6 ms·

From wiki: "On June 3, 2021, United Airlines announced they had signed an agreement to purchase 15 Overture aircraft with an additional 35 options, expecting t

From wiki: "On June 3, 2021, United Airlines announced they had signed an agreement to purchase 15 Overture aircraft with an additional 35 options, expecting to start passenger flights by 2029.[14][15] On August 16, 2022, American Airlines announced an agreement to purchase 20 Overture aircraft with an additional 40 options.[16]" later on... "On December 13, 2022, Boom announced that it would develop its own turbofan engine after "Big Three" engine manufacturers Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric, as well as CFM and Safran previously declined to develop a new engine due to high capital costs.[29][30][31][32] Named Symphony, (see § Engines below) the engine will be developed under partnership with three entities: Kratos subsidiary Florida Turbine Technologies for engine design; StandardAero for maintenance; and General Electric subsidiary GE Additive for consulting on printing components.[33]" So not only do they think they are going to finish designing, prototyping, testing, certifying, and moving to production an entirely new aircraft, they also think they are going to design a brand new engine, that the big three didn't think made sense and also get it through all those efforts? All in the next 5 years? If it doesn't come to anything, which seems likely, atleast it sounds like a fun way to spend lots of money.

OrwellianChild 3y ago
One dynamic that may be at play: Designing a new engine is a gamble. For a company who already makes money with existing designs, there may be little upside on a small-volume new product. This is likely the reason the "Big 3" passed on designing an engine they don't have an off-the-shelf option for. Boom would probably be the primary beneficiary of such an engine existing, so it isn't all that surprising that they will have to fund the development. The second supersonic airframe that can use their engine would be the one to turn that R&D profitable for Boom (and ease the introduction of more supersonic airframe options).
- twobitshifter 3y ago
  Also, boom could have asked for exclusive terms that they didn’t like.
- class3shock 3y ago
  I would agree that the big three didn't think they could make it work, be that for technical reasons, money reasons, limited market reasons, etc. the end result is the same. Where I would disagree is that Boom can make it work. The amount of specialized knowledge you need in design and analysis as well as test and manufacturing facilities makes it near impossible for an outsider get in the game. Which is why there aren't any in the commercial jet engine space. GE, PW, RR and I guess Safran is pretty much it. You can't just decide you are going to do the R&D yourself and pop out a new engine in 5 years.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Afaik, Kratos is prototyping supersonic-class UAVs (XQ-58C and D) for military customers, so I'd expect this isn't Boom starting from zero.
    - class3shock 3y ago
      From Kratos's site: https://www.kratosdefense.com/products/uav/air/turbines https://www.kratosdefense.com/products/uav/air/turbines Kratos has begun the first engine tests at its X-58 test facility. The newly commissioned test facility is used to carry out demonstrator engine development testing, allowing Kratos to grow its offering of low cost and high-performance small jet engines. The fully mobile test facility can accommodate fully instrumented engines up to 3000-lb thrust. Inlet and exhaust noise suppression is provided to reduce environmental impacts. All connections are designed to reduce test article set-up time thereby reducing program costs. The state-of-the-art data acquisition system and communications allow for high speed remote monitoring and real time data processing. Kratos is introducing several engines to support the need for low cost and high-performance engines for cruise missiles, powered munitions and UAVs. 3000-lb thrust is about an order of magnitude smaller than you need for a single row conventional commercial jet with two engines. Yes, they are ostensibly working in the same field but I don't think I can stress enough how different those two things are.
  - imron 3y ago
    SpaceX went from nothing to orbital spacecraft in ~6 years. Plenty of people discounted them at the time too. I’m not saying Boom will succeed, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility if they can dedicate themselves to task the same way SpaceX did.
- aeyes 3y ago
  Wasn't one of the Boom selling points that their aircraft would use conventional engines? Now they are developing their own...
hcks 3y ago
« It’s never possible to innovate » This is currently the top comment on news.ycombinator.com
- greenthrow 3y ago
  So I can count on you to invest in my new startup that will be inventing human flight without any extraneous equipment right?
- lelandbatey 3y ago
  I think this is a grand tradition on this fair site. I think we all are looking forward to whatever's coming next.
- class3shock 3y ago
  It's always possible to innovate. It just happens that often the people claiming too are mostly innovating at separating people from their money. If you want to chat why I think this is more the later than the former feel free to reach out, I love talking aerospace.
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    So funny thing is you're in a thread about aerospace. If I might hazard a guess, discussing the concrete reasons why you think this is a scam can help educate curious readers about the challenges in this field and can probably start a discussion on the technical details of supersonic aircraft that has less emotional and more technical content. It doesn't always work out that way though shrug. From my own context, the work of certifying the airframe alone takes forever, let alone prototyping another engine and one that requires the thrust requirements a supersonic aircraft needs, so I too am really dubious of the timelines. But I'm curious why you think this is a scam as opposed to general exuberance, or why you think innovation in this space in particular is unlikely. There's other variables here like United's purchase; we all know companies like Theranos have defrauded established players like Walgreens, but do you think United did not do their due diligence here? (I'm also deeply curious on why you feel that high-level criticism of the idea is relevant for this forum but the details of your criticism are not. I feel it'll teach me a lot about what motivates folks to use HN these days, but that's just my own curiosity.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Robotbeat 3y ago
Note that SpaceX did this. They developed their own engines (altho initial 5 flights did get a 3rd party built turbopump, analogous to XB-1, I suppose), developed their own highly vertically integrated rocket, and offered launch services. Now, RocketLab does the same and they’re being joined by Firefly, Blue Origin, and Relativity, all being at least F9-level reusable eventually. Everyone takes for granted launch vehicles being “easier” than airliners now, but go back to the 1990s and the attitude would’ve been switched (PARTICULARLY high-rate and economic reusable launch vehicles, which were considered virtually unattainable). I think it’s totally doable to make both an airliner and an engine, and the main reason we don’t think so is successful PR by old aerospace primes.
- woah 3y ago
  Why have China and India been struggling to make jet engines for decades?
  - mlindner 3y ago
    Lack of an industrial base and native experience in doing so. Once one company does it, the experience gained can spread to other companies via employees moving around and forming suppliers for those same companies. For India it also has the issue of brain drain as any of the people working on India's engines could easily jump ship and move to the UK or the US and get pretty good jobs in our aerospace industries and get paid a whole lot more. Also China does have it's own engines used in its military aircraft. Designing very efficient engines that are also cost efficient is the focus of a lot of those big primes in the US/UK/Europe so competing with them may be difficult, however there is currently no one trying to make very efficient _supersonic_ engines. All supersonic engines are destined for military jets which care a lot more about peak performance as the primary design parameter. In other words there is no one operating in the segment Boom is trying to develop an engine and they can hire a lot of people from the rest of the US industry who already have a lot of experience designing engines or people who were trained by said people. Ironically it may be SpaceX who kills off Boom if they're successful in implementing suborbital long distance passenger travel with Starship, though that's still very much an open question if it's possible. Such travel would, if successful, most likely be way faster and cheaper than supersonic long distance travel because of the reduced losses from drag.
wredue 3y ago
>the big 3 didn’t think was possible The statement was they didn’t want to invest in the development. The only “impossible” thing about it was that a couple board members couldn’t be assed to get a slightly smaller bonus for a couple years. Looks like a collusion ripe for disruption.

