Dude when the sanctions end the sanctions will really really end.

CFM hasn't ever developed a supersonic engine. Safran's one military turbofan is an 80's non-supercruise design. It would be a long way to go for either of these outfits to produce an entirely new supercruise turbofan.

Unless Boom can get some government to write off the billions needed to develop engines then it's all fiction.

Wishful thinking, delusion or scam.

There are so many foundational issues with low supersonic flight from a usability perspective as well (time zones are not your friend for some of it), that lots of routes can only command a premium in one direction.

You have to make so many rosy assumptions to even believe this makes sense if someone was willing to pour billions into engine tech - and still maybe have no options that are commercially viable. It’s also a nightmare from an environmental perspective.

FYI, SpaceX developed all of their engines in-house[1]. Other American rocket companies use Russian engines and Congress's bill forbidding that going forward has put ULA in a very bad place because Blue Origin's BE-4 engine still is not ready after more than a decade of development.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines

> grifters work on the final product, the movers work on the first step, having a plan to make that profitable, so they can build toward the final product. SpaceX is probably the example that comes to mind

For me, it's Virgin Galactic showcasing the seats before they'd made it to space versus SpaceX building its engines and only much later unveiling spacesuit designs.

>If you build a more efficient engine

Even if you just build an engine on-par with everybody else. Or even just a bit sub-par. Not everybody wants or able or have use case for those large top of the line very efficient and very expensive engines from the top manufacturers. You can check out the global international drama during the last few years around Ukrainian Motor-Sich engine manufacturer - one of the main engine manufacturers from the USSR times. There are just too few of those engine manufacturers, even if sub-par, around for the current world demand. Anybody wanna make a startup for the engines, initially for UAS market? It is going to blow up after the war as drones have been showing their future dominance. And just look at that beauty (uses the Motor-Sich engines as Turkey don't have their own) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_Ak%C4%B1nc%C4... .

I have recently toured the GE plants where the engines are assembled and developed. I have worked in the same office with the engineers who design and service the engines. No way in hell GE can do this given the amount of resources for this project. And I highly doubt Boom would like working with them at all.

GE gets skittish about a project when the government has already given them billions to develop it.

With correct inlet design those high power military engines I think can be made into super cruise - it is just that the inlet and the compressor will not work for long in that regime due to heat. Again for tests/demo should probably be fine. Not having chops for retrofits like this would definitely be a total disqualifier in that business though.

Safran's M88 should be sufficient for Boom's 1/3rd scale demonstrator I think? Then at least they'd have something to show other manufacturers and investors.

It's a pity there aren't more jet engine providers.

As much of a fan of SpaceX's vision as I am, the only ballistic point to point passengers I can envisage any time soon would be military operatives in a dire emergency.

I just can't see the likelihood of ballistic weapo..er.. projecti..er.. vehicles being allowed anywhere near major population centres, by tens of decamiles, therefore mooting the purpose of such extreme point to point passenger journeys.

Never mind the sonic booms and general noise. Even having regular scheduled passenger landings on water seems ... not entirely environmentally friendly.