnfQeonP6ZJ6KY6UrjqIuDxDpGKC48XbyRhrLK) in their XB-1 aircraft. This is the first time ever that a civilian aircraft has flown supersonic in the United States. The company hopes to release a commercial airliner, called Overture, in the early 30s.
We truly live in exciting times
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMWe truly live in exciting times
I'm sure the inventors and manufacturers of the SST thought the same thing.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMWe truly live in exciting times
That's a subjective opinion. The age we live in feels pretty dull and unexciting to me.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMThe company hopes to release a commercial airliner, called Overture, in the early 30s.
Yeah, because the Concorde was just so-o-o-o profitable...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2025, 01:08:15 PMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMWe truly live in exciting times
That's a subjective opinion. The age we live in feels pretty dull and unexciting to me.
We've got driverless cars, large language models, and GLP-1s.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 01:32:29 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2025, 01:08:15 PMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMWe truly live in exciting times
That's a subjective opinion. The age we live in feels pretty dull and unexciting to me.
We've got driverless cars, large language models, and GLP-1s.
I already think modern times are boring and dull, no need to sell it to me.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2025, 01:08:15 PMThe age we live in feels pretty dull and unexciting to me.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 01:32:29 PMdriverless cars
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2025, 02:02:27 PMI already think modern times are boring and dull, no need to sell it to me.
It's hard to think of something that would make cars
more boring than to remove
driving from them.
ooh boy, yet another K12 thread that's basically the same thing as the last one. time for me to go back to bed.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on January 28, 2025, 02:33:28 PMooh boy, yet another K12 thread that's basically the same thing as the last one. time for me to go back to bed.
Unlike the others, this one is actually based on fact. Boom's test aircraft did go supersonic three times earlier today. Hopefully they continue development and succeed in delivering their passenger aircraft. Of course, as my avatar shows, I'm not exactly unbiased on the topic!
I hope they at least change the name. "Airplane go Boom" is not a thing you want to advertise.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on January 28, 2025, 02:33:28 PMooh boy, yet another K12 thread that's basically the same thing as the last one. time for me to go back to bed.
Frankly speaking, boom is an interesting company. A lot of signs of moderate scam, but not a very clear cut. It's totally unclear what this prototype is about, but it's flying...
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 01:32:29 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2025, 01:08:15 PMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMWe truly live in exciting times
That's a subjective opinion. The age we live in feels pretty dull and unexciting to me.
We've got driverless cars, large language models, and GLP-1s.
These times aren't nearly as exciting as the 1990s-early 2000s - the dawn of the web, for better or worse, was like a shiny new toy every few weeks, and the idea of the world's information being at your fingertips was mind-blowing for un-told millions of people. It's also the time frame that both cell phones and PCs went from a luxury/novelty item to an everyday device.
Geo-politically, you could argue that today is "exciting" - just not the good kind. I'd take the 1989-2000 version of "exciting" by far.
And if you go further back, I'd argue that the dawn of the jet age, the space race, satellite technology, and the rise of television (i.e. 1950s-1960s) was more exciting (although I wasn't there).
All of the those things represent humankind pushing the boundaries of communication and exploration. Compare to the things k12 lists:
-SST: trying to revive a failed (from an economic standpoint) technology, without (from what I can see) anything that would make it more feasible this time around;
-GLP-1s: While a great breakthrough for diabetes treatment, it has also become the latest in a long-line of fad medicines, causing scarcity for people who actually need it. I'm sure we'll go through the same "oh, we didn't know about the long-term-effects" process that we have for so many other things. Just humans once again trying to circumvent Mother Nature for superficial purposes.
-LLM: AI already came with the specter of a Skynet-type takeover in so many people's minds; and the technology has so quickly been used for negative purposes (deepfakes, mis-representing people, cheating, trying and failing to replicate actual human creativity, etc.) that any greater positive that might be happening will always be overshadowed.
-Driverless cars: enough about these has been said in other threads. As someone who's been stuck behind a confused Waymo on multiple occasions, I'm sure the tech will get there - just not anytime soon.
Quote from: kalvado on January 28, 2025, 03:34:10 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on January 28, 2025, 02:33:28 PMooh boy, yet another K12 thread that's basically the same thing as the last one. time for me to go back to bed.
Frankly speaking, boom is an interesting company. A lot of signs of moderate scam, but not a very clear cut. It's totally unclear what this prototype is about, but it's flying...
Building an aircraft that can fly at supersonic speeds isn't something you can really fake.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:00:07 PMBuilding an aircraft that can fly at supersonic speeds isn't something you can really fake.
At what point did |kalvado| accuse them of faking a supersonic flight?
Quote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 03:58:37 PM-SST: trying to revive a failed (from an economic standpoint) technology, without (from what I can see) anything that would make it more feasible this time around;
Jet engines have become far quieter and more efficient since Concorde was developed.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 03:58:37 PMGLP-1s: While a great breakthrough for diabetes treatment, it has also become the latest in a long-line of fad medicines, causing scarcity for people who actually need it. I'm sure we'll go through the same "oh, we didn't know about the long-term-effects" process that we have for so many other things. Just humans once again trying to circumvent Mother Nature for superficial purposes.
It's a cure for obesity. That alone makes it one of the greatest medical breakthroughs in human history. Today, the FDA approved it as a treatment for kidney disease and studies say it may help treat Alzheimer's and alcoholism.
Quote from: kphoger on January 28, 2025, 04:03:15 PMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:00:07 PMBuilding an aircraft that can fly at supersonic speeds isn't something you can really fake.
At what point did |kalvado| accuse them of faking a supersonic flight?
He claimed they were a "moderate scam"
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:13:30 PMJet engines have become far quieter and more efficient since Concorde was developed.