OrwellianChild 3y ago

One dynamic that may be at play: Designing a new engine is a gamble. For a company who already makes money with existing designs, there may be little upside on a small-volume new product. This is likely the reason the "Big 3" passed on designing an engine they don't have an off-the-shelf option for. Boom would probably be the primary beneficiary of such an engine existing, so it isn't all that surprising that they will have to fund the development. The second supersonic airframe that can use their engine would be the one to turn that R&D profitable for Boom (and ease the introduction of more supersonic airframe options).

twobitshifter 3y ago
Also, boom could have asked for exclusive terms that they didn’t like.
class3shock 3y ago
I would agree that the big three didn't think they could make it work, be that for technical reasons, money reasons, limited market reasons, etc. the end result is the same. Where I would disagree is that Boom can make it work. The amount of specialized knowledge you need in design and analysis as well as test and manufacturing facilities makes it near impossible for an outsider get in the game. Which is why there aren't any in the commercial jet engine space. GE, PW, RR and I guess Safran is pretty much it. You can't just decide you are going to do the R&D yourself and pop out a new engine in 5 years.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Afaik, Kratos is prototyping supersonic-class UAVs (XQ-58C and D) for military customers, so I'd expect this isn't Boom starting from zero.
  - class3shock 3y ago
    From Kratos's site: https://www.kratosdefense.com/products/uav/air/turbines https://www.kratosdefense.com/products/uav/air/turbines Kratos has begun the first engine tests at its X-58 test facility. The newly commissioned test facility is used to carry out demonstrator engine development testing, allowing Kratos to grow its offering of low cost and high-performance small jet engines. The fully mobile test facility can accommodate fully instrumented engines up to 3000-lb thrust. Inlet and exhaust noise suppression is provided to reduce environmental impacts. All connections are designed to reduce test article set-up time thereby reducing program costs. The state-of-the-art data acquisition system and communications allow for high speed remote monitoring and real time data processing. Kratos is introducing several engines to support the need for low cost and high-performance engines for cruise missiles, powered munitions and UAVs. 3000-lb thrust is about an order of magnitude smaller than you need for a single row conventional commercial jet with two engines. Yes, they are ostensibly working in the same field but I don't think I can stress enough how different those two things are.
- imron 3y ago
  SpaceX went from nothing to orbital spacecraft in ~6 years. Plenty of people discounted them at the time too. I’m not saying Boom will succeed, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility if they can dedicate themselves to task the same way SpaceX did.
aeyes 3y ago
Wasn't one of the Boom selling points that their aircraft would use conventional engines? Now they are developing their own...

