undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrocket_surgeron3y ago0 comments

My angle was the "charismatic and overambitious leaders who think that gumption and sticktoitiveness can overcome any problem and who aren't afraid to start lying when they find out that solving science and engineering problems isn't like the scammy adware/SEO/social network they made their first chunk of money on" aspect.

I just can't believe people keep falling for it.

I'm willing to bet most of the $100m+ they've raised went right into executive compensation and that their engineers have been making do with peanuts since the beginning.

And I eagerly await the dueling Netflix/HBO documentaries to come.

0 comments

MichaelCollins3y ago

> My angle was the "charismatic and overambitious leaders who think that gumption and sticktoitiveness can overcome any problem and who aren't afraid to start lying when they find out that solving science and engineering problems isn't like the scammy adware/SEO/social network they made their first chunk of money on" aspect.

Sure, but that's underselling Theranos' scam. For Boom to work they would need engines that could exist, but don't, and they weren't lying about the engines existing. Theranos was claiming they already had technology that couldn't exist.

carabiner3y ago

Are you talking about SpaceX?

rocket_surgeronOP3y ago

No comment.

edit: Ok comment. perhaps spacex is not the best comparison though. SpaceX had tremendous necessity driving it. The need for launch vehicles for commercial, scientific, and military purposes.

There is no similar necessity for supersonic commercial aviation.

A Boom customer isn't going to watch 14 test failures and say "well we have no other choice we gotta get people from ny to london in 2 hours" but there was a "we MUST be able to launch people and things into orbit on a US rocket" driving spacex.

adolph3y ago

Not certain about "tremendous necessity driving" SpaceX. At the time few would have bet that SLS and Starliner would become the duds they are. Maybe Atlas and Ariane incrementing without re-usability and costly Starliner would be viewed positively since there wouldn't be an alternative story (unless BO did better).

MichaelCollins3y ago

Falcon 9 flies very regularly, and the Raptor engines for Starship are in an advanced stage of development. The engines Boom needs don't exist.

You're right about some of the rest of that though. Particularly the personality matter.

beambot3y ago

What lie are they telling...?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsrocket_surgeron3y ago0 comments

I just can't believe people keep falling for it.

I'm willing to bet most of the $100m+ they've raised went right into executive compensation and that their engineers have been making do with peanuts since the beginning.

And I eagerly await the dueling Netflix/HBO documentaries to come.

0 comments

MichaelCollins3y ago

carabiner3y ago

Are you talking about SpaceX?

rocket_surgeronOP3y ago

No comment.

edit: Ok comment. perhaps spacex is not the best comparison though. SpaceX had tremendous necessity driving it. The need for launch vehicles for commercial, scientific, and military purposes.

There is no similar necessity for supersonic commercial aviation.

adolph3y ago

MichaelCollins3y ago

Falcon 9 flies very regularly, and the Raptor engines for Starship are in an advanced stage of development. The engines Boom needs don't exist.

You're right about some of the rest of that though. Particularly the personality matter.

beambot3y ago

What lie are they telling...?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse