33 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago
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 raised went right into executive compensation and that their engineers have been making do with peanuts since the beginning. And I eagerly await the dueling Netflix/HBO documentaries to come.
- carabiner 4y ago
  > 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. Are you talking about SpaceX?
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Falcon 9 flies very regularly, and the Raptor engines for Starship are in an advanced stage of development. The engines Boom needs don't exist. You're right about some of the rest of that though. Particularly the personality matter.
  - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
    No comment. edit: Ok comment. perhaps spacex is not the best comparison though. SpaceX had tremendous necessity driving it. The need for launch vehicles for commercial, scientific, and military purposes. There is no similar necessity for supersonic commercial aviation. A Boom customer isn't going to watch 14 test failures and say "well we have no other choice we gotta get people from ny to london in 2 hours" but there was a "we MUST be able to launch people and things into orbit on a US rocket" driving spacex.
    - adolph 4y ago
      Not certain about "tremendous necessity driving" SpaceX. At the time few would have bet that SLS and Starliner would become the duds they are. Maybe Atlas and Ariane incrementing without re-usability and costly Starliner would be viewed positively since there wouldn't be an alternative story (unless BO did better).
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > 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. Sure, but that's underselling Theranos' scam. For Boom to work they would need engines that could exist, but don't, and they weren't lying about the engines existing. Theranos was claiming they already had technology that couldn't exist.
- beambot 4y ago
  What lie are they telling...?
bell-cot 4y ago
That would not be a credible lie - it is too widely known how very difficult & expensive the technology needed to produce any such engine is.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  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.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    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.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > 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.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago

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 raised went right into executive compensation and that their engineers have been making do with peanuts since the beginning. And I eagerly await the dueling Netflix/HBO documentaries to come.

carabiner 4y ago
> 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. Are you talking about SpaceX?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Falcon 9 flies very regularly, and the Raptor engines for Starship are in an advanced stage of development. The engines Boom needs don't exist. You're right about some of the rest of that though. Particularly the personality matter.
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  No comment. edit: Ok comment. perhaps spacex is not the best comparison though. SpaceX had tremendous necessity driving it. The need for launch vehicles for commercial, scientific, and military purposes. There is no similar necessity for supersonic commercial aviation. A Boom customer isn't going to watch 14 test failures and say "well we have no other choice we gotta get people from ny to london in 2 hours" but there was a "we MUST be able to launch people and things into orbit on a US rocket" driving spacex.
  - adolph 4y ago
    Not certain about "tremendous necessity driving" SpaceX. At the time few would have bet that SLS and Starliner would become the duds they are. Maybe Atlas and Ariane incrementing without re-usability and costly Starliner would be viewed positively since there wouldn't be an alternative story (unless BO did better).
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> 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. Sure, but that's underselling Theranos' scam. For Boom to work they would need engines that could exist, but don't, and they weren't lying about the engines existing. Theranos was claiming they already had technology that couldn't exist.
beambot 4y ago
What lie are they telling...?

bell-cot 4y ago

That would not be a credible lie - it is too widely known how very difficult & expensive the technology needed to produce any such engine is.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
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.
- hef19898 4y ago
  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.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > 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.