hcks 3y ago

« It’s never possible to innovate » This is currently the top comment on news.ycombinator.com

greenthrow 3y ago
So I can count on you to invest in my new startup that will be inventing human flight without any extraneous equipment right?
lelandbatey 3y ago
I think this is a grand tradition on this fair site. I think we all are looking forward to whatever's coming next.
class3shock 3y ago
It's always possible to innovate. It just happens that often the people claiming too are mostly innovating at separating people from their money. If you want to chat why I think this is more the later than the former feel free to reach out, I love talking aerospace.
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  So funny thing is you're in a thread about aerospace. If I might hazard a guess, discussing the concrete reasons why you think this is a scam can help educate curious readers about the challenges in this field and can probably start a discussion on the technical details of supersonic aircraft that has less emotional and more technical content. It doesn't always work out that way though shrug. From my own context, the work of certifying the airframe alone takes forever, let alone prototyping another engine and one that requires the thrust requirements a supersonic aircraft needs, so I too am really dubious of the timelines. But I'm curious why you think this is a scam as opposed to general exuberance, or why you think innovation in this space in particular is unlikely. There's other variables here like United's purchase; we all know companies like Theranos have defrauded established players like Walgreens, but do you think United did not do their due diligence here? (I'm also deeply curious on why you feel that high-level criticism of the idea is relevant for this forum but the details of your criticism are not. I feel it'll teach me a lot about what motivates folks to use HN these days, but that's just my own curiosity.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Robotbeat 3y ago

Note that SpaceX did this. They developed their own engines (altho initial 5 flights did get a 3rd party built turbopump, analogous to XB-1, I suppose), developed their own highly vertically integrated rocket, and offered launch services. Now, RocketLab does the same and they’re being joined by Firefly, Blue Origin, and Relativity, all being at least F9-level reusable eventually. Everyone takes for granted launch vehicles being “easier” than airliners now, but go back to the 1990s and the attitude would’ve been switched (PARTICULARLY high-rate and economic reusable launch vehicles, which were considered virtually unattainable). I think it’s totally doable to make both an airliner and an engine, and the main reason we don’t think so is successful PR by old aerospace primes.

woah 3y ago
Why have China and India been struggling to make jet engines for decades?
- mlindner 3y ago
  Lack of an industrial base and native experience in doing so. Once one company does it, the experience gained can spread to other companies via employees moving around and forming suppliers for those same companies. For India it also has the issue of brain drain as any of the people working on India's engines could easily jump ship and move to the UK or the US and get pretty good jobs in our aerospace industries and get paid a whole lot more. Also China does have it's own engines used in its military aircraft. Designing very efficient engines that are also cost efficient is the focus of a lot of those big primes in the US/UK/Europe so competing with them may be difficult, however there is currently no one trying to make very efficient _supersonic_ engines. All supersonic engines are destined for military jets which care a lot more about peak performance as the primary design parameter. In other words there is no one operating in the segment Boom is trying to develop an engine and they can hire a lot of people from the rest of the US industry who already have a lot of experience designing engines or people who were trained by said people. Ironically it may be SpaceX who kills off Boom if they're successful in implementing suborbital long distance passenger travel with Starship, though that's still very much an open question if it's possible. Such travel would, if successful, most likely be way faster and cheaper than supersonic long distance travel because of the reduced losses from drag.

wredue 3y ago

>the big 3 didn’t think was possible The statement was they didn’t want to invest in the development. The only “impossible” thing about it was that a couple board members couldn’t be assed to get a slightly smaller bonus for a couple years. Looks like a collusion ripe for disruption.