
Rolls-Royce Phantom 8 Is 100. Could 2125's Phantom 16 Be A True Flying Lady?
The Rolls-Royce Phantom name has been sitting in the stratosphere of car-dom for 100 years.
But what about the next 100 years, and the journey Phantom might take at the average rate of a new or updated version every 12-and-a-half years?
It seems Phantom might today be an indication of future features for "everyday" cars, while Phantom itself may move to an entirely new level: airborne luxury.
Tom Cheesewright is an applied futurist. He's a mechanical and electrical engineering university graduate, who, through analyzing the past and tracking trends, advises a range of organizations—NASA, Ford and Pepsi amongst them—on what's next, and what's after that, then after that. He's also a car nut.
Who better to sit with in the Phantom 8's passenger "suite" and ask the question about the future of Phantom, and how we as a race will fit cars into our lives.
"History and heritage count for less these days. Quality and service count for more. So long as Rolls-Royce continues to exhibit quality and deliver service, then its relevance will grow," he says.
Given the arguably peerless quality of its product and service that's certainly a deliverable ask, and a lead maintained swan-like: gliding along, but with not a chance of knowing just what unseen efforts are deployed.
Service from the self-described "house of luxury," aimed at making everything about life in the Rolls-Royce universe effortless, sits right at the top of standard-setting.
They'll be chased hard, not by competitors, but by natural technological evolution.
"Luxury trickles down. Not so long ago a passenger wing mirror was a luxury, having entertainment was a luxury, all things standard on family cars for years," said Cheesewright.
"So you can expect some of the things in this Phantom to be the norm in more modest cars over the next 100 years—the sense of solidity and strength, and the wafty quality of movement. Those will be normal."
While, says Cheesewright, most cars will be self-driving in 100 years, Phantom-level adjustability and comfort of seating, massage, heating, cooling, all of those things we've come to expect on a high-end vehicle, will become the norm in mid-range cars.
There could well be personalized entertainment screens all round, but a lot of the technology in cars won't be so obvious.
"It'll be completely invisible, integrated—in many ways the direction of travel of luxury car interiors now," he says.
"What is 'luxury' is less and less obvious and more and more discreet—luxury is time and not having to think, or fiddle, or press. It's things that just work. In 100 years' time, every car will be focused on things that just work and don't show their underlying workings.
"Some of the most exciting areas of research right now are in material science, in the underlying elements or compounds that have their own properties.
"You could make a car that's stronger and stiffer with less, sound deadening that's thinner, heating and cooling with much less engineering."
Rolls-Royce has always been about craftsmanship. "When it comes to artisans, in 100 years it's hard to say the part they'll play. But in the near-term, I think the artisan picture looks pretty good.
"Androids in car making may not be in mass adoption yet, but you can see the direction of travel. That's great for the mass market, but it only serves to increase the value of the personal, the individual, the handcrafted, the things that have got the artisan signature on them."
Such progression relies on world economies being strong and consistently stable enough to support the appetite for investment in cash-hungry automotive development.
"But we're going to want them (artisans, and their output) as a way to help demonstrate our status, as a way to differentiate ourselves," said Cheesewright.
"Look at the new generation coming through—Gen Alpha—they're interested in things that are individual, unique or personal to them because they've grown up with everything being digital, copy-able, mass-produced. They've got an almost punk aesthetic; they either want something unique to them, or they make it themselves.
"But then the really big epiphany after we've sorted the EV thing is probably going to be the completion of the ACE vision—the 'autonomous connected electric' vehicle," says Cheesewright.
"We'll have ticked off the electric bit largely by the mid-2030s; the connected bit's kind of there, albeit with some issues around security here and there. But the autonomous piece has taken longer than expected—some of us saying it won't be till the 2040s or 2050s, until any car can navigate any conditions, any roads at any time of day or night with just the voice command. True 'Class 5' (completely self-driving).
"The really interesting point is not the completion of that vision, it's the backlash against it. And that gets really interesting: Does piloting your own car become a statement of competence, capability, wealth?
"Insurance will almost certainly be higher. For a human pilot to choose to drive their own car will be expensive, if synthetic fuels are still available, a relatively expensive option compared to running a battery electric vehicle.
"I think having a combustion engine will be a statement, piloting yourself will be a statement. That opens up some really interesting design possibilities, particularly for low-volume cars, very artisanal and catering to that desire to do and drive something different.
"Owning and driving a 'stick-shift' manual transmission car in North America doesn't just make you cool, it's a marker of competence, more awareness of your driving environment, and an enviable ability to truly enjoy your car.
