I totally disagree. It's plenty to demonstrate and build most of the technology. It will take much more money to bring it to market, but that's primarily regulations and validation of umpteen edge cases/fatigue life, and proving that you've done so to the FAA.
Source/disclaimer: Aerospace engineer that builds rocket engines for a startup.
As for the market... As a simple person, I probably won't ever pay that for any flight. Businesses may think it is worth it.
As for comments to the effect, "physics hasn't changed since the concorde failed," no, but materials and manufacturing really have. Turbine engines have evolved a lot since then. That companies like Boeing do not build such aircraft doesn't tell you anything, any more than studying the success of Apple in embedded systems tells you whether or not there is a market for them. Perhaps a poor example since embedded systems are not a disruption, but my point is that entrenched incumbents may not pivot simply because they are doing well where they are, and all the more so in a more heavily regulated market.
In short, I think it will be interesting to see how it turns out. For any aerospace startup, the hardest part is raising enough money to stay afloat and focus on their work. $100M starts to build enough momentum that they have a real shot. The question now is what they do with that shot.
> As for comments to the effect, "physics hasn't changed since the concorde failed," no, but materials and manufacturing really have. Turbine engines have evolved a lot since then. That companies like Boeing do not build such aircraft doesn't tell you anything, any more than studying the success of Apple in embedded systems tells you whether or not there is a market for them. Perhaps a poor example since embedded systems are not a disruption, but my point is that entrenched incumbents may not pivot simply because they are doing well where they are, and all the more so in a more heavily regulated market.
This. So much this. The specious argument about physics really irks me.
- Time between the first commercial air travel (1914) and when Concorde began development (1962): 48 years
- Time between when Concorde began development and today: 57 years
Translation: Concorde's tech is OLD. Think of how much aviation technology advanced in the 48 years between the first commercial passenger flight and Concorde beginning development. Now think about how much it inevitably has advanced in the 57 years since Concorde's technology was developed.
The founders of Boom have openly stated that they intend to build a more fuel-efficient aircraft, leveraging technological advances to provide exponential increases in efficiency. If they can't do that, the economics don't work out - plain and simple. But they're making a pretty good case that they can to date, and this funding will help them further demonstrate that their plans have promise. As an aviation geek, I personally hope they succeed.
Source/disclaimer: Aerospace engineer that builds rocket engines for a startup.
As for the market... As a simple person, I probably won't ever pay that for any flight. Businesses may think it is worth it.
As for comments to the effect, "physics hasn't changed since the concorde failed," no, but materials and manufacturing really have. Turbine engines have evolved a lot since then. That companies like Boeing do not build such aircraft doesn't tell you anything, any more than studying the success of Apple in embedded systems tells you whether or not there is a market for them. Perhaps a poor example since embedded systems are not a disruption, but my point is that entrenched incumbents may not pivot simply because they are doing well where they are, and all the more so in a more heavily regulated market.
In short, I think it will be interesting to see how it turns out. For any aerospace startup, the hardest part is raising enough money to stay afloat and focus on their work. $100M starts to build enough momentum that they have a real shot. The question now is what they do with that shot.