Boom SST, faster than Concorde
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
It would be really difficult for a brand new start up airframe manufacturing company to build a plane like this without ever having built anything before. I'm sure they'll have to get into bed with one of the more established manufacturers to get it made.
Scaled Composites would have been a natural choice but Virgin and Scaled have now gone their separate ways.
SpaceX is an example of how the industry is changing.Scaled Composites would have been a natural choice but Virgin and Scaled have now gone their separate ways.
Read the articles on Elon Musk on the Wait But Why blog to see why the traditional manufacturers aren't the answer for innovators like this.
eza
But the specific reason you gave for this project not standing any chance was that "It would be really difficult for a brand new start up airframe manufacturing company to build a plane like this without ever having built anything before".
Given the recent technical achievements of effectively (albeit very well funded) start-up companies like SpaceX, Tesla and Virgin Galactic, that view simply doesn't hold water. Just the reverse, in fact: it's the big corporations and organisations like General Motors, Boeing and even NASA who have seemingly lost their way in terms of practical, commercially viable innovation in recent years.
The world moves on... maybe, as with automotive and space exploitation, its the 'bigger is better' mentality that's been holding things back?Tesla and SpaceX are very different business propositions to this concept.
Tesla is a perfect example of a business following the "Lean Start-up" model. Anyone with a calculator in the later 90's/early 2000's could demonstrate that lithium ion batteries would make an electric car feasible. The issue has always been that petrol cars are a very highly developed product made by large companies.
However the advantage in this market segment is that it is relatively easy to make a "minimum viable product", this allows you to put a product out to early adopters who don't care about reliability or economics, find what works and learn by doing.
The first Tesla was basically a refined version of what various hobbyists had already done, it also followed the more expensive but similar Venturi Fetish. By the time they were ready to produce their mainstream model they already had some pedigree and lots of experience and data from the Roadster. Even then their second product was aimed at semi-early adopters, their mass market product is not coming out for a few years.
With SpaceX you have a slightly different situation, they did start with their minimum viable product a micro satellite launcher which they flew a few times. However what they had was NASA/US Gov who had incumbent suppliers taking them for a ride. NASA essentially invested in SpaceX by giving them multi launch contracts (~500-600 million) that they could develop Falcon 9 against on the basis of the those first privately funded launches.
Boom's big issue is the difficulty of that minimum viable product, it has been the same issue that Aerion have been dealing with for the last 10 years. Aerion estimate that it will cost them $3 billion to get their supersonic business jet certified, they have got some sort of partnership with Airbus and they have around $3 billion of "orders". It's a very scary bet on a company that has never built a plane, even Airbus or Boeing have been known to underestimate development costs substantially and over estimate markets.
In commercial aerospace the big suppliers do operate in a global competitive market, Boeing and Airbus do have smaller companies such as COMAC, Embraer and Bombardier as competition. Hence I don't see a government or even a very large airline who would be prepared to bankroll this like NASA did for SpaceX.
Equus said:
Eric Mc said:
I've been hearing about small supersonic commercial aircraft for at least the past 4 decades. I'm not saying it won't happen but the "failure to reach first flight" rate so far is precisely 100%.
But that goes for large supersonic aircraft and major manufacturers, too.But the specific reason you gave for this project not standing any chance was that "It would be really difficult for a brand new start up airframe manufacturing company to build a plane like this without ever having built anything before".
Given the recent technical achievements of effectively (albeit very well funded) start-up companies like SpaceX, Tesla and Virgin Galactic, that view simply doesn't hold water. Just the reverse, in fact: it's the big corporations and organisations like General Motors, Boeing and even NASA who have seemingly lost their way in terms of practical, commercially viable innovation in recent years.
The world moves on... maybe, as with automotive and space exploitation, its the 'bigger is better' mentality that's been holding things back?
Tesla is a perfect example of a business following the "Lean Start-up" model. Anyone with a calculator in the later 90's/early 2000's could demonstrate that lithium ion batteries would make an electric car feasible. The issue has always been that petrol cars are a very highly developed product made by large companies.
However the advantage in this market segment is that it is relatively easy to make a "minimum viable product", this allows you to put a product out to early adopters who don't care about reliability or economics, find what works and learn by doing.
The first Tesla was basically a refined version of what various hobbyists had already done, it also followed the more expensive but similar Venturi Fetish. By the time they were ready to produce their mainstream model they already had some pedigree and lots of experience and data from the Roadster. Even then their second product was aimed at semi-early adopters, their mass market product is not coming out for a few years.