But sonic booms aren't any quieter. I'm sure supersonic speed will still be restricted to out over the ocean.
And it wasn't the efficiency of the engine that killed the Concorde. It was not enough customers willing to pay the extra cost to get there faster.
Quote from: GaryV on January 28, 2025, 04:22:28 PMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:13:30 PMJet engines have become far quieter and more efficient since Concorde was developed.
But sonic booms aren't any quieter. I'm sure supersonic speed will still be restricted to out over the ocean.
And it wasn't the efficiency of the engine that killed the Concorde. It was not enough customers willing to pay the extra cost to get there faster.
And part of the extra cost was due to fuel consumption.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:15:32 PMHe claimed they were a "moderate scam"
While I cannot speak for |kalvado|, I should note that the word 'scam' in contemporary usage can encompass things that aren't outright faked. I see that Boom is two to three years behind schedule, didn't even have an engine selected until recently, and now somehow managed to squeak out a flight. Meanwhile, supersonic flights overland in the US are prohibited by the FAA (Boom received special permission for testing purposes), commercial airlines already fly slower than they're able in order to save money on fuel, and a supersonic transoceanic flight would only gain a few-hours advantage at the cost of exorbitantly priced tickets anyway. Not truly a scam, perhaps, but easily targeted as an over-promising and under-delivering opportunity for cash-happy venture capitalists to squander their money on.
Quote from: GaryV on January 28, 2025, 04:22:28 PMBut sonic booms aren't any quieter. I'm sure supersonic speed will still be restricted to out over the ocean.
For the sake of clarity, sonic booms are the reason for the FAA prohibition of overland supersonic flights.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:27:07 PMQuote from: GaryV on January 28, 2025, 04:22:28 PMAnd it wasn't the efficiency of the engine that killed the Concorde. It was not enough customers willing to pay the extra cost to get there faster.
And part of the extra cost was due to fuel consumption.
Fuel has only gotten more expensive, and most passengers have only gotten more price-conscious when buying airline tickets. The cheaper fuel may have been a game-changer back when the Concorde was still flying, but color me skeptical about its being a game-changer nowadays.
Plus, the Concorde was basically government-funded to the tune of something like 80%, and they never really got anything back in return. Because it flopped.
Living in Wichita, though, I do wonder if there might be a market for private supersonic jets. You know, so the next time Kim Kardashian flies from LA to Paris for some cheesecake, the overseas portion will take three hours less.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:13:30 PMQuote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 03:58:37 PMGLP-1s: While a great breakthrough for diabetes treatment, it has also become the latest in a long-line of fad medicines, causing scarcity for people who actually need it. I'm sure we'll go through the same "oh, we didn't know about the long-term-effects" process that we have for so many other things. Just humans once again trying to circumvent Mother Nature for superficial purposes.
It's a cure for obesity. That alone makes it one of the greatest medical breakthroughs in human history. Today, the FDA approved it as a treatment for kidney disease and studies say it may help treat Alzheimer's and alcoholism.
First, my understanding is that it's only been approved for kidney disease in people who already have diabetes, but feel free to source something different.
Second, it's not a cure for obesity (even the vaunted AI will tell you that). It's a management strategy - if you go off the drugs, you gain the weight back. It's been lionized as the latest "miracle drug" for obesity, and too many people are mis-using it (looking at Hollywood, where people think 15-20 pounds is enough to need an obesity drug).
While obesity is a serious issue for many people, there are many more who will continue to do anything to avoid lifestyle choices that could prevent or manage their weight gain.
Third, if the long-term prognosis for GLP-1s as a treatment for diabetes (and diseases hastened by diabetes) continues to be good, then I'd consider it as a "great medical breakthrough." As an obesity treatment, it doesn't even crack the top 100.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 04:53:34 PMSecond, it's not a cure for obesity (even the vaunted AI will tell you that). It's a management strategy - if you go off the drugs, you gain the weight back. It's been lionized as the latest "miracle drug" for obesity, and too many people are mis-using it (looking at Hollywood, where people think 15-20 pounds is enough to need an obesity drug).
Then there's my uncle, who takes it for diabetes but, because of the weight loss side effect, now looks like a skeleton.
High Speed Rail can claw back its high development costs by being able to run as-high-if-not-higher-capacity service (you can run big trains frequently) with lower-operating costs than if the same service was lower-speed (because the two big operating costs are trains and staff, with the savings coming from each train and crew doing more trips in a day more than outweighing the extra electricity costs of high speed). High Speed Air can't work if it is a Concorde model of a lower-capacity service with higher-operating costs than normal speed.
Concorde cost more to run per flight than the contemporary 747, and only held about a fifth of the passengers, so it was more than five times the cost of a jumbo per passenger for the airline to run it. And with the speed restrictions over land, the only travel flights it did were long-haul. A massively premium product!
Unless you had a cancelled business class flight, were very lucky, and they could squeeze you on the Concorde instead, Concorde was really really expensive. Concorde was typically pricier than first class on a Jumbo, but (while it did have first class perks like fancy food and lots of booze) had a worse cabin (less room, no in-fight entertainment) than economy in a Jumbo. The only reasons to take it were prestige* and speed**.
Concorde only was completed as a project because France and the UK were waning powers (especially after their previous collaboration that was the Suez debacle) looking for the prestige they had not that long before. It only carried on because Air France and British Airways (the two flag carriers) had spent a fortune backing their government's R&D investment and needed a return on that. It stopped as soon as it was clear to not be a net boon for the airline anymore.
The biggest shame of those beauties all being grounded is that they looked really good in the air, and are fantastic in a flypast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rxZ7nIXndk). Now when the Battle of Britain is commemorated, they get the Spitfires that flew in the battle up in the air, but the thirty-years-younger Concordes can do no more than sit in the museums and do their nose thing in salute - they used to fly with them (https://www.stmargaretshistory.org.uk/catalogue_item/concorde-and-spitfire-over-the-cliffs-at-st-margarets-bay-c1990).
