
Boom Wants to Bring Supersonic Civilian Travel Back - JumpCrisscross
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/this-aerospace-company-wants-to-bring-supersonic-civilian-travel-back
======
maerF0x0
For my current flight patterns, I typically spend more time off the plane than
flying. Showing up early, dropping baggage, customs/security, waiting at the
gate, inefficiently loading the plane, pre-flight checks, taxiing (on/off
runways), getting my baggage.

Each of those points could be much more efficient:

1.) Prescreen me for all things so that I exit the uber and walk upto the gate
directly 2.) Let me print my own baggage tag at home and drop it at the gate
when I arrive 3.) Dont let cheap idiots bring on carry on baggage and take up
200 ppl's time trying to jam it into an overhead bin 4.) Dont make me sit on
the plane until absolutely ready, with a runway slot ready to go 5.) When I
get off the plane, hand my luggage directly to me instead of making me wander
around an airport looking for a terribly slow conveyor belt to eventually get
my bag

I presume all of the above doesnt happen because, at the end of the day, there
aren't sufficient travelers willing to pay the cost of implementation.

~~~
pcl
_5.) When I get off the plane, hand my luggage directly to me instead of
making me wander around an airport looking for a terribly slow conveyor belt
to eventually get my bag_

It turns out that this has been studied quite a bit. You need to walk halfway
across the airport because it reduces the amount of time you eventually stand
staring at the belt waiting for your bag, and most people prefer "occupied
time" (e.g., walking halfway across the airport) to "unoccupied time" (e.g.,
waiting at a baggage claim right next to the flight).

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/why-
waiting...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/why-waiting-in-
line-is-torture.html?_r=0)

~~~
lazaroclapp
Sure, but the point is you could, in theory, redesign both plane's cargo
holds, and airport systems, so that the moment you get out of the plane (or
within 2 min tops of docking) your bag is there in a square of the floor
labeled with your name and sorted alphabetically. Of course, doing so might
not be cost effective, but I bet it remains cheaper than supersonic flight.

~~~
0xffff2
In what theory? How would you actually go about accomplishing this? I'm sure
the airlines would very much like to know how to unload a full plane's worth
of cargo in 2 minutes.

~~~
marme
they actually built systems for this but it has never been implemented.
Basically you make the cargo hold completely removable from the plane. There
is a box that slides in and out of the bottom of the plane. Someone just
drives up with a fork lift style vehicle pops off the container and takes it
inside the terminal where it can be dumped out onto the conveyor belt. I am
surprised they have not automated the entire baggage system. It seems like it
would be feasible to automate just about everything. You know where the plane
is going to park every single time just fix that position and have something
under it which can directly attach to the plane and pull the bags off and
conveyor them under the ground and into the terminal and it can auto sort the
bags to the right destination. It would not be easy to build but it is doable
and would remove the need of large percentage of workers in the airport

------
the_duke
Supersonic aircraft projects have come and gone over the years. They usually
dwindle away into oblivion.

The only company that I would take seriosly right now is Aerion
([http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/](http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/)). They
are working on a supersonic private jet (12 passengers). They already have
quite a few orders (notably 20 jets for Flexjet, 120 Mil a piece) and a
cooperation with Airbus, who is apparently helping them. Probably in exchange
for their drag reducing "laminar flow" technology.

Building a new aircraft is a huge undertaking, both in terms of technical
challenges, financing and organization. A supersonic one even more so.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but this doesn't sound too promising.

~~~
nether
All the same FUD spoken during the early days of SpaceX. It was correct in
most cases; Bigelow, Blue Origin, Xcor are floundering, SpaceX is the
exception. I just hope we have more entrants in this industry to increase the
odds of success.

~~~
rbanffy
Space access never had the cost pressures of passenger air transport. It's not
much easier than what Virgin Galactic is trying to do.

------
vmarsy
One of the issues with airplanes in general but especially with the Concorde
at high altitude was radiation [1][2]. Would a carbon-fiber plane protect
better or worse than an aluminum plane? My intuition tells me that aluminum is
much better at shielding from radiation than carbon-fiber.

The Concorde was flying between 45,000 and a maximum altitude of 60,000 feet.
If Boom flies at 60,000 feet, radiation is also going to be a bigger issue.
I'm curious how the engineers are planning to address this.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12785320](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12785320)

[2] [http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-
NAIRAS.html](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html)

~~~
daleg
They aren't going to address it because it isn't an actual problem that needs
to be addressed. You have far, far more to worry about with radon gas seeping
up through cracks in your own home's foundation than a trivially-higher amount
of cosmic radiation plinking you for 2-3 hours. BTW, it's the density of a
material which offers radiation protection, not solely whether it's a metal or
not.

