Airlines are trying to resurrect the Concorde era:
American Airlines on Tuesday announced that it would purchase a fleet of 20 planes from Boom Supersonic, a startup building aircraft that can travel faster than the speed of sound. The order came after United Airlines announced last year that it would buy 15 of the company's Overture planes. Passenger flights aren't expected until the end of the decade, but if everything goes according to plan, commercial supersonic flight could return for the first time since the age of the Concorde.
Boom says its planes are designed to go at speeds twice as fast as a typical flight. That would be fast enough to get someone from Newark to London in just three and a half hours, and from Los Angeles to Honolulu in just three hours. The first of these flights is scheduled for 2026, and the company plans to start carrying passengers by 2029. If all works out, United has the option to buy at least 35 more planes from the startup; American has the option to buy another 40.
But there's another twist. Boom also wants to make these flights environmentally friendly, promising that these planes will be "net-zero carbon from day one," and rely completely on sustainable aviation fuel, which is repurposed from waste or organic sources.
[...] The idea of supersonic flight is appealing because it's extremely fast and would shave hours off of transoceanic flights. That's not to mention that it would be pretty cool to travel faster than the speed of sound.
But as the Concorde, the world's first and last supersonic commercial passenger jet, showed years ago, the prospect of an environmentally friendly supersonic flight is not just a highly ambitious (and potentially impossible) goal. It's also one that comes with its own set of challenges, from regulatory hurdles to solving noise pollution. Making supersonic flight economically feasible amid concerns over climate change is a difficult feat. Some experts say that the idea of green supersonic flight is almost self-contradictory. The Concorde, they note, was pretty terrible in terms of emissions.
Related Stories
Boom's supersonic jet is facing a lack of interest from engine suppliers:
Boom recently lost its jet engine partner for the Overture supersonic jet, and other major engine manufacturers aren't interested in the project either, Insider has reported. After Boom signed an "engagement agreement" with Rolls-Royce for supersonic jet engines back in 2020, the latter announced last week that it had left the project. Now, other major jet engine manufacturers including Pratt & Whitney, GE Aviation, Honeywell and Safran Aircraft Engines have told FlightGlobal they're not currently interested in supersonic aircraft.
Boom said that the project is still on track, though, and that it will soon announce an engine partner. "We can reconfirm our intention to announce Boom's selected engine partner and transformational approach for reliable, cost-effective, and sustainable supersonic flight, later this year." Boom told Insider. The company has 20 airplanes on order from American Airlines and 15 from United. It plans to build build a factory in California and start flying passengers by 2029.
For its part, Rolls-Royce said that "after careful consideration... [we] have determined that the commercial aviation supersonic market is not currently a priority for us and, therefore, will not pursue further work on the program at this time."
Previously: Airlines are Trying to Resurrect the Concorde Era
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2022, @08:56PM (10 children)
*sigh* boring... Wake us when we get 200 pax at mach 3.. LA to Sydney in less than four hours
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 24 2022, @10:50PM (8 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2022, @11:23PM (7 children)
The biggest obstruction to everything is human economics. Technology is trivial
(Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Thursday August 25 2022, @12:30AM (6 children)
Except of course, when the technology or its lack is the economics obstruction. As I read someone remark, the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt were incredibly wealthy, but they couldn't put a BB in orbit.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2022, @03:39AM (5 children)
As usual you are just being obtuse. Economics the bottleneck in all human endeavors, it's like trying to run Windows 11 from a cassette tape
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 25 2022, @03:50AM (4 children)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2022, @04:46AM (3 children)
No it doesn't. Technology is rationed by economics. Economics is our only real impediment to everything
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 25 2022, @11:01AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 25 2022, @12:50PM
Here, we're talking about the systems under study rather than the study itself - a common thing with the term. An activity would have to be pretty esoteric and divorced from reality to not have anything to do with this at all - that is no goods or services at all. So economics is one of our fundamental things. But it is possible to overstate its importance. I believe that's done here. Technology provides huge things: capability, efficiency, and knowledge/awareness/communication that economics itself doesn't provide. As I noted earlier, the ancient world didn't have the capability to do anything in space, even to place minute objects in orbit no matter how you arranged their economies. They weren't even aware that was a thing you could do (orbits weren't even a real concept until a few centuries ago with Newton, and the idea of actually putting something into orbit - an artificial satellite - didn't come about till around the beginning of the 20th Century).
Nor does it make sense to construct global trade routes, if you don't have ships or navigation technology capable of handling ocean. Crossing ocean at relatively low risk, for example, wasn't possible until the 15th century.
An example of how technology - beyond the previously mentioned, limited concept of bottlenecks - has shaped the world is the globalization of trade. Obviously, it's pure economics being trade and all. And it has resulted in the most profound changes in the human condition ever. We now have the capability to turn the entire world into developed world. Technology makes that possible. No amount of economic activity can compensate for capabilities you don't have because you haven't developed the technologies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Thursday August 25 2022, @04:00PM
> Technology is rationed by economics. Economics is our only real impediment to everything
Thats MBA thinking.
Development of technology relies on thousands of incredible leaps of new concepts, new ideas, new thoughts. It is a corner stone of human endeavour that you should not take for granted. To put it another way: technological development is a process that is highly non-linear with the amount of resource (staff, cash) invested. It relies on a few key individuals to push *this* technology or *that* technology. Most people, even trained scientists, are simply not capable of coming up with new ideas.
You can't simply inject cash and expect technology to appear.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2022, @03:12PM
Short distance
Supersonic private jet: 0.5 hours at airport, 0.5 hours to airfield + 1 hour flying time = 2 hours total time
Supersonic airliner: 3.5 hours at airport (3 hours check in, 0.5 hour depart), 1 hour to/fro airport + 1 hour flying time = 5.5 hours total time
Normal airliner: 3.5 hours at airport, 1 hour to/fro airport + 2 hour flying time = 6.5 hours total time.
