
Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes - rdl
http://boom.aero/
======
bscholl
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.

~~~
btilly
Elon 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
The 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)

~~~
schiffern
And 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-
de...](http://www.aviation.com/general-aviation/elon-musk-toying-designs-
electric-jet/)

~~~
schwarrrtz
A 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)

~~~
lmm
I don't see that the engineering is hard. You could just take an existing
design and replace most of the cabin with batteries.

Building an economically viable mass-market aircraft with a 70% mass fraction
might be another question, but if we're just talking about the engineering
challenge of building it at all I don't think that's hard?

~~~
xgbi
And on top of that, "refueling" wouldn't cost the 250k figure that usually
gets thrown in comments. I imagine it being more in the space of a 1-2k$ ; in
which case the reduced passenger capacity might still be worth the premium in
batteries.

------
rdl
Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter,
more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was.

NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally
new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business
centers which were otherwise a full day apart.

Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an already absurdly long
flight in half doesn't make as big a difference. I personally would generally
prefer an F cabin + great Ka-band Internet for 14h, vs. a coach/Concorde sized
seat for 7h.

I wonder how long until there's a Business Jet variant of this, or a
Government/Military/Scientific version -- the operating costs of commercial
aircraft tend to be much less than purpose-built government aircraft, so
there's probably a mission/role for it.

~~~
kilroy123
Very skeptical this little company can go all the way with this. Look at how
hard it is to get a new automobile company up and running. Tesla almost went
completely bankrupt more than once.

I do think there is a need and market for faster than sound air travel. We
have the technology to even minimize the sonic booms for over land travel.

Still, it would take an enormous amount of capital to get a new company up and
running. I would love to see an innovated tesla-like company in the aerospace
industry though. It's badly needed, IMO.

~~~
bertil
I am not saying this is easy, but what they need to do is build one airplane,
and get it to fly back and forth. That is nothing like the scalability and
repeated reliability that building thousands of car is asking for.

I know several people (starting by my brother) who build their own plane
(granted, it was a two-seater several several times louder than a grass-mower
and seemingly slower, but you get the idea). One plane feels fairly doable as
far as hard- to-predict financial issues go — if you have engineers who know
super-sonic, and I can’t imagine having the idea without.

~~~
paulmd
Your brother's plane is likely an ultralight or light-sport category, and
regardless as a kit-built is nowhere near the certification required for
commercial operation. A key requirement of kit-built or experimental aircraft
is that you can't ask money to fly passengers on them. He's not even allowed
to ask for gas money if you take a trip together.

Commercial requirements literally start at "one aircraft that gets the wings
overstressed (if not actually snapped off) during destructive testing" and the
requirements continue steeply onwards from there. You can figure on having it
built by FAA-certified mechanics as well.

The FAA likes having a paper trail if the wings fall off (an extremely common
problem with ultralight/sport aircraft built by non-certified personnel). Not
OK when you're carrying passengers for hire.

~~~
bertil
It was, originally but with some improvements since, and it got the wing-
stress that you mention involuntarily and _while in flight_ (my mom & his wife
were watching — fun times). He got out without a scratch and improved the next
one further.

I can completely see the expected extra cost of having to make _two_
prototypes — and, yes, my first reaction to the article was: “please, please,
let them have a billion in VC money”. But the truth is, the success ratio of
projects about “we want to make a plane that goes that fast” seems far higher
than success ratios of any company.

The business side sounds a lot more doable, given how many people fly those
destinations and would like to do it faster.

------
staceymakano
And the environmental impact is... what? Amazing that this is not a
consideration, especially since we are now in emergency territory:

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/global-
wa...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/global-warming-
taking-place-at-an-alarming-rate-un-climate-body-warns)

It's great for you to leave SF in the morning, go to Sydney to watch the opera
and be back in SF by midnight. But is the environmental impact of you doing
that worth it for everyone else?

~~~
jondiggsit
Absolutely worth it. We live in the future. If you can fly half way around the
world to watch an opera and be home by midnight, do it.

Riding your bicycle to work isn't going to save the planet, neither is
reconsidering a flight.

Environmental concerns should be that of multi-national corporations and
governments. The 1% flying around the world isn't killing the planet. It's
industrial output from cattle and energy production for electricity (coal, nat
gas, oil) and fossil fuels burned for industrial use.

I'm tired of the misplaced moral imperatives. Change needs to happen on a
global, industrial scale, not in your decision to eat a locally-grown kale
salad.

Wake up people.

~~~
oddeyed
Personally, I live in the present.

Snarkiness aside, I think you're mistaken. You can't say 'industrial use' or
'industrial output' and absolve yourself of responsibility. The electronics
that you wrote this comment on were all built with yucky industrial machines,
running on yucky industrial oil which had to pulled out of the ground by
yucky, messy drilling machines. And the kicker is that people did all of that
because they knew that you would buy the resulting device.

If no one bought them, they wouldn't make them! The industrial output is all
there for your benefit. If we all decided that protecting the planet was more
important and invested in making slower, more efficient travel more
comfortable, then it would make a big difference.

EDIT: Also the kale salad thing - since you bring up industrial output from
cattle farming being a major pollutant then surely you have just made an
argument for eating kale salad instead of a tasty burger?

~~~
jondiggsit
Fully agree with you on the kale salad thing. It's delicious, don't get me
wrong, and eating more kale and less burgers will contribute to a reduction in
cattle rearing, reduction in methane gas / deforestation.

My main point is it needs to be a national conversation, one the government is
involved in.

------
ianstormtaylor
After a certain point, airplane technology is no longer going to be the
limiting factor, and we'll have to finally eliminate the TSA to get under 5
hours of total travel time.

~~~
flashman
'eliminate the TSA' is a kill list phrase, I'm so sorry

------
hellyeasa
Sorry, this is ridiculous, it just wont happen (not ever, just this company).
From my experience in the aerospace industry, having a manned prototype
aircraft of this scale fly within 2 years, supersonic no less (!!), is an
impossibility. It is simply not possible, at least with any sane regard for
safety.

Aircraft are hard, you need an army of experienced engineers, like thousands,
and hundreds of millions of dollars of capital and resources to design a 21st
century aircraft. It doesn't matter if you're Elon Musk or whoever, that's the
state of the art nowadays. You need to run numerous (supersonic!) wind tunnel
tests of a design (each test spanning months, with year long lead time before
testing, and months of analysis and design in between tests). There are only a
few facilities in the world (like the 10x10 at Glenn Research Center) that can
provide such wind tunnel testing. Structural and aerodynamic work will take
years of iteration to meet basic design challenges. Actuators, flight
computers, air data sensors, etc... need to be chosen with very careful
forethought via trades with big name suppliers, and lead times for these
things can be 9 months to 1.5 years easy. The engine is as important as the
entire airframe its self, and there are only three engine manufacturers in the
entire world that could make an engine for a plane like this. One would need
to be designed from scratch from one of these manufacturers and would easily
take 3-5 years! Oh, and they would need a ton of capital and thousands of
engineers to do it too. This doesn't happen from a scrappy looking start up
with random engine parts sitting in a room with a whiteboard. This is a joke,
investing in this company is a sure way to throw away your investment. Sorry,
that's the cold hard facts.

Yea, spacex managed to succeed, at least so far, but look how big they are now
and how long it took them to get where they are today. And I would argue that
spacex's engineering challenges are easier than those needed for a 21st
century supersonic jet transport.

Sorry, that's just the state of aerospace engineering today. Major new
aircrarft are only developed by the big boys with the experience and resources
to make it happen over a 10-20 year time frame with continued but small
investments in R&D, and incremental leaps in technology.

~~~
sschueller
I sadly agree. I would love to see a supersonic business jet but the
regulatory requirements alone to get a new aircraft certified takes years.

Even the new Pilatus PC-24 (small business jet) announced in 2013 is not
expecting to ship until 2017. The second prototype just went airborne. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-24](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-24)

------
ant6n
It describes their values as something like 'fly long distance in the morning,
do a bunch of meetings there, and be back before the end of the day'. Does it
make sense to travel 20,000km on one day to make a bunch of meetings, spending
15,000$?

I feel that better tele-presence just makes more sense.

~~~
URSpider94
You have just described a huge fraction of my adult life. Take my word for it,
being there in person is still the only way to close critical business deals.