*My grandparents still have their commemorative cheap plastic model from their flight on display alongside other important memorabilia of their lives. It would look out of place if you didn't know what it meant.
**Which was only useful westbound - leave London at 8am, arrive NYC about four hours later at 7am and easily be able to make a 9am Manhattan meeting. But the other way - leave NYC at 9am, arrive London four hours later and it's 6pm and you've missed a whole day anyway. (I'm using London, rather than Paris, as their being on Berlin time exacerbates the problem) Or take an overnight flight and you jump from 11pm to 8am with less than 4 hours sleep - you'd usually be better off in First on a slower plane with more time and comfort to sleep!
GLP-1s means people can keep eating unhealthy food that makes corporations money while also paying money to pharmaceutical companies to counteract that unhealthy food. So the main thing it cures is lack of profit.
My wife was briefly on a GLP-1 and had to discontinue it because it completely wrecked her digestive system. Even though she stopped taking it about a year ago, it seems like the effect is permanent. I made Swedish meatballs on Friday and they upset her digestive system so badly she had to miss work on Sunday. (I had no problems with them, so it wasn't an issue with germs or undercooked meat or whatever.)
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:00:07 PMQuote from: kalvado on January 28, 2025, 03:34:10 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on January 28, 2025, 02:33:28 PMooh boy, yet another K12 thread that's basically the same thing as the last one. time for me to go back to bed.
Frankly speaking, boom is an interesting company. A lot of signs of moderate scam, but not a very clear cut. It's totally unclear what this prototype is about, but it's flying...
Building an aircraft that can fly at supersonic speeds isn't something you can really fake.
Yes, but for now it's a very big hobby project - until there is something we don't know about.
Quote from: english si on January 28, 2025, 06:18:26 PMHigh Speed Rail can claw back its high development costs by being able to run as-high-if-not-higher-capacity service (you can run big trains frequently) with lower-operating costs than if the same service was lower-speed (because the two big operating costs are trains and staff, with the savings coming from each train and crew doing more trips in a day more than outweighing the extra electricity costs of high speed). High Speed Air can't work if it is a Concorde model of a lower-capacity service with higher-operating costs than normal speed.
Concorde cost more to run per flight than the contemporary 747, and only held about a fifth of the passengers, so it was more than five times the cost of a jumbo per passenger for the airline to run it. And with the speed restrictions over land, the only travel flights it did were long-haul. A massively premium product!
Unless you had a cancelled business class flight, were very lucky, and they could squeeze you on the Concorde instead, Concorde was really really expensive. Concorde was typically pricier than first class on a Jumbo, but (while it did have first class perks like fancy food and lots of booze) had a worse cabin (less room, no in-fight entertainment) than economy in a Jumbo. The only reasons to take it were prestige* and speed**.
Concorde only was completed as a project because France and the UK were waning powers (especially after their previous collaboration that was the Suez debacle) looking for the prestige they had not that long before. It only carried on because Air France and British Airways (the two flag carriers) had spent a fortune backing their government's R&D investment and needed a return on that. It stopped as soon as it was clear to not be a net boon for the airline anymore.
The biggest shame of those beauties all being grounded is that they looked really good in the air, and are fantastic in a flypast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rxZ7nIXndk). Now when the Battle of Britain is commemorated, they get the Spitfires that flew in the battle up in the air, but the thirty-years-younger Concordes can do no more than sit in the museums and do their nose thing in salute - they used to fly with them (https://www.stmargaretshistory.org.uk/catalogue_item/concorde-and-spitfire-over-the-cliffs-at-st-margarets-bay-c1990).
*My grandparents still have their commemorative cheap plastic model from their flight on display alongside other important memorabilia of their lives. It would look out of place if you didn't know what it meant.
**Which was only useful westbound - leave London at 8am, arrive NYC about four hours later at 7am and easily be able to make a 9am Manhattan meeting. But the other way - leave NYC at 9am, arrive London four hours later and it's 6pm and you've missed a whole day anyway. (I'm using London, rather than Paris, as their being on Berlin time exacerbates the problem) Or take an overnight flight and you jump from 11pm to 8am with less than 4 hours sleep - you'd usually be better off in First on a slower plane with more time and comfort to sleep!
Original rationale for Concorde was exactly what you say about high speed trains. Too bad oil prices killed the business case.
And I am pretty sure things would be much better in terms of cost and longevity if second internation of Concorde materialized. Last but not the least, fax machines killed business case even further...
Quote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 04:53:34 PMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:13:30 PMQuote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 03:58:37 PMGLP-1s: While a great breakthrough for diabetes treatment, it has also become the latest in a long-line of fad medicines, causing scarcity for people who actually need it. I'm sure we'll go through the same "oh, we didn't know about the long-term-effects" process that we have for so many other things. Just humans once again trying to circumvent Mother Nature for superficial purposes.
It's a cure for obesity. That alone makes it one of the greatest medical breakthroughs in human history. Today, the FDA approved it as a treatment for kidney disease and studies say it may help treat Alzheimer's and alcoholism.
First, my understanding is that it's only been approved for kidney disease in people who already have diabetes, but feel free to source something different.
Second, it's not a cure for obesity (even the vaunted AI will tell you that). It's a management strategy - if you go off the drugs, you gain the weight back. It's been lionized as the latest "miracle drug" for obesity, and too many people are mis-using it (looking at Hollywood, where people think 15-20 pounds is enough to need an obesity drug).
While obesity is a serious issue for many people, there are many more who will continue to do anything to avoid lifestyle choices that could prevent or manage their weight gain.
