The original announcement has more information about this: https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/post/introducing-symphony-t...
It seems Boom designed some engine ideas and is now partnering with other companies to see if it can be built.
This sounds a little like Magic Leap. Sell great ideas and then conclude it can't be made (yet).
So these are their new partners after Rolls-Royce dropped them [1]?
Hopefully it works out this time. This is a very hard problem, and they're outsourcing one of the most critical components.
[1] https://denvergazette.com/news/business/colorado-s-boom-supe...
I want to believe but my B.S. detector is pegged at 11 with this company.
It's built specifically for an alternative consumable, the largest expensive of a flight right?, that cost SEVERAL TIMES what the standard consumable costs right now?
That's a.. Forward looking design.
It's very disappointing to see how skeptical HN has become about new technology.
Making aircrafts is hard, making supersonic aircraft even harder and making a new supersonic aircraft company hardest of all. That there's progress by Boom should be encouraged. Otherwise we are just saying that aircrafts will continue to be the domain of Airbus and Boeing only who don't have much incentive to innovate.
Here's the link to Airmade SAF [1]. The company making the "net zero" fuel that Boom wants / hopes customers will use for net zero flights. Tons of marketing hype, but at least it's not a carbon offset bait and switch.
Anybody know how much this fuel is supposed to cost relative to fossil jet fuel?
Boom says they have a deal with Airmade for 5M gallons of SAF per year. [2]
Still interested in the business model. Supersonic flight is over land is illegal in the US.
Interesting play on names. A Symphony sounds like the boomed up version of Concorde.
"35,000 pounds of thrust"
Can anyone compare this to other commercial and military engines?
How much time was wasted in meetings to come up with "symphony" for the name of their engine.
Who gives a crap what the engine is called? Just give it a serial number and be done with.
Edit: By serial number I mean some insignificant labelling instead of a marketing campaign. Sell me the supersonic trip not the engines that you have to build to make it work.
- "And it is built specifically for use with Sustainable Aviation Fuel, a cleaner alternative to ordinary jet fuel — albeit one that costs several times more right now."
I've been thinking about this for a while, in the context of multiple different startups. There's this (anti)pattern I see repeatedly: a startup says they're doing something that's an obviously an overwhelmingly bad idea from a business sense, but that creates positive PR in the short term. "We're limiting ourselves to exotic jet fuel multiple times more expensive than our competitors'" is such an example. I've seen so many others, I'm beginning to wonder what's going on.
Is it bait-and-switch? Start out by promising something you don't plan to deliver, to garner goodwill and investment in the near term? And then switch to the "correct" mode later.
Is it unseriousness? Are they not 100% focused on doing everything to get the startup to succeed? Imposing artificial limits on your company isn't the action of a success-at-all-costs mindset. Do they expect to fail and are just coasting?
I'm overlooking something obvious and reasonable. Most founders are smart (?); there has to be a sensible business explanation for this.
(edit: Not that carbon-neutral jet fuel isn't a great idea for a startup. But this is a supersonic airplane company, not a jet fuel company. If your startup's success requires succeeding at two different extremely difficult novel things at the same time, your success probability goes from "epsilon" to "epsilon squared").