~~~
monk_e_boy
This. That's why silicon valley. That's why working remotely doesn't work very
well for most people. Non verbal communication is very important for trust.

~~~
hanspeter
Now I'm imagining a meeting in silicon valley where participants are using
only sign language.

------
run4yourlives2
This seems nice, but there's no way 6 guys in a hanger in Denver are going to
build a viable supersonic passenger aircraft that meets FAA standards for mass
passenger travel, is fuel efficient enough that tickets aren't $20K and
somehow also turns a profit.

I know "never say never", but this is about as confident a statement I or
anyone with 3 minutes of reading on the airline industry can make. Margins are
_razor thin_ as it is.

A much better option (IMO) would be to research a Citation/Learjet sized
supersonic aircraft. If you think of the market, the rich would be much more
comfortable leaving from a smaller/private terminal in their private jet,
zipping to London in 4 hours, and then zipping back on their own time, than
they would going through the main terminal and all that nonsense just to save
3 hours in the air. Hell, being in the air in first class is the best part of
the entire trip!

These guys (No connection whatsoever)
[http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/](http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/) have been
trying to do the latter for 13 years. Thirteen. They just got their first
order.

------
dankohn1
I was lucky enough to fly on Concorde in 2002, when they were offering steep
discounts to get passengers back after the crash in 2000. It was clear at the
time that the service was totally uneconomic. The seats were comparable to
economy (although service was champagne and caviar).

I'll always cherish my memories of seeing the curvature of the Earth and the
windows feeling hot to the touch (as well as my Concorde cufflinks).

------
themgt
Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's
supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.

~~~
NickM
"Bad" names can attract lots of attention. Perhaps they're more interested in
turning heads than setting up the best possible brand connotations.

~~~
AdamFernandez
The best possible brand connotations are an interesting way of putting it.
When you are trying to get a company off the ground (figuratively) that is
experimental in nature and will require a lot of capital investment, why
hinder yourself with this 'bad' name right out of the gate? There are any
number of edgy names they could have picked that people didn't associate with
the last thing you want to have happen on an airplane. It is just unnecessary,
and not well thought out. Even if the intent was to get attention, I wonder
how many people at Boom talked to the founders and said: "Are we sure about
'Boom'?"

~~~
ElijahLynn
I didn't associate it with anything negative the first time when I saw the
headline. Didn't even think about it being a bad name till I read the comment.

Not sure as many people will think it is negative as you think.

~~~
kbenson
Well, what they think when they first see it, and what they think after it's
made the rounds of the late shows (Kimmel, Colbert, Fallon, etc) might be
entirely different. This is low hanging fruit.

------
bedhead
Look no farther than Bombardier, a relatively small but nonetheless very
experienced company that's sadly nearly bankrupted themselves by simply trying
to develop 787-like version of a regional jet. It doesn't appear like this
kind of commercial aircraft development is suitable for anyone other than
Boeing and Airbus.

------
meritt
Fastest jet in the world still doesn't solve tarmac delays at JFK.

~~~
ckinnan
Correct-- the real problem with air travel isn't the flight time but the
terrible and inefficient process on the ground with security, customs, baggage
claim. I'd much prefer a longer flight in a slower, less aerodynamic plane
that was safer and roomier.

~~~
rdl
I wonder if there's a market for premium private air terminals, or even entire
airports.

~~~
saryant
That's what private planes are for.

~~~
rdl
Huge cost delta for transatlantic vs transpacific flights on a commercial
aircraft vs a plane which can deadhead.

------
salbri
Hey Blake, I'm Salim. I like what you guys are doing :)

Interested in understanding more about how you plan to tackle cooling and
heating when gaining altitude and hitting supersonic speeds respectively
through materials different to the Aluminium used on the Concorde (you
mentioned carbon fiber), which considering you're planning on reaching M3 will
be important

Also interested in understanding more about what you're base case assumption
for affordability is / what mitigants you've put in place for any change in
these assumptions (rise in oil prices, airlines being able to charge crazy
amounts due to product exclusivity (clearly will be just a handful of player
who have access to this engineering in our life time I imagine) etc...). Would
be nice to hear a bit about what engineering thinking has gone into the cost
saving..are we still looking at the same delta wing we saw previously?

From what I've seen so far very cool and exciting - look forward to following
your story!

------
sremani
As tangent, instead of focusing on NYC to London, a Mach 2.2 travel actually
will make travel from Americas to Asia more comfortable. US to India and US to
China routes benefit the most, and perhaps where people will be interested in
paying top-dollar vs. Europe.

~~~
danielschonfeld
I believe the problem with those was always the sonic boom created by flying
at > 1 Mach. It shattered windows on the ground.

