Boom Supersonic Successful Test Flight

[kalvado]

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. 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.

*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...

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

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. 

[kalvado]

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.

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

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.

[english si]

Original 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.

[kalvado]

Original 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.

[MikeTheActuary]

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.

[bulldog1979]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

Yes, they just lost a vip helicopter so they need more fancy toys for big shots!

[kkt]

This morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier 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.

[kernals12]

This morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier 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?

[kalvado]

This morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier 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.

[kernals12]

This morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier 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

[kalvado]

This morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier 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?

[GaryV]

This morning, over the Mojave desert, the startup Boom successfully broke the sound barrier 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?

[Scott5114]

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?

Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where nothing is exciting unless shareholders say it is.

[kalvado]

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?

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.

[Scott5114]

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?

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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?

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?   

[english si]

Concorde 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.

[kalvado]

Concorde 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.

[Scott5114]

I 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...

[Max Rockatansky]

I 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.   

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

Isn't this a nonstatement?

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.