I remember seeing this post about Boom going through YC, 9 years ago. It's really cool to see the founder laying out what he wanted to accomplish in the comments and then seeing it happen today. Especially fun looking back at those comments saying it couldn't be done and all the haranguing over the name "Boom" :)
Congrats to the Boom team! Such a great accomplishment.
It’s a good start but I wouldn’t say the critics are proven wrong already.
Even getting the full-scale version flying won’t be enough, you need to make the whole operation economically viable so it actually makes sense to operate it.
I’m not saying they won’t manage to do it, but they haven’t proven that they will be able to do it today.
I don't disagree that it's proof they will succeed, it is however proof that they can build a supersonic aircraft. That is no small thing.
Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one.
In terms of 'risk stacking'[1] they are definitely a big step closer to being in successful.
[1] Risk Stacking is the set of risks a company faces between the current time and being operational. Technology risk is always level 1 (can they build what they say they can build), after that comes market risk (will people buy it with enough margin for both continued operation of the company as well as further development), and the third is execution risk (can they operate efficiently enough to create a net positive economic product.)
Concord was actually a cash cow for all airlines who had them. The only reason why airlines stopped using Concord was because of the crash and the inherent safety issues that were found. But the actual business model worked - limited in scope but it was highly profitable.
“That said, the airlines that flew the Concorde did make a profit. Concorde was only ever purchased by two airlines: BA and Air France. While the concept of the Concorde might not have been a worldwide hit, it was certainly a good market fit for these two airlines at the time.”
Overall it was obviously a money looser because of the high development costs (paid for by the governments).
It only needs to be economically viable for billionaires bored with collecting yachts and $100 millionaires who want to flex with charter flights. Scheduled commercial service is a pipe dream but not a requirement for success.
I would say the critics are already on average proven wrong in the sense that they were betting on something that had a prior of 90% chance of being true. And now those odds might be say 50%. If they were betting people, they would have lost half their money already, while the people betting it would come true have already made 4x. In that competitive sense, they're already wrong.
It takes little skill to predict something like "it won't snow on New York on 3/15/2025". Whereas if you said it will snow on 3/15/2025, and it's true, that's skill.
You also have to make it environmentally sustainable like they did when they talked about a partnership with Prometheus fuels back in 2019, even then what's the point compared to regular planes if these "are likely to burn between 4.5 and 7.5X more fuel than subsonic aircraft in 2035." [0]
I’ve been one of the skeptical commenters (under another username), not because I think it’s technically impossible, or because I hate innovation or bold bets, but because I don’t think the economics make sense, and their original timelines and cost estimates were off by an order of magnitude, at least. Aviation is littered with startups that burned through hundreds of millions over the course of a decade or two and then disappeared.
And as others have pointed out, this is cool, but hardly novel, and after nine years and hundreds of millions, they’ve only accomplished the easiest part of what they need to accomplish in order to carry commercial passengers on supersonic flights. Regular passenger jets built by the most experienced companies in the world take tens of billions and decades to go from conception to flying. Boom has decades ahead of them before they’re going to reach the finish line.
Not that I care as much these days, but would I have liked routine Mach 2 flight that my company would have paid for when I was traveling a lot? Absolutely. But that wasn't in the cards.
And the relatively fewer flights I take today for relatively longer trips in general, I mostly look at paying an extra $5K and think "I could do a lot more interesting things with that money than be more comfortable for some hours" (or hypothetically, save a few hours). And I suspect most people here would be in the same boat if it came to putting cash down on the barrel.
Taken from the first doubtful comment I found in the post you linked.
"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."
Many of the comments related to Boom about them not being able to do what they say are about the timeframes they give. I know I've commented on their unrealistic dates before and likely will again. In 2016 they said they would be flying it in 2017-2018. And they did in fact completely fail to do that as the above commenter predicted. Unless you are saying being off about your schedule by 7 years is achieving your goal?
They say they will be flying their passenger aircraft in 2030. I invite anyone that reads this to check back then and see how they're doing. I can tell you right now though, you are not going to be able to buy a ticket.
You probably want to say i cannot buy a ticket and fly on it as a commercial passenger? . I agree second part is impossible to achieve in <5 years.
Just buying a ticket though, on long delayed products or vaporware is quite common nowadays. Tesla has been selling deposits on vehicles which are years behind schedule, Star Citizen famously has raised > $750m and is under development for 10 years and no release date in sight and there are many other examples in crypto and others that sell tickets like that.
Endless pessimism, even in the face of evidence to the contrary is a hallmark of HN. Thank you for continuing the tradition. May you never hold out hope for anything positive in the future.