With SpaceX you have a slightly different situation, they did start with their minimum viable product a micro satellite launcher which they flew a few times. However what they had was NASA/US Gov who had incumbent suppliers taking them for a ride. NASA essentially invested in SpaceX by giving them multi launch contracts (~500-600 million) that they could develop Falcon 9 against on the basis of the those first privately funded launches.
Boom's big issue is the difficulty of that minimum viable product, it has been the same issue that Aerion have been dealing with for the last 10 years. Aerion estimate that it will cost them $3 billion to get their supersonic business jet certified, they have got some sort of partnership with Airbus and they have around $3 billion of "orders". It's a very scary bet on a company that has never built a plane, even Airbus or Boeing have been known to underestimate development costs substantially and over estimate markets.
In commercial aerospace the big suppliers do operate in a global competitive market, Boeing and Airbus do have smaller companies such as COMAC, Embraer and Bombardier as competition. Hence I don't see a government or even a very large airline who would be prepared to bankroll this like NASA did for SpaceX.
Edited by Talksteer on Sunday 27th March 17:04
Petrus1983 said:
and using Archimedes computers.
A funny thing there. The processor in your iPhone (or inded your Samsung Galaxy) is an ARM A9 Cortex. ARM Holdings is the ARM in the chip name, and the ARM in ARM Holdings originally stood for "Acorn RISC Machine". As you probably know, the first Acorn RISC Machine was the Archimedes; the basic concept behind the chip is still the same. So in a way we are all using Archimedes computers. The founder and chief executive of Boom said:
We are talking about the first supersonic jet people can afford to fly
Which people?The founder and chief executive of Boom said:
You will be able to fly New York to London in three-and-a-half hours for $5,000
Ah, rich people.Wake me up when regular flights start crossing the Atlantic in a time that isn't an anachronism and at a price that ordinary people can afford.
davepoth said:
V8 Fettler said:
Boom SST: a bit faster than Concorde but can't carry as many passengers. 50 years of progress?
What's changed is that a private company now thinks it can make money out of supersonic passenger carriage. That's definitely progress. Eric Mc said:
The crucial word is "thinks".
When one of the organisations doing the thinking happens to be one of the UK's most successful airlines, and is sufficiently confident in their analysis to partner on the project and sign up to an option to purchase 10 aircraft; and when, reportedly, another UK airline has signed a letter of intent to buy a further $2 Billion worth of aircraft, I think you have to admit it carries at least as much weight as the opinions of an anorak on an internet forum. 
I think the phrase is 'putting your money where your mouth is'.
Equus said:
Eric Mc said:
The crucial word is "thinks".
When one of the organisations doing the thinking happens to be one of the UK's most successful airlines, and is sufficiently confident in their analysis to partner on the project and sign up to an option to purchase 10 aircraft; and when, reportedly, another UK airline has signed a letter of intent to buy a further $2 Billion worth of aircraft, I think you have to admit it carries at least as much weight as the opinions of an anorak on an internet forum. I think the phrase is 'putting your money where your mouth is'.
Virgin has put in for options, normally these will be based on the supplier delivering an aircraft to a set of performance specs and for a certain cost. It is essentially risk free for Virgin, they are unlikely to have had to pay for these options.
The other airline has most probably indicated that they would buy some of these aircraft maybe signed an MOU. The fact that they won't be named is indicative of the probability that airline ascribes to this succeeding.
To go back to the Branson part, remember his "$3 billion to fight climate change"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/22...
This is what actually happened:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/13...
Or remember this, 2004 Virgin Spaceflight by 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3693020.stm
Its 12 year later, two fatal accidents and half a billion dollars of not Richard Branson's money spent (it's Gulf sovereign wealth funds that are actually investing in Virgin Galactic). Virgin Galatic has pretty much realised that they are never going to get even a fraction of their money back from Space Tourism so they are now trying to sell a micro satellite launcher.
On the subject of the SSBJ it's hardly a new idea and this outfit doesn't have anything that the various other people who have been proposing it for the last 15 years haven't got, other than that they are trying to go for a substantially larger and hence more expensive jet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_business_...
I'd argue that they are behind Aerion in terms of IP and technology readiness, they are also going for a much more achievable target. Aerion have also been in the position of having a large firm order for much longer. If they actually make their SSBJ they will be able to pivot into a small supersonic airliner much more quickly and they will have the pedigree of actually delivering an aircraft.