Third, if the long-term prognosis for GLP-1s as a treatment for diabetes (and diseases hastened by diabetes) continues to be good, then I'd consider it as a "great medical breakthrough." As an obesity treatment, it doesn't even crack the top 100.
You do realize they you're trying to be logical with the guy who has been very open about being opposed all forms of exercise? Claiming GLP-1 to be a wonder drug seems very on brand to me.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2025, 07:51:37 PMQuote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 04:53:34 PMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:13:30 PMQuote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 03:58:37 PMGLP-1s: While a great breakthrough for diabetes treatment, it has also become the latest in a long-line of fad medicines, causing scarcity for people who actually need it. I'm sure we'll go through the same "oh, we didn't know about the long-term-effects" process that we have for so many other things. Just humans once again trying to circumvent Mother Nature for superficial purposes.
It's a cure for obesity. That alone makes it one of the greatest medical breakthroughs in human history. Today, the FDA approved it as a treatment for kidney disease and studies say it may help treat Alzheimer's and alcoholism.
First, my understanding is that it's only been approved for kidney disease in people who already have diabetes, but feel free to source something different.
Second, it's not a cure for obesity (even the vaunted AI will tell you that). It's a management strategy - if you go off the drugs, you gain the weight back. It's been lionized as the latest "miracle drug" for obesity, and too many people are mis-using it (looking at Hollywood, where people think 15-20 pounds is enough to need an obesity drug).
While obesity is a serious issue for many people, there are many more who will continue to do anything to avoid lifestyle choices that could prevent or manage their weight gain.
Third, if the long-term prognosis for GLP-1s as a treatment for diabetes (and diseases hastened by diabetes) continues to be good, then I'd consider it as a "great medical breakthrough." As an obesity treatment, it doesn't even crack the top 100.
You do realize they you're trying to be logical with the guy who has been very open about being opposed all forms of exercise? Claiming GLP-1 to be a wonder drug seems very on brand to me.
While certain drugs are certainly hyped above and beyond their role, general progress in biology and biochemistry right now is nothing short of extremely amazing.
Quote from: kalvado on January 28, 2025, 08:01:06 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2025, 07:51:37 PMQuote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 04:53:34 PMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 04:13:30 PMQuote from: DTComposer on January 28, 2025, 03:58:37 PMGLP-1s: While a great breakthrough for diabetes treatment, it has also become the latest in a long-line of fad medicines, causing scarcity for people who actually need it. I'm sure we'll go through the same "oh, we didn't know about the long-term-effects" process that we have for so many other things. Just humans once again trying to circumvent Mother Nature for superficial purposes.
It's a cure for obesity. That alone makes it one of the greatest medical breakthroughs in human history. Today, the FDA approved it as a treatment for kidney disease and studies say it may help treat Alzheimer's and alcoholism.
First, my understanding is that it's only been approved for kidney disease in people who already have diabetes, but feel free to source something different.
Second, it's not a cure for obesity (even the vaunted AI will tell you that). It's a management strategy - if you go off the drugs, you gain the weight back. It's been lionized as the latest "miracle drug" for obesity, and too many people are mis-using it (looking at Hollywood, where people think 15-20 pounds is enough to need an obesity drug).
While obesity is a serious issue for many people, there are many more who will continue to do anything to avoid lifestyle choices that could prevent or manage their weight gain.
Third, if the long-term prognosis for GLP-1s as a treatment for diabetes (and diseases hastened by diabetes) continues to be good, then I'd consider it as a "great medical breakthrough." As an obesity treatment, it doesn't even crack the top 100.
You do realize they you're trying to be logical with the guy who has been very open about being opposed all forms of exercise? Claiming GLP-1 to be a wonder drug seems very on brand to me.
While certain drugs are certainly hyped above and beyond their role, general progress in biology and biochemistry right now is nothing short of extremely amazing.
Yes, but it isn't a cure. Applying drugs to weight problems shouldn't be on the top of the list of mitigative solutions either.
Quote from: kalvado on January 28, 2025, 07:44:34 PMOriginal rationale for Concorde was exactly what you say about high speed trains.
It failed at the first bit (as-high-if-not-higher capacity) in a big way. With a plane half the size that takes half the time, there's no saving in crew or vehicles needed per passenger.
Concorde needed to seat ~250 rather than ~100 to have been more than just a prestige thing. From some googling, Boom is looking at fewer (but much nicer) seats than Concorde. Unless it can get running costs down a lot, it's not going to be the future of flying.
Quote from: english si on January 28, 2025, 08:47:13 PMQuote from: kalvado on January 28, 2025, 07:44:34 PMOriginal rationale for Concorde was exactly what you say about high speed trains.
It failed at the first bit (as-high-if-not-higher capacity) in a big way. With a plane half the size that takes half the time, there's no saving in crew or vehicles needed per passenger.
Concorde needed to seat ~250 rather than ~100 to have been more than just a prestige thing. From some googling, Boom is looking at fewer (but much nicer) seats than Concorde. Unless it can get running costs down a lot, it's not going to be the future of flying.
You assume Concorde was envisioned as the only member of its family. If sst took over as a mainstream air transportation, at least for long haul, things would not be limited to one model. Even Concorde B, a pretty modest upgrade, would make a difference with transpacific range.
SST didn't get to the level of mature technology. My impression is that boom is not so much about specific aircraft (which has very low chances of becoming a reality), but about technology development. shock wave control is mentioned as a big one. If SST gets quiet enough for overland flight, that's a significant step forward.
One may seriously ask what the prototype is about. It is nothing like advertised product. There has to be some big things behind it in order for investors to buy the concept of prototype.
Remember that it was a combination of things that caused the planned competitors to Concorde to be canceled and the number of Concordes to be built to be cut short.