This is one of the precious little gifts of living in the future. You get to see what (some) people want to achieve and a few actually make this. It's literally people turning their time and resources into magic. Sure, most of the time they fail and you never hear of them again, but the few that can make something that seems virtually impossible happen are a living standard.
To me, life is a sand box. And my dream is that it would be the reality for everyone.
I have been very critical because the environmental impact of possibly affordable supersonic flight is very concerning. The fuel usage per airplane should be much higher than conventional flights (due to extra drag and extra km flown per day), and they want to have 1000 airpalnes of those one day.
Booms own calcluations [1] show that there is 2-3 fuel consumption per seat compared to conventional airplanes, but that's multiplying the conventional seats with a factor that corresponds to the relative floor area of business class vs economy class. I guess compared to economy class, the factor is probably more like 6-10x. But you'd have to take into account induced demand of such an offering and the long distances involve. It's literally possible for people to blow through their whole annual carbon budget in a day, possibly even in a single flight.
Even their talk of sustainable aviation fuels is pretty much bullshit. The greenhouse-effects (radiative forcing) of flying is generally around 3x the co2-emission alone. I doubt the effect is reduced for a supersonic airplane. So even if you removed the co2-emissions itself due to flight, you still get all the extra emissions - which are multiplied in this offering.
Further, consider that sustainable aviation fuels are still hot air at this point, that they use either too much energy, are too expensive, or don't sufficiently reduce co2 consumption in their production (or even two or three of those), it appears that their talk about environmental concerns is really just hot air. I mean read the executive summary of their fuel consumption document: 4 long paragraphs about how they're super environmentally conscious, then one short paragraph where they admit, oh well, even our own calculations show we're 2-3 times worse than flying conventionally, which is already super bad.
Some back of the envelope calculation show that those 1000 Boom planes may emit 300 Mio Tons of Co2eq emissions, representing about 1% of global emissions. Or the emissions of countries like the UK, Italy or Poland.
Boom’s real challenge isn’t just showing they can go supersonic—it’s designing an engine and airframe combo that can operate at scale, hit reasonable ticket prices, and address stricter environmental policies than Concorde ever faced. The XB-1 proves they’re capable of building a small supersonic jet, but the gap between a funded prototype and a viable passenger fleet is enormous. Unless they can tackle those regulatory hurdles (especially around overland noise), keep operating costs competitive, and deliver a new engine that supports their performance claims, we’re still not much closer to a reliable Mach-plus commercial service than we were in the 1970s. It’s progress, but we shouldn’t confuse a cool proof-of-concept with a profitable flight network.
Any case - truly impressed by their persistance. Pushing something for such a long time despite being so far from any commercial traction feels insance to me.
There's much more to this. Their biggest competition may be cheaper Meta headsets paired via Starlink. Why travel as fast as possible when you can simply be there instantly for a fraction of the cost?
I really don't think that will be competition at all. People like to travel and the demand is there for faster international flights. For business travel, people either prefer to go in person or have to be in person. Also with time zone differences, virtual meetings require one party to often have to meet at odd times. The ticket price probably will be higher than what most people want to spend for vacation, but there will still be plenty of people willing to pay.
Scott Manley posted an interesting video including some interviews and technical details on XB-1 (as well as some time in the XB-1 simulator near the end of the video).
They haven't updated those predictions publicly in a little while. Definitely a huge setback from Rolls-Royce dropping out, and putting together the coalition that's developing the Symphony engine. Latest I've seen on Twitter is Blake Scholl stating the first full-size engine core should be making thrust by end of 2025.
I'm guessing rollout realistically is more like 2029-2030... but even that is a tall order. Unless, of course, they're a lot farther ahead on Overture development generally than they've revealed.
I haven't seen anyone directly address it in the comments here (or in the video): was an audible sonic boom noticeable on the ground during today's test flight?
this plane doesn't look like it was made to produce a low boom. It has a very distinct von Karman ogive [1] fuselage and typical delta wings. I would guess that it's shape is primarily optimized for fuel efficiency at 1.5 mach or above.
If you take a look at NASA's low boom demonstrator [2], you can see that it's much skinnier and the nose is crazy elongated. This is intended to break up the bow shock into multiple parts, thereby decreasing the amount of energy each one has.
Silly question, but would it be feasible to just equip a plan with a telescoping nose merely for this effect that could be deployed prior to supersonic flight?
Given that they were only authorized to fly in the "Bell X-1 supersonic corridor", I'd wager that sonic booms are fairly commonplace there. I doubt there are any residents around.