Could be wrong tho

~~~
bduerst
Supersonic flight is banned over populated areas. I'm not sure if it's from
shattering windows or not.

~~~
philrapo
Is there any reason you can't fly subsonic over land, then accelerate to
supersonic over the ocean?

~~~
davidad_
Supersonic-capable aircraft tend to be absurdly fuel-inefficient when
operating subsonic (for aerodynamic reasons I don't really understand).

------
rajacombinator
I wish you the best. Would also like to see this in my lifetime, sooner than
later. Calling it "Boom" seems super facepalmy though, for the obvious
reasons.

------
jakozaur
Great idea, but even with optimistic assumptions it will require a lot of
capital. Something in order of SpaceX $100 mln to get first commercial plane.

~~~
rdl
We live in a world right now where interest rates are bouncing off zero and
sometimes going negative. Capital is probably the least limiting factor here,
assuming there's a viable plan and clear market.

~~~
yxhuvud
The world is only awash in capital if you can convince people you can repay
them.

------
Animats
There's Aerion.[1] They were going to build an 8-passenger supersonic bizjet.
Top speed Mach 1.5, cruise Mach 1.4, price $120 million, first flight planned
for 2021. They're still talking about where to build the factory, but they're
already taking pre-orders.

[1] [http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/](http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/)

~~~
zevets
Since the founder is in the thread, why did they target cruise > Mach 2 and a
40 passenger size? The business jet segment makes a lot of sense for high
speed flight, but this seems like more of a stretch.

------
Keyframe
That's good news for ozone layer. Luckily this seems to be only a few guys, a
wish, and a rendering.

~~~
KMag
> That's good news for ozone layer. Luckily this seems to be only a few guys,
> a wish, and a rendering.

Sorry, what connection does this have with the ozone layer?

The most sense I can make of your comment is that you're concerned about CO2
emissions from supersonic flight and don't understand the difference between
global warming and ozone depletion.

~~~
mrob
The problem is not CO2, but reactive chemicals such as nitrogen oxides
released near the ozone layer, which is a particular concern with supersonic
transport because of the high cruise altitude. See:
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/270/5233/70](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/270/5233/70)

------
robjan
There are many reasons why Boeing and Airbus have not entered the supersonic
market, the most important being that there is simply very limited appetite
for supersonic travel other than for novelty purposes. It's much more
economical to build big, subsonic airliners but increase the comfort and level
of service.

~~~
busterarm
The Concorde is the most uncomfortably small aircraft that I've ever been
aboard.

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone over 5'9"/180lbs...though I guess that's a
non-issue now (except for as a museum attraction).

~~~
ghaff
My dad flew it once because he got "bumped up" from First class on the flight
he normally took. His reaction was more or less "meh." First on the 747 was
more comfortable and arriving a few hours earlier meant he had to grab dinner
in London when he arrived rather than having a nice meal in First on the
plane.

------
danielschonfeld
Be interesting to see how they manage to increase range and payload
substantially where Concorde wasn't able to.

Interesting from a tech point if they manage to build and certify a brand new
supersonic airplane based on new materials. From a customer's stand point
though, hardly anything new.

~~~
jessaustin
One advantage they might have over Concorde is that design began in the 2010s
rather than the 1950s...

------
artursapek
I really like how this talk summarizes the reason supersonic air travel never
took off:
[http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm](http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm).

------
ohitsdom
How can they discuss cost and dates when it sounds like they don't even have
firm plans on the engine? The promise of Boom is very compelling and good luck
to them, but it's just a dream right now.

If it was as easy as the founder makes it sound, Boeing would already be doing
it.

~~~
nharada
I agree, this is an insanely hard problem to solve. There are dozens of
companies with tons of capital and massive R&D budgets that haven't already
done this, presumably because they either think it's too hard, the regulatory
hurdles are too high, or the market is not ready. Why can this startup do what
they can't?

~~~
rohit89
...because they really want to do it? If there's one thing I've learnt,
looking at what the big companies are doing/didn't do is a really bad metric
for things like this.

If this was a company started by Elon, perception of this company would have
been totally different.

~~~
learc83
That's partially because Elon was already massively rich and was able to
attract even more money because he was investing so much of his own.

------
tommynicholas
Super smart - make good margins on a use case for the wealthy to subsidize R&D
and development of scale economics, hopefully eventually get that price down
so we can all use it. Hope it works!

