Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

airwaysmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 254 posts

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#101

Post by hef19898 »

nradov wrote: post #78
keepquestioning wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pity there aren't more jet engine providers.

Consolidation is inevitable in industries where huge capital investments are necessary to build a viable product. The only way a new manufacturer will appear is if a major government decides to finance it for strategic reasons regardless of economics.

I can think of three occasions where this happened: Eurofighter with the RR based Eurojet engine, Rafale with an engine from Snecma and the A400M with a specifically designed turboprop. None of these manufacturers rose to challenge GE, RR or Pratt and Whitney when it comes to mass produced turbojet or fans.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#102

Post by MichaelCollins »

rocket_surgeron wrote: post #88
MichaelCollins wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. They are a Theranos-style operation If they were that, they'd be lying about having their own engine in development that is an order of magnitude better than the competitions but won't show it to anybody.

My angle was the "charismatic and overambitious leaders who think that gumption and sticktoitiveness can overcome any problem and who aren't afraid to start lying when they find out that solving science and engineering problems isn't like the scammy adware/SEO/social network they made their first chunk of money on" aspect. I just can't believe people keep falling for it. I'm willing to bet most of the $100m+ they've…

> My angle was the "charismatic and overambitious leaders who think that gumption and sticktoitiveness can overcome any problem and who aren't afraid to start lying when they find out that solving science and engineering problems isn't like the scammy adware/SEO/social network they made their first chunk of money on" aspect.

Sure, but that's underselling Theranos' scam. For Boom to work they would need engines that could exist, but don't, and they weren't lying about the engines existing. Theranos was claiming they already had technology that couldn't exist.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#103

Post by lyind »

lacker wrote: post #47

I'm rooting for you, Boom. The world needs supersonic planes and you're so close. Good luck.

I would like to travel like this, assuming they have wifi and tickets are affordable:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/15/eco-airship...

Maybe they could fly fully autonomous when used as freighters.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#104

Post by gamblor956 »

chadash wrote: post #83
rollinggoron wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I know nothing about aerospace engineering or aircraft design, but the hype around Boom always puzzled me. If this start up can all of a sudden make an economical supersonic jet, then surely the existing plane manufacturers could do it quicker and cheaper. Boeing, Lockheed, Airbus, etc... already have existing designs from decades past that they could at least use as a base. They have experts in material scie…

I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate, what if I changed your comment to: Agreed. I know nothing about automotive engineering or car design, but the hype around Tesla always puzzled me. If this start up can all of a sudden make an economical electric car, then surely the existing automotive manufacturers could do it quicker and cheaper. Toyota, Mercedes, Ford, etc... already have existing designs from decade…

The existing automakers are making EVs faster and cheaper than Tesla did, and the EVs they are making have substantially greater build quality than Tesla's vehicles.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#105

Post by rocket_surgeron »

carabiner wrote: post #92
rocket_surgeron wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My angle was the "charismatic and overambitious leaders who think that gumption and sticktoitiveness can overcome any problem and who aren't afraid to start lying when they find out that solving science and engineering problems isn't like the scammy adware/SEO/social network they made their first chunk of money on" aspect. I just can't believe people keep falling for it. I'm willing to bet most of the $100m+ they've…

> My angle was the "charismatic and overambitious leaders who think that gumption and sticktoitiveness can overcome any problem and who aren't afraid to start lying when they find out that solving science and engineering problems isn't like the scammy adware/SEO/social network they made their first chunk of money on" aspect. Are you talking about SpaceX?

No comment.

edit: Ok comment. perhaps spacex is not the best comparison though. SpaceX had tremendous necessity driving it. The need for launch vehicles for commercial, scientific, and military purposes.

There is no similar necessity for supersonic commercial aviation.

A Boom customer isn't going to watch 14 test failures and say "well we have no other choice we gotta get people from ny to london in 2 hours" but there was a "we MUST be able to launch people and things into orbit on a US rocket" driving spacex.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#106

Post by MichaelCollins »

carabiner wrote: post #92
rocket_surgeron wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My angle was the "charismatic and overambitious leaders who think that gumption and sticktoitiveness can overcome any problem and who aren't afraid to start lying when they find out that solving science and engineering problems isn't like the scammy adware/SEO/social network they made their first chunk of money on" aspect. I just can't believe people keep falling for it. I'm willing to bet most of the $100m+ they've…

> My angle was the "charismatic and overambitious leaders who think that gumption and sticktoitiveness can overcome any problem and who aren't afraid to start lying when they find out that solving science and engineering problems isn't like the scammy adware/SEO/social network they made their first chunk of money on" aspect. Are you talking about SpaceX?

Falcon 9 flies very regularly, and the Raptor engines for Starship are in an advanced stage of development. The engines Boom needs don't exist.

You're right about some of the rest of that though. Particularly the personality matter.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#107

Post by ajross »

jjk166 wrote: post #91
ajross wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... which is tantamount to saying that efficient supersonic transport won't happen because the engine is too expensive to design, though. And maybe that's true. But even if it is true it's still on Boom to make that happen somehow. Not all startups succeed, but those that build the wrong product fail at a 100% rate.

Paying a well established and experienced engine manufacturer to design the engine you need which is only one part of your product is much more economical than becoming an engine manufacturer yourself. By analogy, if an AI startup needs custom chips, that doesn't mean they need to nor should build their own fab and try to compete with TSMC.

That's just the "off the shelf" argument. Which has just fallen apart because RR doesn't have the product and doesn't want to build it. You're right, that if Boom could just buy their engine it would be better for Boom. Boom can't just buy their engine though, and now it looks like their company is going to fail because they decided to build the easy part and not the hard part.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#108

Post by [deleted] »

chadash wrote: post #83
rollinggoron wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I know nothing about aerospace engineering or aircraft design, but the hype around Boom always puzzled me. If this start up can all of a sudden make an economical supersonic jet, then surely the existing plane manufacturers could do it quicker and cheaper. Boeing, Lockheed, Airbus, etc... already have existing designs from decades past that they could at least use as a base. They have experts in material scie…

I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate, what if I changed your comment to: Agreed. I know nothing about automotive engineering or car design, but the hype around Tesla always puzzled me. If this start up can all of a sudden make an economical electric car, then surely the existing automotive manufacturers could do it quicker and cheaper. Toyota, Mercedes, Ford, etc... already have existing designs from decade…

[deleted]

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#109

Post by hef19898 »

galgot wrote: post #68

How surprising... Developing a specific supersonic jet engine for this kind of plane would not be cost effective anyway, the fleet would be too small to worth the investment. Even starting from a military jet engine, the way they are run and maintained is very different from civilian jet engines.

Also good luck getting government approval for using a military engine derivate for commercial flight to Asia, or basically any country other than the origin of said engines. And even that will be difficult. Export control can be a bitch.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#110

Post by Denvercoder9 »

nickff wrote: post #66
ajross wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... which is tantamount to saying that efficient supersonic transport won't happen because the engine is too expensive to design, though. And maybe that's true. But even if it is true it's still on Boom to make that happen somehow. Not all startups succeed, but those that build the wrong product fail at a 100% rate.

I think Boom will likely design and build a working aircraft, but they don't have the money or expertise to design an engine. Both GE and P&W are capable of designing and building the engine, the question is which will make the business deal with Boom. I am guessing that Boom either wants a cut of the service revenue, or wants to do most of the engine service themself.

> Both GE and P&W are capable of designing and building the engine, the question is which will make the business deal with Boom.

I think the bigger question is whether either of them will make the business deal with Boom, or if they both deem it too risky and too expensive.

Post reply on HN