There are residents for sure in that corridor, but the residents are on Edwards AFB, and are fairly used to sonic booms. When I was on Edwards, there was still the last operating SR-71, and that boomed any time it flew.
>However, in the first 14 weeks, 147 windows in the city's two tallest buildings, the First National Bank and Liberty National Bank, were broken.
If a sonic boom is "noticeable", that's one thing. But the problem is that even from cruising altitude they're shockingly loud. If the sonic boom is merely bearable, that's quite an improvement.
Right, and making an improvement is a big part of Boom's marketing. (It's in their name?!) I'm surprised I didn't hear them make any comments about it in the video during the flight as they crossed the sound barrier each time. Unless I missed it?
It's nice, but it's basically Scaled Composites, Rutan's old company, building a supersonic fighter plane sized aircraft. That's what Scaled Composites does - build little airplanes as test vehicles. Not always little; they built Stratolaunch.
There have been many supersonic bizjet projects.[1] Spike [2] seems to be the only one other than Boom still alive.
Pretty exiting times in aerospace these days. Seeing spacex doing awesome innovation with starship and boom making good progress bringing back supersonic air travel
Until the FAA oversight and permitting regs are updated, it's far too cost and time prohibitive to bring anything (aside from avionics) truly innovative to the GA market.
For a vivid example, look at the multi-year certification torture that even a minor new engine design (DeltaHawk https://www.deltahawk.com/ ) must endure, or hell, the comical marathon of low-lead avgas adoption, or even a basic 12V https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22K-XdV7e-0 lithium battery.
GA is a hell of a fun hobby, but not a market conducive to venture capital timelines or returns.
> Until the FAA oversight and permitting regs are updated, it's far too cost and time prohibitive to bring anything (aside from avionics) truly innovative to the GA market.
Unless you take a look at why those regulations came into place - literally tens of thousands of people dying in fiery crashes. Aviation safety is an incredibly complex topic, and even with the strict regulatory regimes of today, companies like Boeing manage to skirt the rules and proudly sell planes that crash themselves, or fall apart in mid air.
Lowering regulatory boundaries in aviation will certainly result in more death.
There's a company called Airhart that's trying to bring Fly-By-Wire to GA. But (at least in the US) I think innovation would be better focused on regulations - looking at you aeromedical specifically.
Readit News
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286
I remember seeing this post about Boom going through YC, 9 years ago. It's really cool to see the founder laying out what he wanted to accomplish in the comments and then seeing it happen today. Especially fun looking back at those comments saying it couldn't be done and all the haranguing over the name "Boom" :)
Congrats to the Boom team! Such a great accomplishment.
Even getting the full-scale version flying won’t be enough, you need to make the whole operation economically viable so it actually makes sense to operate it.
I’m not saying they won’t manage to do it, but they haven’t proven that they will be able to do it today.
Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one.
In terms of 'risk stacking'[1] they are definitely a big step closer to being in successful.
[1] Risk Stacking is the set of risks a company faces between the current time and being operational. Technology risk is always level 1 (can they build what they say they can build), after that comes market risk (will people buy it with enough margin for both continued operation of the company as well as further development), and the third is execution risk (can they operate efficiently enough to create a net positive economic product.)
“That said, the airlines that flew the Concorde did make a profit. Concorde was only ever purchased by two airlines: BA and Air France. While the concept of the Concorde might not have been a worldwide hit, it was certainly a good market fit for these two airlines at the time.”
Overall it was obviously a money looser because of the high development costs (paid for by the governments).
It takes little skill to predict something like "it won't snow on New York on 3/15/2025". Whereas if you said it will snow on 3/15/2025, and it's true, that's skill.
[0]: https://bsky.app/profile/rutherdan.bsky.social/post/3lgstwvv... -> 2021 NASA assessment https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205009400
I mean, yeah, sure.
And as others have pointed out, this is cool, but hardly novel, and after nine years and hundreds of millions, they’ve only accomplished the easiest part of what they need to accomplish in order to carry commercial passengers on supersonic flights. Regular passenger jets built by the most experienced companies in the world take tens of billions and decades to go from conception to flying. Boom has decades ahead of them before they’re going to reach the finish line.
And the relatively fewer flights I take today for relatively longer trips in general, I mostly look at paying an extra $5K and think "I could do a lot more interesting things with that money than be more comfortable for some hours" (or hypothetically, save a few hours). And I suspect most people here would be in the same boat if it came to putting cash down on the barrel.
"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."
