4 ms·

The engine costs about as much as an airframe to build. If your scrappy start up builds an airframe on the cheap you still incur all the legacy costs of engine

by rdtwo 4y ago

The engine costs about as much as an airframe to build. If your scrappy start up builds an airframe on the cheap you still incur all the legacy costs of engine manufacturers. Also Pratt is a solid 3rd tier manufacturer. It’s really GE and everyone else is far behind

toomuchtodo 4y ago
I see two paths: An engine maker waits for Boom to go into liquidation and buys their airframe innovation to sell engines they have control over the design costs and process. Think how Honda is an engine maker that happens to sell cars to sell their engines. Existing engine makers don’t want to be left holding the bag for Boom’s dev costs if they don’t succeed, something engine makers have little control over. Boom is a startup, and most startups fail. Some nation state sponsors this as a vanity project. Think Emirates. Not as likely as the first option imho considering geopolitics and macro economics, but there are folks with exceptionally deep pockets who prefer a return of something other than monetary (status, etc). Boom can’t go the SpaceX route and vertically integrate (airframe, engines, etc), including selling directly to customers, because of the capital costs necessary to get there and the passenger air market volatility.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Some nation state sponsors this as a vanity project. Think Emirates. UAE is the exact opposite of a nation state.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Probably the wrong word for a monarchy. My point was that vanity gov sponsorship of some sort is required. You’re not going fast because you need to; you’re going fast to flex.
  - tromp 4y ago
    > a vanity project. Think Emirates. I can't help thinking MBS's Saudi Arabia [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/04/its-being-built-on-our-blood-the-true-cost-of-saudi-arabia-5bn-mega-city-neom https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/04/i...

by rdtwo 4y ago

toomuchtodo 4y ago

I see two paths: An engine maker waits for Boom to go into liquidation and buys their airframe innovation to sell engines they have control over the design costs and process. Think how Honda is an engine maker that happens to sell cars to sell their engines. Existing engine makers don’t want to be left holding the bag for Boom’s dev costs if they don’t succeed, something engine makers have little control over. Boom is a startup, and most startups fail. Some nation state sponsors this as a vanity project. Think Emirates. Not as likely as the first option imho considering geopolitics and macro economics, but there are folks with exceptionally deep pockets who prefer a return of something other than monetary (status, etc). Boom can’t go the SpaceX route and vertically integrate (airframe, engines, etc), including selling directly to customers, because of the capital costs necessary to get there and the passenger air market volatility.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> Some nation state sponsors this as a vanity project. Think Emirates. UAE is the exact opposite of a nation state.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Probably the wrong word for a monarchy. My point was that vanity gov sponsorship of some sort is required. You’re not going fast because you need to; you’re going fast to flex.
- tromp 4y ago
  > a vanity project. Think Emirates. I can't help thinking MBS's Saudi Arabia [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/04/its-being-built-on-our-blood-the-true-cost-of-saudi-arabia-5bn-mega-city-neom https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/04/i...