It's always possible to innovate. It just happens that often the people claiming too are mostly innovating at separating people from their money. If you want to chat why I think this is more the later than the former feel free to reach out, I love talking aerospace.
So funny thing is you're in a thread about aerospace. If I might hazard a guess, discussing the concrete reasons why you think this is a scam can help educate curious readers about the challenges in this field and can probably start a discussion on the technical details of supersonic aircraft that has less emotional and more technical content.
It doesn't always work out that way though shrug.
From my own context, the work of certifying the airframe alone takes forever, let alone prototyping another engine and one that requires the thrust requirements a supersonic aircraft needs, so I too am really dubious of the timelines. But I'm curious why you think this is a scam as opposed to general exuberance, or why you think innovation in this space in particular is unlikely. There's other variables here like United's purchase; we all know companies like Theranos have defrauded established players like Walgreens, but do you think United did not do their due diligence here?
(I'm also deeply curious on why you feel that high-level criticism of the idea is relevant for this forum but the details of your criticism are not. I feel it'll teach me a lot about what motivates folks to use HN these days, but that's just my own curiosity.)
I wouldn't call it a scam, I think it's like alot of start ups. It looks good, has lots of cool marketing, and "in theory" could work. But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response.
If by "innovation in this space" you mean supersonic commercial air travel, then not really. I could see someone making a couple planes that get bought by the saudi's and a few billionares but if you are talking in terms of eventually reaching all commercial air travel... that's a long way off if ever. Going faster takes you in the wrong direction in terms of efficiency (and thus cost and environmental impact), sound, manufacturability (and thus cost), maintenance (and thus cost), you get the picture.
As for United, I'm sure it sounded good at some point to someone. I guess we can check back in 5 years and see how that investment is going.
>But after a few years of missing deadlines and goals (because they were unrealistic) and eating up money, the "in theory" could work turns into "in practice" did not. I work in the area so maybe it's just more galling to me hence my snarky response.
What are the technical reasons they are behind schedule? Is the physics problem just too difficult, and the problem they've set out to solve just too hard without, idk, government backing?
It's not really one thing it's that it takes time and immense resources to put planes/engines through the engineering process and get certified. The 737 Max, took something like a year from conception to beginning of certification, another 3 years for the first prototype, 2 more years to get certified and go into production. 6 years total an that was:
1. Only a plane modification, not a brand new plane in a novel space,
2. Being designed and built by an organization 100x the size that lives in that space.
3. Was not also hinging on designing brand new engines.
On the technical side, engines are very difficult to get right. You are often operating at or beyond material temperature limits, relying on complex analysis that take years to perform and then years to validate with actual testing, and then pushing parts to fatigue limits in service.
you realize this is a non comment that just says “this is complicated” right?
Sure it’s complicated but if SpaceX could start falcon design in 2002 and send one to suborbital flight by 2007, I don’t see why Boom cannot.
Maybe their execution is not on par with SpaceX, maybe it’s mismanaged but that’s a different thing entirely compared to your view of “It’s so complex, so many different factors etc etc”.
You realize you could have made the exact same argument about spaceX and Boeing/ ULA. ULA had stupidly long timelines to bring a rocket to production, no plans ever to make it reusable and now they’ve been disrupted, perhaps permanently. All they have is a few government contracts keeping them alive.
If Boom succeeds it will be similar, people will laugh Boeing and their bloated timelines off the room, Boeing will only be alive due to some govt contracts and Boom will thrive.
"Amended type certificates typically take 3-5 years to complete. By comparison, the certification of a new aircraft type can take between 5 and 9 years."
Boom doesn't get to ignore FAA certification, neither would the organization making brand new engines for them, which are not included in that 5-9 year number (although it could go in parallel). I'm not pulling this out of thin air, there is a huge amount of history of developing planes and engines that you can look at (I'm more familiar with the engines side). It is not cheap, fast, or easy... so yes, I guess I am saying it's complicated, haha.
Separately, look at the market for rocket launches in the 2000's. There was no one innovating, people were using decades old tech and not pushing anything new because they didn't have too. There was a place for SpaceX to come in. If you asked me then though, yes, I think I would not have thought there chances were great, and for similar reasons, but I think I would have thought it was possible.
The difference is there is no market here. You don't have governments and commercial entities lined up around the corner to get a seat to go from NYC to London a few hours quicker. You do have competitors that are the last survivors of 70 years of competition (on the engine side) that have not been resting on their laurels and are some of the most technically competent companies in the world in any field. Boom is not in the same position SpaceX was. Look at Boom's last 10 years and SpaceX's first 10 and give an honest assessment if you think they are comparable.
You make valid points about the market, I cannot be sure how big the market for supersonic travel is, but I’m glad they are trying.
I don’t know about the FAA, I would expect they had similarly long timelines for rockets but when a company as fast as SpaceX came, they adjusted, but then again rockets does not involve humans while planes do, so I can see why it would be more rigorous and extensive, but still 5-9 seems really slow.
I guess my criticism is high level because, in my mind, the timeframe they market and what they claim to be trying to do in it, is so beyond what is reasonable that touching on simple aspects of the project, such as all the steps they need to go through before getting to their goal, is adequate to highlight unrealistic marketing for what it is.
If you look at some of my other answers I go more in depth on specific topics to provide more technical content. If you are curious to learn something more you can always ask? Alot of my posts are questions.
Edit: I wrote this and then saw there was more to your post I missed (or got added? maybe I'm having a stroke, do you smell toast?), will respond in below.