Many of the comments related to Boom about them not being able to do what they say are about the timeframes they give. I know I've commented on their unrealistic dates before and likely will again. In 2016 they said they would be flying it in 2017-2018. And they did in fact completely fail to do that as the above commenter predicted. Unless you are saying being off about your schedule by 7 years is achieving your goal?
They say they will be flying their passenger aircraft in 2030. I invite anyone that reads this to check back then and see how they're doing. I can tell you right now though, you are not going to be able to buy a ticket.
You probably want to say i cannot buy a ticket and fly on it as a commercial passenger? . I agree second part is impossible to achieve in <5 years.
Just buying a ticket though, on long delayed products or vaporware is quite common nowadays. Tesla has been selling deposits on vehicles which are years behind schedule, Star Citizen famously has raised > $750m and is under development for 10 years and no release date in sight and there are many other examples in crypto and others that sell tickets like that.
Deleted Comment
To me, life is a sand box. And my dream is that it would be the reality for everyone.
Booms own calcluations [1] show that there is 2-3 fuel consumption per seat compared to conventional airplanes, but that's multiplying the conventional seats with a factor that corresponds to the relative floor area of business class vs economy class. I guess compared to economy class, the factor is probably more like 6-10x. But you'd have to take into account induced demand of such an offering and the long distances involve. It's literally possible for people to blow through their whole annual carbon budget in a day, possibly even in a single flight.
Even their talk of sustainable aviation fuels is pretty much bullshit. The greenhouse-effects (radiative forcing) of flying is generally around 3x the co2-emission alone. I doubt the effect is reduced for a supersonic airplane. So even if you removed the co2-emissions itself due to flight, you still get all the extra emissions - which are multiplied in this offering.
Further, consider that sustainable aviation fuels are still hot air at this point, that they use either too much energy, are too expensive, or don't sufficiently reduce co2 consumption in their production (or even two or three of those), it appears that their talk about environmental concerns is really just hot air. I mean read the executive summary of their fuel consumption document: 4 long paragraphs about how they're super environmentally conscious, then one short paragraph where they admit, oh well, even our own calculations show we're 2-3 times worse than flying conventionally, which is already super bad.
Some back of the envelope calculation show that those 1000 Boom planes may emit 300 Mio Tons of Co2eq emissions, representing about 1% of global emissions. Or the emissions of countries like the UK, Italy or Poland.
[1] https://boom-press-assets.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Boom_SS...
Any case - truly impressed by their persistance. Pushing something for such a long time despite being so far from any commercial traction feels insance to me.
They must have something that you ain't got...
There's much more to this. Their biggest competition may be cheaper Meta headsets paired via Starlink. Why travel as fast as possible when you can simply be there instantly for a fraction of the cost?
What advantage does Starlink provide here? Isn't it a higher-latency, slower connection than most people have access to at home?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITGgRhjcHAM
How is Boom tracking to their timelines?
https://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2022/American-Airlines...
I'm guessing rollout realistically is more like 2029-2030... but even that is a tall order. Unless, of course, they're a lot farther ahead on Overture development generally than they've revealed.
Hint: it's because the XB-1 is a one-third scale model of their fully fledged Overture.
If you take a look at NASA's low boom demonstrator [2], you can see that it's much skinnier and the nose is crazy elongated. This is intended to break up the bow shock into multiple parts, thereby decreasing the amount of energy each one has.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_cone_design#Von_K%C3%A1rm... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-59_Quesst
https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2003098938/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests
>However, in the first 14 weeks, 147 windows in the city's two tallest buildings, the First National Bank and Liberty National Bank, were broken.
If a sonic boom is "noticeable", that's one thing. But the problem is that even from cruising altitude they're shockingly loud. If the sonic boom is merely bearable, that's quite an improvement.
There have been many supersonic bizjet projects.[1] Spike [2] seems to be the only one other than Boom still alive.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_business_jet
[2] https://www.spikeaerospace.com/
Can someone innovate general aviation
For a vivid example, look at the multi-year certification torture that even a minor new engine design (DeltaHawk https://www.deltahawk.com/ ) must endure, or hell, the comical marathon of low-lead avgas adoption, or even a basic 12V https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22K-XdV7e-0 lithium battery.
GA is a hell of a fun hobby, but not a market conducive to venture capital timelines or returns.
Unless you take a look at why those regulations came into place - literally tens of thousands of people dying in fiery crashes. Aviation safety is an incredibly complex topic, and even with the strict regulatory regimes of today, companies like Boeing manage to skirt the rules and proudly sell planes that crash themselves, or fall apart in mid air.
Lowering regulatory boundaries in aviation will certainly result in more death.