(Writing this just to pre-empt the inevitable $5,000 THIS IS ONLY RICH PEOPLE
comments :) )

~~~
bscholl
Exactly. Already, this is way more affordable than private jets or Concorde.
We'll keep innovating on fuel efficiency, so prices can keep coming down.

~~~
jonknee
The major difference here is the Concorde was real and actually flew. A few
guys with a cardboard mockup of a cockpit can toss out any number for what it
will cost for a ticket.

------
ropiku
One issue with this is the "boom" (from their name). It only works across non-
populated areas due to the noise as their sample routes show. It's going to
severely limit the opportunity.

~~~
beeboop
I would guess this mostly designed for ocean crossing flights. Their example
is NYC to London, as soon as you take off from NYC you're over the ocean. By
the time you accelerate to mach 1.12 and are at the appropriate altitude,
you'd be far enough away from the city for the boom to not matter.

~~~
bscholl
That's correct. We're starting with overwater supersonic because there's no
regulatory barrier to launching service. You can make a much quieter sonic
boom than Concorde, and eventually supersonic overland will be allowed.

------
MattBearman
Feel like their tagline should be "We're making supersonic flight a reality.
Again" :P

Looks interesting though

~~~
bscholl
Good point. It's so sad that Concorde came and went without a replacement in
place. (FYI, I'm a founder at Boom).

------
ejcx
I'm reminded of the first half of "Web Design: The First Hundred Years"[0].
Commercial planes have not gotten faster and have in fact gotten slower.

I personally agree with the sentiment of the blog post, that a 5 hour flight
across the atlantic is fast enough but it's still neat to see startups getting
in to this space.

0 -
[http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm](http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm)

~~~
rohit89
I don't agree. Faster travel is always better - whatever the mode of
transportation. Once you hit a certain speed and price point, it will
radically change the lifestyle of people. For example, the hyperloop with 30
min travel time between SF and LA would mean that people could literally live
in one city and work in another city.

------
seibelj
So are they building their own plane, and launching a new airline? Will they
also sell the plane to other airlines? Or is this trying to be vertically
integrated, like Apple / Tesla?

Also, I echo the other sentiments here about the name, really don't want to
fly on an airline named "Boom". Nor "Explode", "Kapow", or "Blast". And god
forbid if one of their planes crashes during test flights, the PR nightmare
that would result.

~~~
wehadfun
Boeing tried that and it was banned.

------
virtuexru
I hope they have billions of dollars in the bank. Concorde production was
stopped for a reason.

~~~
api
Given SpaceX's well documented experience, I would not trust any cost
estimates from the legacy aerospace industry. It's a deeply moribund field as
a result of decades of stagnation and dependence on government/military
funding.

Still I would be absolutely floored if they could do it for under $500mil, so
what you say still applies-- maybe just not quite to the point of billionS
with an S.

~~~
acveilleux
There's a steep difference in the acceptable safety of a space vehicle and of
a commercial airliner.

~~~
api
There's also a steep difference in the tolerances you can permit. A rocket --
especially one with any hope of reusability -- is something that can't be
built without getting very very close to the maximum tolerances possible
within the bounds of physics. Look at the temperature differentials in a
rocket engine for example... it involves nearly instantaneous transitions from
deep cryptogenic temperatures to ones far beyond the melting point of any
known material that can only be sustained with constant active cooling. The
fact that we can achieve any level of reliability with a device this insane is
really a testament to human ingenuity, but it doesn't give you much margin for
error. Screw up just a tiny bit and the rocket is going to do what the laws of
thermodynamics _really_ want it to do: explode in every direction instead of
just downward.

