It seems a lot of posters here are not willing to accept a new aircraft design.

Maybe they would be more comfortable with the 737 Max 2000, seating 480 people, with a variety of software changes to make the aircraft "flyable"...

Hasn't it already been done with the B2?

Not really - the B2 is a 'flying wing', not a blended wing/body. The blended wing/body concept has some similarities to a flying wing, but it's not the same thing.

The B1A/B approached a blended wing, although 1) the blending was interrupted at about 15% span by the need for variable sweep, and 2) it is a fair question what is "blending" and what is just an oversized fairing. Definitely not a flying wing, though. But, of course, that was Rockwell, not Boeing. However, Rockwell Aerospace is now a part of Boeing. ;)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/A_B-1_Lancer_performs_a_fly-by_during_a_firepower_demonstration.jpg

Speaking for myself, what I can "accept" and what I can approve may not be the same thing. I have test flown modified aircraft, which ultimately, I would not approve, and the aircraft was not approved in that configuration. Designs either must conform to the design requirements, or the design requirements must be adjusted to accommodate the innovative design. Aircraft which cannot demonstrate compliance to the requirements do not get approved for commercial use. This is an important aspect of the consideration of a new design.

The thickness / chord ratio reminds me of lighter than air vehicles.

There have been a bunch of such projects, but methinks the speeds will be lower than would be economical for a jet.

The other challenge will be pressurisation.

Fine for scenic tours and short jaunts between cities.

Pattern, what I'd heard was that what Boeing was looking at was a blending wing/body as a military transport - basically a next generation replacement for the C-17 and C-5 (so obviously years away).
Basically the idea was that the government would finance the development, then Boeing could repurpose the technology for a commercial transport.
BTW, going with a composite construction would help solve the issues with pressurization of the unusually shaped 'fuselage'.

Russian Ministry of Emergency carried pax in a cargo/military/state-owned IL-76 from Nepal to Moscow Domodedovo after an earthquake.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c1d9bff54f.jpg

Legally? Not sure............

I have read the entire thread and understand the need for 'blue sky thinking' but it appears from this simplistic image the the cabins are presented at a strong angle to the direction of travel, which might generate some drag? The high engine position will make a quick inspection into a long inspection. Especially interesting to have to get to those donks on the stand on a wet and windy night.

You might see a financial black hole if you have to feed all C-130 passengers. LOL.