It was the general prohibition of supersonic flight over populated areas, aggravated by government reaction to the noise of Concorde's engines that initially killed airlines' interest in SSTs after Concorde's launch. (Remember that Concorde was LOUD, even compared to other passenger jets designed in the late 60's / early 70's.)
The high fuel expense for the limited number of passenger/cargo capacity of Cargo limited BA's and Air France's success with Concorde.
I thought that the folks at Boom (and others) thought they had worked out a design that was modeling an acceptably small sonic boom at altitude.
Even if they don't succeed at getting permission to fly supersonic over land, there have been significant advancements in engine design, and the use of lightweight composite materials over the past 50-60 years that Boom might be able to do something on the fuel vs capacity equation that, combined with increases in demand for intercontinental travel (which environmental concerns don't seem to be curtailing), could have impacted the fuel vs capacity equation.
Boom also has a contract to develop a version of their plan for the US Air Force. If it comes to fruition, it would be used as Air Force One and other VIP transportation.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on February 01, 2025, 01:49:31 AMBoom also has a contract to develop a version of their plan for the US Air Force. If it comes to fruition, it would be used as Air Force One and other VIP transportation.
Yes, they just lost a vip helicopter so they need more fancy toys for big shots!
Quote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMThis morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier (https://www.engadget.com/transportation/booms-xb-1-jet-breaks-the-sound-barrier-for-the-first-time-164930546.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJdm0wcBSrYD5JcmWop8fxaotAh8Hy2M08GQl3ecRQ7HfjTrhUxx3tw6vRK1DgpnVWxhhdjM3ix1HCEKzk8JFzpIKx1mEdZZD17yCd-YSyFO2sQSC1TyvkNa_6XS4goVXDQmKwMnfQeonP6ZJ6KY6UrjqIuDxDpGKC48XbyRhrLK) in their XB-1 aircraft. This is the first time ever that a civilian aircraft has flown supersonic in the United States. The company hopes to release a commercial airliner, called Overture, in the early 30s.
We truly live in exciting times
Why so exciting? There's been a supersonic airliner before. It was a technical success, but not a commercial one.
The other factor besides cost that limited the SST's success was its relatively short range. Sure it could take a six hour transatlantic flight and make it into a two hour flight... but there would have been a lot more people interested in making the 13-hour flight from London to Singapore into a four hour flight. And if you stop to refuel you lose a lot of your speed advantage.
Quote from: kkt on February 02, 2025, 03:02:18 AMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMThis morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier (https://www.engadget.com/transportation/booms-xb-1-jet-breaks-the-sound-barrier-for-the-first-time-164930546.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJdm0wcBSrYD5JcmWop8fxaotAh8Hy2M08GQl3ecRQ7HfjTrhUxx3tw6vRK1DgpnVWxhhdjM3ix1HCEKzk8JFzpIKx1mEdZZD17yCd-YSyFO2sQSC1TyvkNa_6XS4goVXDQmKwMnfQeonP6ZJ6KY6UrjqIuDxDpGKC48XbyRhrLK) in their XB-1 aircraft. This is the first time ever that a civilian aircraft has flown supersonic in the United States. The company hopes to release a commercial airliner, called Overture, in the early 30s.
We truly live in exciting times
Why so exciting? There's been a supersonic airliner before. It was a technical success, but not a commercial one.
The other factor besides cost that limited the SST's success was its relatively short range. Sure it could take a six hour transatlantic flight and make it into a two hour flight... but there would have been a lot more people interested in making the 13-hour flight from London to Singapore into a four hour flight. And if you stop to refuel you lose a lot of your speed advantage.
This is the first time in 50 years that an attempt to develop a civilian supersonic aircraft has made it to point of developing a flyable plane. How is that not exciting?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:00:00 PMQuote from: kkt on February 02, 2025, 03:02:18 AMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMThis morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier (https://www.engadget.com/transportation/booms-xb-1-jet-breaks-the-sound-barrier-for-the-first-time-164930546.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJdm0wcBSrYD5JcmWop8fxaotAh8Hy2M08GQl3ecRQ7HfjTrhUxx3tw6vRK1DgpnVWxhhdjM3ix1HCEKzk8JFzpIKx1mEdZZD17yCd-YSyFO2sQSC1TyvkNa_6XS4goVXDQmKwMnfQeonP6ZJ6KY6UrjqIuDxDpGKC48XbyRhrLK) in their XB-1 aircraft. This is the first time ever that a civilian aircraft has flown supersonic in the United States. The company hopes to release a commercial airliner, called Overture, in the early 30s.
We truly live in exciting times
Why so exciting? There's been a supersonic airliner before. It was a technical success, but not a commercial one.
The other factor besides cost that limited the SST's success was its relatively short range. Sure it could take a six hour transatlantic flight and make it into a two hour flight... but there would have been a lot more people interested in making the 13-hour flight from London to Singapore into a four hour flight. And if you stop to refuel you lose a lot of your speed advantage.
This is the first time in 50 years that an attempt to develop a civilian supersonic aircraft has made it to point of developing a flyable plane. How is that not exciting?
What would be really exciting is that there is a new technology allowing to advance SST. Reduced fuel consumption and reduces sonic boom would be two big things. Although Boom says "prototype", its unclear if they aim at any of those two big things, and if test plane is about those.
Otherwise, you can strap a big rocket booster to a brick and call it a supersonic vehicle.
Quote from: kalvado on February 03, 2025, 03:14:11 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:00:00 PMQuote from: kkt on February 02, 2025, 03:02:18 AMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMThis morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier (https://www.engadget.com/transportation/booms-xb-1-jet-breaks-the-sound-barrier-for-the-first-time-164930546.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJdm0wcBSrYD5JcmWop8fxaotAh8Hy2M08GQl3ecRQ7HfjTrhUxx3tw6vRK1DgpnVWxhhdjM3ix1HCEKzk8JFzpIKx1mEdZZD17yCd-YSyFO2sQSC1TyvkNa_6XS4goVXDQmKwMnfQeonP6ZJ6KY6UrjqIuDxDpGKC48XbyRhrLK) in their XB-1 aircraft. This is the first time ever that a civilian aircraft has flown supersonic in the United States. The company hopes to release a commercial airliner, called Overture, in the early 30s.