An airliner, even a supersonic one, is more forgiving. Over-engineering goes a
long way toward adding nines to your reliability. We've been doing supersonic
flight with reusable craft since the 1950s, and there aren't a whole lot of
unknowns remaining. That means it's mostly a manufacturing and operations
optimization problem.

~~~
jkot
It is easier to build a rocket, than supersonic commercial airliner. Soviets
build many rockets, but practically failed on commercial airliner. Americans
gave up.

------
RangerScience
This is perhaps the best thing about income inequality: Things with initial
high cost, low volume are doable until investment dollars, etc, can reduce the
cost.

I'm really excited to see this!

However, there's no indication as to what kind of seating you're going for.
Will these be economy, premium economy (aka, US-national business), or
business (aka, lie-flat) seats?

------
kriro
Naming aside this seems to be positioned really well. 5k NYC/London in that
time is quite the game changer. I like how they position it to cater to the
busy executive who'd love to spend more time with their family.

How can you position it so well and chose such a bad name :D Either way really
excited for this even though I'm likely to fly on it 0 times.

------
esaym
Looks interesting. Anyone know what kind of tech the IT systems are built on?
I'd be interested in sending a resume. I actually used to have a valid A&P
mechanic's license. Always wanted to do software development for airlines but
the large enterprise style environment has always turned me off.

------
vonklaus
I wonder if petrr theil is an investor. He uses the deprecation of the concord
as an example our socoety is slowing down technologically (literally &
figuratively).

I have to imagine demand for international biz class flights have gone up
since the concord retired given that global is a given for almost all
industries.

If you are an executive (even a well paid employee) it could be worth your
time to do this. It is ~1200 usd for a roundtrip flight from NYC to LON.

By the time these guys launch, it will likely be much more. The opportunity
cost/math will be simple. I think that there is a high correlation of people
who value their time > $200 that need international flights.

Depending how prices shake out I could see this working. Obviously, super hard
to do an airline company.

sentiment: cautiously opyimistic

------
ihunter
There is negative chance this project gets off the ground. If the Boeing 2707,
which even with heavy government funds, still failed to make it out the door I
don't think these guys have a chance in hell.

------
sakopov
I think what you guys are doing is amazing and the world is due for airlines
like Boom. I'm also happy to see that this venture is backed by YC. This is a
huge step forward. Your prices bite a little and will likely be out of range
for typical travelers but I'm sure this can be worked on. Is the airplane
designed completely from scratch or will you be basing your engineering work
on the designs of Concorde planes in some way, shape or form?

------
titusnicolae
"""While carrying a full load, Concorde achieved 15.8 passenger miles per
gallon of fuel, while the Boeing 707 reached 33.3 pm/g, the Boeing 747 46.4
pm/g""" It's like an SUV for the sky. We have to get antropogenic carbon
dioxide to 0 until 2050 if we want our species to survive and people come up
with less energy efficient transportation?

------
api_or_ipa
No where does it mention proposed range. This is a big deal: with thirsty
supersonic cruise, your fuel mass fraction will exponentially grow according
to the Rocket Equation. Simply put, the more fuel you carry, the more fuel you
must carry to bring that fuel along.

Flying twice the distance will mean >>2x the fuel. LON-NYC might be
attainable, but tran-pacific will certainly be difficult.

~~~
snaily
The rocket equation applies when you're continuously accelerating your fuel to
ever higher speeds.

The work in supersonic flight is fighting drag, which while many times larger
that for subsonic does not have an appreciable weight dependency. Why would
flying longer require more than proportionally additional fuel?

~~~
api_or_ipa
My assumption is that drag (esp lift induced) is a function of weight. The
more fuel you must carry, the more drag you incur. The more drag you incur,
the more fuel you must carry to over-come it.

I know this is certainly true of subsonic flight. How much it affects
supersonic flight it unknown to me.

------
hathym
looks like an investors-bait.

------
orky56
Has the FAA given any indication on what the decibel threshold might be to
potentially reverse the overland ban on supersonics? You had mentioned in
another comment that the tipping point might be the feasibility and eventual
popularity from going LAX/SFO - Tokyo but that in and of itself may not be
enough satisfy residents and other groups.

------
leonroy
Very interesting and relevant article about the American Concordes which never
flew: [http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160321-the-american-
concor...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160321-the-american-concordes-
that-never-flew)

------
dandare
I would be very interested to see their YC application. Maybe an unfair
competitive advantage?

------
flavio87
This sounds awesome. However I'm a bit saddened that there is no mention of
CO2 or climate change in this discussion. What about building solar planes vs
just faster planes will do even more harm to the environment if people start
flying more because time is now shorter?

~~~
esaym
Just think how much C02 you'd produce if you took a ship across the ocean for
days on end....

~~~
jessaustin
Like, a sailing ship?

------
billions
The airline industry, stagnant since the 1960's is ripe for disruption.

------
jasonlotito
I hope your company motto is "Move Fast and Break Things."

------
skywhopper
This is cool but I would love to see research and investment going into making
planes big enough and (more importantly) efficient enough just to comfortably
sit in.

------
sflicht
Can you carry enough fuel to do a non-stop flight from NYC to HKG or SIN or
SYD? (You give SFO-SYD as an example, so NYC-HKG should be possible I
suspect.)

