TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

201 点作者 theparanoid超过 2 年前

19 条评论

aresant超过 2 年前
In 2020 COVID decimated Rolls Royce given their concentration of revenue associated with selling &amp; servicing existing aero engines.<p>They have yet to recover from that era which saw a ~10x decrease in enterprise value and record losses.<p>That said I would interpret this news as a &quot;cut the $!@$! R&amp;D bleeding in anything that won&#x27;t be generating revenue in the next 4 quarters&quot; vs a reflection on the feasibility or health of Boom&#x27;s very early but very ambitious plans.<p>(1) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.barrons.com&#x2F;market-data&#x2F;stocks&#x2F;rycey" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.barrons.com&#x2F;market-data&#x2F;stocks&#x2F;rycey</a><p>(2) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;autos-transportation&#x2F;rolls-royce-boosted-by-return-flying-defence-demand-2022-05-12&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;autos-transportation&#x2F;rolls-...</a><p>(3) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;simpleflying.com&#x2F;rolls-royce-record-loss&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;simpleflying.com&#x2F;rolls-royce-record-loss&#x2F;</a>
评论 #32770286 未加载
bell-cot超过 2 年前
My understanding is that the <i>only</i> profitable part of being a modern commercial jet engine manufacturer is service contracts - on actually-in-service jet engines. Vs. Boom Supersonic has never built a plane which actually managed to take off. And even their 1&#x2F;3-scale &quot;technology demonstrator&quot; plane is 5+ years behind its original schedule. (And has yet to taxi along a runway, if I read Wikipedia right.)<p>My guess - Boom wanted RR to sign a new money-losing or zero-profit R&amp;D deal. RR wasn&#x27;t interested in the &quot;maybe, eventually, there <i>might</i> be some actual profit for us&quot; economics of that.
评论 #32769686 未加载
评论 #32768672 未加载
评论 #32772582 未加载
评论 #32769154 未加载
namirez超过 2 年前
Sadly Boom is doomed and it’s been a writing on the wall all along. They never had a good engine option. The military engines are not safe enough and developing a new civilian engine makes sense only if you make hundreds of them.<p>Their net-zero emission claim is also bogus. Their pricing model doesn’t make much sense either unless they’re willing to lose money for a decade or so. There is not much innovation in aerodynamics and shock wave shaping either. Their only innovation compared to Concorde is the use of composite materials which is just not enough to hit their targets.
评论 #32778138 未加载
评论 #32772608 未加载
评论 #32779848 未加载
评论 #32773207 未加载
trollied超过 2 年前
Just last month they were saying they&#x27;d be manufacturing the first aircraft in 2024. This company just looks like another huge investor scam at the moment.
评论 #32768997 未加载
评论 #32769000 未加载
评论 #32769186 未加载
评论 #32768911 未加载
bombcar超过 2 年前
The semi-snide comments from the Boom side is, as the kids would say, &quot;sus&quot;.
评论 #32771317 未加载
评论 #32773573 未加载
评论 #32768569 未加载
评论 #32773556 未加载
rocket_surgeron超过 2 年前
Regarding Boom there are only two reasonable conclusions one can reach:<p>1. They are a Theranos-style operation<p>2. They are a Madoff-style operation<p>I, a lone aerospace engineer working out of my garage in my spare time, have a better chance of achieving supersonic flight than Boom does.<p>Even their technology demonstrator is an obvious scam. It demonstrates nothing. It does not demonstrate the ability to design, build, or maintain a supersonic passenger airplane, and it doesn&#x27;t demonstrate any new technologies or materials.<p>The bloatiest of bloated old-school defense contractors can throw together a supersonic prototype for less than $100 million, in fewer than 7 years.
评论 #32769747 未加载
评论 #32769783 未加载
评论 #32771090 未加载
评论 #32771329 未加载
评论 #32769525 未加载
评论 #32770600 未加载
评论 #32771325 未加载
评论 #32769589 未加载
评论 #32769492 未加载
评论 #32772675 未加载
评论 #32772425 未加载
topspin超过 2 年前
There are perhaps 3 companies on Earth that could conceivably provide engines for this application. RR was one of them. Where to now?
评论 #32768768 未加载
评论 #32769056 未加载
评论 #32769197 未加载
评论 #32768944 未加载
评论 #32768842 未加载
评论 #32768841 未加载
评论 #32768733 未加载
lacker超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m rooting for you, Boom. The world needs supersonic planes and you&#x27;re so close. Good luck.
评论 #32769518 未加载
评论 #32770025 未加载
评论 #32769422 未加载
评论 #32777410 未加载
galgot超过 2 年前
How surprising... Developing a specific supersonic jet engine for this kind of plane would not be cost effective anyway, the fleet would be too small to worth the investment. Even starting from a military jet engine, the way they are run and maintained is very different from civilian jet engines.