We truly live in exciting times
Why so exciting? There's been a supersonic airliner before. It was a technical success, but not a commercial one.
The other factor besides cost that limited the SST's success was its relatively short range. Sure it could take a six hour transatlantic flight and make it into a two hour flight... but there would have been a lot more people interested in making the 13-hour flight from London to Singapore into a four hour flight. And if you stop to refuel you lose a lot of your speed advantage.
This is the first time in 50 years that an attempt to develop a civilian supersonic aircraft has made it to point of developing a flyable plane. How is that not exciting?
What would be really exciting is that there is a new technology allowing to advance SST. Reduced fuel consumption and reduces sonic boom would be two big things. Although Boom says "prototype", its unclear if they aim at any of those two big things, and if test plane is about those.
Otherwise, you can strap a big rocket booster to a brick and call it a supersonic vehicle.
Concorde was developed in the 1960s. Aviation technology has moved ahead mightily since then
Quote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:22:06 PMQuote from: kalvado on February 03, 2025, 03:14:11 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:00:00 PMQuote from: kkt on February 02, 2025, 03:02:18 AMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMThis morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier (https://www.engadget.com/transportation/booms-xb-1-jet-breaks-the-sound-barrier-for-the-first-time-164930546.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJdm0wcBSrYD5JcmWop8fxaotAh8Hy2M08GQl3ecRQ7HfjTrhUxx3tw6vRK1DgpnVWxhhdjM3ix1HCEKzk8JFzpIKx1mEdZZD17yCd-YSyFO2sQSC1TyvkNa_6XS4goVXDQmKwMnfQeonP6ZJ6KY6UrjqIuDxDpGKC48XbyRhrLK) in their XB-1 aircraft. This is the first time ever that a civilian aircraft has flown supersonic in the United States. The company hopes to release a commercial airliner, called Overture, in the early 30s.
We truly live in exciting times
Why so exciting? There's been a supersonic airliner before. It was a technical success, but not a commercial one.
The other factor besides cost that limited the SST's success was its relatively short range. Sure it could take a six hour transatlantic flight and make it into a two hour flight... but there would have been a lot more people interested in making the 13-hour flight from London to Singapore into a four hour flight. And if you stop to refuel you lose a lot of your speed advantage.
This is the first time in 50 years that an attempt to develop a civilian supersonic aircraft has made it to point of developing a flyable plane. How is that not exciting?
What would be really exciting is that there is a new technology allowing to advance SST. Reduced fuel consumption and reduces sonic boom would be two big things. Although Boom says "prototype", its unclear if they aim at any of those two big things, and if test plane is about those.
Otherwise, you can strap a big rocket booster to a brick and call it a supersonic vehicle.
Concorde was developed in the 1960s. Aviation technology has moved ahead mightily since then
And which of those developments would be applicable to SST? Supercritical wing or high bypass fans?
Quote from: kalvado on February 03, 2025, 04:24:14 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:22:06 PMQuote from: kalvado on February 03, 2025, 03:14:11 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:00:00 PMQuote from: kkt on February 02, 2025, 03:02:18 AMQuote from: kernals12 on January 28, 2025, 12:03:56 PMThis morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier (https://www.engadget.com/transportation/booms-xb-1-jet-breaks-the-sound-barrier-for-the-first-time-164930546.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJdm0wcBSrYD5JcmWop8fxaotAh8Hy2M08GQl3ecRQ7HfjTrhUxx3tw6vRK1DgpnVWxhhdjM3ix1HCEKzk8JFzpIKx1mEdZZD17yCd-YSyFO2sQSC1TyvkNa_6XS4goVXDQmKwMnfQeonP6ZJ6KY6UrjqIuDxDpGKC48XbyRhrLK) in their XB-1 aircraft. This is the first time ever that a civilian aircraft has flown supersonic in the United States. The company hopes to release a commercial airliner, called Overture, in the early 30s.
We truly live in exciting times
Why so exciting? There's been a supersonic airliner before. It was a technical success, but not a commercial one.
The other factor besides cost that limited the SST's success was its relatively short range. Sure it could take a six hour transatlantic flight and make it into a two hour flight... but there would have been a lot more people interested in making the 13-hour flight from London to Singapore into a four hour flight. And if you stop to refuel you lose a lot of your speed advantage.
This is the first time in 50 years that an attempt to develop a civilian supersonic aircraft has made it to point of developing a flyable plane. How is that not exciting?
What would be really exciting is that there is a new technology allowing to advance SST. Reduced fuel consumption and reduces sonic boom would be two big things. Although Boom says "prototype", its unclear if they aim at any of those two big things, and if test plane is about those.
Otherwise, you can strap a big rocket booster to a brick and call it a supersonic vehicle.
Concorde was developed in the 1960s. Aviation technology has moved ahead mightily since then
And which of those developments would be applicable to SST? Supercritical wing or high bypass fans?
And which developments make it financially viable?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:00:00 PMThis is the first time in 50 years that an attempt to develop a civilian supersonic aircraft has made it to point of developing a flyable plane. How is that not exciting?
Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where nothing is exciting unless shareholders say it is.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 03, 2025, 04:31:50 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:00:00 PMThis is the first time in 50 years that an attempt to develop a civilian supersonic aircraft has made it to point of developing a flyable plane. How is that not exciting?
Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where nothing is exciting unless shareholders say it is.
