3 ms·

Couldn't SpaceX or Rocket Lab's engine be repurposed for this task?

by keepquestioning 4y ago

adastra22 4y ago
Those aren’t jet engines.
- keepquestioning 4y ago
  It's a pity there aren't more jet engine providers.
  - topspin 4y ago
    The last thing you want in your turbofans is a lot of variety. That's why everyone relies on a handful of producers.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nradov 4y ago
    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.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      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.
bombcar 4y ago
SpaceX engines can clearly get you to supersonic speeds, but they're not "jets" and are much more expensive to run.
topspin 4y ago
No.
echelon 4y ago
Jets vs rockets: Jets breathe atmospheric air for combustion because they operate in an atmosphere where oxygen is readily available for combustion. They have an air intake nozzle. Rockets carry their own oxidizer because they must. They only have an exhaust nozzle.
__m 4y ago
Boom is a competitor of SpaceX. Both plan supersonic international travel.
- detritus 4y ago
  As much of a fan of SpaceX's vision as I am, the only ballistic point to point passengers I can envisage any time soon would be military operatives in a dire emergency. 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.

Couldn't SpaceX or Rocket Lab's engine be repurposed for this task?

adastra22 4y ago

Those aren’t jet engines.

keepquestioning 4y ago
It's a pity there aren't more jet engine providers.
- topspin 4y ago
  The last thing you want in your turbofans is a lot of variety. That's why everyone relies on a handful of producers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 4y ago
  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.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    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.

bombcar 4y ago

SpaceX engines can clearly get you to supersonic speeds, but they're not "jets" and are much more expensive to run.

topspin 4y ago

No.

echelon 4y ago

Jets vs rockets: Jets breathe atmospheric air for combustion because they operate in an atmosphere where oxygen is readily available for combustion. They have an air intake nozzle. Rockets carry their own oxidizer because they must. They only have an exhaust nozzle.

__m 4y ago

Boom is a competitor of SpaceX. Both plan supersonic international travel.

detritus 4y ago
As much of a fan of SpaceX's vision as I am, the only ballistic point to point passengers I can envisage any time soon would be military operatives in a dire emergency. 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.