Live data from Hacker News

Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

airwaysmag.com

191–200 of 254 posts

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#191
This article says that they are also partnering with Northrup Gruman to develop a "special missions" version for the government. So they very well could be getting a big government investment that so many here are saying would be necessary to pull this off.

https://airwaysmag.com/boom-supersonic-refined-overture-desi...

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#192
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Database architecture audit for Madoff Industries" is a pretty good conversation starter as a resume item!

This is a good point, and something that occurred to me after I posted - there's also a type of scam company where honest employees are hired to do something real, but the executive staff are skimming inordinate compensation for themselves or hiding a more nefarious project underneath, like a Ponzi scheme, simple money laundering, or self-dealing / kickback style schemes.

I suppose it's possible that Boom could be one of these, and I don't really have enough data to say whether it is or not.

My personal take on Boom is that it's your typical amateur, marketing-savvy CEO with a lofty dream who managed to collect funding for a project they can't execute on. Whether this kind of thing is a net "good" or not, I'm not sure, but I really don't think it's a "scam" in a mal-intent sort of way.

If I were a VC, I wouldn't invest in an aerospace founder with no aerospace background, but plenty chose to, and their funds are at least being redistributed towards employees and suppliers. The whole idea of Silicon Valley style "innovation" VC is supposedly that their moonshot upsides can patch over their moonshot downsides, no?

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#194

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…

Engineering and economics problem--although properly speaking the former should imply the latter. Given that engineering isn't "We can build something that costs $X to build and operate but there's only a market for $X/5." That's still an engineering failure even if it works outside of cost constraints.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#195

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…

Harsh! I think Boom is trying to be SpaceX. A technology that is definitely possible, but pretty difficult to pull off as a start-up. But saying they are Theranos or Madoff is unfair. If they succeed to make the technology work and then succeed to make it profitable is of course not obvious at this point.

I'd argue there's a significant market for the pre-SpaceX rockets--which are still used today. There's just a much larger potential market for significantly cheaper rockets given sufficient reliability as well.

There is on the other hand no apparent market for commercial supersonic passenger flight given the economics. That doesn't mean that some people wouldn't pay the freight but that there hasn't been enough apparent market to build an airplane program around that.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theranos' lie wasn't credible to people in the biomedical technology industry. That's why Theranos had to get investors who knew nothing about it. If Boom's lies(or wishful thinking?) were as egregious as Theranos, they never would have gotten their foot in the door at Rolls-Royce.

They had money, those engines seemed technically possible given RRs history and RR delivered tests and whtnot. And Boom paid RR for it. Theranos could have easily found a medical lab equipment manufacturer to conduct some similar testing and early stage development.

> Theranos could have easily found a medical lab equipment manufacturer to conduct some similar testing and early stage development.

I don't think they could have. Siemens/etc would have already known that Holmes' idea of running that wide array of blood tests from a single drop of fingertip blood wouldn't have worked. One of Holmes' professors, Phyllis Gardner, told Holmes it wouldn't work before the whole scam even began. Siemens or other lab equipment manufacturers surely would have known it too, since they know what it takes to make blood testing equipment.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#197
post #84

Sadly Boom is doomed and it’s been a writing on the wall all along. They never had a good engine option. The military engines are not safe enough and developing a new civilian engine makes sense only if you make hundreds of them. Their net-zero emission claim is also bogus. Their pricing model doesn’t make much sense either unless they’re willing to lose money for a decade or so. There is not much innovation in aerod…

Could be that they were hoping to get bought out and had made some actual improvements though no? I would imagine that a plane using new advances in material sciences for the outer skin (maybe something like Quasi Crystals) might have significant advantages over an older design like the Concorde. Heat must be a big issue at those speeds.

I don’t know much about their long term business strategy but what bothers me is that they’re vague about how they intend to achieve the flight mission objectives. This is very different than SpaceX which focused on reusable rockets and landing them.

As for materials, the main advantage of composites is the strength to weight ratio but they’re more challenging to work with compared to aluminum and titanium. Heat is one aspect but there are many more challenges. It’s been done though for example B787 and A350 are mostly composite. So Boom has a genuine advance here over Concorde. But supersonic flight is inherently fuel inefficient due to wave drag so the economy doesn’t make sense.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#199
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reheat is needed to get past the transonic region and onward to supersonic. Once you've gone supersonic the drag actually drops a lot. So you want to get through the transonic region as quickly as possible and reheat is a good way to do it. After that the Concorde just supercruised.

> Once you've gone supersonic the drag actually drops a lot. Certainly the drag coefficient drops, does it actually drop fast enough to counter the v^2 and see total drag drop as velocity increases?

I think so, many planes are like this: the transonic regime has the highest drag. It's not as simple as v^2, you have to consider the compressibility effects (wave drag where the pressure wave moves along with the plane, like a bow wave on a ship). Flying faster also means you can fly higher in lower density air, so the indicated airspeed (proportional to density * v^2) is reduced.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#200
post #84

Sadly Boom is doomed and it’s been a writing on the wall all along. They never had a good engine option. The military engines are not safe enough and developing a new civilian engine makes sense only if you make hundreds of them. Their net-zero emission claim is also bogus. Their pricing model doesn’t make much sense either unless they’re willing to lose money for a decade or so. There is not much innovation in aerod…

Luckily for Boom there is a supersonic engine startup in the YC S22 batch!

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/velontra

Post reply on HN