Well, maybe that's your view of the world. In this case it's more like shareholders should be excited, the rest of population - especially those with some technical background - are not so much.
Quote from: kalvado on February 03, 2025, 04:38:19 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 03, 2025, 04:31:50 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:00:00 PMThis is the first time in 50 years that an attempt to develop a civilian supersonic aircraft has made it to point of developing a flyable plane. How is that not exciting?
Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where nothing is exciting unless shareholders say it is.
Well, maybe that's your view of the world. In this case it's more like shareholders should be excited, the rest of population - especially those with some technical background - are not so much.
More to the point, I have no reason to be excited about this because it's unlikely that anybody can make money off of it, so it's never going to reach the stage that it affects my life in any way.
About the only hope is that this experimentation results in accidental side discoveries that prove to be beneficial on other projects.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 03, 2025, 06:01:01 PMQuote from: kalvado on February 03, 2025, 04:38:19 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 03, 2025, 04:31:50 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:00:00 PMThis is the first time in 50 years that an attempt to develop a civilian supersonic aircraft has made it to point of developing a flyable plane. How is that not exciting?
Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where nothing is exciting unless shareholders say it is.
Well, maybe that's your view of the world. In this case it's more like shareholders should be excited, the rest of population - especially those with some technical background - are not so much.
More to the point, I have no reason to be excited about this because it's unlikely that anybody can make money off of it, so it's never going to reach the stage that it affects my life in any way.
About the only hope is that this experimentation results in accidental side discoveries that prove to be beneficial on other projects.
So you're saying that we don't live in exciting times? ;-)
Quote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:22:06 PMConcorde was developed in the 1960s. Aviation technology has moved ahead mightily since then
Has it? It moved on mightily in that decade ending with a supersonic commercial passenger plane, a massive passenger jet that changed the whole economics of flying* and a vehicle to put men on the moon and to blast off again. Those vehicles all first flew them in a 4 week window 56 years ago (February 9th 1969 saw the 747's first flight, March 2nd 1969 saw Concorde's first flight and the Lunar Module's first flight was a day later). An explosion of technical triumph, doing several different things that all would have seemed a long long way off at the beginning of the decade
In the nearly 56 years after, only one of those mighty achievements was beaten (the 747, by the A380), and that's the one that, while we don't fly Concorde or LMs anymore, hasn't vanished - you can still fly in what is basically a 60s plane and airlines haven't really divested themselves of these old planes from a company that has some reliability issues because it remains still one of the best planes available for moving lots of people across oceans.
Has the tech moved on 'mightily' when no one has been back to the moon, or flown supersonic commercial for decades? Has it moved entirely in a forward direction given the '60s version of the 737 (until recently, the most popular commercial aeroplane family) was less fatal than the '10s version was?
Sure we have Boom and Artemis coming about now, fuelled by nostalgia just as much as innovation. For over 20 years we've been looking back at those craft from '69 and wondering "have we forgotten how to do it?", and only now are finally getting back "no, we haven't forgotten".
*That's what killed Concorde's commercial viability on arrival - cheap and capacious was more revolutionary, and more profitable, than flashy and fast.
Quote from: english si on February 03, 2025, 07:17:03 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:22:06 PMConcorde was developed in the 1960s. Aviation technology has moved ahead mightily since then
Has it? It moved on mightily in that decade ending with a supersonic commercial passenger plane, a massive passenger jet that changed the whole economics of flying* and a vehicle to put men on the moon and to blast off again. Those vehicles all first flew them in a 4 week window 56 years ago (February 9th 1969 saw the 747's first flight, March 2nd 1969 saw Concorde's first flight and the Lunar Module's first flight was a day later). An explosion of technical triumph, doing several different things that all would have seemed a long long way off at the beginning of the decade
In the nearly 56 years after, only one of those mighty achievements was beaten (the 747, by the A380), and that's the one that, while we don't fly Concorde or LMs anymore, hasn't vanished - you can still fly in what is basically a 60s plane and airlines haven't really divested themselves of these old planes from a company that has some reliability issues because it remains still one of the best planes available for moving lots of people across oceans.
Has the tech moved on 'mightily' when no one has been back to the moon, or flown supersonic commercial for decades? Has it moved entirely in a forward direction given the '60s version of the 737 (until recently, the most popular commercial aeroplane family) was less fatal than the '10s version was?
Sure we have Boom and Artemis coming about now, fuelled by nostalgia just as much as innovation. For over 20 years we've been looking back at those craft from '69 and wondering "have we forgotten how to do it?", and only now are finally getting back "no, we haven't forgotten".
*That's what killed Concorde's commercial viability on arrival - cheap and capacious was more revolutionary, and more profitable, than flashy and fast.
Oh, those good old times..
I guess I am the only one who is excited about single crystal nickel blades in engines? Or the only one who knows about this huge breakthrough? Same for carbon composites and AlLi?
747 is a grat old and tried one, but 777 - that is two newer engines- and 787&350 - carbon fiber and AlLi technology - are the workhorses today.
Moon flight was great.. Comparable with climbing Everest, dive into Mariana trench, reaching both poles... So what? None of them is really making a difference.
if anything, ability of humans to leverage latest scientific progress to overcome limits of ol'good stuff is a big historic trend
Telecom makes supersonic less than very interesting, spaceflight is dominated by satellite flocks - not by humans. I expect explosive biology growth to solve some problems on earth, and AI can make a difference for deep space stuff. Computers make a difference as well- and breakthrough of car and truck design is not futuristic body shapes, but numerical analysis of wheel wells.
There are probably more enabling technologies... until boom has some of those, they are just that - nostalgia.
Quote from: kalvado on February 03, 2025, 08:18:19 PMI expect explosive biology growth to solve some problems on earth
Never thought Taco Bell would be on the cutting edge of human technology, but weirder things have happened...