"I expect that as we lose the sense of control and enjoyment of piloting, let's be honest, a dangerous machine round the roads, we'll look to other ways to get that thrill. Amateur motorsport might be in for a real boom as we go through that shift."
What will the wealthy want from their transport? "I think they will probably own their main ACE vehicle, unlike a lot of other people who will 'subscribe' to vehicle usage on demand.
"The wealthy will have a subscription like everybody else—but which allows them to be picked up in something suitably swanky wherever they want.
"I think ownership will remain a status piece for the ultra-high net worths, the ability to customize, the ability to have things that are to their expectations, to their standards, but more importantly to their preference that are a piece of them. Like Rolls-Royce.
"Today, the vast majority of users are traveling in cars they don't own, are paying on finance. It's really only a small cognitive shift from that to a subscription- or service-based car, there when it's wanted."
Cheesewright says UHNWs will probably make greater use of personal air transport. "It's been surprising how slow personal electric aircraft have come about. But I think they'll be using those because they'll be quiet, they'll be safe, great for going between city and airport.
"Property developers in London, for instance, have been building landing pads into office developments and high-end residential developments for years, with the likes of Skyports buying and leasing them; these things are coming."
Could there be a flying Phantom 16? "People have a have a real brand affinity for a particular type of vehicle. If someone loves Rolls-Royce, then the idea they can get out of the ground-bound vehicle and into a same-brand air-capable vehicle, the same interior experience, I think that would appeal hugely.
The Rolls-Royce Phantom outside Brae Cottage, what was Sir Henry Royce's home in Cheshire, England.
"It might be more of a partnership than Rolls-Royce doing the manufacturing. But in 100 years' times a coachbuilt Rolls-Royce Flying Lady personal electric aircraft? I can see that happening. And they already have the figurine…"
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Japanese Lunar Lander Crashes In Second Failed Mission
A private Japanese lunar lander crashed during an attempted touchdown on the moon Friday. This marks the second failed mission for the Tokyo-based global lunar exploration company, ispace. The lander, named Resilience, lost communication less than two minutes before its scheduled landing in Mare Frigoris, a flat, crater-filled region on the moon's northern near side. A preliminary analysis indicated the laser system for measuring altitude malfunctioned, causing the lander to descend too fast. 'Based on these circumstances, it is currently assumed that the lander likely performed a hard landing on the lunar surface,' ispace said in a statement. 'This is the second time that we were not able to land. So we really have to take it very seriously,' CEO and founder Takeshi Hakamada told reporters, per Associated Press. He apologized to contributors and added that the mission was 'merely a stepping stone' to a larger lander planned for 2027 with NASA involvement. 'Engineers did everything they possibly could' to ensure success, he said minutes before the attempted landing. The 7.5-foot Resilience, launched in January from Florida on a SpaceX rocket, carried an 11-pound, four-wheeled rover named Tenacious, built by ispace's Luxembourg subsidiary. The rover, equipped with a high-definition camera and a shovel for NASA to collect lunar soil, was designed to operate for two weeks during the moon's daylight period. It also carried a toy-size Swedish-style red cottage, dubbed Moonhouse by artist Mikael Genberg, for placement on the lunar surface. The mission's $16 million payload included scientific instruments from Japanese firms and a Taiwanese university. The failure follows ispace's first lunar crash in 2023, caused by inaccurate altitude readings. 'Truly diverse scenarios were possible, including issues with the propulsion system, software or hardware, especially with sensors,' Chief Technology Officer Ryo Ujiie said at a press conference. Jeremy Fix, chief engineer for ispace's U.S. subsidiary, noted last month that the company, with a mission cost less than the first's $100 million, lacks 'infinite funds' and cannot afford repeated failures. 'We're not facing any immediate financial deterioration or distress because of the event,' CFO Jumpei Nozaki said, citing investor support. However, space shares faced heavy sell orders and were poised for a 29% drop. As of Thursday, their market capitalization was over 110 billion yen ($766 million). The crash marks another setback in the commercial lunar race, which began in 2019. U.S. firms Firefly Aerospace and Intuitive Machines achieved successful landings in March, though Intuitive's lander toppled in a crater. Japan's space agency, JAXA, landed its SLIM probe last year, joining Russia, the U.S., China, and India as the only nations with successful robotic lunar landings. 'Expectations for ispace have not faded,' Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba posted on X, reported Reuters. Ispace remains committed to NASA's Artemis program, with plans for a third mission in 2027. 'NASA increasingly needs private companies to improve cost efficiency for key missions with limited budgets,' Hakamada said, referencing proposed U.S. budget cuts. Two U.S. companies, Blue Origin and Astrobotic Technology, aim for moon landings by year's end following Astrobotic's 2024 failure.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
13 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.