评论 #32769531 未加载
评论 #32770073 未加载
Melatonic超过 2 年前
This article says that they are also partnering with Northrup Gruman to develop a &quot;special missions&quot; version for the government. So they very well could be getting a big government investment that so many here are saying would be necessary to pull this off.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;airwaysmag.com&#x2F;boom-supersonic-refined-overture-design&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;airwaysmag.com&#x2F;boom-supersonic-refined-overture-desi...</a>
panick21_超过 2 年前
I think we will have supersonic planes, but they will be electric.<p>But to get there we first need normal conservative electric planes to make electric planes more normal. Battery have to be getting better for this to happen but I think we will get there, some people overestimate how large battery improvements we need by basically thinking they need to match chat fuel.<p>If you look at how far the currently in development electric plans can go you can see lots of improvements that can be made to increase that range considerably.<p>You can also build your air-frame out of batteries. The batteries themselves need to become structural members in the air-frame. Some manufactures are doing that already for cars but for plans it will be even more important.<p>Things like using a PRANDTL Wing and prop blade would make a large difference for example.<p>See: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=bCwtcDNB15E" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=bCwtcDNB15E</a><p>It of course makes sense for startups like Heart Aerospace not to try these things but I think eventually people will. Electric planes will be so operational efficient that there will be huge demand to increase the range.
MichaelZuo超过 2 年前
To put this in perspective, developing a modern high-efficiency supersonic engine requires an order-of-magnitude more money than the airframe itself.
keepquestioning超过 2 年前
At this point I&#x27;m convinced the only way industry can actually produce something game-changing is if the government spends a huge amount of R&amp;D on it first.<p>On the other hand, scrappy SaaS startup could parse your logs and send alerts for cheaper, yes.
评论 #32776753 未加载
评论 #32768749 未加载
kurthr超过 2 年前
That seems like it would slow things down a bit, which is a problem in a higher rate world. Not sure business travel is going to stay on the same trajectory either.<p>Of course weirder stuff is happening:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;aerospace-defense&#x2F;israel-ban-boeing-747s-other-4-engine-planes-amid-environmental-concerns-2022-09-04&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;aerospace-defense&#x2F;israel-ba...</a><p>Banning 4 engine aircraft from Israel means no more 747 freighters or new leisure supersonics.
评论 #32774070 未加载
评论 #32768597 未加载
benj111超过 2 年前
So what&#x27;s changed since Concorde?<p>Concorde didn&#x27;t fail for technical reasons but AA have put down a deposit for 60. This is limited to &lt; Mach 1 over land so it&#x27;s going to be most useful on the routes that Concorde could have serviced.<p>Is it just the noise aspect opening more potential routes? But then I would have thought we would be more concerned about noise now than in the 60s making the improvements a wash.
cromulent超过 2 年前
Supersonic is still banned over land, even if they can get the engines. We’ll see if overseas flights are a big enough market to be more than a loss leader.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.faa.gov&#x2F;newsroom&#x2F;supersonic-flight" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.faa.gov&#x2F;newsroom&#x2F;supersonic-flight</a> (Read the last sentence).
Kukumber超过 2 年前
They should have done that a long time ago, Boom never reference RR in any of their PR documents, including their websites [1]<p>This partnership have been running for quite a while and no results in the end<p>Also it is interesting to see only negative comments about RR? i wonder why? :) [2]<p>[1] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boomsupersonic.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boomsupersonic.com&#x2F;</a><p>[2] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ycombinator.com&#x2F;companies&#x2F;boom" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ycombinator.com&#x2F;companies&#x2F;boom</a>
6stringmerc超过 2 年前
Still have my money on Darkhorse showing promise to actually work at least.
ggm超过 2 年前
Doesn&#x27;t this say more about the RR engines company than Boom?