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 03, 2025, 08:47:27 PMQuote from: kalvado on February 03, 2025, 08:18:19 PMI expect explosive biology growth to solve some problems on earth
Never thought Taco Bell would be on the cutting edge of human technology, but weirder things have happened...
2032 is still far enough away to get the full Demolition Man future in which every restaurant is a Taco Bell after the Franchise Wars. Throw in the Three Seashells and that is a future I get excited about.
I think supersonic airplanes are gonna happen at some point in the future. It's just a matter of an an advancement in aeronautical engineering to create an engine that is efficient enough to make whatever company is operating money. But it seems to be like nuclear fusion. We're always 10 years away from it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 04, 2025, 03:51:20 AMI think supersonic airplanes are gonna happen at some point in the future. It's just a matter of an an advancement in aeronautical engineering to create an engine that is efficient enough to make whatever company is operating money. But it seems to be like nuclear fusion. We're always 10 years away from it.
Isn't this a nonstatement? :D
We'll have it eventually but it never happens.
Sort of like that old quote about Brazil being the country with the most economic potential -- and it will always be.
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2025, 06:52:20 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 04, 2025, 03:51:20 AMI think supersonic airplanes are gonna happen at some point in the future. It's just a matter of an an advancement in aeronautical engineering to create an engine that is efficient enough to make whatever company is operating money. But it seems to be like nuclear fusion. We're always 10 years away from it.
Isn't this a nonstatement? :D
We'll have it eventually but it never happens.
Sort of like that old quote about Brazil being the country with the most economic potential -- and it will always be.
Pretty much. But much like me being a guy saying a glass is completely full because air is filling the other half of it.
All this talk about supersonic airplanes has me thinking when we're getting hypersonic airplanes.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 04, 2025, 07:45:16 AMQuote from: Rothman on February 04, 2025, 06:52:20 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 04, 2025, 03:51:20 AMI think supersonic airplanes are gonna happen at some point in the future. It's just a matter of an an advancement in aeronautical engineering to create an engine that is efficient enough to make whatever company is operating money. But it seems to be like nuclear fusion. We're always 10 years away from it.
Isn't this a nonstatement? :D
We'll have it eventually but it never happens.
Sort of like that old quote about Brazil being the country with the most economic potential -- and it will always be.
Pretty much. But much like me being a guy saying a glass is completely full because air is filling the other half of it.
All this talk about supersonic airplanes has me thinking when we're getting hypersonic airplanes.
The only ones you may experience, though, are hypersonic missiles.
Quote from: english si on February 03, 2025, 07:17:03 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2025, 03:22:06 PMConcorde was developed in the 1960s. Aviation technology has moved ahead mightily since then
Has it? It moved on mightily in that decade ending with a supersonic commercial passenger plane, a massive passenger jet that changed the whole economics of flying* and a vehicle to put men on the moon and to blast off again. Those vehicles all first flew them in a 4 week window 56 years ago (February 9th 1969 saw the 747's first flight, March 2nd 1969 saw Concorde's first flight and the Lunar Module's first flight was a day later). An explosion of technical triumph, doing several different things that all would have seemed a long long way off at the beginning of the decade
In the nearly 56 years after, only one of those mighty achievements was beaten (the 747, by the A380), and that's the one that, while we don't fly Concorde or LMs anymore, hasn't vanished - you can still fly in what is basically a 60s plane and airlines haven't really divested themselves of these old planes from a company that has some reliability issues because it remains still one of the best planes available for moving lots of people across oceans.
Has the tech moved on 'mightily' when no one has been back to the moon, or flown supersonic commercial for decades? Has it moved entirely in a forward direction given the '60s version of the 737 (until recently, the most popular commercial aeroplane family) was less fatal than the '10s version was?
Sure we have Boom and Artemis coming about now, fuelled by nostalgia just as much as innovation. For over 20 years we've been looking back at those craft from '69 and wondering "have we forgotten how to do it?", and only now are finally getting back "no, we haven't forgotten".
*That's what killed Concorde's commercial viability on arrival - cheap and capacious was more revolutionary, and more profitable, than flashy and fast.
It takes half as much fuel now to move a single passenger a given distance by air than it did in 1990 https://aviationbenefits.org/media/167219/fact-sheet_3_tracking-aviation-efficiency_3.pdf
Quote from: kalvado on January 29, 2025, 05:47:24 AMQuote from: english si on January 28, 2025, 08:47:13 PMQuote from: kalvado on January 28, 2025, 07:44:34 PMOriginal rationale for Concorde was exactly what you say about high speed trains.
It failed at the first bit (as-high-if-not-higher capacity) in a big way. With a plane half the size that takes half the time, there's no saving in crew or vehicles needed per passenger.
Concorde needed to seat ~250 rather than ~100 to have been more than just a prestige thing. From some googling, Boom is looking at fewer (but much nicer) seats than Concorde. Unless it can get running costs down a lot, it's not going to be the future of flying.
You assume Concorde was envisioned as the only member of its family. If sst took over as a mainstream air transportation, at least for long haul, things would not be limited to one model. Even Concorde B, a pretty modest upgrade, would make a difference with transpacific range.
SST didn't get to the level of mature technology. My impression is that boom is not so much about specific aircraft (which has very low chances of becoming a reality), but about technology development. shock wave control is mentioned as a big one. If SST gets quiet enough for overland flight, that's a significant step forward.
One may seriously ask what the prototype is about. It is nothing like advertised product. There has to be some big things behind it in order for investors to buy the concept of prototype.
And sort-of as expected, testing was for quiet supersonic flight. They bet on refraction of the sonic shock in the atmosphere.
I cannot say I am very impressed, but it makes some sense
https://boomsupersonic.com/boomless-cruise