231–240 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are very valid reasons why no ariframe manufacturer is building its own engines and vice versa. And having a civilian suoersonic turbofan engine nobody needs or wants doesn't get a comoany anywhere.
Honda builds both the engines and airframes for the HondaJet.
This partnership have been running for quite a while and no results in the end
Also it is interesting to see only negative comments about RR? i wonder why? :) [2]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't SpaceX or Rocket Lab's engine be repurposed for this task?
Boom is a competitor of SpaceX. Both plan supersonic international travel.
I just can't see the likelihood of ballistic weapo..er.. projecti..er.. vehicles being allowed anywhere near major population centres, by tens of decamiles, therefore mooting the purpose of such extreme point to point passenger journeys.
Never mind the sonic booms and general noise. Even having regular scheduled passenger landings on water seems ... not entirely environmentally friendly.
The semi-snide comments from the Boom side is, as the kids would say, "sus".
Yeah that struck me as odd; it's unprofessional and weak; I think it's a very bad sign for the future of the company.
If this was doable and there was a market for it, what on earth would stop Boeing and Airbus from building one with 1000x more experience in designing and above all manufacturing airframes. (Airbus even has the inherited legacy of Concorde through Aerospatiale/Sud Aviation)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that struck me as odd; it's unprofessional and weak; I think it's a very bad sign for the future of the company.
Wait... does anyone believe they have a future? How? If this was doable and there was a market for it, what on earth would stop Boeing and Airbus from building one with 1000x more experience in designing and above all manufacturing airframes. (Airbus even has the inherited legacy of Concorde through Aerospatiale/Sud Aviation)
Boing and Airbus have lots of things to choose from to focus their (large, but still limited) resources on. Even if they think it is doable and has a market, they'd probably also think that improving what they have is less risky and a bigger market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that struck me as odd; it's unprofessional and weak; I think it's a very bad sign for the future of the company.
Wait... does anyone believe they have a future? How? If this was doable and there was a market for it, what on earth would stop Boeing and Airbus from building one with 1000x more experience in designing and above all manufacturing airframes. (Airbus even has the inherited legacy of Concorde through Aerospatiale/Sud Aviation)
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…
According to Emirates and some other analysts, and contrary to popular narrative, the A380's biggest competitive handicap was the generation of engines, not the mere fact they had 4 instead of 2. The engines were nearly a full generation behind when the A380 debuted, and the gap only grew over time. Engines on a 4-engine plane are smaller, meaning less drag; have narrower power bands, running more optimally at all stages of flight; and have lower maintenance costs, even at twice the number, as they're both less stressed and subject to longer MTBF requirements--losing 1 of 4 engines is much less of a problem than 1 of 2. All considered a 4-engine configuration might still be nominally less fuel efficient, but the difference was negligible given these countering dynamics and in the opinion of some more than made up by other factors favoring the A380. The hub vs point-to-point model disfavored larger planes, but the air travel market was growing and in absolute terms so too was the potential A380 market. But the efficiency gap between engine generations was simply too large to overcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unpopular opinion but wasn't Tesla subsidised and missed the cost goals anyway? My impression is that Tesla succeeded thanks to Musks personality that made the customers forgive unfulfilled promises that they paid thousands of dollars for. Almost as if Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos imitated Musk instead of Steve Jobs and kicked the can down the road and delivered traditional but improved blood test machines and kept p…
The narrative about Musk being some genius exploiter of subsidies playing 4D chess with all kinds of financial and marketing trickery is total nonsense if you actually look into it. In terms of subsidies, Tesla wasn't actually subsidies that much. The received a 400M loan from the DoD for advanced vehicle manufacture. At that point however, even without the DoD they could have raised that money. Tesla payed that lone…
If we agree to not make it a big deal of people not receiving the products they paid for and if we agree not to make it a big deal for delays and low quality then sure, Tesla is just as any other company.
If people didn't make it a big deal that Theranos runs its test on Siemens machines we wouldn't have had a Theranos scandal too!
If we not make it a big deal for Tesla missing the targets for making the cars cheap and collecting pre-order money for products that not deliver(or deliver late if you kick the can down the road long enough) we can say the exact same thing about Theranos. Let's not make a big deal on how much blood is actually required to run the tests today, it would be 1 drop next year(update the next year every year)!
If you choose to put the threshold of "subsidy received" above what Tesla received, you can claim that Tesla did not receive subsidies. I think TicTac sweets had some trick like that, i.e. if you define 1 TicTac as one serving and if the calories of 1 serving is below the threshold to report you have 0 calories per serving and as a result you can claim the whole box is calorie free!
It really depends on what you choose to forgive or not, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait... does anyone believe they have a future? How? If this was doable and there was a market for it, what on earth would stop Boeing and Airbus from building one with 1000x more experience in designing and above all manufacturing airframes. (Airbus even has the inherited legacy of Concorde through Aerospatiale/Sud Aviation)
I don't know, but it's certainly the first question every investor asked, so we can assume they have (or at least had) a pretty good answer, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The narrative about Musk being some genius exploiter of subsidies playing 4D chess with all kinds of financial and marketing trickery is total nonsense if you actually look into it. In terms of subsidies, Tesla wasn't actually subsidies that much. The received a 400M loan from the DoD for advanced vehicle manufacture. At that point however, even without the DoD they could have raised that money. Tesla payed that lone…
This comment itself is an example of forgiving customers. If we agree to not make it a big deal of people not receiving the products they paid for and if we agree not to make it a big deal for delays and low quality then sure, Tesla is just as any other company. If people didn't make it a big deal that Theranos runs its test on Siemens machines we wouldn't have had a Theranos scandal too! If we not make it a big deal…
People should be able to get their money back for the FSD package, I totally agree. I don't know what the status of that is. In my opinion that it should legally clear that you can get your money back as it clearly does not does what it said on sale but I have not read the contract.
As a costumer that would piss me off if I couldn't get my money back on that and law suite would make sense.
Given the absurdly high demand for second hand Tesla and your ability to resell the FSD package while there are lots of people who pay extra for that package, it isn't nearly on the same scale as what Theranos did. In fact since many bought it of much less then it is now, you might have a change of making money.
And FSD sales are a tiny % of Tesla overall business. That makes it very different from Theranos. What makes it also very different is that Tesla has a reasonable chance at delivering and is continually investing and improving towards that goal. They have the capital to continue to work on that, they are not just burning investor money.
Theranos had no realist hope of ever making money and no capital to continue research.
> If we not make it a big deal for Tesla missing the targets for making the cars cheap and collecting pre-order money for products that not deliver(or deliver late if you kick the can down the road long enough) we can say the exact same thing about Theranos.
No we can't. That's an absurd claim. You reserve a product and you can get your money back if you don't get it, that is no different then many other reservations and is totally common practice in the industry.
And no idea what 'making the cars cheap' is supposed to mean.
> If you choose to put the threshold of "subsidy received" above what Tesla received, you can claim that Tesla did not receive subsidies.
Every large industrial company receives subsidies of various kinds. This is simply the world we live in. But some how it gets brought up far more often with Tesla then with other car companies while Tesla actually received less and they absolutely for certain did not receive enough subsidies to somehow claim Tesla was bootstrapped by the state or had some sort of unfair advantage.
So its really just used to downplay what they achieved, "Oh look they had X subsidy therefore XYZ". The reality is the car and road transport are subsidized and Tesla is part of that market.
I would prefer much of that money being spent on trains but I'm not gone shit on Telsa for existing in reality.