Mid distance
Supersonic private jet: 0.5 hours at airport, 0.5 hours to airfield + 3 hour flying time = 4 hours total time
Supersonic airliner: 3.5 hours at airport, 1 hour to/fro airport + 3 hour flying time = 7.5 hours total time
Normal airliner: 3.5 hours at airport, 1 hour to/fro airport + 7 hour flying time =11.5 hours total time.
The last I checked a supersonic airliner is unlikely to be able to fly from New York to Singapore nonstop (which takes about 24 hours total time). But if it can and can cut that total time from 24 hours to about 12 hours then airline passengers might start asking "how much".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday August 24 2022, @09:02PM
net zero is what you put on the prospectus to lure investors.
This thing hasn't even flown as a prototype, yet.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2, Informative) by Snotnose on Wednesday August 24 2022, @09:09PM (4 children)
Test flights starting 4 years from now.
Test flights.
I somehow doubt you'll be flying mach speeds on a commercial airline within my lifetime.
Yeah, I'm old. But not old enough to think this stupid thing is going to make anyone money outside of 3-4 folks with the inside edge.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday August 24 2022, @10:02PM (3 children)
I somehow doubt the regulatory environment will be encouraging for a fossil-fuel-based future for air travel in four years.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday August 24 2022, @10:52PM
If people want to keep flying, then the regulators will have to back off. Electrical air vehicles make even less sense than supersonic ones do.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday August 25 2022, @04:39AM (1 child)
I'm pretty sure those planes can also be fitted to fly with synthetic fuel.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday August 25 2022, @04:50AM
Err, maybe I shouldn't post before my first coffee … the summary indeed explicitly says that it will not use fossil fuel, no fitting necessary.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2022, @11:11PM
Southern California.
Orange County area.
Neighbors here are riled by kids setting off fireworks and giving their pet pooches the PTSD.
They haven't heard sonic booms yet...
(Score: 2) by Rich on Wednesday August 24 2022, @11:49PM (5 children)
I remember during the cold war days, the Luftwaffe would occasionally take their Starfighters and Phantoms supersonic over the northern German (mostly) plains, where my grandparents lived. That was a solid "bang", but I don't remember it to be too earth shattering. But recently the alert element with two Eurofighters intercepted a civilian airliner whose radio had gone silent, over a metro area. MASSIVE twin bang, so loud that I first thought of a major catastrophe. I can't imagine the average NIMBY to put up with anything remotely similar.
However, from the renewable side, I sort of welcome the idea. It just needs to come with hard ties to actual renewable sourced synfuel, where the planes can ONLY top up that stuff and nothing else, to make sure the infrastructure is solidly in place. No certificate crap where the local mafia in Kalmykistan rubberstamps "carbon-free" paperwork that their old VVER-440/230 (which is down, waiting for spares) had full power output on 590 days during the last year...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday August 25 2022, @04:48AM (2 children)
It could be the difference between rural and metro area. Lots of houses nearby reflecting the sound certainly should make for a louder bang locally.
Of course it could also just be that in the recent event the planes were much closer to you than the training ones from your youth.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday August 25 2022, @02:36PM (1 child)
Or just flying lower. Sometimes the 'bang' of an F16 going through Mach 1 is indeed much louder than usual (live near a NATO bombing ground).
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday August 25 2022, @03:01PM
Flying lower makes them closer (assuming the same horizontal position).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2022, @12:33PM (1 child)
IIRC the flight rules for the concorde restricted supersonic flight to trans-ocean segments of its flight. Once they cleared the coastlines they were free to throttle up. That would have been at a decent altitude as well but I'm not sure how much that changes the impact of the sonic boom at sea level.
(Score: 2) by Rich on Thursday August 25 2022, @02:10PM
Indeed, so that vaporware jet would be restricted to routes like LA-Hawaii. I think it's still loud if they fly high. The Eurofighters might have been at 8 to 12 km, possibly on afterburners. So high that I didn't notice engine noise at all. The bang intensity might have to do something with speed. They were on Flightradar, so one could have had a look how fast they were, I think they might have used the chance to test their rated capabilities (which I think are published low) but not have given away what they could really achieve on war emergency power, so still past Mach 2, while the cold war jets might just barely have gone supersonic at lower altitudes.
Still, the engine noise alone isn't something to frown upon. The F-104 had that classic screaming howl, while the F-4 were more of a "heavy metal concert" experience. I looked up the ratings, the F-4 had two 50kN turbojets, against the Concorde's four 140kN bomber (Vulcan) engines. Never heard the Concorde, but that must have been a buzz that puts the flyover experience from Wayne's World to shame. ;) Our NIMBYs would instantly be on the phone to their lawyers, but in a state of shock unable to speak if that was to be deployed on a new route. Maybe they now have fan engines and are a bit more mellow, but it's not going to be a high-bypass neighbour-friendly design.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Thursday August 25 2022, @03:07AM (3 children)
I remember when airline passengers were treat like valued customers, instead of criminals.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2022, @04:01AM
Seconded, I used to enjoy flying. Not sure exactly when that changed, but 9/11/2001 is as good a date as any. I've done a lot less flying since then.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2022, @04:51AM (1 child)
I remember when airline passengers didn't act like criminals...
(Score: 3, Touché) by mhajicek on Thursday August 25 2022, @06:30AM
You're old enough to remember before 1939?
https://listverse.com/2016/09/05/10-frightful-firsts-in-the-history-of-crime/ [listverse.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek