Live data from Hacker News

Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

airwaysmag.com

171–180 of 254 posts

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#171
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engine manufacturing is much more profitable, and seemingly challenging than airframe manufacturing. The engines they'll use are unlikely to be very different from those in other applications, so I'm not sure there's room for a new entrant. Keep in mind that the R&D and capital costs of becoming a turbine engine manufacturer are immense, and likely much higher than the costs to develop a new aircraft.

Rolls Royce, and most other engine makers on this level, are essentially metallurgical gods.

They rely on metallurgists, but they may not employ them directly. I know somebody who consulted on that sort of thing, and worked on developing alloys that would work at high temperatures and thus allow greater turbine efficiency, but the engine manufacturers mostly just knew the properties they needed, not how to get them.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, but a supersonic personal jet is a much bigger feat of engineering than a rocket that lands. Most people don't appreciate that. We had landing rockets in the 80's, but Boom was trying to do several things that are completely new. SpaceX's real technology is about launching the rockets cheaply, not re-using them (which is only part of the problem). And SpaceX started with engineers who knew a lot about the do…

Boom isn’t trying to do something completely new. Concord was in commercial services for many years. Benefits and shortcomings are well known. OTOTH, there was never a rocket that could land, only suborbital prototypes. Shuttle doesn’t count since it’s reusable in name only, as it still cost substantial amount of money and time for refurbishing. In fact there are still no other reusable rockets, seven years after Spa…

I didn't realize that the Concorde was a private jet. Also, I'm not so sure that SpaceX has managed to achieve reusability (launch turnaround cost) better than end-of-life space shuttle yet. The space shuttle did take a lot longer to work out the kinks than falcon 9, but it was also a much more complicated vehicle.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#173
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be technical, I'd actually argue there were four. The first Concorde reached production & was later redesigned to include an afterburner (or reheat). Why I forget, but it apparently did actually save some fuel since it was used while accelerating to supersonic then shut off. The Tu-144 went the opposite direction. Introduce with military engines which require full time afterburner. Later it was redesigned and re-e…

Huh? The Concorde was designed with afterburners right from the start. It certainly did not enter service without them.

Yes; the Olympus engines used were derivatives of an existing military turbojet and had reheat from the beginning. It was used for takeoff and then to get through the high-drag transonic regime as quickly as possible to minimise fuel use. Once at cruising speed the engines operated 'dry'.

There was a longer-range 'Concorde B' designed, which was intended to have larger engines with no reheat at all (as well as larger wings and some other changes) but this was cancelled when it became apparent that it would never be profitable.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which rockets landed in the 70s? Note that SpaceX didn’t get any meaningful defense contract until they’ve proved themselves with Falcon 9.

He must either be talking about the Apollo Lunar Module which first landed on the Moon in the 60s (but was not "landing a booster", much less on earth.), or more likely he's talking about the Delta Clipper which was in the 90s (and also not a rocket booster.) Probably the latter, because there are some low-brow skeptics on reddit and youtube who inexplicably seem to think the Falcon 9 is a stolen Delta Clipper with a…

I kind of take ofense with the low-brow reddit sceptic :-) Obviously, a Falcon 9 is not a reused DC-X. The technologyvto land a booster was already there before, it wasn't invented by SpaceX and was discussed as far back as the 60s. SpaceX made it possible, which in itself is quite an achievement. That nobody else tried so is due to the fact that there were not enough launches to make it economically viable (I found a ESA study on that topic a couple of years ago and subsequently lost it again, Google and DDG fail to dig it up again ever since). And whether or not reusable booster do make econommic sense or not, and just how many launches are needed to break even, is impossible to tell without SpaceX financials, they are the only ones doing it right now, which we don't have.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#175

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…

What lie are they telling...?

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#176

Regarding Boom there are only two reasonable conclusions one can reach: 1. They are a Theranos-style operation 2. They are a Madoff-style operation I, a lone aerospace engineer working out of my garage in my spare time, have a better chance of achieving supersonic flight than Boom does. Even their technology demonstrator is an obvious scam. It demonstrates nothing. It does not demonstrate the ability to design, build…

Lol you're too harsh. I was an aerospace engineer at an aviation startup you've probably heard of. We built a jet and received a type certificate, and sold ships. The company still went bankrupt. Boom is trying something harder, but it's not Theranos, or cold fusion. It's still just an engineering problem. They have aerospace engineers and facilities. It doesn't look more like a scam than SpaceX did in its early days…

Eclipse?

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#177
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Tesla would cut it out with the computerized car bullshit and focus on making the best battery cars instead. They shouldn't need bullshit like "it will be fiscally irresponsible to not buy our cars because it will be a robotaxi that pays for itself" ; it imperils the long-term success of the company for a short-term boost in sales. And it alienates anybody with a modicum of critical thinking.

Okay but the genius of Musk was this computerised car stuff and it's exactly where the traditional car manufacturers fail. Just recently the CEO of VW changed and the important part of the failure of the previous CEO was their shit software on their electric cars. It's not like Tesla managed to make cheap electric cars? They managed to make cars with good computers and this is something that people actually want. Ess…

Musk didn't even contribute to the automotive technology, at all. It's the result of an acquisition of a company called "AC Propulsion".

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#178
post #173
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? The Concorde was designed with afterburners right from the start. It certainly did not enter service without them.

Yes; the Olympus engines used were derivatives of an existing military turbojet and had reheat from the beginning. It was used for takeoff and then to get through the high-drag transonic regime as quickly as possible to minimise fuel use. Once at cruising speed the engines operated 'dry'. There was a longer-range 'Concorde B' designed, which was intended to have larger engines with no reheat at all (as well as larger…

OK, I think I got it wrong. You're correct it always had afterburners. It could supercruise, which is flying without the afterburner at supersonic speeds. So I guess that would bring the actual number to 3.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#179
post #138
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Off the shelf means buying something already available for sale. Paying someone to develop something for you is the opposite. Going back to the analogy from before, you can go to companies which specialize in chip design and development, and you can pay them to design a chip that will meet your specifications and make it in small quantities. It is economical for these companies to keep the technical staff and equipme…

> The deal has not fallen apart because

We don't know why the deal has fallen apart. We just know that it has. There is no engine. No one is planning on developing it. No amount of argument here on HN will change that. Boom should have built the engine if they wanted the engine, instead they bet their startup on buying something not available for sale.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#180
post #86

Regarding Boom there are only two reasonable conclusions one can reach: 1. They are a Theranos-style operation 2. They are a Madoff-style operation I, a lone aerospace engineer working out of my garage in my spare time, have a better chance of achieving supersonic flight than Boom does. Even their technology demonstrator is an obvious scam. It demonstrates nothing. It does not demonstrate the ability to design, build…

Isn't there a third kind of operation, maybe a Magic Leap-style operation, where employees are earnestly developing against a goal which is fanciful but appealing to VCs? And in that case, what's the difference between that and the "usual" VC funded company? I don't really think Boom are a Theranos style operation, because they aren't claiming to have an operational product when no such item exists. A Theranos style…

As an aside Madoff Industries did employ people who earnestly worked outside the Ponzi scheme. I know because I met a few of them when I worked on a database architecture audit for them around 2008.
Post reply on HN