~~~
sflicht
Oh, I guess the issue is the boom. What about flying subsonic over populated
Canada, and then (slightly shifting the conventional NYC-HKG route) head over
Hudson Bay to accelerate to supersonic velocity?

The return route is often done over the Pacific (because of prevailing wind
patterns), so there would not necessarily be a need to sonic boom over
southeast China.

------
JustSomeNobody
$5000.00 and I can be there in 3.4 hours. $900 if I decide to go slow.

Hmmm... I'm not that impatient.

But then, I'm not that rich either, so maybe that's my problem.

------
pedalpete
I didn't realize the left-right arrows in the hero show other possible routes.

Are you planning on operating as an airline or selling to airlines?

------
electic
Beyond the name, seeing the parts of the plane, with green garage sale price
tags, sitting on a table doesn't instill confidence.

------
hiergiltdiestfu
Mark Kelly on the advisory board, not bad. It's the only person on the team
page that I've heard of.

------
caractacus
The photo of the engineer in what is clearly a cardboard mock-up:
[http://boom.aero/assets/boom-3-cd0822d52cb5c9ecaac404d5cfd09...](http://boom.aero/assets/boom-3-cd0822d52cb5c9ecaac404d5cfd0982c.jpg)
.... does not inspire confidence.

~~~
teraflop
Presumably they're just testing the ergonomics of their seat/cockpit layout,
or something along those lines. Unless you're worried that they're _actually_
going to try to build an airplane out of cardboard, I don't see what the
problem is.

~~~
jerf
"Unless you're worried that they're _actually_ going to try to build an
airplane out of cardboard"

I dunno. They do say "carbon fiber" a lot... and that _is_ a description of
cardboard....

~~~
toomuchtodo
Carbon fiber is incredibly strong when engineered properly:

"During the test, the wings on the 787 were flexed upward “approximately 25
feet” which equates to 150 percent of the most extreme forces the airplane is
ever expected to encounter during normal operation. The test is used to
demonstrate a safety margin for the design and is part of the certification
process to show the airplane can withstand extreme forces."

~~~
david-given
I don't know what a foot is any more, but here's a video of the A380 doing its
wing flex test:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74_w3Ar9nI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74_w3Ar9nI)

------
jacobush
Do you foresee any special challenges in keeping nitrous oxides emissions
down?

------
yeukhon
I have a feeling they will eventually acquired by SpaceX.

------
nailer
Short version: NYC-LON in 3.4 hours.

------
akhatri_aus
It doesn't talk about the sonic booms, which was the main problem with
Concorde (and the fees resulting from it)

------
hackaflocka
Excellent job of trolling us.

------
pinaceae
didn't YC also invest in a nuclear startup? how's that going?

~~~
tim333
Two of them. Helion got some VC
[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/helion-
energy](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/helion-energy)

UPower less so.

------
dalacv
Half the comments on here are like:

The plane is made of cardboard and that just doesn't make me confortable....

------
guhcampos
Is it just me or "Boom" sounds like the worst-name-ever for an airline?

I'm serious. My immediate association for "boom" is an explosion sound, not a
sonic boom. I would feel just as comfortable flying an airline called "Bang",
"Crash", "Kaboom", "Blast" or "OhMyGodWeAreGoingDown".

Please, do rethink that name, I dream of shorter trips to Bora Bora every
single day of my life (not serious now).

~~~
rwc
It is absolutely the worst.

------
CiPHPerCoder
I'm not sure "Boom" is the word I want to mentally associate with aircraft.

------
rurban
People do pay 5K for just a meeting?

~~~
dfrey
No, the company does.

------
jorgecurio
this is just a PR disaster waiting to happen. who in their right minds would
trust this small team to design a supersonic plane vs army of aerospace
engineers at boeing and airbus?

I'd rather enjoy the comfort of flying with Boeing. Track record means a lot
and they have the balls to say they are working on a prototype like they are
building an Android app.

loool, the article highlighting arrogance of SV is real.

tldr: no way I'm getting on this plane and neither should you, it looks
dangerous as fuck.

------
throwaway21816
I dont have a good reason to go to london but you bet your ass im going to fly
on this

------
diskcat
Will it use up 25% of its fuel taxiing to the runway like the concorde?

Cause fuel aint cheap like it used to be.