When someone turns up with $3-10 billion of actual development financing I will start getting excited.
Talksteer said:
...Its 12 year later, two fatal accidents and half a billion dollars of not Richard Branson's money spent (it's Gulf sovereign wealth funds that are actually investing in Virgin Galactic). Virgin Galatic has pretty much realised that they are never going to get even a fraction of their money back from Space Tourism so they are now trying to sell a micro satellite launcher.
Whereas yourself, Eric the Anorak and the rest of PistonHead's Powerfully Built Directors have actually achieved what, exactly?Equus said:
When one of the organisations doing the thinking happens to be one of the UK's most successful airlines, and is sufficiently confident in their analysis to partner on the project and sign up to an option to purchase 10 aircraft; and when, reportedly, another UK airline has signed a letter of intent to buy a further $2 Billion worth of aircraft, I think you have to admit it carries at least as much weight as the opinions of an anorak on an internet forum.
I think the phrase is 'putting your money where your mouth is'.
Yes but if it's a standard airline industry type contract they won't be paying for them until they're built, so no or little money will have changed hands thus far. The airliners may possibly have to make stage payments as production (or certification) progresses. I think the phrase is 'putting your money where your mouth is'.
The problem which boom have thus far been quiet on is where the funding to develop the plane beyond concept is going to come from, their stated $2.5m of funding really won't see them to flying concept let alone full product. The question really is where are they going find $5bn+ odd to fully fund the development. To make the concept real Boom are going to have to convince an engine manufacturer and a load of tier 1 oems that they have the funds to really built it. I assume the engine will need to sourced from a recent military fast jet programme and then scaled up, lots of lovely government bureaucracy and paperwork will severely delay the time to market.
Boeing (remember them) thus far haven't turned a profit on 787 and in the previous quarters earning update confessed to loosing a mere $25m on each aircraft delivered in that quarter with total programme development costs sat at an eye watering $30bn. Airbus have only last year finally reached the point that each A380 is sold for more than its production cost, nothing stated about repaying the R&D costs.
Aerion their obvious competitor has put development of their smaller and slower AS2 at $3bn which they have some funding for and a major OEM on board.
Telsa had the advantage of being reasonably well funded initially to reach a point of self profitability and the benefactor of a $465m loan from the US department of energy. Space-X again was well funded initially before securing a NASA development contract. However both businesses could and did start with smaller scale projects initially to start generating turnover early.
Eric Mc said:
davepoth said:
V8 Fettler said:
Boom SST: a bit faster than Concorde but can't carry as many passengers. 50 years of progress?
What's changed is that a private company now thinks it can make money out of supersonic passenger carriage. That's definitely progress. V8 Fettler said:
A good bean counter can show that BA made money from Concorde.
An even better "bean counter" will show you that BA only made money from Concorde because they were more or less given their Concorde fleet for nothing. And because there was no capital outlay on their behalf, no depreciation of the asset needed to be shown in their annual accounts.And whatever about how BA accounted for their Concorde operations, we also know for sure that the total burden of the cost of developing, testing and building Concorde, fell squarely on the shoulders of the UK and French taxpayer. Note, I am not criticising the fact that taxpayers funded the whole project, but that people should not be deluded into thinking that the aircraft made a genuine penny for anybody - apart from BA for the reasons mentioned above.
t. Equus said:
Talksteer said:
...Its 12 year later, two fatal accidents and half a billion dollars of not Richard Branson's money spent (it's Gulf sovereign wealth funds that are actually investing in Virgin Galactic). Virgin Galatic has pretty much realised that they are never going to get even a fraction of their money back from Space Tourism so they are now trying to sell a micro satellite launcher.
Whereas yourself, Eric the Anorak and the rest of PistonHead's Powerfully Built Directors have actually achieved what, exactly?I chose to ignore a person's opinion when their argument is based on ridiculing those who don't agree with them by calling them names.
Designing, developing, building, testing and certifying ANY aircraft is a long, difficult and expensive process.
It is doubly hard when the design is attempting to do something that hasn't been done before and even harder when it is being attempted by an organisation that has never built an aeroplane of any sort before.
I'm not saying it's impossible - but it will be difficult and expensive.
Designing, developing, building, testing and certifying ANY aircraft is a long, difficult and expensive process.
It is doubly hard when the design is attempting to do something that hasn't been done before and even harder when it is being attempted by an organisation that has never built an aeroplane of any sort before.
I'm not saying it's impossible - but it will be difficult and expensive.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff