3 ms·
Mentioned this elsewhere, but it belongs better here: If there's a market for a product that existing suppliers don't want to provide, that sounds like exactly
by ajross 4y ago
Mentioned this elsewhere, but it belongs better here: If there's a market for a product that existing suppliers don't want to provide, that sounds like exactly what a startup should be doing.
Boom is wasting their time building an airframe but what they really need to win is an engine. They should have built the engine first.
- bombcar 4y agoThis is the main way you distinguish the grifters from the movers. The grifters work on the final product, the movers work on the first step, having a plan to make that profitable, so they can build toward the final product. SpaceX is probably the example that comes to mind, even if they did borrow engines.
- njarboe 4y agoFYI, SpaceX developed all of their engines in-house[1]. Other American rocket companies use Russian engines and Congress's bill forbidding that going forward has put ULA in a very bad place because Blue Origin's BE-4 engine still is not ready after more than a decade of development. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines
- bombcar 4y agoAh, then it fits even better. I could have sworn someone had been launching on borrowed Russian engines, but maybe that was Boeing.
- mrguyorama 4y agoI think the story is that Elon wanted russian engines and they snubbed him so he got vindictive, like he does, but this time in a good way.
- njarboe 4y agoHe wanted to buy some Russian rockets to send a greenhouse to Mars, but they did not take him very seriously and quoted very high prices. After that is when he got serious about starting SpaceX.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoULA's (Boeing/Lockheed) Atlas V has been using Russian RD-180 engines, and Orbital Science's Antares has used Russian NK-33 and RD-191 engines. None of these were borrowed though, since they're all single-use only. Only SpaceX lands and reuses their first stage boosters.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> grifters work on the final product, the movers work on the first step, having a plan to make that profitable, so they can build toward the final product. SpaceX is probably the example that comes to mind For me, it's Virgin Galactic showcasing the seats before they'd made it to space versus SpaceX building its engines and only much later unveiling spacesuit designs.
- datavirtue 4y agoSpot on. If you build a more efficient engine P&W, GE, Honeywell, and a few other companies would be clawing eachothers' eyes for the chance to buy you out. Boeing and other airframe mfgs would throw you a huge contract immediately if they thought you could actually build the engines and deliver them.
- trhway 4y ago>If you build a more efficient engine Even if you just build an engine on-par with everybody else. Or even just a bit sub-par. Not everybody wants or able or have use case for those large top of the line very efficient and very expensive engines from the top manufacturers. You can check out the global international drama during the last few years around Ukrainian Motor-Sich engine manufacturer - one of the main engine manufacturers from the USSR times. There are just too few of those engine manufacturers, even if sub-par, around for the current world demand. Anybody wanna make a startup for the engines, initially for UAS market? It is going to blow up after the war as drones have been showing their future dominance. And just look at that beauty (uses the Motor-Sich engines as Turkey don't have their own) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_Ak%C4%B1nc%C4%B1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_Ak%C4%B1nc%C4... .