Talk:Boom Technology

Dubious

The article states that an unbuilt aircraft can travel at Mach 2.2. Come on, there is no way that the claim can be proven until such time as the aircraft is a) built and b) flown. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It should say it is "planned" to travel at Mach 2.2 -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Overall, the article is too much replication of corporate forecasts or PR, wording should become more neutral, e.g. "according to company statements in 2017, ..." Meerwind7 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I did a major revamp on Dec 5/6, checking and mining refs, updating the layout and the lead. I tried to avoid corporate talk, there is no affirmative speed claim. Most sources use company statements because there isn't other material anyway. Flightglobal and AvWeek won't report anything as a fact, they are following aircraft projects since a century. There are technical criticism though like leeham, or reuters (citing Leeham).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The Boom Supersonic web site currently (June 3, 2021) states that the speed of their airplane will be Mach 1.7, which is far more believable than Mach 2.2. The company has almost completed a demonstration aircraft, called the XB-1. We should know how fast it can really fly within a year.

Requested move 13 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved ~ Amkgp 💬 14:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Boom Technology → Boom Supersonic – BilCat pointed out that Boom Technology is the legal name of the company. However, Wikipedia guideline says that we should use WP:COMMONNAME instead of legal name (e.g. SpaceX instead of Space Exploration Technologies Corp.). Since Boom Supersonic is a commonly recognisable name in various sources, I want to rename it as such. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What sources? There are plenty that list Boom Technology. - BilCat (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The website boomsupersonic.com itself has a footnote on each page "© 2020 Boom Technology, Inc. All rights reserved." "boomsupersonic" is only the website name.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That "boomsupersonic" is only the website's name has been my assumption also, but I have seen it used in a few other sources too, so it's definitely confusing. I've sent an email to Boom about their name, and while a reply is not usable as a citation, it may at least point us in the right direction. - BilCat (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose no evidence that the company has changed name. MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - I heard back from the Boom press office, and they confirmed that the legal name is "Boom Technology", but "Boom Supersonic" is their DBA ("Doing business as") name, ie. trade name. Since we. don't give precedence to a legal name, we'll need to see evidence that "Boom Supersonic" is the common name. So far, no evidence has been presented. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Boom XB-1 Baby Boom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Intro neutrality

[moved from my talk page, more relevant here]--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Mr. Lacoste, Thank you for your oversight of the Boom Technology page and for catching my mistake. I can see now I should have stated the addition differently and with better NPOV. I am striving to build the skills and knowledge necessary to teach other people how to add/enhance content on Wikipedia so my concern is not about any particular edit but rather towards developing a comprehensive understanding of best practices. (I have been modestly participating in the GOCE.) It’s important for me to work through and correct my editing slipups.

In that context, I hope you have a moment to assist me to refine the content such that it conforms to standards. I certainly had no intention of adding content covered by WP:Identifying Blatant Advertising, and I have no connection to Boom Technology, Inc. It’s an interesting company and the page seems only a bit above a stub.

The text that I added in the summary said: “According to Founder and CEO Blake Scholl the company is devoted to ‘“making the world smaller” by making air travel faster.’ By comparison, on the Tesla page it reads in the summary: “According to Musk, the purpose of Tesla is to help expedite the move to sustainable transport and energy, obtained through electric vehicles and solar power.” That statement is simply “ends and means” which has to also be possible to say concisely and within standards for Boom. Currently no such basic statement is on the Boom page.

In your opinion is the below more neutral and paraphrased statement acceptable? Or, if not perhaps you could suggest other wording: [According to Scholl, the purpose of Boom is to make distant locations more accessible through developing supersonic passenger aircraft.] Again, the goal for me is not Boom’s particular page but rather improving WP copyediting skills. Zatsugaku (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Zatsugaku, I think you are talking about this revert. Making the world smaller is not a fact, it is a metaphor. By comparison, Musk's goals are lofty but materially achievable. This metaphor could be removed to keep the factual For Blake Scholl, Boom'goal is to "make air travel faster". Not "making distant locations more accessible" (there are already accessible), just faster travel. Just stick to facts. see Wikipedia:Verifiability, and truth.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC) If you don't mind, this discussion should be moved to the relevant talk:Boom Technology. If you want to catch someone's attention, you can use the Template:u. Oh, and please stay concise, thanks.

We should generally be careful about corporate mission and CEO vision statements. Musk (whatever else one may think of him) has accomplished much of that statement that it seems almost superfluous or mostly of historical significance, a bit like saying that Henry Ford thought there might just be money in making cars affordable for the common man. Boom is for the moment mock-ups and computer graphics, and for the moment we don't know to what extent they are blowing smoke up everybody's behind. We do know that general dynamics makes very powerful jet engines these days and that composite materials hold great promise (is there an expert who can weigh in on composites and supersonic travel? what are the heat dissipation properties of these materials?). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F1D2:9E1D:C125:3853 (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I am a mechanical engineer, not an expert, but I have worked at Aerojet (and other aerospace companies). One optional payload fairing for the Atlas V space launch vehicle is carbon fiber composite. This vehicle has achieved a speed of 36,000 miles per hour (2006). Rainbow-five (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)