~~~
godelski
I disagree. Concord crew surpassed US and EU regulations for allowed dosages
(see my post above). Different materials have different attenuation lengths.
So it isn't just density. Especially if we get into the whole neutron problem.
But I'm keeping this brief: materials make a huge difference.

------
stcredzero
_“The people we talked to looked over our plan and concluded it is technically
feasible,” he says. “This is not science fiction.”_

There is a big difference between being not Sci-Fi and being economically
feasible. Though arguably, there is a subset of Sci-Fi that also includes
social science ideas.

 _“You kind of design a plane around an engine rather than the other way
around,” Aboulafia says. “Let me know when we can hear their engine.”_

------
loader
For more info, here's the previous thread about Boom which is a Ycombinator
company.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286)

------
wazoox
A 40 seater is only slightly bigger than say, a Dassault Falcon. Dassault has
been building supersonic jets for 60 years; they certainly know how to build a
supersonic private jet, but they never actually tried it. Apparently, there
are no suitable engines available (tough problem). And is there a market?

~~~
daleg
There are tons of suitable engines and engine designs. The big problem is: Who
would buy it? No manufacturer in the already niche, thin-margined, and
overstocked business/charter jet market is going to be the first penguin off
the iceberg to find that out. Even with a new subsonic model, one flop can
mean a rapid financial death for the company.

There are plenty of other considerations outside of the factory floor and
design rooms to consider - operating costs, the availability of qualified A&Ps
to fix the thing, the parts network, the cost of the parts (if you buy a $15M
plane, you're going to pay $15M plane prices for spares and overhauls).
Insurance will surely take their pound of flesh for something that's A) a
company's first product B) a new category, and C) supersonic. Finally, with
the general public being decidedly anti-aviation, the noise profile of this
plane might very well limit where it can fly in and out of. It's a basic
matter of aeodynamics, and the same problem that the Concorde experienced
almost 50 years ago.

------
wizardforhire
I would love to see domestic super sonic air travel. Sadly I don't think it
will ever come to be.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tes...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests)

For international flights the technology is more than proven. It's purely a
market problem. I wish the boom teem well.

~~~
0xffff2
It's still a long way off, but we are working on building quieter supersonic
planes [1]. I think we will almost certainly see the return of international
supersonics first, but never is a very long time.

[1]: [http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-
build-...](http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-
quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet)

------
notjustanymike
I've said it before: don't call your airline company "Boom". Just don't do it.
It's like calling your shipping company "Wash", or car company "Impact".
You're just asking for the headlines.

Plus anyone in the airport discussing your company will be invited for some
enhanced screening.

------
technofiend
Well since they're a y-combinator company maybe they'll build a working model
and be bought out as so many startups are. With a working model in hand I
could see BAC or Boeing saying "Great work, now let us show you how to get
them through FAA's ETOPS certification and build 100 a year."

------
jedc
I find it weird that they didn't mention the name of the UK airline in the
article. When they launched around Demo Day it was all over the news that it
was Virgin & Richard Branson, and all of those articles are still online.

------
flubert
What is the carbon footprint of supersonic flight vs. subsonic flight?

~~~
VLM
Per wikipedia the Concorde and 707 are vaguely similar size and the Concorde
successfully pulled off 15 passenger miles/gallon and the 707 got about 30
passenger miles/gallon around the same time.

Now JetA isn't service station gas so its slightly unfair to compare the 15
pMPG of a Concorde to a 12 MPG single passenger pickup truck. But it does give
you a general idea that everything being equal (size, technology level, risk?)
the supersonic plane will burn about twice the carbon footprint of a similar
subsonic plane.

Note that with a full modern subsonic plane its quite easy to get a carbon
footprint staggeringly better than a single driver in an obese modern SUV or
truck. The problem is if you're fair and let the aircraft people use any thing
they want such as 2016 technology and engineering, you have to let the car
people use any thing they want, and my wife's Prius is trivially capable of
providing reasonable comfort at 300 passenger miles per gallon.

Supposedly the largest 777 model does better than 70 pMPG per my commercial
pilot buddy (who teased me quite a bit about my wife's Prius only getting 60
pMPG when there's only one passenger, so he burns less gas flying than she
does driving). So everything being equal if stereotypical subsonic planes have
roughly doubled in pMPG then its not ridiculous to expect over 30 pMPG on a
modern supersonic plane. My Yaris commuter car struggles to get 30 pMPG with a
single passenger (me) so to a first approximation a modern supersonic aircraft
damages the environment about as much as driving alone in my subcompact
commuter car. Not great, not awful. Eh.

Obviously my car's performance in transatlantic and transpacific service is
somewhat inferior to the performance of the proposed plane.

~~~
mantas
Well, technically Prius would have 300-ish pMPG. If a pilot was the only
person in the plane, it's pMPG would be much much worse. Even better
comparison would be a shuttle bus pMPG..

~~~
rwallace
But that depends on how it's typically operated. Nobody uses an airliner as a
one-person transport, but unfortunately many people use a Prius that way.

~~~
mantas
On average, airplanes are not used to 100% capacity either. Some flights are
oversold, some are half-empty. Sometimes they're almost empty. Cars frequently
are occupied by 2 or more people, sometimes they are full too.

I never saw any hard statistics, but it's definitely not cars 90% 1 occupant,
planes always near-full. It's anecdotal evidence for sure, but my car is, on
average, as full as average plane I took. Especially if we count per-mile
rather than per-trip.

~~~
VLM
Things also get weird with air cargo. My pilot buddy says they fill the cargo
area and aircraft to the weight or volume limit pretty much every flight he
takes. He may fly for a weird carrier or on weird routes, but it sounds
believable that there is infinite supply of "I wanna get there faster" cargo.
You might see ten empty seats but merely means there's a one ton MRI thingie
that's on emergency shipment in the cargo area. He mentioned they're really
into containerization and a small container alone costs $200 so I am almost
scared to ask how much it costs to actually ship it. Then again everything
aerospace rated costs a hundred times more, so a $2 isn't so ridiculous.

Aacargo.com division of american airlines proudly advertises they ship 100
million pounds of cargo per week, and also advertise they have 6000 flights
per day so thats averaging about a ton of cargo on every flight and a ton
represents maybe ten empty passenger seats, so your average flight should have
ten empty seats. Of course reality is the seats might be near empty at
midnight and 100% full during the day, etc.

------
neaden
So assuming they are get this to be feasible it seems like their model is that
their are enough business travelers who are willing to forgo comfort for a
slightly faster trip. My instinct is that no, they would rather have the
comfort of a larger plane, but as I'm not an international business traveler I
could very well be mistaken.

~~~
api
International flights can be brutally long. Los Angeles to Amsterdam is like
14 hours. I could definitely see a market for this.

~~~
neaden
But are they very brutal when you are in a nice big comfortable business class
seat with room to stretch, more privacy, space to work, and a drink?

~~~
kchoudhu
I do LAX-DOH every couple of months. It's 16 hours each way, and regardless of
class flown it is hell.

Cut it down to five hours, and I'll gladly pay $5000 for a round trip ticket.

------
rbanffy
Everyone here would like to bring supersonic civilian travel back. That
doesn't mean it's feasible.

Building an economically attractive passenger plane is the first part. Then
it'll need to be certified. At some point, it'll have to be sold for profit.

I genuinely wish them good luck. They chose a formidable challenge.

------
jcoffland
Then they ought to change their name. People are already afraid of flying and
even more so at supersonic speed.

------
kchoudhu
The name is something I don't necessarily want to associate with an airplane.

~~~
imglorp
It's a clever name, drawing on two of the three related meanings for Boom. But
yeah, the first bad press will jump on that one.

------
Fej
I would expect organizations to pop up protesting the noise, similar to
Concorde.

------
6stringmerc
Hm, I wonder if Boom Technology's SST or Moeller's Air Car will hit the market
first?

------
unethical_ban
Propose submission title change to "Boom Technology" instead of "This
Aerospace Company".

~~~
gaur
Old title: clear what kind of company was pushing supersonic air travel, but
unclear which company in particular was doing it.

Proposed title change: clear which company was pushing supersonic air travel,
but unclear what kind of company it is.

Actual title change: unclear that a company is involved at all. What is
"Boom"? Do they just mean that a general economic boom is going to bring
supersonic air travel back?

~~~
unethical_ban
I feel "aerospace company" might be implied by the fact they're working to
bring back civi supersonic travel. I suppose it could be "just" an advocacy
group.

------
jpm_sd
This company appears to consist of software engineers playing dress-up. There
is no reason to expect them to succeed, and no market need that they are
serving.

Edit: I have worked on several teams in the past where the leadership
consisted of people who "don't know what can't be done". They hire a bunch of
domain experts, then ignore and/or contradict them until the company runs out
of money.

~~~
abstractbill
From the article: "Today, Boom has 11 people, six of them pilots... Unlike
Scholl, these folks have serious industry bona fides. Joe Wilding, the co-
founder and chief engineer, was a standout at three aerospace startups,
designing passenger planes from scratch. Andy Berryann, the head of
propulsion, used to work at Pratt & Whitney, building parts of the engine for
a supersonic fighter jet. Other employees came from NASA, Lockheed Martin, and
a Northrop Grumman subsidiary, Scaled Composites."

~~~
Pamar
I am pretty sure they know how to design (and maybe build) airplanes. This
will not automatically mean they will be good at selling them, or build a
business around them.

~~~
whiddershins
Isn't that the whole point of YCombinator?

