The FAQ page addresses several - not all, that's why I said "look up" - of the OP's objections. OP/you might disagree (it is marketing, like you said) but they should state and explain those disagreements instead of acting like Boom hasn't thought of them.
> Not sure if there is basic/core technology development being done or valuable technology being generated. Is supersonic flight essentially just throwing a lot of jet fuel at the problem of wanting to get someplace fast? Are we expecting to see novel insights and spinoff technologies from the development of this plane and industry?
See FAQ page entries: "Will Overture use afterburners like Concorde?" and "Why did it take so long to bring supersonic flight back after the Concorde?"
> I think there's a key, core military angle to this company, where their best and most stable and lucrative customers are sure to be nation-states. I think there is some real value to be generated around super-sonic technology development for missile applications, drone applications, fighter jet applications.
Whether the founder thinks there is a weapons angle and whether the market thinks there is a weapons angle are two different things. The founder often loses that fight.
